Search results

This data collection provides information on the characteristics of a national sample of housing units, including apartments, single-family homes, mobile homes, and vacant housing units in 2009. The data are presented in eight separate parts: Part 1, Home Improvement Record, Part 2, Journey to Work Record, Part 3, Mortgages Recorded, Part 4, Housing Unit Record (Main Record), Recodes (One Record per Housing Unit), and Weights, Part 5, Manager and Owner of Rental Units Record, Part 6, Person Record, Part 7, High Burden Unit Record, and Part 8, Recent Mover Groups Record.

Part 1 data include questions about upgrades and remodeling, cost of alterations and repairs, as well as the household member who performed the alteration/repair. Part 2 data include journey to work or commuting information, such as method of transportation to work, length of trip, and miles traveled to work. Additional information collected covers number of hours worked at home, number of days worked at home, average time respondent leaves for work in the morning or evening, whether respondent drives to work alone or with others, and a few other questions pertaining to self-employment and work schedule. Part 3 data include mortgage information, such as type of mortgage obtained by respondent, amount and term of mortgages, as well as years needed to pay them off. Other items asked include monthly payment amount, reason mortgage was taken out, and who provided the mortgage. Part 4 data include household-level information, including demographic information, such as age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder. The following topics are also included: data recodes, unit characteristics, and weighting information.

Part 5 data include information pertaining to owners of rental properties and whether the owner/resident manager lives on-site. Part 6 data include individual person level information, in which respondents were queried on basic demographic information (i.e. age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder), as well as if they worked at all last week, month and year moved into residence, and their ability to perform everyday tasks and whether they have difficulty hearing, seeing, and concentrating or remembering things. Part 7 data include verification of income to cost when the ratio of income to cost is outside of certain tolerances. Respondents were asked whether they receive help or assistance with grocery bills, clothing and transportation expenses, child care payments, medical and utility bills, as well as with rent payments. Part 8 data include recent mover information, such as how many people were living in last unit before move, whether last residence was a condo or a co-op, as well as whether this residence was outside of the United States.

This data collection is part of the American Housing Metropolitan Survey (AHS-MS, or "metro") which is conducted in odd-numbered years. It cycles through a set of 21 metropolitan areas, surveying each one about once every six years. The metro survey, like the national survey, is longitudinal. This particular survey provides information on the characteristics of a New Orleans metropolitan sample of housing units, including apartments, single-family homes, mobile homes, and vacant housing units in 2009. The data are presented in eight separate parts: Part 1, Home Improvement Record, Part 2, Journey to Work Record, Part 3, Mortgages Recorded, Part 4, Housing Unit Record (Main Record), Recodes (One Record per Housing Unit), and Weights, Part 5, Manager and Owner of Rental Units Record, Part 6, Person Record, Part 7, High Burden Unit Record, and Part 8, Recent Mover Groups Record.

Part 1 data include questions about upgrades and remodeling, cost of alterations and repairs, as well as the household member who performed the alteration/repair. Part 2 data include journey to work or commuting information, such as method of transportation to work, length of trip, and miles traveled to work. Additional information collected covers number of hours worked at home, number of days worked at home, average time respondent leaves for work in the morning or evening, whether respondent drives to work alone or with others, and a few other questions pertaining to self-employment and work schedule. Part 3 data include mortgage information, such as type of mortgage obtained by respondent, amount and term of mortgages, as well as years needed to pay them off. Other items asked include monthly payment amount, reason mortgage was taken out, and who provided the mortgage. Part 4 data include household-level information, including demographic information, such as age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder. The following topics are also included: data recodes, unit characteristics, and weighting information.

Part 5 data include information pertaining to owners of rental properties and whether the owner/resident manager lives on-site. Part 6 data include individual person level information, in which respondents were queried on basic demographic information (i.e. age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder), as well as if they worked at all last week, month and year moved into residence, and their ability to perform everyday tasks and whether they have difficulty hearing, seeing, and concentrating or remembering things. Part 7 data include verification of income to cost when the ratio of income to cost is outside of certain tolerances. Respondents were asked whether they receive help or assistance with grocery bills, clothing and transportation expenses, child care payments, medical and utility bills, as well as with rent payments. Part 8 data include recent mover information, such as how many people were living in last unit before move, whether last residence was a condo or a co-op, as well as whether this residence was outside of the United States.

This data collection is part of the American Housing Metropolitan Survey (AHS-MS, or "metro") which is conducted in odd-numbered years. It cycles through a set of 21 metropolitan areas, surveying each one about once every six years. The metro survey, like the national survey, is longitudinal. This particular survey provides information on the characteristics of a Seattle metropolitan sample of housing units, including apartments, single-family homes, mobile homes, and vacant housing units in 2009. The data are presented in eight separate parts: Part 1, Home Improvement Record, Part 2, Journey to Work Record, Part 3, Mortgages Recorded, Part 4, Housing Unit Record (Main Record), Recodes (One Record per Housing Unit), and Weights, Part 5, Manager and Owner of Rental Units Record, Part 6, Person Record, Part 7, High Burden Unit Record, and Part 8, Recent Mover Groups Record.

Part 1 data include questions about upgrades and remodeling, cost of alterations and repairs, as well as the household member who performed the alteration/repair. Part 2 data include journey to work or commuting information, such as method of transportation to work, length of trip, and miles traveled to work. Additional information collected covers number of hours worked at home, number of days worked at home, average time respondent leaves for work in the morning or evening, whether respondent drives to work alone or with others, and a few other questions pertaining to self-employment and work schedule. Part 3 data include mortgage information, such as type of mortgage obtained by respondent, amount and term of mortgages, as well as years needed to pay them off. Other items asked include monthly payment amount, reason mortgage was taken out, and who provided the mortgage. Part 4 data include household-level information, including demographic information, such as age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder. The following topics are also included: data recodes, unit characteristics, and weighting information.

Part 5 data include information pertaining to owners of rental properties and whether the owner/resident manager lives on-site. Part 6 data include individual person level information, in which respondents were queried on basic demographic information (i.e. age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder), as well as if they worked at all last week, month and year moved into residence, and their ability to perform everyday tasks and whether they have difficulty hearing, seeing, and concentrating or remembering things. Part 7 data include verification of income to cost when the ratio of income to cost is outside of certain tolerances. Respondents were asked whether they receive help or assistance with grocery bills, clothing and transportation expenses, child care payments, medical and utility bills, as well as with rent payments. Part 8 data include recent mover information, such as how many people were living in last unit before move, whether last residence was a condo or a co-op, as well as whether this residence was outside of the United States.

The American Housing Survey (AHS) is a longitudinal survey sponsored by United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau (Census). It was first conducted annually between 1973 and 1981 and then biennially from 1983 onward. The purpose of the survey is to provide current and continuous series of data on selected housing and demographic characteristics. The AHS collects data on occupied and vacant housing units and the survey is conducted biennially between May and September of odd-numbered years. HUD and Census make the survey data available for public use.

To better understand the impact of arts and culture on the United States housing choice, the National Endowment of the Art's Office of Research and Analysis (ORA) worked with HUD and the Census to ask a series of questions in the 2015 AHS. The questions, which form the Arts and Cultural Events Module as a supplement to the core data, were designed to better understand the role of arts and culture in United States households' neighborhood choice, their satisfaction with the arts and cultural activities available in their neighborhood and their perception of the impact of arts and culture on neighborhood economic and community development. For additional information related to the core AHS data, please see ICPSR 36753, American Housing Survey (AHS) - Table Creator.

Arts-related variables in the dataset include the importance of living near arts and cultural events, the impact arts and cultural events had on the neighborhood and economy, opportunities for greater interactions, and the encouragement of other people or cultures.

The American Housing Survey (AHS), the most comprehensive housing survey in the U.S., provides up-to-date information on the size and composition of the housing stock in our country. This survey delivers information about the types of homes in which people are now living and the characteristics of these homes, as well as the costs of running and maintaining them. National data are collected every other year and metropolitan area data are collected on a rotating basis. The AHS is sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The AHS Table Creator gives data users the ability to create customized tables from the AHS data without having to use the Public Use File (microdata).

Like the microdata, the AHS Table Creator provides current information on a wide range of housing subjects, including size and composition of the nation's housing inventory, vacancies, fuel usage, physical condition of housing units, characteristics of occupants, equipment breakdowns, home improvements, mortgages and other housing costs, people eligible for and beneficiaries of subsidized housing, home values, and characteristics of recent movers.

For the first time since 1985, the survey selected new national and metropolitan area longitudinal samples. In addition to the "core" data, the AHS collected "topical" data using a series of topical modules. The 2015 AHS includes topical supplements on 1) the presence of arts and cultural opportunities in the community, 2) health and safety hazards in the home, 3) food insecurity, and 4) the use of housing counseling services. Data users can also explore the new national and metropolitan area longitudinal samples as well as the topical supplements using the AHS Table Creator.

Policy analysts, program managers, budget analysts, and Congressional staff use the AHS data and table creator to monitor supply and demand, as well as changes in housing conditions and costs, in order to assess housing needs. Analyses based on the AHS are used to advise the executive and legislative branches in the development of housing policies. HUD uses the AHS to improve efficiency and effectiveness and design housing programs appropriate for different target groups, such as first-time home buyers and the elderly. Academic researchers and private organizations also use AHS data in efforts of specific interest and concern to their respective communities.

The AHS is conducted every two years from May and September in odd-numbered years. HUD sometimes adjusts this schedule and/or sample depending on budget constraints. Public use microdata and reports are released approximately 12 months after data collection.

The overall goal of the Baby's First Years study is to assess the causal role played by household income in affecting children's early cognitive, socio-emotional, and brain development. Recent advances in developmental neuroscience suggest that experiences early in life have profound and enduring impacts on the developing brain. Family economic resources shape the nature of many of these experiences, yet the extent to which they affect children's development is unknown. The Baby's First Years project is the first randomized controlled trial to provide estimates of the causal impacts of unconditional cash gifts on the cognitive, socio-emotional, and brain development of infants and young children in low-income U.S. families.

Specifically, 1,000 recruited mothers of infants with incomes below the federal poverty line from four diverse U.S. communities are receiving monthly cash gift payments by debit card. Mothers were initially told the gifts would last for the first 40 months of their child's life, but we have secured funding to continue the payments for three additional years (i.e., for a total of 76 months). Parents in the high cash gift group (n=400 in the study sample) are receiving a cash gift of $333 per month ($4,000 per year), while parents in the low cash gift group (n=600) are receiving a nominal monthly gift payment of $20 ($240 per year), also for 76 months.

In order to measure the impacts of the unconditional cash gift income on children's cognitive and behavioral development, we are assessing high and low cash gift group differences at ages 4, 6, and 8 (and, for a subset of measures, we capture interim development at ages 1, 2, and 3) in measures of cognitive, language, memory, self-regulation, and socio-emotional development. In order to understand the processes by which child impacts emerge, we are measuring a host of family process measures summarized in our pre-registration chart. Our data collection points are referred to as: "baseline", "age 1", "age 2," "age 3", "age 4", "age 6", and "age 8".

Additional information on the project, survey design, sample, variables, and COVID-19 pandemic adjustments are available from:

• The User Guides for Baseline, Age 1, Age 2, Age 3, and Age 4, which are included under the "Data and Documentation" tab
• The project's website: babysfirstyears.com

The researchers request that all peer-reviewed papers using BFY Data:

• be submitted to PubMed https://publicaccess.nih.gov immediately upon acceptance for publication
• include the following citation to the data in their bibliography:

Citation

Magnuson, Katherine A., Kimberly Noble, Greg J. Duncan, Nathan A. Fox, Lisa A. Gennetian, Hirokazu Yoshikawa, and Sarah Halpern-Meekin. Baby's First Years (BFY), New York City, New Orleans, Omaha, and Twin Cities, 2018-2023. ICPSR37871-v8. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], YYYY-MM-DD. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37871.v8

• and include the following in their acknowledgements:

Acknowledgement

This research uses data from the Baby's First Years study. Research reported in this publication was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01HD087384 and 2R01HD087384. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. This research was additionally supported by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation; Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research-Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Andrew and Julie Klingenstein Family Fund; Annie E. Casey Foundation; Arnold Ventures; Arrow Impact; BCBS of Louisiana Foundation; Bezos Family Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Bill Hammack and Janice Parmelee, Brady Education Fund; Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (Silicon Valley Community Foundation); Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies; Child Welfare Fund; Esther A. and Joseph Klingenstein Fund; Ford Foundation; Greater New Orleans Foundation; Heising-Simons Foundation; Holland Foundation; Jacobs Foundation; JPB Foundation; J-PAL North America; Lozier Foundation; New York City Mayor's Office for Economic Opportunity; Perigee Fund; Robin Hood Foundation; Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; Russell Sage Foundation; Sherwood Foundation; Valhalla Foundation; Weitz Family Foundation; W.K. Kellogg Foundation; and three anonymous donors.

Principal Investigators

Katherine Magnuson, PhD; University of Wisconsin-Madison, lead PI social and behavioral science

Kimberly Noble, MD, PhD; Teachers College, Columbia University, lead PI neuroscience

In alphabetical order:

Greg Duncan, PhD; University of California, Irvine

Nathan A. Fox, PhD; University of Maryland

Lisa A. Gennetian, PhD; Duke University Sanford School of Public Policy

Hirokazu Yoshikawa, PhD; New York University

Principal Investigators of Qualitative Substudy

Sarah Halpern-Meekin, PhD; University of Wisconsin-Madison

Katherine Magnuson, PhD; University of Wisconsin-Madison

Study Management

Lauren Meyer, Teachers College, Columbia University; National Project Director

Andrea Karsh, University of California, Irvine; Administrative Director

Matthew Maury, Duke University, Production and Retention Management

Study Co-Investigators

Sarah Black, PhD; University of New Orleans

William Fifer, PhD; Sackler Institute for Developmental Psychobiology, Columbia University Medical Center

Michael Georgieff, MD; University of Minnesota

Joseph Isler, PhD; Columbia University Medical Center

Debra Karhson, PhD; University of New Orleans

Alicia Kunin-Batson, PhD, University of Minnesota

Connie Lamm, PhD; University of Arkansas

Dennis Molfese, PhD; University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Victoria Molfese, PhD; University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Jennifer Mize Nelson, PhD; University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Timothy Nelson, PhD; University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Sonya Troller-Renfree, PhD; Teachers College, Columbia University

Study Data Collectors

The Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is responsible for recruitment and baseline, age-1, age-2, and age-3 data collection waves. Starting at age-4 through age-8, SRC is responsible for tracking families and assisting site-based staff in locating families. SRC data collection operations are overseen by: Stephanie Chardoul, Director of Survey Research Operations and Piotr Dworak, Senior Survey Specialist, Survey Research Operations.

Contact

To contact the study investigators, email them at [email protected]

Website: babysfirstyears.com

The purpose of this project was to measure and estimate the distribution of income in both rural and urban areas of the People's Republic of China. The principal investigators based their definition of income on cash payments and on a broad range of additional components: payments in kind valued at market prices, agricultural output produced for self-consumption valued at market prices, the value of ration coupons and other direct subsidies, and the imputed value of housing. The rural component of this collection consists of two data files, one in which the individual is the unit of analysis and a second in which the household is the unit of analysis. Individual rural respondents reported on their employment status, level of education, Communist Party membership, type of employer (e.g., public, private, or foreign), type of economic sector in which employed, occupation, whether they held a second job, retirement status, monthly pension, monthly wage, and other sources of income. Demographic variables include relationship to householder, gender, age, and student status. Rural households reported extensively on the character of the household and residence. Information was elicited on type of terrain surrounding the house, geographic position, type of house, and availability of electricity. Also reported were sources of household income (e.g., farming, industry, government, rents, and interest), taxes paid, value of farm, total amount and type of cultivated land, financial assets and debts, quantity and value of various crops (e.g., grains, cotton, flax, sugar, tobacco, fruits and vegetables, tea, seeds, nuts, lumber, livestock and poultry, eggs, fish and shrimp, wool, honey, and silkworm cocoons), amount of grain purchased or provided by a collective, use of chemical fertilizers, gasoline, and oil, quantity and value of agricultural machinery, and all household expenditures (e.g., food, fuel, medicine, education, transportation, and electricity). The urban component of this collection also consists of two data files, one in which the individual is the unit of analysis and a second in which the household is the unit of analysis. Individual urban respondents reported on their economic status within the household, Communist Party membership, sex, age, nature of employment, and relationship to the household head. Information was collected on all types and sources of income from each member of the household whether working, nonworking, or retired, all revenue received by owners of private or individual enterprises, and all in-kind payments (e.g., food and durable and non-durable goods). Urban households reported total income (including salaries, interest on savings and bonds, dividends, rent, leases, alimony, gifts, and boarding fees), all types and values of food rations received, and total debt. Information was also gathered on household accommodations and living conditions, including number of rooms, total living area in square meters, availability and cost of running water, sanitary facilities, heating and air-conditioning equipment, kitchen availability, location of residence, ownership of home, and availability of electricity and telephone. Households reported on all of their expenditures including amounts spent on food items such as wheat, rice, edible oils, pork, beef and mutton, poultry, fish and seafood, sugar, and vegetables by means of both coupons in state-owned stores and at free market prices. Information was also collected on rents paid by the households, fuel available, type of transportation used, and availability and use of medical and child care.

The Chinese Household Income Project collected data in 1988, 1995, 2002, and 2007. ICPSR holds data from the first three collections, and information about these can be found on the series description page. Data collected in 2007 are available through the China Institute for Income Distribution.

The purpose of this project was to measure and estimate the distribution of personal income in both rural and urban areas of the People's Republic of China. The principal investigators based their definition of income on cash payments and on a broad range of additional components: payments in kind valued at market prices, agricultural output produced for self-consumption valued at market prices, the value of food and other direct subsidies, and the imputed value of housing services. The rural component of this collection consists of two data files, one in which the individual is the unit of analysis (Part 1) and a second in which the household is the unit of analysis (Part 2). Individual rural respondents reported on their employment status, level of education, Communist Party membership, type of employer (e.g., public, private, or foreign), type of economic sector in which they were employed, occupation, whether they held a second job, retirement status, monthly pension, monthly wage, and other sources of income. Demographic variables include relationship to householder, gender, age, and student status. Rural households reported extensively on the character of the household and residence. Information was elicited on type of terrain surrounding the house, geographic position, type of house, and availability of electricity. Also reported were sources of household income (e.g., farming, industry, government, rents, and interest), taxes paid, value of farm, total amount and type of cultivated land, financial assets and debts, quantity and value of various crops, amount of grain purchased or provided by a collective, use of chemical fertilizers, gasoline, and oil, quantity and value of agricultural machinery, and all household expenditures (e.g., food, fuel, medicine, education, transportation, and electricity). The urban component of this collection also consists of two data files, one in which the individual is the unit of analysis (Part 3) and a second in which the household is the unit of analysis (Part 4). Individual urban respondents reported on their economic status within the household, Communist Party membership, sex, age, nature of employment, and relationship to the household head. Information was collected on all types and sources of income from each member of the household whether working, nonworking, or retired, all revenue received by owners of private or individual enterprises, and all in-kind payments (e.g., food, durable goods, and nondurable goods). Urban households reported total income (including salaries, interest on savings and bonds, dividends, rent, leases, alimony, gifts, and boarding fees), all types and values of food subsidies received, and total debt. Information was also gathered on household accommodations and living conditions, including number of rooms, total living area in square meters, availability and cost of running water, sanitary facilities, heating and air-conditioning equipment, kitchen availability, location of residence, ownership of home, and availability of electricity and telephone. Households reported on all their expenditures including amounts spent on food items such as wheat, rice, edible oils, pork, beef and mutton, poultry, fish and seafood, sugar, and vegetables by means of coupons in state-owned stores and at free market prices. Information was also collected on rents paid by the households, fuel available, type of transportation used, and availability and use of medical and child care.

The Chinese Household Income Project collected data in 1988, 1995, 2002, and 2007. ICPSR holds data from the first three collections, and information about these can be found on the series description page. Data collected in 2007 are available through the China Institute for Income Distribution.

The purpose of this project was to measure and estimate the distribution of personal income and related economic factors in both rural and urban areas of the People's Republic of China. The principal investigators based their definition of income on cash payments and on a broad range of additional components. Data were collected through a series of questionnaire-based interviews conducted in rural and urban areas at the end of 2002. There are ten separate datasets. The first four datasets were derived from the urban questionnaire. The first contains data about individuals living in urban areas. The second contains data about urban households. The third contains individual-level economic variables copied from the initial urban interview form. The fourth contains household-level economic variables copied from the initial urban interview form. The fifth dataset contains village-level data, which was obtained by interviewing village leaders. The sixth contains data about individuals living in rural areas. The seventh contains data about rural households, as well as most of the data from a social network questionnaire which was presented to rural households. The eighth contains the rest of the data from the social network questionnaire and is specifically about the activities of rural school-age children. The ninth dataset contains data about individuals who have migrated from rural to urban areas, and the tenth dataset contains data about rural-urban migrant households. Dataset 1 contains 151 variables and 20,632 cases (individual urban household members). Dataset 2 contains 88 variables and 6,835 cases (urban households). Dataset 3 contains 44 variables and 27,818 cases, at least 6,835 of which are empty cases used to separate households in the file. The remaining cases from dataset 3 match those in dataset 1. Dataset 4 contains 212 variables and 6,835 cases, which match those in dataset 2. Dataset 5 contains 259 variables and 961 cases (villages). Dataset 6 contains 84 variables and 37,969 cases (individual rural household members). Dataset 7 contains 449 variables and 9,200 cases (rural households). Dataset 8 contains 38 variables and 8,121 cases (individual school-age children). Dataset 9 contains 76 variables and 5,327 cases (individual rural-urban migrant household members). Dataset 10 contains 129 variables and 2,000 cases (rural-urban migrant households).

The Chinese Household Income Project collected data in 1988, 1995, 2002, and 2007. ICPSR holds data from the first three collections, and information about these can be found on the series description page. Data collected in 2007 are available through the China Institute for Income Distribution.

The Comprehensive Child Development Program (CCDP) was implemented as a result of the Comprehensive Child Development Act (Public Law [PL] 100-297), originally enacted by Congress in 1988 in an effort to increase the educational potential of young children from low-income families and to decrease the likelihood that they would be caught in the cycle of poverty. The CCDP was designed to provide intensive, comprehensive, integrated, and continuous support services for children from low-income families from birth, or before, through their entrance into elementary school, to enhance their intellectual, social, emotional, and physical development. Additionally, the CCDP was designed to offer support services for parents and other household family members to enhance their life management skills and economic self-sufficiency. The Comprehensive Child Development Act also mandated that programs collect data on the individuals and geographic areas served, including the types of services provided, the estimated costs of providing comprehensive services, the types and nature of conditions and needs identified and met, and other information that may be required.

Thus, there are two components of the CCDP data collection: the Evaluation of the Comprehensive Child Development Program and the Comprehensive Child Development Program Management Information System (MIS). The families in the MIS included all CCDP families in the CCDP evaluation and all families who replaced CCDP families that dropped out of the study any time during the demonstration. More than 4,000 families participated in the CCDP study. Those that were selected were randomly assigned to either an experimental or control group.

Evaluation Data

The CCDP evaluation data are taken from parental self-report and child assessments and consist of 25 data files that can be grouped into several broad categories. Some of the data files are longitudinal in nature, that is, there are multiple observations (e.g., interviews and tests) for each family or child. Other files, however, are at the family or child level, and they contain data describing outcomes at the end of the study. The categories covered in the CCDP evaluation data files include:

• Baseline Data -- contain information from recruitment and enrollment forms on background and demographic characteristics, information on focus child birth outcomes, and the mother's behavior during the prenatal period.
• Parent/Family Data -- contain information about household composition and stability, economic self-sufficiency, maternal physical and psychological health, parenting, coping and life skills, early childhood services, health care services, and case management.
• Child Status Data -- are comprised of information related to child health status. This includes topics such as hospitalization, health problems, special health needs, learning problems, and health maintenance.
• Assessments of Child Social-Emotional Development -- contain information about adaptive and presocial behaviors for two, three, and four-year-olds, the prevalence of behavioral and emotional problems for such children, and adaptive social behavior for the five-year-olds.
• Assessments of Child Cognitive Development -- information on children's cognitive development at age two, and children's receptive vocabulary cognitive development (mental processing and achievement) at age three, four, and five.
• Parenting Measures -- are comprised of information about parenting attitudes and beliefs, the home environment for 18-, 36-, and 48-months-old children, parent-child interactions, birth-level data on risk behaviors during pregnancy, and birth outcomes for children.
• Economic Self-Sufficiency Measures -- provide information about employment, income, dependence on public assistance, and steps to employment.

Management Information System Data

For research and monitoring purposes, the CCDP mandated that all contacts and services must be recorded and entered into the management information system (MIS). The MIS was designed to monitor the nature and number of services received by families participating in each of the CCDP projects. The MIS contains both qualitative and quantitative data for CCDP families at all of the 24 project sites. MIS data is composed of 23 data collection forms spanning 4 broad categories: (1) CCDP grantee administration, (2) CCDP program descriptions, (3) CCDP family characteristics and service plans, and (4) CCDP services utilization. MIS data include information about CCDP family goals, service utilization, and program and staff characteristics.

The CCDP MIS was the primary source of the quantitative data used in the CCDP evaluation. Supplemental MIS verification data was a secondary source of qualitative information. The CCDP also collected qualitative data in the form of ethnographer reports that provide information about program characteristics, operations, implementation, service delivery, program attrition, diversity among families, and family satisfaction. Sixteen ethnographer reports were produced for each of the 24 project sites.

The Consumer Expenditure Surveys (CE) program provides data on expenditures, income, and demographic characteristics of consumers in the United States. Expenditure categories include various arts-related spending categories on admissions for activities such as plays, theater, opera, concerts, as well as movies, parks, and museums. Additionally, spending on reading materials like newspapers, magazines, books, and digital book readers is covered. The survey also captures expenditure data on other arts-related items such as musical instruments, photographic equipment, audio-visual equipment, and items related to toys, games, arts, and crafts.

CE data are primarily used to revise the relative importance of goods and services in the market basket of the Consumer Price Index. The CE is the only Federal household survey to provide information on the complete range of consumers' expenditures and incomes. CE data are collected by the Census Bureau for BLS in two surveys: the Interview Survey for major and/or recurring items and the Diary Survey for more minor or frequently purchased items. Here is an overview of the CE program and its methods.

The CE program provides these data in tables, LABSTAT database, news releases, reports, and public use microdata files, including household arts spending, by demographic characteristics.