Search results

Showing 1 – 24 of 24 results.

Curated

Agricultural and Demographic Records for Rural Households in the North, 1860: [Instructional Materials] (ICPSR 3463)

Released/updated on: 2002-10-17

Geographic coverage: Vermont, Indiana, United States, Minnesota, Kansas, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Illinois, Connecticut, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Maryland, Wisconsin

These instructional materials were prepared for use with AGRICULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC RECORDS FOR HOUSEHOLDS IN THE NORTH, 1860 (ICPSR 7420), compiled by Fred Bateman and James D. Foust. The data file and accompanying documentation are provided to assist educators in (an SPSS portable file) instructing students about the history of agriculture and rural life in the North, just prior to the Civil War. An instructor's handout has also been included. This handout contains the following sections, among others: (1) General goals for student analysis of quantitative datasets, (2) Specific goals in studying this dataset, (3) Suggested appropriate courses for use of the dataset, (4) Tips for using the dataset, and (5) Related secondary source readings. Demographic, occupational, and economic information for over 21,000 rural households in the northern United States in 1860 are presented in the dataset. The data were obtained from the manuscript agricultural and population schedules of the 1860 United States Census and are provided for all households in a single township from each of the 102 randomly-selected counties in 16 northern states. Variables in the dataset include farm values, livestock, and crop production figures for the households that owned or operated farms (over half the households sampled), as well as value of real and personal estate, color, sex, age, literacy, school attendance, occupation, place of birth, and parents' nationality of all individuals residing in the sampled townships.

Curated

American Community Survey (ACS): Three-Year Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), 2005-2007 (ICPSR 25042)

Released/updated on: 2010-02-04

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

Time period: 2005-11-01--2007-12-01

The American Community Survey (ACS) is a part of the Decennial Census Program, and is designed to produce critical information about the characteristics of local communities. The ACS publishes social, housing, and economic characteristics for demographic groups covering a broad spectrum of geographic areas in the United States and Puerto Rico. Every year the ACS supports the release of single-year estimates for geographic areas with populations of 65,000 or more. Demographic variables include sex, age, relationship, households by type, race, and Hispanic origin. Social characteristics variables include school enrollment, educational attainment, marital status, fertility, grandparents caring for children, veteran status, disability status, residence one year ago, place of birth, United States citizenship status, year of entry, world region of birth of foreign born, language spoken at home, and ancestry. Variables focusing on economic characteristics include employment status, commuting to work, occupation, industry, class of worker, income and benefits, and poverty status. Variables focusing on housing characteristics include occupancy, units in structure, year structure was built, number of rooms, number of bedrooms, housing tenure, year householder moved into unit, vehicles available, house heating fuel, utility costs, occupants per room, housing value, and mortgage status. The American Community Survey is conducted under the authority of Title 13, United States Code, Sections 141 and 193, and response is mandatory.

Curated

Asian Women Working in Massage Parlors in New York City and Los Angeles County, 2014-2016 (ICPSR 39387)

Released/updated on: 2025-07-28

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, Los Angeles, California, New York (state)

Time period: 2014-01-01--2016-01-01

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.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Baby's First Years (BFY), New York City, New Orleans, Omaha, and Twin Cities, 2018-2023 (ICPSR 37871)

Released/updated on: 2025-01-30

Geographic coverage: New York City, Omaha, Minneapolis, United States, St. Paul, Louisiana, New Orleans, Minnesota, New York (state), Nebraska

Time period: 2018-05-01--2019-06-30, 2019-07-01--2020-06-30, 2020-07-01--2021-06-30, 2021-07-01--2022-06-30, 2022-07-01--2023-08-16

The overall goal of the Baby's First Years study is to assess the causal role played by household income in affecting children's early cognitive, socio-emotional, and brain development. Recent advances in developmental neuroscience suggest that experiences early in life have profound and enduring impacts on the developing brain. Family economic resources shape the nature of many of these experiences, yet the extent to which they affect children's development is unknown. The Baby's First Years project is the first randomized controlled trial to provide estimates of the causal impacts of unconditional cash gifts on the cognitive, socio-emotional, and brain development of infants and young children in low-income U.S. families.

Specifically, 1,000 recruited mothers of infants with incomes below the federal poverty line from four diverse U.S. communities are receiving monthly cash gift payments by debit card. Mothers were initially told the gifts would last for the first 40 months of their child's life, but we have secured funding to continue the payments for three additional years (i.e., for a total of 76 months). Parents in the high cash gift group (n=400 in the study sample) are receiving a cash gift of $333 per month ($4,000 per year), while parents in the low cash gift group (n=600) are receiving a nominal monthly gift payment of $20 ($240 per year), also for 76 months.

In order to measure the impacts of the unconditional cash gift income on children's cognitive and behavioral development, we are assessing high and low cash gift group differences at ages 4, 6, and 8 (and, for a subset of measures, we capture interim development at ages 1, 2, and 3) in measures of cognitive, language, memory, self-regulation, and socio-emotional development. In order to understand the processes by which child impacts emerge, we are measuring a host of family process measures summarized in our pre-registration chart. Our data collection points are referred to as: "baseline", "age 1", "age 2," "age 3", "age 4", "age 6", and "age 8".

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, variables, and COVID-19 pandemic adjustments are available from:

The User Guides for Baseline, Age 1, Age 2, Age 3, and Age 4, which are included under the "Data and Documentation" tab
The project's website: babysfirstyears.com

The researchers request that all peer-reviewed papers using BFY Data:

be submitted to PubMed https://publicaccess.nih.gov immediately upon acceptance for publication
include the following citation to the data in their bibliography:

Citation

Magnuson, Katherine A., Kimberly Noble, Greg J. Duncan, Nathan A. Fox, Lisa A. Gennetian, Hirokazu Yoshikawa, and Sarah Halpern-Meekin. Baby's First Years (BFY), New York City, New Orleans, Omaha, and Twin Cities, 2018-2023. ICPSR37871-v8. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], YYYY-MM-DD. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37871.v8

and include the following in their acknowledgements:

Acknowledgement

This research uses data from the Baby's First Years study. Research reported in this publication was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01HD087384 and 2R01HD087384. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. This research was additionally supported by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation; Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research-Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Andrew and Julie Klingenstein Family Fund; Annie E. Casey Foundation; Arnold Ventures; Arrow Impact; BCBS of Louisiana Foundation; Bezos Family Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Bill Hammack and Janice Parmelee, Brady Education Fund; Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (Silicon Valley Community Foundation); Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies; Child Welfare Fund; Esther A. and Joseph Klingenstein Fund; Ford Foundation; Greater New Orleans Foundation; Heising-Simons Foundation; Holland Foundation; Jacobs Foundation; JPB Foundation; J-PAL North America; Lozier Foundation; New York City Mayor's Office for Economic Opportunity; Perigee Fund; Robin Hood Foundation; Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; Russell Sage Foundation; Sherwood Foundation; Valhalla Foundation; Weitz Family Foundation; W.K. Kellogg Foundation; and three anonymous donors.

Principal Investigators

Katherine Magnuson, PhD; University of Wisconsin-Madison, lead PI social and behavioral science

Kimberly Noble, MD, PhD; Teachers College, Columbia University, lead PI neuroscience

In alphabetical order:

Greg Duncan, PhD; University of California, Irvine

Nathan A. Fox, PhD; University of Maryland

Lisa A. Gennetian, PhD; Duke University Sanford School of Public Policy

Hirokazu Yoshikawa, PhD; New York University

Principal Investigators of Qualitative Substudy

Sarah Halpern-Meekin, PhD; University of Wisconsin-Madison

Katherine Magnuson, PhD; University of Wisconsin-Madison

Study Management

Lauren Meyer, Teachers College, Columbia University; National Project Director

Andrea Karsh, University of California, Irvine; Administrative Director

Matthew Maury, Duke University, Production and Retention Management

Study Co-Investigators

Sarah Black, PhD; University of New Orleans

William Fifer, PhD; Sackler Institute for Developmental Psychobiology, Columbia University Medical Center

Michael Georgieff, MD; University of Minnesota

Joseph Isler, PhD; Columbia University Medical Center

Debra Karhson, PhD; University of New Orleans

Alicia Kunin-Batson, PhD, University of Minnesota

Connie Lamm, PhD; University of Arkansas

Dennis Molfese, PhD; University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Victoria Molfese, PhD; University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Jennifer Mize Nelson, PhD; University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Timothy Nelson, PhD; University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Sonya Troller-Renfree, PhD; Teachers College, Columbia University

Study Data Collectors

The Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is responsible for recruitment and baseline, age-1, age-2, and age-3 data collection waves. Starting at age-4 through age-8, SRC is responsible for tracking families and assisting site-based staff in locating families. SRC data collection operations are overseen by: Stephanie Chardoul, Director of Survey Research Operations and Piotr Dworak, Senior Survey Specialist, Survey Research Operations.

Contact

To contact the study investigators, email them at [email protected]

Website: babysfirstyears.com

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), 2003 (ICPSR 34085)

Released/updated on: 2013-08-05

Geographic coverage: Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, Indiana, United States, Oklahoma, Maine, Utah, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Montana, Hawaii, Kansas, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, Iowa, New Mexico, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland

The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is a state-based system of health surveys that collects information on health risk behaviors, preventive health practices, and health care access primarily related to chronic disease and injury. For many states, the BRFSS is the only available source of timely, accurate data on health-related behaviors. BRFSS was established in 1984 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); currently data are collected monthly in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and Guam. More than 350,000 adults are interviewed each year, making the BRFSS the largest telephone health survey in the world. States use BRFSS data to identify emerging health problems, establish and track health objectives, and develop and evaluate public health policies and programs. The BRFSS is a cross-sectional telephone survey conducted by state health departments with technical and methodologic assistance provided by CDC. States conduct monthly telephone surveillance using a standardized questionnaire to determine the distribution of risk behaviors and health practices among adults. Responses are forwarded to CDC, where the monthly data are aggregated for each state, returned with standard tabulations, and published at the year's end by each state. The BRFSS questionnaire was developed jointly by CDC's Behavioral Surveillance Branch (BSB) and the states. When combined with mortality and morbidity statistics, these data enable public health officials to establish policies and priorities and to initiate and assess health promotion strategies.

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

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

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

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

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

Simple Crosstabs

Families of Newtown, New York, 1642-1790 (ICPSR 35005)

Released/updated on: 2016-06-22

Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state)

Time period: 1642-01-01--1790-01-01

This dataset focuses on economic, social, and geographic mobility of town residents, and life events (marriage, birth and mortality). Church records supplemented with genealogies, wills, inventories, probate records, cemetery data, town books, court books, censuses, and tax lists were used to reconstitute families along the lines of previous French and English work (e.g. Fleury, M. and L. Henry, Nouveau manuel de dépouillement et d'exploitation de l'état civil ancient (1965) and Wrigley, E.A, "Family Reconstitution" in E.A. Wrigley, ed. An Introduction to English Historical Demography (1966). Family reconstitution is a method for studying demographic behavior in the absence of modern censuses and vital registration, providing for both observation of demographic events, as well as the population and time at risk. This dataset includes information about 202 couples and their 1094 children. The data on couples focus on demographic details for mothers and fathers, including birth, baptism, marriage and death dates, residence and religion. The data on children includes demographic information for the child, as well as marriage age and residence. Not all families have complete information.

Curated

Immigrant Second Generation in Metropolitan New York (ICPSR 30302)

Released/updated on: 2011-04-01

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

The study analyzes the forces leading to or impeding the assimilation of 18- to 32-year-olds from immigrant backgrounds that vary in terms of race, language, and the mix of skills and liabilities their parents brought to the United States. To make sure that what we find derives specifically from growing up in an immigrant family, rather than simply being a young person in New York, a comparison group of people from native born White, Black, and Puerto Rican backgrounds was also studied. The sample was drawn from New York City (except for Staten Island) and the surrounding counties in the inner part of the New York-New Jersey metropolitan region where the vast majority of immigrants and native born minority group members live and grow up. The study groups make possible a number of interesting comparisons. Unlike many other immigrant groups, the West Indian first generation speaks English, but the dominant society racially classifies them as Black. The study explored how their experiences resemble or differ from native born African Americans. Dominicans and the Colombian-Peruvian-Ecuadoran population both speak Spanish, but live in different parts of New York, have different class backgrounds prior to immigration, and, quite often, different skin tones. The study compared them to Puerto Rican young people, who, along with their parents, have the benefit of citizenship. Chinese immigrants from the mainland tend to have little education, while young people with overseas Chinese parents come from families with higher incomes, more education, and more English fluency. Respondents were divided into eight groups depending on their parents' origin. Those of immigrant ancestry include: Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union; Chinese immigrants from the mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the Chinese Diaspora; immigrants from the Dominican Republic; immigrants from the English-speaking countries of the West Indies (including Guyana but excluding Haiti and those of Indian origin); and immigrants from Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. These groups composed 44 percent of the 2000 second-generation population in the defined sample area. For comparative purposes, Whites, Blacks, and Puerto Ricans who were born in the United States and whose parents were born in the United States or Puerto Rico were also interviewed. To be eligible, a respondent had to have a parent from one of these groups. If the respondent was eligible for two groups, he or she was asked which designation he or she preferred. The ability to compare these groups with native born Whites, Blacks, and Puerto Ricans permits researchers to investigate the effects of nativity while controlling for race and language background. About two-thirds of second-generation respondents were born in the United States, mostly in New York City, while one-third were born abroad but arrived in the United States by age 12 and had lived in the country for at least 10 years, except for those from the former Soviet Union, some of whom arrived past the age of 12. The project began with a pilot study in July 1996. Survey data collection took place between November 1999 and December 1999. The study includes demographic variables such as race, ethnicity, language, age, education, income, family size, country of origin, and citizenship status.

Curated

Informal and Formal Supports in Aging in Albany, Rensselaer, and Schenectady Counties, New York, 1989 (ICPSR 6899)

Released/updated on: 1998-01-16

Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state)

Time period: 1988-09-01--1989-02-01

These data explore the family relationships and social support networks of middle-aged and older persons. Information on respondents' relationships with individual family members is supplied, along with measures of many kinds of routine help given and received, and summary measures of the amount of time that others spent helping the respondent and that the respondent spent helping others. Variables cover respondent's employment status and history, employment status and history of respondent's spouse, respondent's income, number and sex of children, family composition (biological parents, step-parents, in-laws), household chores performed (cooking, cleaning, washing, shopping, driving), and assistance received with chores. Additional items relate to whether respondents helped anyone else with daily activities, and whether they were involved in church, civic, and/or other activities. Demographic information about respondents and their spouses (age, sex, education, ethnicity) is also provided.

Curated

Latino National Survey (LNS) Focus Group Data, 2006 (ICPSR 29601)

Released/updated on: 2015-08-19

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States, Fort Worth, Arkansas, Washington, San Diego, Atlanta, Colorado, Denver, Dallas, Arizona, Nevada, District of Columbia, Seattle, San Antonio, Chicago, California, Florida, New York (state), New Jersey, Miami, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Los Angeles, Georgia, Houston

The focus groups conducted by the research team for the project presented here offer precisely this convergence of both breadth and depth. The team used a common protocol to guide discussion in fifteen focus groups -- with more than 150 participants in nine cities across eight states -- that were designed to include Spanish and English-speaking respondents, in different regions of the country, with differing compositions by generation and country of origin. The number and range of the participants in these Latino focus groups are unique in the social science literature. This study presents the results of a unique data set, the results of fifteen focus groups conducted across the United States with Latino residents, including foreign-born -- both legal and undocumented immigrants and native-born. These data provide more range than allowed by the typical interview-based project and not only give key insights into Latino residents' thoughts about community, language, discrimination, ties to their countries of origin, and the like, but also provide some sense of participants' explanations of their reasoning and motivations, something not achievable through structured survey data alone.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Midlife in the United States (MIDUS): Survey of Minority Groups [Chicago and New York City], 1995-1996 (ICPSR 2856)

Released/updated on: 2018-03-21

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, Chicago, Illinois, New York (state)

Time period: 1995-01-01--1996-01-01

This survey of minority groups was part of a larger project to investigate the patterns, predictors, and consequences of midlife development in the areas of physical health, psychological well-being, and social responsibility. Conducted in Chicago and New York City, the survey was designed to assess the well-being of middle-aged, urban, ethnic minority adults living in both hyper-segregated neighborhoods and in areas with lower concentrations of minorities. Respondents' views were sought on issues relevant to quality of life, including health, childhood and family background, religion, race and ethnicity, personal beliefs, work experiences, marital and close relationships, financial situation, children, community involvement, and neighborhood characteristics. Questions on health explored the respondents' physical and emotional well-being, past and future attitudes toward health, physical limitations, energy level and appetite, amount of time spent worrying about health, and physical reactions to those worries. Questions about childhood and family background elicited information on family structure, the role of the parents with regard to child rearing, parental education, employment status, and supervisory responsibilities at work, the family financial situation including experiences with the welfare system, relationships with siblings, and whether as a child the respondent slept in the same bed as a parent or adult relative. Questions on religion covered religious preference, whether it is good to explore different religious teachings, and the role of religion in daily decision-making. Questions about race and ethnicity investigated respondents' backgrounds and experiences as minorities, including whether respondents preferred to be with people of the same racial group, how important they thought it was to marry within one's racial or ethnic group, citizenship, reasons for moving to the United States and the challenges faced since their arrival, their native language, how they would rate the work ethic of certain ethnic groups, their views on race relations, and their experiences with discrimination. Questions on personal beliefs probed for respondents' satisfaction with life and confidence in their opinions. Respondents were asked whether they had control over changing their life or their personality, and what age they viewed as the ideal age. They also rated people in their late 20s in the areas of physical health, contribution to the welfare and well-being of others, marriage and close relationships, relationships with their children, work situation, and financial situation. Questions on work experiences covered respondents' employment status, employment history, future employment goals, number of hours worked weekly, number of nights away from home due to work, exposure to the risk of accident or injury, relationships with coworkers and supervisors, work-related stress, and experience with discrimination in the workplace. A series of questions was posed on marriage and close relationships, including marital status, quality and length of relationships, whether the respondent had control over his or her relationships, and spouse/partner's education, physical and mental health, employment status, and work schedule. Questions on finance explored respondents' financial situation, financial planning, household income, retirement plans, insurance coverage, and whether the household had enough money. Questions on children included the number of children in the household, quality of respondents' relationships with their children, prospects for their children's future, child care coverage, and whether respondents had changed their work schedules to accommodate a child's illness. Additional topics focused on children's identification with their culture, their relationships with friends of different backgrounds, and their experiences with racism. Community involvement was another area of investigation, with items on respondents' role in child-rearing, participation on a jury, voting behavior, involvement in charitable organizations, volunteer experiences, whether they made monetary or clothing donations, and experiences living in an institutional setting or being homeless. Respondents were also queried about their neighborhoods, with items on neighborhood problems including racism, vandalism, crime, drugs, poor schools, teenage pregnancy, the existence of social networks, the frequency of contact with family members, social interaction with neighbors, sense of community, whether the respondent owned or rented their home, and the financial, legal, and medical problems of family members. A final set of questions sought respondents' assessments of their life and their expectations for the future. Additional background information on respondents includes age, ethnicity, and gender.

Curated

Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation-Strong Start (MIHOPE-Strong Start), United States, 2012-2017 (ICPSR 37847)

Released/updated on: 2021-12-07

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Tennessee, California, Kansas, New York (state), New Jersey, Washington, South Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Illinois, Massachusetts, Georgia, Wisconsin, Nevada

Time period: 2011-01-01--2017-05-01

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.

Curated

Moving to Opportunity: Final Impacts Evaluation Science Article Data, 2008-2010 (ICPSR 34860)

Released/updated on: 2013-10-04

Geographic coverage: New York City, Baltimore, United States, Chicago, Illinois, Massachusetts, Los Angeles, California, New York (state), Maryland, Boston

Time period: 1994-01-01--2010-01-01

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:

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.
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.
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.

Curated

Natality Detail File, 2006 [United States] (ICPSR 24941)

Released/updated on: 2009-08-19

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Northern Mariana Islands, Utah, Guam, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, American Samoa, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

This collection provides information on live births in the United States during calendar year 2006. The natality data in these files are a component of the vital statistics collection effort maintained by the federal government. Birth data is limited to births occurring in the United States to United States residents and nonresidents. Births occurring to United States citizens outside of the United States are not included in this data collection. Part 1 contains data on births occurring within the United States, while Part 2 contains data on births occurring in the United States territories of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Beginning in 2005, the United States file no longer includes geographic detail (e.g., mother's state of residence). Geographic variables for the United States Territories file include the territory and county in which the birth occurred and in which the mother resided. Other variables describe the place of delivery, who was in attendance, and medical and health data such as the method of delivery, prenatal care, tobacco and alcohol use during pregnancy, pregnancy history, medical risk factors, and infant health characteristics. Birth and fertility rates and other statistics related to this study can be found in the National Vital Statistics Report in the codebook documentation. Demographic variables include the child's sex and month and year of birth, the parent's age, race, and ethnicity, as well as the mother's marital status, education level, and residency status.

Curated

Neighborhood Effects on the Long-Term Well-Being of Low-Income Adults From All Five Sites of the Moving to Opportunity Experiment, 2008-2010 [Public Use Data] (ICPSR 34563)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-14

Geographic coverage: New York City, Baltimore, United States, Chicago, Illinois, Massachusetts, Los Angeles, California, New York (state), Maryland, Boston

Time period: 1994-01-01--2010-01-01

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 whatever other social programs and services to which they would otherwise be entitled.

Families were tracked from baseline (1994-1998) through the long-term evaluation survey fielding period (2008-2010) with the purpose of determining the effects of "neighborhood" on participating families. These particular files include data from the 3,273 adult interviews completed as part of the MTO long-term evaluation and are 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. Using data from the long-term evaluation, the article reports that moving from a high-poverty to lower-poverty neighborhood leads to long-term (10- to 15-year) improvements in adult physical and mental health and subjective well-being, despite not affecting economic self-sufficiency. Subjective well-being is more strongly affected by changes in neighborhood economic disadvantage than racial segregation, which is important because racial segregation has been declining since 1970, but income segregation has been increasing. The files submitted here contain all outcomes and mediators analyzed for the article as well as a variety of demographic and other baseline measures that were controlled for in the analysis.

Curated

New York City Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NYC HANES), 2004 (ICPSR 31421)

Released/updated on: 2011-11-03

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 2004-06-02--2004-12-19

The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, with support from the National Center for Health Statistics, conducted the New York City Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NYC HANES) to improve disease surveillance and establish citywide estimates for several previously unmeasured health conditions from which reduction targets could be set and incorporated into health policy planning initiatives. NYC HANES also provides important new information about the prevalence and control of chronic disease precursors, such as undiagnosed hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and impaired fasting glucose, which allow chronic disease programs to monitor more proximate health events and rapidly evaluate primary intervention efforts. Study findings are used by the public health community in New York City, as well as by researchers and clinicians, to better target resources to the health needs of the population. The NYC HANES data consist of the following six datasets: (1) Study Participant File (SPfile), (2) Computer-Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI), (3) Audio Computer-Assisted Self-Interview (ACASI), (4) Composite International Diagnostic Interview(CIDI), (5) Examination Component, and (6) Laboratory Component. The Study Participant File contains variables necessary for all analyses, therefore, when using the other datasets, they should be merged to this file. Variable P_ID is the unique identifier used to merge all datasets. Merging information from multiple NYC HANES datasets using SP_ID ensures that the appropriate information for each SP is linked correctly. (SAS datasets must be sorted by SP_ID prior to merging.) Please note that NYC HANES datasets may not have the same number of records for each component because some participants did not complete each component. Demographic variables include race/ethnicity, Hispanic origin, age, body weight, gender, education level, marital status, and country of birth.

Curated

New York Police Department (NYPD) Stop, Question, and Frisk Database, 2006 (ICPSR 21660)

Released/updated on: 2008-06-09

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

These data were originally collected by New York Police Department officers and record information gathered as a result of stop question and frisk (SQF) encounters during 2006. These data were used in a study carried out, under contract to the New York City Police Foundation, by the Rand Corporation's Center on Quality Policing. The release of the study, "Analysis of Racial Disparities in the New York Police Department's Stop, Question, and Frisk Practices" (Rand Document TR-534-NYCPF, 2007) generated interest in making the data available for secondary analysis. This data collection contains information on the officer's reasons for initiating a stop, whether the stop led to a summons or arrest, demographic information for the person stopped, and the suspected criminal behavior.

Curated

Public Use Data (2008-10) on Long-Term Neighborhood Effects on Low-Income Families (Adult Data Only) from All Five Sites of the Moving to Opportunity Experiment (ICPSR 34976)

Released/updated on: 2014-01-15

Geographic coverage: New York City, Baltimore, United States, Chicago, Illinois, Massachusetts, Los Angeles, California, New York (state), Maryland, Boston

Time period: 2008-01-01--2010-01-01

Nearly 9 million Americans live in extreme-poverty neighborhoods, places that also tend to be racially segregated and dangerous. Yet, the effects on the well-being of residents of moving out of such communities into less distressed areas remain uncertain. Moving to Opportunity (MTO) is a randomized housing experiment administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development that gave low-income families living in high-poverty areas in five cities the chance to move to lower-poverty areas. Families were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) The experimental group (also called the low-poverty voucher (LPV) 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 Section 8 group (also called the traditional voucher (TRV) 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 whatever other social programs and services to which they would otherwise be entitled. Families were tracked from baseline (1994-98) through the long-term evaluation survey fielding period (2008-10) with the purpose of determining the effects of "neighborhood" on participating families. This data collection contains data from the 3,273 adult interviews completed as part of the MTO long-term evaluation and are comprised of adult variables that have been analyzed. Using data from the long-term evaluation, the associated article reports that moving from a high-poverty to lower-poverty neighborhood leads to long-term (10- to 15-year) improvements in adult physical and mental health and subjective well-being, despite not affecting economic self-sufficiency. The data contain all adult outcomes and mediators analyzed for the associated article as well as a variety of demographic and other baseline measures that were controlled for in the analysis.

Curated

Restricted

Stakeholder Views on Intellectual Disability Research Ethics, New York, 2013 (ICPSR 38311)

Released/updated on: 2022-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Syracuse, New York (state)

Time period: 2013-07-01--2013-11-24

Adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) face significant physical and mental health disparities. Ethical challenges may discourage their inclusion in research and hinder scientific advancements to reduce these health disparities. Five core groups are adults with ID, individuals who provide informal support to adults with ID, individuals who provide services to adults with ID, ID researchers, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) members. Little is known about these stakeholders' opinions on how to ethically include adults with ID in research. Increasing this knowledge base, especially by inviting input from groups whose opinions are rarely examined, is critical to helping the scientific community devise and deploy sensitive and responsive practices and encouraging research to reduce pressing disparities.

The research's long-term goal is to encourage science that is sensitive to the ethical and social dimensions of research with adults with ID and more inclusive of this population. The research's aim was to qualitatively study the views of adults with ID, persons who provide informal support to adults with ID, and persons who provide services to adults with ID on the participation of adults with ID in self-report research. The focus on self-report research that aims to study the thoughts and experiences of adults with intellectual disability reflects the field's increased emphasis on direct representation in such research and the less clear risks this research may bear.

Curated

Supporting Healthy Marriage Evaluation: Eight Sites within the United States, 2003-2013 (ICPSR 34420)

Released/updated on: 2014-12-19

Geographic coverage: United States, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Florida, New York (state), Washington, Pennsylvania

Time period: 2003-01-01--2014-01-01

The Supporting Healthy Marriage (SHM) evaluation was launched in 2003 to develop, to implement, and to test the effectiveness of a program aimed at strengthening low-income couples' marriages as one approach for supporting stable and nurturing family environments and parents' and children's well-being. The evaluation was led by MDRC and was sponsored by the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation in the Administration for Children and Families, United States Department of Health and Human Services.The SHM program was a voluntary yearlong marriage education program for low-income married couples who had children or were expecting a child. The program provided a series of group workshops based on structured curricula designed to enhance couples' relationships; supplemental activities to build on workshop themes; and family support services to address participation barriers, connect families with other services, and reinforce curricular themes.

The study sample consists of 6,298 couples (12,596 adult sample members) who were expecting a child or had a child under 18 years old at the time of study entry. The sample consists primarily of low-to-modest income, married couples with diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. In each family, one child was randomly selected to be the focus of any child-related measures gathered in the data collection activities. These children ranged from pre-birth to 14 years old at the time of enrollment in the study. Follow-up interviews were conducted at 12 and 30 months after baseline data collection. More detail is provided in the study documentation.

Curated

Restricted

Time, Love, and Cash in Couples With Children Study (TLC3) [United States], 2000-2005 (ICPSR 22462)

Released/updated on: 2016-01-29

Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Chicago, New York (state), Wisconsin

Time period: 2000-01-01--2005-01-01

Time, Love, and Cash in Couples with Children (TLC3) consists of four waves of interviews with parents (married and nonmarried) who experienced a birth in the year 2000. Both mothers and fathers participated in semi-structured in-depth interviews individually and as a couple in each of the four waves. Interviewers were encouraged to probe and to be flexible with the order of the questions to foster a more conversational interaction. During the TLC3 interviews respondents were asked their views on parenthood, child-rearing responsibilities and expenditures, family structure and relationships, the amount of time spent with their child, their domestic responsibilities, and household income and expenditures. Questions also focused on the relationship between the parents. Respondents were asked how much time they spend together, what their thoughts were on the future of their relationship, and their general views on marriage, parenthood, and gender roles.