Search results

Showing 1 – 6 of 6 results.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Philadelphia Social History Project: Manufacturing Data, 1850, 1860, 1870, 1880 (ICPSR 34967)

Released/updated on: 2014-04-14

Geographic coverage: United States, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Time period: 1850-01-01--1850-12-31, 1860-01-01--1860-12-31, 1870-01-01--1870-12-31, 1880-01-01--1880-12-31

This component of the Philadelphia Social History Project highlights Philadelphia manufacturing industry data collected in census years 1850, 1860, 1870, and 1880. Business level data includes company name, type of business, amount of capital, and number of active months per year. Workforce information includes average number of male, female, and child employees, occupations, average wages per month by sex, and total wages per year. Production details for each manufacturing firm consist of type of power used, horsepower, number and types of machines, value and number of materials, and value and number of products. Geographic variables include district, ward, x- and y-coordinates, street name, and street direction.

Curated

Employment Retention and Advancement Project, 2000-2007 [United States] (ICPSR 33181)

Released/updated on: 2012-03-30

Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Chicago, Salem (Oregon), Minnesota, Fort Worth, California, New York (state), Cleveland, South Carolina, New York City, Illinois, Texas, Ohio, Los Angeles, Eugene, Houston, Riverside, Corpus Christi

Time period: 2000-01-01--2007-12-31

The Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) project was designed to fill the gap in knowledge about employment retention and advancement strategies that might be effective. The goal of ERA was to identify and rigorously test a diverse set of innovative models designed to promote employment stability and wage or earnings progression among current or former welfare recipients or other low-income groups. As part of ERA, over a dozen different program models have been evaluated over the past 10 years using random assignment research designs. These models embodied states' and localities' choices of program goals, target populations, and program features, and the programs were largely paid for through existing funding streams. The programs were thus "real-world" interventions initiated by practitioners and not programs set up and funded solely for research purposes. The diversity of the models presents an opportunity to explore the effectiveness of a variety of strategies implemented for different populations in order to identify what might work. This collection includes seven datasets, four classified as Core/Final Report Sites and three from Harder to Employ Sites. Almost all of the ERA programs targeted current or former recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the cash welfare program that mainly serves single mothers and their children. The programs differed, however, in terms of when services were first provided and to whom. The Harder to Employ Sites files focus on the three ERA models that served harder to employ populations; (1) Tier 2 program in Minnesota: unemployed welfare-to-work participants who were in welfare-to-work services for a year or longer and hadn't been employed in the previous three months were given welfare-to-work services aimed at addressing barriers to employment which took into account their employment limitations. The Tier 2 program focused on assessing barriers to employment and addressing those barriers through referrals to appropriate services and close monitoring and follow-up. (2) New York City PRIDE: welfare recipients who were deemed "employable with limitations" were required to take part in welfare-to-work activities -- which emphasized unpaid work experience, education, and job placement assistance -- however, the program took into account their employment limitations when placing them in activities. The PRIDE program began with an in-depth assessment of participants' work and education history and their medical conditions. (3) New York City Substance Abuse Case Management (SACM): public assistance applicants and recipients who screened positive for signs of substance abuse were given a mandatory appointment to assess the level of substance abuse treatment needed. Depending on the outcome of the assessment, clients were referred to treatment, employment services, or a combination of both. Noncompliance at any stage resulted in sanctions and loss of public assistance benefits. Information was collected on respondents' employment status, job training, pay rate and benefits, occupation sector, health care, childcare, transportation, and a variety of job related topics. Demographic variables included household income, housing arrangements, number of people living in household, and respondent health status.

Curated

State-Level Data on Limited Liability Companies (LLC), United States, 2004-2009 (ICPSR 31561)

Released/updated on: 2011-06-27

Time period: 2004-01-01--2009-12-31

The limited liability company (LLC) is much more popular a business entity in some states than in others. The potential explanations of this phenomenon was explored using a partly original set of cross-sectional state-level data. The dataset contains business entity filing statistics, data on formation fees, annual report fees, and franchise taxes for LLCs and business corporations, and data on particular features of state LLC statutes. It was found that formation fees, not taxes or substantive rules or anything else, explain the variation in LLC popularity best. The study that is based on the dataset, titled "For a Few Dollars Less: Explaining State-to-State Variation in Limited Liability Company Popularity," is not published yet.

Curated

Partially restricted

Assessing Punitive and Cooperative Strategies of Corporate Crime Control for Select Companies Operating in 1995 Through 2000 [United States] (ICPSR 22180)

Released/updated on: 2011-01-27

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1995-01-01--2000-12-31

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the extent to which deterrence or cooperative strategies motivated firms and their facilities to comply with environmental regulations. The project collected administrative data (secondary data) for a sample of publicly owned, United States companies in the pulp and paper, steel, and oil refining industries from 1995 to 2000 to track each firm's economic, environmental, and enforcement compliance history. Company Economic and Size Data (Part 1) from 1993 to 2000 were gathered from the Standard and Poor's Industrial Compustat, Mergent Online, and Securities and Exchange Commission, resulting in 512 company/year observations. Next, the research team used the Directory of Corporate Affiliations, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), and the EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) to identify all facilities owned by the sample of firms between 1995 and 2000. Researchers then gathered Facility Ownership Data (Part 2), resulting in 15,408 facility/year observations.

The research team gathered various types of PCS data from the EPA for facilities in the sample. Permit Compliance System Facility Data (Part 3) were gathered on the 214 unique major National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued to facilities in the sample. Although permits were given to facilities, facilities could have one or more discharge points (e.g., pipes) that released polluted water directly into surface waters. Thus, Permit Compliance System Discharge Points (Pipe Layout) Data (Part 4) were also collected on 1,995 pipes.

The EPA determined compliance using two methods: inspections and evaluations/assessments. Permit Compliance System Inspections Data (Part 5) were collected on a total of 1,943 inspections. Permit Compliance System Compliance Schedule Data (Part 6) were collected on a total of 3,336 compliance schedule events. Permit Compliance System Compliance Schedule Violation Data (Part 7) were obtained for a total of 246 compliance schedule violations. Permit Compliance System Single Event Violations Data (Part 8) were collected on 75 single event violations. Permit Compliance System Measurement/Effluent and Reporting Violations Data (Part 9) were collected for 396,479 violations. Permit Compliance System Enforcement Actions Data (Part 10) were collected on 1,730 enforcement actions.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration Data (Part 11) were collected on a total of 2,243 inspections. The OSHA data were collected by company name and include multiple facilities owned by each company and were not limited to facilities in the Permit Compliance System. Additional information about firm noncompliance was drawn from EPA Docket and CrimDoc systems. Administrative and Judicial Docket Case Data (Part 12) were collected on 40 administrative and civil cases. Administrative and Judicial Docket Case Settlement Data (Part 13) were collected on 36 administrative and civil cases. Criminal Case Data (Part 14) were collected on three criminal cases.

For secondary data analysis purposes, the research team created the Yearly Final Report Data (Part 15) and the Quarterly Final Report Data (Part 16). The yearly data contain a total of 378 company/year observations; the quarterly data contain a total of 1,486 company/quarter observations.

The research team also conducted a vignette survey of the same set of companies that are in the secondary data to measure compliance and managerial decision-making. Concerning the Vignette Data (Part 17), a factorial survey was developed and administered to company managers tapping into perceptions of the costs and benefits of pro-social and anti-social conduct for themselves and their companies. A total of 114 respondents from 2 of the sampled corporations read and responded to a total of 384 vignettes representing 4 scenario types: technical noncompliance, significant noncompliance, over-compliance, and response to counter-terrorism.

Part 1 contains 19 economic and size variables. Part 2 contains a total of eight variables relating to ownership. Part 3 contains 67 variables with regard to facility characteristics. Part 4 contains 31 variables relating to discharge points and pipe layout information. Part 5 contains 13 inspections characteristics variables. Part 6 contains 13 compliance schedule event characteristics variables. Part 7 contains 11 compliance schedule violation characteristics variables. Part 8 contains 10 single event violation characteristics variables. Part 9 contains 79 variables including variables for matching limits and discharge monitoring reports, actual limits (permitted levels) variables, standardized limits variables, statistical base codes variables, reported units on limits variables, units for standardized limits variables, sampling information variables, additional limits information, actual DMR reports for each limit, effluent violations, and variables relating to technical aspects of reporting. Part 10 contains 26 enforcement actions variables. Part 11 contains 24 Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspection variables. Part 12 contains 39 administrative and judicial court case characteristics variables. Part 13 contains 21 court case settlement characteristics variables. Part 14 contains 9 criminal case characteristics variables. Part 15 contains 95 variables created for final report analyses by year. Part 16 contains 46 variables created for final report analyses by quarter. Part 17 contains 157 variables including pro-social variables with security/over-compliance intentions, noncompliance variables with technical/significant noncompliance intentions, vignette characteristics variables, other variables derived from survey questions, environmental norms variables, and demographic characteristics variables.

Curated

United States Business and Jobs: Structure and Changes by Sector and County, 1976-1988 (ICPSR 4471)

Released/updated on: 2006-09-27

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1976-01-01--1988-12-31

The purpose of this study was to provide a description of both the current status and the changes in businesses and jobs in all United States counties, by 75 two-digit industry sectors. The study was designed to inquire to what extent new firm formation and small firm expansion reflect or cause economic growth. The data, originally assembled by Dun and Bradstreet, was edited and processed to adjust for errors and omissions to create a complete census of all business firms (single-site and multiple-site) and associated employment in six two-year periods: 1976-1978, 1978-1980, 1980-1982, 1982-1984, 1984-1986, and 1986-1988. The datasets contain detailed data for the years 1976-1988 on establishment births (new units entering the file), establishment deaths (existing units disappearing), expansion and contraction of all private-sector business establishments, and on the number of business jobs affected by these changes. Each record consists of a number of variables that (1) identify the county and industry, (2) describe the firms and jobs at the beginning of the two-year period, (3) provide descriptions at the end of the two-year period, and (4) that provide data on sources of changes during the two-year period. As the data are designed to be a complete census of all business units and all jobs, it can be aggregated to provide complete counts for any industry, region, or state or for the entire country.

Curated

Technology and Structure of Industrial Firms: United States, 1967 (ICPSR 7013)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

Time period: 1967-01-01--1967-12-31

The data for this study were obtained from the salaried personnel of 14 manufacturing firms located in two different industrial areas of the country. With two exceptions, the number of employees in these companies ranged between roughly 1,000 and 2,000, while the size of the management groups ranged from lows of 57-73 to highs of 242-366. Questions were asked about the distribution of power among divisions of the company, the discretion allowed employees, the individual influence of employees, and the coordination of individuals and groups within the firm. The dataset is structured with the individual employee as the unit of analysis, but the data can be aggregated on the basis of functional group and/or level within the organization, as well as by organization and by plant.