Search results

Showing 1 – 7 of 7 results.
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
Time period: 1994-01-01--1994-12-31
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
Time period: 2002-01-01--2002-12-31
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, 1977 [United States]: Travel-to-Work [SMSAs] (ICPSR 8322)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Detroit, Indiana, Santa Ana, Fort Worth, Spokane, Utah, Memphis, Arizona, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Anaheim, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Troy, Garden Grove, Texas, Newark, Virginia, Maryland, Indianapolis, Madison, United States, Tennessee, Louisville, Arkansas, Washington, Albany (New York), Tacoma, Wichita, Minneapolis, Massachusetts, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Saginaw, Wisconsin, District of Columbia, Schenectady, St. Paul, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, Orlando, Long Beach, Los Angeles
Time period: 1977-01-01--1977-12-31
This data collection provides travel-to-work data for respondents living in 20 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs). Data cover respondents' means of transportation to and from work -- whether they carpooled, drove alone, took public transportation, or used some other means. Also included is respondents' place of work and time they usually left home for work. The data contained in this collection are from the travel-to-work supplement in ANNUAL HOUSING SURVEY, 1977-1978 [UNITED STATES]: SMSA FILES (ICPSR 7980). The travel-to-work supplement was sponsored by the United States Department of Transportation. The collection consists of 20 data files, one for each SMSA represented.
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

Differences in the Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use Across Five Factors in Indianapolis, Fort Lauderdale, Phoenix, and Dallas, 1994 (ICPSR 2706)

Released/updated on: 2000-09-11
Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States, Texas, Fort Lauderdale, Phoenix, Florida, Dallas, Arizona, Indianapolis
Time period: 1994-01-01--1994-12-31
This study investigated the accuracy of self-reported drug use in three ways. First, the researchers examined differences in the accuracy of self-reported drug use across five factors: gender, race, age, type of drug, and offense seriousness. Second, an attempt was made to determine the specific sources of inaccurate self-reports in terms of differences in underreporting and overreporting. Third, the researchers sought to explain differences in underreporting and overreporting in terms of true differences or differences in opportunity to underreport or overreport. This study used data collected in 1994 as part of the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program [DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 (ICPSR 9477)]. The DUF drug testing and measurement methodology allows the accuracy of self-reported drug use to be checked with a biological criterion, namely urine tests. The sample for this study consisted of 4,752 white and Black adults from Indianapolis, Ft. Lauderdale, Phoenix, and Dallas. The five exogenous measures included in this study were type of drug (marijuana vs. crack/cocaine), age (18 through 30 vs. 31 or over), offense seriousness (misdemeanor vs. felony), race (Black vs. white), and gender (male vs. female). The endogenous measures were accuracy (self-report and drug test both positive or both negative vs. otherwise), underreporting (self-report negative but drug test positive vs. otherwise), and overreporting (self-report positive but drug test negative vs. otherwise). Variables include result of marijuana urine test, result of cocaine/crack urine test, marijuana self-report, cocaine/crack self-report, age group, sex, race, offense category, and ethnic/gender group.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

The Science of BDSM Data, Phoenix, Arizona, 2014 (ICPSR 37395)

Released/updated on: 2019-08-26
Geographic coverage: United States, Phoenix, Arizona
Time period: 2014-01-01--2014-12-31

The goals of this study were to test whether participants who engaged in an extreme ritual in a naturalistic setting would evidence signs of altered states of consciousness, to examine other physiological and affective effects of the ritual, and to determine whether these effects varied based on the role the individual performed within the ritual. A multi-method approach was used that utilized various psychological self-report measures, a measure of cognitive functioning, and a measure of physiological stress. The data collection took place at the "Dance of Souls," a ritual conducted on the last day of the annual Southwest Leather Conference in Phoenix, Arizona, in which participants received temporary piercings with hooks or weights attached to the piercings and danced to music provided by drummers.

The associated publication, Altered States of Consciousness during an Extreme Ritual, was used to accompany the data in this collection. Users are encouraged to consult the publication for additional information. The data collection includes one de-identified dataset with 164 variables for 83 cases. Demographic variables include sex, gender, pierced vs. non-pierced, and the role the participant played in the ceremony.

Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Social Capital and Children's Development: A randomized controlled trial conducted in 52 schools in Phoenix and San Antonio, 2008-2015 (ICPSR 35481)

Released/updated on: 2019-08-26
Geographic coverage: San Antonio, United States, Texas, Phoenix, Arizona
Time period: 2008-01-01--2015-12-31

The Social Capital and Children's Development data were collected in a study of the causal effects of social capital on levels and inequalities of children's social and cognitive development during the early elementary years. The study included 52 schools in Phoenix and San Antonio, including 3,084 first graders and their families, and over 200 teachers, with half the schools randomly selected for the intervention and half serving as controls. Children from low-income Latino families were a special focus of the study. The experimental design of this study allowed for testing of the causal role of social capital. Social capital here refers to trust and shared expectations embedded in social networks of parents, teachers, and children. For young children, social capital operates primarily through their relationships with their parents, enhancing development through mechanisms of social support and social control.

The research design was experimental: social capital was manipulated through a well-tested randomized intervention, Families and Schools Together (FAST), that enhanced social capital among parents, teachers, and children through an intensive after-school program and a 2-year follow-up program. FAST is intended to reduce parental isolation, enhance family engagement with schools, and strengthen family functioning; that is, to increase social capital between families and schools, among families, and within families to improve children's education and life-long outcomes. Key aspects of child development were assessed, including (a) social skills and problem behavior from standardized behavioral ratings by parents and teachers, and (b) grade retention, attendance rates, and third-grade reading and mathematics scores from school records. Social capital was measured with repeated surveys of teachers and parents that address the extent of social networks, parent involvement, trust, and shared expectations among parents, between parents and schools, and between parents and children. Demographic variables of this study include native language, years in the United States, date of birth/age, race/ethnicity, gender, and household composition.

Back to top