Search results

Showing 1 – 10 of 10 results.
Curated
Restricted

Chicago Longitudinal Study, 1986-1989 (ICPSR 25921)

Released/updated on: 2014-03-20
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1986-01-01--1989-01-01

The Chicago Longitudinal Study investigates the educational and social development of a same-age cohort of 1,539 low-income, minority children (93 percent African American) who grew up in high-poverty neighborhoods in central-city Chicago and attended government-funded kindergarten programs in the Chicago Public Schools in 1985-1986. Children were at risk of poor outcomes because they face social-environmental disadvantages including neighborhood poverty, family low-income status, and other economic and educational hardships.

Study Goals

The CLS is guided by four major goals:

  1. To document patterns of school performance and social competence throughout the school-age years, including their school achievement and attitudes, academic progress, and psychosocial development.
  2. To evaluate the effects of the Child-Parent Center and Expansion Program on child and youth development. Children and families had the opportunity to participate in this unique Head Start type early childhood intervention from ages three to nine (preschool to third grade).
  3. To identify and better understand the educational and psychosocial pathways through which the effects of early childhood experiences are manifested, and more generally, through which scholastic and behavioral development proceeds.
  4. To investigate the contributions to children's educational and social development of a variety of personal, family, school, and community factors, especially those that can be altered by program or policy interventions to prevent learning difficulties and promote positive outcomes.

Studies addressing the first two goals have been reported extensively. Participation in the Child-Parent Center Program for different lengths of time, for example, has been found to be significantly associated with higher levels of school achievement into adolescence, with higher levels of consumer skills, with enhanced parent involvement in children's education, and with lower rates of grade retention and special education, lower rates of early school dropout, and with lower rates of delinquent behavior (Reynolds, 1994, 1995, 2000; Reynolds and Temple, 1995, 1998; Temple, Reynolds, and Miedel, in press). Children's patterns of school and social adjustment over time (Reynolds and Bezruczko, 1993; Reynolds and Gill, 1994; Reynolds, 2000) as well as several methodological contributions (Reynolds and Temple, 1995; Reynolds, 1998a, 1998b) also have been reported elsewhere. Examples of studies addressing goals three and four are reported in a special issue of the Journal of School Psychology (Reynolds, 1999).

The Chicago Longitudinal Study is particularly appropriate for addressing these and other goals for two reasons. First, the CLS is one of the most extensive and comprehensive studies undertaken of a low-income, urban sample. Data were collected beginning during children's preschool years and have continued on a yearly basis throughout the school-age years. Multiple sources of data have been utilized in this on-going study, including teacher surveys, child surveys and interviews, parent surveys and interviews, school administrative records, standardized tests, and classroom observations. Thus, the impact of a variety of individual, family, and school-related factors can be investigated.

A second unique feature of the CLS is that although the project concerns child development, an emphasis is given to factors and experiences that are alterable by program or policy intervention both within and outside of schools. Besides information on early childhood intervention, information has been collected on classroom adjustment, parent involvement and parenting practices, grade retention and special education placement, school mobility, educational expectations of children, teachers, and parents, and on the school learning environment.

Curated

Education and Citizenship in East Africa, 1966-1967: Tanzania Sample (ICPSR 4073)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Africa, Tanzania, Global
Time period: 1966-01-01--1967-01-01
This study contains survey data from samples of primary and secondary school students in Tanzania in 1966 and 1967. The study focused on respondents' feelings toward the teacher and the educational system, trust in others, attitudes toward the political system, and conception of the relationship between the educational system and the economic and political systems. Several questions attempted to assess whether the students believed that an education would help them in the future with respect to employment, influencing the government, and being a good citizen. Background data such as age, race, religion, and education of parents were also collected.
Curated

National Household Education Survey, 1991: Revised Version (ICPSR 2762)

Released/updated on: 2000-07-27
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection is a revised version of the NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD EDUCATION SURVEY, 1991 (ICPSR 9877). Like the original survey, this data collection consists of two main components: the Early Childhood Education Survey (children 3 to 8 years old) (Part 1, Preprimary Data, and Part 2, Primary Data) and the Adult Education Survey (persons 16 and older) (Part 3, Adult Data, and Part 4, Course Data). In the Early Childhood Education (ECE) component, 13,892 parents/guardians of 3- to 8-year-olds completed interviews about their children's early educational experiences. Included in this component were questions on participation in nonparental care/education, characteristics of programs and care arrangements, and early school experiences, including delayed kindergarten entry and retention in grade. In addition to questions about care/education arrangements and school, parents were asked about activities children engaged in with parents and other family members inside and outside the home. Information on family, household, and child characteristics was also collected. In the Adult Education (AE) component, 9,774 persons 16 years of age and older, identified as having participated in an adult education activity in the previous 12 months, were questioned about their activities. Information was collected on up to four courses and included the subject matter of the course, duration, sponsorship, purpose, and cost. A smaller sample of nonparticipants (n = 2,794) also completed interviews about barriers to participation. Information on the household and the adult's background and current employment was also elicited. In addition to the ECE and AE components, two merge files (Parts 5 and 6), containing the course code variables for each reported course, are supplied for use with the Adult and Course data files.
Curated

National Survey of America's Families (NSAF), 1997 (ICPSR 4581)

Released/updated on: 2007-10-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1997-01-01--1997-11-01

The National Survey of America's Families (NSAF) is a household survey that provides a comprehensive look at quantitative measures of the well-being of children, adults, and their families. While the focus of the survey is at the state level, the scope is national -- with a primary emphasis on low-income families. NSAF information was gathered from interviews conducted with the Most Knowledgeable Adult (MKA), the person in the household who was most knowledgeable about the questions being asked about the respondent, their spouse/partner (if applicable) and the focal child (or children). Data were collected from more than 40,000 families in two stages. First, a screener interview was administered to determine whether a household was eligible to complete the second, extended interview.

Two types of extended interviews were administered. Option A interviews were used in households with children under age 18. Option B interviews were used in childless adult households and also with emancipated minors. The extended interview was divided into several sections and is labeled A through P below:

  • A. Student Status. This section contained two questions that asked whether the respondent was a student and whether that household was the respondent's usual residence.

  • B. Health Status and Satisfaction. These questions asked about the respondent's satisfaction with health care, access to health care, the health status of the focal children, and the health status of the respondent.

  • C. Parent/Child/Family Interaction and Education. This series of questions asked about education for focal children. Questions addressed the focal child's current grade (or the last grade completed) and the child's attitudes toward school and schoolwork, skipping school, suspensions, and changing schools. Questions were also asked about children over 11 years old working for pay and attending summer school.

  • D. Household Roster. In this section, the name, age, and sex of all persons living in the household were recorded, and relationships between all household members were investigated.

  • E. Health Care Coverage. Information was gathered about current health insurance coverage for the respondent, the respondent's spouse/partner, and the focal children. Questions were also asked about characteristics of that coverage and of periods in which family members had no insurance coverage.

  • F. Health Care Use and Access. This section gathered information about health status, health care services received, and necessary health care services that were postponed during the preceding 12 months. Questions on routine care, overnight stays in hospitals, dental care, mental health care, women's health care, well-child care, and prescription medicines were also included.

  • G. Child Care. In this section, respondents were queried as to child care arrangements including Head Start, child care centers, before- or after-school care, and babysitters. Questions were asked about the total number of hours per week in each care situation, the typical number of children cared for, the typical number of adult child care providers, and child care costs.

  • H. Nonresidential Parent/Father. These questions determined whether a focal child had a nonresident parent, how often the child saw his/her nonresident parent, whether the nonresident parent provided financial support, and whether nonresident parents were required by child support orders to provide financial support.

  • I. Employment and Earnings. This section contained a series of questions about the employment and earnings of the respondent and the spouse/partnerfor the current and preceding year. Topics included employment status, occupation, industry, employer-provided health insurance, hours worked, and earnings. Some questions were also asked about the earnings of other family members.

  • J. Family Income. Family income also was identified from a wide variety of sources other than earnings from employment. These sources included public assistance (e.g., Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC], General Assistance, Emergency Assistance, or vouchers), Food Stamps, child support, foster care payments, financial assistance from friends or relatives, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation or veterans' payments, Supplemental Security Income, Social Security, pension or annuity income, interest or dividend income, income from rental property, or any other income source.

  • K. Welfare Program Participation. This section gathered detailed information about AFDC and Food Stamp benefits that the respondent might have received within the preceding two years. For both types of assistance, periods in which the respondent's benefits were reduced or eliminated were identified, as were strategies for coping during such times. Current AFDC or Food Stamp recipients were asked about any requirements they had to fulfill (e.g., job search, training, etc.) in order to receive these benefits. Recipients were also asked questions about awareness of time limits and experiences with diversion. For respondents with children, questions were asked about benefits received in the previous year through the supplemental food program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and free or reduced-cost school breakfast and lunch programs.

  • L. Education and Training. This series of questions inquired about the highest grade completed, highest degree earned, participation in job training programs during the previous year, and classes taken for credit during the previous year.

  • M. Housing and Economic Hardship. Questions covered the respondent's living arrangements, the name(s) of the lease- or mortgage- holder(s) in the household, and the amount of rent or mortgage paid monthly. Information was collected about financial contributions by the respondent or his/her spouse or partner to children under 18 years old living outside the household. The effect of economic hardship on the family's food consumption and ability to pay for housing costs was also assessed.

  • N. Issues, Problems, and Social Services. Questions in this section covered the respondent's state of mind, feelings about his or her child (or children), constructive activities the child (or children) might have been involved with, the availability of social services in their community, problems the child (or children) might have had in the preceding year and efforts to obtain help for those problems, and the respondent's involvement in volunteer and religious activities.

  • O. Race, Ethnicity, and Nativity. Race and ethnicity were asked for the respondent, the spouse/partner, and the focal child (or children). For household members who were born outside the United States, country of origin and citizenship questions were asked.

  • P. Closing. At the end of the survey, respondents were asked their opinions about welfare and working and about raising children. Closing questions asked for the respondent's ZIP code and, in households with foreign-born individuals, tracing information for use in a follow-up survey.

The 1997 NSAF data are available in nine parts and are organized into hierarchical, flat household-, family-, person-, adult-, and child-level files. A description of each is provided below:

  1. Focal Child Data. This dataset contains data elements from the extended interview that are specific to focal children (FC1 and FC2). Select data items that were asked only of MKAs are also included. Information in this dataset is primarily from sections N (Issues, Problems, and Social Services) and P (Closing) of the extended interview. The dataset contains one record for each focal child.

  2. Adult Pair Data. Included in this dataset is information collected from the extended interview about both the respondent and the respondent's spouse/partner. There is one observation per respondent and one per spouse (where applicable). Information in this dataset is primarily from sections I (Employment and Earnings) and L (Education and Training) of the extended interview.

  3. Random Adult Data. Information in this person-level dataset is specific to a randomly selected adult, either the respondent or the spouse/partner. This situation occurs only in sections E (Health Insurance Coverage) and F (Health Care Access and Utilization) of the extended interview.

  4. Childless Adult Data. This dataset contains data elements from the extended interview that are asked only of the respondent in Option B interviews. Variables in this dataset come mainly from section N (Issue, Problems, and Social Services) and P (Closing). There is one record per Option B interview in the dataset.

  5. Family-Respondent Data. Information in this dataset centers around information about the family's use of health care and social services. This family-level dataset contains one observation per respondent. Because there could be more than one respondent per family, family-respondent level variables may have different values within a single family.

  6. Household Data. This household-level dataset contains general information about the household such as the demographic characteristics of its members. Also contained in this dataset are administrative and process data such as housing subsidies, public housing, the number of bedrooms in the house, whether the home was owned or rented, and information pertaining to screeners and the completion of interviews.

  7. Person Data. This dataset contains one observation for each person living in the household. Included in this dataset is demographic information as well as information on current health insurance status and income.

  8. Social Family Data. Included in this dataset are items asked about the social family and variables aggregated at the social family level. The social family includes not only married partners and their children, but also unmarried partners, all of their children, and members of the extended family (anyone related by blood to the MKA, the spouse/partner, or their children). Among the survey items included are those variables indicating whether anyone in the social family had a particular type of income and health insurance. Also included are variables summarizing information across all members of a social family, such as the number of family members. There is one record for each social family.

  9. CPS Family Data. Since the social family definition was used in fielding the NSAF, this dataset includes only variables created using the Current Population Survey (CPS) definition of family. A CPS family includes the householder, spouse of family householder, children in the family, and other relatives of the family household respondent. There is one record for each CPS family in this dataset.

Curated

National Survey of America's Families (NSAF), 2002 (ICPSR 4582)

Released/updated on: 2007-10-03
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2002-02-01--2002-10-01

The National Survey of America's Families (NSAF) is a household survey that provides a comprehensive look at quantitative measures of the well-being of children, adults, and their families. While the focus of the survey is at the state level, the scope is national -- with a primary emphasis on low-income families. NSAF information was gathered from interviews conducted with the Most Knowledgeable Adult (MKA), the person in the household who was most knowledgeable about the questions being asked about the respondent, their spouse/partner (if applicable) and the focal child (or children). Data were collected from more than 40,000 families in two stages. First, a screener interview was administered to determine whether a household was eligible to complete the second, extended interview.

Two types of extended interviews were administered. Option A interviews were used in households with children under age 18. Option B interviews were used in childless adult households and also with emancipated minors. The extended interview was divided into several sections and is labeled A through P below:

  • A. Student Status. This section contained two questions that asked whether the respondent was a student and whether that household was the respondent's usual residence.

  • B. Health Status and Satisfaction. These questions asked about the respondent's satisfaction with health care, access to health care, the health status of the focal children, and the health status of the respondent. It also covered questions about the respondent's awareness of specific insurance programs such as Medicaid, and those associated with the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

  • C. Parent/Child/Family Interaction and Education. This series of questions asked about education for focal children. Questions addressed the focal child's current grade (or the last grade completed) and the child's attitudes toward school and schoolwork, skipping school, suspensions, and changing schools. Questions were also asked about children over 11 years old working for pay and attending summer school.

  • D. Household Roster. In this section, the name, age, and sex of all persons living in the household were recorded, and relationships between all household members were investigated.

  • E. Health Care Coverage. Information was gathered about current health insurance coverage for the respondent, the respondent's spouse/partner, and the focal children. Questions were also asked about characteristics of that coverage and of periods in which family members had no insurance coverage.

  • F. Health Care Use and Access. This section gathered information about health status, health care services received, and necessary health care services that were postponed during the preceding 12 months. Questions on routine care, overnight stays in hospitals, dental care, mental health care, women's health care, well-child care, and prescription medicines were also included.

  • G. Child Care. In this section, respondents were queried as to child care arrangements including Head Start, child care centers, before- or after-school care, and babysitters. Questions were asked about the total number of hours per week in each care situation, the typical number of children cared for, the typical number of adult child care providers, and child care costs.

  • H. Nonresidential Parent/Father. These questions determined whether a focal child had a nonresident parent, how often the child saw his/her nonresident parent, whether the nonresident parent provided financial support, and whether nonresident parents were required by child support orders to provide financial support.

  • I. Employment and Earnings. This section contained a series of questions about the employment and earnings of the respondent and the spouse/partner for the current and preceding year. Topics included employment status, occupation, industry, employer-provided health insurance, hours worked, and earnings. Some questions were also asked about the earnings of other family members.

  • J. Family Income. Family income was also identified from a wide variety of sources other than earnings from employment. These sources included public assistance (e.g., Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF], General Assistance, Emergency Assistance, or vouchers), Food Stamps, child support, foster care payments, financial assistance from friends or relatives, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation or veterans' payments, Supplemental Security Income, Social Security, pension or annuity income, interest or dividend income, income from rental property, or any other income source.

  • K. Welfare Program Participation. This section gathered detailed information about TANF and Food Stamp benefits that the respondent might have received within the preceding two years. For both types of assistance, periods in which the respondent's benefits were reduced or eliminated were identified, as were strategies for coping during such times. Current TANF or Food Stamp recipients were asked about any requirements they had to fulfill (e.g., job search, training, etc.) in order to receive these benefits. Recipients were also asked questions about awareness of time limits and experiences with diversion. For respondents with children, questions were asked about benefits received in the previous year through the supplemental food program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and free or reduced-cost school breakfast and lunch programs. Additional questions were asked about respondent experiences in obtaining government assistance for child care and health insurance through Medicaid and CHIP, and receipt and/or the use of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in any year between 1999 and 2002.

  • L. Education and Training. This series of questions inquired about the highest grade completed, highest degree earned, participation in job training programs during the previous year, and classes taken for credit during the previous year.

  • M. Housing and Economic Hardship. Questions covered the respondent's living arrangements, the name(s) of the lease- or mortgage- holder(s) in the household, and the amount of rent or mortgage paid monthly. Information was collected about financial contributions by the respondent or his/her spouse or partner to children under 18 years old living outside the household. The effect of economic hardship on the family's food consumption and ability to pay for housing costs was also assessed.

  • N. Issues, Problems, and Social Services. Questions in this section covered the respondent's state of mind, feelings about his or her child (or children), constructive activities the child (or children) might have been involved with, the availability of social services in their community, problems the child (or children) might have had in the preceding year and efforts to obtain help for those problems, and the respondent's involvement in volunteer and religious activities.

  • O. Race, Ethnicity, and Nativity. Race and ethnicity were asked for the respondent, the spouse/partner, and the focal child (or children). For household members who were born outside the United States, country of origin and citizenship questions were asked.

  • P. Closing. At the end of the survey, respondents were asked their opinions about welfare and working and about raising children. Respondents' ZIP code and address were also requested.

  • The 2002 NSAF data are available in nine parts and are organized into hierarchical, flat household-, family-, person-, adult-, and child-level files. A description of each is provided below:

    1. Focal Child Data. This dataset contains data elements from the extended interview that are specific to focal children (FC1 and FC2). Select data items that were asked only of MKAs are also included. Information in this dataset is primarily from sections N (Issues, Problems, and Social Services) and P (Closing) of the extended interview. The dataset contains one record for each focal child.

    2. Adult Pair Data. Included in this dataset is information collected from the extended interview about both the respondent and the respondent's spouse/partner. There is one observation per respondent and one per spouse (where applicable). Information in this dataset is primarily from sections I (Employment and Earnings) and L (Education and Training) of the extended interview.

    3. Random Adult Data. Information in this person-level dataset is specific to a randomly selected adult, either the respondent or the spouse/partner. This situation occurs only in sections E (Health Insurance Coverage) and F (Health Care Access and Utilization) of the extended interview.

    4. Childless Adult Data. This dataset contains data elements from the extended interview that are asked only of the respondent in Option B interviews. Variables in this dataset come mainly from section N (Issue, Problems, and Social Services) and P (Closing). There is one record per Option B interview in the dataset.

    5. Family-Respondent Data. Information in this dataset centers around information about the family's use of health care and social services. This family-level dataset contains one observation per respondent. Because there could be more than one respondent per family, family-respondent level variables may have different values within a single family.

    6. Household Data. This household-level dataset contains general information about the household such as the demographic characteristics of its members. Also contained in this dataset are administrative and process data such as housing subsidies, public housing, the number of bedrooms in the house, whether the home is owned or rented, and information pertaining to screeners and the completion of interviews.

    7. Person Data. This dataset contains one observation for each person living in the household. Included in this dataset is demographic information as well as information on current health insurance status and income.

    8. Social Family Data. Included in this dataset are items asked about the social family and variables aggregated at the social family level. The social family includes not only married partners and their children, but also unmarried partners, all of their children, and members of the extended family (anyone related by blood to the MKA, the spouse/partner, or their children). Among the survey items included are those variables indicating whether anyone in the social family had a particular type of income and health insurance. Also included are variables summarizing information across all members of a social family, such as the number of family members. There is one record for each social family.

    9. CPS Family Data. Since the social family definition was used in fielding the NSAF, this dataset includes only variables created using the Current Population Survey (CPS) definition of family. A CPS family includes the householder, spouse of family householder, children in the family, and other relatives of the family household respondent. There is one record for each CPS family in this dataset.

Curated

National Survey of Youth, 1972 (ICPSR 7593)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Conducted five years after NATIONAL SURVEY OF YOUTH, 1967 (ICPSR 3509), this study also was designed to measure the frequency and seriousness of delinquent activity among a representative sample of American boys and girls. Interviews were conducted in the spring of 1972 with 1,395 respondents who were 11 to 18 years old. Part 1 contains data gathered about the teenager's and his or her family's characteristics, including job history, family size, parents' education, attitudes toward school, school grades, peer group activities, dating history, self image, body image, physical health and maturation, attitudes about authority and youth culture, relationship with parents, political opinions and participation, and job aspirations. Part 2 contains each respondent's indication of which of 17 specific offenses he or she had committed in the previous three years. Information was coded on up to three incidents of each type of delinquency for each respondent. Data detailing the circumstances of each offense is also included. The 17 offenses are: (1) hitting a parent, (2) skipping school, (3) damaging property on purpose, (4) trying to get something by lying about age or identity, (5) trying to get something by lying about what you would do for a person, (6) taking something not belonging to you, even if you return it, (7) hurting or injuring someone on purpose, (8) threatening to hurt or injure someone, (9) trespassing on property, (10) trespassing in a house or building, (11) drinking beer or liquor without parental permission, (12) smoking marijuana, (13) using drugs (other than marijuana) or chemicals, (14) taking part in a fight with friends against other kids, (15) carrying a gun or knife, (16) taking a car without permission of the owner, and (17) "going all the way" with a member of the opposite sex. All but one offense match the list presented in the 1967 study. The additional offense, marijuana use, was added to reflect changes in American society since the first study was done.
Curated
Restricted
Simple Crosstabs

University of Washington - Beyond High School (UW-BHS) (ICPSR 33321)

Released/updated on: 2016-02-15
Geographic coverage: United States, Washington
Time period: 2000-01-01--2010-01-01
The University of Washington - Beyond High School (UW-BHS) project surveyed students in Washington State to examine factors impacting educational attainment and the transition to adulthood among high school seniors. The project began in 1999 in an effort to assess the impact of I-200 (the referendum that ended Affirmative Action) on minority enrollment in higher education in Washington. The research objectives of the project were: (1) to describe and explain differences in the transition from high school to college by race and ethnicity, socioeconomic origins, and other characteristics, (2) to evaluate the impact of the Washington State Achievers Program, and (3) to explore the implications of multiple race and ethnic identities. Following a successful pilot survey in the spring of 2000, the project eventually included baseline and one-year follow-up surveys (conducted in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005) of almost 10,000 high school seniors in five cohorts across several Washington school districts. The high school senior surveys included questions that explored students' educational aspirations and future career plans, as well as questions on family background, home life, perceptions of school and home environments, self-esteem, and participation in school related and non-school related activities. To supplement the 2000, 2002, and 2003 student surveys, parents of high school seniors were also queried to determine their expectations and aspirations for their child's education, as well as their own educational backgrounds and fields of employment. Parents were also asked to report any financial measures undertaken to prepare for their child's continued education, and whether the household received any form of financial assistance. In 2010, a ten-year follow-up with the 2000 senior cohort was conducted to assess educational, career, and familial outcomes. The ten year follow-up surveys collected information on educational attainment, early employment experiences, family and partnership, civic engagement, and health status. The baseline, parent, and follow-up surveys also collected detailed demographic information, including age, sex, ethnicity, language, religion, education level, employment, income, marital status, and parental status.
Curated

Youth-Parent Socialization Panel Study, 1965-1982: Three Waves Combined (ICPSR 9553)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1965-01-01--1982-01-01
For this panel survey a national sample of high school seniors and their parents were interviewed in 1965, and again in 1973 and 1982. The survey gauges the impact of life-stage events and historical trends on the behaviors and attitudes of respondents. Each wave has a distinct focus. The 1965 data focus on high school experiences, while the 1973 data deal with the protest era. Data gathered in 1982 emphasize the maturing process and offer information relating to parental issues and family relationships. Other major areas of investigation include political participation, issue positions, group evaluations, civic orientations, personal change over time, stability in attitudes and behaviors over time, and partisanship and electoral behavior.
Curated

Youth-Parent Socialization Panel Study, 1965-1982: Wave III (ICPSR 9134)

Released/updated on: 2007-07-18
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1965-01-01--1982-01-01
For this panel survey a national sample of high school seniors and their parents were interviewed in 1965, and twice later in 1973 and 1982. The survey gauges the impact of life-stage events and historical trends on the behaviors and attitudes of respondents. Each wave has a distinct focus. The 1965 data focus on high school experiences, while the 1973 data deal with the protest era. Data gathered in 1982 emphasize the maturing process and offer information relating to parental issues and family relationships. Other major areas of investigation include political participation, issue positions, group evaluations, civic orientations, personal change over time, stability in attitudes and behaviors over time, and partisanship and electoral behavior.
Curated
Restricted

Youth-Parent Socialization Panel Study, 1965-1997: Four Waves Combined (ICPSR 4037)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1965-01-01--1997-01-01
The Youth-Parent Socialization Panel Study is a series of surveys designed to assess political continuity and change across time for biologically-related generations and to gauge the impact of life-stage events and historical trends on the behaviors and attitudes of respondents. A national sample of high school seniors and their parents was first surveyed in 1965. Subsequent surveys of the same individuals were conducted in 1973, 1982, and 1997. This data collection combines all four waves of youth data for the study. The general objective of the data collection was to study the dynamics of political attitudes and behaviors by obtaining data on the same individuals as they aged from approximately 18 years of age in 1965 to 50 years of age in 1997. Especially when combined with other elements of the study as released in other ICPSR collections in the Youth Studies Series, this data collection facilitates the analysis of generational, life cycle, and historical effects and political influences on relationships within the family. This data collection also has several distinctive properties. First, it is a longitudinal study of a particular cohort, a national sample from the graduating high school class of 1965. Second, it captures the respondents at key points in their life stages -- at ages 18, 26, 35, and 50. Third, the dataset contains many replicated measures over time as well as some measures unique to each data point. Fourth, there is detailed information about the respondents' life histories. Background variables include age, sex, religious orientation, level of religious participation, marital status, ethnicity, educational status and background, place of residence, family income, and employment status.