Showing 1 – 16 of 16 results.
Curated
American Housing Survey, 1984: MSA File (ICPSR 9092)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Indiana, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Cleveland, Utah, San Jose, Massachusetts, Salt Lake City, Memphis, Wisconsin, Buffalo, Rhode Island, Providence, California, New York (state), Birmingham, Mississippi, Ohio, Virginia, Indianapolis, Norfolk
This data collection contains information from samples of housing units in 11 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). Data include year the structure was built, type and number of living quarters, occupancy status, presence of commercial or medical establishments on the property, and property value. Additional data focus on kitchen and plumbing facilities, type of heating fuel used, source of water, sewage disposal, and heating and air-conditioning equipment. Questions concerning quality of housing include condition of walls and floors, adequacy of heat in winter, availability of electrical outlets, basement and roof water leakage, and exterminator service for mice or rats. Data on housing expenses include amount of mortgage or rent payments and costs of utilities, fuel, garbage collection, property insurance, and real estate taxes. Respondents who had moved recently were questioned about characteristics of the previous residence and reasons for moving. Residents were also asked to evaluate the quality of their neighborhoods with respect to such issues as crime, street noise, quality of roads, commercial activities, presence of trash, litter, abandoned structures or offensive odors, and adequacy of services such as police protection, shopping facilities, and schools. In addition to housing characteristics, some demographic information is provided on household members, such as age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder. Additional data are available on the householder, including years of school completed, Spanish origin, and length of residence.
Curated
American Housing Survey, 1988: MSA Core and Supplement File (ICPSR 6130)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Indiana, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Cleveland, Utah, San Jose, Massachusetts, Salt Lake City, Memphis, Wisconsin, Buffalo, Rhode Island, Providence, California, New York (state), Birmingham, Mississippi, Ohio, Virginia, Indianapolis, Norfolk
This data collection provides information on characteristics of housing units in 11 selected Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) of the United States. Although the unit of analysis is the housing unit rather than its occupants, the survey also is a comprehensive source of information on the demographic characteristics of household residents. Data collected include general housing characteristics, such as the year the structure was built, type and number of living quarters, occupancy status, presence of commercial establishments on the property, and property value. Data are also provided on kitchen and plumbing facilities, type of heating fuel used, source of water, sewage disposal, and heating and air-conditioning equipment. Questions about housing quality include condition of walls and floors, adequacy of heat in winter, availability of electrical outlets in rooms, basement and roof water leakage, and exterminator service for mice and rats. Data related to housing expenses include mortgage or rent payments, utility costs, fuel costs, property insurance costs, real estate taxes, and garbage collection fees. Variables are also supplied on neighborhood conditions, such as quality of roads and presence of crime, trash, litter, street noise, abandoned structures, commercial activity, and odors or smoke. Other items cover the adequacy of neighborhood services, including public transportation, schools, shopping facilities, police protection, recreation facilities, and hospitals or clinics. In addition to housing characteristics, data on age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder are provided for each household member. Additional data are supplied for the householder, including years of school completed, Spanish origin, and length of residence.
Curated
American Housing Survey, 1988: MSA Core Questions File (ICPSR 9509)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, Rhode Island, Oklahoma City, Providence, Indiana, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, California, Alabama, New York (state), Cleveland, Birmingham, Utah, San Jose, Ohio, Salt Lake City, Memphis, Virginia, Wisconsin, Buffalo, Indianapolis, Norfolk
This data collection provides information on characteristics of housing units in 11 selected Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) of the United States. Although the unit of analysis is the housing unit rather than its occupants, the survey also is a comprehensive source of information on the demographic characteristics of household residents. Data collected include general housing characteristics such as the year the structure was built, type and number of living quarters, occupancy status, presence of commercial establishments on the property, and property value. Data are also provided on kitchen and plumbing facilities, type of heating fuel used, source of water, sewage disposal, and heating and air-conditioning equipment. Questions about housing quality include condition of walls and floors, adequacy of heat in winter, availability of electrical outlets in rooms, basement and roof water leakage, and exterminator service for mice and rats. Data related to housing expenses include mortgage or rent payments, utility costs, fuel costs, property insurance costs, real estate taxes, and garbage collection fees. Variables are also supplied on neighborhood conditions such as quality of roads and presence of crime, trash, litter, street noise, abandoned structures, commercial activity, and odors or smoke, as well as about the adequacy of such services as public transportation, schools, shopping facilities, police protection, recreation facilities, and hospitals or clinics. In addition to housing characteristics, data on age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder are provided for each household member. Additional data are supplied for the householder, including years of school completed, Spanish origin, and length of residence.
Curated
American Housing Survey, 1994: MSA Core and Supplement File (ICPSR 6954)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, San Bernardino, Detroit, Anaheim, United States, Santa Ana, Fort Worth, California, New York (state), Michigan, New York City, San Diego, Texas, Phoenix, Dallas, Ontario, Wisconsin, Arizona, Arlington, Buffalo, Riverside
This data collection provides information on characteristics of housing units in eight selected Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) of the United States. Data for each household member include age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to the householder. For the householder, data also include tenure, length of residence, years of school completed, and Spanish origin. Variables pertaining to general housing characteristics cover number of rooms, type of heating and air-conditioning equipment, and whether the housing units had complete kitchens and plumbing facilities. Information on costs incurred for mortgage payments, rent, real estate taxes, property insurance, utilities, parking, and garbage collection permits comparisons of housing costs from one year to another between geographic areas. Limited data are provided on costs of additions, alterations, replacements, and repairs made to the property.
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
Annual Housing Survey, 1975 [United States]: Travel-to-Work [SMSAs] (ICPSR 7849)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Milwaukee, Madison, Newport News, United States, Kansas City (Kansas), Cincinnati, Oakland, San Diego, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Columbus (Ohio), New Orleans, Springfield (Massachusetts), Wisconsin, San Bernardino, San Antonio, Chicago, Rochester (New York), California, Kansas, Florida, New York (state), New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Miami, San Francisco, Paterson, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Portland (Oregon), Louisiana, Ohio, Hartford, Georgia, Virginia, Colorado Springs, Philadelphia
This data collection provides travel-to-work data for respondents living in 21 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs). Data cover respondents' place of work, means of transportation to work, carpooling and carpool occupancy, time and distance from home to work, and time of departure for work. The data also include transportation-related information such as access to a garage or carport at respondent's home, cost of rented parking spaces, and number of cars owned. Information about respondents's neighborhoods includes existence of street noise or heavy street traffic, poor street conditions, crime, objectionable odors, adequacy of schools, fire and police protection, health clinics, and respondents' opinions of the overall neighborhood quality. The data contained in this collection are from the travel-to-work supplement in ANNUAL HOUSING SURVEY, 1975 [UNITED STATES]: SMSA FILES (ICPSR 7976). The travel-to-work supplement was sponsored by the United States Department of Transportation, and the data was collected by the Census Bureau during April 1975 through March 1976. The data are contained in 21 files, one file for each SMSA represented. Demographic information collected on each respondent includes sex, age, race, marital status, and household relationship. Additional information on the household head includes educational attainment, Hispanic origin, and length of residence in current domicile.
Curated
Annual Housing Survey, 1982 [United States]: SMSA Files (ICPSR 8310)
Released/updated on: 2008-09-03
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Milwaukee, Madison, Newport News, Indiana, United States, Kansas City (Kansas), Cincinnati, Oakland, San Diego, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Columbus (Ohio), New Orleans, Springfield (Massachusetts), Wisconsin, San Bernardino, San Antonio, Chicago, Kentucky, Rochester (New York), Passaic, Clifton, California, Kansas, Florida, New York (state), New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Miami, San Francisco, Paterson, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Portland (Oregon), Louisiana, Ohio, Ontario (California), Hartford, Georgia, Virginia, Colorado Springs, Philadelphia, Riverside
This data collection provides information on the characteristics of the housing inventory in 12 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs). Data include year the structure was built, type and number of living quarters, occupancy status, presence of commercial establishments on the property, presence of a garage, and property value. Additional data focus on kitchen and plumbing facilities, type of heating fuel used, source of water, sewage disposal, and heating and air conditioning equipment. Information about housing expenses includes mortgage or rent payments, utility costs, garbage collection fees, property insurance, and real estate taxes as well as repairs, additions, or alterations to the property. 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, presence of cracks or holes in walls, ceilings, or floor, reliability of plumbing and heating equipment, and concealed electrical wiring. The presence of storm doors and windows and insulation was also noted. Neighborhood quality variables indicate presence of and objection to street noise, odors, crime, litter, and rundown and abandoned structures, as well as the adequacy of street lighting, public transportation, public parks, schools, shopping facilities, and police and fire protection. Extensive information on the ability of handicapped persons to move around their homes is also provided. Respondents were asked if they needed special equipment, or the help of another person to move around. They were also asked about the presence or need for housing features to aid their movement, such as ramps, braille lettering, elevators, and extra wide doors. In addition to housing characteristics, demographic data for household members are provided, including sex, age, race, income, marital status, and household relationship. Additional data are available for the household head, including Hispanic origin, length of residence, and travel-to-work information.
Curated
Citizen Attitude Survey: Urban Problems in Ten American Cities, 1970 (ICPSR 7340)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Tennessee, Albuquerque, Kansas City (Kansas), Kansas City (Missouri), Nashville, California, Kansas, San Diego, Baltimore, Atlanta, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Denver, Georgia, Maryland, Wisconsin, Boston
This study was a joint project of ten major United States cities participating in the Urban Observatory Program: Atlanta, Albuquerque, Baltimore, Boston, Denver, Kansas City, Kansas, Kansas City, Missouri, Milwaukee, Nashville, and San Diego. The survey focused on citizens' perceptions of the problems of urban life. Citizens' attitudes toward local government services and their opinions about local problems in the areas of schooling, housing, public transportation, controlled drugs, law and order, and taxes were assessed in all ten cities. Information on the socioeconomic status of the respondents, and on household composition was also elicited. Demographic data include sex, age, marital status, race, ethnicity, birthplace, level of education, and family income. Each city may be analyzed separately or may be treated as an integral part of the comparative study.
Curated
Comparative Study of Community Decision-Making (ICPSR 25)
Released/updated on: 2008-03-25
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Milwaukee, Akron, Charlotte, Indiana, Santa Ana, Berkeley, Fort Worth, Utica, Tyler, Cambridge, Utah, San Jose, Memphis, Jacksonville, Arizona, Buffalo, Boston, Pittsburgh, Seattle, St. Petersburg, Clifton, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Waukegan, Hammond, Texas, Connecticut, Newark, Georgia, Malden, Tampa, Indianapolis, Duluth, United States, Tennessee, Euclid, Alabama, Pasadena, Albany (New York), Warren, Amarillo, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Washington (state), Missouri, Hamilton, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, St. Louis, Wisconsin, Gary, Schenectady, Waterbury, Fullerton, St. Paul, Bloomington, Minnesota, Irvington, New York (state), Birmingham, New Jersey, Michigan, San Francisco, Santa Monica, Palo Alto, Long Beach, New Hampshire, Manchester, Ohio, South Bend, Waco
This study contains data for 51 communities with populations of 50,000-750,000 in 22 states of the United States on the characteristics of community leadership, decision-making, and patterns of influence, as well as political, economic, and demographic composition of the communities and per capita expenditures for various common community functions. Information regarding general political and public policy issues, specific municipal problems, and their solutions was obtained from interviews with eight prominent individuals in each city, such as the Chamber of Commerce president, a labor leader, a leading newspaper editor or publisher, the chairmen of the Democratic and Republican parties, the president of the largest bank, and the mayor. Data are also provided on the characteristics of the cities, including composite indexes created from the interview data as well as data from other sources. The study is composed of three files: a Merged Aggregate and Individual file (Part 1), an Aggregate file (Part 2), and an Individual file (Part 3). The Merged Aggregate and Individual file (Part 1) contains the responses of the individuals interviewed and information on the characteristics of each respondent's city from other sources. Items include education, health, culture, welfare, and total expenditures of the city. The Aggregate file (Part 2) contains information on the population characteristics of each city, as well as information on the structure, income, and expenditures of the city government. Demographic indices describe age and income distribution of the population, racial composition, level of educational attainment, and the size, income and occupational distribution of the labor force. The Individual file (Part 3) provides information received from respondents on decision-making pertaining to issues of urban renewal, mayoral elections, air pollution control, race relations, health, education, industrial and economic development, and anti-poverty programs.
Curated
Consequences of a Criminal Record for Employment Opportunity in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2002 (ICPSR 3599)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin
This study examined employers' policies and practices for hiring entry-level workers in the Milwaukee metropolitan area. The study consisted of telephone interviews conducted in the spring of 2002 with 177 employers who had advertised entry-level openings in the prior six months. The survey included questions about the company, such as size, industry, employee turnover, and racial composition, questions about hiring procedures, questions about the last worker hired for a position not requiring a college degree, and questions about the employer's attitude toward various kinds of marginalized workers. An emphasis in the survey was placed on assessing employers' attitudes about and experience with applicants with criminal histories.
Curated
Restricted
Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 2): Milwaukee African American Sample, 2005-2006 (ICPSR 22840)
Released/updated on: 2024-02-26
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin
Time period: 2005-01-01--2006-01-01
As a refinement to Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 2), 2004-2006 (ICPSR 4652), a sample of African Americans from Milwaukee was included to examine health issues in minority populations. Areas of the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, were stratified according to the proportion of the population that were African American. Those areas with high concentrations were sampled at higher rates than areas with lower concentrations. Area probability sampling methods were used along with population counts from the 2000 United States Census to identify potential respondents. Field interviewers screened households to determine if they contained any African American adults. There was additional screening to achieve an appropriate age/gender distribution in a manner similar to what was done for the original MIDUS sample Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 1), 1995-1996 (ICPSR 2760). Milwaukee respondents were interviewed in their homes using a Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) protocol and afterwards asked to complete a Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ). All measures paralleled those used in the larger MIDUS 1 and 2 samples. After successful completion of the Project 1 survey, some participants were eligible to participate in other MIDUS projects (2 through 5). Survey data was collected for 592 individuals.
Curated
Restricted
Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 3): Milwaukee African American Sample, 2016-2017 (ICPSR 37120)
Released/updated on: 2023-03-16
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin
Time period: 2016-01-01--2017-01-01
In 2005, 592 African Americans from Milwaukee were added to the MIDUS sample to examine health issues in minority populations (for more details, see Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 2): Milwaukee African American Sample [ICPSR #22840]). Respondents were interviewed in their homes using a Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) survey protocol and asked to complete and return a Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ). Afterwards these individuals were eligible for participation in the same research protocol as the national MIDUS 2 sample, including cognitive, daily stress, biomarker, and neuroscience projects.
With support from the National Institute on Aging, a second wave of survey data collection on the Milwaukee sample was begun in 2016. The survey consisted of a 2.5 hour CAPI interview followed by a 45-page mailed SAQ. CAPI survey data was collected for 389 individuals, realizing a 78 percent response rate, adjusted for mortality and other eligibility criteria. Data collection for this follow-up wave largely repeated baseline assessments, with additional questions in selected areas (e.g., economic recession experiences, childhood experience with race, etc.). Following successful completion of the CAPI and SAQ protocols, individuals were eligible for participation in cognitive, daily stress, biomarker, and neuroscience projects.
Curated
Restricted
Midlife in the United States (MIDUS Refresher 1): Milwaukee African American Sample, 2012-2013 (ICPSR 36722)
Released/updated on: 2025-09-11
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin
Time period: 2012-01-01--2013-01-01
In 2012-2013, the MIDUS Milwaukee Refresher study recruited a sample of 508 Milwaukee African American adults, aged 25 to 64, designed to replenish the Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS 2): Milwaukee African American Sample, 2005-2006 (ICPSR 22840). This sample was also designed to increase the number of racial minorities included in the broader MIDUS study. The MIDUS Milwaukee Refresher survey employed the same assessments (demographic, psycho-social, and physical and mental health) as those assembled on the existing MIDUS sample, but with additional questions about the effect of the economic recession of 2008-09. A sample of African Americans from Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, was stratified by age, gender, and income.
Area probability sampling methods were used to identify potential respondents. Field interviewers screened households to determine if they contained any African American adults. There was additional screening to achieve an appropriate age/gender distribution in a manner similar to what was done for the original MIDUS sample (Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 1), 1995-1996 [ICPSR 2760]). Milwaukee respondents were interviewed in their homes using a 2.5-hour Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) protocol and afterwards asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire (SAQ). All measures paralleled those used in the larger MIDUS samples. In addition to successful completion of the survey, participants were asked to complete a cognitive assessment by phone. Some respondents were eligible to participate in additional MIDUS projects: daily diary assessments, biomarker assessments, and neuroscience assessments.
Curated
Restricted
Midlife in the United States (MIDUS Refresher 2): Milwaukee African American Sample, 2023-2024 (ICPSR 39583)
Released/updated on: 2025-11-19
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin
Time period: 2023-01-01--2024-01-01
In 2012-2013, the MIDUS Milwaukee Refresher study recruited a sample of 508 Milwaukee African American adults, aged 25 to 64, designed to replenish the original MIDUS Milwaukee 1 survey that was designed to increase the number of racial minorities in 2005. The MIDUS Milwaukee Refresher survey employed the same comprehensive assessments (demographic, psycho-social, and physical and mental health) as those on the existing MIDUS sample, with additional questions about the effect of the Great Recession in 2008-09.
In 2023-2024, the second wave of survey data was collected from 327 longitudinal Refresher Milwaukee participants, including the questions (1) repeated from the Refresher 1, (2) new impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic replacing the questions related to the Great Recession in the Refresher 1, and (3) the additional questions in selected areas (e.g., AD8, IADL, family history of dementia). This new longitudinal MIDUS Refresher Milwaukee data allow examination of period effects on health and well-being related to the COVID-19 pandemic by comparing the pre-pandemic MIDUS Refresher Milwaukee 1 data with the post-pandemic MIDUS Refresher Milwaukee 2 data. Further, the longitudinal MIDUS Refresher datasets (wave 1 and wave 2) allow investigation of the two major macro-level historic events, the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic, on health and well-being.
Curated
National Crime Surveys: Cities, 1972-1975 (ICPSR 7658)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Milwaukee, Detroit, United States, Cincinnati, Oakland, Cleveland, New York City, San Diego, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, New Orleans, Denver, Dallas, St. Louis, Wisconsin, Buffalo, Boston, Pittsburgh, District of Columbia, Chicago, Minnesota, California, Florida, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Miami, San Francisco, Baltimore, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Louisiana, Ohio, Los Angeles, Newark, Georgia, Maryland, Philadelphia, Houston
Time period: 1972-01-01--1975-01-01
This sample of the National Crime Survey contains information about victimization in 26 central cities in the United States. The data are designed to achieve three primary objectives: 1) to develop detailed information about the victims and consequences of crime, 2) to estimate the numbers and types of crimes not reported to police, and 3) to provide uniform measures of selected types of crimes and permit reliable comparisons over time and between areas of the country. Information about each household or personal victimization was recorded. The data include type of crime (attempts are covered as well), description of offender, severity of crime, injuries or losses, time and place of occurrence, age, race and sex of offender(s), relationship of offenders to victims, education, migration, labor force status, occupation, and income of persons involved.
Curated
Racial Attitudes in Fifteen American Cities, 1968 (ICPSR 3500)
Released/updated on: 1997-11-13
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, Detroit, Indiana, United States, Cincinnati, Brooklyn, New York City, Massachusetts, Missouri, Wisconsin, Boston, Pittsburgh, Gary, District of Columbia, Chicago, California, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Baltimore, Illinois, Ohio, Newark, Maryland, Philadelphia
Time period: 1968-01-01--1968-04-01
This study explores attitudes and perceptions related to urban problems and race relations in 15 northern cities of the United States (Baltimore, Boston, Brooklyn, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Gary, Milwaukee, Newark, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Francisco, and Washington, DC). More specifically, it seeks to define the social and psychological characteristics and aspirations of the Black and White urban populations. Samples of Blacks and Whites were selected in each of the cities in early 1968. The study employed two questionnaire forms, one for Whites and one for Blacks, and two corresponding data files were generated. Attitudinal questions asked of the White and Black respondents measured their satisfaction with community services, their feelings about the effectiveness of government in solving urban problems, and their experience with police abuse. Additional questions about the respondent's familiarity with and participation in antipoverty programs were included. Other questions centered on the respondent's opinions about the 1967 riots: the main causes, the purpose, the major participating classes, and the effect of the riots on the Black cause. Respondents' interracial relationships, their attitudes toward integration, and their perceptions of the hostility between the races were also investigated. White respondents were asked about their opinions on the use of governmental intervention as a solution for various problems of the Blacks, such as substandard schools, unemployment, and unfair housing practices. Respondent's reactions to nonviolent and violent protests by Blacks, their acceptance of counter-rioting by Whites and their ideas concerning possible governmental action to prevent further rioting were elicited. Inquiries were made as to whether or not the respondent had given money to support or hinder the Black cause. Other items investigated respondents' perceptions of racial discrimination in jobs, education, and housing, and their reactions to working under or living next door to a Black person. Black respondents were asked about their perceptions of discrimination in hiring, promotion, and housing, and general attitudes toward themselves and towards Blacks in general. The survey also investigated respondents' past participation in civil rights organizations and in nonviolent and/or violent protests, their sympathy with rioters, and the likelihood of personal participation in a future riot. Other questions probed respondents' attitudes toward various civil rights leaders along with their concurrence with statements concerning the meaning of "Black power." Demographic variables include sex and age of the respondent, and the age and relationship to the respondent of each person in the household, as well as information about the number of persons in the household, their race, and the type of structure in which they lived. Additional demographic topics include the occupational and educational background of the respondent, of the respondent's family head, and of the respondent's father. The respondent's family income and the amount of that income earned by the head of the family were obtained, and it was determined if any of the family income came from welfare, Social Security, or veteran's benefits. This study also ascertained the place of birth of the respondent and respondent's mother and father, in order to measure the degree of southern influence. Other questions investigated the respondent's military background, religious preference, marital status, and family composition.