DOI: 10.3886/icpsr13717.v1
title: Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Personal Identity, Wave 3, 2000-2002
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 Personal Identity instrument. It was administered to subjects in Cohorts 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 and obtained information related to racial and ethnic identity, which was originally collected in PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): DEMOGRAPHIC FILE, WAVE 1, 1994-1997 (ICPSR 13581), and PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): DEMOGRAPHIC FILE, WAVE 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13609). It also contained future orientation and discrimination questions, as well as questions relating to group importance that were drawn from the Puerto Rican Adolescent Survey.
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>Personal Identity</strong> The data in this collection are from Wave 3 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was administered between 2000 and 2002. The data files contain information from the Personal Identity protocol. The Personal Identity instrument obtained information related to racial and ethnic identity, group importance, future orientation, and discrimination.
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, 5,338 were interviewed in the Wave 2 data collection, and 4,850 were interviewed in the Wave 3 data collection. Data collection for Wave 3 began in 2000 and ended in 2002. It included a letter sent to study participants notifying them that they would be contacted to schedule an interview. Additional information on the contact log included the dates and research assistant ID of the Wave 2 interview (or the status of the case if incomplete in Wave 2), a list of household composition and ID numbers of other household members in the study, the name the telephone was listed under, the recontact information from Waves 1 and 2, and an updated history of addresses. 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 3 who lived outside the nine-county metropolitan area to which research assistants were able to travel for interviews. In Wave 3, phone interviews were also conducted with the study participants in Cohort 15. People who refused to complete the two-hour in-person interview were administered the phone interview. A total of 391 telephone interviews were conducted during Wave 3, representing 6.3 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 3, one primary caregiver and eleven study participants (young adults) were interviewed in jail. They were located in either the Cook County Jail or in one of the state prisons. Those study participants in a state system outside the nine-county area were also interviewed by phone. 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 3, 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 3, the complete protocol was translated into Spanish. 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. For primary caregivers included in Wave 3 but not in Wave 2, an addendum interview was administered consisting of measures or portions of measures from the Wave 2 interview. An addendum was also given to the Cohort 15 and 18 study participants who were not included in Wave 2. A total of 164 primary caregivers and 62 young adult (Cohorts 15 and 18) addendums were completed in Wave 3. <strong>Personal Identity</strong> The Personal Identity instrument was administered to subjects in Cohorts 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 and obtained information related to racial and ethnic identity, which was originally collected in PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): DEMOGRAPHIC FILE, WAVE 1, 1994-1997 (ICPSR 13581), and PROJECT ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS (PHDCN): DEMOGRAPHIC FILE, WAVE 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13609). It also contained future orientation and discrimination questions, as well as questions relating to group importance that were drawn from the Puerto Rican Adolescent Survey.
description: The data files contain information related to racial or ethnic identity. Respondents were asked if they were a member of one or more than one racial or ethnic group and to identify to which group(s) they felt they belonged. Subjects were asked if they attended religious services and how important religious beliefs were to them. There was also a series of questions related to the most important ethnic or religious group of which the respondent was a member. For these questions, respondents were asked how much they agreed with statements such as, "I have tried to learn about (group) history, traditions, and customs," or "I feel like I am a member of the (group) community." Respondents were also asked about employment expectations. For Cohorts 6, 9, and 12, respondents were asked about the kind of job they would like to have when they became an adult, and respondents in Cohorts 15 and 18 were asked about employment five years from the interview. Respondents were also asked how much they agreed with statements such as, "I will be able to support myself (when I am an adult/five years from now)," or "Most people in my neighborhood will be better off than me." As before, respondents in Cohorts 6, 9, and 12 were read statements in terms of when they were an adult, and respondents in Cohorts 15 and 18 were read statements in terms of five years from the interview. Respondents were also asked questions regarding discrimination including where they felt they had been discriminated against, why they felt they had been discriminated against, and where they worried about being discriminated against. Respondents in Cohorts 15 and 18 were asked an additional set of questions about how well they could do certain things such as controlling their temper, keeping their spirits up when they suffered a hardship, or stopping themselves from being upset about everyday problems.
description: none
description: Response Rates: The overall response rate for Wave 3 of the Longitudinal Cohort Study was 78.19 percent or 4,850 participants. The response rates for subjects by cohort were: 76.0 percent for Cohort 0 80.5 percent for Cohort 3 80.2 percent for Cohort 6 77.5 percent for Cohort 9 74.9 percent for Cohort 12 71.3 percent for Cohort 15 67.4 percent for Cohort 18 The response rates for primary caregivers by cohort were: 76.6 percent for Cohort 0 81.3 percent for Cohort 3 80.6 percent for Cohort 6 79.0 percent for Cohort 9 79.1 percent for Cohort 12 77.0 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 6 DS2: Cohort 9 DS3: Cohort 12 DS4: Cohort 15 DS5: 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 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.