Showing 1 – 9 of 9 results.
Curated
Census Tract Data, 1940: Elizabeth Mullen Bogue File (ICPSR 2930)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Atlantic City, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Akron, Detroit, Indiana, Berkeley, Cincinnati, Austin, Oakland, Cambridge, New York City, Columbus (Ohio), Syracuse, Memphis, Buffalo, Boston, Pittsburgh, Camden, Providence, Seattle, Savannah, Macon, Kentucky, Yonkers, Clifton, Nashville, California, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Elizabeth, New Haven, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Indianapolis, Richmond, Oregon, Duluth, Flint, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kansas City (Kansas), Louisville, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Dayton, Superior, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Pawtucket, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, New Orleans, Denver, Dallas, St. Louis, Wisconsin, Des Moines, Augusta, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Chicago, St. Paul, Rochester (New York), Passaic, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, New Jersey, Michigan, San Francisco, Baltimore, Paterson, Jersey City, Long Beach, Ohio, Los Angeles, Toledo, Hartford, Trenton, Philadelphia, Houston
Time period: 1940-01-01--1940-12-31
The 1940 Census Tract files were originally created by keypunching the data from the printed publications prepared by the Bureau of the Census. The work was done under the direction of Dr. Donald Bogue, whose wife, Elizabeth Mullen Bogue, completed much of the data work. Subsequently, the punchcards were converted to data files and transferred to the National Archive and Records Administration (NARA). ICPSR received copies of these files from NARA and converted the binary block length records to ASCII format.
Curated
Census Tract Data, 1950: Elizabeth Mullen Bogue File (ICPSR 2931)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Milwaukee, Indiana, Kalamazoo, Berkeley, Fort Worth, Cincinnati, Austin, Spokane, San Jose, San Diego, Columbus (Ohio), Syracuse, Springfield (Massachusetts), Boston, Providence, Seattle, Kentucky, Nashville, California, Florida, New Haven, Illinois, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Norfolk, Duluth, Flint, United States, Oklahoma, Kansas City (Kansas), Louisville, Washington, Rome (New York), Wichita, Pawtucket, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Orleans, Denver, Dallas, St. Louis, Wisconsin, Augusta, Rochester (New York), Passaic, Chicopee, Birmingham, Michigan, Baltimore, Paterson, Louisiana, Toledo, Philadelphia, Oklahoma City, Akron, Greensboro, Detroit, Utica, Bridgeport, Memphis, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Chattanooga, Sacramento, Clifton, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Durham, Portsmouth, Indianapolis, Richmond, Oregon, Holyoke, Tennessee, Alabama, Cleveland, Dayton, Nebraska, Superior, Omaha, Tacoma, Colorado, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Chicago, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Miami, Ohio, Hartford, Trenton, Houston
Time period: 1950-01-01--1950-12-31
The 1950 Census Tract files were originally created by keypunching the data from the printed publications prepared by the Bureau of the Census. The work was done under the direction of Dr. Donald Bogue, whose wife, Elizabeth Mullen Bogue, completed much of the data work. Subsequently, the punchcards were converted to data files and transferred to the National Archive and Records Administration (NARA). ICPSR received copies of these files from NARA and converted the binary block-length records to ASCII format.
Curated
Census Tract Data, 1960: Elizabeth Mullen Bogue File (ICPSR 2932)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, Indiana, Kalamazoo, Cincinnati, Austin, Spokane, San Jose, Syracuse, Springfield (Massachusetts), Providence, Seattle, St. Petersburg, Bethlehem, Nashville, California, Laredo, Fresno, Beaumont, Texarkana, Illinois, Newark, Georgia, Little Rock, Maryland, Norfolk, Oklahoma, Louisville, Arkansas, Washington, Albany (New York), Fall River, Pawtucket, Missouri, Winston-Salem, Davenport, Scranton, Dallas, Wisconsin, Nevada, Des Moines, Schenectady, Muskegon, Lawrence, St. Paul, Hawaii, Rochester (New York), Sioux City, Birmingham, Michigan, Baltimore, Paterson, New Mexico, Orlando, Canton, Philadelphia, Steubenville, Atlantic City, Akron, Topeka, Greensboro, Detroit, Charlotte, High Point, Erie, Waterloo, Bakersfield, Odessa, Abilene, Worchester, Jacksonville, Buffalo, Chattanooga, Stamford, Sacramento, Baton Rouge, Clifton, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Texas, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, Richmond, Holyoke, Newport News, Alabama, Nebraska, Shreveport, Superior, Omaha, Texas City, West Virginia, Elyria, Minneapolis, Youngstown, Columbia (South Carolina), Colorado, Honolulu, Phoenix, Portland (Maine), Gary, District of Columbia, Wilkes-Barre, Lancaster, Monroe, Minnesota, New Jersey, Miami, Brockton, San Francisco, Charleston (South Carolina), Lowell, Ohio, South Bend, Waco, North Carolina, Johnstown, Fort Worth, San Diego, Lincoln, Arizona, Springfield (Ohio), Boston, San Bernardino, Savannah, Macon, Montgomery, Kentucky, Florida, Hampton, Delaware, Troy, New Haven, Connecticut, Rockford, Virginia, Duluth, Flint, United States, Grand Rapids, South Carolina, Muncie, Rome (New York), Wichita, New Britain, Massachusetts, New Orleans, Denver, Salt Lake City, Harrisburg, St. Louis, Saginaw, Lubbock, Corpus Christi, Augusta, San Angelo, Allentown, Raleigh, San Antonio, Passaic, Chicopee, Pittsfield, Mobile, Gadsden, Louisiana, Toledo, Colorado Springs, Evansville, Oklahoma City, Tucson, Albuquerque, Columbus (Georgia), Utica, Tyler, Lexington, Bridgeport, Wichita Falls, Peoria, Memphis, Ogden, Pittsburgh, El Paso, Pueblo, Greenville, Haverhill, Lansing, Tulsa, Green Bay, Lorain, Hazleton, Tampa, Durham, Portsmouth, Oregon, Madison, Jackson (Michigan), York, Ann Arbor, Tennessee, Maine, Weirton, Altoona, Cleveland, Dayton, Decatur, Tacoma, Atlanta, Lima, Hamilton, Fort Smith, Middletown, Wilmington (Delaware), Rhode Island, Chicago, Waterbury, Kansas City (Missouri), New York (state), Wheeling, Santa Barbara, Galveston, Reading, Jersey City, Springfield (Missouri), Norwalk, Long Beach, New Hampshire, Easton, Manchester, Binghamton, Los Angeles, Hartford, Trenton, Stockton, Houston, New Bedford
Time period: 1960-01-01--1960-12-31
The 1960 Census Tract files were originally created by keypunching the data from the printed publications prepared by the Bureau of the Census. The work was done under the direction of Dr. Donald Bogue, whose wife, Elizabeth Mullen Bogue, completed much of the data work. Subsequently, the punchcards were converted to data files and transferred to the National Archive and Records Administration (NARA). ICPSR received copies of these files from NARA and converted the binary block-length records to ASCII format.
Curated
Census Tract Data, 1970: Elizabeth Mullen Bogue File (ICPSR 2933)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, Biloxi, Indiana, Kalamazoo, Austin, Spokane, Lewiston, Columbus (Ohio), Syracuse, Colonial Heights, Racine, Kenosha, Bryan, Danbury, Providence, Bethlehem, Nashville, Laredo, Knoxville, Mississippi, Beaumont, Midland, Texarkana, Illinois, Denison, Georgia, Little Rock, Maryland, Idaho, Port Arthur, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Washington, Albany (New York), Pawtucket, Bay City, Missouri, Winston-Salem, Scranton, Dallas, Wisconsin, Sioux Falls, Nevada, Des Moines, Muskegon, Lawrence, Bloomington, Hawaii, Normal, Michigan, Baltimore, New Mexico, Orlando, Lacrosse, Canton, Rochester (Minnesota), Atlantic City, Akron, Topeka, Greensboro, Charlotte, High Point, Harlingen, Erie, Waterloo, Charleston (West Virginia), Odessa, Abilene, Bristol, Worchester, Terre Haute, Provo, Jacksonville, Buffalo, Chattanooga, Baton Rouge, Oshkosh, Kansas, Great Falls, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Texas, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, Richmond, Newport News, St. Joseph, Lafayette (Indiana), Lynchburg, Roanoke, Columbia (Missouri), Nebraska, Shreveport, Superior, Texas City, Warren, West Virginia, Amarillo, Youngstown, Columbia (South Carolina), Colorado, Honolulu, Phoenix, Cedar Rapids, Portland (Maine), District of Columbia, Fayetteville, Boise City, Wilkes-Barre, Salem (Oregon), South Dakota, Lancaster, Monroe, Minnesota, New Jersey, Brockton, Charleston (South Carolina), Lowell, Ohio, South Bend, Waco, North Carolina, Johnstown, Fort Worth, Orange, Utah, San Benito, Lincoln, Arizona, Las Vegas, Springfield (Ohio), Montana, Savannah, Macon, Kentucky, Florida, Hampton, Delaware, Gainesville, Connecticut, Rockford, Virginia, Gulfport, Duluth, Flint, United States, Grand Rapids, Kansas City (Kansas), South Carolina, Muncie, Rome (New York), Tallahassee, Wichita, Nashua, New Britain, Massachusetts, New Orleans, Denver, Salt Lake City, Harrisburg, St. Louis, Saginaw, Lubbock, Corpus Christi, Augusta, San Angelo, Allentown, Raleigh, San Antonio, Springfield (Illinois), Pittsfield, Reno, Louisiana, Toledo, Colorado Springs, Pensacola, Leominster, Albuquerque, Brownsville, Champaign-Urbana, College Station, Utica, Tyler, Lexington, Bridgeport, Billings, Petersburg, Peoria, Memphis, Ogden, Pittsburgh, El Paso, Pueblo, Greenville, Auburn, Haverhill, Lansing, Meriden, Lawton, Tulsa, Green Bay, Pine Bluff, West Palm Beach, Hazleton, Eugene, Tampa, Durham, Hollywood (Florida), Oregon, Madison, Mansfield, Jackson (Michigan), York, Ann Arbor, Tennessee, Maine, Altoona, Cleveland, Dayton, Orem, Decatur, Tacoma, Atlanta, Lima, Hamilton, Fort Smith, Middletown, Sherman, Wilmington (Delaware), Rhode Island, Fitchburg, Fort Lauderdale, Kansas City (Missouri), New York (state), Anderson, Galveston, Lake Charles, Reading, Springfield (Missouri), New Hampshire, Easton, Manchester, Hartford, Trenton, Asheville, Houston, Appleton
Time period: 1970-01-01--1970-12-31
The 1970 Census Tract files were originally created by keypunching the data from the printed publications prepared by the Bureau of the Census. The work was done under the direction of Dr. Donald Bogue, whose wife, Elizabeth Mullen Bogue, completed much of the data work. Subsequently, the punchcards were converted to data files and transferred to the National Archive and Records Administration (NARA). ICPSR received copies of these files from NARA and converted the binary block-length records to ASCII format.
Curated
Cleveland Study of the Elderly: a Follow-Up, 1984-1988 (ICPSR 6985)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio, Cleveland
Time period: 1984-01-01--1988-12-31
This follow-up survey, funded under two separate grants from the National Institute on Aging (NIA), reinterviewed survivors of STUDY OF THE WELL-BEING OF OLDER PEOPLE IN CLEVELAND, OHIO, 1975-1976 (ICPSR 7773). The first part of the project, "Cleveland GAO Study of the Elderly: A Follow-Up", was conducted from 1983 to 1986, and reinterviewed survivors (n = 647) of the original 1975 sample (n = 1,834) to determine the impact of gender on the quality of life for elders, along with stability and change in measures of mental health. During 1984, a subset of the interview subjects were visited at their homes to validate self-reported impairment and disability. These data are presented in Part 1, Cleveland GAO Study of the Elderly: A Follow-Up, 1984 Data for Survivors of 1975 Sample. The second phase of the project, "Cleveland Elderly 12 Years Later," describes changes in disease, disability, and mortality since 1975 and attempted to determine if differences were related to changes in social support, use of health services, or economic status. The study also sought to assess levels of social, economic, mental, and physical well-being reported by respondents, and examined daily activities, the use and quality of services, and the characteristics of service providers. The "Cleveland Elderly 12 Years Later" data were collected in 1987 and again in 1988. Data collected in 1987 consist of interviews with survivors of the original 1975 sample (Part 2) along with interviews from an additional sample drawn from the 1977 Medicare rolls (Part 3). During 1988, interviews were again conducted with survivors of the original 1975 sample (Part 4) and survivors of the Medicare sample (Part 5). Data collected in 1984, 1987, and 1988 for survivors of the 1975 sample may be merged with the original data collected in 1975-1976 using the ID number.
Curated
Evaluation of Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders in Cleveland, Denver, and Mobile, 1992-1993 (ICPSR 6922)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Ohio, Denver, Alabama, Cleveland, Mobile
Time period: 1992-01-01--1993-12-31
Boot camps, a popular alternative to standard correctional facilities, are characterized by a strong emphasis on military structure, drill, and discipline and by an abbreviated period of incarceration. In 1990, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) launched a demonstration program to develop boot camp models for juveniles and to test the feasibility and appropriateness of their implementation. In September 1991, three groups received awards to develop and implement boot camps as intermediate sanctions: the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in Cleveland, Ohio, the Colorado Division of Youth Services in Denver, Colorado, and the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Mobile, Alabama. Simultaneously, the National Institute of Justice sponsored an evaluation of the implementation of the demonstration programs, focusing on the experiences of youths who entered the program during the first year of operation, from 1992 to 1993. This collection contains data from the program evaluation conducted on these three boot camps during the first year. The core of the assessment was a management information system that captured administrative data as the offenders progressed through the demonstration program. At intake, researchers collected demographic, criminal, and family and social information. Demographic information collected at intake includes age, race, education, and employment. Criminal data covers criminal history, current offense, and case information, while family and social history variables include whether the youths' parents had a criminal record, whether their family received public assistance, and whether they had delinquent friends, delinquent siblings, discipline problems at home or school, or a history of psychological problems. At the beginning and end of the boot camp term, staff rated the youths' performance on educational and behavioral measures. The youths were also surveyed about the rules of boot camp, their opinions of instructors, and their self-esteem, drug and alcohol use, and criminal behavior. At the end of the first 90 days (the residential period), data were collected on the date of graduation, infractions during boot camp, honors or awards, and special services received. Five months after graduation, youths were evaluated on their aftercare experiences. Some sites supplemented the basic management information with data collected on educational performance, employment history and expectations, physical fitness, and youth attitudes.
Curated
Family Life and Sexual Learning, 1976 (ICPSR 7755)
Released/updated on: 2010-07-28
Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio, Cleveland
Time period: 1976-01-01--1976-12-31
This dataset contains data from a 1976 survey of 1,484 parents of 3- to 11-year-old children living in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The purpose of the study was to explore in parents and their pre-adolescent children the process of learning about sexuality and the pattern of utilization of community resources regarding sexuality in the Cleveland, Ohio area (Cuyahoga County). Parents of pre-adolescents are the unit of analysis because they were seen as both the primary source of and the best reporters of their children's sexual learning. It was also seen as politically and socially impossible to conduct this research on the children directly. Where possible, both parents in two-parent families were interviewed. The intended use of the study was to influence the design and development of new policies and programs regarding sexuality in the Cleveland area. The collection contains data covering sexual topics in six general areas: (1) psychological aspects, (2) sexual functions, (3) relationships, (4) values, (5) media issues, and (6) sex roles. Specific sexual topics include: anatomy, reproduction, menstruation, masturbation, wet dreams, intercourse, homosexuality, sex play, marriage, parenting, divorce, displays of affection, love, fidelity, virginity, pre-marital sex, nudity, pornography, venereal disease, abortion, contraception, cross-sex behavior, sex segregation, and role expectations. The collection also contains data in eight main areas of learning and communication: (1) parents' experience with sexual learning and communication in the family, (2) parents' own sexual experience and attitudes, (3) parents' perceptions of their child's sexual learning and experience, (4) parents' expectations, desires, and attitudes about their child's sexual learning and behavior, (5) sex role attitudes and behavior of parents and children, (6) need for assistance and utilization of resources for sexual learning and communication, (7) parents and family demographics, and (8) possible sources of bias.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Housing and Children's Healthy Development Study (HCHD) Wave 1, Cleveland, Ohio, and Dallas, Texas Metropolitan Areas, 2017-2018 (ICPSR 39274)
Released/updated on: 2026-05-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas, Ohio, Dallas, Cleveland
Time period: 2017-01-01--2018-12-31
The Housing and Children's Healthy Development (HCHD) Study included four main aims:
- to learn how parents make choices about where to live while negotiating tradeoffs between dwelling unit quality, neighborhood quality, and school quality;
- to assess how features of the child's social contexts--home, neighborhood, and school--combine to influence key cognitive, socio-emotional, and health outcomes among parents and their children;
- to examine how the quality of housing affects parenting practices and outcomes for children and their caregivers; and
- to enhance the study of child development through theoretical and methodological advances in the study of housing and the other social contexts related to housing.
For this collection, the study team conducted Wave 1 data collection with families in Cleveland, Ohio (Cuyahoga County) and Dallas, Texas, United States, using a randomized controlled trial design. One-half of the sample was an experimental sample consisting of applicants for a federal housing voucher, including both voucher winners (treatment group) and voucher losers (control group). The other half of the sample was generated through a random selection and screening process in census blocks that varied by household income weighted toward lower-income blocks.
Interviews were conducted with primary caregivers, lasting about 90 minutes, and included the collection of anthropometric measures from primary caregivers and children and administration of Woodcock-Johnson tests to children. Primary caregiver voucher sample participants were asked for three blood pressure measurements, and blood spots were collected from voucher sample primary caregivers and children. The data collection also includes laser tape measurement of all rooms in a household, 8 block face neighborhood observations, and post-interview observations. Four-day leave-behind child time diary data were collected but are not available.
Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs
Housing and Children's Healthy Development Study (HCHD) Wave 2, Cleveland, Ohio, and Dallas, Texas Metropolitan Areas, 2020-2021 (ICPSR 39275)
Released/updated on: 2026-05-07
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas, Ohio, Dallas, Cleveland
Time period: 2020-01-01--2021-12-31
The Housing and Children's Healthy Development (HCHD) Study included four main aims:
- to learn how parents make choices about where to live while negotiating tradeoffs between dwelling unit quality, neighborhood quality, and school quality;
- to assess how features of the child's social contexts--home, neighborhood, and school--combine to influence key cognitive, socio-emotional, and health outcomes among parents and their children;
- to examine how the quality of housing affects parenting practices and outcomes for children and their caregivers; and
- to enhance the study of child development through theoretical and methodological advances in the study of housing and the other social contexts related to housing.
This collection includes data from Wave 2 of the HCHD Study. In Wave 2, telephone interviews were completed with 1,413 primary caregivers (PCGs) from the Wave 1 data collection. The PCGs also provided reports for 1,954 focal children who were still living in the household of the caregiver at the time of the Wave 2 survey. Wave 2 data collection included a coverscreen to gather updated location and contact information for the PCGs and children to determine household eligibility, and a PCG questionnaire based largely on the Wave 1 protocol with modifications for telephone interviewing.