Showing 1 – 7 of 7 results.
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
Restricted
Simple Crosstabs
Latino National Survey (LNS), 2006 (ICPSR 20862)
Released/updated on: 2013-06-05
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States, Fort Worth, Arkansas, Washington, San Diego, Atlanta, Colorado, Denver, Dallas, Arizona, Nevada, New York, District of Columbia, Seattle, San Antonio, Chicago, California, Florida, New Jersey, Miami, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Los Angeles, Georgia, Houston
The Latino National Survey (LNS) contains 8,634 completed interviews (unweighted) of self-identified Latino/Hispanic residents of the United States. Interviewing began on November 17, 2005, and continued through August 4, 2006. The survey instrument contained approximately 165 distinct items ranging from demographic descriptions to political attitudes and policy preferences, as well as a variety of social indicators and experiences. All interviewers were bilingual, English and Spanish. Respondents were greeted in both languages and were immediately offered the opportunity to interview in either language. Interviewers also provided a consent script that allowed respondents to opt out of the survey. Demographic variables include age, ancestry, birthplace, education level, ethnicity, marital status, military service, number of people in the household, number of children under the age of 18 living in the household, political party affiliation, political ideology, religiosity, religious preference, race, and sex.
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
The Mexican American Study Project II (MASP II), 1998-2000 (ICPSR 28481)
Released/updated on: 2011-03-29
Geographic coverage: San Antonio, United States, Texas, Los Angeles, California
In an original study conducted in 1965, Leo Grebler, Joan Moore, and Ralph Guzman surveyed Mexican Americans in San Antonio, Texas, and Los Angeles, California. The first survey provided a rich cross-sectional view of this population's demographics and attitudes, Ortiz and Telles' 35 year follow-up now allows for a longitudinal view of the behavior and ethnic identification of first- through fourth-generation Mexican Americans in these areas. The new survey was used to test hypotheses related to Mexican Americans' social mobility, their ethnic identity and behavior, their experiences with discrimination, and the relationship between socioeconomic status and ethnic identity. Data includes birth dates, citizenship information, education, income, housing, language, medical, religious affiliations, immediate and extended family demographic information, and self perception in regards to ethnicity. There are four versions of the survey, "Child Respondents" in English and Spanish and "Informant Respondents" in English and Spanish. Additionally each survey includes an interviewer questionnaire, which asks interviewers to document their observations of the respondent's home (interior and exterior), cooperation, behavior, language proficiency, and gender.
Curated
Restricted
Simple Crosstabs
Social Capital and Children's Development: A randomized controlled trial conducted in 52 schools in Phoenix and San Antonio, 2008-2015 (ICPSR 35481)
Released/updated on: 2019-08-26
Geographic coverage: San Antonio, United States, Texas, Phoenix, Arizona
Time period: 2008-01-01--2015-01-01
The Social Capital and Children's Development data were collected in a study of the causal effects of social capital on levels and inequalities of children's social and cognitive development during the early elementary years. The study included 52 schools in Phoenix and San Antonio, including 3,084 first graders and their families, and over 200 teachers, with half the schools randomly selected for the intervention and half serving as controls. Children from low-income Latino families were a special focus of the study. The experimental design of this study allowed for testing of the causal role of social capital. Social capital here refers to trust and shared expectations embedded in social networks of parents, teachers, and children. For young children, social capital operates primarily through their relationships with their parents, enhancing development through mechanisms of social support and social control.
The research design was experimental: social capital was manipulated through a well-tested randomized intervention, Families and Schools Together (FAST), that enhanced social capital among parents, teachers, and children through an intensive after-school program and a 2-year follow-up program. FAST is intended to reduce parental isolation, enhance family engagement with schools, and strengthen family functioning; that is, to increase social capital between families and schools, among families, and within families to improve children's education and life-long outcomes. Key aspects of child development were assessed, including (a) social skills and problem behavior from standardized behavioral ratings by parents and teachers, and (b) grade retention, attendance rates, and third-grade reading and mathematics scores from school records. Social capital was measured with repeated surveys of teachers and parents that address the extent of social networks, parent involvement, trust, and shared expectations among parents, between parents and schools, and between parents and children. Demographic variables of this study include native language, years in the United States, date of birth/age, race/ethnicity, gender, and household composition.
Curated
Restricted
Welfare, Children, and Families: A Three-City Study (ICPSR 4701)
Released/updated on: 2012-10-04
Geographic coverage: San Antonio, United States, Chicago, Illinois, Texas, Massachusetts, Boston
Time period: 1999-03-01--2006-05-01
This data collection is the third wave of an intensive study in Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio, which was initiated to assess the well-being of low-income children and families in the post-welfare reform era. The project investigates the strategies families have used to respond to reform, in terms of employment, schooling or other forms of training, residential mobility, and fertility. Central to this project is a focus on how these strategies affect children's lives, with an emphasis on their health and development as well as their need for, and use of, social services. For the first wave of the study, between March 1999 and December 1999, a random sample of approximately 2,400 households with children in low-income neighborhoods in Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio were selected for interviews. Forty percent of the families interviewed were receiving cash welfare payments at the time of the interview. Each household had a child aged 0 to 4 or aged 10 to 14 at the time of the interview. The child and the child's primary female caregiver are the focus of the study. Extensive baseline information was gathered at the initial personal interview with the caregivers, tested younger children were assessed, and older children were interviewed. All interviews were conducted in-person using a computerized instrument. The third wave of data collection took place between February 2005 and January 2006, when the focal children were aged 5 to 10 or aged 15 to 20. Between May 2005 and May 2006, interviews were conducted with the teachers of the focal children.