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. The Employment and Income Interview was an atypical measure in that its primary concern was not to evaluate the developmental circumstances but rather to assess the economic circumstances surrounding the subjects. The Employment and Income Interview was administered to the subjects' primary caregivers for Cohorts 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 and to the subjects themselves for Cohort 18. The Employment and Income Interview was developed specifically for the PHDCN Longitudinal Cohort Study with the intent of combining the employment and income data obtained with educational status data to create socioeconomic stratifications for the respondents. The Employment and Income Interview sought to obtain data describing the respondent's current or most recent employment and that of his or her partner. The Employment and Income Interview also sought information regarding primary income and additional sources of income as well total working hours, proximity to work, and means of transportation to work for both the respondent and his or her partner.

This dataset contains a selection of six socioeconomic indicators of public health significance and a “hardship index,” by Chicago community area, for the years 2007 – 2011. The indicators are the percent of occupied housing units with more than one person per room (i.e., crowded housing); the percent of households living below the federal poverty level; the percent of persons in the labor force over the age of 16 years that are unemployed; the percent of persons over the age of 25 years without a high school diploma; the percent of the population under 18 or over 64 years of age (i.e., dependency); and per capita income. Indicators for Chicago as a whole are provided in the final row of the table. See the full dataset description for more information at https://data.cityofchicago.org/api/assets/8D10B9D1-CCA3-4E7E-92C7-5125E9AB46E9.

Areas of Chicago, based on census tracts, that are the most socioeconomically disadvantaged, for the purpose of promoting equitable hiring within areas of economic need. Qualifying areas were identified using three criteria, based on data from the 2014 American Community Survey: household income, poverty rate, and unemployment rate.

These area designations are used for workforce bid incentives for City contracts administered by the Department of Procurement Services. They will also be used for workforce requirements for construction at the temporary casino facility, as agreed to in the Host Community Agreement between Bally’s and the City of Chicago.

The designations are made under Section 2-92-390 of the City of Chicago code.

This dataset is in a forma​​t for spatial datasets that is inherently tabular but allows for a map as a derived view. Please click the indicated link below for such a map.

To export the data in either tabular or geographic format, please use the Export button on this dataset.

This dataset contains a selection of six socioeconomic indicators of public health significance and a “hardship index,” by Chicago community area, for the years 2008 – 2012. The indicators are the percent of occupied housing units with more than one person per room (i.e., crowded housing); the percent of households living below the federal poverty level; the percent of persons in the labor force over the age of 16 years that are unemployed; the percent of persons over the age of 25 years without a high school diploma; the percent of the population under 18 or over 64 years of age (i.e., dependency); and per capita income. Indicators for Chicago as a whole are provided in the final row of the table. See the full dataset description for more information at: https://data.cityofchicago.org/api/views/fwb8-6aw5/files/A5KBlegGR2nWI1jgP6pjJl32CTPwPbkl9KU3FxlZk-A?download=true&filename=P:\EPI\OEPHI\MATERIALS\REFERENCES\ECONOMIC_INDICATORS\Dataset_Description_socioeconomic_indicators_2012_FOR_PORTAL_ONLY.pdf

To advance ON TO 2050’s commitment to inclusive growth, CMAP has defined Economically Disconnected and Disinvested Areas within the region. Economically Disconnected Areas (EDAs) identify areas with concentrations of both low-income households and population of color or limited English proficiency population; approximately one-third of the region’s population lives in EDAs. Disinvested Areas (DAs) outline primarily nonresidential places with long-term declines in employment and other markers of commercial market weakness. Together, EDA and DA communities experience a persistent, long-term lack of market investment, leading to declining property values, taxes, employment, and, frequently, population. Disinvestment often constrains the ability of any individual community to respond effectively to these losses, and high tax rates and low market potential limit private investment. For these reasons, these geographies should be examined both separately and together. While some policy solutions will be common to both geographies, other solutions may be unique to each geography.More information can be found on CMAP's Economically Disconnected and Disinvested Areas webpage.Data sources are detailed in the methodology documents linked below:EDA MethodologyDisinvested Areas MethodologyInclusive Growth Strategy PaperReinvestment and Infill Strategy Paper

This data collection is the first wave of an intensive study in Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio, which was initiated to assess the well-being of low-income children and families in the post-welfare reform era. The project investigates the strategies families have used to respond to reform, in terms of employment, schooling or other forms of training, residential mobility, and fertility. Central to this project is a focus on how these strategies affect children's lives, with an emphasis on their health and development as well as their need for, and use of, social services. For the first wave of the study, between March 1999 and December 1999, a random sample of approximately 2,400 households with children in low-income neighborhoods in Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio were selected for interviews. Forty percent of the families interviewed were receiving cash welfare payments at the time of the interview. Each household had a child aged 0 to 4 or aged 10 to 14 at the time of the interview. The child and the child's primary female caregiver are the focus of the study. Extensive baseline information was gathered at the initial personal interview with the caregivers, tested younger children were assessed, and older children were interviewed. All interviews were conducted in-person using a computerized instrument. The third wave of data collection took place between February 2005 and January 2006, when the focal children were aged 5 to 10 or aged 15 to 20. Between May 2005 and May 2006, interviews were conducted with the teachers of the focal children.

The objective of this project is to create a story map that highlights and narrates the history of flooding in Chicago. It will map hydrology, rainfall patterns, floods, and income levels. It will draw from this how different socioeconomic regions and neighborhoods differ in flood response and action. This project will be used to justify a possible green bond for flooding mitigation in low income houses in Chicago.

The goal of this mixed-methods study was to evaluate the effectiveness of community based cross-age mentoring to reduce negative outcomes related to violence exposure/engagement and promote positive development among African-American and Latinx youth from multiple sites serving four low-income, high violence urban neighborhoods, using youth mentors from the same high-risk environment. The program was named by youth mentors, "Saving Lives, Inspiring Youth" (or SLIY henceforth). Cross-age peer mentoring programs promise to solve problems and ineffectiveness of other types of mentoring programs, but few have been systematically studied in high-poverty, high-crime communities. In collaboration with several community organizations, a prospective approach was implemented to follow cross-age mentors and mentees for up to one year of mentoring. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were employed to examine possible changes in a number of relevant constructs, and to understand program impact in greater depth. Mentoring sessions lasting one hour took place each week, with an hour debriefing session for mentors following each mentoring session. Quantitative data were collected pre, post and at a 9-12 month follow-up. Throughout the mentoring intervention, several forms of qualitative data were gathered to make it possible for youth voices to permeate understanding findings, to illuminate program processes that youth perceived as helpful and not helpful, and to provide multiple perspectives on youths' resilience and their understanding of the risks they faced. Both mentors and community collaborators were trained and engaged as community researchers. School-based data were also collected. Demographic variables include participants' age, race, and grade in school.

The American Housing Survey (AHS) collects data on the Nation's housing, including apartments, single-family homes, mobile homes, vacant homes, family composition, income, housing and neighborhood quality, housing costs, equipment, fuels, size of housing unit, and recent movers. National data are collected every other year, from a fixed sample of about 50,000 homes, plus new construction each year. In some metropolitan areas there are additional samples every 4-6 years, to measure local conditions. The 1995 National File includes extra cases to allow separate analyses of 6 Metropolitan Areas: Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Northern NJ, and Philadelphia. The weights have been set to give good data for both National and local studies.

Spatial auto-regression model for the relationship between community noise level and per capita income quartiles.