In 2022, the student loan default rate in the United States was highest for borrowers in the bottom ** percent of the family income bracket, at ** percent. In comparison, borrowers in the top 25 percent were least likely to default on their student loans.

This report summarizes the findings of the Consortium's third annual survey, which involved 25 colleges and more than 9,400 students. Participating colleges were responsible for sampling (based on a standardized procedure) and administering the survey in class. Completed questionnaires were then shipped to PRA Inc. for coding, data entry and analysis. The objectives of the research are to: provide national data on student access, time use and financing for Canadian college students from participating colleges; identify issues particular to certain learner groups or regions; and provide each institution with topline survey results (based on representative samples of their students), which may then be compared against the "national average". This dataset was freely received from the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Some work was required for the variable and value labels, and missing values. They were corrected as best as possible with the documentation received. Caution should be used with this dataset as some variables are lacking information.

Student Loan Market Outlook

According to our latest research, the global student loan market size reached USD 135.2 billion in 2024, reflecting the persistent demand for higher education financing worldwide. The market is expected to expand at a CAGR of 7.1% from 2025 to 2033, reaching an estimated USD 251.7 billion by 2033. This robust growth is driven by the increasing cost of tertiary education, rising enrollment rates, and evolving financial products tailored to diverse borrower needs. As per our latest analysis, the market is witnessing dynamic shifts in lender participation and repayment models, reflecting the changing landscape of global education finance.

One of the primary growth factors propelling the student loan market is the escalating cost of higher education across both developed and emerging economies. Tuition fees, living expenses, and ancillary costs have risen steadily, outpacing inflation and family income levels in many countries. This widening affordability gap has compelled students and their families to increasingly rely on external funding sources, particularly student loans. Simultaneously, the proliferation of private and alternative lenders has diversified borrowing options, making loans more accessible to a broader demographic. The emergence of income-driven repayment and refinancing solutions has further enhanced the market’s attractiveness, offering borrowers flexibility and financial relief over traditional rigid repayment structures.

Another significant factor impacting market growth is the ongoing digital transformation within the financial sector. Fintech innovations are streamlining loan origination, disbursement, and management, reducing operational costs for lenders and expediting the approval process for borrowers. Online lending platforms, powered by advanced analytics and AI, are enabling more personalized risk assessments and competitive interest rates, attracting tech-savvy students and parents. These platforms are also contributing to greater financial inclusion, particularly in regions where traditional banking infrastructure is limited. The integration of digital tools is not only enhancing the borrower experience but also improving portfolio performance for lenders through better risk management and customer engagement.

Demographic trends and government policies are also shaping the student loan market’s trajectory. The global surge in tertiary enrollment, especially in Asia Pacific and Africa, is expanding the borrower base. Governments in several countries are implementing supportive policies, such as interest subsidies, loan forgiveness programs, and flexible repayment schemes, to mitigate the financial burden on graduates and stimulate higher education participation. However, regulatory scrutiny around lending practices and concerns over rising student debt levels are prompting both public and private lenders to adopt more responsible lending and transparency measures. These dynamics are fostering a more balanced and sustainable growth environment for the student loan market.

Regionally, North America continues to command the largest share of the student loan market, driven by the United States’ mature lending ecosystem and high tertiary education costs. However, Asia Pacific is emerging as the fastest-growing region, fueled by rapid urbanization, expanding middle-class populations, and increasing investments in higher education infrastructure. Europe, meanwhile, exhibits steady growth, supported by government-backed loan schemes and cross-border education mobility. Latin America and the Middle East & Africa are witnessing gradual expansion, with rising demand for higher education and evolving financial services infrastructure. Each region presents unique challenges and opportunities, influencing lender strategies and market dynamics.

Type Analysis

The student loan market is segmented by type into federal loans, private loans, and refinancing loans, each with distinct characteristics and growth trajectories. Federal loans, primarily offered by government agencies, remain the dominant segment in markets such as the United States and several European countries. These loans typically feature lower interest rates, flexible repayment options, and borrower protections, making them the preferred choice for undergraduate and graduate students. The stability and accessibility of federal loans are underpinned by government backing, which reduces default ri

In recent years, economists and policymakers have been interested in the burden of student debt across socioeconomic groups. In this Economic Commentary , we use the two most recent waves of the Survey of Consumer Finances, collected in 2019 and 2022, to study changes in the joint distribution of student debt and two measures of “ability-to-pay,” income and net worth. We find that between 2019 and 2022, both the fraction of families with student debt and real student debt per family were essentially unchanged, and aggregate student debt fell as a fraction of aggregate income and net worth. However, over the same period, the distribution of student debt shifted toward higher-income and wealthier families, with a rise in the average student debt in the highest quintile of both income and net worth. Further, this shift was not driven by changes in the distribution of debtors, but, instead, in the amount of debt per family.

Net-Interest-Income Time Series for Bright Horizons Family Solutions Inc. Bright Horizons Family Solutions Inc. provides early education and childcare, back-up care, educational advisory, and other workplace solutions services for employers and families in the United States, Puerto Rico, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Australia, and India. The company operates in three segments: Full Service Center-Based Child Care, Back-Up Care, and Educational Advisory services. The Full Service Center-Based Child Care segment offers traditional center-based early education and child care, preschool, and elementary education services. The Back-Up Care segment provides center-based back-up child care, in-home child and senior care, school-age programs, camps, tutoring, pet care, and self-sourced reimbursed care services, as well as sittercity, an online marketplace for families and caregivers through early education and child care centers, school-age programs and in-home care providers, the back-up care network, and other providers. The Educational Advisory services segment offers tuition assistance and student loan repayment program management, workforce education, and related educational consulting services, as well as college admissions and college financial advisory services. The company was formerly known as Bright Horizons Solutions Corp. and changed its name to Bright Horizons Family Solutions Inc. in July 2012. Bright Horizons Family Solutions Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Newton, Massachusetts.

The Canadian College Student Survey was conducted by the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation to provide data on student finances in Canada. The primary objective of the survey was to track the expenses and income of students on a monthly basis, in order to profile the financial circumstances of Canadian students and the adequacy of available funding. The survey will allow the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation to understand the financial circumstances of students who are in a post- secondary environment on an annual basis. This research is a joint effort of the Foundation, all participating colleges and the Association of Canadian Community Colleges (ACCC). The survey collects data on college students' income, expenditures and use of time. The survey is unique in that it provides national-level information on the challenges Canadian college students face in terms of financial and access issues. The objectives of the research are to: provide national-level data on student access; time use and financing for Canadian college students from participating colleges; identify issues particular to certain learner groups and/or regions; and provide each institution with top-line survey results (based on representative samples of their students); which may then be compared against the "national average". In January 2003, the Foundation engaged Prairie Research Associates (PRA) Inc. to oversee this research. This dataset was freely received from the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Some work was required for the variable and value labels, and missing values. They were corrected as best as possible with the documentation received. Caution should be used with this dataset as some variables are lacking information. This dataset was freely received by the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Some work was required for the variable and value labels, and missing values. The y were corrected as best as possible with the documentation received. Caution should be used with this dataset as some variables are lacking documentation.

This synthetic dataset simulates various demographic and socioeconomic factors that influence annual household income. It can be used for exploratory data analysis, predictive modeling, and understanding the relationships between different features and income levels.

Features:

• Age: Age of the primary household member (18 to 70 years).

• Education Level: Highest education level attained (High School, Bachelor's, Master's, Doctorate).

• Occupation: Type of occupation (Healthcare, Education, Technology, Finance, Others).

• Number of Dependents: Number of dependents in the household (0 to 5).

• Location: Residential location (Urban, Suburban, Rural).

• Work Experience: Years of work experience (0 to 50 years).

• Marital Status: Marital status of the primary household member (Single, Married, Divorced).

• Employment Status: Employment status of the primary household member (Full-time, Part-time, Self-employed).

• Household Size: Total number of individuals living in the household (1 to 7).

• Homeownership Status: Homeownership status (Own, Rent).

• Type of Housing: Type of housing (Apartment, Single-family home, Townhouse).

• Gender: Gender of the primary household member (Male, Female).

• Primary Mode of Transportation: Primary mode of transportation used by the household member (Car, Public transit, Biking, Walking).

• Annual Household Income: Actual annual household income, derived from a combination of features with added noise. Unit USD

This dataset can be used by researchers, analysts, and data scientists to explore the impact of various demographic and socioeconomic factors on household income and to develop predictive models for income estimation.

The Canadian College Student Survey was conducted by the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation to provide data on student finances in Canada. The primary objective of the survey was to track the expenses and income of students on a monthly basis, in order to profile the financial circumstances of Canadian students and the adequacy of available funding. The survey will allow the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation to understand the financial circumstances of students who are in a post- secondary environment on an annual basis. This research is a joint effort of the Foundation, all participating colleges and the Association of Canadian Community Colleges (ACCC). The survey collects data on college students' income, expenditures and use of time. The survey is unique in that it provides national-level information on the challenges Canadian college students face in terms of financial and access issues. The objectives of the research are to: provide national-level data on student access; time use and financing for Canadian college students from participating colleges; identify issues particular to certain learner groups and/or regions; and provide each institution with top-line survey results (based on representative samples of their students); which may then be compared against the "national average".The Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation commissioned R.A. Malatest and Associates Ltd. to conduct a comprehensive survey that provided national-level data concerning college students’ income, expenditures, levels of debt/perceptions of debt, and use of time. The 2002 Canadian College Student Survey Project was administered in March and April of 2002 in 16 colleges (representing 93,175 students). The maximum variation of the results of this survey is estimated to be ±1.2% (at a 95% confidence level). This dataset was freely received from the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Some work was required for the variable and value labels, and missing values. They were corrected as best as possible with the documentation received. Caution should be used with this dataset as some variables are lacking information.

The principal purposes of this national longitudinal study of the higher education system in the United States are to describe the characteristics of new college freshmen and to explore the effects of college on students. For each wave of this survey, each student completes a questionnaire during freshman orientation or registration that asks for information on academic skills and preparation, high school activities and experiences, educational and career plans, majors and careers, student values, and financing college. Other questions elicit demographic information, including sex, age, parental education and occupation, household income, race, religious preference, and state of birth. Specific questions asked of respondents in the 1979 survey included type of high school, total of expenses the students expected to receive from different sources, questions regarding the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant (BEOG) and Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL), students' life patterns, and the best estimate of students' parents' income during the past year.

The global student loans market is projected to reach a valuation of approximately USD 2.5 trillion by 2033, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.2% from 2025 to 2033.

Financial burdens of the parental home through education of children.

Topics: Start of studies; length of studies; amount of money available to the student monthly; current income and burden conditions of parents; opportunities to finance studies; stay of student in semester breaks; attitude of student to work in semester breaks; readiness of parents to finance studies; degree of familiarity of the Honnef Model; detailed information on income and contributions of the student as well as the remaining children; housing situation and rent costs of respondent.

Demography: income; household income; size of household; social origins; city size; state; refugee status; possession of durable economic goods; possession of assets.

The Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) dataset, provided by the Federal Reserve, offers comprehensive insights into the financial condition of U.S. households. This dataset is invaluable for researchers, policymakers, and analysts interested in understanding consumer behavior, wealth distribution, and economic trends in the United States.

The SCF dataset includes detailed information on household income, assets, liabilities, and various demographic characteristics. It is collected every three years and serves as a crucial resource for analyzing the financial well-being of American families.

Key Features: Income Data: Information on various sources of income, including wages, investments, and government assistance. Asset Ownership: Detailed accounts of household assets, such as real estate, retirement accounts, stocks, and other investments. Liabilities:Comprehensive details on household debts, including mortgages, credit card debts, and student loans. Demographics: Data covering age, education, race, and family structure, allowing for nuanced analysis of financial trends across different segments of the population.

Use Cases: Economic research and analysis, Policy formulation and assessment, Understanding wealth inequality, Consumer behavior studies

Citing the Dataset:

When using this dataset in your research, please ensure to cite the Federal Reserve Board and the SCF as the original source.

Note: The dataset is intended for educational and research purposes. Users are encouraged to adhere to ethical guidelines when analyzing and interpreting the data.

The Household Market and Nonmarket Activities (HUS) project started as a joint research project between the Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research (IUI) and Göteborg University in 1980. The ambition was to build a consistent longitudinal micro data base on the use of time, money and public services of households. The first main survey was carried out in 1984. In addition to a contact interview with the selected individuals, all designated individuals participated in a personal interview and two telephone interviews. All respondents were asked about their family background, education, marital status, labor market experience, and employment. In addition, questions about the household were asked of the head of household, concerning family composition, child care, health status, housing, possession of vacation homes, cars, boats and other consumption durables. At the end of the personal interview the household head had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about financing of current home, construction costs for building a house, house value and loans, imputation of property values and loans, additions/renovations 1983, maintenance and repairs, leasing, sale of previous home, assets and liabilities, and non-taxable benefits. All the respondents had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about tax-return information 1983, employment income, and taxes and support payments. Two telephone interviews were used primarily to collect data on the household´s time use and consumption expenditures. The 1986 HUS-survey included both a follow-up of the 1984 sample (panel study) and a supplementary sample. The 1986 sample included 1) all respondents participating in the 1984 survey, 2) the household heads, partners and third persons who should have participated in 1984 but did not (1984 nonresponse), 3) those individuals who started living together after the 1984 interview with an selected individual who participated or was supposed to participate in 1984, 4) members of the 1984 household born in 1966 or 1967. If entering a new household, for example because of leaving their parental home, the household head and his/her partner were also interviewed. Respondents participating in the 1984 survey were interviewed by telephone in 1986. Questions dealt with changes in family composition, housing, employment, wages and child care, and it was not only recorded whether a change had occurred, and what sort of change, but also when it occurred. The respondents also received a questionnaire by mail with questions mainly concerning income and assets. Respondents not participating in the earlier survey were interviewed in person and were asked approximately the same questions as in the 1984 personal interview. The 1988 HUS-survey was considerably smaller than the previous ones. It was addressed exclusively to participants in the 1986 survey, and consisted of a self-enumerated questionnaire with a nonrespondent follow-up by telephone. The questions dealt with changes in housing conditions, employment and household composition. The questionnaire also contained some questions on household income. In many respect the 1991 HUS-survey replicated the 1988 survey. The questions were basically the same in content and range, and the survey was conducted as a self-enamurated questionnaire sent out by mail. This time, however, in contrast to the 1988 survey, an attempt was made to include in the survey the new household members who had moved into sample households since 1986, as well as young people who turned 18 after the 1986 survey. Earlier respondents received a questionnaire by mail containing questions about their home, their primary occupation and weekly work hours since May 1988 (event-history data), earnings in 1989, 1990 and 1991, household composition and any changes in it that might have occurred since 1988, child care and some questions on income. New respondents were also asked about their education and labor-market experience. With respect to its design and question wording, the 1993 survey is a new version of the 1986 survey. The survey is made up of four parts: 1) the panel survey, which was addressed mainly to respondents in the 1991 survey, with certain additions; 2) the so-called supplementary survey, which focused on a new random sample of individuals; 3) the so-called nonresponse survey, which encompassed respondents who had participated in at least one of the earlier surveys but had since dropped out; 4) the time-use survey, which included the same sample of respondents as those in the panel and supplementary surveys. Individuals in the nonresponse group were not included in the time-use survey. Most of the questions in the first three surveys were the same, but certain questions sequences were targeted to the respondents in a specific survey. Thus certain retrospective questions were asked of the nonresponse group, while specific questions on social background, labor market experience etc. were addressed to new respondents. In the case of respondents who had already participated in the panel, a combined contact and main interview was conducted by telephone, after which a self-enumerated questionnaire was sent out to each respondent by mail. The panel sample also included young people in panel households who were born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members who had not previously been interviewed. These individuals, like new respondents, were not interviewed by telephone until they had been interviewed personally. Thus technically they were treated in the same manner as individuals in the supplementary sample. The new supplementary sample was first contacted by telephone and then given a fairly lengthy personal interview, at the conclusion of which each respondent was asked to fill out a written questionnaire. In this respect the survey design for the nonresponse sample was the same as for the supplementary sample. The nonresponse sample also included young people born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members. The time-use interviews were conducted by telephone. For each respondent two days were chosen at random from the period from February 15, 1993 to February 14, 1994 and the respondents were interviewed about their time use during those two days. If possible, the time-use interviews were preceded by the other parts of the survey, but this was not always feasible. In each household the household head and spouse/partner were interviewed, as well as an additional person in certain households. Questions regarding the household as a whole were asked of only one person in the household, preferably the household head. As in earlier surveys, data from the interviews was subsequently supplemented by registry data, but only for those respondents who had given their express consent. There is registry information for 75-80 percent of the sample. The telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; and cars and boats. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1992. The 1996 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and environment. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1995. The 1998 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and municipal service. The questionnaire was divided into nine sections: sale of previous home; house value and loans; insurance; home-related expenses; assets; household income; inheritances and gifts; black-market work; and respondent income 1997.

The Household Market and Nonmarket Activities (HUS) project started as a joint research project between the Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research (IUI) and Göteborg University in 1980. The ambition was to build a consistent longitudinal micro data base on the use of time, money and public services of households. The first main survey was carried out in 1984. In addition to a contact interview with the selected individuals, all designated individuals participated in a personal interview and two telephone interviews. All respondents were asked about their family background, education, marital status, labor market experience, and employment. In addition, questions about the household were asked of the head of household, concerning family composition, child care, health status, housing, possession of vacation homes, cars, boats and other consumption durables. At the end of the personal interview the household head had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about financing of current home, construction costs for building a house, house value and loans, imputation of property values and loans, additions/renovations 1983, maintenance and repairs, leasing, sale of previous home, assets and liabilities, and non-taxable benefits. All the respondents had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about tax-return information 1983, employment income, and taxes and support payments. Two telephone interviews were used primarily to collect data on the household´s time use and consumption expenditures. The 1986 HUS-survey included both a follow-up of the 1984 sample (panel study) and a supplementary sample. The 1986 sample included 1) all respondents participating in the 1984 survey, 2) the household heads, partners and third persons who should have participated in 1984 but did not (1984 nonresponse), 3) those individuals who started living together after the 1984 interview with an selected individual who participated or was supposed to participate in 1984, 4) members of the 1984 household born in 1966 or 1967. If entering a new household, for example because of leaving their parental home, the household head and his/her partner were also interviewed. Respondents participating in the 1984 survey were interviewed by telephone in 1986. Questions dealt with changes in family composition, housing, employment, wages and child care, and it was not only recorded whether a change had occurred, and what sort of change, but also when it occurred. The respondents also received a questionnaire by mail with questions mainly concerning income and assets. Respondents not participating in the earlier survey were interviewed in person and were asked approximately the same questions as in the 1984 personal interview. The 1988 HUS-survey was considerably smaller than the previous ones. It was addressed exclusively to participants in the 1986 survey, and consisted of a self-enumerated questionnaire with a nonrespondent follow-up by telephone. The questions dealt with changes in housing conditions, employment and household composition. The questionnaire also contained some questions on household income. In many respect the 1991 HUS-survey replicated the 1988 survey. The questions were basically the same in content and range, and the survey was conducted as a self-enamurated questionnaire sent out by mail. This time, however, in contrast to the 1988 survey, an attempt was made to include in the survey the new household members who had moved into sample households since 1986, as well as young people who turned 18 after the 1986 survey. Earlier respondents received a questionnaire by mail containing questions about their home, their primary occupation and weekly work hours since May 1988 (event-history data), earnings in 1989, 1990 and 1991, household composition and any changes in it that might have occurred since 1988, child care and some questions on income. New respondents were also asked about their education and labor-market experience. With respect to its design and question wording, the 1993 survey is a new version of the 1986 survey. The survey is made up of four parts: 1) the panel survey, which was addressed mainly to respondents in the 1991 survey, with certain additions; 2) the so-called supplementary survey, which focused on a new random sample of individuals; 3) the so-called nonresponse survey, which encompassed respondents who had participated in at least one of the earlier surveys but had since dropped out; 4) the time-use survey, which included the same sample of respondents as those in the panel and supplementary surveys. Individuals in the nonresponse group were not included in the time-use survey. Most of the questions in the first three surveys were the same, but certain questions sequences were targeted to the respondents in a specific survey. Thus certain retrospective questions were asked of the nonresponse group, while specific questions on social background, labor market experience etc. were addressed to new respondents. In the case of respondents who had already participated in the panel, a combined contact and main interview was conducted by telephone, after which a self-enumerated questionnaire was sent out to each respondent by mail. The panel sample also included young people in panel households who were born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members who had not previously been interviewed. These individuals, like new respondents, were not interviewed by telephone until they had been interviewed personally. Thus technically they were treated in the same manner as individuals in the supplementary sample. The new supplementary sample was first contacted by telephone and then given a fairly lengthy personal interview, at the conclusion of which each respondent was asked to fill out a written questionnaire. In this respect the survey design for the nonresponse sample was the same as for the supplementary sample. The nonresponse sample also included young people born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members. The time-use interviews were conducted by telephone. For each respondent two days were chosen at random from the period from February 15, 1993 to February 14, 1994 and the respondents were interviewed about their time use during those two days. If possible, the time-use interviews were preceded by the other parts of the survey, but this was not always feasible. In each household the household head and spouse/partner were interviewed, as well as an additional person in certain households. Questions regarding the household as a whole were asked of only one person in the household, preferably the household head. As in earlier surveys, data from the interviews was subsequently supplemented by registry data, but only for those respondents who had given their express consent. There is registry information for 75-80 percent of the sample. The telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; and cars and boats. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1992. The 1996 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and environment. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1995. The 1998 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and municipal service. The questionnaire was divided into nine sections: sale of previous home; house value and loans; insurance; home-related expenses; assets; household income; inheritances and gifts; black-market work; and respondent income 1997.

The Canadian College Student Survey (the Consortium, CCSSC) includes the Association of Canadian Community Colleges (ACCC), individual participating colleges and the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation (CMSF). Established in late 2001, the Consortium conducted its first survey of college students in the spring of 2002. Some 27 colleges participated in this year's survey; each of them tried to have 300 to 450 of their students complete the survey depending on the size of institution. Individual colleges administered the survey using a sampling strategy and field guide provided by Prairie Research Associates (PRA) Inc. Approximately 9,900 students completed the survey. This dataset was freely received from the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Some work was required for the variable and value labels, and missing values. They were corrected as best as possible with the documentation received. Caution should be used with this dataset as some variables are lacking information.

The Household Market and Nonmarket Activities (HUS) project started as a joint research project between the Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research (IUI) and Göteborg University in 1980. The ambition was to build a consistent longitudinal micro data base on the use of time, money and public services of households. The first main survey was carried out in 1984. In addition to a contact interview with the selected individuals, all designated individuals participated in a personal interview and two telephone interviews. All respondents were asked about their family background, education, marital status, labor market experience, and employment. In addition, questions about the household were asked of the head of household, concerning family composition, child care, health status, housing, possession of vacation homes, cars, boats and other consumption durables. At the end of the personal interview the household head had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about financing of current home, construction costs for building a house, house value and loans, imputation of property values and loans, additions/renovations 1983, maintenance and repairs, leasing, sale of previous home, assets and liabilities, and non-taxable benefits. All the respondents had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about tax-return information 1983, employment income, and taxes and support payments. Two telephone interviews were used primarily to collect data on the household´s time use and consumption expenditures. The 1986 HUS-survey included both a follow-up of the 1984 sample (panel study) and a supplementary sample. The 1986 sample included 1) all respondents participating in the 1984 survey, 2) the household heads, partners and third persons who should have participated in 1984 but did not (1984 nonresponse), 3) those individuals who started living together after the 1984 interview with an selected individual who participated or was supposed to participate in 1984, 4) members of the 1984 household born in 1966 or 1967. If entering a new household, for example because of leaving their parental home, the household head and his/her partner were also interviewed. Respondents participating in the 1984 survey were interviewed by telephone in 1986. Questions dealt with changes in family composition, housing, employment, wages and child care, and it was not only recorded whether a change had occurred, and what sort of change, but also when it occurred. The respondents also received a questionnaire by mail with questions mainly concerning income and assets. Respondents not participating in the earlier survey were interviewed in person and were asked approximately the same questions as in the 1984 personal interview. The 1988 HUS-survey was considerably smaller than the previous ones. It was addressed exclusively to participants in the 1986 survey, and consisted of a self-enumerated questionnaire with a nonrespondent follow-up by telephone. The questions dealt with changes in housing conditions, employment and household composition. The questionnaire also contained some questions on household income. In many respect the 1991 HUS-survey replicated the 1988 survey. The questions were basically the same in content and range, and the survey was conducted as a self-enamurated questionnaire sent out by mail. This time, however, in contrast to the 1988 survey, an attempt was made to include in the survey the new household members who had moved into sample households since 1986, as well as young people who turned 18 after the 1986 survey. Earlier respondents received a questionnaire by mail containing questions about their home, their primary occupation and weekly work hours since May 1988 (event-history data), earnings in 1989, 1990 and 1991, household composition and any changes in it that might have occurred since 1988, child care and some questions on income. New respondents were also asked about their education and labor-market experience. With respect to its design and question wording, the 1993 survey is a new version of the 1986 survey. The survey is made up of four parts: 1) the panel survey, which was addressed mainly to respondents in the 1991 survey, with certain additions; 2) the so-called supplementary survey, which focused on a new random sample of individuals; 3) the so-called nonresponse survey, which encompassed respondents who had participated in at least one of the earlier surveys but had since dropped out; 4) the time-use survey, which included the same sample of respondents as those in the panel and supplementary surveys. Individuals in the nonresponse group were not included in the time-use survey. Most of the questions in the first three surveys were the same, but certain questions sequences were targeted to the respondents in a specific survey. Thus certain retrospective questions were asked of the nonresponse group, while specific questions on social background, labor market experience etc. were addressed to new respondents. In the case of respondents who had already participated in the panel, a combined contact and main interview was conducted by telephone, after which a self-enumerated questionnaire was sent out to each respondent by mail. The panel sample also included young people in panel households who were born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members who had not previously been interviewed. These individuals, like new respondents, were not interviewed by telephone until they had been interviewed personally. Thus technically they were treated in the same manner as individuals in the supplementary sample. The new supplementary sample was first contacted by telephone and then given a fairly lengthy personal interview, at the conclusion of which each respondent was asked to fill out a written questionnaire. In this respect the survey design for the nonresponse sample was the same as for the supplementary sample. The nonresponse sample also included young people born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members. The time-use interviews were conducted by telephone. For each respondent two days were chosen at random from the period from February 15, 1993 to February 14, 1994 and the respondents were interviewed about their time use during those two days. If possible, the time-use interviews were preceded by the other parts of the survey, but this was not always feasible. In each household the household head and spouse/partner were interviewed, as well as an additional person in certain households. Questions regarding the household as a whole were asked of only one person in the household, preferably the household head. As in earlier surveys, data from the interviews was subsequently supplemented by registry data, but only for those respondents who had given their express consent. There is registry information for 75-80 percent of the sample. The telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; and cars and boats. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1992. The 1996 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and environment. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1995. The 1998 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and municipal service. The questionnaire was divided into nine sections: sale of previous home; house value and loans; insurance; home-related expenses; assets; household income; inheritances and gifts; black-market work; and respondent income 1997.

The Household Market and Nonmarket Activities (HUS) project started as a joint research project between the Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research (IUI) and Göteborg University in 1980. The ambition was to build a consistent longitudinal micro data base on the use of time, money and public services of households. The first main survey was carried out in 1984. In addition to a contact interview with the selected individuals, all designated individuals participated in a personal interview and two telephone interviews. All respondents were asked about their family background, education, marital status, labor market experience, and employment. In addition, questions about the household were asked of the head of household, concerning family composition, child care, health status, housing, possession of vacation homes, cars, boats and other consumption durables. At the end of the personal interview the household head had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about financing of current home, construction costs for building a house, house value and loans, imputation of property values and loans, additions/renovations 1983, maintenance and repairs, leasing, sale of previous home, assets and liabilities, and non-taxable benefits. All the respondents had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about tax-return information 1983, employment income, and taxes and support payments. Two telephone interviews were used primarily to collect data on the household´s time use and consumption expenditures. The 1986 HUS-survey included both a follow-up of the 1984 sample (panel study) and a supplementary sample. The 1986 sample included 1) all respondents participating in the 1984 survey, 2) the household heads, partners and third persons who should have participated in 1984 but did not (1984 nonresponse), 3) those individuals who started living together after the 1984 interview with an selected individual who participated or was supposed to participate in 1984, 4) members of the 1984 household born in 1966 or 1967. If entering a new household, for example because of leaving their parental home, the household head and his/her partner were also interviewed. Respondents participating in the 1984 survey were interviewed by telephone in 1986. Questions dealt with changes in family composition, housing, employment, wages and child care, and it was not only recorded whether a change had occurred, and what sort of change, but also when it occurred. The respondents also received a questionnaire by mail with questions mainly concerning income and assets. Respondents not participating in the earlier survey were interviewed in person and were asked approximately the same questions as in the 1984 personal interview. The 1988 HUS-survey was considerably smaller than the previous ones. It was addressed exclusively to participants in the 1986 survey, and consisted of a self-enumerated questionnaire with a nonrespondent follow-up by telephone. The questions dealt with changes in housing conditions, employment and household composition. The questionnaire also contained some questions on household income. In many respect the 1991 HUS-survey replicated the 1988 survey. The questions were basically the same in content and range, and the survey was conducted as a self-enamurated questionnaire sent out by mail. This time, however, in contrast to the 1988 survey, an attempt was made to include in the survey the new household members who had moved into sample households since 1986, as well as young people who turned 18 after the 1986 survey. Earlier respondents received a questionnaire by mail containing questions about their home, their primary occupation and weekly work hours since May 1988 (event-history data), earnings in 1989, 1990 and 1991, household composition and any changes in it that might have occurred since 1988, child care and some questions on income. New respondents were also asked about their education and labor-market experience. With respect to its design and question wording, the 1993 survey is a new version of the 1986 survey. The survey is made up of four parts: 1) the panel survey, which was addressed mainly to respondents in the 1991 survey, with certain additions; 2) the so-called supplementary survey, which focused on a new random sample of individuals; 3) the so-called nonresponse survey, which encompassed respondents who had participated in at least one of the earlier surveys but had since dropped out; 4) the time-use survey, which included the same sample of respondents as those in the panel and supplementary surveys. Individuals in the nonresponse group were not included in the time-use survey. Most of the questions in the first three surveys were the same, but certain questions sequences were targeted to the respondents in a specific survey. Thus certain retrospective questions were asked of the nonresponse group, while specific questions on social background, labor market experience etc. were addressed to new respondents. In the case of respondents who had already participated in the panel, a combined contact and main interview was conducted by telephone, after which a self-enumerated questionnaire was sent out to each respondent by mail. The panel sample also included young people in panel households who were born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members who had not previously been interviewed. These individuals, like new respondents, were not interviewed by telephone until they had been interviewed personally. Thus technically they were treated in the same manner as individuals in the supplementary sample. The new supplementary sample was first contacted by telephone and then given a fairly lengthy personal interview, at the conclusion of which each respondent was asked to fill out a written questionnaire. In this respect the survey design for the nonresponse sample was the same as for the supplementary sample. The nonresponse sample also included young people born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members. The time-use interviews were conducted by telephone. For each respondent two days were chosen at random from the period from February 15, 1993 to February 14, 1994 and the respondents were interviewed about their time use during those two days. If possible, the time-use interviews were preceded by the other parts of the survey, but this was not always feasible. In each household the household head and spouse/partner were interviewed, as well as an additional person in certain households. Questions regarding the household as a whole were asked of only one person in the household, preferably the household head. As in earlier surveys, data from the interviews was subsequently supplemented by registry data, but only for those respondents who had given their express consent. There is registry information for 75-80 percent of the sample. The telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; and cars and boats. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1992. The 1996 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and environment. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1995. The 1998 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and municipal service. The questionnaire was divided into nine sections: sale of previous home; house value and loans; insurance; home-related expenses; assets; household income; inheritances and gifts; black-market work; and respondent income 1997.

The Household Market and Nonmarket Activities (HUS) project started as a joint research project between the Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research (IUI) and Göteborg University in 1980. The ambition was to build a consistent longitudinal micro data base on the use of time, money and public services of households. The first main survey was carried out in 1984. In addition to a contact interview with the selected individuals, all designated individuals participated in a personal interview and two telephone interviews. All respondents were asked about their family background, education, marital status, labor market experience, and employment. In addition, questions about the household were asked of the head of household, concerning family composition, child care, health status, housing, possession of vacation homes, cars, boats and other consumption durables. At the end of the personal interview the household head had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about financing of current home, construction costs for building a house, house value and loans, imputation of property values and loans, additions/renovations 1983, maintenance and repairs, leasing, sale of previous home, assets and liabilities, and non-taxable benefits. All the respondents had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about tax-return information 1983, employment income, and taxes and support payments. Two telephone interviews were used primarily to collect data on the household´s time use and consumption expenditures. The 1986 HUS-survey included both a follow-up of the 1984 sample (panel study) and a supplementary sample. The 1986 sample included 1) all respondents participating in the 1984 survey, 2) the household heads, partners and third persons who should have participated in 1984 but did not (1984 nonresponse), 3) those individuals who started living together after the 1984 interview with an selected individual who participated or was supposed to participate in 1984, 4) members of the 1984 household born in 1966 or 1967. If entering a new household, for example because of leaving their parental home, the household head and his/her partner were also interviewed. Respondents participating in the 1984 survey were interviewed by telephone in 1986. Questions dealt with changes in family composition, housing, employment, wages and child care, and it was not only recorded whether a change had occurred, and what sort of change, but also when it occurred. The respondents also received a questionnaire by mail with questions mainly concerning income and assets. Respondents not participating in the earlier survey were interviewed in person and were asked approximately the same questions as in the 1984 personal interview. The 1988 HUS-survey was considerably smaller than the previous ones. It was addressed exclusively to participants in the 1986 survey, and consisted of a self-enumerated questionnaire with a nonrespondent follow-up by telephone. The questions dealt with changes in housing conditions, employment and household composition. The questionnaire also contained some questions on household income. In many respect the 1991 HUS-survey replicated the 1988 survey. The questions were basically the same in content and range, and the survey was conducted as a self-enamurated questionnaire sent out by mail. This time, however, in contrast to the 1988 survey, an attempt was made to include in the survey the new household members who had moved into sample households since 1986, as well as young people who turned 18 after the 1986 survey. Earlier respondents received a questionnaire by mail containing questions about their home, their primary occupation and weekly work hours since May 1988 (event-history data), earnings in 1989, 1990 and 1991, household composition and any changes in it that might have occurred since 1988, child care and some questions on income. New respondents were also asked about their education and labor-market experience. With respect to its design and question wording, the 1993 survey is a new version of the 1986 survey. The survey is made up of four parts: 1) the panel survey, which was addressed mainly to respondents in the 1991 survey, with certain additions; 2) the so-called supplementary survey, which focused on a new random sample of individuals; 3) the so-called nonresponse survey, which encompassed respondents who had participated in at least one of the earlier surveys but had since dropped out; 4) the time-use survey, which included the same sample of respondents as those in the panel and supplementary surveys. Individuals in the nonresponse group were not included in the time-use survey. Most of the questions in the first three surveys were the same, but certain questions sequences were targeted to the respondents in a specific survey. Thus certain retrospective questions were asked of the nonresponse group, while specific questions on social background, labor market experience etc. were addressed to new respondents. In the case of respondents who had already participated in the panel, a combined contact and main interview was conducted by telephone, after which a self-enumerated questionnaire was sent out to each respondent by mail. The panel sample also included young people in panel households who were born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members who had not previously been interviewed. These individuals, like new respondents, were not interviewed by telephone until they had been interviewed personally. Thus technically they were treated in the same manner as individuals in the supplementary sample. The new supplementary sample was first contacted by telephone and then given a fairly lengthy personal interview, at the conclusion of which each respondent was asked to fill out a written questionnaire. In this respect the survey design for the nonresponse sample was the same as for the supplementary sample. The nonresponse sample also included young people born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members. The time-use interviews were conducted by telephone. For each respondent two days were chosen at random from the period from February 15, 1993 to February 14, 1994 and the respondents were interviewed about their time use during those two days. If possible, the time-use interviews were preceded by the other parts of the survey, but this was not always feasible. In each household the household head and spouse/partner were interviewed, as well as an additional person in certain households. Questions regarding the household as a whole were asked of only one person in the household, preferably the household head. As in earlier surveys, data from the interviews was subsequently supplemented by registry data, but only for those respondents who had given their express consent. There is registry information for 75-80 percent of the sample. The telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; and cars and boats. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1992. The 1996 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and environment. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1995. The 1998 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and municipal service. The questionnaire was divided into nine sections: sale of previous home; house value and loans; insurance; home-related expenses; assets; household income; inheritances and gifts; black-market work; and respondent income 1997.

In December 2017, the Urban Institute launched the Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey (WBNS), a nationally representative, internet-based survey of non-elderly adults designed to monitor changes in individual and family well-being during a time when policymakers are considering significant changes to federal safety net programs serving low-income families. The 2022 round of the survey collects information on a broad array of topics related to health, material hardship, and the safety net, including health insurance, housing, food security, employment, family income, program participation, family financial security, disability, COVID-19 and Long COVID, unmet medical needs, effects of price inflation, student loans, experiences of discrimination, and immigration issues.