Search results

The Chicago Surveys are part of a long-running series of public opinion surveys conducted by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs every two years. This study is the 2012 Chicago Council Survey, designed to investigate the opinions and attitudes of the general public on matters related to foreign policy, and to define the parameters of public opinion within which decision-makers must operate.

The 2012 Chicago Council Survey focuses on respondents' opinions of the United States' leadership role in the world and the challenges the country faces domestically and internationally.

The survey covers the following international topics: relations with other countries, role in foreign affairs, possible threats to vital interests in the next ten years, foreign policy goals, benefits or drawbacks of globalization, situations that might justify the use of United States troops in other parts of the world, the number and location of United States military bases overseas, respondent feelings toward people of other countries, opinions on the influence of other countries in the world and how much influence those countries should have, United States participation in potential treaties, the United States' role in the United Nations and NATO, which side the United States should take in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what measures should be taken to deal with Iran's nuclear program, the military effort in Afghanistan, opinions on efforts to combat terrorism, and the rise of China as a global power.

Domestic issues include economic prospects for American children when they become adults, funding for government programs, the fairness of the current distribution of income in the United States, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and United States dependence on foreign energy sources.

Demographic and other background information include age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, left-right political self-placement, political affiliation, employment status, highest level of education, and religious preference. Also included are household size and composition, whether the respondent is head of household, household income, housing type, ownership status of living quarters, household Internet access, Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) status, and region and state of residence.

The purpose of the 2015 Local Arts Agency (LAA) Census was to characterize the different ways that LAAs perform their vital roles in every community. LAAs share the goals of enabling diverse forms of arts and culture to thrive locally, ensuring broad accessibility to the public, and building healthier communities through the arts.

The census provides details about LAA staffing and oversight, services and programs, partnerships and collaborations in the community, grantmaking, diversity within staff/volunteers/board and diversity in programming, marketing and communications practices, arts education, services for the military, and operating revenues and expenditures, and more. For a more detailed listing of question groups, please refer to the Description of Variables below.

This study contains data from the two forms of the surveys (Full and Abbreviated--a subset of the Full survey). These surveys were distributed online to 4,377 individual Local Arts Agencies in the United States which were known to Americans for the Arts in 2015. A total of 1,127 LAAs responded to the census survey. 641 submitted the Full survey; 486 completed the Abbreviated survey. The overall response rate was 26%.

The data is contained in two separate datasets comprising results from the two surveys. The Full Survey (dataset 1) contains data from the 641 respondents who completed the long survey. The Combined Surveys (dataset 2) contains responses from both the 486 respondents of the abbreviated survey as well the corresponding 641 responses from the full survey for a total of 1,127 respondents. The rate of response from large and mid-sized LAAs was very high, while small and volunteer-driven LAAs were underrepresented in the survey respondents.

The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (USTS) was conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) to examine the experiences of transgender adults in the United States. The USTS questionnaire was administered online and data were collected over a 34-day period in the summer of 2015, between August 19 and September 21. The final sample included respondents from all fifty states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and U.S. military bases overseas. The USTS Public Use Dataset (PUDS) features survey results from 27,715 respondents and details the experiences of transgender people across a wide range of areas, such as education, employment, family life, health, housing, and interactions with police and prisons.

The survey instrument had thirty-two sections that covered a broad array of topics, including questions related to the following topics (in alphabetical order): accessing restrooms; airport security; civic participation; counseling; family and peer support; health and health insurance; HIV; housing and homelessness; identity documents; immigration; intimate partner violence; military service; police and incarceration; policy priorities; public accommodations; sex work; sexual assault; substance use; suicidal thoughts and behaviors; unequal treatment, harassment, and physical attack; and voting.

Demographic information includes age, racial and ethnic identity, sex assigned at birth, gender and preferred pronouns, sexual orientation, language(s) spoken at home, education, employment, income, religion/spirituality, and marital status.

There are no publicly available data files for this study. The naming conventions were maintained from the original pre-ICPSR release and the PUDS file is restricted use along with the qualitative data (MS Excel) file.

Before applying for access to these data please refer to the Approved Requests for USTS Data. These abstracts describe work currently in progress, and we provide them to help reduce the risk of duplication of research efforts.

The 2021-2022 Study of Family and Staff Experiences in AIAN Head Start FACES Programs (2021-2022 Study) builds on the American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (AIAN FACES), which has been a source of national information on children and families enrolled in Head Start programs operated by federally recognized tribes (known as Region XI AIAN Head Start) since 2015. The motivation and goals of the Study of Family and Staff Experiences in AIAN FACES Programs (the 2021-2022 study) came from a need that arose as the COVID-19 pandemic continued into another year of affecting Region XI Head Start families' and staff's lives--and from recognizing the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on AIAN communities.

The 2021-2022 study included a nonrepresentative sample of Region XI Head Start programs and the children and families they serve. Although a nationally representative sample of Region XI Head Start programs, centers, teachers, and children were selected, fewer of them participated than expected, despite an extension of the planned parental consent collection and data collection windows.

The 2021-2022 Study of Family and Staff Well-Being in Head Start FACES Programs (2021-2022 study), builds on the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), which has been a source of national information about Head Start programs and participants since 1997. The motivation and goals of the Study of Family and Staff Well-Being in Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey Programs (the 2021-2022 study) came from a need that arose as the COVID-19 pandemic continued into another year of affecting Head Start families' and staff's lives.

The 2021-2022 study included two components. Firstly, the Program, Staff, and Family Study, was conducted in 60 programs, and included the collection of parent surveys and Teacher Child Reports (TCRs) in fall 2021 and spring 2022, as well as a teacher survey in fall 2021. Secondly, the Program and Staff Study, conducted in the 60 programs participating in the Program, Staff, and Family Study plus an additional 120 programs, included the collection of program director, center director, and teacher surveys in spring 2022.

The 2021-2022 study aimed to describe the national population of Head Start programs, centers, teachers, classrooms, and children during the 2021-2022 program year. However, the Data Producers were unable to fully meet this goal because of challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. A nationally representative sample of Head Start programs was selected. However, fewer of the programs participated than expected. Probability samples of centers, teachers, and children within the participating programs were selected. Weights are available for analysis to account for the probability that children and their teachers, centers, and programs were selected for the study. This lessens the risk of bias due to study non-participation and survey nonresponse; and provide results that represent, to the extent possible, all programs, centers, teachers, classrooms, and children in Head Start. The responding sample may not fully represent the population due to higher-than-expected non-response that may not have been adequately addressed with weighting adjustments.

Despite these limitations, the 2021-2022 study sample design supports many analyses for programs and teachers, as well as children. The data from the programs in the Program, Staff, and Family Study can address questions about the children and parents who participate in the program, including about children's development across one year in the Head Start program for both newly entering children and those returning for a second year. The study also supports research questions related to subgroups of interest, such as families with low income and specific racial/ethnic groups, as well as policy issues that emerge during the study. In addition, the research questions investigate the characteristics of Head Start programs, centers, and teachers, and the classrooms they teach. Users can use the same data to answer questions about the relationships between program and classroom characteristics and child and family well-being. The data from the larger sample of programs in the Program and Staff Study are most useful for answering questions about Head Start programs, classrooms, teachers, and program and center directors.

In order to assist higher education institutions and their students during the pandemic, the federal government established the Higher Education Emergency Relief (HEER) fund, which directed over $75 billion to institutions of higher education - including nearly $25 billion to community colleges - over a three-year period. Researchers at the Community College Research Center (CCRC), the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), and Wheelhouse: The Center for Community College Leadership and Research at the University of California, Davis (Wheelhouse) partnered through the Accelerating Recovery in Community Colleges (ARCC) Network to understand how community colleges used HEER funds to support their students and institutions during the pandemic.

This data collection contains responses from a survey of 170 community colleges across six states: California, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas. This institutional survey of pandemic relief spending and recovery strategies attempted to answer the following research questions:

1. • How did colleges use HEER student and institutional aid?
   • How did colleges target specific populations for HEER-funded student supports?
   • What do colleges' expenditure patterns reveal about how student and institutional needs changed over time?
   • How successful did colleges perceive HEER funds to be in meeting student and institutional needs during the pandemic?
   • What do colleges' concerns about the end of HEER funds reveal about how to prioritize future funding efforts?
   • In what ways did colleges' experiences with HEER funds vary based on institutional characteristics?

The resulting dataset provides insight into the specific pandemic recovery activities colleges implemented, colleges' perceptions of how successful funds were in addressing student and institutional needs during the pandemic, and what institutional needs were not met by aid.

This mixed methods study examined several aspects of the use of civil protection orders (CPOs) by adolescents and young adults (aged 14 to 24 years) in one county in Washington. The first aim examined the effectiveness of CPOs among adolescents and young adults with a history of intimate partner violence (IPV) on IPV recidivism rates of: 1) physical IPV; 2) psychological IPV; and 3) IPV-related property crimes. The second aim explored the knowledge, perceptions, and barriers to and facilitators of adolescent and young adult IPV victims' use of CPOs to best identify next steps in improving access and uptake among this population.

The collection includes a survival analysis dataset (DS1) containing data from county court records and CPO filings from IPV events, and documentation from IPV victim interviews (DS2). Demographic information includes victim, offender, and interview respondent ages, and interview respondent gender, race and ethnicity.

The Archives Administrators Survey endeavored to reach administrators leading archives in the United States. Archives administrators are defined as the most senior leaders and decision makers at their archives, regardless of archive size. Administrators may oversee large archives organizations, archives departments or units situated within broader institutions, or community archives collections. Archives administrators may manage employees or volunteers or, in some cases, may be the sole steward of an archival collection.

Respondents were asked about the characteristics of their archives department or organization; staff scope; administrator responsibilities; recruitment and retention; funding and spending; organizational strategy; diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic; upskilling and professional development; and community archives.

Demographic variables include respondents' years in their current role, total years of experience, degrees, age, gender, race, and sexual orientation, as well as whether they are transgender, have a disability, or are a care-giver.

The A*CENSUS II All Archivists Survey is a national survey of individual archivists and memory workers in the U.S. that was administered in 2021 and builds on the foundation of the first Archival Census and Education Needs Survey in the United States (A*CENSUS ICPSR 4265), which collected data for the archives profession in 2004 .

Through the All Archivists Survey, the Society of American Archivists (SAA) endeavored to reach all archivists, memory workers, and every person in the U.S. who works with archival materials in any capacity, regardless of employment status or title in order to ask about their experiences in and perspectives on key issues in the archives field.

Sexual assault is the most common violent crime committed on college campuses today. One in five women have experienced a completed or attempted sexual assault as an undergraduate. In one study, 28% of first-year college women experienced unwanted sexual contact and 7% experienced sexual assault or attempted sexual assault in the first semester of their first year of college, while 7% of college men reported an attempted or completed assault during their college experience. Growing evidence suggests the effectiveness of using online tools and video games for public health intervention and education.

Because of the positive impact of these digital strategies, researchers saw a need to bring this research to sexual violence prevention, where there has been limited use of digital applications. The goal of this project was to design and evaluate the pedagogical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a video game to reduce sexual and relationship violence. It was hypothesized that the video game could enhance the self-confidence of male and female late adolescents (ages 18-24) to practice safe, appropriate, and effective approaches for intervening in situations where sexual and/or relationship violence (including stalking) is occurring, has the potential to occur, or recently occurred.

The University of Buffalo Adolescent and Family Development Project (AFDP) includes a community sample of adolescents assessed in a 9-wave longitudinal study between 2007 and 2017. The 387 adolescents were 11-12 year old children at recruitment and were assessed annually. The data provide an opportunity to examine risk and protective factors from multiple levels of influences (individual differences, family, peers, community) that might contribute to adolescent substance use in order to inform the development of comprehensive preventive interventions for at-risk youth. The project was largely focused on understanding the development of an internalizing pathway to initiation and escalation of substance use, and eventual development of use-related problems. This was done by examining: 1) the intersection of externalizing and internalizing problems, 2) peer context and use-related motives as a potential mediating mechanism, and 3) whether motivational aspects of personality moderated the proposed mediational paths. Also of interest was whether risk for an internalizing pathway to substance use varied by chronological age or stage of use.

This collection is organized into 13 data parts. Waves 1 through 3 and Waves 7 through 9 each contain 2 datasets pertaining to either a child (DS1, DS3, DS5, DS8, DS10, DS12) or caretaker (DS2, DS4, DS6, DS9, DS11, DS13) interview. All child interview data from Waves 4 through 6 are contained in DS7. Various demographic information, such as age, gender, race, and ethnicity, is also included in the data.

The American Health Values Survey (AHVS) was conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago in order to develop a typology of Americans based on their health values and beliefs. The survey, of more than 10,000 adults from five individual communities, examined values and beliefs related to health at both the individual as well as societal levels. The community surveys sought to compare differences between the local typologies, but also to investigate any similarities with national typology groups. The survey assessed the importance of health in:

• day-to-day personal life (i.e. the amount of effort spent on disease prevention as well as appropriate seeking of medical care);
• equity, the value placed on the opportunity to succeed generally in life as well as on health equity;
• social solidarity, the importance of taking into account the needs of others as well as personal needs;
• health care disparities, views about how easy/hard it is for African Americans, Latinos and low-income Americans to get quality health care;
• and, the importance of the social determinants of health.

In addition, the survey also explored views about how active government should be in health; collective efficacy, the ease of affecting positive community change by working with others; and health-related civic engagement e.g. the support of health charities and organizations working on health issues.

There are public-use and restricted-use versions of the data provided for each of the five sentinel communities participating in this study. Although each site differs on the number of respondents as listed below, each data file contains the same 143 variables for each site and version of the data. The only difference between the public-use versus restricted-use versions of the data is the variable ZIP, which was MASKED in the public-use version.

• DS1 and DS2 - Baltimore, Maryland: 2,139
• DS3 and DS4 - Maricopa County, Arizona: 2,247
• DS5 and DS6 - Stockton, California: 2,127
• DS7 and DS8 - Mobile, Alabama: 1,821
• DS9 and DS10 - North Central counties in Nebraska: 2,846

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) has a vision to build a Culture of Health (CoH) by making health a shared national priority, one valued and advanced by multiple stakeholders across all sectors of society. This vision embraces a very broadly integrated and comprehensive approach to health, one where well-being lies at the center of every aspect of American life. In 2014, the RWJF commissioned NORC at the University of Chicago to plan and conduct the first American Health Values Survey (AHVS) to understand the extent to which United States adults held views consistent with this vision. The idea was to explore which types of United States adults were more supportive and less supportive of the goal and what the differences were between the more and less supportive groups. To aid in the understanding of these differences, NORC developed a typology of United States adults based on their values and beliefs related to the CoH vision.

Using a large-scale national survey fielded in late 2015 and early 2016, NORC identified six major segments of the population of adults in the United States based on their differing health values and beliefs and developed detailed profiles of each segment that described their pattern of values and beliefs as well as their demographic, political and other characteristics. NORC subsequently replicated the typology development work in five RWJF Sentinel Communities across the nation and also developed a typology of rural America. The same segments, or similar ones, were common across various geographic areas of the United States. Four years have since passed, in which changes occurred in the country. RWJF in 2019 commissioned NORC to conduct a second national, cross-sectional survey (AHVS II) in late 2019 and early 2020.

This survey was designed to investigate whether having psychological connections to particular groups (ex: racial, ethnic, and national origin groups) and perceptions of discrimination lead to alienation from the structure and operation of representative democracy in the United States. The data allow for comparative ethnic analyses of people's views regarding the representative-constituent relationship and of the conditions under which group identifications and perceptions of discrimination matter.

The survey includes oversamples of Black, Latino, and Asian respondents. A Spanish version of the survey was available. Demographic information retrieved about respondents include age, race/ethnicity, gender, education (highest degree received), employment status, marital status, religion, household size and income. In addition, ancestry was assessed with the question, "From what countries or parts of the world did your ancestors come?" Respondents also reported United States citizenship status, primary home language, and nationality. Variables focusing on respondent perceived representation in the United States include political ideology and political party affiliation.

The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) is a major source of information on Head Start programs and the children and families they serve. Since 1997, FACES has conducted studies in a nationally representative sample of Head Start programs, but has historically not included Region XI (programs operated by federally-recognized tribes), whose programs are designed to serve predominantly American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) children and families. The American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey 2015 (AI/AN FACES 2015), the first national study of Region XI AI/AN Head Start children and families, is designed to fill this information gap.

The design of AI/AN FACES 2015 has been informed by members of the AI/AN FACES 2015 Workgroup which includes tribal Head Start directors, researchers with expertise working with tribal communities, Mathematica Policy Research study staff, and federal officials from the Office of Head Start, Region XI, and the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Building on FACES as the foundation, members of the AI/AN FACES 2015 Workgroup have shared insights and information on the kinds of information needed about children and families served by Region XI AI/AN Head Start programs (including children's development and school readiness, parent and family demographics, health, and program engagement, and teacher, classroom, and program characteristics). Members also provided input on recruitment practices and study methods that are responsive to the unique cultural and self-governing contexts of tribal Head Start programs.

Data collection with Region XI children, families, classrooms, and programs took place in the Fall of 2015 and the Spring of 2016. Twenty-one Region XI Head Start programs participated. Procedures for tribal review and approval in each of those 21 communities were followed. Information about this study has been shared broadly with tribal Head Start programs and tribal leaders via OHS tribal consultations, nationally-broadcast webinars, National Indian Head Start Directors' Association Board of Directors (NIHSDA) annual conferences, the 2016 ACF National Research Conference on Early Childhood, and the Secretary's Tribal Advisory Council (STAC) December 2014 and 2016 meetings.

These data are being released as a preliminary version to facilitate early access to the study for research purposes. This collection has not been fully processed by ICPSR at this time, and data are released in the format provided by the principal investigators. As the study is processed and given enhanced features by ICPSR in the future, users will be able to download the updated versions of the study. Please report any data errors or problems to user support, and we will work with you to resolve any data-related issues.

The American National Election Study (ANES): 2016 Pilot Study sought to test new instrumentation under consideration for potential inclusion in the ANES 2016 Time Series Study, as well as future ANES studies. Much of the content is based on proposals from the ANES user community submitted through the Online Commons page, found on the ANES home page. The survey included questions about preferences in the presidential primary, stereotyping, the economy, discrimination, race and racial consciousness, police use of force, and numerous policy issues, such as immigration law, health insurance, and federal spending. It was conducted on the Internet using the YouGov panel, an international market research firm that administers polls that collect information about politics, public affairs, products, brands, as well as other topics of general interest.

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

To assess the current practices in cold-case investigations, this study utilized a national online survey of law enforcement agencies (Cold Case Survey Data, n = 1,051) to document the range of ways in which cold-case work is conducted and assess how this organization affects cold-case clearance rates. In November 2008, the chiefs of police in the sample were sent a letter explaining the purpose of the survey and inviting them to participate. Potential respondents were directed to the web-based survey instrument through a provided web address. The results from the national survey were used to select sites for an analysis of case files. Researchers chose three jurisdictions that conducted a large number of cold-case homicide investigations: the District of Columbia, Baltimore, Maryland, and Dallas, Texas (Cold Case Homicide Data, n = 429). To these three sites, researchers added Denver, Colorado (Cold Case Sexual Assault Data, n = 105) because it had received a Department of Justice grant to conduct testing of DNA material in sexual assault cold cases. At all four sites, cold cases were examined for seven categories of data including victim's characteristics, crime context, motivation, human capital, physical evidence, basis for cold-case investigations and cold-case actions.

An Analysis of the Effects of an Academic Summer Program for Middle School Students, 2012, funded by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation's Social Innovation Fund, was conducted in the Summer of 2012 in three school districts (District A, B, C) that were new partnerships for the Building Educated Leaders for Life program (BELL). Of the three study districts, District A and B offered the BELL program in one middle school each; District C offered the program in three schools.

Several types of quantitative data were collected about students and BELL teachers in the study. The nature and purpose of these data sources are described below.

(1) Spring (baseline) characteristics and test scores:During the application process, parents provided information about their child's socioeconomic characteristics (racial or ethnic group, parents' education, and so on. In addition, schools provided information about whether students in the study were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, whether they had an individualized education plan (IEP), and whether English was their second language. Schools also provided students' scores on the spring 2012 math and reading assessments administered by their state; these scores were used to determine whether students were proficient, based on local cutoff scores on their state test.

(2) Attendance records: BELL provided the evaluation team with the attendance records of students in the study during summer 2012, including any students in the non-BELL group who may have attended the program.

(3) Fall reading and math tests: Students in the study were encouraged to take standardized tests in math and reading in fall 2012. In the average study district, students took the tests six weeks after the end of the program, or one week after the start of the school year. Students' reading achievement was assessed using the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Examination (GRADE), and their math achievement was assessed with its math counterpart, the Group Mathematics Assessment and Diagnostic Examination (GMADE). The GRADE contains two subtests (reading comprehension and vocabulary), and the GMADE contains three (concepts, operations, and processes).

(4) Fall student survey: In the same session as the GRADE and GMADE were administered, students also completed a short survey asking about the extent to which they were engaged in various aspects of instruction when they returned to school in the fall (for example, whether they paid attention in class and whether they completed their homework on time). The survey also included a set of items asking students to describe their activities during the summer.

(5) BELL teacher survey: BELL administers a survey to its teachers as part of regular program monitoring and evaluation activities. The survey captures teachers' characteristics as well as their perceptions of various aspects of the BELL program (such as training, materials, and staffing), of their own performance in the classroom, and of their students' performance and engagement. BELL administers the survey to all of its teachers -- academic (English Language Arts [ELA] or math or both) and enrichment teachers -- as well as mentors (teaching assistants). However, given the academic focus of this evaluation, the target population for the study's purposes was academic teachers who taught students in the study.

This collection contains two datasets. Part 1 is a student-level dataset that includes all information collected about students in the study sample (baseline data, GRADE and GMADE test scores, student survey data, and attendance data). Part 2 is a teacher survey dataset that includes teachers in the analysis sample (i.e. academic middle school teachers who responded to the survey and who taught students in the study).

Demographic information about the students include socioeconomic characteristics like racial or ethnic group, parents' education, and so on. Demographic information about the teachers in the sample include their education and experience backgrounds.

This study is part of the American National Election Study (ANES), a time-series collection of national surveys fielded continuously since 1948. The American National Election Studies are designed to present data on Americans' social backgrounds, enduring political predispositions, social and political values, perceptions and evaluations of groups and candidates, opinions on questions of public policy, and participation in political life. As with all Time Series studies conducted during years of presidential elections, respondents were interviewed during the two months preceding the November election (Pre-election interview), and then re-interviewed during the two months following the election (Post-election interview). Like its predecessors, the 2016 ANES was divided between questions necessary for tracking long-term trends and questions necessary to understand the particular political moment of 2016. The study maintains and extends the ANES time-series 'core' by collecting data on Americans' basic political beliefs, allegiances, and behaviors, which are so critical to a general understanding of politics that they are monitored at every election, no matter the nature of the specific campaign or the broader setting. This 2016 ANES study features a dual-mode design with both traditional face-to-face interviewing (n=1,181) and surveys conducted on the Internet (n=3,090), and a total sample size of 4,271. In addition to content on electoral participation, voting behavior, and public opinion, the 2016 ANES Time Series Study contains questions about areas such as media exposure, cognitive style, and values and predispositions. Several items first measured on the 2012 ANES study were again asked, including "Big Five" personality traits using the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), and skin tone observations made by interviewers in the face-to-face study. For the first time, ANES has collected supplemental data directly from respondents' Facebook accounts. The post-election interview also included Module 5 from the Comparative Study of Electorial Systems (CSES), exploring themes in populism, perceptions on elites, corruption, and attitudes towards representative democracy. Face-to-face interviews were conducted by trained interviewers using computer assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) software on laptop computers. During a portion of the face-to-face interview, the respondent answered certain sensitive questions on the laptop computer directly, without the interviewer's participation (known as computer assisted self-interviewing (CASI)). Internet questionnaires could be completed anywhere the respondent had access to the Internet, on a computer or on a mobile device. Respondents were only eligible to compete the survey in the mode for which they were sampled. Demographic variables include respondent age, education level, political affiliation, race/ethnicity, marital status, and family composition.

This study is part of the American National Election Study (ANES), a time-series collection of national surveys fielded continuously since 1948. The American National Election Studies are designed to present data on Americans' social backgrounds, enduring political predispositions, social and political values, perceptions and evaluations of groups and candidates, opinions on questions of public policy, and participation in political life. As with all Time Series studies conducted during years of presidential elections, respondents were interviewed during the two months preceding the November election (Pre-election interview), and then re-interviewed during the two months following the election (Post-election interview). Like its predecessors, the 2020 ANES was divided between questions necessary for tracking long-term trends and questions necessary to understand the particular political moment of 2020. The study maintains and extends the ANES time-series 'core' by collecting data on Americans' basic political beliefs, allegiances, and behaviors, which are so critical to a general understanding of politics that they are monitored at every election, no matter the nature of the specific campaign or the broader setting. This 2020 ANES study features a fresh cross-sectional sample, with respondents randomly assigned to one of three sequential mode groups: web only, mixed web (i.e., web and phone), and mixed video (i.e., video, web, and phone). The new content for the 2020 pre-election survey includes coronavirus pandemic, election integrity, corruption, impeachment, immigration and democratic norms. The pre-election survey also includes protests and unrest over policing and racism. The new content for the 2020 post-election survey includes voting experiences, anti-elitism, faith in experts or science, climate change, gun control, opioids, rural-urban identity, international trade, transgender military service, social media usage, misinformation, perceptions of foreign countries and group empathy. Phone and video interviews were conducted by trained interviewers using computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) software on computers. Unlike in earlier years, the 2020 ANES did not use computer-assisted self interviewing (CASI) during any part of the interviewer-administered modes (video and phone). Rather, in interviewer-administered modes, all questions were read out loud to respondents, and respondents also provided their answers orally. Demographic variables include respondent age, education level, political affiliation, race/ethnicity, marital status, and family composition.

The ANES 2020-2022 Social Media Study was a two-wave survey before and after the 2020 presidential election and a third survey following the 2022 midterm elections in the United States. Data from these surveys are available as a public use file from the American National Election Studies (ANES) website. The three questionnaires have largely the same content, affording repeated measures of the same constructs. The questionnaire covers voter turnout and candidate choice in the 2020 presidential primaries and general election, the coronavirus pandemic, the economy, feeling thermometers, feelings about how things are going in the country, trust in institutions, political knowledge and misinformation, political participation, political stereotyping, political diversity of social networks, and campaign/policy issues including health insurance, immigration, guns, and climate change.

The Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ) is the only data collection effort that provides an annual source of data on local jails and jail inmates. Data on the size of the jail population and selected inmate characteristics are obtained every five to six years from the Census of Jails. In each of the years between the complete censuses, a sample survey of jails is conducted to estimate baseline characteristics of the nation's jails and inmates housed in these jails. The 2014 Annual Survey of Jails is the 27th such survey in a series begun in 1982.

The ASJ supplies data on characteristics of jails such as admissions and releases, growth in the number of jail facilities, changes in their rated capacities and level of occupancy, growth in the population supervised in the community, changes in methods of community supervision, and crowding issues. The ASJ also provides information on changes in the demographics of the jail population, supervision status of persons held, and a count of non-citizens in custody.

Starting in 2010, BJS enhanced the ASJ survey instruments to address topics on the number of convicted inmates that are unsentenced or sentenced and the number of unconvicted inmates awaiting trial/arraignment, or transfers/holds for other authorities. In order to reduce respondent burden, the ASJ no longer collects data on conviction status by sex. Also new to the survey, data are collected on jails' operational capacity and design capacity. Incorporating enhanced capacity measurements enables BJS to describe more accurately the variation and volatility of inmate bed space and crowding, especially as they relate to safety and security in jails.

To address more directly issues related to overcrowding and safety and security in jails, BJS started collecting data on staff and assaults against staff from the largest jails. In the modifications to the ASJ, starting in 2010, 335 jail jurisdictions (370 respondents) included with certainty in the ASJ sample survey were asked to provide additional information (forms CJ-5D or CJ-5DA) on the flow of inmates going through jails and the distribution of time served, staff characteristics and assaults on staff resulting in death, and inmate misconduct.

The data presented in this study were collected in the Annual Survey of Jails, 2014. These data are used to track growth in the number of jails and the capacities nationally, changes in the demographics of the jail population and supervision status of persons held, the prevalence of crowding issues, and a count of non-United States citizens within the jail population. The data are intended for a variety of users, including federal and state agencies, local officials in conjunction with jail administrators, researchers, planners, and the public. The reference date for the survey is June 30, 2014.

The Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ) is the only data collection effort that provides an annual source of data on local jails and jail inmates. Data on the size of the jail population and selected inmate characteristics are obtained every five to six years from the Census of Jails. In each of the years between the complete censuses, a sample survey of jails is conducted to estimate baseline characteristics of the nation's jails and inmates housed in these jails. The 2015 Annual Survey of Jails is the 28th such survey in a series begun in 1982.

The ASJ supplies data on characteristics of jails such as admissions and releases, growth in the number of jail facilities, changes in their rated capacities and level of occupancy, growth in the population supervised in the community, changes in methods of community supervision, and crowding issues. The ASJ also provides information on changes in the demographics of the jail population, supervision status of persons held, and a count of non-U.S. citizens in custody.

The data presented in this study were collected in the Annual Survey of Jails, 2015. These data are used to track growth in the number of jails and the capacities nationally, changes in the demographics of the jail population and supervision status of persons held, the prevalence of crowding issues, and a count of non-U.S. citizens within the jail population. The data are intended for a variety of users, including Federal and State agencies, local officials in conjunction with jail administrators, researchers, planners, and the public. The reference date for the survey is December 31, 2015.

The Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ) is the only data collection effort that provides an annual source of data on local jails and jail inmates. Data on the size of the jail population and selected inmate characteristics are obtained every five to six years from the Census of Jails. In each of the years between the complete censuses, a sample survey of jails is conducted to estimate baseline characteristics of the nation's jails and inmates housed in these jails. The 2016 Annual Survey of Jails is the 29th such survey in a series begun in 1982.

The ASJ supplies data on characteristics of jails such as admissions and releases, growth in the number of jail facilities, changes in their rated capacities and level of occupancy, growth in the population supervised in the community, changes in methods of community supervision, and crowding issues. The ASJ also provides information on changes in the demographics of the jail population, supervision status of persons held, and a count of non-U.S. citizens in custody.

The data presented in this study were collected in the Annual Survey of Jails, 2016. These data are used to track growth in the number of jails and the capacities nationally, changes in the demographics of the jail population and supervision status of persons held, the prevalence of crowding issues, and a count of non-U.S. citizens within the jail population. The data are intended for a variety of users, including Federal and State agencies, local officials in conjunction with jail administrators, researchers, planners, and the public. The reference date for the survey is December 31, 2016.

The Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ) is the only data collection effort that provides an annual source of data on local jails and jail inmates. Data on the size of the jail population and selected inmate characteristics are obtained every five to six years from the Census of Jails. In each of the years between the complete censuses, a sample survey of jails is conducted to estimate baseline characteristics of the nation's jails and inmates housed in these jails. The 2017 Annual Survey of Jails is the 30th such survey in a series begun in 1982.

The ASJ supplies data on characteristics of jails such as admissions and releases, growth in the number of jail facilities, changes in their rated capacities and level of occupancy, growth in the population supervised in the community, changes in methods of community supervision, and crowding issues. The ASJ also provides information on changes in the demographics of the jail population, supervision status of persons held, and a count of non-U.S. citizens in custody.

The data presented in this study were collected in the Annual Survey of Jails, 2017. These data are used to track growth in the number of jails and the capacities nationally, changes in the demographics of the jail population and supervision status of persons held, the prevalence of crowding issues, and a count of non-U.S. citizens within the jail population. The data are intended for a variety of users, including Federal and State agencies, local officials in conjunction with jail administrators, researchers, planners, and the public. The reference date for the survey is June 30, 2017.

The Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ) is the only data collection effort that provides an annual source of data on local jails and jail inmates. Data on the size of the jail population and selected inmate characteristics are obtained every five to six years from the Census of Jails. In each of the years between the complete censuses, a sample survey of jails is conducted to estimate baseline characteristics of the nation's jails and inmates housed in these jails. The 2018 Annual Survey of Jails is the 31st such survey in a series begun in 1982.

The ASJ supplies data on characteristics of jails such as admissions and releases, growth in the number of jail facilities, changes in their rated capacities and level of occupancy, growth in the population supervised in the community, changes in methods of community supervision, and crowding issues. The ASJ also provides information on changes in the demographics of the jail population, supervision status of persons held, and a count of non-U.S. citizens in custody.

The data presented in this study were collected in the Annual Survey of Jails, 2018. These data are used to track growth in the number of jails and the capacities nationally, changes in the demographics of the jail population and supervision status of persons held, the prevalence of crowding issues, and a count of non-U.S. citizens within the jail population. The data are intended for a variety of users, including Federal and State agencies, local officials in conjunction with jail administrators, researchers, planners, and the public. The reference date for the survey is June 29, 2018.