Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Consequences of Substance Use, Wave 3, 2000-2002 (ICPSR 13687)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods

The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) was a large-scale, interdisciplinary study of how families, schools, and neighborhoods affect child and adolescent development. It was designed to advance the understanding of the developmental pathways of both positive and negative human social behaviors. In particular, the project examined the causes and pathways of juvenile delinquency, adult crime, substance abuse, and violence. At the same time, the project provided a detailed look at the environments in which these social behaviors took place by collecting substantial amounts of data about urban Chicago, including its people, institutions, and resources.

Longitudinal Cohort Study

One component of the PHDCN was the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was a series of coordinated longitudinal studies that followed over 6,000 randomly selected children, adolescents, and young adults, and their primary caregivers over time to examine the changing circumstances of their lives, as well as the personal characteristics, that might lead them toward or away from a variety of antisocial behaviors. The age cohorts include birth (0), 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 years. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge various aspects of human development, including individual differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences.

Consequences of Substance Use

The data in this collection are from Wave 3 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was administered between 2000 and 2002. The data files contain information from the Consequences of Substance Use protocol. The Consequences of Substance Use instrument obtained information related to outcomes of the subject being caught, by school officials, police, or their parents, using alcohol or drugs.

Study Design View help for Study Design

Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods

The city of Chicago was selected as the research site for the PHDCN because of its extensive racial, ethnic, and social-class diversity. The project collapsed 847 census tracts in the city of Chicago into 343 neighborhood clusters (NCs) based upon seven groupings of racial/ethnic composition and three levels of socioeconomic status. The NCs were designed to be ecologically meaningful. They were composed of geographically contiguous census tracts, and geographic boundaries, and knowledge of Chicago's neighborhoods were considered in the definition of the NCs. Each NC was comprised of approximately 8,000 people.

Longitudinal Cohort Study

For the Longitudinal Cohort Study, a stratified probability sample of 80 neighborhoods was selected. The 80 NCs were sampled from the 21 strata (seven racial/ethnic groups by three socioeconomic levels) with the goal of representing the 21 cells as equally as possible to eliminate the confounding between racial/ethnic mix and socioeconomic status. Once the 80 NCs were chosen, then block groups were selected at random within each of the sample neighborhoods. A complete listing of dwelling units was collected for all sampled block groups. Pregnant women, children, and young adults in seven age cohorts (birth, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 years) were identified through in-person screening of approximately 40,000 dwelling units within the 80 NCs. The screening response rate was 80 percent. Children within six months of the birthday that qualified them for the sample were selected for inclusion in the Longitudinal Cohort Study. A total of 8,347 participants were identified through the screening. Of the eligible study participants, 6,228 were interviewed in the Wave 1 data collection, 5,338 were interviewed in the Wave 2 data collection, and 4,850 were interviewed in the Wave 3 data collection.

Data collection for Wave 3 began in 2000 and ended in 2002. It included a letter sent to study participants notifying them that they would be contacted to schedule an interview. Additional information on the contact log included the dates and research assistant ID of the Wave 2 interview (or the status of the case if incomplete in Wave 2), a list of household composition and ID numbers of other household members in the study, the name the telephone was listed under, the recontact information from Waves 1 and 2, and an updated history of addresses.

For all cohorts except 0 and 18, primary caregivers as well as the child were interviewed. The primary caregiver was the person found to spend the most time taking care of the child. Separate research assistants administered the primary caregiver interviews and the child interviews. The primary method of data collection was face-to-face interviewing, although participants who refused to complete the personal interview were administered a phone interview. An abbreviated telephone interview was conducted for the primary caregivers in Cohorts 0-15 and Cohort 18 study participants in Wave 3 who lived outside the nine-county metropolitan area to which research assistants were able to travel for interviews. In Wave 3, phone interviews were also conducted with the study participants in Cohort 15. People who refused to complete the two-hour in-person interview were administered the phone interview. A total of 391 telephone interviews were conducted during Wave 3, representing 6.3 percent of the sample.

Proxy interviews were conducted with study participants who were emancipated minors (under 18 but married or living independently). The study participants answered questions from the primary caregiver's interview on the primary caregiver's behalf. In Wave 3, one primary caregiver and eleven study participants (young adults) were interviewed in jail. They were located in either the Cook County Jail or in one of the state prisons. Those study participants in a state system outside the nine-county area were also interviewed by phone. Study participants in foster care could not be interviewed. The Department of Children and Family Services did not allow interviews of the foster parent or the child. Permission was granted for a brief period in Wave 1, therefore there are some children in the sample who could not be followed up in Waves 2 and 3. Some children were not in foster care in Wave 1 but were placed in foster care by Wave 2 or 3. They were also not followed up. Lastly, some participants were interviewed in Wave 3 but not in Wave 2, as they were in foster care during Wave 2.

Some participants in Wave 1 spoke a language other than English, Spanish, or Polish. In Wave 3, an abbreviated version of the primary caregiver's protocol was administered, and the research assistant arranged for someone in the household to translate on the spot. In Wave 3, the complete protocol was translated into Spanish.

Depending on the age and wave of data collection, participants were paid between $5 and $20 per interview. Other incentives, such as free passes to museums, the aquarium, and monthly drawing prizes, were also included.

Interview protocols included a wide range of questions. For example, some questions assessed impulse control and sensation-seeking traits, cognitive and language development, leisure activities, delinquency and substance abuse, friends' activities, and self-perception, attitudes, and values. Caregivers were also interviewed about family structure, parent characteristics, parent-child relationships, parent discipline styles, family mental health, and family history of criminal behavior and drug use.

For primary caregivers included in Wave 3 but not in Wave 2, an addendum interview was administered consisting of measures or portions of measures from the Wave 2 interview. An addendum was also given to the Cohort 15 and 18 study participants who were not included in Wave 2. A total of 164 primary caregivers and 62 young adult (Cohorts 15 and 18) addendums were completed in Wave 3.

Consequences of Substance Use

The Consequences of Substance Use interview was administered to subjects in Cohorts 9, 12, 15, and 18 and obtained information related to outcomes of the subject being caught, by school officials, police, or their parents, using alcohol or drugs. Subjects in Cohorts 15 and 18 were asked questions from a slightly different instrument than subjects in Cohorts 9 and 12. Cohorts 15 and 18 were asked more detailed questions regarding what substances and what quantity subjects were caught with.

Sample View help for Sample

Stratified probability sample.

Universe View help for Universe

Children, adolescents, young adults, and their primary caregivers, living in the city of Chicago in 1994.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

The data files contain information related to outcomes of the subject being caught, by school officials, police, or their parents, using alcohol or drugs. Subjects were asked if they had ever been caught at school using or under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Subjects were then asked if school officials took any of a series of actions including calling the subject's parents, suspending the subject, calling the police, or recommending a treatment program. Respondents were also asked if they had ever been stopped by police for possession of alcohol or drugs or for some other drug-related offense. Subjects were then asked if the police took any of a series of actions including arresting the subject, calling the subject's parents, or informing the subject's school. Subjects were also asked if their parents had ever found out that they had used alcohol or drugs. Subjects were then asked if their parents took any of a series of actions including grounding the subject, ignoring the situation, or trying to get help for the subject. For each of the three authority figures (school, police, and parents), subjects in Cohorts 15 and 18 were asked with what specific drugs and in what quantities they were caught. All subjects were also asked if they had ever received counseling or therapy for alcohol or drug use and, if so, whether they had received any additional counseling. All respondents were also asked if they ever had to go to the hospital or had been physically hurt and received medical attention as a result of their alcohol or drug use.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

The overall response rate for Wave 3 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study was 78.19 percent or 4,850 participants. The response rates for subjects by cohort were:

1. 76.0 percent for Cohort 0
2. 80.5 percent for Cohort 3
3. 80.2 percent for Cohort 6
4. 77.5 percent for Cohort 9
5. 74.9 percent for Cohort 12
6. 71.3 percent for Cohort 15
7. 67.4 percent for Cohort 18

The response rates for primary caregivers by cohort were:

1. 76.6 percent for Cohort 0
2. 81.3 percent for Cohort 3
3. 80.6 percent for Cohort 6
4. 79.0 percent for Cohort 9
5. 79.1 percent for Cohort 12
6. 77.0 percent for Cohort 15
7. 0 percent for Cohort 18

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

none

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2007-02-06

Version History View help for Version History

Weight View help for Weight

none