DOI: 10.3886/icpsr13628.v1
title: Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Household Composition, 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 Household Composition listing, administered to either the primary caregivers of subjects belonging to Cohorts 0 to 15, or to the subjects belonging to Cohort 18. It obtained basic information on the composition of the subject's household and included each household member's age, gender, and relationship to the subject. In Wave 1, this information was incorporated into the Family Structure and Health History (PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): FAMILY STRUCTURE AND HEALTH HISTORY, WAVE 1, 1994-1997 [ICPSR 13592]).
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>Household Composition</strong> The data in this collection are from Wave 2 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study, administered between 1997 and 2000. The data files contain information from the Household Composition protocol. The Household Composition instrument obtained basic information on the composition of the subject's household and included each household member's age, gender, and relationship to the subject.
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>Household Composition</strong> The Household Composition instrument was completed by either the primary caregivers of subjects belonging to Cohorts 0-15, or by the subjects belonging to Cohort 18 of the PHDCN Longitudinal Cohort Study. The instrument obtained information regarding the composition of the subject's household, asking the respondent to provide information about each member of the household including age, gender, and relationship to the subject. Information for up to 17 possible individuals could have been listed for this part.
description: The data files contain variables listing the age, gender, and relationship to the subject of each member of the household.
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: Presence of Common Scales: none
description: Stratified probability sample.
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Cohort 0 DS2: Cohort 3 DS3: Cohort 6 DS4: Cohort 9 DS5: Cohort 12 DS6: Cohort 15 DS7: Cohort 18
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 performed the initial data and documentation processing for this collection. (2) At present, only a restricted version of the data is available (see "Restrictions"). A downloadable public-use version of the data is slated to be available in the near future.