DOI: 10.3886/icpsr13654.v1
title: Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): School Interview, Wave 2, 1997-2000
title: Version 1

description: The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) was a large-scale, interdisciplinary study of how families, schools, and neighborhoods affect child and adolescent development. One component of the PHDCN was the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was a series of coordinated longitudinal studies that followed over 6,000 randomly selected children, adolescents, and young adults, and their primary caregivers over time to examine the changing circumstances of their lives, as well as the personal characteristics, that might lead them toward or away from a variety of antisocial behaviors. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge various aspects of human development, including individual differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences. One such measure was the School Interview protocol. This was adapted from the school section of the Youth Interview Schedule used in the Philadelphia Family Management Study. It included sections addressing school climate, school safety, types of classes the subject had taken, the subject's attitude toward school, past history of repeating or skipping grades, and participation in activities within and outside of school. It was administered to subjects in Cohorts 9, 12, and 15.
description: <strong>Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods</strong> The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) was a large-scale, interdisciplinary study of how families, schools, and neighborhoods affect child and adolescent development. It was designed to advance the understanding of the developmental pathways of both positive and negative human social behaviors. In particular, the project examined the causes and pathways of juvenile delinquency, adult crime, substance abuse, and violence. At the same time, the project provided a detailed look at the environments in which these social behaviors took place by collecting substantial amounts of data about urban Chicago, including its people, institutions, and resources. <strong>Longitudinal Cohort Study</strong> One component of the PHDCN was the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was a series of coordinated longitudinal studies that followed over 6,000 randomly selected children, adolescents, and young adults, and their primary caregivers over time to examine the changing circumstances of their lives, as well as the personal characteristics, that might lead them toward or away from a variety of antisocial behaviors. The age cohorts include birth (0), 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 years. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge various aspects of human development, including individual differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences. <strong>School Interview</strong> The data in this collection are from Wave 2 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was administered between 1997 and 2000. The data files contain information from the School Interview protocol. The School Interview instrument was adapted from the school section of the Youth Interview Schedule used in the Philadelphia Family Management Study. It included sections addressing school climate, school safety, types of classes the subject had taken, the subject's attitude toward school, past history of repeating or skipping grades, and participation in activities within and outside of school.
description: <strong>Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods</strong> The city of Chicago was selected as the research site for the PHDCN because of its extensive racial, ethnic, and social-class diversity. The project collapsed 847 census tracts in the city of Chicago into 343 neighborhood clusters (NCs) based upon seven groupings of racial/ethnic composition and three levels of socioeconomic status. The NCs were designed to be ecologically meaningful. They were composed of geographically contiguous census tracts, and geographic boundaries, and knowledge of Chicago's neighborhoods were considered in the definition of the NCs. Each NC was comprised of approximately 8,000 people. <strong>Longitudinal Cohort Study</strong> For the Longitudinal Cohort Study, a stratified probability sample of 80 neighborhoods was selected. The 80 NCs were sampled from the 21 strata (seven racial/ethnic groups by three socioeconomic levels) with the goal of representing the 21 cells as equally as possible to eliminate the confounding between racial/ethnic mix and socioeconomic status. Once the 80 NCs were chosen, then block groups were selected at random within each of the sample neighborhoods. A complete listing of dwelling units was collected for all sampled block groups. Pregnant women, children, and young adults in seven age cohorts (birth, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 years) were identified through in-person screening of approximately 40,000 dwelling units within the 80 NCs. The screening response rate was 80 percent. Children within six months of the birthday that qualified them for the sample were selected for inclusion in the Longitudinal Cohort Study. A total of 8,347 participants were identified through the screening. Of the eligible study participants, 6,228 were interviewed in the Wave 1 data collection and 5,338 were interviewed in the Wave 2 data collection. Data collection for Wave 2 began in 1997 and ended in 2000. It included a letter sent to study participants notifying them that they would be contacted to schedule an interview. This letter explained the study, reimbursements, and offered a monthly drawing prize of $1,000 for those participants who kept their first scheduled appointment. A toll free number was also included in the letter, so participants could call and schedule their own interviews or ask questions. For all cohorts except 0 and 18, primary caregivers as well as the child were interviewed. The primary caregiver was the person found to spend the most time taking care of the child. Separate research assistants administered the primary caregiver interviews and the child interviews. The primary method of data collection was face-to-face interviewing, although participants who refused to complete the personal interview were administered a phone interview. An abbreviated telephone interview was conducted for the primary caregivers in Cohorts 0-15 and Cohort 18 study participants in Wave 2 who lived outside the nine-county metropolitan area to which research assistants were able to travel for interviews. A total of 221 telephone interviews were conducted during Wave 2, representing 3.55 percent of the sample. Proxy interviews were conducted with study participants who were emancipated minors (under 18 but married or living independently). The study participants answered questions from the primary caregiver's interview on the primary caregiver's behalf. In Wave 2, four primary caregivers and two study participants were interviewed in jail. Study participants in foster care could not be interviewed. The Department of Children and Family Services did not allow interviews of the foster parent or the child. Permission was granted for a brief period in Wave 1, therefore there are some children in the sample who could not be followed up in Waves 2 and 3. Some children were not in foster care in Wave 1 but were placed in foster care by Wave 2 or 3. They were also not followed up. Lastly, some participants were interviewed in Wave 3 but not in Wave 2, as they were in foster care during Wave 2. Some participants in Wave 1 spoke a language other than English, Spanish, or Polish. In Wave 2, an abbreviated version of the primary caregiver's protocol was administered, and the research assistant arranged for someone in the household to translate on the spot. In Wave 2, the complete protocol was translated into Spanish, and a subset of the primary caregiver's interview was translated into Polish. Depending on the age and wave of data collection, participants were paid between $5 and $20 per interview. Other incentives, such as free passes to museums, the aquarium, and monthly drawing prizes, were also included. Interview protocols included a wide range of questions. For example, some questions assessed impulse control and sensation-seeking traits, cognitive and language development, leisure activities, delinquency and substance abuse, friends' activities, and self-perception, attitudes, and values. Caregivers were also interviewed about family structure, parent characteristics, parent-child relationships, parent discipline styles, family mental health, and family history of criminal behavior and drug use. <strong>School Interview</strong> The School Interview protocol was adapted from the school section of the Youth Interview Schedule used in the Philadelphia Family Management Study. It included sections addressing school climate, school safety, types of classes the subject has taken, the subject's attitude toward school, past history of repeating or skipping grades, and participation in activities within and outside of school. It was administered to subjects in Cohorts 9, 12, and 15.
description: The data files contain information relating to school climate in which the subjects indicated how many and how often other students did certain activities such as drinking alcohol, getting into fights, or cutting classes. The subjects also answered questions as to whether their school did certain things to make the school safer such as requiring visitors to sign in at the main office, requiring students to show ID to get into the building, or using metal detectors. Subjects were also asked if they had taken particular types of classes such as advanced classes, computer classes, or AIDS education classes. Subjects were asked how much they agreed with statements regarding school such as "You like school a lot," "Grades are very important to you," or "You do most of your school work without help from others." The subjects were also asked how they felt they were doing in school, how far they'd like to go in school, how far they thought they would actually go in school, how their grades were, and whether they had ever been held back or skipped a grade and, if so, which grades. Subjects were also asked whether they participated in certain activities both within and outside of school such as organized sports, school government, volunteer work, or music.
description: none
description: Response Rates: The overall response rate for Wave 2 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study was 85.94 percent or 5,338 participants. The response rates for subjects by cohort were: 0 percent for Cohort 0 87.5 percent for Cohort 3 88.0 percent for Cohort 6 85.6 percent for Cohort 9 86.2 percent for Cohort 12 82.7 percent for Cohort 15 80.2 percent for Cohort 18 The response rates for primary caregivers by cohort were: 83.3 percent for Cohort 0 88.3 percent for Cohort 3 88.3 percent for Cohort 6 86.6 percent for Cohort 9 87.2 percent for Cohort 12 85.9 percent for Cohort 15 0 percent for Cohort 18
description: Stratified probability sample.
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Cohort 9 DS2: Cohort 12 DS3: Cohort 15
description: Children, adolescents, young adults, and their primary caregivers, living in the city of Chicago in 1994.
description: face-to-face interview; telephone interview(1) The Murray Research Center conducted the initial data and documentation processing for this collection. (2) At present, only a restricted version of the data is available (see RESTRICTIONS field). A downloadable version of the data is slated to be available in the near future.