Search results

The Displaced New Orleans Residents Pilot Study was designed to examine the current location, well-being, and plans of people who lived in the city of New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina struck on August 29, 2005. The study is based on a representative sample of pre-Katrina dwellings in New Orleans. Fieldwork focused on tracking respondents wherever they currently resided, including back to New Orleans. Respondents were administered a short paper-and-pencil interview by mail, by telephone, or in person. The pilot study was fielded in the fall of 2006, approximately one year after Hurricane Katrina. The goal of DNORPS was to assess the feasibility of the study design and thereby to lay the groundwork for launching a major longitudinal study of displaced New Orleans residents.

ICPSR only holds the public data for the pilot study. The main study (DNORS) was carried out 2009-2010. These data are not yet publicly available, but for more information, visit the RAND Corporation website.

The Housing and Children's Healthy Development (HCHD) Study included four main aims:

1. to learn how parents make choices about where to live while negotiating tradeoffs between dwelling unit quality, neighborhood quality, and school quality;
2. 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;
3. to examine how the quality of housing affects parenting practices and outcomes for children and their caregivers; and
4. 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.

The Housing and Children's Healthy Development (HCHD) Study included four main aims:

1. to learn how parents make choices about where to live while negotiating tradeoffs between dwelling unit quality, neighborhood quality, and school quality;
2. 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;
3. to examine how the quality of housing affects parenting practices and outcomes for children and their caregivers; and
4. 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.

The NIH-funded Katrina@10 Program consists of an interrelated set of three primary data collection projects that focus on specific sub-populations who were uniquely affected by Hurricane Katrina: households along Louisiana and Mississippi's Gulf Coast, low-income parents from New Orleans, and Vietnamese families living in New Orleans. In addition, the program contains two secondary analyses of data that are more broadly representative of the overall affected population, and three cores (Administrative, Data Collection, Data Management and Dissemination) to support the set of research projects. The following research questions represent the studies together as a whole:

• How well does the socio-ecological model of disaster recovery developed by the research team (Abramson et al. 2010) predict recovery across the three cohort studies?
• How do trajectories of long-term recovery differ among and within these sub-populations?
• How do the trajectories of recovery compare to those of mainstream populations?
• How do the effects of predisposing factors (such as poverty) and degree-of-impact (such as flooding depth) vary among the three sub-populations?
• How do interpretations of the disaster, resilience, and recovery differ among respondents?
• What are the determinants of long-term recovery in domains such as mental and physical health, socio-economic status, and community and social roles? How are these domains related to each other across individuals and across sub-populations?

This collection contains data from the Gulf Coast Child and Family Health Study (GCAFH), a longitudinal cohort study of families living in the Louisiana and Mississippi Gulf Coast who had been displaced or sustained extensive household damage due to Hurricane Katrina. The GCAFH research team collected survey data from the initial cohort in 2006 (n=1,079) with multiple follow-ups through 2010, assessing post-disaster recovery via indicators such as economic recovery, social engagement, personal resilience, community cohesion, infrastructure stability, and physical and mental health.

The data in this collection is from the most recent survey follow-up with participants, conducted between 2016 and 2018. A public-use version (DS1) and restricted-use version (DS2) are available. Open-ended responses, continuous respondent age, continuous total household income, and a 7-category race variable have been masked in the public-use version. These items are available in the restricted-use version.

The NIH-funded Katrina@10 Program consists of an interrelated set of three primary data collection projects that focus on specific sub-populations who were uniquely affected by Hurricane Katrina: households along Louisiana and Mississippi's Gulf Coast, low-income parents from New Orleans, and Vietnamese families living in New Orleans. In addition, the program contains two secondary analyses of data that are more broadly representative of the overall affected population, and three cores (Administrative, Data Collection, Data Management and Dissemination) to support the set of research projects. The following research questions represent the studies together as a whole:

• How well does the socio-ecological model of disaster recovery developed by the research team (Abramson et al. 2010) predict recovery across the three cohort studies?
• How do trajectories of long-term recovery differ among and within these sub-populations?
• How do the trajectories of recovery compare to those of mainstream populations?
• How do the effects of predisposing factors (such as poverty) and degree-of-impact (such as flooding depth) vary among the three sub-populations?
• How do interpretations of the disaster, resilience, and recovery differ among respondents?
• What are the determinants of long-term recovery in domains such as mental and physical health, socio-economic status, and community and social roles? How are these domains related to each other across individuals and across sub-populations?

The Katrina Impacts on Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans (KATIVA NOLA) study was a longitudinal study interested in measuring the impact of Hurricane Katrina on Vietnamese-Americans living in New Orleans. The original sample was taken in summer 2005 and was followed by three rounds of short and medium-term data collection in the 5 years following Katrina. This study measured a variety of outcomes, including physical and mental health, economic stability, housing stability, and social ties, to examine the long-term recovery trajectories of participants.

The data in this collection are from an additional, long-term follow-up survey conducted between 2017 and 2019. A public-use version (DS1) and restricted-use version (DS2) are available. Open-ended responses, continuous respondent age, continuous total household income, and a variable indicating exposure to specific flood events have been masked in the public-use version. These items are available in the restricted-use version.

The NIH-funded KATRINA@10 Program consists of an interrelated set of three primary data collection projects that focus on specific sub-populations who were uniquely affected by Hurricane Katrina: households along Louisiana and Mississippi's Gulf Coast, low-income parents from New Orleans, and Vietnamese families living in New Orleans. In addition, the program contains two secondary analyses of data that are more broadly representative of the overall affected population, and three cores (Administrative, Data Collection, Data Management and Dissemination) to support the set of research projects. The following research questions represent the studies together as a whole:

• How well does the socio-ecological model of disaster recovery developed by the research team (Abramson et al. 2010) predict recovery across the three cohort studies?
• How do trajectories of long-term recovery differ among and within these sub-populations?
• How do the trajectories of recovery compare to those of mainstream populations?
• How do the effects of predisposing factors (such as poverty) and degree-of-impact (such as flooding depth) vary among the three sub-populations?
• How do interpretations of the disaster, resilience, and recovery differ among respondents?
• What are the determinants of long-term recovery in domains such as mental and physical health, socio-economic status, and community and social roles? How are these domains related to each other across individuals and across sub-populations?

This collection contains data from the Resilience in Survivors of Katrina (RISK) Project, which was a longitudinal study of low-income parents who lived in New Orleans at the time of Hurricane Katrina (August 2005). The initial study design was intended to increase educational attainment among college students, measuring economic status, social ties, and mental and physical health starting in 2003 (initial cohort n=1,019). However, with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the research design evolved to study the consequences of a disaster for the lives of vulnerable individuals and their families. Follow-up surveys and in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with participants at one year and five years post-Katrina, regardless of where participants lived.

The data in this collection is from the most recent survey follow-up with RISK Project participants (n=716), conducted between 2016 and 2018. A public-use version (DS1) and restricted-use version (DS2) are available. Open-ended responses and continuous variables for respondent age and total household income have been masked in the public-use version; these items are available in the restricted-use version.

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

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

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

Further information is available in:

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

In 1995-1996, the MacArthur Midlife Research Network carried out a national survey of over 7,000 Americans aged 25 to 74 [ICPSR 2760]. The purpose of the study was to investigate the role of behavioral, psychological, and social factors in understanding age-related differences in physical and mental health. The study was innovative for its broad scientific scope, its diverse samples (which included siblings of the main sample respondents and a national sample of twin pairs), and its creative use of in-depth assessments in key areas (e.g. daily diary of stressful experiences [ICPSR 3725] and cognitive functioning [ICPSR 3596]) on a subset of participants. A detailed description of the study and findings generated by it are available at: http://www.midus.wisc.edu

With support from the National Institute on Aging, a follow-up of the original Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS) sample was conducted in 2004 (MIDUS 2 [ICPSR 4652]). The daily stress and cognitive functioning projects were repeated and expanded at MIDUS 2; in addition the protocol was expanded to include biomarkers and neuroscience.

In 2013 a third wave (MIDUS 3) of survey data was collected on longitudinal participants. Data collection for this follow-up wave largely repeated baseline assessments (e.g., phone interview and extensive self-administered questionnaire), with additional questions in selected areas such as economic recession experiences. Cognitive functioning data were also collected at the same time, while data collection for the daily diary, biomarker, and neuroscience projects commenced in 2017.

MIDUS also maintains a Colectica portal, which allows users to interact with variables across waves and create customized subsets. Registration is required.

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

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

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

The National Survey of Children's Health, funded by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB), is a module of the State and Local Area Integrated Telephone Survey (SLAITS) that is conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The survey was conducted to assess how well each state, and the nation as a whole, met MCHB's strategic plan goals and national performance measures. These goals include providing national leadership for maternal and child health, promoting an environment that supports maternal and child health, eliminating health barriers and disparities, improving the health infrastructure and systems of care, assuring quality care, working with states and communities to plan and implement policies and programs to improve the social, emotional, and physical environment, and acquiring the best available evidence to develop and promote guidelines and practices to assure a social, emotional, and physical environment that supports the health and well-being of women and children.

The National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH) was designed to produce national- and state-specific prevalence estimates for a variety of physical, emotional, and behavioral health indicators and measures of children's experiences with the health care system. Respondents were asked an extensive battery of questions about the family, including parental health, stress and coping behaviors, family activities, and parental concerns about their children, as well as their perceptions of the child's neighborhood.

Demographic information includes race, gender, family income, and education level.

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 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.