Search results

Sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Active for Life (AFL) initiative investigated how two physical activity programs for adults aged 50 and older, Active Choices (AC) and Active Living Every Day (ALED), worked in community settings. Created by researchers at Stanford University, Active Choices used lifestyle counseling and personalized telephone support to encourage older adults to be physically active. In AFL, this was a 6-month program delivered through one face-to-face meeting followed by up to eight one-on-one telephone counseling calls. Active Living Every Day, which was created by the Cooper Institute and Human Kinetics Inc., also provided lifestyle counseling to promote physical activity, but in a classroom and workbook format. During the first three years of the four-year AFL initiative, ALED was delivered as a 20-week program where participants attended weekly small group meetings, but in the last year it was shortened to 12 weekly meetings. Nine organizations received AFL grants to implement the programs during 2003-2006. Four grantees implemented the one-on-one AC model, while five implemented the group-based ALED model.

Data were collected from the AC and ALED sites for both a process and outcomes evaluation. The primary aims of the process evaluation were to (1) monitor the extent to which the grantees demonstrated fidelity to the AC and ALED models in their program implementation, (2) assess staff experiences implementing the programs, and (3) assess participants' impressions of the programs. A quasi-experimental, pre-post study design was used to assess outcomes. Primary aims of the outcomes evaluation were to evaluate the impact of AC and ALED on self-reported physical activity, and to evaluate the impact of the programs on self-reported stress, depressive symptoms, and satisfaction with body function and appearance. Secondary aims of the outcome evaluation were to (1) evaluate the impact of the programs on measures of functional fitness, (2) examine whether changes in self-reported physical activity and functional fitness were moderated by participant characteristics, including age, gender, race, baseline physical activity self-efficacy, and baseline physical activity social support, and (3) examine whether changes in self-reported physical activity were consistent with a mediation model for physical activity self-efficacy and physical activity social support.

The collection has 14 data files (datasets). Datasets 1-7 constitute the process evaluation data, and Datasets 8-14 the outcomes evaluation data:

Dataset 1 (AC Initial Face-to-Face Sessions Data) contains information about the initial face-to-face AC session: the format, date, and length of the session, whether the 8 steps required in the face-to-face session were completed, what was discussed between the health educator and the participant related to physical activity plans, interests, benefits, and barriers, and the health educator's progress notes. The file contains one record for each AC participant.

Dataset 2 (AC Completed Calls Data) comprises information about the completed AC calls, but does not cover the topics discussed on the calls. Recorded information about each call includes the date and length of the call, the health educator's progress notes, and whether the participant was assessed for injury, light activity, moderate activity, exercise goals, or exercise intentions. Each call is represented by a separate record in the data file and, typically, there are multiple records per participant.

Dataset 3 (AC Topics Discussed on Completed Calls ) contains information about the topics discussed on each completed AC call, e.g., exercise barriers/benefits, previous exercise experiences, goal setting, long term goals, injury prevention, rewards/reinforcement, social support, progress tracking, and relapse prevention. Each record in the file represents one topic and there are often multiple records per call for each participant.

Dataset 4 (AC Aggregate Call Data) aggregates the call data across calls for each AC participant. For example, for a given participant, this dataset shows the total number of calls completed, the number of calls where injury/health problems were assessed, etc. The file contains one record per participant.

Dataset 5 (ALED Sessions Data) contains information about each class session for every ALED group, including the session date, start time, and end time, learning activities covered in the session, participant evaluations of the session and the facilitator, facilitator progress notes, the number of participants who were in various stages of readiness for moderate exercise, and the number of participants who tracked physical activity and thoughts about physical activity. This file has one record for each session of every ALED group.

Dataset 6 (ALED Attendance and Tracking Data (Years 2-4)) consists of participant-level attendance and tracking data for every ALED session during the second to fourth years of the evaluation, including the participant's attendance at the session, whether the participant's stage of readiness was assessed, and whether the participant tracked thoughts about physical activity or actual physical activity. There is no participant-level ALED data for the first year. Each participant has a separate record for each session. Thus, the file contains 20 records per participant in the years 2-3, and 12 records per participant in year 4.

Dataset 7 (ALED Aggregate Attendance and Tracking Data (Years 2-4)) contains ALED attendance and tracking data for each participant in years 2-4, aggregated across the sessions. The data file has one record for each participant.

Dataset 8 (Demographics) comprises program information (e.g., program status, start date, end date, site, etc.), demographic information (e.g., age, gender, race, Hispanic origin, employment status, income, and the participant's state and ZIP code of residence), and responses to the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q), a screening tool that was used to assess possible risks of exercising based on answers to specific health history questions. The file contains one record for each AFL participant, except for those with a status of "nonstarter" or "repeater."

Datasets 9 (Pretest Survey Data) and 10 (Posttest Survey Data) contain data from the Pretest and Posttest Surveys. The Pretest Survey was administered at the beginning of the AC and ALED programs, while the Posttest Survey was administered at their end. Topics covered by the surveys include social and recreational activities, activities undertaken for exercise, perceived stress, depressive symptoms, satisfaction with body appearance and function, social support for physical activity, self-efficacy for physical activity, neighborhood environment, health conditions, health-related quality of life, caregiving, and self-reported height and weight. Both surveys included items from the Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors Physical Activity Questionnaire (CHAMPS), the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Questionnaire (CES-D), the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Questionnaires (BRFSS), and the International Physical Activity Prevalence Study Environmental Module. These data files each have one record for each participant who submitted a questionnaire.

Dataset 11 (ALED Week 12 Survey Data (Year 4)) contains responses to the ALED Week 12 Posttest Survey, which was used to evaluate the 12-week adaptation of ALED in Year 4. (In Year 4, ALED participants completed both a 12- and 20-week posttest survey). There is one record for each participant who returned this survey.

Dataset 12 (Six-Month Posttest Follow-Up Survey Data (Years 3-4)) comprises data from a special 6-month follow-up survey which was administered in years 3-4 in six of the ALED sites and one of the AC sites. Participants were questioned about their current physical activities, weight, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with bodily function, and other topics. As with Datasets 9-11, the data file contains one record for each participant who returned a questionnaire.

Dataset 13 (Functional Fitness Tests Data) contains the results of pretest and posttest functional fitness tests which were administered by one ALED grantee. Four tests were adminstered: (1) the 30-Foot Walk Test, (2) the 30-Second Chair Stand, (3) 8-Foot Up and Go, and (4) the Chair Sit and Reach Test. This participant-level data file also includes pretest height measurements plus pretest and posttest weight measurements.

Dataset 14 (Participants' Impressions of the Programs (Years 1, 3, and 4)) contains data collected by the last sections of the Posttest Survey, ALED Week 12 survey, and 6-Month Follow-up Survey. The topics it covers include the participants' impressions of the programs, participation in physical activities, and changes (compared to before they started the AFL program) in motivation to be physically active, actual level of physical activity, medical and health conditions, overall pain, flexibility/limberness, level of stress, happiness, and enjoyment of life. The file has a separate record for each survey completed by the participants. Thus, there are 1-3 records per participant.

Media coverage has highlighted raids, mass arrests, and undercover stings of illicit massage parlors in United States cities and suburbs. This study defines "illicit," as a sub-set of massage parlors that purport to operate as legal businesses but where sexual services are illegally bought and sold. Although some media accounts have highlighted linkages between illicit massage parlors, human trafficking, and the fact that many of the workers are Asian immigrant women, the daily experiences of workers in illicit massage parlors are rarely reported from their own perspectives. To fill this gap in knowledge, researchers interviewed 116 Chinese and Korean women who reported that they had provided sexual services in a massage parlor setting in New York City or Los Angeles County. This data collection includes anonymized responses from these women about their demographic background, path to working in massage parlors, working conditions, social networks, sexual health and access to healthcare, victimization by clients and managers, and trust in law enforcement.

The Helping Young Smokers Quit (HYSQ) initiative was a multi-phase project that addressed the critical need to disseminate effective, developmentally appropriate cessation programs for young smokers. Phase I identified and described tobacco treatment programs available for youth in the United States, Phase II evaluated smoking secession programs tailored for youth to help understand what works, and Phase III identified factors associated with program sustainability. Phase II collected data from five sources: (1) program participants, (2) program providers, (3) program curricula, (4) organizational leaders, and (5) community leaders and community ordinances.

Program participants were interviewed at baseline, end-of program, 6-month follow-up, and 12-month follow-up. Topics covered by the interviews include age, gender, race, Hispanic origin, language spoken at home, employment, income, religiosity, school enrollment, education level, school grades, height, weight, extracurricular activities, recreation, sports, exercise, aspirations after high school, psychological well-being, alcohol consumption, cigarette use and use of other tobacco products, attitudes about smoking, plans to stop/continue smoking, attempts to quit smoking, reasons for participating in the program, topics/issues covered by the program, opinions about the program, and smoking experience since the beginning of the program. In addition, for each follow-up survey, the participants provided a breath sample for carbon monoxide analysis to validate self-reported quit status.

After the last session of each program delivery, the program providers, such as program leaders and cessation counselors, were interviewed about the content and delivery of the program and the reactions of the participants and themselves to the program as delivered. The program providers also kept attendance records.

Curriculum content was abstracted from program manuals and other materials used in each program.

Organizational leaders of the organizations that offered the programs were surveyed about various aspects of each organization, including the organization's smoking cessation program and the organization's mission, general operations, and smoking-related policies and practices.

Community-level information was collected in two ways: (1) interviews of community leaders representing local health departments, school boards, and juvenile justice offices, and (2) archival research of public ordinances relevant to tobacco and control policies.

Nine data files/datasets constitute the data. Datasets 1-4 contain the participant questionnaire data, carbon monoxide measurement data, and program attendance data. Dataset 5 comprises information about each program and its curriculum, some information about the community in which the program was located, and summary data about enforcement of tobacco-related ordinances. Dataset 6 contains information about about the program providers and each program delivery, including recruitment, logistics, content, and the reactions of providers and participants. Dataset 7 covers administrative aspects of the smoking cessation programs and each offering organization's mission, general operations, and smoking-related policies and norms. Dataset 8 contains information about local and state-level tobacco-related ordinances for every state and local jurisdiction where each program was located, and Dataset 9 condenses the information in Dataset 8 into one summary record for each community. The unit of observation for Datasets 1-4 is the participant, for Datasets 5 and 7 the smoking cessation program/offering organization, for Dataset 6 the program delivery/program cohort, for Dataset 8 the ordinance, and for Dataset 9 the community.

The Long Beach Longitudinal Study (LBLS) was created in 1978 to obtain normative data for the Schaie-Thurston Adult Mental Abilities Test (STAMAT). From 1994 to 2003 it was extended under the guiding principle that cognitive aging is a largely contextual phenomenon. Individual differences in abilities and change in those abilities over adulthood are associated not only with cognitive mechanisms, but with sociodemographic phenomena such as birth cohort, or gender, and within-individual characteristics, including health, affect, self-efficacy, personality, and other variables that impact health. This principle is reflected in the testing measures added to the original panel. Besides the original ability measures used by Schaie, the Life Complexity Inventory, has been included in all testing. Because these measures were included in the later generations of testing, independent and direct comparisons can be made with Seattle Longitudinal Study (ICPSR 00158) to replicate findings and to generalize longitudinal samples.

Panel 1

The initial panel was sampled in 1978 and consisted of 65 adults aged 28-33 and 518 adults aged 55-84. This sample was tested using the STAMAT, as well as a 20-item list of common English nouns for testing free recall, and a brief essay to test text recall. In 1981, 264 participants from this sample were retested, 106 were again retested from 1994-1995, and 42 in 1997. Finally, 15 participants of the original sample were tested from 2000-2002 using additional tests adopted for the creation of a second panel, described below, as well as a test for measuring executive function.

Panel 2

In 1994, a second panel of 630 participants aged 30-97, a third of which were over 80, was added to the study. The testing for this sample included multiple indices of list recall, text recall, working memory, perceptual speed, and vocabulary for structural equation modeling. Assessment of language, autobiographical memory, personality, depression, health, health behaviors and other measures were also incorporated into the study. In 1997, 352 members of this second panel were retested. From 2000-2002, 179 participants of this second panel completed the 1994-1995 measures, as well as several tests extending the battery to indices of executive function. In 2003, 133 participants were retested.

Panel 3

A third sample was recruited during the 2000-2002 time frame consisting of 911 participants aged 30-98, again approximately a third of which were over the age of 80. In 2003, 513 members of this third panel were retested.

Datasets

The data are provided in 6 datasets.

1. Panel 1 and 2 1978 - 2003 Longitudinal File

   Dataset 1 is a longitudinal file of data from Panel 1 for tests performed in 1978, 1981, 1994, 1997, and 2000-2002, and data from Panel 2 for tests performed in 1994, 1997, 2000-2002 and 2003.

2. Panels 1 and 2 1994 STAMAT File

   Dataset 2 contains the STAMAT test variables for Panels 1 and 2.

3. Panel 1 and 2 1994-2000 Master Data Longitudinal File

   Dataset 3 is a second longitudinal file containing the complete catalog of variables from Panels 1 and 2 for test performed in 1994, 1997 and 2000.

4. Panel 2 Wave 1 1994 Cross File

   Dataset 4 contains variables for the first wave of Panel 2 which took place in 1994.

5. Panel 2 Wave 2 1997 Cross File

   Dataset 5 contains variables for the second wave of Panel 2 which took place in 1997.

6. Panel 3 Wave 1 2000 Master File

   Dataset 6 contains variables from the first wave of Panel 3 which took place in 2000.

The Longitudinal Study of Generations (LSOG), initiated in 1971, began as a survey of intergenerational relations among 300 three-generation California families with grandparents (then in their sixties), middle-aged parents (then in their early forties), and grandchildren (then aged 15 to 26). The study broadened in 1991 and now includes a fourth generation, the great-grandchildren of these same families.

The LSOG, with a fully elaborated generation-sequential design, allows comparisons of sets of aging parents and children at the same stage of life but during different historical periods. These comparisons make possible the investigation of the effects of social change on inter-generational solidarity or conflict across 35 years and four generations, as well as the effects of social change on the ability of families to buffer stressful life transitions (e.g., aging, divorce and remarriage, higher female labor force participation, changes in work and the economy, and possible weakening of family norms of obligation), and the effects of social change on the transmission of values, resources, and behaviors across generations.

The LSOG contains information on family structure, household composition, affectual solidarity and conflict, values, attitudes, behaviors, role importance, marital relationships, health and fitness, mental health and well-being, caregiving, leisure activities, and life events and concerns. Demographic variables include age, sex, income, employment status, marital status, socioeconomic history, education, religion, ethnicity, and military service.

The codebook for dataset 1 (DS1 Waves 1-7) is over 5000 pages long; due to complications related to the size of this document, the search function within the PDF is not yet enabled. Users seeking specific variables should use the search function within the PI Codebook, or search using the variables search tab/option from the study page.

This study, known as the Los Angeles Neighborhood Services and Characteristics data (L.A.NSC) includes data from governmental and business data sources on the characteristics of census tracts in Los Angeles County from 1980 to 2010. The unit of analysis is 1990 census tract (census tracts using 1990 census tract boundaries). The data also include crosswalks for census boundaries across census years. It is public use data.

The L.A.NSC data were assembled by the L.A.FANS projects to be used with L.A.FANS survey data restricted data versions 2, 2.5, and 3 all of which contain 1990 census tract numbers which can be linked with data in this file. However, the L.A.NSC files includes ALL census tracts in Los Angeles County, not just the 65 tracts sampled by L.A.FANS. Thus, the L.A.NSC data can be analyzed on their own without linkage to L.A.FANS survey data and provide longitudinal data on the characteristics of Los Angeles census tracts over a 30 year period.

Additional information on the data is available at the RAND website. See also:

• The L.A.NSC Database Users' Guides (The Los Angeles Neighborhood Services and Characteristics Database: Codebook and 2010 Neighborhood Services and Characteristics Database: NSC2).

This study is a restricted data file of data from the L.A.FANS Neighborhood Observation Study, an in-person observational by trained L.A.FANS interviewers of the census blocks on which L.A.FANS respondents lived during L.A.FANS Wave 1. Interviewers were trained to walk each block face and record social and physical observations on precoded check sheets. Each block face was observed by several different interviewers working independently at different times of the day and week. These data are designed to be used with L.A.FANS Wave-1 survey interview data restricted versions 2.5 or 3 to provide data on the census block and census tract in which individual respondents lived.

Users who apply for these restricted data must also be approved for using restricted version 2.5 or 3. Please note that L.A. FANS restricted data may only be accessed within the ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave (VDE) and must be merged with the L.A. FANS public data prior to beginning any analysis.

The study is described in detail in the L.A.FANS Neighborhood Observations Codebook.

Further information is available in:

Jones, M., Pebley, A. R., and Sastry, N. (2011). Eyes on the block: Measuring urban physical disorder through in-person observation. Social Science Research, 40(2), 523-537.

This study includes public user data files of two waves of interviews with L.A.FANS respondents. There often are multiple respondents in L.A.FANS households and Wave 2 includes both panel respondents and a new sample. Users' Guides which explain the design and how to use the sample are available for Wave 1 and Wave 2 at the RAND website.

The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (L.A.FANS) is a two-wave study of adults and children in Los Angeles County and of the neighborhoods in which they live. The first wave (L.A.FANS-1), which was fielded between April 2000 and January 2002, interviewed adults and children living in 3,085 households in a stratified probability sample of 65 neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles County. The samples of neighborhoods and individuals were representative of neighborhoods and residents of Los Angeles County. Poorer neighborhoods and households with children were oversampled. In Wave 2 of L.A.FANS (L.A.FANS-2), Wave 1 respondents living in Los Angeles County were reinterviewed and updated information was collected on Wave 1 respondents who had moved away from Los Angeles County. A sample of individuals who moved into each sampled neighborhood between Waves 1 and 2 was also interviewed, for a total of 2,319 adults and 1,382 children (ages less than 18 years). Additional information on the project is available at the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

This study includes a restricted data file for Wave 1 of the L.A.FANS data. To compare L.A.FANS restricted data, version 1 with other restricted data versions, see the table on the series page for the L.A.FANS data here. Data in this study are designed for use with the public use data files for L.A.FANS, Wave 1 (study 1). This file adds only a few variables to the L.A.FANS, Wave 1 public use files. Specifically, it adds a "pseudo-tract ID" which is a number from 1 to 65, randomly assigned to each census tract (neighborhood) in the study. It is not possible to link pseudo-tract IDs in any way to real tract IDs or other neighborhood characteristics. However, pseudo-tract IDs permit users to conduct analyses which take into account the clustered sample design in which neighborhoods (tracts) were selected first and then individuals were sampled within neighborhoods. Pseudo-tract IDs do so because they identify which respondents live in the same neighborhood. It also includes certain variables, thought to be sensitive, which are not available in the public use data. These variables are identified in the L.A.FANS Wave 1 Users Guide and Codebook. Finally, some distance variables and individual characteristics which are treated in the public use data to make it harder to identify individuals are provided in an untreated form in the Version 1 restricted data file. Please note that L.A. FANS restricted data may only be accessed within the ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave (VDE) and must be merged with the L.A. FANS public data prior to beginning any analysis.

A Users' Guide which explains the design and how to use the samples are available for Wave 1 at the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

This study includes restricted data file, version 2, for Wave 1 of the L.A.FANS data. To compare L.A.FANS restricted data, version 2 with other restricted data versions, see the table on the series page for the L.A.FANS data here. Data in this study are designed for use with the public use data files for L.A.FANS, Wave 1 (study 1). This file adds only a few variables to the L.A.FANS, Wave 1 public use files. Specifically, it adds the census tract number for the tract each respondent lives in. It also includes certain variables, thought to be sensitive, which are not available in the public use data. These variables are identified in the L.A.FANS Wave 1 Users Guide and Codebook. Finally, some distance variables and individual characteristics which are treated in the public use data to make it harder to identify individuals are provided in an untreated form in the Version 2 restricted data file. Please note that L.A. FANS restricted data may only be accessed within the ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave (VDE) and must be merged with the L.A. FANS public data prior to beginning any analysis.

A Users' Guide which explains the design and how to use the samples are available for Wave 1 at the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

This study includes restricted data version 2.5, for Wave 1 of the L.A.FANS data. To compare L.A.FANS restricted data, version 2.5 with other restricted data versions, see the table on the series page for the L.A.FANS data here. Data in this study are designed for use with the public use data files for L.A.FANS, Wave 1 (study 1). This file adds only a few variables to the L.A.FANS, Wave 1 public use files. Specifically, it adds the census tract and block number for the tract each respondent lives in. It also includes certain variables, thought to be sensitive, which are not available in the public use data. These variables are identified in the L.A.FANS Wave 1 Users Guide and Codebook. Finally, some distance variables and individual characteristics which are treated in the public use data to make it harder to identify individuals are provided in an untreated form in the Version 2.5 restricted data file. Please note that L.A. FANS restricted data may only be accessed within the ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave (VDE) and must be merged with the L.A. FANS public data prior to beginning any analysis.

A Users' Guide which explains the design and how to use the samples are available for Wave 1 at the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

This study includes restricted data version 3, for Wave 1 of the L.A.FANS data. To compare L.A.FANS restricted data, version 3 with other restricted data versions, see the table on the series page for the L.A.FANS data here. Data in this study are designed for use with the public use data files for L.A.FANS, Wave 1 (study 1). This file adds only a few variables to the L.A.FANS, Wave 1 public use files. Specifically, it adds the census tract and block number for the tract each respondent lives in and geographic coordinates data for a number of locations reported by the respondent (including home, grocery store, place of work, place of worship, schools, etc.). It also includes certain variables, thought to be sensitive, which are not available in the public use data. These variables are identified in the L.A.FANS Wave 1 Users Guide and Codebook. Finally, some distance variables and individual characteristics which are treated in the public use data to make it harder to identify individuals are provided in an untreated form in the Version 3 restricted data file. Please note that L.A. FANS restricted data may only be accessed within the ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave (VDE) and must be merged with the L.A. FANS public data prior to beginning any analysis.

A Users' Guide which explains the design and how to use the samples are available for Wave 1 at the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (L.A.FANS) is a two-wave study of adults and children in Los Angeles County and of the neighborhoods in which they live. The first wave (L.A.FANS-1), which was fielded between April 2000 and January 2002, interviewed adults and children living in 3,085 households in a stratified probability sample of 65 neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles County. The samples of neighborhoods and individuals were representative of neighborhoods and residents of Los Angeles County. Poorer neighborhoods and households with children were oversampled. In Wave 2 of L.A.FANS (L.A.FANS-2), Wave 1 respondents living in Los Angeles County were reinterviewed and updated information was collected on Wave 1 respondents who had moved away from Los Angeles County. A sample of individuals who moved into each sampled neighborhood between Waves 1 and 2 was also interviewed, for a total of 2,319 adults and 1,382 children (ages less than 18 years).

A new feature in L.A.FANS-2 was the collection of physiological health measures. Interviewers collected blood pressure, pulse, height, weight, hip and waist circumference, and a pulmonary function assessment (spirometry) from respondents. Saliva samples were collected from child respondents. 50% of L.A.FANS households were selected at random and respondents were asked to provide dried blood spot (DBS) samples. The initial release of L.A.FANS-2 data included only the blood pressure and anthropometry data. This collection contains the spirometry, saliva, and DBS data. The saliva and DBS datasets each have one record per respondent who completed the health module, while the spirometry dataset has one record for each trial.

Data in this study are designed for use with the public use data files for L.A.FANS, Wave 1 (study 1) and Wave 2 (study 2). Additional information on the project is available on the L.A.FANS series page and the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

This study includes public user data files of two waves of interviews with L.A.FANS respondents. There often are multiple respondents in L.A.FANS households and Wave 2 includes both panel respondents and a new sample. Users' Guides which explain the design and how to use the sample are available for Wave 1 and Wave 2 at the RAND website.

The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (L.A.FANS) is a two-wave study of adults and children in Los Angeles County and of the neighborhoods in which they live. The first wave (L.A.FANS-1), which was fielded between April 2000 and January 2002, interviewed adults and children living in 3,085 households in a stratified probability sample of 65 neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles County. The samples of neighborhoods and individuals were representative of neighborhoods and residents of Los Angeles County. Poorer neighborhoods and households with children were oversampled. In Wave 2 of L.A.FANS (L.A.FANS-2), Wave 1 respondents living in Los Angeles County were reinterviewed and updated information was collected on Wave 1 respondents who had moved away from Los Angeles County. A sample of individuals who moved into each sampled neighborhood between Waves 1 and 2 was also interviewed, for a total of 2,319 adults and 1,382 children (ages less than 18 years). Additional information on the project is available at the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

This study includes a restricted data file for Wave 2 of the L.A.FANS data. To compare L.A.FANS restricted data, version 1 with other restricted data versions, see the table on the series page for the L.A.FANS data here. Data in this study are designed for use with the public use data files for L.A.FANS, Wave 2 (study 2). This file adds only a few variables to the L.A.FANS, Wave 2 public use files. Specifically, it adds a "pseudo-tract ID" which is a number from 1 to 65, randomly assigned to each census tract (neighborhood) in the study. It is not possible to link pseudo-tract IDs in any way to real tract IDs or other neighborhood characteristics. However, pseudo-tract IDs permit users to conduct analyses which take into account the clustered sample design in which neighborhoods (tracts) were selected first and then individuals were sampled within neighborhoods. Pseudo-tract IDs do so because they identify which respondents live in the same neighborhood. It also includes certain variables, thought to be sensitive, which are not available in the public use data. These variables are identified in the L.A.FANS Wave 2 Users Guide and Codebook. Finally, some distance variables and individual characteristics which are treated in the public use data to make it harder to identify individuals are provided in an untreated form in the Version 1 restricted data file. Please note that L.A. FANS restricted data may only be accessed within the ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave (VDE) and must be merged with the L.A. FANS public data prior to beginning any analysis.

A Users' Guide which explains the design and how to use the samples are available for Wave 2 at the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

This study includes a restricted data file, version 2, for Wave 2 of the L.A.FANS data. To compare L.A.FANS restricted data, version 2 with other restricted data versions, see the table on the series page for the L.A.FANS data here. Data in this study are designed for use with the public use data files for L.A.FANS, Wave 2 (study 2). This file adds only a few variables to the L.A.FANS, Wave 2 public use files. Specifically, it adds the census tract number for the tract each respondent lives in. It also includes certain variables, thought to be sensitive, which are not available in the public use data. These variables are identified in the L.A.FANS Wave 2 Users Guide and Codebook. Finally, some distance variables and individual characteristics which are treated in the public use data to make it harder to identify individuals are provided in an untreated form in the Version 2 restricted data file. Please note that L.A. FANS restricted data may only be accessed within the ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave (VDE) and must be merged with the L.A. FANS public data prior to beginning any analysis.

A Users' Guide which explains the design and how to use the samples are available for Wave 2 at the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

This study includes a restricted data file, version 2.5, for Wave 2 of the L.A.FANS data. To compare L.A.FANS restricted data, version 2.5 with other restricted data versions, see the table on the series page for the L.A.FANS data here. Data in this study are designed for use with the public use data files for L.A.FANS, Wave 2 (study 2). This file adds only a few variables to the L.A.FANS, Wave 2 public use files. Specifically, it adds the census tract and block number for the tract each respondent lives in. It also includes certain variables, thought to be sensitive, which are not available in the public use data. These variables are identified in the L.A.FANS Wave 2 Users Guide and Codebook. Finally, some distance variables and individual characteristics which are treated in the public use data to make it harder to identify individuals are provided in an untreated form in the Version 2.5 restricted data file. Please note that L.A. FANS restricted data may only be accessed within the ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave (VDE) and must be merged with the L.A. FANS public data prior to beginning any analysis.

A Users' Guide which explains the design and how to use the samples are available for Wave 2 at the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

This study includes a restricted data file, version 3, for Wave 2 of the L.A.FANS data. To compare L.A.FANS restricted data, version 3 with other restricted data versions, see the table on the series page for the L.A.FANS data here. Data in this study are designed for use with the public use data files for L.A.FANS, Wave 2 (study 2). This file adds only a few variables to the L.A.FANS, Wave 2 public use files. Specifically, it adds the census tract and block number for the tract each respondent lives in and geographic coordinates data for a number of locations reported by the respondent (including home, grocery store, place of work, place of worship, schools, etc.). It also includes certain variables, thought to be sensitive, which are not available in the public use data. These variables are identified in the L.A.FANS Wave 2 Users Guide and Codebook. Finally, some distance variables and individual characteristics which are treated in the public use data to make it harder to identify individuals are provided in an untreated form in the Version 3 restricted data file. Please note that L.A. FANS restricted data may only be accessed within the ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave (VDE) and must be merged with the L.A. FANS public data prior to beginning any analysis.

A Users' Guide which explains the design and how to use the samples are available for Wave 2 at the RAND website.

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, and variables are available from:

• Sastry, Narayan, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, John Adams, and Anne R. Pebley (2006). The Design of a Multilevel Survey of Children, Families, and Communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, Social Science Research, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 1000-1024
• The Users' Guides (Wave 1 and Wave 2)
• RAND Documentation Reports page

This study includes one public use data file of follow-up interviews, conducted between 2011 and 2013, with respondents to Wave 2 of L.A.FANS (Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey). This follow-up data collection effort (hereafter called L.A.FANS-3 or Wave 3) was part of the broader Mixed Income Project (MIP), which was designed to allow for detailed examination of neighborhood context, residential mobility, and mixed-income housing in Los Angeles and Chicago. The two anchor studies for the MIP are L.A.FANS and the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN).

Wave 3 targeted a random probability sample of approximately 1,000 randomly selected adults and children from the prior wave of L.A.FANS, which was fielded between 2006 and 2008, who still resided within Los Angeles County. The Los Angeles field operation first assigned selected respondents to a telephone survey center for interviews. Cases that were not interviewed by telephone were transferred to experienced field interviewers in the Los Angeles area. The final response rate was 75 percent of eligible participants (i.e., residents who still resided in Los Angeles County and who were not institutionalized, incapacitated, or deceased) for a combined sample of 1,032. Two-hundred and two (202) of these respondents were reached during a preliminary Field Test in 2011, after which point the survey was slightly revised. After making these revisions, 830 respondents were reached during the Main Study. For more details on sampling procedures for the Field Test and Main Study, see Methodology section below.

For context, the L.A.FANS is a study of adults and children in Los Angeles County, and of the neighborhoods in which they live. The first wave (L.A.FANS-1 or Wave 1), which was fielded between April 2000 and January 2002, interviewed adults and children living in 3,085 households in a stratified probability sample of 65 neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles County. The samples of neighborhoods and individuals were representative of neighborhoods and residents of Los Angeles County. Poorer neighborhoods and households with children were oversampled. In Wave 2 of L.A.FANS (L.A.FANS-2), Wave 1 respondents still living in Los Angeles County were re-interviewed, while updated information was collected on Wave 1 respondents who had moved away from Los Angeles County. A sample of individuals who moved into each sampled neighborhood between Waves 1 and 2 was also interviewed, for a total of 2,319 adults and 1,382 children (ages less than 18 years). Additional information on the project is available at the RAND website.

In 2010, the United States Congress authorized the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program, which started a major expansion of evidence-based home visiting programs for families living in at-risk communities. MIECHV is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) in collaboration with the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The authorizing legislation required an evaluation of the program, which became the Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation (MIHOPE). The evaluation is being conducted for HHS by MDRC with James Bell Associates, Johns Hopkins University, Mathematica, the University of Georgia, and Columbia University.

MIHOPE was designed to learn whether families benefit from MIECHV-funded early childhood home visiting programs, and if so, how. The study included the four evidence-based models that 10 or more states chose in their initial MIECHV plans in fiscal year 2010-2011: Early Head Start - Home-based option, Healthy Families America, Nurse-Family Partnership, and Parents as Teachers. MIHOPE was the first study to include all of these four evidence-based models.

To provide rigorous evidence on the MIECHV-funded programs' effects, the study randomly assigned more than 4,200 families to receive either MIECHV-funded home visiting or information on community services. As is the standard method in studies that use random assignment, the primary analytical strategy in MIHOPE was to compare the outcomes of the entire program group with those of the entire control group.

As per the authorizing legislation, the study measured early effects on family and child outcomes in the areas listed below, with the exception of school readiness and academic achievement (which were not included at this point because children were too young to measure those outcomes):

• Prenatal, maternal, and newborn health
• Child health and development, including child maltreatment
• Parenting skills
• School readiness and child academic achievement
• Crime and domestic violence
• Family economic self-sufficiency
• Referrals and service coordination

Videos and Video Metadata: Two sets of videos are included in the MIHOPE restricted access files. They include:

• Mother-home visitor interactions at 387 home visits and
• Interactions between child and mother using the "Three Bags" and "Clean-Up" tasks with 2,832 families.

The mother-home visitor interaction videos were recorded only for treatment group families at two points in time: the first was, on average, about eight weeks after the family's first home visit and the second was about eight months after the family's first home visit. Overall, 264 families are included in the mother-home visitor interaction videos in total, with 123 of these families recorded at both points in time.

The mother-child interaction videos, during which the child and mother play with toys contained in three bags and place the toys back in the bags (the "Three Bags" and "Clean-Up" tasks), were recorded when the 15-month in-home assessments were conducted and are available for 2,832 families in the treatment and control groups.

The videos are only linkable to a few pieces of metadata (home visiting model, video ID, treatment status, and variables indicating whether the family appears in the home visit videos, the three-bag task videos, or both). The videos in the restricted access data are not linkable to any other data included in the restricted access files. Additionally, the videos may only be viewed at the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research's on-site Physical Data Enclave in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation-Strong Start (MIHOPE-Strong Start) was a large-scale evaluation that rigorously tested the effectiveness of evidence-based home visiting in improving birth and health outcomes during pregnancy and in the year after birth. Local programs included in the study's analysis implemented one of two evidence-based models: Healthy Families America (HFA) or Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP). These models were chosen because earlier evaluations found some evidence of their having positive impacts on birth outcomes.

The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) partnered with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to sponsor the study. MIHOPE-Strong Start was part of the CMMI's Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns Initiative, which evaluated whether enhanced, nonmedical prenatal interventions, when provided in addition to routine medical care, have the potential to improve birth outcomes and reduce health care costs for women enrolled in Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Under contract with OPRE, MDRC conducted MIHOPE-Strong Start in collaboration with James Bell Associates, Johns Hopkins University, Mathematica, and New York University.

The analysis for MIHOPE-Strong Start included 2,899 women and 66 local programs (37 HFA and 29 NFP programs) operating across 17 states: California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, and Wisconsin. Women were eligible for MIHOPE-Strong Start if they were pregnant and at least 8 weeks from their due date.

The MIHOPE-Strong Start analysis included a subset of families and local programs that were recruited for MIHOPE, the national evaluation of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program. Specifically, the MIHOPE-Strong Start impact analysis included information on 46 local home visiting programs and 1,845 families that were initially recruited for MIHOPE but met the MIHOPE-Strong Start eligibility criteria. An important distinction between MIHOPE-Strong Start and MIHOPE is that MIHOPE included only programs receiving MIECHV funding, while MIHOPE-Strong Start included both MIECHV and non-MIECHV-funded programs.

In both studies, families were randomly assigned either to an evidence-based home visiting program or to a control group who was given information on other services available in the community. The random assignment design was intended to create program and control groups that were similar when women entered the study, so that systematic differences in the outcomes of interest observed between the two groups can be attributed to the home visiting services rather than to the preexisting characteristics of the women.

The Moving to Opportunity (MTO) program was a randomized housing experiment administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that gave low-income families living in high-poverty areas the chance to move to lower-poverty areas. This Restricted Access Dataset (RAD) includes data from the 3,273 adults interviewed as part of the MTO long-term evaluation and is comprised of variables analyzed for the article "Neighborhood Effects on the Long-Term Well-Being of Low-Income Adults" that was published in the journal Science on September 21, 2012. The article focused on subjective well-being, physical and mental health, social networks, neighborhoods, housing, and economic self-sufficiency. Families were tracked from the baseline survey (1994-1998) through the long-term evaluation survey fielding period (2008-2010) with the purpose of determining the effects of "neighborhood" on participating families from five United States cities. Households were randomly assigned to one of three groups:

1. The low-poverty voucher (LPV) group (also called the experimental group) received Section 8 rental assistance certificates or vouchers that they could use only in census tracts with 1990 poverty rates below 10 percent. The families received mobility counseling and help in leasing a new unit. One year after relocating, families could use their voucher to move again if they wished, without any special constraints on location.
2. The traditional voucher (TRV) group (also called the Section 8 group) received regular Section 8 certificates or vouchers that they could use anywhere; these families received no special mobility counseling.
3. The control group received no certificates or vouchers through MTO, but continued to be eligible for project-based housing assistance and other social programs and services to which they would otherwise be entitled.

The dataset contains all outcomes and mediators analyzed for the Science article, as well as a variety of demographic and other baseline measures that were controlled for in the analysis. Demographic information includes age, gender, race/ethnicity, employment status, and education level.