Search results

The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (USTS) was conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) to examine the experiences of transgender adults in the United States. The USTS questionnaire was administered online and data were collected over a 34-day period in the summer of 2015, between August 19 and September 21. The final sample included respondents from all fifty states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and U.S. military bases overseas. The USTS Public Use Dataset (PUDS) features survey results from 27,715 respondents and details the experiences of transgender people across a wide range of areas, such as education, employment, family life, health, housing, and interactions with police and prisons.

The survey instrument had thirty-two sections that covered a broad array of topics, including questions related to the following topics (in alphabetical order): accessing restrooms; airport security; civic participation; counseling; family and peer support; health and health insurance; HIV; housing and homelessness; identity documents; immigration; intimate partner violence; military service; police and incarceration; policy priorities; public accommodations; sex work; sexual assault; substance use; suicidal thoughts and behaviors; unequal treatment, harassment, and physical attack; and voting.

Demographic information includes age, racial and ethnic identity, sex assigned at birth, gender and preferred pronouns, sexual orientation, language(s) spoken at home, education, employment, income, religion/spirituality, and marital status.

There are no publicly available data files for this study. The naming conventions were maintained from the original pre-ICPSR release and the PUDS file is restricted use along with the qualitative data (MS Excel) file.

Before applying for access to these data please refer to the Approved Requests for USTS Data. These abstracts describe work currently in progress, and we provide them to help reduce the risk of duplication of research efforts.

The Boston Reentry Study (BRS) was a mixed-methods, longitudinal study of 122 men and women released from Massachusetts state prisons to the Boston area, that focused on the transition into the community during participants' first year after prison release. The original data collection combined a panel survey, qualitative interviews, interviews with family members, and administrative records on criminal history. The BRS examined the complexity of integration after incarceration drawing from participants' life histories, including childhood experiences, to understand how individual biographies shape the transition into the community. This collection includes responses to 5 survey waves: (1) baseline, about one week before release from prison, (2) 1 week after prison release, (3) 2 months after prison release, (4) 6 months after prison release, and (5) 12 months after prison release. The survey collected information on housing, employment, income, health, family relationships, and criminal justice system contact.

The data in this collection are social network data drawn from a large-scale field experiment. Theories of human behavior suggest that individuals attend to the behavior of certain people in their community to understand what is socially normative and adjust their own behavior in response. This experiment tested these theories by randomizing an anti-conflict intervention across 56 New Jersey public middle schools, with 24,191 students. After having comprehensively measured every school's social network, randomly selected seed groups of 20-32 students from randomly selected schools were assigned to an intervention that encouraged public stances against conflict at school. The data allowed for comparisons between treatment and control groups, and also provided variables to analyze social networks to examine the impact of social referents.

Surveys were conducted at the start and end of the 2012-2013 school year, the year in which the experiment was conducted. The survey data contains social network variables based on the peers with whom the respondent chooses to spend time. Survey data also include respondents' perceived descriptive and prescriptive norms of conflict at the schools surveyed, as well as administrative data on the schools and demographics of respondents.

The collection includes one dataset, with 482 variables for 24,471 cases. Demographic variables in the collection include gender, grade, age, height, weight, race/ethnicity, language, household characteristics, and demographic variables obtained from school administrative records.

The goal of this mixed-methods study was to evaluate the effectiveness of community based cross-age mentoring to reduce negative outcomes related to violence exposure/engagement and promote positive development among African-American and Latinx youth from multiple sites serving four low-income, high violence urban neighborhoods, using youth mentors from the same high-risk environment. The program was named by youth mentors, "Saving Lives, Inspiring Youth" (or SLIY henceforth). Cross-age peer mentoring programs promise to solve problems and ineffectiveness of other types of mentoring programs, but few have been systematically studied in high-poverty, high-crime communities. In collaboration with several community organizations, a prospective approach was implemented to follow cross-age mentors and mentees for up to one year of mentoring. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were employed to examine possible changes in a number of relevant constructs, and to understand program impact in greater depth.

Mentoring sessions lasting one hour took place each week, with an hour debriefing session for mentors following each mentoring session. Quantitative data were collected pre, post and at a 9-12 month follow-up. Throughout the mentoring intervention, several forms of qualitative data were gathered to make it possible for youth voices to permeate understanding findings, to illuminate program processes that youth perceived as helpful and not helpful, and to provide multiple perspectives on youths' resilience and their understanding of the risks they faced. Both mentors and community collaborators were trained and engaged as community researchers. School-based data were also collected. Demographic variables include participants' age, race, and grade in school.

The Denver Youth Survey (DYS) is part of the larger "Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency" initiated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1986. The DYS is a longitudinal study of problem and successful behavior over the life course that focuses on delinquency, drug use, victimization, and mental health. The DYS is based on a probability sample of households in "high-risk" neighborhoods of Denver, Colorado. These neighborhoods were selected on the basis of their social ecology in terms of population and housing characteristics. Only socially disorganized neighborhoods with high official crime rates (top one-third) were included. The survey respondents include 1,528 children and youth who were 7, 9, 11, 13, or 15 years old in 1987, and one of their parents, who lived in one of the more than 20,000 randomly selected households.

The survey respondents include 807 boys and 721 girls and include White (10 percent), Latino (45 percent), and African American (33 percent) youth, as well as 12 percent from other racial/ethnic backgrounds. The child and youth respondents, along with one caretaker, were interviewed annually from 1988 until 1992, and annually from 1995 until 1999. The age range covered by the study is from age 7 through age 26.

The dataset contains 1,528 cases and 22,081 variables.

The Denver Youth Survey (DYS) is part of the larger "Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency" initiated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1986. It is a longitudinal study of problem and successful behavior over the life course that focuses on delinquency, drug use, victimization, and mental health. DYS variables also address family demographics, neighborhood characteristics, parenting, and involvement in social roles.

The DYS is based on a probability sample of households in "high-risk" neighborhoods of Denver, Colorado. These neighborhoods were selected on the basis of their social ecology in terms of population and housing characteristics. Only socially disorganized neighborhoods with high (top one-third) official crime rates were included. The survey respondents include 1,528 children and youth who were 7, 9, 11, 13, or 15 years old in 1987, and one of their parents, who lived in one of the more than 20,000 randomly selected households.

The survey respondents include 807 boys and 721 girls and include White (10%), Latino (45%), and African American (33%) youth, as well as 12% from other racial/ethnic backgrounds. The child and youth respondents, along with one caretaker, were interviewed annually from 1988 until 1992 (waves 1-5), annually from 1995 until 1999 (waves 6-10), and in 2003 (wave 11). The study covers an age range of 7 through 26.

The Drug Use Among Young Indians: Epidemiology and Prediction study is an annual surveillance effort assessing the levels and patterns of substance use among American Indian (AI) adolescents attending schools on or near reservations. In addition to annual epidemiology of substance use, data pertaining to the normative environment for adolescent substance use were also obtained. For this data collection data comes from annual in-school surveys completed between the years 1993 to 2006, and 2009 to 2013. Students completed the surveys at school during a specified class period. The dataset contains 534 variables for 26,451 students in grades 7 to 12.

Low-income preschool children experience greater risks to their social and emotional development than their more affluent peers. These gaps are observed before children begin their formal schooling, and they remain or increase during the elementary school years. Since social and emotional risks may compromise children's future mental health and peer relationships, addressing them is important in its own right. In addition, social-emotional competence may aid learning: children who have difficulty regulating their emotions and behaviors have been found to receive less instruction, to be less engaged in and less positive about their role as learners, and to have fewer opportunities for learning from peers.

The Head Start CARES (Classroom-based Approaches and Resources for Emotion and Social skill promotion) demonstration tests three distinct approaches to enhancing children's social-emotional development on a large scale within the Head Start system - the largest federally funded early-childhood education program in the United States. Conceived and sponsored by the Office of Head Start and the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation in the Administration for Children and Families within the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the Head Start CARES demonstration was conducted by MDRC, a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social policy research organization, in collaboration with MEF Associates and several academic partners.

The three evidence-based social-emotional interventions selected for the Head Start CARES evaluation included: The Incredible Years Teacher Training Program (IY), Preschool PATHS (PATHS), and a one-year version of Tools of the Mind- Play (Tools). The interventions are referred to as "enhancements" because they enriched and complemented existing practices and curricula used in Head Start classrooms. These enhancements represent three "types" of social-emotional programming. That is, while all three were aimed at children's social-emotional development, they varied in their approach to changing this set of child outcomes by targeting somewhat different teacher practices, because they were built on differing theories about how social and emotional skills develop.

Baseline and Follow-up Class-level Impact Analysis Data Files

Data included in class-level data files were collected from external observers and teachers through two sources: Classroom Observations and Teacher Self-Surveys.

Classroom Observations were conducted by observers blind to treatment status who observed the classrooms participating in the study in four different sessions at Spring Baseline and Pre-K Follow-up. This source includes the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) scores and the Adapted Teaching Style Rating Scale (Adapted-TSRS) scores.

Teacher Self-Surveys were collected from lead teachers at Spring Baseline and Pre-K Follow-up. This data source includes information on classroom composition as well as teacher demographics, teaching experience, level of stress and depression, and professional relationship with peers and supervisors.

Child-level Impact Analysis Data File

Data included in this file were collected at Fall Baseline, Pre-K Follow-up and K Follow-up from teachers, children and their parents through three sources: Teacher Reports on Individual Children, Direct Child Assessments and Parent Surveys.

Teacher Reports on Individual Children (Teacher Reports) were collected at Fall Baseline, Pre-K Follow-up and K Follow-up. Lead teachers filled out surveys for each child separately, including questions about the child's social skills and behavior, the child's specific knowledge and skills, and the teacher's relationship with the child. Teacher reports were collected for both 4-year-olds and 3-year-olds at Fall Baseline and Pre-K Follow-up, but were not collected for 3-year-olds at K Follow-up. As a cover page to the Teacher Report, a shortened version of the Teacher Self-Survey was collected at K Follow-up and those data are included in this dataset.

Direct Child Assessments were conducted at Fall Baseline and Pre-K Follow-up. The dataset comprises data on a set of tasks measuring different skills for each child separately, including social and emotional skills, self-regulation skills and academic skills. Direct Child Assessments were collected for 4-year- olds only.

Parent Surveys were collected at Fall Baseline and K Follow-up. The survey was administered by phone and includes information on family demographics, parent-teacher involvement, parent's perception of school safety, child's social skills and behavior problems, parental level of stress and depression, and household composition and income. Parent Surveys were collected for 4-year-olds only.

Class-level Implementation Analysis Data File

This data file includes data collected from coaches, trainers and teachers on teacher training, classroom-based coaching, and classroom implementation. The data included in this dataset were collected through five separate instruments: (1) Teacher Training Attendance Forms, (2) Coach Weekly Logs, (3) Coach Monthly Fidelity Logs, (4) Trainer Fidelity Logs, and (5) Teacher's View of the Enhancement. Data collected from the first four data sources were collected multiple times during the implementation year while the fifth was collected once at the beginning of the implementation year. The instruments were administered through the Head Start CARES management information system (MIS) with the exception of the Teacher Training Attendance Forms, which were collected on paper. The file also includes some Teacher Self-Survey variables. Data were collected for program group classrooms only.

Coach-level Implementation Analysis Data File

This data file includes data collected from coaches and trainers on classroom-based coaching. The data included in this dataset were collected through five separate instruments: (1) Teacher Training Attendance Forms, (2) Trainer Supervision Logs, (3) Trainer Logs of Coach Quality, (4) Coach Demographics Survey, and (5) Coach End-of-Year Reflections. The instruments were administered through the Head Start CARES management information system (MIS) with the exception of the Teacher Training Attendance Forms, which were collected on paper.

Audiotape Analysis Data File

The audiotape data file includes data created using qualitative information (audiotape transcripts of coach-teacher meetings) that can be used to conduct analyses on one of the two components of the professional development model for the Head Start CARES demonstration: classroom-based coaching.

Child-level Tracking Data File

The child-level tracking data file includes parent-reported data collected in elementary school for children from the Head Start CARES sample. It includes information from parents about children's location and grade, social skills and problem behaviors at home, and receipt of special services.

This study sought to advance understanding of how school climate is a critical factor in school safety and violence prevention. Middle school and high school students and staff were surveyed over the span of eight years from 2013-2020. Middle school students and staff were surveyed during odd years (4 waves of data collection), and high school students and staff were surveyed the other even years (again four years of data collection). All four years of data per group were combined into a single dataset. A final file was created pooling all eight years of data collection averaging student and staff responses by school.

Both the student and teacher/staff surveys covered two domains: school climate and safety conditions. The school climate domain included perceptions of the school's disciplinary practices, student support efforts, and degree of student engagement in school. The safety conditions domain covered reports of bullying, teasing, sexual harassment, and other forms of peer aggression, including threats of violence, physical assault, dating aggression, and gang activity.

Previous research conducted by the Principal Investigators showed that an authoritative school climate characterized by high structure (strict but fair discipline and high academic expectations) and high support (positive teacher-student relationships) is associated with many positive outcomes. Students who attend schools with an authoritative school climate demonstrated more engagement in school, have higher school attendance and academic achievement, and are more likely to graduate. Students who experience a structured and supportive school climate may be more willing to follow school rules, respond to their teachers, and treat one another in a respectful manner. This study continues that prior work.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

These data were collected as part of an effort to gain a more in depth understanding of the processes surrounding disengagement from a youth gang, and come from structured interviews with their parent or guardian. The interview included such topics as parental monitoring practices, attitudes about the youth's peer group, and perceptions about the neighborhood. Study participants lived in seven geographically diverse cities in the United States, making it one of few multi-site studies of gangs or gang members.

The National Social Life, Health and Aging Project (NSHAP) is the first population-based study of health and social factors on a national scale, aiming to understand the well-being of older, community-dwelling Americans by examining the interactions among physical health, illness, medication use, cognitive function, emotional health, sensory function, health behaviors, and social connectedness. It is designed to provide health providers, policy makers, and individuals with useful information and insights into these factors, particularly on social and intimate relationships.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC), along with Principal Investigators at the University of Chicago, conducted more than 3,000 interviews during 2005 and 2006 with a nationally representative sample of adults aged 57 to 85. Face-to-face interviews and biomeasure collection took place in respondents' homes. Round 2 interviews were conducted from August 2010 through May 2011, during which Round 1 Respondents were re-interviewed. An attempt was also made to interview individuals who were sampled in Round 1 but declined to participate. In addition, spouses or co-resident partners were also interviewed using the same instruments as the main respondents. This process resulted in 3,377 total respondents. The following files constitute Round 2: Core Data, Disposition of Round 1 Partner Data, Social Networks Data, Social Networks Update Data, Partner History Data, Partner History Update Data, Medications Data, Proxy Data, and Sleep Statistics Data.

Included in the Core files (Datasets 1 and 2) are demographic characteristics, such as gender, age, education, race, and ethnicity. Other topics covered respondents' social networks, social and cultural activity, physical and mental health including cognition, well-being, illness, history of sexual and intimate partnerships, and patient-physician communication, in addition to bereavement items. Data were also collected from respondents on the following items and modules: social activity items, physical contact module, sexual interest module, get up and go assessment of physical function, and a panel of biomeasures, including weight, waist circumference, height, blood pressure, smell, saliva collection, and taste.

The Disposition of Round 1 Partner files (Datasets 3 and 4) detail information derived from Section 6A items regarding the partner from Round 1 within the questionnaire. This provides a complete history for respondent partners across both rounds.

The Social Networks files (Datasets 5 and 6) contain one record for each person identified on the network roster. Respondents who refused to participate in the roster or who did not identify anyone are not represented in this file.

The Social Networks Update files (Datasets 7 and 8) detail respondents' current relationship status with each person identified on the network roster.

The Partner History file (Dataset 9) contains one record for each marriage, cohabitation, or romantic relationship identified in Section 6A of the questionnaire, including a current partner in Round 2 but excluding the partner from Round 1.

The Partner History Update file (Dataset 10) details respondents' current sexual partner information, as well as marital and cohabiting status.

The Medications Data file (Dataset 11) contains records for items listed in the medications log.

The Proxy Data files (Datasets 12 and 13) contain information from proxy interviews administered for Round 1 Respondents who were either deceased or whose health was too poor to participate in Round 2.

The Sleep Statistics Data files (Dataset 14 and 15) provide information on actigraphy sleep variables.

NACDA also maintains a Colectica portal with the NSHAP Core data across rounds 1-3, which allows users to interact with variables across rounds and create customized subsets. Registration is required.

This study expands on the Behavioral Intervention to improve adherence to Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) among low-income, marginalized individuals in Baltimore, Maryland. Based on Behavioral Activation principles, the "Peer Activate" intervention is specifically designed for implementation by trained peer recovery specialists.

Implementation outcomes included feasibility, acceptability, and fidelity. Feasibility, defined as the suitability and practicality of the approach, was quantitatively measured by the percentage of participants agreeing to participate in the intervention. Acceptability, defined as satisfaction with or tolerability of the approach, was measured quantitatively by session attendance. Fidelity was evaluated through independent ratings of a randomly selected 20% of sessions. The primary effectiveness measure was methadone retention at three months post-intervention, with secondary outcomes including methadone adherence, substance use frequency, and related problems.

The Pittsburgh Youth Study (PYS) is part of the larger "Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency" initiated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1986. PYS aims to document the development of antisocial and delinquent behavior from childhood to early adulthood, the risk factors that impinge on that development, and help seeking and service provision of boys' behavior problems. The study also focuses on boys' development of alcohol and drug use, and internalizing problems.

PYS consists of three samples of boys who were in the first, fourth, and seventh grades in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania public schools during the 1987-1988 academic year (called the youngest, middle, and oldest sample, respectively). Using a screening risk score that measured each boy's antisocial behavior, boys identified at the top 30 percent within each grade sample on the screening risk measure (n=~250), as well as an equal number of boys randomly selected from the remainder (n=~250), were selected for follow-up. Consequently, the final sample for the study consisted of 1,517 total students selected for follow-up. 506 of these students were in the oldest sample, 508 were in the middle sample, and 503 were in the youngest sample.

Assessments were conducted semiannually and then annually using multiple informants (i.e., boys, parents, teachers) between 1987 and 2010. The youngest sample was assessed from ages 6-19 and again at ages 25 and 28. The middle sample was assessed from ages 9-13 and again at age 23. The oldest sample was assessed from ages 13-25, with an additional assessment at age 35. Information has been collected on a broad range of risk and protective factors across multiple domains (e.g., individual, family, peer, school, neighborhood). Measures of conduct problems, substance use/abuse, criminal behavior, mental health problems have been collected.

This study collection contains only the middle sample respondents.

The Pittsburgh Youth Study (PYS) is part of the larger "Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency" initiated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1986. PYS aims to document the development of antisocial and delinquent behavior from childhood to early adulthood, the risk factors that impinge on that development, and help seeking and service provision of boys' behavior problems. The study also focuses on boys' development of alcohol and drug use, and internalizing problems.

PYS consists of three samples of boys who were in the first, fourth, and seventh grades in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania public schools during the 1987-1988 academic year (called the youngest, middle, and oldest sample, respectively). Using a screening risk score that measured each boy's antisocial behavior, boys identified at the top 30 percent within each grade sample on the screening risk measure (n=~250), as well as an equal number of boys randomly selected from the remainder (n=~250), were selected for follow-up. Consequently, the final sample for the study consisted of 1,517 total students selected for follow-up. 506 of these students were in the oldest sample, 508 were in the middle sample, and 503 were in the youngest sample.

Assessments were conducted semiannually and then annually using multiple informants (i.e., boys, parents, teachers) between 1987 and 2010. The youngest sample was assessed from ages 6-19 and again at ages 25 and 28. The middle sample was assessed from ages 9-13 and again at age 23. The oldest sample was assessed from ages 13-25, with an additional assessment at age 35. Information has been collected on a broad range of risk and protective factors across multiple domains (e.g., individual, family, peer, school, neighborhood). Measures of conduct problems, substance use/abuse, criminal behavior, mental health problems have been collected.

This study collection contains only the oldest sample respondents.

The Pittsburgh Youth Study (PYS) is part of the larger "Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency" initiated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1986. PYS aims to document the development of antisocial and delinquent behavior from childhood to early adulthood, the risk factors that impinge on that development, and help seeking and service provision of boys' behavior problems. The study also focuses on boys' development of alcohol and drug use, and internalizing problems.

PYS consists of three samples of boys who were in the first, fourth, and seventh grades in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania public schools during the 1987-1988 academic year (called the youngest, middle, and oldest sample, respectively). Using a screening risk score that measured each boy's antisocial behavior, boys identified at the top 30 percent within each grade sample on the screening risk measure (n=~250), as well as an equal number of boys randomly selected from the remainder (n=~250), were selected for follow-up. Consequently, the final sample for the study consisted of 1,517 total students selected for follow-up. 506 of these students were in the oldest sample, 508 were in the middle sample, and 503 were in the youngest sample.

Assessments were conducted semiannually and then annually using multiple informants (i.e., boys, parents, teachers) between 1987 and 2010. The youngest sample was assessed from ages 6-19 and again at ages 25 and 28. The middle sample was assessed from ages 9-13 and again at age 23. The oldest sample was assessed from ages 13-25, with an additional assessment at age 35. Information has been collected on a broad range of risk and protective factors across multiple domains (e.g., individual, family, peer, school, neighborhood). Measures of conduct problems, substance use/abuse, criminal behavior, mental health problems have been collected.

This study collection contains only the youngest sample respondents.

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

This study looks at interviews conducted with the collateral informants who participated in the study. The collateral informants were nominated by the main study participant and represented individuals who "knew the study participant well". At the interview baseline the collateral informant was usually a biological parent. During the three follow-up interviews the majority of collaterals were a friend. Collateral informants could also be a sibling, significant other, or relative. Collaterals were asked questions in regards to the main study participant's life, allowing for comparison between responses provided by two sources. A baseline interview was conducted with the collateral after the baseline interview took place with the main participant. Additional waves of follow-up with collaterals took place at 12, 24, and 36 months. A collateral report is not present for all of the main study participant interviews across waves (see response rate below).

The current Collateral Measures study primarily consists of the calculated scores from constructs asked about during the interview, but the individual scale items were withheld at that time. These additional datasets contain those individual items plus the calculated scores. These variables are typically consistent across the waves that the scale was asked about during the course of the entire project. Most of the files contain variables from all four waves of data collection. The table in the front of the User Guide will list which waves are present in each data file.

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

The Release data portion of the Pathways study contains information from 1,130 interviews ("release interviews") reflecting the youths' perceptions regarding various aspects of the residential experience and institutional environment (e.g., accounts of program operations and services provided, ratings regarding the participant's feelings of his or her safety in the facility). The release interview was conducted within 30 days prior to or after release from a facility and in a separate session apart from the time point interview. This was done to minimize the burden on the research participant and to ensure adequate attention to institutional ratings. The restricted time period within which to conduct the release interview reduced the likelihood that intervening events and experiences would skew the participant's recall of the stay.

Study participants could contribute more than one release interview, depending upon the number of institutional placements he/she had over the seven-year follow-up period. The current release data reflects ratings from 686 unique individuals. It should be recognized that not every institutional stay for every youth produced a release interview. On the basis of the number of reported institutional stays in the sample, it is estimated that a release interview was obtained for approximately 54 percent of the total number of residential stays experienced by study participants. Release interviews were missed if the research interviewer was not aware of the institutional stay (e.g. it occurred between time point interviews) or if the interviewer only became aware of the institutional stay at a point that was too late to schedule a release interview within the required window surrounding the release date.

The 686 individuals reflected in the release data represent 51 percent of the Pathway study participants (n=1,354) and 56 percent of Pathways participants who had a least one institutional stay (n=1,234; 120 Pathways youths had no institutional stays). On average, these 686 youths had 1.6 interviews. The number of interviews per unique person ranges from one to eight.

The current Release Measures study primarily consists of the calculated scores from constructs asked about during the interviews, but the individual scale items were withheld at that time. This study contains those individual items plus the calculated scores.

This secondary data analysis study combined social disorganization and self-control theories to understand violent victimization among children and adolescents. The study used data from 1,889 youth from the 9, 12, and 15-year-old cohorts of the Longitudinal Cohort Study in the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN). The PHDCN was an interdisciplinary study on how the contexts in which children and adolescents reside contribute to their behavior and psychological development.

Data analyzed for this study were from self-reports of children, adolescents, and their primary caregivers during waves 1 and 2 of the longitudinal data collection effort. In addition, neighborhood structural characteristics from the U.S. Census were also analyzed.