Search results

The Americans' Changing Lives (ACL) survey series is an ongoing, nationally representative, longitudinal study focusing especially on differences between Black and White Americans in middle and late life. These data constitute the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth waves in a panel survey covering a wide range of sociological, psychological, mental, and physical health items. Wave I of the study began in 1986 with a nation face-to-face survey of 3,617 adults ages 25 and up, with Black Americans and people aged 60 and over over-sampled at twice the rate of the others. Wave II constitutes face-to-face re-interviews in 1989 of those still alive. Survivors have been re-interviewed by telephone, and when necessary face-to-face, in 1994 (Wave III), 2001/02 (Wave IV), 2011 (Wave V), and 2019/21 (Wave VI).

Please note that for Wave VI, the majority of data collection occurred in 2019, with only a small subset (n=39) of participants surveyed in 2021.

ACL was designed and sought to investigate the following: (1) The ways in which a wide range of activities and social relationships that people engage in are broadly "productive," (2) how individuals adapt to acute life events and chronic stresses that threaten the maintenance of health, effective functioning, and productive activity, and (3) sociocultural variations in the nature, meaning, determinants, and consequences of productive activity and relationships. Among the topics covered are interpersonal relationships (spouse/partner, children, parents, friends), sources and levels of satisfaction, social interactions and leisure activities, traumatic life events (physical assault, serious illness, divorce, death of a loved one, financial or legal problems), perceptions of retirement, health behaviors (smoking, alcohol consumption, overweight, rest), and utilization of health care services (doctor visits, hospitalization, nursing home institutionalization, bed days). Also included are measures of physical health, psychological well-being, and indices referring to cognitive functioning.

Demographic information provided for individuals includes household composition, number of children and grandchildren, employment status, occupation and work history, income, family financial situation, religious beliefs and practices, ethnicity, race, education, sex, and region of residence.

The College and Beyond II (CBII) Alumni Survey Open Response Study contains two open-response variables extracted from the CBII Alumni Survey. The 'essay' variable details an important undergraduate experience described by the respondent and ways it has contributed to the respondent's life today. The 'final' variable contains any other information the respondent wanted to write about. The Open Response Study data can be linked with other CBII student-level data using the id_person variable.

Content warning: Users should be aware that some responses cover sensitive topics such as experiences of discrimination, sexual assault, suicidal ideation, and substance misuse. Respondents' experiences of discrimination include incidents of hate speech and the use of racial slurs. ICPSR has chosen to preserve the data as it was collected, without masking these words, and is not condoning their use.

This data collection measures the ability of 558 adults in the Detroit metropolitan area to recall major events in their lives and to place these events in a particular time frame. In order to ascertain the quality of their memories, respondents were questioned extensively about the time they bought their house and car, when they last observed a death or illness in the family or among their friends, and if they could recall precise events such as the assassination of President Kennedy. They were also asked about the time they were last hospitalized and how long they had lived in their present residence. Also explored were respondents' feelings about time and their use of time. Additional items explored respondents' childhood memories, attendance at club meetings, routine or planned activities, approach to multitasking, their favorite holiday, and sense of direction, as well as the quality of services provided by various utility companies. Demographic variables specify age, place of birth, race, marital status, occupation, education, religion, original nationality of parents, number of children, political party affiliation, home ownership, family income, and length of residence in the Detroit area.

The 1985 Detroit Area Study surveyed life events of respondents. Questions addressed alcohol and drug use, emotional state, incidents of depression and fear, stress caused by children and work, and respondent's general health. Information on the respondent's family background was also collected, with specific emphases on children, parenting, and marriage. Gender comparison questions were posed to explore in detail issues such as the benefits/responsibilities of marriage, marriage roles and careers, and division of housework tasks. The survey also included items on the respondent's financial situation, social life, social support network, and demographic characteristics such as age, race, sex, education, religion, and income.

The Detroit Neighborhood Health Study (DNHS) is a prospective, representative longitudinal cohort study of predominantly African American adults living in Detroit, Michigan. The main purpose of the study was to determine the predictive effects of ecological stressors, such as income distribution and residential segregation, on the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance use, and other psychological and behavioral outcomes. An additional purpose was to study the interrelationships between ecological stressors, exposure to potentially traumatic events (PTEs), PTSD, substance use, and immune function. The study team hypothesized that exposure to ecological stressors would influence the risk of PTE exposure, PTSD, substance use, other psychological outcomes, and the relationships between these factors.

The current collection includes data from all 5 waves of the study. Cohort participants were initially recruited in 2008 with a dual-frame probability design, using telephone numbers obtained from the U.S. Postal Service Delivery Sequence Files as well as a listed-assisted random-digit-dial frame. Individuals without listed landlines or telephones and individuals with only a cell phone listed were invited to participate through a postal mail effort. Participants completed a 40 minute, structured telephone interview annually between 2008-2012 to assess perceptions of participants' neighborhoods, mental and physical health status, social support, exposure to traumatic events, and alcohol and tobacco use. In addition, the study team completed a structured assessment of Detroit's 54 neighborhoods in order to describe the characteristics of respondents' neighborhoods. The assessment included information about the quality of housing exteriors; presence of graffiti, abandoned cars, alcohol and tobacco advertisements, and security warning signs; presence of vacant buildings; and street and traffic noise levels.

All survey participants were offered the opportunity to provide a blood specimen (venipuncture, blood spot, or saliva) for immune and inflammatory marker testing as well as genetic testing of DNA. Participants received an additional $25USD if they elected to give a sample. Informed consent was obtained at the beginning of each interview and again at specimen collection. However, these specimens are not included as part of this data collection.

For more information about the study, please visit the Detroit Neighborhood Health Study website.

Genotypic data from DNHS are available on the NIH database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP).

Guided by a life course perspective, this study used a mixed methodological approach (i.e., quantitative administrative data and qualitative interviews) to identify the differences in events, motivations, and experiences related to gang affiliation and the differences across (a) system-documented, gang-involved individuals, (b) system-documented gang-involved individuals who have gang-involved family members, and (c) other high-risk youth who are suspected of involvement. The overall goal of this research was to identify distinct pathways to gang activity that could inform practitioners and policymakers about useful intervention strategies. The study context was specific to Multnomah County, Oregon.

To achieve this, separate and distinct juvenile and adult systems databases were integrated to create critical linkages between juvenile services data (including risk assessments), adult community corrections data, and federal corrections data (n=2,210 individual records). This allowed for the examination of the trajectory of each individual - regardless of gang system documented gang status - from juvenile services through state adult corrections through federal adult corrections. It also permitted the investigation into the similarities or differences among different system-identified groups (i.e., gang involved, suspected gang involved, or no documentation of gang involvement). Additionally, the inclusion of familial and peer criminal justice records and system gang identification enabled the research team to control for family and peer influences while focusing on how the father's criminality and gang status might be a risk factor for youth criminal legal involvement and escalation into the adult system. Research questions for the quantitative data collection were:

1. What aspects of early criminal offending and other problematic behaviors differ between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
2. Are there significant differences in the likelihood of youth escalation into the adult criminal justice system and the Federal Corrections System between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
3. Are there consistent age-related trends in risk as measured by the Juvenile Crime Prevention (JCP) tool? Do these trends vary by gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
4. What is the timing of important life events across the life course of justice-involved youth? Does the timing differ between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
5. Does the close proximity of the timing of these life events increase the likelihood of youth escalation into the adult criminal justice system and the Federal Corrections System? Do these predictions differ between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
6. How do parental offending and incarceration patterns predict their child's likelihood of becoming gang-affiliated and likelihood of escalation into the adult criminal justice system?
7. How do the answers to the above research questions vary by youth race, ethnicity, geography, and offense type?

In addition to quantitative measures of gang pathways, semi-structured interviews were conducted with two groups: gang-affiliated and gang-involved youth supervised in the Department of Community Justice Gang Unit during the study time period (n=32), and corrections staff who had current or previous experience working with gang-affiliated or gang-involved youth (n=12). Original research questions for the qualitative data collection were:

1. What are the critical transition periods for becoming gang-affiliated, and how are they experienced as an emotional event and/or a deliberate decision? How do these differ between individuals who have no criminal justice system involved family members, individuals with criminal justice involved family members, and individuals with gang-affiliated family members?
2. What is the relational and emotional experience of recruiting a familial relation to gang affiliation, and of being recruited by a familial relation to gang affiliation and gang activities?
3. What are the motivations for recruiting a familial relation into gang affiliation, and for allowing oneself to be successfully recruited by a family member?
4. What are the methods employed by gang-affiliated individuals in recruiting their family members?
5. Do the recruiter and recruited have significant or patterned differences in the event and experience of recruitment into gang affiliation and activities?
6. Do the recruiter and recruited have significant or patterned differences in their views and experiences of the criminal justice system?

Qualitative data will be made available in a future update.

This data collection contains the first four waves of the Iowa Youth and Families Project (IYFP), conducted in 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992. The Iowa Youth and Families Project was developed from an initial sample of 451 7th graders from two-parent families in rural Iowa. The study was merged with the Iowa Single Parent Project (ISPP) to form the Iowa Family Transitions Project in 1994, when the target youth were seniors in high school. Survey data were collected from the target child (7th grader), a sibling within four years of age of the target child, and both parents. Field interviewers visited families at their homes on several occasions to administer questionnaires and videotape interaction tasks including family discussion tasks, family problem-solving tasks, sibling interaction tasks, and marital interaction tasks.

The Household Data files contain information about the family's financial situation, involvement in farming, and demographic information about household members.

The Parent and the Child Survey Data files contain responses to survey questions about the quality and stability of family relationships, emotional, physical, and behavioral problems of individual family members, parent-child conflict, family problem-solving skills, social and financial support from outside the home, traumatic life experiences, alcohol, drug, and tobacco use, and opinions on topics such as abortion, parenting, and gender roles. In addition, the Child Survey Data files include responses collected from the target child and his or her sibling in the study about experiences with puberty, dating, sexual activity, and risk-taking behavior.

The Problem-Solving Data files contain survey data collected from respondents about the family interactions tasks.

The Observational Data files contain the interviewers' observations collected during these tasks.

Demographic variables include sex, age, employment status, occupation, income, home ownership, religious preference, frequency of religious attendance, as well as the ages and sex of all household members and their relationship to the head of household. Demographic information collected on the parents also includes their birth order within their family, the ages and political philosophy of their parents, the sex, age, education level, and occupation of their siblings, and the country of origin of their ancestors.

The Longitudinal Study of Generations (LSOG), initiated in 1971, began as a survey of intergenerational relations among 300 three-generation California families with grandparents (then in their sixties), middle-aged parents (then in their early forties), and grandchildren (then aged 15 to 26). The study broadened in 1991 and now includes a fourth generation, the great-grandchildren of these same families.

The LSOG, with a fully elaborated generation-sequential design, allows comparisons of sets of aging parents and children at the same stage of life but during different historical periods. These comparisons make possible the investigation of the effects of social change on inter-generational solidarity or conflict across 35 years and four generations, as well as the effects of social change on the ability of families to buffer stressful life transitions (e.g., aging, divorce and remarriage, higher female labor force participation, changes in work and the economy, and possible weakening of family norms of obligation), and the effects of social change on the transmission of values, resources, and behaviors across generations.

The LSOG contains information on family structure, household composition, affectual solidarity and conflict, values, attitudes, behaviors, role importance, marital relationships, health and fitness, mental health and well-being, caregiving, leisure activities, and life events and concerns. Demographic variables include age, sex, income, employment status, marital status, socioeconomic history, education, religion, ethnicity, and military service.

The codebook for dataset 1 (DS1 Waves 1-7) is over 5000 pages long; due to complications related to the size of this document, the search function within the PDF is not yet enabled. Users seeking specific variables should use the search function within the PI Codebook, or search using the variables search tab/option from the study page.

This survey of adult management tasks began in 1995 as part of a larger national project (MIDUS) to investigate the patterns, predictors, and consequences of midlife development in the areas of physical health, psychological well-being, and social responsibility. Conducted in Boston, the survey was designed to examine how adults manage tasks in three domains of life -- work, family, and health. Further goals were to describe the subjective experience of goal attainment in midlife and to link it with objective measures of short-term longitudinal changes and cognitive functioning. During the national study, the Boston area was intentionally oversampled in order to create a subset to be used for in-depth study of management processes in midlife.

The Boston study began six months after the national study, and consisted of three interviews: a 30-minute phone interview followed by a 20-minute mail questionnaire (Time 1), a 90-minute in-person combination of cognitive tests, cortisol testing, photograph taking, and interview (Time 2), and a 30-minute phone interview (Time 3), conducted at six-month intervals. The focus was on projects related to family, work, and health that participants were working on during the period of the study. Each successive interview investigated participants' assessments of their progress in the present, recollection of six months in the past, and prediction six months into the future. Two waves of data collection were completed for this study. There were 151 respondents who participated in the first wave, 151 respondents who participated in both waves, and 26 additional respondents who participated in the second wave of data collection.

At Time 1, participants generated a list of two important family, work, and health tasks, then chose one of each as the most important in that domain. For each of the most important tasks, questions were asked about deadlines, whether participants were doing tasks because they had to do them, felt that they should do them, or chose to do them, and whether participants were doing tasks for themselves, others, or both. All six projects were ranked according to importance, and participants divided all their time into percentages spent on family, work, and health. The majority of questions on the mail questionnaire at Time 1 were taken from the Midlife Development Inventory (MIDI), the instrument created for the national study.

Respondents were asked to rate their control over health, to make assessments about present, past, and future health, to list any serious illnesses, and to indicate their physical health status. Study participants also rated their mental health, and discussed stressful life events in the last six months for self, spouse/significant other, parents, and children. Other questions focused on depression, mastery and constraints, community involvement, family, work, and life satisfaction. Scales used included the Ryff Well-Being Scales, the Eysenck Personality Inventory, the Staudinger and Baltes Wisdom Scale (1995), and the Ways of Coping Scale.

Time 2 was done in-person, and included a 50-minute series of cognitive tests followed by a 40-minute interview. The cognitive testing consisted of nine measures of cognitive ability completed in the following order: WAIS Forward Digit Span, WAIS Backward Digit Span, WAIS Vocabulary, counting backwards test, letter comparison test, dual-task test involving the counting backwards and letter comparison tests, WAIS Digit Symbol, Schaie-Thurston Letter Series, and Raven's Advanced Progressive Ma Matrices.

The Time 2 interview began with a series of questions asking about each of the family, work, and health tasks elicited from the participants in Time 1. Many questions were repeated from the MIDI including rating physical health, family life, work situation, and life overall, rating physical and mental health from poor to excellent, and a measure of stressful life events in the last six months for self, spouse/significant other, parents, and children. Participants were asked to rate how old they felt and how old they looked and to indicate their total yearly household income. Lastly, a series of open-ended questions asked about best and worst aspects of family, work, and health, how participants managed their daily life, the most challenging aspect of life and how it was managed, and what participants found most helpful in carrying out their daily life. Photographs were taken of participants at the conclusion of the interview.

Time 3 asked again about each of the most important family, work, and health tasks elicited from the participants in Time 1. Newly developed questions asked participants about ideas related to middle age, including when the participant believed middle age begins and ends, whether the participant was younger than, in, or older than middle age, the biggest changes in middle age, the best and worst aspects of middle age, whether the participant knew anyone who had had a "midlife crisis," and whether he or she would have or had had a midlife crisis. Participants were asked to rate how often they had problems and how often things went well with respect to a list of 26 domains, and how much stress and how much control they had in these domains. Lastly, participants were asked whether they had ever returned to a degree-oriented educational program after being out of school for five or more years, whether they were presently taking classes to further their education, and whether being a participant in the study had influenced the ways they thought about their family, work, and health projects.

The NCS-2 was a re-interview of 5,001 individuals who participated in the Baseline (NCS-1). The study was conducted a decade after the initial baseline survey. The aim was to collect information about changes in mental disorders, substance use disorders, and the predictors and consequences of these changes over the ten years between the two surveys. The collection contains three major sections: the main survey, demographic data, and diagnostic data.

In the main survey, respondents were asked about general physical and mental health. Questions focused on a variety of health issues, including limitations caused by respondents' health issues, substance use, childhood health, life-threatening illnesses, chronic conditions, medications taken in the past 12 months, level of functioning and symptoms experienced in the past 30 days, and any services used by the respondents since the (NCS-1). Additional questions focused on mental disorders including depression, bipolar disorder, specific and social phobias, generalized anxiety, intermittent explosive disorder, suicidality, post-traumatic stress disorder, neurasthenia, pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, and separation anxiety. Respondents were also asked about their lives in general, with topics including employment, finances, marriage, children, their social lives, and stressful life events experienced in the past 12 months. Additionally, two personality assessments were included consisting of respondents' opinions on whether various true/false statements accurately described their personalities. Another focus of the main survey dealt with substance use and abuse, nonmedical use of prescription drugs, and polysubstance use. Interview questions in the NCS-2 Main Survey were customized to each respondent based on previous responses in the Baseline (NCS-1).

The middle section contains demographic and other background information including age, education, employment, household composition, household income, marital status, and region.

The last section of the collection focused on whether respondents met diagnostic criteria for psychological disorders asked about in the main survey.

The NCS-2 was a re-interview of 5,001 individuals who participated in the Baseline (NCS-1). The study was conducted a decade after the initial baseline survey. The aim was to collect information about changes in mental disorders, substance use disorders, and the predictors and consequences of these changes over the ten years between the two surveys. The collection contains four major sections: the main survey, demographic data, diagnostic data, and state, county, and tract FIPS data.

In the main survey, respondents were asked about general physical and mental health. Questions focused on a variety of health issues, including limitations caused by respondents' health issues, substance use, childhood health, life-threatening illnesses, chronic conditions, medications taken in the past 12 months, level of functioning and symptoms experienced in the past 30 days, and any services used by the respondents since the (NCS-1). Additional questions focused on mental disorders including depression, bipolar disorder, specific and social phobias, generalized anxiety, intermittent explosive disorder, suicidality, post-traumatic stress disorder, neurasthenia, pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, and separation anxiety. Respondents were also asked about their lives in general, with topics including employment, finances, marriage, children, their social lives, and stressful life events experienced in the past 12 months. Additionally, two personality assessments were included consisting of respondents' opinions on whether various true/false statements accurately described their personalities. Another focus of the main survey dealt with substance use and abuse, nonmedical use of prescription drugs, and polysubstance use. Interview questions in the NCS-2 Main Survey were customized to each respondent based on previous responses in the Baseline (NCS-1).

The second part contains demographic and other background information including age, education, employment, household composition, household income, marital status, and region.

The third part focuses on whether respondents met diagnostic criteria for psychological disorders asked about in the main survey.

The fourth part contains respondents' state, county, and tract FIPS data.

This longitudinal data collection supplies information on the educational, vocational, and personal development of young people who were high school seniors in 1972 and examines the kinds of factors -- personal, familial, social, institutional, and cultural -- that may affect that development. The collection provides a broad spectrum of information on each student and covers areas such as ability, socioeconomic status, home background, community environment, ethnicity, significant others, current activity at time of survey, educational attainment, school experiences, school performance, work status, work performance and satisfaction, goal orientations, marriage and the family, and military experience.

Data collected in the base-year (1972) focus on factors relating to the student's personal/family background, education and work experiences, plans, aspirations, attitudes, and opinions. The first follow-up, which was conducted in 1973, offers information on the respondent's activity state (education, work, etc.), socioeconomic status, work and educational experience since leaving high school, future plans, and expectations. The second follow-up (1974) probes respondents on similar measures but is augmented by additional variables pertaining to work and education. The third follow-up (1976) contains additional items on graduate school application and entry, job supervision, sex roles, sex and race biases, and a subjective rating of high school experiences. The fourth follow-up (1979) offers data similar to the other follow-ups but includes some variables that were modified to elicit unique information. For the fifth follow-up, the sample members averaged 32 years of age and had been out of high school for 14 years. In addition to covering the same subject areas as the previous surveys, this follow-up includes additional questions on marital history, divorce, child support, and economic relationships in modern families.

Part 1 of this collection contains base-year data as well as data collected during four subsequent follow-ups undertaken in 1973, 1974, 1976, and 1979, while Part 11 contains fifth follow-up data for 1986. Part 2, the School File, contains information obtained from the respondent's high school and also from high school counselors. Data are available on school organization and enrollment, course offerings, special services and programs, library and other resources, time scheduling, and grading systems. Counselor information is supplied on work loads, counseling practices and facilities, experience with student financial aid programs, age, ethnicity, training, and experience. A supplementary School District Census File, Part 3, contains 1970 Census data tabulated by school district boundaries. In addition, the collection includes a FICE Code File and a CEEB Institutional Data Base File that can be used in conjunction with the student file to supply contextual information about respondents' colleges. The Institutional Data Base File offers data for colleges and universities on items such as enrollment, income and revenues, expenses, tuition and fees, and median student scores on standardized tests. Parts 7, 8, 9 and 10 contain transcript data from each postsecondary institution reported by sample members in the first through fourth follow-up surveys. Data are available for several types of postsecondary institutions, ranging from short-term vocational or occupational programs through major universities with graduate programs and professional schools. Data in these four rectangular files -- Student, Transcript, Term, and Course Files -- are organized to be used in combination hierarchically. Information is available on terms of attendance, fields of study, specific courses taken, and grades and credits earned. The Fifth Follow-Up Teaching Supplement (Parts 12) surveyed those members of the original 1972 sample who had obtained teaching certificates and/or who had teaching experience. Respondents were asked questions about their qualifications, experience, and attitudes toward teaching.

The National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH), Wave 1 (1987-1988) is the first of three waves in a longitudinal survey that was designed to study the causes and consequences of changes happening in families and households within the United States. At a time when the range of family structures was becoming more and more diverse, this study permitted a close examination of the resulting family compositions and household operations. One adult per household was randomly selected as the primary respondent, and there was a total of 13,007 respondents. In addition to the main interview conducted with the primary respondent, a shorter, self-administered questionnaire was given to the spouse or cohabitating partner, and also administered to the householder if he or she was a relative of the primary respondent.

A considerable amount of life-history information was collected, such as the respondent's family living arrangements in childhood, departures and returns to the parental home, and histories of marriage, separation, divorce, cohabitation, adoption, child custody arrangements, and stepfamily relations. Respondents were also asked about the relationship of household members to each other and the quality of their relationships with their parents, children, and in-laws. Information on economic well-being was also collected, including earnings from wages, self-employment income, interest, dividends, investments, pensions, Social Security, public assistance, and child support/alimony. Demographic information collected includes sex, age, marital status, education, and employment.