Search results

Showing 1 – 50 of 105 results.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

2001 Chilean Social Mobility Survey (ICPSR 35299)

Released/updated on: 2015-04-20
Geographic coverage: Chile
The 2001 Chilean Social Mobility Survey examined inter-generational and intra-generational mobility in Chile. The data contain information on adult Chilean men's education, migration, current job, first job, social origins (parents' education, occupation, assets and living standards when the respondent was 14 years old), wife/partner, inter-generational transfers, household income and assets, respondent's siblings and focal brother, and respondent's opinions about inequality and determinants of economic well-being. Demographic variables include sex, age, education level, and socio-economic status.
Curated

Adjusting the National Crime Victimization Survey's Estimates of Rape and Domestic Violence for Gag Factors, 1986-1990 (ICPSR 6558)

Released/updated on: 1996-10-01
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1986-01-01--1990-01-01
The purpose of this project was to use statistical modeling techniques to estimate rape and domestic assault rates, adjusting for interviewing conditions under which the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) was administered. Data for women 16 years of age and older interviewed in the NCVS (see NATIONAL CRIME SURVEYS: NATIONAL SAMPLE, 1986-1990 [NEAR-TERM DATA] [ICPSR 8864]) were analyzed. The researchers considered whether the type of interview (personal or telephone) and the presence of another person (particularly a spouse) influenced or "gagged" the reporting of rape and domestic violence in the NCVS. The researchers also investigated correlates, primarily demographic in nature, of reporting rape, domestic violence, other assaults, and breaking and entry. In total, the data file contains reports of 434 rapes, 1,973 incidents of domestic violence, 13,459 other assaults, and 88,950 incidents of breaking and entry. The binary-coded variables provide information on whether the respondent was alone during the interview, others who were present, whether the interview was by telephone, whether the respondent refused a telephone interview, the number of persons who lived in the household, whether the respondent owned her home, whether the land use was urban, whether the household the respondent was living in was the same household from the last interview, whether the respondent had moved more than three times in the last five years, and whether an assault, domestic violence incident, rape, breaking and entry, or no crime was reported. Demographic information includes the respondent's education, income, employment during the last six months, marital status at the time of the interview, and whether the respondent was white (or non-white) or Hispanic (or non-Hispanic). Variables coded the same as the NCVS variables include age, respondent's relationship to the offender, type of crime, year and quarter of interview, NCVS control number, and person weight.
Curated

Age and Residence Differences in Household Composition, 1980: [United States] (ICPSR 9253)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
These data were collected to gain a better understanding of the living arrangements of persons 65 and older in the United States. The collection includes four related files. The Complete Person Extract hierarchical file (Part 1) contains data for households with one or more members aged 65 or older. These data consist of household records followed by varying numbers of person records that were extracted from CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1980: [UNITED STATES]: PUBLIC USE MICRODATA SAMPLE (C SAMPLE): 1-PERCENT SAMPLE (ICPSR 8114) for all fifty states. The three rectangular files (Parts 2-4) are "complex household" subsets of the Complete Person Extract file. Complex households are households containing three or more persons and households containing two persons who are not related by marriage. There were 47,878 such households identified, containing 157,940 persons of whom 62,873 were 65 and over. The Complex Households file contains selected variables pulled from the PUMS housing records. The People and Elders in Complex Households files contain selected variables pulled from the PUMS person records, and specify kinship and other relationships for all persons and all elders 65 and older in complex households. Two additional rectangular data files (Part 6 and Part 7) containing all households and persons have been extracted from the original hierarchical file (Part 1).
Curated

Alameda County [California] Health and Ways of Living Study, 1994 and 1995 Panels (ICPSR 3083)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-06
Geographic coverage: United States, California
This collection provides a 30-year follow-up with respondents from Alameda County who were originally interviewed in 1965 for the first wave of the Health and Ways of Living Study. The purpose of the survey was to explore the influences of health practices and social relationships on the physical and mental health of a typical sample of the population. The first wave of the study, HEALTH AND WAYS OF LIVING STUDY, 1965 PANEL: [ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA] (ICPSR 6688), collected information for 6,928 respondents (including approximately 500 women aged 65 years and older) on chronic health conditions, health behaviors, social involvements, and psychological characteristics. The second wave, the 1974 panel (ALAMEDA COUNTY [CALIFORNIA] HEALTH AND WAYS OF LIVING STUDY, 1974 PANEL [ICPSR 6838]), collected information from 4,864 of the original respondents. The third and fourth waves (1994 and 1995 panels, respectively), provided in this collection, explore some new topics. The third wave provides a follow-up of 2,729 original 1965 and 1974 respondents and examines health behaviors such as alcohol consumption and smoking habits, along with social activities. Also included is information on health conditions such as diabetes, osteoporosis, hormone replacement, and mental illness. Another central topic investigated is activities of daily living (including self-care such as dressing, eating, and shopping), along with use of free time and level of involvement in social, recreational, religious, and environmental groups. The fourth wave is a follow-up to the 1994 panel, and contains 2,569 cases. This wave examines changes in functional abilities such as self-care activities, employment, involvement in community activities, visiting friends/family, and use of free time since 1994.
Curated

Alameda County [California] Health and Ways of Living Study, 1999 Panel (ICPSR 4432)

Released/updated on: 2006-11-16
Geographic coverage: United States, California
This fifth wave of data, collected in 1999, provides follow-up with 2,123 respondents from Alameda County who were originally interviewed in 1965 for the first wave of the Health and Ways of Living Study. The purpose of the survey was to explore the influences of health practices and social relationships on the physical and mental health of a typical sample of the population. Part 2 of this collection contains mortality data including cause and year of death. The first wave of the study, HEALTH AND WAYS OF LIVING STUDY, 1965 PANEL: [ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA] (ICPSR 6688), collected information for 6,928 respondents (including 360 men and 530 women aged 65 years and older) on chronic health conditions, health behaviors, social involvements, and psychological characteristics. The second wave, the 1974 panel, ALAMEDA COUNTY [CALIFORNIA] HEALTH AND WAYS OF LIVING STUDY, 1974 PANEL (ICPSR 6838), collected information from 4,864 of the original respondents. The third and fourth waves, ALAMEDA COUNTY [CALIFORNIA] HEALTH AND WAYS OF LIVING STUDY, 1994 and 1995 PANELS (ICPSR 3083), provided a follow-up of 2,729 original 1965 and 1974 respondents. The fourth wave is a follow-up to the 1994 panel and contains 2,569 cases.
Curated

American Housing Survey, 1997: National Microdata (ICPSR 2912)

Released/updated on: 2007-05-30
Geographic coverage: United States
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. Unlike previous years, the data are presented in nine separate parts: Part 1, Work Done Record (Replacement or Additions to the House), Part 2, Housing Unit Record (Main Record), Part 3, Worker Record, Part 4, Mortgages (Owners Only), Part 5, Manager and Owner Record (Renters Only), Part 6, Person Record, Part 7, Mover Group Record, Part 8, Recodes (One Record per Housing Unit), and Part 9, Weights. Data include year the structure was built, type and number of living quarters, occupancy status, access, number of rooms, presence of commercial establishments on the property, and property value. Additional data focus on kitchen and plumbing facilities, types of heating fuel used, source of water, sewage disposal, heating and air-conditioning equipment, and major additions, alterations, or repairs to the property. Information provided on housing expenses includes monthly mortgage or rent payments, cost of services such as utilities, garbage collection, and property insurance, and amount of real estate taxes paid in the previous year. Also included is information on whether the household received government assistance to help pay heating or cooling costs or for other energy-related services. Similar data are provided for housing units previously occupied by respondents who had recently moved. Additionally, indicators of housing and neighborhood quality are supplied. Housing quality variables include privacy of bedrooms, condition of kitchen facilities, basement or roof leakage, breakdowns of plumbing facilities and equipment, and overall opinion of the structure. For quality of neighborhood, variables include use of exterminator services, existence of boarded-up buildings, and overall quality of the neighborhood. In addition to housing characteristics, some demographic data are provided on household members, such as age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder. Additional data provided on the householder include years of school completed, Spanish origin, length of residence, and length of occupancy.
Curated

American Housing Survey, 1999: National Microdata (ICPSR 3204)

Released/updated on: 2007-06-11
Geographic coverage: United States
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. Unlike previous years, the data are presented in ten separate parts: Part 1, Work Done Record (Replacement or Additions to the House), Part 2, Housing Unit Record (Main Record), Part 3, Worker Record, Part 4, Mortgages (Owners Only), Part 5, Manager and Owner Record (Renters Only), Part 6, Person Record, Part 7, Ratio Verification, Part 8, Mover Group Record, Part 9, Recodes (One Record per Housing Unit), and Part 10, Weights. Data include year the structure was built, type and number of living quarters, occupancy status, access, number of rooms, presence of commercial establishments on the property, and property value. Additional data focus on kitchen and plumbing facilities, types of heating fuel used, source of water, sewage disposal, heating and air-conditioning equipment, and major additions, alterations, or repairs to the property. Information provided on housing expenses includes monthly mortgage or rent payments, cost of services such as utilities, garbage collection, and property insurance, and amount of real estate taxes paid in the previous year. Also included is information on whether the household received government assistance to help pay heating or cooling costs or for other energy-related services. Similar data are provided for housing units previously occupied by respondents who had recently moved. Additionally, indicators of housing and neighborhood quality are supplied. Housing quality variables include privacy of bedrooms, condition of kitchen facilities, basement or roof leakage, breakdowns of plumbing facilities and equipment, and overall opinion of the structure. For quality of neighborhood, variables include use of exterminator services, existence of boarded-up buildings, and overall quality of the neighborhood. In addition to housing characteristics, some demographic data are provided on household members, such as age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder. Additional data provided on the householder include years of school completed, Spanish origin, length of residence, and length of occupancy.
Curated

American Housing Survey, 2001: National Microdata (ICPSR 4588)

Released/updated on: 2007-06-12
Geographic coverage: United States
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. Unlike previous years, the data are presented in eight separate parts: Part 1, Work Done Record (Replacement or Additions to the House), Part 2, Worker Record, Part 3, Mortgages (Owners Only), Part 4, Housing Unit Record (Main Record), Recodes (One Record per Housing Unit), and Weights, Part 5, Manager and Owner Record (Renters Only), Part 6, Person Record, Part 7, Ratio Verification, and Part 8, Mover Group Record. Data include year the structure was built, type and number of living quarters, occupancy status, access, number of rooms, presence of commercial establishments on the property, and property value. Additional data focus on kitchen and plumbing facilities, types of heating fuel used, source of water, sewage disposal, heating and air-conditioning equipment, and major additions, alterations, or repairs to the property. Information provided on housing expenses includes monthly mortgage or rent payments, cost of services such as utilities, garbage collection, and property insurance, and amount of real estate taxes paid in the previous year. Also included is information on whether the household received government assistance to help pay heating or cooling costs or for other energy-related services. Similar data are provided for housing units previously occupied by respondents who had recently moved. Indicators of housing and neighborhood quality are also supplied. Housing quality variables include privacy of bedrooms, condition of kitchen facilities, basement or roof leakage, breakdowns of plumbing facilities and equipment, and overall opinion of the structure. For quality of neighborhood, variables include use of exterminator services, existence of boarded-up buildings, and overall quality of the neighborhood. In addition to housing characteristics, some demographic data are provided on household members such as age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder. Additional data provided on the householder include years of school completed, Spanish origin, length of residence, and length of occupancy.
Curated

American Housing Survey, 2002: Metropolitan Microdata (ICPSR 4589)

Released/updated on: 2007-07-06
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, Milwaukee, Charlotte, United States, Kansas City (Kansas), Santa Ana, Fort Worth, San Diego, Columbus (Ohio), Phoenix, Dallas, Wisconsin, Arizona, Arlington, Buffalo, Anaheim, Fort Lauderdale, California, Kansas, Florida, New York (state), Miami, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Ohio
The metropolitan survey is conducted in even-numbered years, cycling through a set of 41 metropolitan areas, surveying each one about once every six years. This data collection provides information on the characteristics of a metropolitan sample of housing units including apartments, single-family homes, mobile homes, and vacant housing units. The data are presented in eight separate parts: Part 1, Work Done Record (Replacement or Addition to the House), Part 2, Worker Record, Part 3, Mortgages (Owners Only), Part 4, Housing Unit Record (Main Record), Recodes (One Record per Housing Unit), and Weights, Part 5, Manager and Owner Record (Renters Only), Part 6, Person Record, Part 7, Ratio Verification, and Part 8, Mover Group Record. Data include year the structure was built, type and number of living quarters, occupancy status, access, number of rooms, presence of commercial establishments on the property, and property value. Additional data focus on kitchen and plumbing facilities, types of heating fuel used, source of water, sewage disposal, heating and air-conditioning equipment, and major additions, alterations, or repairs to the property. Information provided on housing expenses includes monthly mortgage or rent payments, cost of services such as utilities, garbage collection, and property insurance, and amount of real estate taxes paid in the previous year. Also included is information on whether the household received government assistance to help pay heating or cooling costs or for other energy-related services. Similar data are provided for housing units previously occupied by respondents who had recently moved. Additionally, indicators of housing and neighborhood quality are supplied. Housing quality variables include privacy of bedrooms, condition of kitchen facilities, basement or roof leakage, breakdowns of plumbing facilities and equipment, and overall opinion of the structure. For quality of neighborhood, variables include use of exterminator services, existence of boarded-up buildings, and overall quality of the neighborhood. In addition to housing characteristics, some demographic data are provided on household members, such as age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder. Additional data provided on the householder include years of school completed, Spanish origin, length of residence, and length of occupancy.
Curated

American Housing Survey, 2003: National Microdata (ICPSR 4591)

Released/updated on: 2007-06-12
Geographic coverage: United States
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. Unlike previous years, the data are presented in eight separate parts: Part 1, Work Done Record (Replacement or Additions to the House), Part 2, Worker Record, Part 3, Mortgages (Owners Only), Part 4, Housing Unit Record (Main Record), Recodes (One Record per Housing Unit), and Weights, Part 5, Manager and Owner Record (Renters Only), Part 6, Person Record, Part 7, Ratio Verification, and Part 8, Mover Group Record. Data include year the structure was built, type and number of living quarters, occupancy status, access, number of rooms, presence of commercial establishments on the property, and property value. Additional data focus on kitchen and plumbing facilities, types of heating fuel used, source of water, sewage disposal, heating and air-conditioning equipment, and major additions, alterations, or repairs to the property. Information provided on housing expenses includes monthly mortgage or rent payments, cost of services such as utilities, garbage collection, and property insurance, and amount of real estate taxes paid in the previous year. Also included is information on whether the household received government assistance to help pay heating or cooling costs or for other energy-related services. Similar data are provided for housing units previously occupied by respondents who had recently moved. Additionally, indicators of housing and neighborhood quality are supplied. Housing quality variables include privacy of bedrooms, condition of kitchen facilities, basement or roof leakage, breakdowns of plumbing facilities and equipment, and overall opinion of the structure. For quality of neighborhood, variables include use of exterminator services, existence of boarded-up buildings, and overall quality of the neighborhood. In addition to housing characteristics, some demographic data are provided on household members, such as age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder. Additional data provided on the householder include years of school completed, Spanish origin, length of residence, and length of occupancy.
Curated

American Housing Survey, 2004: Metropolitan Microdata (ICPSR 4592)

Released/updated on: 2007-07-06
Geographic coverage: Oklahoma City, Indiana, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Cleveland, Washington, Atlanta, Colorado, Missouri, New Orleans, Denver, Memphis, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Sacramento, Seattle, San Antonio, California, Pennsylvania, Texas, Connecticut, Louisiana, Ohio, Hartford, Georgia, Indianapolis
The metropolitan survey is conducted in even-numbered years, cycling through a set of 41 metropolitan areas, surveying each one about once every six years. This data collection provides information on the characteristics of a metropolitan sample of housing units, including apartments, single-family homes, mobile homes, and vacant housing units. The data are presented in eight separate parts: Part 1, Work Done Record (Replacement or Addition to the House), Part 2, Worker Record, Part 3, Mortgages (Owners Only), Part 4, Housing Unit Record (Main Record), Recodes (One Record per Housing Unit), and Weights, Part 5, Manager and Owner Record (Renters Only), Part 6, Person Record, Part 7, Ratio Verification, and Part 8, Mover Group Record. Data include year the structure was built, type and number of living quarters, occupancy status, access, number of rooms, presence of commercial establishments on the property, and property value. Additional data focus on kitchen and plumbing facilities, types of heating fuel used, source of water, sewage disposal, heating and air-conditioning equipment, and major additions, alterations, or repairs to the property. Information provided on housing expenses includes monthly mortgage or rent payments, cost of services such as utilities, garbage collection, and property insurance, and amount of real estate taxes paid in the previous year. Also included is information on whether the household received government assistance to help pay heating or cooling costs or for other energy-related services. Similar data are provided for housing units previously occupied by respondents who had recently moved. Additionally, indicators of housing and neighborhood quality are supplied. Housing quality variables include privacy of bedrooms, condition of kitchen facilities, basement or roof leakage, breakdowns of plumbing facilities and equipment, and overall opinion of the structure. For quality of neighborhood, variables include use of exterminator services, existence of boarded-up buildings, and overall quality of the neighborhood. In addition to housing characteristics, some demographic data are provided on household members, such as age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder. Additional data provided on the householder include years of school completed, Spanish origin, length of residence, and length of occupancy.
Curated

American Housing Survey, 2005: National Microdata (ICPSR 4593)

Released/updated on: 2007-06-13
Geographic coverage: United States
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. Unlike previous years, the data are presented in eight separate parts: Part 1, Work Done Record (Replacement or Additions to the House), Part 2, Worker Record, Part 3, Mortgages (Owners Only), Part 4, Housing Unit Record (Main Record), Recodes (One Record per Housing Unit), and Weights, Part 5, Manager and Owner Record (Renters Only), Part 6, Person Record, Part 7, Ratio Verification, and Part 8, Mover Group Record. Data include year the structure was built, type and number of living quarters, occupancy status, access, number of rooms, presence of commercial establishments on the property, and property value. Additional data focus on kitchen and plumbing facilities, types of heating fuel used, source of water, sewage disposal, heating and air-conditioning equipment, and major additions, alterations, or repairs to the property. Information provided on housing expenses includes monthly mortgage or rent payments, cost of services such as utilities, garbage collection, and property insurance, and amount of real estate taxes paid in the previous year. Also included is information on whether the household received government assistance to help pay heating or cooling costs or for other energy-related services. Similar data are provided for housing units previously occupied by respondents who had recently moved. Additionally, indicators of housing and neighborhood quality are supplied. Housing quality variables include privacy of bedrooms, condition of kitchen facilities, basement or roof leakage, breakdowns of plumbing facilities and equipment, and overall opinion of the structure. For quality of neighborhood, variables include use of exterminator services, existence of boarded-up buildings, and overall quality of the neighborhood. In addition to housing characteristics, some demographic data are provided on household members, such as age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder. Additional data provided on the householder include years of school completed, Spanish origin, length of residence, and length of occupancy.
Curated

American Housing Survey 2007: Metropolitan Survey (ICPSR 24501)

Released/updated on: 2009-10-13
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States, Minnesota, Florida, Miami, Baltimore, Minneapolis, Texas, Massachusetts, Tampa, Maryland, Boston, Houston
The metropolitan survey is conducted in even-numbered years, cycling through a set of 41 metropolitan areas, surveying each one about once every 6 years. This data collection provides information on the characteristics of a metropolitan sample of housing units, including apartments, single-family homes, mobile homes, and vacant housing units. The data are presented in seven separate parts: Part 1, Work Done Record (Replacement or Addition to the House), Part 2, Journey to Work Record, Part 3, Mortgages (Owners Only), Part 4, Housing Unit Record (Main Record), Recodes (One Record per Housing Unit), and Weights, Part 5, Manager and Owner Record (Renters Only), Part 6, Person Record, and Part 7, Mover Group Record. Data include year the structure was built, type and number of living quarters, occupancy status, access, number of rooms, presence of commercial establishments on the property, and property value. Additional data focus on kitchen and plumbing facilities, types of heating fuel used, source of water, sewage disposal, heating and air-conditioning equipment, and major additions, alterations, or repairs to the property. Information provided on housing expenses includes monthly mortgage or rent payments, cost of services such as utilities, garbage collection, and property insurance, and amount of real estate taxes paid in the previous year. Also included is information on whether the household received government assistance to help pay heating or cooling costs or for other energy-related services. Similar data are provided for housing units previously occupied by respondents who had recently moved. Additionally, indicators of housing and neighborhood quality are supplied. Housing quality variables include privacy of bedrooms, condition of kitchen facilities, basement or roof leakage, breakdowns of plumbing facilities and equipment, and overall opinion of the structure. For quality of neighborhood, variables include use of exterminator services, existence of boarded-up buildings, and overall quality of the neighborhood. In addition to housing characteristics, some demographic data are provided on household members, such as age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder. Additional data provided on the householder include years of school completed, Spanish origin, length of residence, and length of occupancy.
Curated

American Housing Survey, 2007: National Microdata (ICPSR 23563)

Released/updated on: 2009-07-27
Geographic coverage: United States
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. Unlike previous years, the data are presented in seven separate parts: Part 1, Work Done Record (Replacement or Additions to the House), Part 2, Journey to Work Record, Part 3, Mortgages (Owners Only), Part 4, Housing Unit Record (Main Record), Recodes (One Record per Housing Unit), and Weights, Part 5, Manager and Owner Record (Renters Only), Part 6, Person Record, Part 7, Mover Group Record. Data include year the structure was built, type and number of living quarters, occupancy status, access, number of rooms, presence of commercial establishments on the property, and property value. Additional data focus on kitchen and plumbing facilities, types of heating fuel used, source of water, sewage disposal, heating and air-conditioning equipment, and major additions, alterations, or repairs to the property. Information provided on housing expenses includes monthly mortgage or rent payments, cost of services such as utilities, garbage collection, and property insurance, and amount of real estate taxes paid in the previous year. Also included is information on whether the household received government assistance to help pay heating or cooling costs or for other energy-related services. Similar data are provided for housing units previously occupied by respondents who had recently moved. Additionally, indicators of housing and neighborhood quality are supplied. Housing quality variables include privacy of bedrooms, condition of kitchen facilities, basement or roof leakage, breakdowns of plumbing facilities and equipment, and overall opinion of the structure. For quality of neighborhood, variables include use of exterminator services, existence of boarded-up buildings, and overall quality of the neighborhood. In addition to housing characteristics, some demographic data are provided on household members, such as age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder. Additional data provided on the householder include years of school completed, Spanish origin, length of residence, and length of occupancy.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

American Housing Survey, 2009: National Microdata (ICPSR 30941)

Released/updated on: 2016-03-10
Geographic coverage: United States

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.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

American Housing Survey, 2009: New Orleans Data (ICPSR 30943)

Released/updated on: 2016-04-18
Geographic coverage: United States, Louisiana, New Orleans

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.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

American Housing Survey, 2009: Seattle Data (ICPSR 30942)

Released/updated on: 2016-03-21
Geographic coverage: Seattle, United States, Washington

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.

Curated

American Housing Survey (AHS) - Table Creator (ICPSR 36753)

Released/updated on: 2017-03-31
Geographic coverage: United States

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.

Curated

Cape Area Panel Study (CAPS) South Africa (ICPSR 175)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-08
Geographic coverage: Cape Town, South Africa, Global
Cape Area Panel Study (CAPS) is a longitudinal study of the lives of 4,800 young adults in Cape Town, South Africa. The Wave I sample was a representative sample of young people who were age 14 to 22 in 2002. In addition to interviews with these young people, the survey included information on all household members, non-resident children of household members, and non-resident parents and grandparents of the young adults. The Wave I survey covered topics such as school, work, health, sexual activity, and fertility, including an extensive life history calendar.
Curated

Census of Population and Housing, 1960 Public Use Sample: One-in-One-Hundred Sample (ICPSR 7756)

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, 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 individual-level and 1-percent national sample data from the 1960 Census of Population and Housing conducted by the Census Bureau. It consists of a representative sample of the records from the 1960 sample questionnaires. The data are stored in 30 separate files, containing in total over two million records, organized by state. Some files contain the sampled records of several states while other files contain all or part of the sample for a single state. There are two types of records stored in the data files: one for households and one for persons. Each household record is followed by a variable number of person records, one for each of the household members. Data items in this collection include the individual responses to the basic social, demographic, and economic questions asked of the population in the 1960 Census of Population and Housing. Data are provided on household characteristics and features such as the number of persons in household, number of rooms and bedrooms, and the availability of hot and cold piped water, flush toilet, bathtub or shower, sewage disposal, and plumbing facilities. Additional information is provided on tenure, gross rent, year the housing structure was built, and value and location of the structure, as well as the presence of air conditioners, radio, telephone, and television in the house, and ownership of an automobile. Other demographic variables provide information on age, sex, marital status, race, place of birth, nationality, education, occupation, employment status, income, and veteran status. The data files were obtained by ICPSR from the Center for Social Analysis, Columbia University.
Curated

Center for Research on Social Reality [Spain] Survey, May 1995: Old Age (ICPSR 6969)

Released/updated on: 1998-01-13
Geographic coverage: Europe, Global, Spain
Time period: 1995-05-15--1995-05-20
This data collection is part of a series of nationwide surveys conducted from October 1990 to June 1996 in Spain. The questionnaires for each of these surveys consisted of three sections. The first section collected information on respondents' attitudes regarding personal, national, and international issues, and included questions on respondents' level of life satisfaction and frequency of visits with relatives, neighbors, and friends. The second section contained a topical module of questions that varied from survey to survey, with this survey's topic focusing on old age. The survey gauged attitudes regarding old age and the elderly, and investigated actual circumstances of elderly life in Spain, such as living arrangements, daily levels of physical activity, amount of health problems experienced during the past two weeks, consumption of tobacco and alcohol, frequency of sexual relations, retirement status and age at retirement, leisure activities, and use of social services. Questions in the third section of the questionnaire elicited socioeconomic information, such as respondent's sex, age, marital status, size of household, occupation, education, religion, religiosity, place of birth, and income.
Curated

Center for Research on Social Reality [Spain] Survey, October 1991: Life Styles (ICPSR 9897)

Released/updated on: 1993-02-12
Geographic coverage: Europe, Global, Spain
This data collection is part of a continuing series of semi-monthly surveys of individuals in Spain. Each survey consists of three sections. The first section collects information on respondents' attitudes regarding personal and national issues. This section includes questions on level of life satisfaction and frequency of relationships, as well as a rating of the importance of national issues. The second section varies according to the monthly topic, with this survey's topic focusing on life styles. Among the issues investigated are the characteristics of housing and environment, indoor housing characteristics, food-buying habits, importance and care assigned to physical appearance, frequency of and preferences for leisure activities, and signs of social distinction. The third section collects demographic data such as sex, age, religion, income, and place of residence.
Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Chitwan Valley Family Study: Changing Social Contexts and Family Formation, Nepal, 1995-2019 (ICPSR 4538)

Released/updated on: 2024-10-16
Geographic coverage: Nepal
Time period: 1995-01-01--2019-01-01

The Chitwan Valley Family Study (CVFS) is a comprehensive family panel study of individuals, households, and communities in the Chitwan Valley of Nepal. The study was initially designed to investigate the influence of changing community and household contexts on population outcomes such as marital and childbearing processes. Over time, the goals of the study expanded to investigate family dynamics, intergenerational influences, child health, migration, labor force participation, attitudes and beliefs, mental health, agricultural production, environmental change, and many other topics. The data include full life histories for more than 10,000 individuals, tracking and interviews with all migrants, continuous measurement of community change, over 25 years of demographic event registry, and many other data collections. For additional information regarding the Chitwan Valley Family Study, please visit the Chitwan Valley Family Study Website. A Data Guide for this study is available as a web page and for download.

Principal Investigators

  • William G. Axinn, University of Michigan
  • Dirgha Ghimire, University of Michigan
  • Jordan Smoller, Massachusetts General Hospital
Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Civil Union Study 2000-2002, United States (ICPSR 31241)

Released/updated on: 2014-09-26
Geographic coverage: Vermont, United States
Time period: 2000-01-01--2002-01-01
Vermont was the first state in the United States to legalize same-sex relationships in mid-2000, so that same-sex couples could have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples at the state level. Same-sex couples came to Vermont from all over the country to legalize their relationships. During the first year that this legislation was enacted, 80 percent of civil unions were acquired by out-of-state residents. In 2002, a project was conducted that compared couples who had civil unions in Vermont during the first year of that new legislation (July 2000-June 2001) with same-sex couples in their friendship circles who had not had civil unions, and with heterosexual married siblings (Solomon, Rothblum, and Balsam, 2004; 2005). The focus was on demographic factors, length of relationship, social support from family and friends, contact with families of origin, social and political activities, degree of "outness," and division of housework, child care, and finances. This was the first study to focus on same-sex couples in legalized relationships in the United States. It was also the first study to examine same-sex couples recruited from a population instead of a convenience sample, because civil unions are a matter of public record. Results indicated very few differences between same-sex couples in civil unions and those not in civil unions, particularly for women. Women in civil unions were more "out" about their sexual orientation, and more likely to consider themselves married than were women not in civil unions. Men in civil unions were more likely to have children, joint bank accounts with their partner, mutual friends with their partner, more connection with their family of origin, and to consider themselves married. They were less likely to have seriously discussed ending their relationship than men not in civil unions (Solomon et al., 2004). In contrast, both types of same-sex couples differed from heterosexual married couples in numerous ways. Same-sex couples were in their current relationship for a shorter duration, less religious, less likely to have children, more likely to share housework and finances, and less close to their family of origin than heterosexual couples. Women in same-sex relationships were more highly educated and perceived less social support from their family of origin than heterosexual married women. Men in same-sex relationships lived in larger cities, were less monogamous and more likely to agree that non-monogamy was acceptable, and perceived more social support from their friends than heterosexual married men. It is not surprising that same-sex couples differed from heterosexual couples. Prior research on lesbians and gay men from convenience samples that compared them to (a) United States census data (e.g., Bradford and Ryan, 1988), (b) their heterosexual siblings (e.g., Rothblum, et al., 2004; Rothblum and Factor, 2001), and (c) representative national samples (e.g., Laumann, Gagnon, Michael and Michaels, 1994) have consistently indicated demographic differences. It was also not surprising that same-sex couples in civil unions were quite similar to same-sex couples not in civil unions given that the first study was conducted after the first year of the new legislation. Consequently, that study was more about who chooses to have a civil union versus those who do not. It was less about how being in a civil union changes a relationship -- for that, follow-up research is needed. Demographic variables include age, race, education, religion, sexual orientation, income, and occupation.
Curated
Partially restricted

Community Partnerships for Older Adults (CPFOA) Program Survey of Older Adults, 2008 [United States] (ICPSR 27181)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas, Massachusetts, Hawaii, California, Georgia, New York (state), Wisconsin
Time period: 2008-01-01--2009-01-01

This is the second round of the Community Partnerships for Older Adults (CPFOA) Program Survey of Older Adults. Like the first round, which was fielded in 2002 and released as ICPSR 4301 (Community Partnerships for Older Adults (CPOA) Program Survey of Older Adults, 2002), the second round was conducted as part of the evaluation of the CPFOA Program, an initiative of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) aimed at promoting improvements in the organization and delivery of long-term care and supportive services for older adults through local public-private partnerships. The 2002 survey was conducted in the 13 communities in which partnerships received development grants from RWJF, and, in 2008, the survey was repeated in the eight of them in which partnerships received implementation grants from the Foundation. The goal of the survey was to improve understanding of the characteristics of older adults, their knowledge and perceptions about issues related to long-term care, and their use of long-term care services and support. In addition, the data collected by the survey enabled the communities to target the partnership's activities in the most effective way.

The second round was based on the 2002 survey instrument. Changes to the instrument were minimized so that the data from the 2002 and 2008 rounds would be comparable. The instrument was modified to delete questions that had low item response in 2002, to add questions requested by the partnerships, to add questions for decision-makers, or to modify questions that were outdated. As in 2002, the 2008 survey interviewed respondents about supportive and long-term care services for older adults in their communities, including the availability, use of, and quality of the services and sources of information about them. Respondents were asked if they expected to stay in their community, if their homes needed repairs or modifications to improve their ability to live in them, how important it was to be able to live in their own home as they grew older, the age at which they thought they would need help to continue living in their own home, and the age at which they thought they could no longer live at home because of health problems. The survey also collected information on health status, problems with activities of everyday life, health insurance coverage and long-term care insurance, hospital stays, living arrangements, social activities, support from family and friends, access to transportation, and demographic characteristics.

Curated
Partially restricted

Community Partnerships for Older Adults (CPOA) Program Survey of Older Adults, 2002 [United States] (ICPSR 4301)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: Vermont, United States, Hawaii, California, New York (state), Maui, Arkansas, Michigan, Texas, Massachusetts, Georgia, Wisconsin, Boston
This survey is one component of the evaluation of the Community Partnerships for Older Adults (CPOA) Program, an initiative of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation aimed at promoting improvements in the organization and delivery of long-term care and supportive services for older adults through local public-private community partnerships. The survey interviewed a representative sample of older adults aged 50 and over in 13 communities that were awarded development grants by the program. Designed to obtain baseline data about each community's population and to provide information to target the CPOA's activities in the most effective way, the survey interviewed respondents about supportive and long-term care services for older adults in their communities, including the availability, use of, and quality of the services and sources of information about them. Respondents were asked if they expected to stay in their community, if their homes needed repairs or modifications to improve their ability to live in them, how important it was to be able to live in their own home as they grew older, the age at which they thought they would need help to continue living in their own home, and the age at which they thought they could no longer live at home because of health problems. The survey also collected information on health status, problems with activities of everyday life, health insurance coverage and long-term care insurance, hospital stays, living arrangements, social activities, support from family and friends, access to transportation, and demographic characteristics.
Curated

Displaced New Orleans Residents Pilot Study (DNORPS) (ICPSR 29523)

Released/updated on: 2011-03-24
Geographic coverage: United States, Louisiana, New Orleans
Time period: 2005-08-01--2006-11-01

The Displaced New Orleans Residents Pilot Study was designed to examine the current location, well-being, and plans of people who lived in the city of New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina struck on August 29, 2005. The study is based on a representative sample of pre-Katrina dwellings in New Orleans. Fieldwork focused on tracking respondents wherever they currently resided, including back to New Orleans. Respondents were administered a short paper-and-pencil interview by mail, by telephone, or in person. The pilot study was fielded in the fall of 2006, approximately one year after Hurricane Katrina. The goal of DNORPS was to assess the feasibility of the study design and thereby to lay the groundwork for launching a major longitudinal study of displaced New Orleans residents.

ICPSR only holds the public data for the pilot study. The main study (DNORS) was carried out 2009-2010. These data are not yet publicly available, but for more information, visit the RAND Corporation website.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

East Asian Social Survey (EASS), Cross-National Survey Data Sets: Families in East Asia, 2006 (ICPSR 34606)

Released/updated on: 2022-03-08
Geographic coverage: South Korea, Asia, Japan, Taiwan, China (Peoples Republic)
Time period: 2006-06-01--2006-12-01

The East Asian Social Survey (EASS) is a biennial social survey project that serves as a cross-national network of the following four General Social Survey type surveys in East Asia: Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS), Japanese General Social Survey (JGSS), Korean General Social Survey (KGSS), Taiwan Social Change Survey (TSCS), and comparatively examines diverse aspects of social life in these regions. Survey information in this module focuses on family dynamics and includes demographic variables such as the number of family members, the number of younger and older siblings, the number of sons and daughters, and whether family members are alive or deceased. Respondents were also queried about specific information pertaining to family members and children not co-residing with them, such as, sex and birth order, age, marital status, residence status, contact frequency, employment status, and relation to the respondent.

Other information collected includes attitudes toward financial support from family members and how frequently financial and personal support was provided. Questions also include opinions regarding household chores, lifestyle preferences, health of respondent and parents, as well as family obligations. Quality of life questions addressed how satisfied respondents were as well as overall marital happiness. Demographic information specific to the respondent and their spouse includes age, sex, marital status, education, employment status and hours worked, occupation, earnings and income, religion, class, size of community, and region.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

East Asian Social Survey (EASS), Cross-National Survey Data Sets: Families in East Asia, 2016-2018 (ICPSR 38171)

Released/updated on: 2022-02-03
Geographic coverage: South Korea, Asia, Japan, Taiwan, China (Peoples Republic)
Time period: 2016-01-01--2018-01-01

The East Asian Social Survey (EASS) is a biennial social survey project that serves as a cross-national network of the following four General Social Survey type surveys in East Asia: the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS), the Japanese General Social Survey (JGSS), the Korean General Social Survey (KGSS), and the Taiwan Social Change Survey (TSCS), and comparatively examines diverse aspects of social life in these regions. Since its 1st module survey in 2006, EASS produces and disseminates its module survey datasets and this is the harmonized data for the 6th module survey, called 'Families in East Asia'.

Survey information in this module is the same topic as the first module of the EASS 2006, and it focuses on family dynamics and relations. Respondents were asked about details of their family members; such as, the number of family members, age, sex, birth order, marital status, employment status, whether they co-resides with and whether they are alive or deceased. Other information collected includes contact frequency, intergenerational support exchanges, and attitudes toward financial support from family members. Questions also include opinions regarding household chores, lifestyle preferences, health of respondent and parents, as well as family obligations. Demographic and other background information includes age, sex, marital status, religion, years of education completed, employment status, income, and household size and composition.

Curated

Estimating the Prevalence of Trafficking Among Homeless and Runaway Youth, Georgia, 2017-2018 (ICPSR 37628)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-13
Geographic coverage: United States, Atlanta, Georgia
Time period: 2017-01-01--2018-01-01

The 2018 Atlanta Youth Count (AYC18), a follow-up to the 2015 Atlanta Youth Count and Needs Assessment (AYCNA), was expanded in 2018 to specifically address sex and labor trafficking among youth experiencing homelessness in metro Atlanta. This project was designed to provide impact on court, law enforcement, and victim service practices at the jurisdictional level in Georgia, and beyond.

Homeless youth in metro Atlanta and surrounding counties were contacted through outreach efforts at youth shelters, motels, and street locations where homeless youth tend to congregate. Data collection focused on basic demographic information, history of homelessness, health, sexual experiences, and social supports.

Curated

Experience of Violence in the Lives of Homeless Persons: The Florida Four City Study, 2003-2004 (ICPSR 20363)

Released/updated on: 2010-11-22
Geographic coverage: United States, Orlando, Florida, Tampa, Jacksonville, Miami
Time period: 2003-01-01--2004-01-01
The primary goal of this study was to develop an understanding of the role of violence in the lives of homeless women and men. The objectives were to determine how many women and men have experienced some form of violence in their lives either as children or adults, the factors associated with experiences of violence, the consequences of violence, and the types of interactions with the justice system. The survey sample was comprised of about 200 face-to-face interviews with homeless women in each of four Florida cities (Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, and Tampa). In all, 737 women were interviewed. In addition, 91 face-to-face interviews with homeless men were also conducted only in Orlando. For Part 1 (Female Interviews), the data include information related to the respondent's living conditions in the past month, as well as experiences with homelessness, childhood violence, adult violence, forced sexual situations, and stalking. Additional variables include basic demographic information, a self-report of criminal history, information related to how the respondent spent her days and evenings, and the physical environment surrounding the respondent during the day and evening. For Part 2 (Male Interviews), the data include much of the same information as was collected in Part 1. Information from Part 1 not included in Part 2 primarily includes questions pertaining to experience with forced sexual situations, and questions related to pregnancy and children.
Curated

Florida Elder Abuse Survey in Seven Sites, 2007-2008 [United States] (ICPSR 25941)

Released/updated on: 2010-10-27
Geographic coverage: Gainesville, United States, Orlando, Fort Lauderdale, St. Petersburg, Florida, Tampa, Jacksonville, Miami
Time period: 2007-01-01--2008-01-01
The purpose of this project was to develop and pilot test an interviewer-administered self-report questionnaire that might be used in a subsequent national survey to scientifically establish the prevalence of second-party elder abuse or neglect. The project focused only on those living in the communities who were capable of accurately self-reporting their knowledge, attitudes, and practices. Through focus groups of adult protective services and abuse hot-line staff, questionnaire items were generated and later tested through interviews of clients of aging services in Florida. Aging services case managers screened and recruited 95 clients, aged 65 and older, with 25 clients who had reports of mistreatment within the hotline database, and 70 comparison clients (no reports of mistreatment). Groups were matched by gender and age within 10 years. The interviews were conducted over an 18-month period, of which 3 interviews were conducted in-person and 92 interviews were conducted by telephone. All interviews were conducted by trained interviewers of the research team. Twenty-six interviews were conducted in Spanish. Interviews focused on demographics; activities of daily living; 19 possible types of elder abuse or neglect within the previous year, and, for each positive response, questions about the perpetrators and their relationship to the older adult; a description of when the mistreatment happened, how often, what the respondent did, and whether it was related to the perpetrator's anger, neglect, or carelessness.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Hispanic Established Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly (EPESE) Frailty Study: 2006-2009 (ICPSR 36321)

Released/updated on: 2016-03-29
Geographic coverage: United States, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, California, Arizona
Time period: 2006-01-01--2009-01-01
The Hispanic Established Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly (EPESE) Frailty Study sought to apply a standard definition of frailty in a well-defined sample of Mexican American older adults and to examine the impact of frailty on disability, health related quality of life, institutionalization, and mortality in this population over time. This project is a continuation of a prior study (the Hispanic EPESE) examining the enabling-disabling process in this same population of aging Mexican Americans; data were collected from 1,031 older adults who were participating in the Hispanic EPESE. Only subjects who were physically capable of safely completing the muscle strength measures were included. Baseline interviews were collected for this subsample in 2006/2007 during Wave 6 (ICPSR 29654) of the Hispanic EPESE study. This collection includes data about respondents' health status, activities of daily living and their ability to perform tasks. Two-year follow-up data were collected in 2008/2009 from 731 participants in Wave 1. Demographic and background information include age, relationship status, gender, marital status and household composition.
Curated

Hispanic Established Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly, Wave II, 1995-1996: [Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas] (ICPSR 3385)

Released/updated on: 2007-01-17
Geographic coverage: United States, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, California, Arizona
Time period: 1995-01-01--1996-01-01
The baseline Hispanic Established Populations for the Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly (Hispanic EPESE, ICPSR 2851) was modeled after the design of ESTABLISHED POPULATIONS FOR EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES OF THE ELDERLY, 1981-1993: [EAST BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, IOWA AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, IOWA, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, AND NORTH CENTRAL NORTH CAROLINA] (ICPSR 9915) and ESTABLISHED POPULATIONS FOR EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES OF THE ELDERLY, 1996-1997: PIEDMONT HEALTH SURVEY OF THE ELDERLY, FOURTH IN-PERSON SURVEY [DURHAM, WARREN, VANCE, GRANVILLE, AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA] (ICPSR 2744). This data collection contains the two-year follow-up of the baseline Hispanic EPESE, which collected data on a representative sample of community-dwelling Mexican-American elderly, aged 65 years and older, residing in the five southwestern states of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. The primary purpose of the study was to provide estimates of the prevalence of key physical health conditions, mental health conditions, and functional impairments in older Mexican Americans and to compare these estimates with those for other populations. The Hispanic EPESE attempted to determine whether certain risk factors for mortality and morbidity operate differently in Mexican Americans than in non-Hispanic White Americans, African Americans, and other major ethnic groups. The public-use data cover demographic characteristics (age, sex, type of Hispanic race, income, education, marital status, number of children, employment, and religion), height, weight, social and physical functioning, chronic conditions, related health problems, health habits, self-reported use of dental, hospital, and nursing home services, and depression. This two-year follow-up is a cross-sectional examination of the predictors of mortality, changes in health outcomes, institutionalization, and other changes in living arrangements, as well as changes in life situations and quality of life issues. The Medications file (Part 2) includes a listing of the medications, by brand name and classification of the drug, which were prescribed for the respondent. The vital status of respondents from baseline to this round of the survey may be determined using the Vital Status file (Part 3). This file contains interview dates from the baseline as well as vital status at Wave II (respondent survived, date of death if deceased, proxy-assisted, proxy-true).
Curated

Hispanic Established Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly, Wave III, 1998-1999: [Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas] (ICPSR 4102)

Released/updated on: 2007-01-23
Geographic coverage: United States, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, California, Arizona
Time period: 1998-01-01--1999-01-01
This dataset comprises the second follow-up of the baseline Hispanic EPESE, HISPANIC ESTABLISHED POPULATIONS FOR THE EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES OF THE ELDERLY, 1993-1994: [ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, AND TEXAS] (ICPSR 2851), and provides information on 1,980 of the original respondents. The Hispanic EPESE collected data on a representative sample of community-dwelling Mexican-American elderly, aged 65 years and older, residing in the five southwestern states of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. The primary purpose of the series was to provide estimates of the prevalence of key physical health conditions, mental health conditions, and functional impairments in older Mexican Americans and to compare these estimates with those for other populations. The Hispanic EPESE attempted to determine whether certain risk factors for mortality and morbidity operate differently in Mexican Americans than in non-Hispanic White Americans, African Americans, and other major ethnic groups. The public-use data cover background characteristics (age, sex, type of Hispanic race, income, education, marital status, number of children, employment, and religion), height, weight, social and physical functioning, chronic conditions, related health problems, health habits, self-reported use of dental, hospital, and nursing home services, and depression. The follow-ups provide a cross-sectional examination of the predictors of mortality, changes in health outcomes, and institutionalization and other changes in living arrangements, as well as changes in life situations and quality of life issues. The vital status of respondents from baseline to this round of the survey may be determined using the Vital Status file (Part 2). This file contains interview dates from the baseline as well as vital status at Wave III (respondent survived, date of death if deceased, proxy-assisted, proxy-true). The first follow-up of the baseline data (Hispanic EPESE Wave II, 1995-1996 [ICPSR 3385]) followed 2,438 of the original 3,050 respondents. Hispanic EPESE, ICPSR 2851, was modeled after the design of ESTABLISHED POPULATIONS FOR EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES OF THE ELDERLY, 1981-1993: [EAST BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, IOWA AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, IOWA, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, AND NORTH CENTRAL NORTH CAROLINA] (ICPSR 9915) and ESTABLISHED POPULATIONS FOR EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES OF THE ELDERLY, 1996-1997: PIEDMONT HEALTH SURVEY OF THE ELDERLY, FOURTH IN-PERSON SURVEY [DURHAM, WARREN, VANCE, GRANVILLE, AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA] (ICPSR 2744).
Curated

Hispanic Established Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly, Wave IV, 2000-2001 [Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas] (ICPSR 4314)

Released/updated on: 2009-11-25
Geographic coverage: United States, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, California, Arizona
Time period: 2000-01-01--2001-01-01
This dataset comprises the third follow-up of the baseline Hispanic EPESE, HISPANIC ESTABLISHED POPULATIONS FOR THE EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES OF THE ELDERLY, 1993-1994: [ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, AND TEXAS] (ICPSR 2851), and provides information on 1,682 of the original respondents. The Hispanic EPESE collected data on a representative sample of community-dwelling Mexican-American elderly, aged 65 years and older, residing in the five southwestern states of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. The primary purpose of the series was to provide estimates of the prevalence of key physical health conditions, mental health conditions, and functional impairments in older Mexican Americans and to compare these estimates with those for other populations. The Hispanic EPESE attempted to determine whether certain risk factors for mortality and morbidity operate differently in Mexican Americans than in non-Hispanic White Americans, African Americans, and other major ethnic groups. The public-use data cover background characteristics (age, sex, type of Hispanic race, income, education, marital status, number of children, employment, and religion), height, weight, social and physical functioning, chronic conditions, related health problems, health habits, self-reported use of dental, hospital, and nursing home services, and depression. The follow-ups provide a cross-sectional examination of the predictors of mortality, changes in health outcomes, and institutionalization and other changes in living arrangements, as well as changes in life situations and quality of life issues. The vital status of respondents from baseline to this round of the survey may be determined using the Vital Status file (Part 2). This file contains interview dates from the baseline as well as vital status at Wave IV (respondent survived, date of death if deceased, proxy-assisted, proxy-reported cause of death, proxy-true). The first follow-up of the baseline data (Hispanic EPESE Wave II, 1995-1996 [ICPSR 3385]) followed 2,438 of the original 3,050 respondents, and the second follow-up (Hispanic EPESE Wave III, 1998-1999 [ICPSR 4102]) followed 1,980 of these respondents. Hispanic EPESE, 1993-1994 (ICPSR 2851), was modeled after the design of ESTABLISHED POPULATIONS FOR EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES OF THE ELDERLY, 1981-1993: [EAST BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, IOWA AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, IOWA, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, AND NORTH CENTRAL NORTH CAROLINA] (ICPSR 9915) and ESTABLISHED POPULATIONS FOR EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES OF THE ELDERLY, 1996-1997: PIEDMONT HEALTH SURVEY OF THE ELDERLY, FOURTH IN-PERSON SURVEY [DURHAM, WARREN, VANCE, GRANVILLE, AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA] (ICPSR 2744).
Curated

Hispanic Established Populations for the Epidemiologic Study of the Elderly (HEPESE) Wave 5, 2004-2005 [Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas] (ICPSR 25041)

Released/updated on: 2009-09-23
Geographic coverage: United States, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, California, Arizona
Time period: 2004-01-01--2005-01-01
This dataset comprises the fourth follow-up of the baseline Hispanic EPESE (HISPANIC ESTABLISHED POPULATIONS FOR THE EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES OF THE ELDERLY, 1993-1994: [ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, AND TEXAS] [ICPSR 2851]). The baseline Hispanic EPESE collected data on a representative sample of community-dwelling Mexican-Americans, aged 65 years and older, residing in the five southwestern states of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. The primary purpose of the series was to provide estimates of the prevalence of key physical health conditions, mental health conditions, and functional impairments in older Mexican Americans and to compare these estimates with those for other populations. The Hispanic EPESE provides data on risk factors for mortality and morbidity in Mexican Americans in order to contrast how these factors operate differently in non-Hispanic White Americans, African Americans, and other major ethnic groups. The public-use data cover demographic characteristics (age, sex, type of Hispanic race, income, education, marital status, number of children, employment, and religion), height, weight, social and physical functioning, chronic conditions, related health problems, health habits, self-reported use of dental, hospital, and nursing home services, and depression. Subsequent follow-ups provide a cross-sectional examination of the predictors of mortality, changes in health outcomes, and institutionalization, and other changes in living arrangements, as well as changes in life situations and quality of life issues. During this 5th Wave, 2004-2005, reinterviews were conducted either in person or by proxy, with 1,167 of the original respondents. This 4th follow-up includes an additional sample of 902 Mexican Americans aged 75 and over with higher average-levels of education than those of the surviving cohort, increasing the total number of respondents to 2,069. By diversifying the cohort of those aged 75 and older, a better understanding can be gained of the influence of socioeconomic and cultural variations on the lives and health of older Mexican Americans.
Curated

Hispanic Established Populations for the Epidemiologic Study of the Elderly (HEPESE) Wave 6, 2006-2007 [Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas] (ICPSR 29654)

Released/updated on: 2012-02-23
Geographic coverage: United States, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, California, Arizona
Time period: 2006-01-01--2007-01-01
This dataset comprises the fifth follow-up of the baseline Hispanic EPESE (HISPANIC ESTABLISHED POPULATIONS FOR THE EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES OF THE ELDERLY, 1993-1994: [ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, AND TEXAS] [ICPSR 2851]). The baseline Hispanic EPESE collected data on a representative sample of community-dwelling Mexican Americans, aged 65 years and older, residing in the five southwestern states of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. The primary purpose of the series was to provide estimates of the prevalence of key physical health conditions, mental health conditions, and functional impairments in older Mexican Americans and to compare these estimates with those for other populations. The Hispanic EPESE provides data on risk factors for mortality and morbidity in Mexican Americans in order to contrast how these factors operate differently in non-Hispanic White Americans, African Americans, and other major ethnic groups. The public-use data cover demographic characteristics (age, sex, type of Hispanic race, income, education, marital status, number of children, employment, and religion), height, weight, social and physical functioning, chronic conditions, related health problems, health habits, self-reported use of dental, hospital, and nursing home services, and depression. Subsequent follow-ups provide a cross-sectional examination of the predictors of mortality, changes in health outcomes, and institutionalization, and other changes in living arrangements, as well as changes in life situations and quality of life issues. During this 6th Wave, 2006-2007, reinterviews were conducted either in person or by proxy, with 921 of the original respondents. This fifth follow-up includes an additional sample of 621 Mexican Americans aged 75 years and over with higher average-levels of education than those of the surviving cohort, increasing the total number of respondents to 1,542. By diversifying the cohort of those aged 75 and older, a better understanding can be gained of the influence of socioeconomic and cultural variations on the lives and health of older Mexican Americans.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Hispanic Established Populations for the Epidemiologic Study of the Elderly (HEPESE) Wave 8, 2012-2013 [Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas] (ICPSR 36578)

Released/updated on: 2016-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, California, Arizona
Time period: 2012-01-01--2013-01-01

The Hispanic EPESE provides data on risk factors for mortality and morbidity in Mexican Americans in order to contrast how these factors operate differently in non-Hispanic White Americans, African Americans, and other major ethnic groups.

The Wave 8 dataset comprises the seventh follow-up of the baseline Hispanic EPESE (HISPANIC ESTABLISHED POPULATIONS FOR THE EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES OF THE ELDERLY, 1993-1994: [ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, AND TEXAS] [ICPSR 2851]). The baseline Hispanic EPESE collected data on a representative sample of community-dwelling Mexican Americans, aged 65 years and older, residing in the five southwestern states of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas.

The public-use data cover demographic characteristics (age, sex, marital status), height, weight, BMI, social and physical functioning, chronic conditions, related health problems, health habits, self-reported use of hospital and nursing home services, and depression. Subsequent follow-ups provide a cross-sectional examination of the predictors of mortality, changes in health outcomes, and institutionalization, and other changes in living arrangements, as well as changes in life situations and quality of life issues.

During this 8th Wave, 2012-2013, re-interviews were conducted either in person or by proxy, with 452 of the original respondents. This Wave also includes 292 re-interviews from the additional sample of Mexican Americans aged 75 years and over with higher average-levels of education than those of the surviving cohort who were added in Wave 5, increasing the total number of respondents to 744.

Curated

Housing Affordability Data System (HADS), 2002 (ICPSR 25203)

Released/updated on: 2009-07-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, Milwaukee, Charlotte, United States, Kansas City (Kansas), Santa Ana, Fort Worth, San Diego, Missouri, Columbus (Ohio), Phoenix, Dallas, Wisconsin, Arizona, Arlington, Buffalo, San Bernardino, Anaheim, Fort Lauderdale, Kansas City (Missouri), California, Kansas, Florida, New York (state), Miami, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Ohio, Riverside
The Housing Affordability Data System (HADS), 2002, is a housing-unit level dataset that measures the affordability of housing units and the housing cost burdens of households, relative to area median incomes, poverty level incomes, and Fair Market Rents. The dataset contains selected variables from the AMERICAN HOUSING SURVEY, 2002: METROPOLITAN MICRODATA (ICPSR 4589), as well as custom, derived variables measuring monthly housing costs, housing cost burdens, assisted housing, and total salary income. Housing-level variables include information on the number of rooms in the housing unit, the year the unit was built, whether it was occupied or vacant, whether the unit was rented or owned, whether it was a single family or multi-unit structure, the number of units in the building, the current market value of the unit, and measures of relative housing costs. The dataset also includes variables describing the number of people living in the household, household income, and the type of residential area (e.g., urban or suburban).
Curated

Housing Affordability Data System (HADS), 2004 (ICPSR 25204)

Released/updated on: 2009-10-29
Geographic coverage: Oklahoma City, Indiana, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arkansas, Cleveland, Washington, Atlanta, Colorado, Missouri, East St. Louis, New Orleans, Denver, Memphis, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Sacramento, Seattle, San Antonio, California, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Louisiana, Ohio, Hartford, Georgia, Indianapolis
The Housing Affordability Data System (HADS) is a set of housing unit level datasets that measures the affordability of housing units and the housing cost burdens of households, relative to area median incomes, poverty level incomes, and Fair Market Rents. The purpose of these datasets is to provide housing analysts with consistent measures of affordability and burdens over a long period. The datasets are based on the American Housing Survey (AHS) national files from 1985 through 2005 and the metropolitan files for 2002 and 2004. Users can link records in HADS files to AHS records, allowing access to all of the AHS variables. Housing-level variables include information on the number of rooms in the housing unit, the year the unit was built, whether it was occupied or vacant, whether the unit was rented or owned, whether it was a single family or multiunit structure, the number of units in the building, the current market value of the unit, and measures of relative housing costs. The dataset also includes variables describing the number of people living in the household, household income, and the type of residential area (e.g., urban or suburban).
Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs

How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST), Wave 1 2009, Wave 2 2010, Wave 3 2011, Wave 4 2013, Wave 5 2015, United States (ICPSR 30103)

Released/updated on: 2016-03-18
Geographic coverage: United States

How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST) surveyed how Americans met their spouses and romantic partners, and compared traditional to non-traditional couples. This collection covers data that was gathered over five waves. During the first wave, respondents were asked about their relationship status, including the gender, ethnicity, and race of their current partner, as well as the level of education of their parents. They were also asked about their living arrangements with their partner, the country, state, and city the respondent and/or the respondent's partner resided in most from birth to age 16, and whether the couple attended the same high school/college/university, or grew up in the same town. Information was collected on the legal status of the relationship, the city/state where the partnership was legalized, and how many times the respondent had previously been married. Additionally, respondents were asked about how often they visited with relatives, which gender they were most attracted to, their earned income in 2008, and the length of their current relationship. Finally, respondents were asked to recall how, when, and where they met their partner, how their parents felt about their partner, and to describe the perceived quality of their relationship. The second wave followed up with respondents one year after Wave 1. Information was collected on respondents' changes, if any, in marital status, relationship status, living arrangements, and reasons for separation where applicable. The third wave followed up with respondents one year after the second wave, and collected information on respondents' relationships reported in the first two waves, again including any changes in the status of the relationship and reasons for separation. The fourth wave followed up with respondents two years after Wave 3. In addition to information on relationship status and reasons for separation, Wave 4 includes the subjective level of attractiveness for the respondent and their partner. Wave 5 collected updated data on respondents' changes, if any, in marital status, relationship status, and reasons for separation where applicable. Information about respondents' sexual orientations, sex frequencies, and attitudes towards sexual monogamy were also collected. Demographic information includes age, race/ethnicity, gender, level of education, household composition, religion, political party affiliation, and household income.

The data is being released in two parts: part one is available for public use and part two is available for restricted use. The public use data contains Waves 1-5, including the addition of nine variables collecting information such as race, household income, whether the respondent was born outside of the United States, zip code relative to rural area, and respondents' living arrangements between birth and 16 years of age. The restricted use data contains Waves 1-3, and differs from the public use data by including FIPS codes for state of marriage and state of residence, town or city where the respondent was raised, and qualitative variables revised by the Principal Investigator (Waves 1-5), consisting of respondent's answers to how they first met their partner, the quality of their relationship in their own words, why they broke up if applicable and if they have an open relationship.

Curated

Hurricane Katrina Community Advisory Group Study [United States] (ICPSR 22325)

Released/updated on: 2010-06-10
Geographic coverage: Mississippi, United States, Louisiana, New Orleans, Alabama
Hurricane Katrina was the most destructive and costliest natural disaster to occur in the United States. Nearly 5 million people lived in the path of Katrina. An additional 1.3 million lived in the New Orleans metropolitan area at the time of the hurricane. Although not in the direct path of Katrina, New Orleans was devastated by a massive flood that occurred as a result. The purpose of this study is to inform policy-makers of the impact of Hurricane Katrina on survivors' physical and mental health and barriers to treatment, as well as assist in future natural disaster planning efforts. This will be achieved by monitoring, over time, a group of people who represent those affected by Katrina. The Hurricane Katrina Community Advisory Group consists of a broad cross-section of people affected by Katrina, including separate samples of people who resided in the New Orleans metropolitan area at the time of the hurricane and those who resided in the counties or parishes of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi that were in the path of the hurricane. Follow-up interviews conducted with the Advisory Group members to monitor the pace of recovery, as well as reports prepared for policy-makers, press releases, and digitally recorded oral histories are being posted on the Hurricane Katrina Community Advisory Group Web site as they become available. Demographic variables include gender, age, race, ethnicity, pre-hurricane residence (place), pre-hurricane type of housing (detached home, mobile home, apartment, etc.), pre-hurricane employment, family income, marital status, education, home ownership (owned with mortgage, owned without mortgage, rented, etc.), where the respondent lived at time of interview, religious preference, and religiosity.
Curated

Innovations in Early Life Course Transitions (ICPSR 36002)

Released/updated on: 2015-06-19
Geographic coverage: Japan
This project collects and builds a cross-sectional dataset that addresses changing attitudes and behaviors surrounding cohabitation in Japan. Specifically, it uses a random effects hazard model to examine the age pattern of cohabitation and differentials in the probability of cohabiting.
Curated

Japanese General Social Survey (JGSS), 2005 (ICPSR 4703)

Released/updated on: 2007-08-13
Geographic coverage: Japan, Global
This survey was designed to solicit political, sociological, and economic information from people living in Japan. The data were collected between August 25 and November 23, 2005, using face-to-face interviews and self-administered questionnaires. Respondents were asked to give employment information for themselves and their spouses, including industry, size of employer, number of hours worked, level of job satisfaction, and time spent commuting. Respondents were also queried regarding employment information and education level of their parents when the respondent was aged 15. Several questions were asked about household composition, the type of residence, the state of respondents' finances during the last few years and compared to other Japanese families both past and present, sources of financial support, the ease of improving one's standard of living in Japan, and the use of credit cards and consumer financing. Views were also sought on divorce, the roles of each spouse, issues involving children, the responsibility of the government, and taxation issues. In terms of health, questions were asked regarding the physical and mental health of respondents and their household members, the frequency of smoking and alcohol consumption, and their views on genetically modified foods. Quality of life questions addressed the amount of satisfaction respondents received from life, and how often they participated in sports, leisure, and volunteer activities. Additional topics covered were euthanasia, the use of technology, juvenile delinquency, car ownership and usage, their level of trust in various institutions, and whether respondents belonged to religious, trade, or social service organizations. Demographic variables include age, sex, education level, employment status, occupation, labor union membership, marital status, type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural), household income, perceived social status, political orientation, political party affiliation, and religious affiliation.
Curated

Japanese General Social Survey (JGSS), 2006 (ICPSR 25181)

Released/updated on: 2010-05-06
Geographic coverage: Japan, Global
This survey was designed to solicit political, sociological, and economic information from people living in Japan. The data were collected between October 3 and November 3, 2006, using face-to-face interviews and self-administered questionnaires. Respondents were asked to give employment information for themselves and their spouses, including industry, size of employer, number of hours worked, level of job satisfaction, and time spent commuting. Respondents were also queried regarding employment information and education level of their parents when the respondent was aged 15. Several questions were asked about household composition, the type of residence, the state of respondents' finances during the last few years and compared to other Japanese families both past and present, sources of financial support, the ease of improving one's standard of living in Japan, and the use of credit cards and consumer financing. Views were also sought on divorce, the roles of each spouse, issues involving children, the responsibility of the government, and taxation issues. In terms of health, questions were asked regarding the physical and mental health of respondents and their household members, the frequency of smoking and alcohol consumption, and their views on genetically modified foods. Quality of life questions addressed the amount of satisfaction respondents received from life, and how often they participated in sports, leisure, and volunteer activities. Additional topics covered were euthanasia, the use of technology, juvenile delinquency, car ownership and usage, their level of trust in various institutions, and whether respondents belonged to religious, trade, or social service organizations. Demographic variables include age, sex, education level, employment status, occupation, labor union membership, marital status, type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural), household income, perceived social status, political orientation, political party affiliation, and religious affiliation.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Japanese General Social Survey (JGSS), 2008 (ICPSR 30661)

Released/updated on: 2015-07-21
Geographic coverage: Asia, Japan, Global
The Japanese General Social Surveys (JGSS) Project is a Japanese version of the General Social Survey (GSS) project closely replicating the original GSS of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. It provides data for analyses of Japanese society, attitudes and behaviors which make international comparisons possible. The objectives of the JGSS project are three-fold: (1) to collect and build cumulative data on general social surveys in Japan in a regular and consistent manner, thus enabling a time-series analysis; (2) to provide data for secondary analyses to researchers and university students in various social science fields; and (3) to provide data in a format useful for international comparative studies, research, and reports.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Japanese General Social Survey (JGSS), 2010 (ICPSR 34623)

Released/updated on: 2015-07-22
Geographic coverage: Asia, Japan, Global
Time period: 2010-02-19--2010-04-24
The Japanese General Social Surveys (JGSS) Project is a Japanese version of the General Social Survey (GSS) project closely replicating the original GSS of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. It provides data for analyses of Japanese society, attitudes, and behaviors, which makes possible international comparisons. Respondents were asked about employment, family and household composition, education, entertainment, technology and Internet usage, status and opinions on mental and physical health, alcohol and tobacco use, life satisfaction, addiction, proficiency with English, voting behavior, opinions on political and social issues, taxes and government expenditure, views on burial, family beliefs and issues, trust in people and institutions, membership in organizations, volunteering, perception of their personal appearance, receiving help from others, and their neighborhood environment. Demographic questions included age, sex, marital status, household income, and religious orientation and behavior.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Japanese General Social Survey (JGSS), 2012 (ICPSR 36577)

Released/updated on: 2016-10-21
Geographic coverage: Asia, Japan, Global
Time period: 2012-02-24--2012-04-22
The Japanese General Social Surveys (JGSS) Project is a Japanese version of the General Social Survey (GSS) project closely replicating the original GSS of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. It provides data for analyses of Japanese society, attitudes, and behaviors, which make possible international comparisons. Respondents were asked about employment, family and household composition, education, entertainment, technology and Internet usage, status and opinions on mental and physical health, alcohol and tobacco use, life satisfaction, voting behavior, opinions on political and social issues, taxes and government expenditure, family beliefs and issues, impact of the Great East Japan Earthquake, trust in people and institutions, membership in organizations, and their neighborhood environment. Demographic questions included age, sex, marital status, household income, and religious orientation and behavior.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Japanese General Social Survey (JGSS), 2015 (ICPSR 37874)

Released/updated on: 2021-03-11
Geographic coverage: Asia, Japan, Global
Time period: 2015-02-20--2015-04-26
The Japanese General Social Surveys (JGSS) Project is a Japanese version of the General Social Survey (GSS) project closely replicating the original GSS of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. It provides data for analyses of Japanese society, attitudes, and behaviors, which make possible international comparisons. Respondents were asked about employment and career growth, family and household composition, education, entertainment, technology and Internet usage, status and opinions on mental and physical health, alcohol and tobacco use, participation in gambling, addiction, life satisfaction, voting behavior, opinions on political and social issues, income, taxes and government expenditure, family beliefs and issues, trust in people and institutions, membership in organizations, views on burial, sustainability measures, and their neighborhood environment. Demographic questions included age, sex, marital status, household income, and religious orientation and behavior.