Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Home and Life Interview, Wave 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13630)
Principal Investigator(s): Earls, Felton J., Harvard Medical School; Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne, Scientific Director. Columbia University. Teacher's College. Center for the Study of Children and Families; Raudenbush, Stephen W., Scientific Director. University of Michigan. School of Education and Survey Research Center; Sampson, Robert J., Scientific Director. Harvard University. Department of Sociology
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. 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. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge various aspects of human development, including individual differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences. One of the measures composing the Longitudinal Cohort Study was the Home and Life Interview. The Home and Life Interview was a restructured interview based on the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) inventory used in Wave 1. The Home and Life Interview, like the HOME inventory, sought to observe the developmental environment in which children belonging to the Longitudinal Cohort Study sample were raised. The Home and Life Interview was designed to capture the absence or presence of certain cognitive stimuli, including varied learning experiences and diverse educational materials. The Home and Life Interview also measured the extent and nature of the interactions that occurred between the subject and his or her primary caregiver. In contrast to Wave 1, particular emphasis was placed on evaluating the relationship between the subject and the subject's father or, in the father's absence, a male father figure. An important feature of the Wave 1 HOME inventory was the data collected that described the interior and exterior conditions of the respondent's home and neighborhood. Similar observations were recorded, however, for Wave 2. This information was documented in the Interviewer Impressions data found in PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): INTERVIEWER IMPRESSIONS (PRIMARY CAREGIVER), WAVE 1, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13631) and in PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): INTERVIEWER IMPRESSIONS (SUBJECT), WAVE 1, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13632).
One or more files in this study are not available for download due to special restrictions ; consult the restrictions note to learn more. You can apply online for access to the data. A login is required to apply for access. (How to apply.)
Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.
National Archive of Criminal Justice Data
This dataset is maintained and distributed by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), the criminal justice archive within ICPSR. NACJD is primarily sponsored by three agencies within the U.S. Department of Justice: the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Earls, Felton J., Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Robert J. Sampson. Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Home and Life Interview, Wave 2, 1997-2000. ICPSR13630-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2005-07-22. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR13630.v1
Persistent URL: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR13630.v1
This study was funded by:
- United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (93-IJ-CX-K005)
- John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
- United States Department of Health and Human Services. Administration for Children and Families. Child Care Bureau
- Harris Foundation
- United States Department of Health and Human Services. Administration for Children and Families. Head Start Bureau
- United States Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
- United States Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Mental Health
- United States Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement
- Turner Foundation
Scope of Study
Subject Terms: adolescents, caregivers, child care, child development, child health, childhood, cognition, family life, health, infants, neighborhoods, parent child relationship, parental influence, social behavior, social environment, social influences
Date of Collection:
Unit of Observation: individuals
Universe: Children, adolescents, young adults, and their primary caregivers, living in the city of Chicago in 1994.
Data Types: survey data
Data Collection Notes:
The Murray Research Center conducted the initial data and documentation processing for this collection.
At present, only a restricted version of the data is available (see RESTRICTIONS field). A downloadable version of the data is slated to be available in the near future.
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.
Home and Life Interview
The data in this collection are from Wave 2 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was administered between 1997 and 2000. The data files contain information from the Home and Life Interview. It was administered to the primary caregiver of the subjects that composed the Wave 2 Longitudinal Cohort Study. The purpose of the Home and Life Interview was to evaluate the various aspects of the subject's developmental environment that could affect future positive or negative social behaviors. To this end, the Home and Life Interview summarized the primary caregiver's responsiveness to and acceptance of the subject, the interaction between the subject and other members of the subject's immediate and extended family, particularly the subject's father (or other male father figure), the presence or lack of a model for positive adult behavior, the positive and negative reinforcement received by the subject from the primary caregiver, the subject's access to various learning materials and toys at home, the rules and limitations placed on the subject, verbal communication between the subject and the primary caregiver, and the variety of experiences encountered by the subject.
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 and 5,338 were interviewed in the Wave 2 data collection.
Data collection for Wave 2 began in 1997 and ended in 2000. It included a letter sent to study participants notifying them that they would be contacted to schedule an interview. This letter explained the study, reimbursements, and offered a monthly drawing prize of $1,000 for those participants who kept their first scheduled appointment. A toll free number was also included in the letter, so participants could call and schedule their own interviews or ask questions.
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 2 who lived outside the nine-county metropolitan area to which research assistants were able to travel for interviews. A total of 221 telephone interviews were conducted during Wave 2, representing 3.55 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 2, four primary caregivers and two study participants were interviewed in jail. 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 2, 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 2, the complete protocol was translated into Spanish and a subset of the primary caregiver's interview was translated into Polish.
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.
Home and Life Interview
The Home and Life Interview was administered to the primary caregivers (PC) of the subjects belonging to 6 of the 7 age cohorts (0 to 15) composing Wave 2. The semi-structured interview was conducted at the respondent's home. The Home and Life Interview was a restructured version of the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) inventory which was used to obtain data regarding the developmental environment in which the Wave 1 subjects lived. While the essence of the HOME inventory was preserved in the Home and Life Interview, there were several important changes both in terms of content and format.
The Home and Life Interview contained age-appropriate questions designed to assess the developmental environment of the Wave 2 subjects belonging to Cohorts 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15. These questions were administered to the subject's primary caregiver (PC). While the response format for the HOME interview offered respondents only two answers, yes and no, for each question, response format for the Home and Life Interview varied. Questions included yes or no, multiple choice, and open ended response formats. These questions sought to identify whether certain educational opportunities were available, such as trips to museums, live performances, and access to a library. Other questions were intended to determine the availability of learning aids, such as toys, books, CDs, musical instruments, games, and computers, to the subject at home. The Home and Life Interview also sought to evaluate the presence or absence of a model of positive social behavior for the subject. Questions directed toward the PC were intended to probe the extent of the relationship between the subject and the PC as well as the PC's overall involvement in the subject's day-to-day life. Additionally, the PC was asked a number of questions relating to his or her personal habits as well as the habits and behaviors of other members of the household. The Home and Life Interview also sought to determine the nature and extent of the interaction between the subject and his or her father. If the father was absent, questions were asked about the subject's relationship with an alternate male father figure.
An important aspect of the version of the HOME inventory that was employed in the Wave 1 interviews that differed from the revised Home and Life Interview used in Wave 2 were the questions regarding the physical environment encountered both inside the subject's house and in the surrounding neighborhood. For example, data regarding the level of noise encountered in the home, the amount of space within the house, the condition of the houses and other buildings on the block, and the volume of traffic on the streets were documented as part of the Wave 1 HOME inventory. These questions were not included in the Wave 2 Home and Life Interview. Instead, this information was recorded in the data found in two of the Interviewer Impressions studies: PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): INTERVIEWER IMPRESSIONS (PRIMARY CAREGIVER), WAVE 1, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13631) and PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): INTERVIEWER IMPRESSIONS (SUBJECT), WAVE 1, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13632).
Sample: Stratified probability sample.
Mode of Data Collection: face-to-face interview, telephone interview
Description of Variables: The Home and Life Interview contained a total of 148 variables. Among these were variables containing the responses to the age appropriate questions and summaries of the nature of the subject's interactions with both the PC and his or her father, or father figure, the extent of the rules and restrictions placed on the subject, provision of appropriate play and learning materials, the absence or presence of examples of positive, social behaviors, and opportunities for variety in daily stimulation. Each of the Home and Life Interview files also included a number of administrative variables containing such information as identification numbers for subjects and interviewers, as well as cohort, wave, and time and date of interviews.
The overall response rate for Wave 2 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study was 85.94 percent or 5,338 participants. The response rates for subjects by cohort were:
- 0 percent for Cohort 0
- 87.5 percent for Cohort 3
- 88.0 percent for Cohort 6
- 85.6 percent for Cohort 9
- 86.2 percent for Cohort 12
- 82.7 percent for Cohort 15
- 80.2 percent for Cohort 18
The response rates for primary caregivers by cohort were:
- 83.3 percent for Cohort 0
- 88.3 percent for Cohort 3
- 88.3 percent for Cohort 6
- 86.6 percent for Cohort 9
- 87.2 percent for Cohort 12
- 85.9 percent for Cohort 15
- 0 percent for Cohort 18
- Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.
- Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.
Original ICPSR Release: 2005-07-22
- 2005-12-06 The study was originally released without restricted variables. It was then decided that certain variables needed to be restricted so both public use and restricted use files were created. The public use files have certain variables restricted, while the restricted use files allow users full access to the original data. See RESTRICTIONS for more details.
- View publications for the study (~13)
- View publications for the series
Most Recent Publications
- Citations exports are provided above.
Export Study-level metadata (does not include variable-level metadata)