Showing 1 – 20 of 20 results.
Curated
Restricted
Group-based Integrative Pain Management: A Multi-level Approach to Address Intersectional Stigma and Social Isolation in Diverse Primary Care Safety Net Patients With Chronic Pain, San Francisco, 2023 (ICPSR 39497)
Released/updated on: 2025-11-12
Geographic coverage: San Francisco, United States, California
Time period: 2023-04-28--2023-12-04
Socioeconomically disadvantaged populations have a high prevalence of chronic pain, exacerbated by social isolation, intersectional stigma, and disparities in pain assessment and treatment options. Effective interventions using a multilevel, biopsychosocial approach are needed to decrease the unequal burden of pain. This pilot study tests group-based integrative models of pain management in primary care safety net clinics to improve pain care for racially and ethnically diverse low-income patients.
The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of key study design features for a randomized clinical trial of group-based integrative pain management in primary care safety clinics. Parameters of interest are feasibility of randomization and retention of participants, and intervention fidelity and adherence. A secondary objective of the study is to evaluate assessment procedures in preparation for a larger scale 2x2 factorial trial of group acupuncture and integrative group medical visits.
Curated
Restricted
Building Late-Life Resilience to Prevent Elder Abuse: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study of the EMPOWER Program, Arizona, 2019-2021 (ICPSR 38332)
Released/updated on: 2023-08-14
Geographic coverage: United States, Arizona
Time period: 2017-01-01--2021-12-31
Over the past two decades, as the proportion of older Americans has increased, so too have instances of elder abuse, including physical, emotional, and sexual abuse; financial exploitation; and caregiver neglect. The most recent national survey estimates show at least 1 in 10 community-residing older adults experience elder abuse each year, which translates to over 7 million Americans annually. Rates of abuse are magnified for older adults with the least financial and social resources, including those with low incomes, living in isolated rural communities, and facing structural barriers such as systemic racism. Emerging research on the COVID-19 pandemic prompts even greater concern for elder abuse: the virus has disproportionately affected older adults, resulting in increased social isolation, physical health impairment, and exposure to COVID-related fraud.
Recognizing the urgent need to develop and rigorously evaluate programs aimed at preventing elder abuse, the US Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice funded a demonstration from 2017 to 2021 during which researchers from the Urban Institute and practitioners at the Phoenix-based Area Agency on Aging, Region One ("the Area Agency") co-developed an elder abuse prevention program in Maricopa County, Arizona, which Urban's team then evaluated through a randomized controlled pilot study. This multiphase demonstration included an initial planning phase and a subsequent pilot study, which is the focus of this report.
The EMPOWER: Building Late-Life Resilience program is a 12-week in-home intervention, with one-hour weekly visits designed to empower community-residing older adults with the resiliency and resources to lead safe and healthy lives throughout the aging process. EMPOWER provides one-on-one assessments, client-centered prevention education, and needs-responsive life skills training embedded in a series of cognitive reframing conversations with an experienced facilitator. The program has eight modules, each of which culminates in an action plan focused on strengthening a client's internal assets and identifying sources of positive social support. Caseworkers facilitate motivational discussions centered on clients' self-identified goals and action planning, with the aim of optimizing clients' home safety, physical health, social connectedness, and emotional and financial well-being.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
General Social Survey, 1972-2016 [Cumulative File] (ICPSR 36797)
Released/updated on: 2017-11-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1972-01-01--2016-12-31
Since 1972, the General Social Survey (GSS) has been monitoring societal change and studying the growing complexity of American society. The GSS aims to gather data on contemporary American society in order to monitor and explain trends and constants in attitudes, behaviors, and attributes; to examine the structure and functioning of society in general as well as the role played by relevant subgroups; to compare the United States to other societies in order to place American society in comparative perspective and develop cross-national models of human society; and to make high-quality data easily accessible to scholars, students, policy makers, and others, with minimal cost and waiting. GSS questions include such items as national spending priorities, marijuana use, crime and punishment, race relations, quality of life, and confidence in institutions. Since 1988, the GSS has also collected data on sexual behavior including number of sex partners, frequency of intercourse, extramarital relationships, and sex with prostitutes. In 1985 the GSS co-founded the International Social Survey Program (ISSP). The ISSP has conducted an annual cross-national survey each year since then and has involved 58 countries and interviewed over one million respondents. The ISSP asks an identical battery of questions in all countries; the U.S. version of these questions is incorporated into the GSS. The 2016 GSS added in new variables covering information regarding social media use, suicide, hope and optimism, arts and culture, racial/ethnic identity, flexibility of work, spouses work and occupation, home cohabitation, and health.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Euro-Barometer 30: Immigrants and Out-Groups in Western Europe, October-November 1988 (ICPSR 9321)
Released/updated on: 2017-03-27
Geographic coverage: Europe, United Kingdom, Portugal, Global, Spain, Greece, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, Denmark, Italy, France, Germany
Time period: 1988-10-01--1988-11-30
This round of Euro-Barometer surveys investigated life satisfaction, union membership, smoking habits, knowledge and views regarding cancer, views on the importance of NATO and certain national problems, attitudes toward democracy and individual liberties, attitudes toward immigrants and out-groups (i.e., people of another nationality, race, religion, culture, or social class), and knowledge of and attitudes toward European Community institutions and policies, including the Common Agricultural Policy and the creation of a single European market in 1992. Respondents also were asked to name current topics and events most important for them and to state whether or not certain causes such as the protection of wildlife and the promotion of world peace were worth taking risks and making sacrifices for. Questions on political party preferences asked respondents which party they felt the closest to, how they voted in their country's last general election, how they would vote if a general election were held tomorrow, and how they planned to vote in the June 1989 elections for the European Parliament. The survey also gauged respondents' perceptions of the general attitude of each country's political parties toward the European Community. The inquiry into out-groups asked respondents to identify groups that came to mind when they thought of people of another nationality, race, religion, culture, or social class. Respondents were asked if they counted any out-group members among their friends and if any of these persons worked at their place of employment or lived in their neighborhood. Additional questions asked respondents if they were disturbed by the presence of these out-groups and if they thought that these groups exploited social welfare benefits, increased unemployment, contributed to delinquency and violence, affected property prices, or reduced the level of education in schools. In West Germany, France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands, respondents were queried about their attitudes and feelings toward specific out-groups: Southern Europeans, North Africans, Turks, Black Africans, Asians, Southeast Asians, West Indians, Jews, Surinamers, and Northern Europeans. The section on cancer queried respondents about their knowledge of the causes of cancer and medical recommendations for its early detection and prevention, and asked respondents if they followed or intended to follow those recommendations. Additional information gathered includes family income, home ownership, number of persons and children under 15 residing in the home, size of locality, region of residence, occupation of the head of household, and the respondent's age, sex, occupation, education, religion, religiosity, subjective social class standing, and left-right political self-placement.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Stroke Recovery in Underserved Populations 2005-2006 [United States] (ICPSR 36422)
Released/updated on: 2016-05-03
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2005-01-01--2006-12-31
The Stroke Recovery in Underserved Populations 2005-2006 study was created to address the National Institute on Aging (NIA) Request For Application entitled "Research on Mind-Body Interactions and Health" (RFA OD-03-008). It addressed the NIA interest in "the impact of optimism, happiness, or a positive attitude on well-being and health; and social functioning and health." The study examined how positive emotion (e.g., joy, gratitude, love, contentment) and social networks independently and interactively contribute to recovery of functional status after stroke within two underserved groups. The specific study aims were to:
- Examine recovery of functional status (motor and cognitive function), for White, African American and Hispanic persons with stroke discharged from rehabilitation facilities
- Examine the contributions of positive emotion and social networks on recovery of functional status (motor and cognitive function), for White, African American, and Hispanic persons with stroke discharged from rehabilitation facilities; and
- Examine the interaction between positive emotion and social networks on recovery of functional status (motor and cognitive function) for White, African American, and Hispanic persons with stroke discharged from rehabilitation facilities.
The data were collected by the IT Health Track at four time points: at admission and discharge from rehabilitation facility, and 80-180 days and 365-425 days after discharge. These data emphasize recovery of motor and cognitive functional status, positive emotion, and social networks
The dataset contains 226 variables and 1219 cases from 11 rehabilitation facilities across the United States.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
General Social Survey, 1972-2014 [Cumulative File] (ICPSR 36319)
Released/updated on: 2016-03-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1972-01-01--2014-12-31
Since 1972, the General Social Survey (GSS) has been monitoring societal change and studying the growing complexity of American society. The GSS aims to gather data on contemporary American society in order to monitor and explain trends and constants in attitudes, behaviors, and attributes; to examine the structure and functioning of society in general as well as the role played by relevant subgroups; to compare the United States to other societies in order to place American society in comparative perspective and develop cross-national models of human society; and to make high-quality data easily accessible to scholars, students, policy makers, and others, with minimal cost and waiting. GSS questions include such items as national spending priorities, marijuana use, crime and punishment, race relations, quality of life, and confidence in institutions. Since 1988, the GSS has also collected data on sexual behavior including number of sex partners, frequency of intercourse, extramarital relationships, and sex with prostitutes. The 2014 GSS has modules on quality of working life, shared capitalism, wealth, work and family balance, social identity, social isolation, and civic participation. In 1985 the GSS co-founded the International Social Survey Program (ISSP). The ISSP has conducted an annual cross-national survey each year since then and has involved 58 countries and interviewed over one million respondents. The ISSP asks an identical battery of questions in all countries; the U.S. version of these questions is incorporated into the GSS. The 2014 ISSP topics are National Identity and Citizenship. Demographic variables include age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, marital status, religion, employment status, income, household structure, and whether respondents were born in the United States.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Euro-Barometer 40.0: Poverty and Social Exclusion, October-November 1993 (ICPSR 6360)
Released/updated on: 2015-04-28
Geographic coverage: Europe, United Kingdom, Portugal, Global, Spain, Greece, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, Denmark, Italy, France, Germany
Time period: 1993-10-13--1993-11-28
This round of Euro-Barometer surveys queried respondents on standard Euro-Barometer measures such as public awareness of and attitudes toward the Common Market and the European Community (EC), and also focused on poverty and social exclusion, examining the extent and immediacy of these problems for respondents. Items covered whether the respondent's family or friends were experiencing poverty or social exclusion, how often the respondent saw instances of poverty and social exclusion, and whether the respondent believed that people had a chance of rising out of these circumstances. Respondents were also asked about the main reasons for poverty and social exclusion, the best ways to combat these conditions, what the role of volunteer groups, unions, employers, and the European Community (EC) should be, and whether the fight against poverty and social exclusion should be a priority objective for the EC. Also included were questions that asked whether respondents had given or would give any time to help disadvantaged people and what types of activities they had performed or would be prepared to perform. Respondents were asked to compare the current general economic and employment situations in their countries, the financial situation of their households, and their job situations with those of 12 months ago and 12 months ahead. Respondents were also asked to rate various aspects of their everyday life, including housing, income, work, social entitlements, and health. On EC matters, respondents were asked how well-informed they felt about the EC, what sources of information about the EC they used, whether their country had benefited from being an EC member, and the extent of their personal interest in EC matters. Demographic and other background information was gathered on number of people residing in the home, size of locality, home ownership, trade union membership, region of residence, and occupation of the head of household, as well as the respondent's age, sex, marital status, education, occupation, work sector, religion, religiosity, subjective social class, left-right political self-placement, and opinion leadership.
Curated
Restricted
Moving to Opportunity: Final Impacts Evaluation Science Article Data, 2008-2010 (ICPSR 34860)
Released/updated on: 2013-10-04
Geographic coverage: New York City, Baltimore, United States, Chicago, Illinois, Massachusetts, Los Angeles, California, New York (state), Maryland, Boston
Time period: 1994-01-01--2010-12-31
The Moving to Opportunity (MTO) program was a randomized housing experiment administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that gave low-income families living in high-poverty areas the chance to move to lower-poverty areas. This Restricted Access Dataset (RAD) includes data from the 3,273 adults interviewed as part of the MTO long-term evaluation and is comprised of variables analyzed for the article "Neighborhood Effects on the Long-Term Well-Being of Low-Income Adults" that was published in the journal Science on September 21, 2012. The article focused on subjective well-being, physical and mental health, social networks, neighborhoods, housing, and economic self-sufficiency. Families were tracked from the baseline survey (1994-1998) through the long-term evaluation survey fielding period (2008-2010) with the purpose of determining the effects of "neighborhood" on participating families from five United States cities. Households were randomly assigned to one of three groups:
- The low-poverty voucher (LPV) group (also called the experimental group) received Section 8 rental assistance certificates or vouchers that they could use only in census tracts with 1990 poverty rates below 10 percent. The families received mobility counseling and help in leasing a new unit. One year after relocating, families could use their voucher to move again if they wished, without any special constraints on location.
- The traditional voucher (TRV) group (also called the Section 8 group) received regular Section 8 certificates or vouchers that they could use anywhere; these families received no special mobility counseling.
- The control group received no certificates or vouchers through MTO, but continued to be eligible for project-based housing assistance and other social programs and services to which they would otherwise be entitled.
The dataset contains all outcomes and mediators analyzed for the Science article, as well as a variety of demographic and other baseline measures that were controlled for in the analysis. Demographic information includes age, gender, race/ethnicity, employment status, and education level.
Curated
Candidate Countries Eurobarometer 2002.1, March-April 2002: Social Situation in the Countries Applying for European Union Membership (ICPSR 29361)
Released/updated on: 2011-01-20
Geographic coverage: Romania, Cyprus, Hungary, Europe, Global, Malta, Czech Republic, Latvia, Turkey, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Estonia
Time period: 2002-03-01--2002-04-05
The Candidate Countries Eurobarometer (CCEB) series, first conducted in 2001, gathers information from the countries applying to become members of the European Union (EU) in a way that allows direct comparison with the standard Eurobarometer series carried out in the existing EU countries. The CCEB provides decision-makers and the European public with opinion data on the similarities and differences between the EU and candidate countries. The CCEB continuously tracks support for EU membership in each country and records changes in attitudes related to European issues in the candidate countries. This round of the CCEB survey was conducted between March 1 and April 5, 2002, in the candidate countries: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Turkey. The survey first asked respondents three questions in regard to European Union membership. In addition to these questions, respondents were queried on the following major areas of focus: (1) quality of life indicators and life satisfaction, (2) family and children, (3) elderly people, (4) lifestyle and health , (5) access to and quality of social services, (6) household income and standard of living, (7) social protection, inclusion, and exclusion, (8) social and political participation and integration, (9) employment, unemployment, and quality of work, and (10) regional mobility. For the first major area of focus, quality of life indicators and life satisfaction, respondents were questioned about life satisfaction in the past, present, and near future, and particular factors which contribute to or improve their present quality of life. For the second major area of focus, family and children, respondents provided their views in regard to the ideal number of children for a family, decision-making in having a child, age at birth of first child, parental and family roles, and the role of government in improving life for families with children. For the third major area of focus, elderly people, respondents gave their opinion on who should care for elderly persons, as well as who should pay for their care. The survey also asked respondents whether they cared for an individual who has a long-term illness, or who is handicapped or elderly, in-home or outside the home. For the fourth major area of focus, lifestyle and health, respondents were queried about their current lifestyle and whether they had any long-term illness and/or handicap that limits their activities in any way. For the fifth major area of focus, access to and quality of social services, respondents provided feedback about their distance from a particular service or business, their satisfaction with the health and social services in their country, and whether the local or national government, private companies, or associations should provide certain services. For the sixth major area of focus, household income and standard of living, questions asked of respondents included the lowest net monthly income level their household would need in order to make a living, their appraisal of the current household income situation, whether any household member had difficulties in paying the bills, and their ability to save and invest. The survey also queried respondents about their current standard of living, and whether and how they are improving their standard of living. For the seventh major focus, social protection, inclusion, and exclusion, respondents provided their ideas about necessities of the good life, their opinion as to whether they could rely on anyone outside the home for certain problems, and their views on social exclusion, poverty, and the state of the area in which they live within their country. In addition, the respondents were asked about their response to the poor or socially excluded, which entities provide the most help to these individuals versus who should do so, the reasons why people are poor or socially excluded, as well as the extent of social disparities in their country and government's role in reducing these disparities. For the eighth major area of focus, social and political participation and integration, respondents were asked about their participation in social, community, political, and advocacy groups or organizations. For the ninth major area of focus, employment, unemployment, and quality of work, the survey queried respondents about their current and past employment, employment status, and to describe their job. In addition, respondents identified the average hours they worked per week and stressors arising from their current job situation. For the last major area of focus, regional mobility, respondents were asked about moving in the last ten years, including how often, where, and why or why not, the prospects of moving to a different location in the next five years, the factors that would influence relocation, and whether moving would improve job prospects. In addition, the survey queried respondents about their willingness to live in another European country where the language spoken differs from their native language. Demographic variables include age, gender, marital status, age when stopped full-time education, occupation, income, source of household income, main income earner, number of people living in the household, ownership of durable goods, type and surface of area residence, type of community, and region of residence.
Curated
Eurobarometer 72.1: Poverty and Social Exclusion, Social Services, Climate Change, and the National Economic Situation and Statistics, August-September 2009 (ICPSR 28185)
Released/updated on: 2010-08-10
Geographic coverage: Cyprus, Portugal, Global, Malta, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Latvia, Luxembourg, Ireland, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Romania, Hungary, Europe, United Kingdom, Spain, Czech Republic, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Italy, Germany, Estonia
Time period: 2009-08-28--2009-09-17
This round of Eurobarometer surveys diverged from the Standard Eurobarometer measures and queried respondents on the following major areas of focus: (1) poverty and social exclusion, (2) social services, (3) climate change, and (4) the national economic situation and statistics. For the first major focus, poverty and social exclusion, respondents were queried about their own definition of poverty, the extent of poverty in their area, trends in the growth or decline of poverty in their area and in the world, social and personal causes of poverty and homelessness, and negative effects of poverty. Questions also included the risk of poverty for themselves and others, the importance of governmental wealth redistribution, social tension between groups, trust in individual people, trust in and reliability of institutions in fighting poverty, minimal acceptable living standards, and the level of homelessness in their area. In addition, respondents were queried on their ability to keep their job, the relationship between their job and their family, their own personal aid to help the poor, access to financial services, the respondents' satisfaction with life, and the respondents' own living conditions and income. For the second major focus, social services, respondents were asked about such services as long term care, childcare, public employment, social housing, and social assistance. Questions focused on how much they or others around them use social services, the quality and affordability of social services, preferences for elderly care and childcare, the prioritization of group assistance, and the financing of social services. For the third major focus, climate change, respondents were asked about the seriousness of climate change, governmental attempts to fight climate change, personal actions taken to fight climate change, and the relationship between environmental protection and economic growth. Finally, for the fourth major focus, the national economic situation and statistics, respondents were asked to estimate their country's official growth rate, inflation rate, and unemployment rate, and were asked to give their opinions on the importance and trustworthiness of economic statistics. Respondents were also queried on the employment and economic situations in their country. Demographic and other background information includes left-right political placement, occupation, age, gender, marital status, age at completion of full-time education, household composition, ownership of a fixed or a mobile telephone and other durable goods, internet usage, financial situation, level in society, minority group affiliation, region of residence, type and size of locality, and language of interview (in select countries).
Curated
National Youth Survey [United States]: Wave VII, 1987 (ICPSR 6542)
Released/updated on: 2009-04-01
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1987-01-01--1987-12-31
Youth data for the seventh wave of the National Youth Survey are contained in this collection. This research project, designed to gain a better understanding of both conventional and deviant types of behavior by youths, involved collecting information from a representative sample of young people in the United States. The first wave of this survey was conducted in 1976 (ICPSR 8375), the second in 1977 (ICPSR 8424), the third in 1978 (ICPSR 8506), the fourth in 1979 (ICPSR 8917), the fifth in 1980 (ICPSR 9112), and the sixth in 1983 (ICPSR 9948). For this wave, young adults were interviewed in early 1987 about events and behavior occurring in calendar year 1986, when they were 20 to 29 years of age. Data are available on the demographic and socioeconomic status of respondents, parents and friends, neighborhood problems, education, employment, skills, aspirations, encouragement, normlessness, attitudes toward deviance, exposure to delinquent peers, self-reported depression, delinquency, drug and alcohol use, victimization, pregnancy, abortion, use of mental health and outpatient services, violence by respondent and acquaintances, use of controlled drugs, and sexual activity.
Curated
National Youth Survey [United States]: Wave VI, 1983 (ICPSR 9948)
Released/updated on: 2008-10-10
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1983-01-01--1983-12-31
Youth data for the sixth wave of the National Youth Survey are contained in this collection. This research project, which was designed to gain a better understanding of both conventional and deviant types of behavior by youths, involved collecting information from a representative sample of young people in the United States. The first wave of this survey was conducted in 1976 (ICPSR 8375), the second wave in 1977 (ICPSR 8424), the third wave in 1978 (ICPSR 8506), the fourth wave in 1979 (ICPSR 8917), and the fifth wave in 1980 (ICPSR 9112). For this wave, youths and young adults were interviewed in early 1984 about events and behavior occurring in calendar year 1983, when they were 17 to 26 years of age. Data are available on the demographic and socioeconomic status of respondents, disruptive events for parents, neighborhood problems, employment, children, aspirations and current successes, normlessness, labeling by parents, perceived disapproval by parents, peers, co-workers, and partner, attitudes toward deviance, exposure to delinquent peers, self-reported delinquency, drug and alcohol use, victimization, pregnancy, depression, use of outpatient services, spouse violence by respondent and partner, and sexual activity.
Curated
National Youth Survey [United States]: Wave III, 1978 (ICPSR 8506)
Released/updated on: 2008-09-10
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1978-01-01--1978-12-31
Youth data for the third wave of the National Youth Survey are contained in this data collection, which includes data for youth interviewed in 1979 about events and behavior of the preceding year. The first wave of this study was conducted in 1976 (ICPSR 8375) and the second wave in 1977 (ICPSR 8424). Data were collected on the demographic and socioeconomic status of respondents, disruptive events in the home, youth aspirations, expectations for future goals, social isolation, normlessness, labeling, perceived disapproval, attitudes toward deviance, exposure and commitment to delinquent peers, sex roles, attitudes toward sexual assault, interpersonal violence, pressure for substance abuse by peers, exposure to substance abuse by parents, self-reported delinquency, and drug and alcohol use.
Curated
National Youth Survey [United States]: Wave V, 1980 (ICPSR 9112)
Released/updated on: 2008-09-10
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1980-01-01--1980-12-31
Youth data for the fifth wave of the National Youth Survey are contained in this collection. The first wave of this survey was conducted in 1976 (ICPSR 8375), the second wave in 1977 (ICPSR 8424), the third wave in 1978 (ICPSR 8506), and the fourth wave in 1979 (ICPSR 8917). For this wave, youths in the United States were interviewed in early 1981 about events and behavior occurring in calendar year 1980. Data are available on the demographic and socioeconomic status of respondents, disruptive events in the home, neighborhood problems, youth aspirations and current successes, normlessness, labeling by parents, friends, and co-workers, perceived disapproval, attitudes toward deviance, exposure and commitment to delinquent peers, sex roles, interpersonal violence, attitudes toward sexual violence, pressure for substance abuse by peers, drug and alcohol use, and victimization.
Curated
National Youth Survey [United States]: Wave IV, 1979 (ICPSR 8917)
Released/updated on: 2008-09-10
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1979-01-01--1979-12-31
Youth data for the fourth wave of the National Youth Survey are contained in this data collection. The first wave of this survey was conducted in 1976 (ICPSR 8375), the second wave in 1977 (ICPSR 8424), and the third wave in 1978 (ICPSR 8506). Data are available in this wave on the demographic and socioeconomic status of respondents, disruptive events in the home, youth aspirations and expectations, social isolation, normlessness, perceived disapproval by parents and peers, attitudes toward deviance, exposure and commitment to delinquent peers, sex roles, interpersonal violence, pressure for substance abuse by peers, self-reported delinquency, drug and alcohol use, and victimization.
Curated
National Youth Survey [United States]: Wave II, 1977 (ICPSR 8424)
Released/updated on: 2008-08-26
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1977-01-01--1977-12-31
Youth data for the second wave of the National Youth Survey are contained in this data collection. The first wave was conducted in 1976 (ICPSR 8375). Youths were interviewed in early 1978 about events and behavior that had occurred in 1977. Data were collected on demographic and socioeconomic status of respondents, aspirations, social isolation, normlessness, labeling, attitudes toward deviance, exposure to delinquent peers, commitment to delinquent peers, sex roles, interpersonal violence, exposure to substance abuse, self-reported delinquency, drug and alcohol use, and victimization.
Curated
National Youth Survey [United States]: Wave I, 1976 (ICPSR 8375)
Released/updated on: 2008-08-01
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1976-01-01--1976-12-31
This dataset contains parent and youth data for the National Youth Survey. Youths and one of their parents or legal guardians were interviewed in early 1977 about events and behavior occurring during calendar year 1976. Included is information on the demographics and socioeconomic status of respondents, disruptive events in the home, neighborhood problems, parental aspirations for youth, labeling, integration of family and peer contexts, attitudes toward deviance in adults and juveniles, parental discipline, community involvement, and drug use.
Curated
Partially restricted
Northwest Area Foundation Ventures Social Indicators Survey, June-September 2005 (ICPSR 21180)
Released/updated on: 2008-06-24
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Montana, Iowa, United States, South Dakota, Minnesota, North Dakota, Washington, Idaho
Time period: 2005-06-10--2005-09-14
The survey was designed to obtain information pertaining to community, neighborhood, local government, and community-based activities in an effort to discover ways to reduce poverty among the Ventures Communities (selected by the Northwest Area Foundation) in the Northwestern states of Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota and Washington. Respondents were asked to identify their place of residence (state, county, and town) and length of time they had lived at that location, as well as a series of questions pertaining to their opinion about the community, the attitudes of persons within the community, and relationships between community members. The survey queried respondents about their community involvement and group memberships, and their connection with resources outside the community, and their neighbors, to solve inner-community issues. Respondents also appraised the quality of government services in the community, trust in local leaders and members of ethnic groups, the level of cooperation of community members in an emergency, and the effectiveness of individuals or organizations in reducing the number of people in poverty. For the next topic, respondents were asked to evaluate their personal or household financial status, such as their ability to obtain a loan, line of credit, or other financial services, and their ability to pay for basic living costs. Respondents were also asked whether they had received financial assistance from family, and to estimate the number of people or families in the community who could not afford basic living costs. The survey also asked respondents to identify their interest in public affairs, how frequently they accessed newspapers for information, and how often they voted in elections. Respondents evaluated how often young people move away to find better opportunities, their perception of safety while walking in the community at night, and the potential for the start up and growth of small businesses. In addition, respondents were asked about their health and quality of life. General demographic information includes: age, gender, race, religion and religious involvement, education, marital status, and employment status. Geographic information, in addition to location of residence, was obtained such as whether their residence was urban or rural, and whether or not they lived on or near an Indian reservation. Finally, household information was collected including household composition, income and current assets, the presence of a telephone or cell phone, and access to the Internet.
Curated
Partially restricted
Northwest Area Foundation Horizons Social Indicators Survey, 2004-2005 (ICPSR 21181)
Released/updated on: 2008-05-21
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Montana, Iowa, United States, South Dakota, Minnesota, North Dakota, Washington, Idaho
Time period: 2004-08-23--2004-12-09, 2005-03-01--2005-05-31
The purpose of the study was to gather information pertinent to community, neighborhood, local government, and community-based activities in order to find ways to reduce poverty throughout the Northwestern states of Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Washington. The survey first asked the respondents to name their place of residence (in terms of state, county, and town), how long they had lived at their residence, and how much longer they planned to reside there. Then a sequence of questions asked respondents for their thoughts about the community, such as how they felt about it, whether they felt they belonged, whether they were fairly treated or excluded from the community, and how safe they felt walking around their community at night. They were also asked about the attitudes of individuals and the relationships between community members. The survey further asked about community involvement, group membership, and social participation, access to outside sources for problem-solving, and how well the members cooperated with one another (in groups and in neighborhoods) when they disagreed. The questionnaire also asked respondents to assess how well people of different ethnic groups interacted with the community as a whole and within groups, organizations, and activities. It asked for respondents' assessment of government services for the community, their trust in government as well as members and leaders of local groups (business, ethnic, and religious), and the cooperation of the community in emergencies. Respondents were asked to evaluate their ability to make a positive impact in their community and the ability of people and groups to provide assistance to the poverty-stricken and to reduce the number of those in poverty. Moreover, the survey asked respondents about the presence of leadership programs in their community and the effects, if any, they had on its members. Switching the focus, respondents were asked to evaluate their personal or financial status, their ability to acquire a loan, credit, or other financial services, and if they ever had difficulty paying for living costs (food, housing, electricity, heating, telephone, or health care). They were also asked to estimate how many people in the community could not afford the basic living costs. Questions were asked of respondents about their interest in staying informed about public affairs, how often they accessed information in newspapers, how often they voted in elections, the frequency in which young people left town in search of better opportunities, and about the possibility of implementing and developing small/local businesses within the community. Finally, the survey collected general demographic information including marital status, age, gender, race, education, religion and religious affiliation, employment status, location of residence (state, county, and town), whether they own or rent their home, household composition, current assets and income, and their access to telephones and the Internet.
Curated
Partially restricted
Northwest Area Foundation Social Indicators Survey, September-December 2003 (ICPSR 4694)
Released/updated on: 2007-07-10
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Montana, Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota, North Dakota, Washington, Idaho
Time period: 2003-09-01--2003-12-31
This study was designed to obtain information regarding community, neighborhood, local government, and community-based activities in an effort to discover ways of reducing poverty in the Northwestern states of Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington. Respondents were asked a series of questions relating to their attitudes toward their place of residence. They were asked how long they had lived at their current place of residence, what was the best thing about living there, and what changes they would make. Respondents were asked more specific questions about their immediate community and neighborhood such as whether they felt safe walking around during the day and at night, whether there were job opportunities, and how they perceived race relations and living conditions in their community. They were asked whether or not people in their community shared similar values as well as what sorts of attitudes people in their community had. For example, respondents were asked whether there was a sense of belonging, hope, worry, pride, anger, or boredom among members of their community. They were also asked about the importance of feeling like a member of a community and about their personal relationships with fellow neighbors. Other questions concerned their involvement in public affairs, from what sources they received their news, whether or not they trusted those news sources, and with what frequency they read the newspaper. Respondents were asked if they felt the government had the greatest responsibility in caring for citizens and whether the government cared more about individuals or larger interests. Respondents were also asked about their social activism such as volunteer work, donating blood, and attending government meetings. Other questions asked about their voting history, as well as their involvement with local church, sports, civic, and fraternal organizations. Respondents were asked about their geographic location including state, county, and town, whether their place of residence was considered urban or rural, and whether or not they lived near an Indian reservation. The survey also collected general information on the respondents such as gender, education, marital status, employment status, and income.