Search results

Showing 1 – 8 of 8 results.
Curated

American Housing Survey, 1986: MSA Core and Supplement File (ICPSR 6129)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Indiana, United States, Santa Ana, Cincinnati, Washington, Colorado, Missouri, New Orleans, Denver, Pittsburgh, San Bernardino, San Antonio, Anaheim, Fort Lauderdale, Kentucky, Rochester (New York), Kansas City (Missouri), California, Kansas, Florida, New York (state), Pennsylvania, Miami, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Louisiana, Ohio, Riverside
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, 1986: MSA File (ICPSR 9334)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Indiana, United States, Santa Ana, Cincinnati, Washington, Colorado, Missouri, New Orleans, Denver, Pittsburgh, San Bernardino, San Antonio, Anaheim, Fort Lauderdale, Kentucky, Rochester (New York), Kansas City (Missouri), California, Kansas, Florida, New York (state), Pennsylvania, Miami, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Louisiana, Ohio, Riverside
This data collection provides information on characteristics of housing units in 11 selected Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). 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. Questions are also asked about neighborhood conditions such as quality of roads, 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, 1990: MSA Core Questions File (ICPSR 6003)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States, Santa Ana, Cincinnati, Washington, Colorado, Missouri, New Orleans, Denver, Pittsburgh, San Bernardino, San Antonio, Anaheim, Fort Lauderdale, Kentucky, Rochester (New York), Kansas City (Missouri), California, Kansas, Florida, New York (state), Pennsylvania, Miami, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Louisiana, Ohio
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, presence of crime, trash, litter, street noise, abandoned structures, commercial activity, and odors or smoke, and the adequacy of services such 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, 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
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

Understanding the Fear of Street Gangs: The Importance of Community Conditions [Santa Ana, California, 1997] (ICPSR 32161)

Released/updated on: 2012-02-29
Geographic coverage: United States, Santa Ana, California

This study was designed as an exploratory study to understand fear of gang crime among residents living in an urban area plagued by gangs. During the Summer of 1997, six focus groups were conducted in Santa Ana, California -- two in lower income neighborhoods, two in middle income neighborhoods, and two in upper income neighborhoods. After the focus groups ended, participants were asked to take disposable cameras with them and take pictures of examples of neighborhood factors that prompted them to fear gangs and then mail them back to me in a postage-paid envelope.

The research questions guiding this study were: How do the fear-of-crime perspectives apply to fear of gang crime specifically? When worrying about gang crime, do different people focus primarily on different problems (e.g., some diversity or some disorder), or do the same people think about all of these factors? Findings first showed that all four theoretical perspectives on fear of crime applied to the same people at once, rather than to different people (e.g., some being worried about racial and ethnic differences but others about disorder). Second, findings illustrated specifically how these residents connected the factors into one thought process leading to fear of gangs. Residents in these groups clearly believed that ethnic and cultural diversity, or in this case, recent "illegal" Latino immigrants, brought disorder, which in turn caused community decline and brought gangs. This thought process led to personal fear of gang-related victimization. Their beliefs about these causal connections were primarily influenced by their knowledge and observations that gangs in the area were Latino; by direct observation of area diversity disorder, and decline; and by experience living in their changing neighborhoods over time. In addition, beliefs were fueled by indirect victimization, or knowledge gained primarily through acquaintances such as neighbors and community policing officers.