Search results

Showing 1 – 16 of 16 results.
Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Americans' Changing Lives: Waves I, II, III, IV, V, and VI, 1986, 1989, 1994, 2002, 2011, and 2021 (ICPSR 4690)

Released/updated on: 2024-12-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1986-01-01--2021-01-01

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.

Curated
Partially restricted

Community Tracking Study Household Survey, 1996-1997, and Followback Survey, 1997-1998: [United States] (ICPSR 2524)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1996-07-01--1997-07-01, 1997-10-01--1998-08-01
This data collection comprises two components of the Community Tracking Study (CTS), the Household Survey and the Followback Survey. The CTS, sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, is a national study designed to track changes in the health care system and their effects on care delivery and individuals. Central to the design of the CTS is its community focus. Sixty sites (51 metropolitan areas and 9 nonmetropolitan areas) were randomly selected to form the core of the CTS and to be representative of the nation as a whole. The Household Survey was administered to households in the 60 CTS sites and to a supplemental national sample of households. At the beginning of each interview, a household informant was identified and queried about the composition of the household. With this information, individuals in the household were grouped into family insurance units (FIU). An FIU reflects family groupings typically used by insurance carriers. It includes an adult household member, his or her spouse, if any, and any dependent children 0-17 years of age (or 18-22 years of age if a full-time student). Family informants, selected from each FIU in the household, provided information on health insurance coverage, health care use, usual source of care, and the general health of all persons in the FIU. These informants also provided information on family income and out-of-pocket expenses for health care, as well as employment, race, and Hispanic origin for all adult FIU members. Each adult in the household, including the FIU informants, responded through a self-response module to questions regarding unmet health care needs, patient trust, satisfaction with physician choice, limitations in daily activities, smoking behaviors, and last doctor visit. In FIUs with more than one child under 18, only one child was randomly selected for inclusion in the survey. The family informant responded on behalf of the child regarding unmet needs and satisfaction with physician choice. The adult family member who took this child to his or her last doctor visit responded to questions about the visit. The Followback Survey was designed to obtain detailed information on private health insurance coverage reported in the Household Survey. It was administered to health plans and other organizations that offered or administered the comprehensive private health insurance policies covering Household Survey respondents in the 60 CTS sites. Information on private health insurance policies collected by the Followback Survey includes product type, gatekeeping, consumer cost sharing, provider payment methods, and coverage of mental health and/or substance abuse services.
Curated
Partially restricted

Community Tracking Study Household Survey, 1998-1999, and Followback Survey, 1998-2000: [United States] (ICPSR 3199)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1998-01-01--2000-01-01
This collection comprises the second round of the Community Tracking Study (CTS) Household Survey and the second round of the CTS Followback Survey. The CTS, sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, is a national study designed to track changes in the health care system and their effects on care delivery and individuals. Fifty-one metropolitan areas and nine nonmetropolitan areas were randomly selected to form the core of the CTS and to be representative of the nation as a whole. As in the first round of the Household Survey (COMMUNITY TRACKING STUDY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY, 1996-1997, AND FOLLOWBACK SURVEY, 1997-1998: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 2524)), the second round of the Household Survey was administered to households in the 60 CTS sites and to a supplemental national sample of households. Respondents provided information about household composition and demographic characteristics, health insurance coverage, use of health services, unmet health care needs, out-of-pocket expenses for health care, usual source of care, patient trust and satisfaction, last visit to a medical provider, health status and presence of chronic health conditions, risk behaviors and smoking, and employment, earnings, and income. The purpose of the Followback Survey was to obtain detailed information on private health insurance coverage reported in the Household Survey. It was administered to the health plans and other organizations (managed care organizations, third-party administrators, employer or union plans, and employers) that offered or administered the respondents' comprehensive private health insurance policies. Information on private health insurance policies collected by the Followback Survey includes product type, gatekeeping, consumer cost sharing, provider payment methods, and coverage of mental health and/or substance abuse services.
Curated
Partially restricted

Community Tracking Study Household Survey, 2000-2001: [United States] (ICPSR 3764)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2000-01-01--2001-01-01
This collection comprises the third round of the Community Tracking Study (CTS) Household Survey. The CTS, sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, is a national study designed to track changes in the health care system and the effects of those changes on people. Fifty-one metropolitan areas and nine nonmetropolitan areas were randomly selected to form the core of the CTS and to be representative of the nation as a whole. As in the first two rounds of the Household Survey (ICPSR 2524 and 3199), the third round was administered to households in the 60 CTS sites and to a supplemental national sample of households. Respondents provided information about household composition and demographic characteristics, health insurance coverage, use of health services, unmet health care needs, out-of-pocket expenses for health care, usual source of care, patient trust and satisfaction, last visit to a medical provider, health status and presence of chronic health conditions, risk behaviors and smoking, and employment, earnings, and income. A new set of sample design variables was added to the third round data for variance estimation by statistical software packages other than SUDAAN.
Curated
Partially restricted

Community Tracking Study Household Survey, 2003: [United States] (ICPSR 4216)

Released/updated on: 2007-12-03
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2003-01-01--2004-01-01
This collection contains data and documentation for the fourth round of the Community Tracking Study (CTS) Household Survey. Sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the CTS is a national study designed to track changes in the United States' health care system and their effects. The fourth round was administered to households in the 60 CTS sites: 51 metropolitan areas and nine nonmetropolitan areas which were randomly selected to form the core of the CTS and to be representative of the nation as a whole. The first round of the CTS Household Survey was conducted in 1996-1997 (ICPSR 2524), the second round in 1998-1999 (ICPSR 3199), and the third in 2000-2001 (ICPSR 3764). Respondents to the fourth round provided information about health insurance coverage, use of health services, unmet needs for health care, children's special health care needs, out-of-pocket medical costs, patient trust in physicians, sources of health information, attitudes about medical care, and satisfaction with health care and health plans. Health status, chronic conditions, and risk attitudes and smoking behavior were additional topics covered by the fourth round questionnaire. The data include variables on height and weight, employment, income, ethnicity, race, United States citizenship, household composition, and demographic characteristics.
Curated

Institutional Pathways: Dynamics and Characteristics of System Service Use by Serious Adolescent Offenders, Arizona and Pennsylvania, 2000-2010 (ICPSR 36860)

Released/updated on: 2022-10-13
Geographic coverage: United States, Phoenix, Arizona, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2000-01-01--2010-01-01

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigators if further information is needed.

This study is a secondary analysis (syntax only, no data) of Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Subject Measures, 2000-2010 (ICPSR 29961) and Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Calendar Data, 2000-2010 [Restricted] (ICPSR 32282).

The purpose of this study was to further existing knowledge of juvenile justice intervention and how juvenile justice intervention is related to positive outcomes during the transition to adulthood. This study examines three main aims using data from the Pathways to Desistance study, which followed a sample of serious adolescent offenders for seven years to examine the desistance process. First, trajectories of secure institutional placement for serious offenders during the study period were identified. Second, trajectories of gainful activities for serious adolescent offenders during the study period were identified. Gainful activities were defined as working or attending school. Third, factors associated with turning points in the gainful activities trajectories were explored. In the course of estimating the gainful activities trajectories, there appeared to be a key moment, around year 3, where multiple trajectories with moderate levels of engagement in gainful activities diverged. Together, these three aims will inform how juvenile justice intervention is related to positive outcomes during the transition to adulthood and identify factors that may be related to positive outcomes and critical turning points in the trajectories of serious adolescent offenders.

Group differences were examined by testing bivariate differences in a broad range of variables: demographic variables (gender, age, and race/ethnicity); study site and year of interview; characteristics of prior service receipt at baseline (location and orientation); school, family and neighborhood characteristics; characteristics of the offense and offense history; individual factors (mental health and substance use symptoms); and risk scores.

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), 1999 (ICPSR 3927)

Released/updated on: 2007-10-03
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1999-02-01--1999-10-01

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 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.

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
Partially restricted

Practice Patterns of Young Physicians, 1987: [United States] (ICPSR 9277)

Released/updated on: 2012-01-11
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1987-04-09--1987-11-21

This study investigated the factors that influenced the career decisions of young physicians and the characteristics of their practices. The collection has five datasets: Public-Use Version of the Young Physicians Survey (Dataset 1), Socioeconomic Monitoring System Study (Dataset 2), ZIP Code Data (Dataset 3), Verbatim Responses to the Open-Ended Questions (Dataset 4), and Restricted-Use Version of the Young Physicians Survey (Dataset 5).

The Public-Use Version of the Young Physicians Survey comprises responses from the Young Physicians Survey (YPS), plus merged data from the American Medical Association (AMA) Masterfile and the Association of American Medical Colleges' Student and Applicant Information Management System (SAIMS) database. The YPS interviewed physicians below 40 years of age who recently completed graduate medical training and were in their early years of practice. These physicians were queried about their graduate medical training, perceptions of the medical profession, current practice arrangements, career decisions, family background, patient care activities, and current income and expenses. To obtain information on current practice arrangements, respondents were questioned about the practices they worked in, including who owned the practices, the number of physicians in each practice, specialties or subspecialties practiced, usual fees for selected services, percentages of revenues from HMOs, PPOs, and IPAs, and percentages of patients who were Medicare patients, had no health insurance coverage, or were poor, Black, Hispanic, severely physically disabled, or chronically mentally ill. Questions on career decisions asked respondents about factors that influenced their career choices, such as reasons for working in multiple practices, reasons for leaving past practices, and reasons for deciding in favor of or against self-employment. Information on family background elicited by the survey includes the respondent's race, marital status, and educational debt, parents' income class and education, number of children living in the respondent's home, and whether the respondent's spouse or parents were physicians. Questions on patient care activities included questions on the number of hours spent providing uncompensated health care to the poor, and the number of hours spent with patients in a variety of settings, such as the office, emergency rooms, hospital outpatient clinics, and operating rooms. Information from the AMA Masterfile and the SAIMS database includes board certification status, AMA membership, school and year of graduation, Medical College Admission Test scores, primary undergraduate institution, most recent grade point averages, place of birth, number of acceptances to United States medical schools, parents' occupations, preferred medical specialty, and preferred practice setting.

Dataset 2 comprises responses from the AMA's Socioeconomic Monitoring System (SMS), a semiannual survey of nonfederal physicians that collected data on topics similar to those in the YPS, such as practice ownership, hours spent seeing patients in various settings, income, expenses, and opinions on practice procedures. The SMS data can be used for comparative analyses of young, prime, and senior physicians.

The ZIP Code Data contain estimates for the composition of the population residing in the ZIP code areas of the YPS respondents' main practices. This includes estimates of the size of each ZIP code area population, as well as its components with respect to gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, and income. Also included are estimates of the number of physicians and their composition with respect to age, sex, practice type, and specialty.

Dataset 4 contains verbatim responses to open-ended questions asked in the YPS.

The Restricted-Use Version of the Young Physicians Survey is the same as the Public-Use Version of the Young Physicians Survey, except for some variables that were restricted from general dissemination for reasons of confidentiality. The restricted-use version includes the restricted variables, but the public-use version does not.

Curated

Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Calendar Data, 2000-2010 [Restricted] (ICPSR 32282)

Released/updated on: 2017-03-27
Geographic coverage: United States, Phoenix, Arizona, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2000-01-01--2010-01-01

The Calendar data files are comprised of 47 total parts spread across 13 distinct topical domains.

  • Academic Achievement
  • Antisocial Activity
  • Community-Based Services
  • Contact With the Justice System
  • Court Monitoring
  • Gainful Activity
  • Head Injury
  • Living Situation
  • Making and Spending Money
  • Medication
  • Out of Community Placement
  • Romance
  • School

Each topical domain contains multiple reference periods for looking at the topic across the entire data collection period of the study.

Users who request these restricted data should first review the documentation available from NAHDAP (user guide and frequency codebooks) and from the Pathways Website (domain content codebooks). This review will help determine which specific datasets will be needed for your project. The "Research Description" in ICPSR's Data Access Request System (IDARS) must include a specific explanation of why you need each topic domain selected on the "Data Selection" page in IDARS. Most projects should only require one reference period per topic domain being requested. Data requests for all reference periods within a given domain will not be approved without a satisfactory explanation of why all of the reference periods are required for your project. Since the Calendar data collection is very extensive and Restricted Data Use Agreements are only for 2 years, data requests are not expected to need the entire Calendar data collection.

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

Respondents were enrolled and baseline interviews conducted from November 2000 to January 2003. Follow-up interviews were then scheduled with the respondents at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, 60, 72 and 84 months past their baseline interview.

The enrolled youth were at least 14 years old and under 18 years old at the time of their committing offense and were found guilty of a serious offense (predominantly felonies, with a few exceptions for some misdemeanor property offenses, sexual assault, or weapons offenses).

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Collateral Measures, 2000-2004 (ICPSR 32881)

Released/updated on: 2013-01-07
Geographic coverage: United States, Phoenix, Arizona, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2000-01-01--2003-01-01, 2001-01-01--2006-01-01

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700) from 2000 through 2010.

This study looks at interviews conducted with the collateral informants who participated in the study. The collateral informants were nominated by the main study participant and represented individuals who "knew the study participant well". At the interview baseline the collateral informant was usually a biological parent. During the three follow-up interviews the majority of collaterals were a friend. Collateral informants could also be a sibling, significant other, or relative. Collaterals were asked questions in regards to the main study participant's life, allowing for comparison between responses provided by two sources. A baseline interview was conducted with the collateral after the baseline interview took place with the main participant. Additional waves of follow-up with collaterals took place at 12, 24, and 36 months. A collateral report is not present for all of the main study participant interviews across waves (see response rate below).

Curated

Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Collateral Measures - Scales, 2000-2010 (ICPSR 36867)

Released/updated on: 2017-12-06
Geographic coverage: United States, Phoenix, Arizona, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2000-01-01--2003-01-01, 2001-01-01--2006-01-01

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

This study looks at interviews conducted with the collateral informants who participated in the study. The collateral informants were nominated by the main study participant and represented individuals who "knew the study participant well". At the interview baseline the collateral informant was usually a biological parent. During the three follow-up interviews the majority of collaterals were a friend. Collateral informants could also be a sibling, significant other, or relative. Collaterals were asked questions in regards to the main study participant's life, allowing for comparison between responses provided by two sources. A baseline interview was conducted with the collateral after the baseline interview took place with the main participant. Additional waves of follow-up with collaterals took place at 12, 24, and 36 months. A collateral report is not present for all of the main study participant interviews across waves (see response rate below).

The current Collateral Measures study primarily consists of the calculated scores from constructs asked about during the interview, but the individual scale items were withheld at that time. These additional datasets contain those individual items plus the calculated scores. These variables are typically consistent across the waves that the scale was asked about during the course of the entire project. Most of the files contain variables from all four waves of data collection. The table in the front of the User Guide will list which waves are present in each data file.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Subject Measures, 2000-2010 (ICPSR 29961)

Released/updated on: 2016-03-14
Geographic coverage: United States, Phoenix, Arizona, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2000-01-01--2010-01-01

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

Respondents were enrolled and baseline interviews conducted from November 2000 to January 2003. Follow-up interviews were then scheduled with the respondents at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, 60, 72 and 84 months past their baseline interview.

The enrolled youth were at least 14 years old and under 18 years old at the time of their committing offense and were found guilty of a serious offense (predominantly felonies, with a few exceptions for some misdemeanor property offenses, sexual assault, or weapons offenses).

The baseline interview was conducted within 75 days of the youth's adjudication hearing. For youths in the adult system, the baseline interview was conducted within 90 days of either (a) the decertification hearing in Philadelphia, a hearing at which it is determined if the case will remain in adult court or if it will be sent back to juvenile court; or (b) the adult arraignment hearing in Phoenix, the point in the Arizona adult system at which charges have been formally presented.

The aims of the investigation were to identify initial patterns of how serious adolescent offenders stop antisocial activity, to describe the role of social context and developmental changes in promoting these positive changes, and to compare the effects of sanctions and interventions in promoting these changes. The larger goals of the Pathways to Desistance study were to improve decision-making by court and social service personnel and to clarify policy debates about alternatives for serious adolescent offenders. The study relied primarily on self-report information from study participants.

Each wave of data collection covered six domains: (1) background characteristics (e.g., demographics, academic achievement, psychiatric diagnoses, offense history, neurological functioning, psychopathy, personality), (2) indicators of individual functioning (e.g., work and school status and performance, substance abuse, mental disorder, antisocial behavior), (3) psychosocial development and attitudes (e.g., impulse control, susceptibility to peer influence, perceptions of opportunity, perceptions of procedural justice, moral disengagement), (4) family context (e.g., household composition, quality of family relationships), (5) personal relationships (e.g., quality of romantic relationships and friendships, peer delinquency, contacts with caring adults), and (6) community context (e.g., neighborhood conditions, personal capital, and community involvement). Information about the measures used to capture this information can be found on the Pathways to Desistance website.

Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Subject Measures - Scales, 2000-2010 (ICPSR 36800)

Released/updated on: 2017-12-14
Geographic coverage: United States, Phoenix, Arizona, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2000-01-01--2010-01-01

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

Respondents were enrolled and baseline interviews conducted from November 2000 to January 2003. Follow-up interviews were then scheduled with the respondents at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, 60, 72 and 84 months past their baseline interview.

The enrolled youth were at least 14 years old and under 18 years old at the time of their committing offense and were found guilty of a serious offense (predominantly felonies, with a few exceptions for some misdemeanor property offenses, sexual assault, or weapons offenses).

Each wave of data collection covered six domains: (1) background characteristics (e.g., demographics, academic achievement, psychiatric diagnoses, offense history, neurological functioning, psychopathy, personality), (2) indicators of individual functioning (e.g., work and school status and performance, substance abuse, mental disorder, antisocial behavior), (3) psychosocial development and attitudes (e.g., impulse control, susceptibility to peer influence, perceptions of opportunity, perceptions of procedural justice, moral disengagement), (4) family context (e.g., household composition, quality of family relationships), (5) personal relationships (e.g., quality of romantic relationships and friendships, peer delinquency, contacts with caring adults), and (6) community context (e.g., neighborhood conditions, personal capital, and community involvement). Information about the measures used to capture this information can be found on the Pathways to Desistance website.

The current Subject Measures study primarily consists of the calculated scores from constructs asked about during the interview, but the individual scale items were withheld at that time. These variables are typically consistent across the waves that the scale was asked about during the course of the entire study. Most of the files contain variables from all 11 waves of data collection. The table in the front of the User Guide will list which waves are present in each data file.

Curated
Partially restricted

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Family Health Insurance Survey, 1993 (ICPSR 6894)

Released/updated on: 2005-06-22
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Vermont, New York, United States, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, Minnesota, Florida, North Dakota, Washington
Time period: 1993-01-01--1994-01-01
This survey investigated health insurance coverage, as well as access to and use of health services, in each of ten states. With the goal of remedying the previous lack of state-level data, the survey was conducted to aid in defining problems of insurance coverage and to analyze the impacts of states' policy options. The main unit of observation is the health insurance family, which includes the head, spouse, and their children up to age 18, or to age 23 if they were in school. Variables on health insurance coverage include the types of coverage respondents carried (Medicare, Medicaid, additional state or federal programs, and private policies), sources of private policy coverage, premiums paid for private policies, and number of months uninsured during the last year. Access to health care is measured by variables such as the type of usual health care provider, the amount of time it usually took to get to the doctor's office, and whether needed medical care was not received during the previous year. Variables on the utilization of health care include the number of overnight hospital stays, the number of visits to doctors, age at first DPT (diphtheria, whooping cough, and tetanus) shot, age at first oral polio immunization, and the number of months since the most recent breast exam and Pap smear. The survey also elicited self-reported health status and opinions on the health care system, gauged satisfaction/dissatisfaction with health services received, and gathered information on employment, income, education, migration, age, sex, marital status, race, Hispanic origin, and citizenship.
Back to top