Search results

Showing 1 – 25 of 25 results.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Accelerating Recovery in Community Colleges Network Lead: Survey of Pandemic Relief Spending and Recovery Strategies, United States, 2020-2023 (ICPSR 39258)

Released/updated on: 2025-07-28
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas, Tennessee, Ohio, California, New York (state), Michigan
Time period: 2020-01-01--2023-01-01

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:

    • 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.

Curated

CBS News Monthly Poll #2, February 2006 (ICPSR 4612)

Released/updated on: 2007-12-19
Geographic coverage: United States
This poll, conducted February 22-26, 2006, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked to give their opinions on the current direction of the country, the most important problem the country is facing, the national economy, the threat posed by Iran, and the war in Iraq. Respondents were also asked about the way President George W. Bush was handling certain issues such as the economy, the energy situation, the war in Iraq, and terrorism, and whether or not they approved of his overall job performance. The survey also asked for opinions about Vice President Dick Cheney, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Senator John McCain. The next section of the survey addressed the government's response to Hurricane Katrina and the evacuation and rebuilding of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Additional questions solicited opinions about wiretapping, Vice President Cheney's hunting accident, Islam, and a federal gasoline tax. Background information on respondents includes military service, voter registration status, party identification, marital status, sex, religious preference, education record, age, ethnicity, and income.
Curated

CBS News Monthly Poll #2, March 2009 (ICPSR 26945)

Released/updated on: 2010-06-29
Geographic coverage: United States
This poll, fielded March 20-22, 2009, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked whether they approved of the way Barack Obama was handling the presidency and issues such as the economy, the financial institutions bailout, insurance company AIG bonuses, and foreign policy. Views were sought on the condition of the national economy, and the level of confidence in Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner's handling of the financial crisis. Respondents were also asked their views on companies receiving federal bailout money, whether they approved of the federal government providing money to banks and other financial institutions, whether the media, President Obama, and Congress was spending to much time on the bonuses paid to AIG executives, and whether Congress was spending the right amount of time trying to solve the nation's economic problems. Several additional questions addressed AIG including whether AIG could have found a way not to pay bonuses to their executives, whether the federal government should try to recover the money used for bonuses, how many of the executives respondents thought would return the bonuses, and whether the federal government should give additional financial assistance to AIG if needed. Demographic variables include sex, age, race, marital status, education level, household income, political party affiliation, political philosophy, and voter registration status and participation history.
Curated

Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 2006 (ICPSR 30141)

Released/updated on: 2012-03-26
Geographic coverage: United States
The Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) focused on the study of how Americans view Congress and hold their representatives accountable during elections. The very large sample for this survey provided the opportunity to study legislative constituencies -- states and congressional districts -- as well as voters within those constituencies, to study very rare or low frequency events or very small populations, and to measure with fairly high accuracy interactions. Respondents of this survey were asked whether they approved of the way George W. Bush was handling his job as president, what they thought was the most important problem facing the country, whether they were satisfied with the way things were going in the country, and their opinions of the condition of the economy in their communities, in their state, and in the United States. Respondents were also asked whether they approved of the way their governor, their United States Senators, and their United States House Representatives were handling their jobs. Information was collected on whether respondents thought their neighborhoods were politically active, whether they were mostly Democrat or Republican, whether the United States was more Democratic or Republican, and whether they were interested in politics and current affairs. Information was collected on which candidate respondents planned on voting for in the races for governor, for United States Senate, and for United States House of Representatives, and which party they wanted to see control the United States Congress. Opinions were solicited on "partial-birth abortion", federal government stem cell research funding, United States troop withdrawal from Iraq, illegal immigration, increasing the minimum wage, cutting taxes on capital gains, a trade agreement that reduces barriers between the United States and Central America, and whether respondents thought their United States Senators voted for or against these issues. Respondents were queried about their voting experience on November 7, 2006, including whether they voted and how they voted, whether they were asked to show identification, how long they had to wait in line, whether there was a problem with their registration, who they voted for, and whether they voted for the Republican or Democratic candidate for various offices on the ballot including Secretary of State and Attorney General. Information was collected on whether respondents were part of any organizations, donated money to any political candidates or political party committees, tried to persuade someone to vote or how to vote, whether they were contacted by a candidate or political party organization to get them to vote, and who they thought would have the most seats after the newly elected United States House of Representatives and the Senate were sworn in. Other topics included same-sex marriage, Social Security, environmental protection, and Affirmative Action. Demographic information collected included race, religious preference, religious attendance, political viewpoints, employment status, home ownership status, household income, political party affiliation, and voter registration status.
Curated

County-Level Political, Economic, and Social Statistics for New York State: 1962-1978 (ICPSR 8150)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
This data collection contains political, economic, and social data covering five years: 1962, 1966, 1971, 1976, and 1978. Information was collected from 57 counties in the state of New York, excluding those in New York City. The variables include taxes, revenues, expenditures, federal aid, demographic variables, and vote returns for president, senator, and governor. The data are arranged first by year, then by county, and then by deck number.
Curated

Current Population Survey, December 2011: Food Security Supplement (ICPSR 34434)

Released/updated on: 2013-04-12
Geographic coverage: United States

This data collection is comprised of responses from two sets of survey questionnaires, the basic Current Population Survey (CPS) and a survey on the topic of Food Security in the United States, which was administered as a supplement to the December 2011 CPS questionnaire. The CPS Food Security supplement was sponsored and conducted by the United States Census Bureau for the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The CPS, administered monthly, is a labor force survey providing current estimates of the economic status and activities of the population of the United States. Specifically, the CPS provides estimates of total employment (both farm and nonfarm), nonfarm self-employed persons, domestics, and unpaid helpers in nonfarm family enterprises, wage and salaried employees, and estimates of total unemployment. Data from the CPS are provided for the week prior to the survey. In December, the week containing the twelfth day of the month was the interview week. The week containing the fifth day was the reference week (i.e., the week about which the labor force questions were asked).

The supplement was intended to research the full range of severity of food insecurity as experienced in United States households. Food Security supplement items were used by the supplement sponsor to produce a scaled measure of food insecurity. Therefore, responses to individual items should not be used as meaningful measures of food insufficiency, food insecurity, or hunger. Measures that combine information from multiple items (HRFS12M1 and following) are generally considered to be more reliable measures of food security and food insecurity. The food security questions were asked of all interviewed households, as appropriate. Respondents were queried on how much the household spent for food, their use of federal and community food assistance programs, food sufficiency, and ways of coping with not having enough food.

Demographic variables include age, sex, race, Hispanic origin, marital status, veteran status, educational attainment, occupation, and income.

Curated

Elementary and Secondary General Information System (ELSEGIS): Merged Federal File, School Year 1976-1977 (ICPSR 2242)

Released/updated on: 2001-09-25
Geographic coverage: Puerto Rico, United States, Marshall Islands, Guam, Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Global
Time period: 1976-01-01--1977-01-01
The Merged Federal File contains school district-level data from the following seven source files: (1) National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). SURVEY OF SCHOOL SYSTEMS: ELSEGIS SCHOOL DISTRICT UNIVERSE FOR SCHOOL YEAR 1976-1977, (2) Bureau of the Census. CENSUS OF GOVERNMENT, F-33 -- SURVEY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES, SCHOOL YEAR 1976-1977, (3) Office of Civil Rights (OCR). ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL CIVIL RIGHTS SURVEY, FALL 1976, (4) Office of Education. SEC 437 -- STATE-ADMINISTERED PROGRAM FILE, SCHOOL YEAR 1976-1977, (5) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY STAFF SURVEY: EEO-5, FALL 1976, (6) National Institute of Education (NIE). SPECIAL TABULATIONS OF CENSUS DATA BY SCHOOL DISTRICT: 1970 CENSUS, 1973-1974 SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, and (7) Killalea Associates. EQUALIZED PROPERTY VALUE FILE (EPV), SCHOOL YEAR 1976-1977. The merged file was created by first producing a master universe file containing a record for each valid school district that appeared on either the F-33 or the School District Universe source files. This master universe contains records for 16,859 school districts.
Curated

Elementary and Secondary General Information System (ELSEGIS): Public Elementary-Secondary School Systems--Finances, School Year 1967-1968 (ICPSR 2233)

Released/updated on: 2001-12-21
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1967-01-01--1968-01-01
This survey provides detailed financial data at the school district level including school district revenue by source, expenditure by function and subfunction, debt, and average daily attendance, as well as information about staff and students.
Curated

Elementary and Secondary General Information System (ELSEGIS): Public Elementary-Secondary School Systems -- Finances, School Year 1968-1969 (ICPSR 2234)

Released/updated on: 2003-09-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1968-01-01--1969-01-01
This survey provides detailed financial data at the school district level including school district revenue by source, expenditure by function and subfunction, debt, and average daily attendance as well as information about staff and students.
Curated

Elementary and Secondary General Information System (ELSEGIS): Public Elementary-Secondary School Systems -- Finances, School Year 1969-1970 (ICPSR 2235)

Released/updated on: 2002-07-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1969-01-01--1970-01-01
This survey provides detailed financial data at the school district level, including school district revenue by source, expenditure by function and subfunction, debt, and average daily attendance as well as information about staff and students.
Curated

Elementary and Secondary General Information System (ELSEGIS): Survey of Local Government Finances -- School Systems, 1973-1974 (ICPSR 2250)

Released/updated on: 2002-08-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1973-01-01--1974-01-01
This collection presents detailed data on school system finances at the school district level, including: (1) receipt by type and source, including distribution of federal funds by program, (2) expenditures by category, including current expenditures and capital outlay, (3) debt service, (4) cash and investment assets, and (5) attendance and membership data. Information collected for this project provides statistics to aid in implementation of the provisions of the National Defense Education Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the Education Amendments of 1974, as well as in determining educational needs and indicating how resources are utilized at the local level. The data for 1973-1974 were compiled by the Bureau of the Census, while earlier data (1969-1973, except 1972) were collected by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), ELSEGIS Program.
Curated

Elementary and Secondary General Information System (ELSEGIS): Survey of Local Government Finances -- School Systems, 1974-1975 (ICPSR 2251)

Released/updated on: 2002-08-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1974-01-01--1975-01-01
This collection presents detailed financial data on school system finances at the school district level, including: (1) receipt by type and source, including distribution of federal funds by program, (2) expenditures by category, including current expenditures and capital outlay, (3) debt service, (4) cash and investment assets, and (5) attendance and membership data.
Curated

Elementary and Secondary General Information System (ELSEGIS): Survey of Local Government Finances -- School Systems Census Survey, 1977-1978 (ICPSR 2253)

Released/updated on: 2002-09-19
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1977-01-01--1978-01-01
This collection represents a merger of the 1977-1978 school district finance data and the 1977-1978 school district universe information. The data may contain records that are not included in both datasets, especially since in many states the finance data are for a sample of school districts. If one dataset contains records that the other does not contain, then that portion of the merged record is blank. The collection presents detailed financial data on school system finances at the school district level, including: (1) receipt by type and source, including distribution of federal funds by program, (2) expenditures by category, including current expenditures and capital outlay, (3) debt service, (4) cash and investment assets, and (5) attendance and membership data.
Curated

Elementary and Secondary General Information System (ELSEGIS): Survey of School District Finances, 1979-1980 (ICPSR 2254)

Released/updated on: 2002-09-19
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1979-01-01--1980-01-01
This collection presents detailed financial data on school system finances at the school district level, including: (1) receipt by type and source, including distribution of federal funds by program, (2) expenditures by category, including current expenditures and capital outlay, (3) debt service, (4) cash and investment assets, and (5) attendance and membership data.
Curated

Federal Outlays, County and City Master Files, Fiscal Year 1980 (ICPSR 8082)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection contains detailed information about 1980 fiscal outlays of the United States federal government to counties and cities. There are two separate files for this fiscal year: a county master file and a city master file. The county file lists each United States county by state and includes appropriations, programs, type of assistance, type of transaction, outlays in dollars, beneficiaries, and state control of federal outlays. The city file follows the same format as the county file, with data for all cities with populations of 25,000 or more. Both the county and city files are arranged by state, with the state summaries preceding the county or city breakdowns.
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

New York Times New York City Poll, August 2004 (ICPSR 4156)

Released/updated on: 2005-02-18
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
This poll is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked to give their opinions of New York City, with specific respect to Mayor Michael Bloomberg's handling of New York City-specific events and issues (e.g., the city's recovery efforts following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and getting help from the national government for New York City). Opinions on other national figures -- e.g., George W. Bush, Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, and Arnold Schwarzenegger -- were solicited as well. Additional survey questions queried respondents' feelings about New York City (e.g., quality of life, the economy, others' image of the city, and security), the Republican National Convention to be held in the city, and post-9/11 changes they had experienced (e.g., losing sleep, losing a job, or losing a close friend or relative). Background information includes voter registration status, political party affiliation, New York City borough of residence, sex, education, age, marital status, ethnicity, and income.
Curated

State and Metropolitan Area Data Book [United States]: 1991 (ICPSR 6398)

Released/updated on: 2008-10-09
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection provides statistics gathered from a variety of federal agencies and national associations. Demographic, economic, and governmental data from both the federal government and private agencies are presented to enable multiarea comparisons as well as single-area profiles. Current estimates and benchmark census results are included. Data are available for five types of geographic coverage: (1) Metro Areas data cover 249 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), 17 consolidated metropolitan statistical areas (CMSAs), 54 primary metropolitan statistical areas (PSMAs), and 16 New England county metropolitan areas (NECMAs). Metro Areas data include the following general subjects: area and population, households, vital statistics, health, education, crime, housing, money income, personal income, civilian labor force, employment, construction, commercial office space, manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, service industries, banking, federal funds and grants, and government employment. There are 14 parts for Metro Areas. (2) State Metro/Nonmetro data cover the United States, the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the metropolitan and nonmetropolitan portions of these areas. State Metro/Nonmetro data include most of the subjects listed for Metro Areas. There are six parts for State Metro/Nonmetro. (3) Metro Counties data cover 336 metropolitan areas and their component counties and include topics identical to those presented in the State Metro/Nonmetro data. Six parts are supplied for Metro Counties. (4) Metro Central Cities data cover 336 metropolitan areas and their 522 central cities and 336 outside central cities portions. Metro Central Cities variables are limited to 13 items, which include area and population, money income, civilian labor force, and retail trade. There is one part for Metro Central Cities. (5) States data cover the United States, the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and census regions and divisions. States data include the same items as the Metro Areas data, plus information on social welfare programs, geography and environment, domestic travel and parks, gross state product, poverty, wealth holders, business, research and development, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, minerals and mining, transportation, communications, energy, state government, federal government, and elections. There are 101 parts for States.
Curated

State Strategic Planning Under the Drug Control and System Improvement Formula Grant Program in the United States, 1990 (ICPSR 9748)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States
This evaluation of the Drug Control and System Improvement Formula Grant Program focuses on the federal-state relationship and on the drug-related, crime-combat strategies that states must develop in order to receive federal aid. The primary goals of the project were to (1) describe state-established strategic planning processes, (2) evaluate the strategies, (3) report on state reactions to the program, and (4) make recommendations for improvement in strategic planning processes. Five-state, on-site observation of planning processes and a mail survey of all states and territories participating in the program were conducted, as well as a review of all strategy submissions. Variables in Part 1 include the Formula Grant Program's role in the state and its relationship with other agencies, policy boards, and working groups, the roles that these agencies play in Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) strategy, funds allocated to local criminal justice programs, and criteria used in selecting geographical areas of greatest need. Variables from Part 2 relate to the variety and use of state criminal justice data, difficulties in obtaining such data, federal grant requirements, allocation of subgrants, and input of various individuals and agencies in different stages of BJA strategy development.
Curated

Vocational Education Data System (VEDS): Financial Status Report, Fiscal Year 1979 (ICPSR 2377)

Released/updated on: 2001-12-21
Geographic coverage: Puerto Rico, United States, Marshall Islands, Guam, Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Micronesia (Federated States), Global
The Financial Status Report, Part A, is a component of the Vocational Education Data System (VEDS), an annual program of data collection in the United States and its territories. This survey collected data on federal and non-federal funds outlayed and obligated for vocational education under specific legislative code authorizations, by state.
Curated

Washington Post Florida Statewide Election Poll, October 2004 (ICPSR 4144)

Released/updated on: 2005-03-25
Geographic coverage: United States, Florida
This special topic poll, which is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues, asked Floridian respondents questions about their voting inclinations for the 2004 presidential race and the 2004 Florida United States Senate election. With respect to the presidential race, respondents were asked their likelihood of voting, for whom they would vote if elections were being held that day, and the likelihood of changing their vote. Respondents were also asked which presidential candidate -- George W. Bush or John Kerry -- would do a better job handling specific issues (e.g., the economy, Iraq, immigration issues with Latin America), which of those issues was the single most important issue in the vote for president, and which presidential candidate -- again Bush or Kerry -- would understand the problems of people like the respondent, would be a strong leader, could be trusted in a crisis, was a likable person, and do a better job coping with the main problems facing the nation over the next few years. Additional questions polled respondents on their approval or disapproval of the way George W. Bush was handling his job as president and the way Jeb Bush was handling his job as governor of Florida. Respondents were also asked about the nation's economy, how things were financially for them and their family compared to a year ago, their satisfaction level with the way the federal government responded to the impacts of hurricanes Charley, Frances, and Ivan in Florida, if the government's response to those hurricanes would impact respondents' potential to vote for George W. Bush, and whether they approved or disapproved of re-establishing diplomatic trade relations with Cuba. With respect to the Florida United States Senate election, respondents were asked for whom they would vote if elections were being held that day. Further questions asked respondents if they voted in the 2000 presidential elections, whether they were confident votes would be counted accurately, whether vote miscounts were honest mistakes or deliberate miscounts to help one candidate win, and which candidate would benefit most from the miscounting of votes. Background information includes voter registration, political party affiliation, religious affiliation, sex, number of children living in the household, education, age, race, language of interview, marital status, income, and Hispanic origin.