Search results

The Americans' Changing Lives (ACL) survey series is an ongoing, nationally representative, longitudinal study focusing especially on differences between Black and White Americans in middle and late life. These data constitute the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth waves in a panel survey covering a wide range of sociological, psychological, mental, and physical health items. Wave I of the study began in 1986 with a nation face-to-face survey of 3,617 adults ages 25 and up, with Black Americans and people aged 60 and over over-sampled at twice the rate of the others. Wave II constitutes face-to-face re-interviews in 1989 of those still alive. Survivors have been re-interviewed by telephone, and when necessary face-to-face, in 1994 (Wave III), 2001/02 (Wave IV), 2011 (Wave V), and 2019/21 (Wave VI).

Please note that for Wave VI, the majority of data collection occurred in 2019, with only a small subset (n=39) of participants surveyed in 2021.

ACL was designed and sought to investigate the following: (1) The ways in which a wide range of activities and social relationships that people engage in are broadly "productive," (2) how individuals adapt to acute life events and chronic stresses that threaten the maintenance of health, effective functioning, and productive activity, and (3) sociocultural variations in the nature, meaning, determinants, and consequences of productive activity and relationships. Among the topics covered are interpersonal relationships (spouse/partner, children, parents, friends), sources and levels of satisfaction, social interactions and leisure activities, traumatic life events (physical assault, serious illness, divorce, death of a loved one, financial or legal problems), perceptions of retirement, health behaviors (smoking, alcohol consumption, overweight, rest), and utilization of health care services (doctor visits, hospitalization, nursing home institutionalization, bed days). Also included are measures of physical health, psychological well-being, and indices referring to cognitive functioning.

Demographic information provided for individuals includes household composition, number of children and grandchildren, employment status, occupation and work history, income, family financial situation, religious beliefs and practices, ethnicity, race, education, sex, and region of residence.

This randomized controlled trial evaluated a culturally appropriate intervention to improve the recognition and treatment of depression among Asian and Latino American primary care patients at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), using a culturally focused psychiatric (CFP) consultation with a team of mental health providers who were bilingual/bicultural, trained in culturally competent techniques, and familiar with the cultures and languages of the patients served. Targeted minority patients who screened positive for clinical depression were eligible to participate in the trial. The intervention patients were offered the CFP consultation at baseline and, if eligible, received the CFP patient toolkit as part of their treatment. The toolkit provided psychoeducation and tools for managing depression as well as information on community resources. The usual care patients were offered standard referrals to MGH mental health resources.

Questionnaires were administered to the patients at screening, baseline, two-week follow-up, and six month follow-up. The screening questionnaires included the two-item Public Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2) and demographic questions. Assessment measures administered to the intervention patients at baseline included the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Rated Scale (QIDS-SR 16), Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), Schwartz Outcome Scale (SOS-10), and a demographic questionnaire and resource utilization questionnaire. At six month follow-up, the intervention arm was administered a resource utilization questionnaire, patient satisfaction questionnaire (Treatment Satisfaction Scale), qualitative interview, and the QIDS-SR 16 and SOS-10. The SOS-10 was also administered to the intervention patients at two-week follow-up. In the usual care arm, the QIDS-SR 16 and resource utilization questionnaire was administered at baseline and six months, the qualitative interview at six months, and the demographic questionnaire at baseline or six-months. There was no two-week assessment for the usual care patients. Electronic medical record review was used for both arms at baseline and six months, as needed. In addition, qualitative interviews were conducted with project and practice staff at the end of the study.

The data file includes the responses to the questionnaires and variables describing the CFP consultation assessment (DSM-IV Axis I, II, III, IV, and V diagnoses), treatment recommendations made to the patients' primary care physicians (PCPs) after the CFP consultation, and study staff contacts with the patients' PCPs and mental health providers. ICPSR did not receive the data from the qualitative interviews or electronic medical record reviews.

These data were collected to evaluate the effectiveness of CASAWORKS for Families (CWF), a multiservice intervention designed to move substance abusing women on welfare to sobriety and self-sufficiency by addressing their substance abuse, domestic violence, employment, and basic needs. Conducted at 11 sites across the country, the evaluation was designed as a repeated measures, pre-during-post field evaluation with no pre-specified control or comparison groups. The results of this evaluation were primarily intended to guide a proposed second-stage experimental study of the effectiveness of an enhanced and refined CWF model.

When the potential participant presented herself at the CWF site, a research technician administered a specially modified version of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), referred to as the Welfare to Work ASI (WTW-ASI). This version retained the ASI 5th edition as the core instrument but added questions in an addendum. The baseline WTW-ASI measured the severity of problems in nine areas: employment, medical status, alcohol use, drug use, legal status, family and social relationships, children and child care, basic needs, and psychiatric symptoms. In addition, the four-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), the Parenting Dimensions Inventory (PDI), and the Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale (PDS) were used to assess depression, parenting style, and posttraumatic stress disorder, respectively. The PDI, CES-D, and a follow-up version of WTW-ASI were also administered 6 and 12 months after intake.

Two instruments were used at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postbaseline to record the services provided by CWF: Welfare to Work version of the Treatment Services Review (TSR-WTW) and Case Management Review (CMR). The former mostly collected data on the number of treatment services received, such as doctor visits, therapy sessions, and days of inpatient treatment in the prior 30 days, while the latter collected data on the activities of the case management sessions and topics covered with the case managers. Activities recorded by the CMR included working on self-sufficiency plans, arrangement of follow-up services, skills development, crisis response, and advocating for the client. Topics covered included employment, substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, parenting and child care, basic needs, life skills, and social support.

In order to compare the characteristics of the CWF clients with the general population of women who received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the study also collected WTW-ASI data from women in the general TANF population in the CWF locales regardless of their substance-use status.

The Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS, formerly known as the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study) follows a cohort of nearly 5,000 children born in large, U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000. The study oversampled births to unmarried couples; and, when weighted, the data are representative of births in large U.S. cities at the turn of the century. The FFCWS was originally designed to address four questions of great interest to researchers and policy makers:

1. What are the conditions and capabilities of unmarried parents, especially fathers?
2. What is the nature of the relationships between unmarried parents?
3. How do children born into these families fare?
4. How do policies and environmental conditions affect families and children?

The FFCWS consists of interviews with mothers, fathers, and/or primary caregivers at birth and again when children are ages 1, 3, 5, 9, 15, and 22. The parent interviews collected information on attitudes, relationships, parenting behavior, demographic characteristics, health (mental and physical), economic and employment status, neighborhood characteristics, and program participation. Beginning at age 9, children were interviewed directly (either during the home visit or on the telephone). The direct child interviews collected data on family relationships, home routines, schools, peers, and physical and mental health, as well as health behaviors.

A collaborative study of the FFCWS, the In-Home Longitudinal Study of Pre-School Aged Children (In-Home Study) collected data from a subset of the FFCWS Core respondents at the Year 3 and 5 follow-ups to ask how parental resources in the form of parental presence or absence, time, and money influence children under the age of 5. The In-Home Study collected information on a variety of domains of the child's environment, including: the physical environment (quality of housing, nutrition and food security, health care, adequacy of clothing and supervision) and parenting (parental discipline, parental attachment, and cognitive stimulation). In addition, the In-Home Study also collected information on several important child outcomes, including anthropometrics, child behaviors, and cognitive ability. This information was collected through interviews with the child's primary caregiver, and direct observation of the child's home environment and the child's interactions with his or her caregiver.

Similar activities were conducted during the Year 9 follow-up. At the Year 15 follow-up, a condensed set of home visit activities were conducted with a subsample of approximately 1,000 teens. Teens who participated in the In-Home Study were also invited to participate in a Sleep Study and were asked to wear an accelerometer on their non-dominant wrist for seven consecutive days to track their sleep (Sleep Actigraphy Data) and that day's behaviors and mood (Daily Sleep Actigraphy and Diary Survey Data).

An additional collaborative study collected data from the child care provider (Year 3) and teacher (Years 9 and 15) through mail-based surveys. Saliva samples were collected at Year 9 and 15 (Biomarker file and Polygenic Scores). The Study of Adolescent Neural Development (SAND) COVID Study began data collection in May 2020 following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. It included online surveys with the young adult and their primary caregiver.

The FFCWS began its seventh wave of data collection in October 2020, around the focal child's 22nd birthday. Data collection and interviews continued through January 2024. The Year 22 wave included a young adult (YA) survey with the original focal child and a primary caregiver (PCG) survey. Data were also collected on the children of the original focal child (referred to as Generation 3, or G3).

In 2017, the FFCWS team announced the Fragile Families (FF) Challenge, a collaborative effort in which participants were tasked with using machine learning methods and FFCWS data (Baseline to Year 9) to build a model that would predict six key outcomes at Year 15. Materials used in the FF Challenge have been archived in this collection.

Documentation for these files is available on the FFCWS website under Data and Documentation. For details of updates made to the FFCWS data files, please see the project's Data Alerts page.

Data collection for the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers R01HD36916, R01HD39135, and R01HD40421, as well as a consortium of private foundations.

Below is the citation for use of the FFCWS data accessed through ICPSR. For information on additional citation requirements when using FFCWS in publications, please refer to this FAQ on the FFCWS project site.

The current collection includes data collected as part of a planned evaluation of New York City's proposed soda portion cap policy. Baseline data collection was conducted in three waves. Wave 1 began in early January 2013 and ended in April 2013; Wave 2 was conducted from August to November 2013; and Wave 3 was conducted between January and June 2014.

Data was collected at point-of-purchase on the availability, sizing, promotion, and cost of beverages in the fast food restaurants of New York City, New York and of Newark and Jersey City in New Jersey. This data was also collected in these areas for their nearest convenience stores/bodegas and supermarkets. Consumer receipts were also gathered to supplement this survey data. Additional data collection was conducted using environmental scans of fast food and grocery store locations to evaluate the healthfulness of the beverage environment. Lastly, some participants also completed a telephone interview where data was gathered on participant's dietary recall.

These data are intended to gather a fuller picture of the factors that may influence beverage purchases.

The Infant Health and Development Program (IHDP) was a multisite, randomized, controlled trial of an educational intervention until three years of age for low birth weight preterm infants born in 1984-1985. There were three components to the intervention: (1) an educational program delivered through home visits (weekly during the first year and every other week during the second and third years of life), (2) a daily center-based program beginning at 12 months corrected for duration of gestation, and (3) parent support groups coinciding with the start of the center-based program. Previously, the subjects were assessed at baseline up to age 3 (Phase I), age 5 (Phase II), and age 8 (Phase III). Phase IV assessed them at age 18.

This data collection contains selected variables from all four phases that were used in analyses reported in two articles by the principal investigators and others:

• McCormick, Marie C., Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Stephen L. Buka, Julie Goldman, Jennifer Yu, Mikhail Salganik, David T. Scott, Forrest C. Bennett, Libby L. Kay, Judy C. Bernbaum, Charles R. Bauer, Camilia Martin, Elizabeth R. Woods, Anne Martin, and Patrick H. Casey. "Early Intervention in Low Birth Weight Premature Infants: Results at 18 Years of Age for the Infant Health and Development Program." Pediatrics 117.3 (2006): 771-780.
• Martin, Anne, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Pamela Klebanov, Stephen L. Buka, and Marie C. McCormick. "Long-term maternal effects of early childhood intervention: Findings from the Infant Health and Development Program (IHDP)." Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 29 (2008): 101-117.

As such, the collection comprises only some of the variables that were collected for Phase IV and the other phases.

The collection contains information about the children and their mothers/caregivers. Data on the children include treatment group, sex, birth weight group, and an index of neonatal health, plus indices of receptive vocabulary, intelligence, and adult-child activities at age 5, indices of intelligence, receptive vocabulary, reading ability, math ability, and behavioural problems and competencies at ages 8 and 18, and indices of risk behaviors, physical health, future expectations, and engagement towards school at age 18. Information about the mothers/caregivers includes maternal age and mother's race, as well as educational achievement at baseline and ages 5, 8, and 18; smoking at ages 5 and 18; measures of employment, physical health, and mental health at ages 5, 8, and 18; indices of parenting style, educational aspirations for the child, and yelling frequency at the child at ages 8 and 18; and indices of connectedness to the community and involvement with the child's school at age 18. Other variables include measures of home literacy and the presence of televisions in the household at age 5, and indices of family cohesion and conflict at ages 8 and 18.

The Multicity Study of the Impact of Taxes on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages was a multi-year study intended to provide comprehensive information about the impacts of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes on retail prices, purchases, and consumption. The study was conducted in two cities that recently implemented an excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages: Philadelphia, PA and Oakland, CA.

The study consists of six datasets, with three datasets covering Philadelphia and three covering Oakland. The store observation data contain price information for sodas, juices, and other beverages. The purchase datasets contain information from survey questions fielded at stores, including basic demographic information (race and ethnicity, gender, income), the number of people in the participant's household, and how often they shop for beverages at that store and others. The household datasets contain information from survey questions fielded during the household beverages consumption survey; it includes demographic information and beverage consumption information for a household adult and a household child.

The study also included an analysis of strategic responses to the taxes, including cross-border shopping by consumers, and retailers changing the availability of various beverages.

This study was one of three modules in a larger study designed to define, identify, and disseminate information about best practice physical activity programming in community-based organizations. The National Council on the Aging (NCOA), together with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), conducted Module 1, a national competition for NCOA Awards for Excellence in Physical Activity Programming. The purpose of the competition was to bring national attention to best practice in physical activity programming operated by local public or non-profit organizations that serve older adults. NCOA was assisted in this endeavor by the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), the Healthy Aging Research Network of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Prevention Research Centers, and a variety of nationally known physical activity experts. Module 2 was a census of physical activity programs for older adults that was conducted in seven locations by Healthy Aging Research Network. Module 3 was this National Impact Study, a study of best practice programming at three community-based organizations serving older adults. It was designed to answer the research question, "Do best practice physical activity programs provided by community-based organizations have a measurable impact on the health and well being of participants?" The three studied organizations were among the ten winners of the best practice competition.

Data were collected from previously sedentary, volunteer participants from each of the three organizations. The goal was to enroll 250 older adults at each site for a total of 750 subjects across the three programs. At each site, one half of all subjects (n = 125) were to be assigned to the treatment group and the other half to a control group. Subjects in the treatment group participated in the best practice program classes while the control group could enroll in other exercise classes but not the best practice program classes. The subjects were to be interviewed three times: baseline, three months, and nine months. Each interview contained two parts: (1) the administration of health and exercise related questions and (2) the administration of four physical fitness tests that assessed the respondent's strength, flexibility and aerobic endurance. Background information collected by the survey includes age, education, employment status, marital status, income, race, and Hispanic origin.

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.

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 also was 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, 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 1998.

• 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 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, respondent's were asked their opinions about welfare and working and about raising children.The respondent's ZIP code and address were requested and tracing information was asked of households with families receiving welfare at any time since January 1997, for possible use in a follow-up survey.

The 1999 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 is administrative and process data such as housing subsidies, public housing, the number of bedrooms in the house, if 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.

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.

In 2008, a group of uninsured low-income adults in Oregon was selected by lottery to be given the chance to apply for Medicaid. This lottery provides an opportunity to gauge the effects of expanding access to public health insurance on the health care use, financial strain, and health of low-income adults using a randomized controlled design. The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment follows and compares those selected in the lottery (treatment group) with those not selected (control group). The data collected and provided here include data from in-person interviews, three mail surveys, emergency department records, and administrative records on Medicaid enrollment, the initial lottery sign-up list, welfare benefits, and mortality.

This data collection has seven data files:

Dataset 1 contains administrative data on the lottery from the state of Oregon. These data include demographic characteristics that were recorded when individuals signed up for the lottery, date of lottery draw, and information on who was selected for the lottery, applied for the lotteried Medicaid plan if selected, and whose application for the lotteried plan was approved. Also included are Oregon mortality data for 2008 and 2009.

Dataset 2 contains information from the state of Oregon on the individuals' participation in Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).

Datasets 3-5 contain the data from the initial, six month, and 12 month mail surveys, respectively. Topics covered by the surveys include demographic characteristics; health insurance, access to health care and health care utilization; health care needs, experiences, and costs; overall health status and changes in health; and depression and medical conditions and use of medications to treat them.

Dataset 6 contains an analysis subset of the variables from the in-person interviews. Topics covered by the survey questionnaire include overall health, health insurance coverage, health care access, health care utilization, conditions and treatments, health behaviors, medical and dental costs, and demographic characteristics. The interviewers also obtained blood pressure and anthropometric measurements and collected dried blood spots to measure levels of cholesterol, glycated hemoglobin and C-reactive protein.

Dataset 7 contains an analysis subset of the variables the study obtained for all emergency department (ED) visits to twelve hospitals in the Portland area during 2007-2009. These variables capture total hospital costs, ED costs, and the number of ED visits categorized by time of the visit (daytime weekday or nighttime and weekends), necessity of the visit (emergent, ED care needed, non-preventable; emergent, ED care needed, preventable; emergent, primary care treatable), ambulatory case sensitive status, whether or not the patient was hospitalized, and the reason for the visit (e.g., injury, abdominal pain, chest pain, headache, and mental disorders).

The collection also includes a ZIP archive (Dataset 8) with Stata programs that replicate analyses reported in three articles by the principal investigators and others:

Finkelstein, Amy et al "The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment: Evidence from the First Year". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. August 2012. Vol 127(3).

Baicker, Katherine et al "The Oregon Experiment - Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes". New England Journal of Medicine. 2 May 2013. Vol 368(18).

Taubman, Sarah et al "Medicaid Increases Emergency Department Use: Evidence from Oregon's Health Insurance Experiment". Science. 2 Jan 2014.