Users Guide to the Machine-Readable Data File

Wisconsin Children, Incomes, and Program Participation Survey (CHIPPS)

Written by

I-Fen Lin
Department of Sociology
University of Wisconsin-Madision
and
Paticia R. Brown
Institute for Research on Poverty
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Produced by

Institute for Research on Poverty
1180 Observatory Drive
3412 Social Science Building
University of Wisconsin Madison
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
(608) 262-6358

Distributed by

Data and Program Library Service (DPLS)
1180 Observatory Drive
4452 Social Science Building
University of Wisconsin Madison
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
(608) 262-7962

The data archive project was supported by a grant awarded to Nora Cate Schaeffer, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin Madison, by the Office of Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (91ASPE236A). This users guide was prepared by I-Fen Lin and Patricia R. Brown. HTML conversion by DPLS.

November 1995

Please note: conversion of tables into HTML proved problematic. We recommend you download the documentation files for any serious use.


Suggested Bibliographic Citation

All manuscripts utilizing this data file should acknowledge that fact
in a footnote or a reference. The bibliographic citation for the file is:

University of Wisconsin. Institute for Research on Poverty. WISCONSIN CHILDREN, INCOMES, AND PROGRAM PARTICIPATION SURVEY (CHIPPS) OF 1985 [Computer file]. Edition prepared by I-Fen Lin, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin- Madison and Patricia R. Brown, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty (IRP) [producer], 1995. Madison, WI: Data and Information Services Center [distributor], 1996.


Table of Contents

Appendices

(Appendices A through D are only available in hard copy by request).


WISCONSIN CHILDREN, INCOMES, AND PROGRAM PARTICIPATION SURVEY (CHIPPS) OF 1985

Purpose of the Survey

The Wisconsin Children, Incomes, and Program Participation Survey (CHIPPS) was earlier termed WIPPS--Wisconsin Income and Program Participation Survey. WIPPS was the name used during the period when the principal investigators first proposed to conduct a general income survey that would have asked only a few questions about child support. The Office of Child Support Enforcement encouraged the investigators to develop a more child-support-specific survey, which was then was given the name "Wisconsin Children, Income, and Program Participation Survey (CHIPPS)." In the following documentation, we use the term "CHIPPS" for the survey as a whole. Questions originally developed for WIPPS appear in the Financial and Employment section. CHIPPS is a telephone survey of Wisconsin households conducted by the Institute for Research on Poverty (IRP) during the summer of 1985 with support from the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services. Its purpose was to examine the functioning of the child support system and to assist in development of the Child Support Assurance Program (CSAP). The survey had four particular goals:

  1. To refine and update estimates of costs of or savings from the CSAP.
  2. To help researchers understand the potential importance of the proposed CSAP by describing in detail the sources and amounts of household income, assets and debts, and the economic status of child-support-eligible households.
  3. To describe current child support arrangements -- the proportion of eligible households with awards, types of visitation and custodial arrangements, and so on.
  4. To evaluate the public's perceptions concerning the amounts of child support to be awarded under varying circumstances, the conditions under which the amount should be changed, and the desirability of using wage assignments to collect support orders.

CHIPPS used a random sample of all residential households in the state and an over-sample of the households in which a child-support-eligible custodial or noncustodial parent resided, thus permitting non-child-support-eligible households to be compared with child-support-eligible households in terms of poverty rates, labor market participation, welfare utilization, and attitudes toward child support. Based on the experience of previous analyses of child support and other economic studies of Wisconsin households, the desired sample sizes were designated as:


Household Type	      Desired Cases
Custodial parents       300-400
Noncustodial parents    200-270
Others	                800

        

Structure of the Survey Questions

The survey includes four sets of questions. Three sets (Screener Section, Norm/Vignettes Section, and Financial and Employment Section) were asked of all respondents; questions in the Child Support Section were only asked of parents of child-support-eligible children (for details, see Appendix C: Question Flow Chart). In each section, questions are numbered, beginning with Question 1. However, in the data file, each question has a unique variable number. The range of question numbers ("Q") and that of variable numbers ("V") is summarized in the box at the beginning of each section below.

(1) Screener Section:Q.1 - Q.44, Q.C1-Q.C5, Q.W1-Q.W2
V1 - V156

The screener section of the interview was administered after the introductory statements. These screening questions identified:

the number of adults (over 19) in the household,

the age-sex composition of the household,

the marital status of all adults,

the presence of a custodial or noncustodial parent of children eligible for child support.

During the random-sampling phase, if there was no custodial or noncustodial parent, the interview continued with the adult who answered the telephone first and who had completed the screener. Otherwise, the adult who answered the screener was asked to request that the custodial or noncustodial parent to come to the phone. If the custodial or noncustodial parent was not available, the interviewer arranged to call back for the custodial or noncustodial parent.

When the custodial parent was less than 19 years old and living with a parent, the (grand)parent was asked to provide a proxy interview for the custodial teen.

When both custodial and noncustodial parents of the same child(ren) resided in one household, the custodial parent was first asked to respond to the entire interview, and the noncustodial parent was asked only the noncustodial set of questions. If the custodial parent was also the noncustodial parent of other children, the parent was asked to provide information on both the custodial and noncustodial sections of the questions. If there was more than one custodial parent or more than one noncustodial parent in the household, the screener randomly selected only one respondent of each type for the interview.

The public-use data include 1556 respondents: 387 custodial parents, 173 noncustodial parents, 52 parents who are both custodial and noncustodial parents, 4 proxy interviews for custodial teens, and 940 non-child-support-eligible respondents (see V87 for frequency distribution).

When the number of non-child-support-eligible respondents reached the goal of 800, the over-sampling phase began. During the over-sampling phase, if the screener found no custodial ornoncustodial parent in the household, the interview was terminated. The information from these "unsuccessful" screeners was not coded for entry into the data file. When the over-sample screening located a custodial or noncustodial parent of a child-support-eligible child, the interview continued. Of all respondents, 69% (N=1073) are in the random sample and 31% (N=483) are in the over-sample (see V57 for frequency distribution).

At the beginning of the interview, respondents were randomly assigned to form X or form Y. Of 1556 respondents, 771 were assigned to form X and 785 were assigned to form Y (see V2 for frequency distribution). This was done because (1) not all of the respondents received both form X and form Y in the Norm/Vignette Section (for explanation see below), and (2) in the split-ballot question experiments, respondents received only one form of questions, depending on whether the respondents were assigned to X or Y (for explanation, see Financial and Employment Section and Child Support Section).

(2) Norm/Vignettes Section:Q.1 - Q.3 (X form), Q.4 - Q.5 (Y form)
V181 - V230

The questions about norms for child support were asked of both non-child-support-eligible respondents and child-support-eligible respondents. The norm questions were divided into two forms, X and Y. Form X concerns child support awards and form Y is about a hypothetical child support program. For those respondents who were not custodial, not noncustodial, or not providing a proxy interview for a custodial teen, both forms were asked. Form X was asked before the Financial and Employment Section. Form Y was asked after the Financial and Employment Section. To economize on interviewing costs, only one form was asked of custodial parents, noncustodial parents, and those providing proxy interviews for custodial teens. Of 1556 respondents, 305 respondents received form X only, 310 respondents received form Y only, and 941 respondents received both form X and form Y (see V227 for frequency distribution).

The norm questions asked about:

perceptions of and attitudes toward child support,

appropriate child support awards under varying circumstances,

when awards should be modified,

the appropriateness of automatic income withholding under various circumstances,

feelings about an assured child support benefit.

(3) Financial and Employment (or WIPPS) Section:Q.1 - Q.94,
Q.95 - Q.97 (X, Y forms)
V251 - V486

The reference period for income and most of the employment questions was calendar year 1984. Questions evaluating income changes and long-term program participation asked about the period from 1981 to the interview date (summer 1985). The date of the interview was also the date for information about location, education, assets, debts, health insurance, and the spouse's relationships with children.

The financial and employment questions asked about:

residence,

income,

assets and debts,

labor market participation,

welfare program participation,

miscellaneous (income evaluation, health insurance question, etc.).

In addition, a question experiment measuring disagreement about parenting was conducted in this section for non-child-support-eligible parents. Two versions of questions (forms X and Y) were used. These two forms varied response categories: form X used frequency measures and form Y used intensity measures (see Appendix D for question wordings). Of 1556 respondents, 771 were assigned to form X and 785 respondents were assigned to form Y (see V2 for frequency distribution). The following summarizes how these question numbers and variable numbers correspond:

Please note: conversion of tables into HMTL proved problematic. Until this is fixed, we recommend you download the documentation files for any serious use.

	Question Number	Variable Number
		Q.95	V465
		Q.96	V466
		Q.97	V467

        

(4) Child Support Sections:

Custodial:Q.1 - Q.35, Q.39 - Q.114, Q.116 - Q.121, Q.130 - Q.142
Q.36 - Q.38, Q.115, Q.122 - Q.129 (X, Y forms)
V501 - V701

Noncustodial:Q.1 - Q.35, Q.39 - Q.114, Q.116 - Q.121, Q.130 - Q.141
Q.36- Q.38, Q.115, Q.122 - Q.129 (X, Y forms)
V711 - V923

Proxy:Q.1 - Q.142
V931 - V1100

The child support section had three versions, one for custodial parents, one for noncustodial parents and one for proxy interviews. The questions for custodial parents are the same as those for noncustodial parents except that (1) custodial parents were asked about the amount of support theyreceived and noncustodial parents were asked about the amount of support they paid; (2) custodial parents were asked about their attempts to collect the full amount of support orders.

If the respondent had more than one child eligible for support and the children had only one parent living elsewhere, the child support questions (support owed and paid) covered all children. If the respondent had more than one child eligible for support and the children had more than one parent living elsewhere, only one child support case was randomly selected for questions.

The child support questions asked about:

types of relationship between custodial and noncustodial parents,

details about the agreement (both substance and mechanics),

information on custody and visitation,

information on child support arrangements, including details of agreement and compliance with agreement,

in-depth assessment of family interaction,

perceptions of the equity of child support agreements,

information about the other parent.

Questions concerning the child support agreement refer to 1984.

In addition, two question experiments were conducted in this section. The first experiment measured the frequency of contacts between children and their noncustodial parents (Q.36 - Q.38). The experiment varied question formats: form X used open-ended questions and form Y used close-ended questions (see Appendix D for question wordings). Because questions were in different formats, answers for form X and form Y were separately recorded in the data file (see table below). The second experiment measured the disagreement about parenting (Q.115, Q.122 - Q.129). Like the experiment conducted in the Financial and Employment Section, the experiment varied response categories: form X used frequency measures and form Y used intensity measures (also see Appendix D for question wordings). Because two forms of questions had same formats, answers for form X and form Y were recorded together. Of 1556 respondents, 771 were assigned to form X and 785 were assigned to form Y (see V2 for frequency distribution). Custodial parents' answers and noncustodial parents' answers were recorded in different variables. The following table summarizes how these question numbers and variable numbers correspond:

Please note: conversion of tables into HMTL proved problematic. Until this is fixed, we recommend you download the documentation files for any serious use.

	                              Variable Number                                     	
Question Number	         Custodial Parents		    Noncustodial Parents	
	            (Answers for form X and form Y were separately recorded)				
                	form X	  form Y	           form X	    form Y	
Q.36                  V555-V558  V580-V587               V766-V769        V799-V806
Q.37                  V559-V562  V588-V595               V770-V773        V807-V814
Q.38                  V563       V596                    V774             V815

	(Answers for form X and form Y were recorded together)			

Q.115                 V668                                  V893
Q.122                 V673                                  V898
Q.123                 V674                                  V899
Q.124                 V675                                  V900
Q.125                 V676                                  V901
Q.126                 V677                                  V902
Q.127                 V678                                  V903
Q.128                 V679                          (did not ask noncustodial parents)
Q.129	              V680                                  V904

        

Sampling and Field Procedures

CHIPPS used a Random Digit Dialing (RDD) telephone design. The RDD procedures were conducted in two stages: residential numbers were identified in the first stage and interviews were obtained in the second stage. Two computer-generated lists of 20 random telephone numbers within a block of 100 possible telephone numbers were recorded. One list (say List A) was used in stage 1 exclusively for identification of residential blocks. Another list (say List B) was used in stage 2 to obtain interviews. In the first stage, only one number (from List A) was called. A block of 100 numbers was considered to be residential if the telephone number called from List A was a residential number. If the contact was a residential household, the block was retained for use in the second stage (i.e., use List B to obtain interviews); if the contact was with a business or other nonresident concern, the entire block of 20 numbers was rejected for further use (i.e., List B was not be used). No interviews were obtained in the first stage. In the second stage, a maximum of 7 interviews were completed in each block.

CHIPPS used a standard of 12 return calls. Two attempts were made on each day (Monday through Saturday) and three attempts were made in each time period (9 am-noon, noon-3 pm, 3-6 pm, and 6-9 pm). A number was not considered unreachable until 12 attempts had been made according to the pattern determined by the rule. Although all interim and final results for each telephone number were recorded, the calling record is not available for archiving.

Of the total number of contacts (N=5678), 6.9% refused, 50.1% completed the screened interview, 10.5% were not household numbers, 20.8% had disconnected lines, 5.9% had a continual ring, 1.6% had a continual busy signal, and 4.2% had crossed lines (a telephone routing error; automatic forwarding to an unrelated number). Because it is uncertain how many of the unresolved numbers represent households, it is assumed that 20% of the unresolved numbers corresponded to households that were not contacted. That is,

Estimated Refusals + Estimate of households not contacted

nonresponse rate =

Screener completions + Refusals + Estimate of households not contacted

The nonresponse rate for the random sample is estimated to be 32.8%, for the over-sample is 17.9%; overall, the non-response rate is 21.2%. Conversely, the response rate for the random sample is 67.2%, for the over-sample is 82.1%, and for the total sample is 78.8%.

Special Response Codes

There are two sets of special response codes. The alphabetic codes are used in the questionnaire but were transformed into numeric codes used in the data file:

-11 (K) = Don't know

-13 (M) = Interviewer error

-18 (R) = Refusal

-24 (X) = Legal skip

-25 (Y) = Not applicable

Data Preparation and Formatting

To be sure that data were internally consistent, that responses fell within appropriate ranges, and that the correct skip patterns were used, the data were examined and corrected by means of a range-skip data-cleaning computer program.

The archive data are available in two formats: ASCII and SPSS export files. All variables in the data file are stored as numeric characters. The ASCII file is a rectangular file written in F10.2 format. That is, each variable uses 10 columns and has a maximum of 2 decimal digits (xxxxxxx.xx format). Each variable in the ASCII file is right justified to the decimal point. Thus, for example, 2 is stored as " _ _ _ _ _ _ 2.00" in the data set (underline indicates that the column is blank). The location of the Ith variable starts at column ((I -1) * 10 + 1) and ends at column (I * 10). The SPSS export file was run on SPSS Release 4.1 for VAX/VMS. Both ASCII and SPSS export files were run on a V6.1 VMS/VAX computer. The data include 1556 respondents and 1105 variables (some are coded as -24, "variable not in use").

The locations of 5 summary variables (R_KIDS, R_INC, RSP_INC, HH_INC, CPLE_INC) and how they are constructed (in SPSS) are as follows:

1. R_KIDS (number of kids respondent has), V1101

compute r_kids = 0

do repeat X = V37 to V46

if X = V485 r_kids = r_kids+1

end repeat

2. R_INC (respondent's yearly income), V1102

RSP_INC (respondent's spouse yearly income), V1103

recode V264 to V267 V273 to V276 V282 to V285 V291 to V294 V300 to V303

V314 to V317 V323 to V326 V332 to V335 V338 V344 to V347

V353 to V356 V362 to V365 V367 V370 V376 to V379 V381 V383

V389 to V392 (24=0)(18=sysmis)(11=sysmis)(13=sysmis)(25=sysmis)

compute r_inc = 0

compute rsp_inc = 0

do repeat X = V260 to V263 /* wagesalary

/Y = V264 to V267

if (x = V485) r_inc = sum(r_inc,y)

if (x = V486) rsp_inc = sum(rsp_inc,y)

end repeat

do repeat X = V269 to V272 /* BFPP income

/Y = V273 to V276

if (x = V485) r_inc = sum(r_inc,y)

if (x = V486) rsp_inc = sum(rsp_inc,y)

end repeat

do repeat X = V278 to V281 /* RRB income

/Y = V282 to V285

if (x = V485) r_inc = sum(r_inc,y)

if (x = V486) rsp_inc = sum(rsp_inc,y)

end repeat

do repeat X = V287 to V290 /* supplemental security income

/Y = V291 to V294

if (x = 485) r_inc = sum(r_inc, y)

if (x = 486) rsp_inc = sum(rsp_inc, y)

end repeat

do if (V306 = 1) /* count social security yearly income

if (V304 = V296) V300 = V300*12

if (V304 = V297) V301 = V301*12

if (V304 = V298) V302 = V302*12

if (V304 = V299) V303 = V303*12

end if

do if V307 = 1 /* count social security yearly income

if (V305 = V296) V300 = V300*12

if (V305 = V297) V301 = V301*12

if (V305 = V298) V302 = V302*12

if (V305 = V299) V303 = V303*12

end if

do repeat X = V296 to V299 /* social security

/Y = V300 to V303

if (x = V485) r_inc = sum(r_inc,y)

if (x = V486) rsp_inc = sum(rsp_inc,y)

end repeat

do repeat X = V310 to V313 /* AFDC income

/Y = V314 to V317

if (x = V485) r_inc = sum(r_inc,y)

if (x = V486) rsp_inc = sum(rsp_inc,y)

end repeat

do repeat X = V319 to V322 /* general relief

/Y = V323 to V326

if (x = V485) r_inc = sum(r_inc,y)

if (x = V486) rsp_inc = sum(rsp_inc,y)

end repeat

do repeat X = V328 to V331 /* food stamps

/Y = V332 to V335

if (x = V485) r_inc = sum(r_inc,y)

if (x = V486) rsp_inc = sum(rsp_inc,y)

end repeat

do repeat X = V340 to V343 /* unemployment compensation

/Y = V344 to V347

if (x = V485) r_inc = sum(r_inc,y)

if (x = V486) rsp_inc = sum(rsp_inc,y)

end repeat

do repeat X = V349 to V352 /* strike pay

/Y = V353 to V356

if (x = V485) r_inc = sum(r_inc,y)

if (x = V486) rsp_inc = sum(rsp_inc,y)

end repeat

do repeat X = V358 to V361 /* pensions, military benefits

/Y = V362 to V365

if (x = V485) r_inc = sum(r_inc,y)

if (x = V486) rsp_inc = sum(rsp_inc,y)

end repeat

do repeat X = V372 to V375 /* school assistance, training

/Y = V376 to V379

if (x = V485) r_inc = sum(r_inc,y)

if (x = V486) rsp_inc = sum(rsp_inc,y)

end repeat

do repeat X = V385 to V388 /* other income

/Y = V389 to V392

if (x = V485) r_inc = sum(r_inc, y)

if (x = V486) rsp_inc = sum(rsp_inc, y)

end repeat

recode r_inc (0 = sysmis)

recode rsp_inc (0 = sysmis)

3. HH_INC (respondent household yearly income), located at columns 11031-11040.

compute hh_inc = sum(V264,V265,V266,V267,V273,V274,V275,V276,

V282,V283,V284,V285,V291,V292,V293,V294,V300,

V301,V302,V303,V314,V315,V316,V317,V323,V324,V325,V326,

V332,V333,V334,V335,V338,V344,V345,V346,V347,V353,V354,

V355,V356,V362,V363,V364,V365,V367,V370,V376,V377,V378,

V379,V381,V383,V389,V390,V391,V392)

recode hh_inc (0 = sysmis)

4. CPLE_INC (respondent and respondent's spouse yearly income), located at columns 11041-11050.

compute cple_inc = sum(r_inc,rsp_inc)

recode cple_inc (0 = sysmis)

Data Dictionary Description

The following are three examples of typical entries included in Appendix A: Questionnaire and Codebook. The first example illustrates a single-response question; the second, a multiple-response question; the third, a question with open-ended categories in Appendix B. The numbers in brackets [ ] do not appear in the actual text, but are references to the descriptions which follow the example.

Example 1: single-response question

[1] CARD #002

[2] 11.[3] In 1984 did anyone in your household receive any income from a business, farm, partnership or professional practice?

[4] INCLUDE PERSONS 16 OR OLDER ONLY

[5]

Yes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 [7] [8]

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 GO TO Q13 268

Don't know. . . . . . . . . . . .K 47 [6] [9]


[1]80-column "card image" number. The card number was for initial data entry. The number is not in the data file and is for reference use only.

[2]Question number. In each section, questions start from question 1. The number is not shown in the data file.

[3]Question wording. The wording is not in the data file.

[4][7] Instruction for interviewers. The instruction is not in the data file.

[5] Code of the variable. The codes are in the data file.

[6]Question skip. In this example, if respondent says "Yes," interviewer asks next question (Q. 12). But if respondent says "No" or "Don't Know," interviewer skips to Q.13 of the same section. This information is not in the data file.

[8]Variable number used to calculate the location of the variable in the ASCII file. In this example, the variable in the data file is identified as V268.

[9]The column number in 80-column "card image." The number was for initial data entry. The number is not in the data file and is for reference use only.

Example 2: multiple-response question

[1]15.[2] IF CHILDREN OUTSIDE THIS HOUSEHOLD HAVE DIFFERENT HOMES, CIRCLE ALL CODES THAT APPLY.

[3] With whom (does this child/do these children) live?

[4] [5] [6] [7]

At least 1 lives with other parent. . . . . . . . . .1/N1 105

At least 1 lives with other relative or guardian .2/N2 106

Live(s) at school. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 107

Live(s) at other institution (hospital or prison). 44 108

Other (SPECIFY) 55 109 [8] 46-50

[9]

[10] ENTER CODE `C' FOR ADULT #1 IN ROW 5 OF ADULT ROSTER AND BEGIN INTERVIEW


[1]Question number. In each section, questions start from question 1. The number is not shown in the data file.

[2]Instruction for interviewers. The instruction is not in the data file. In this example, the instruction asks interviewers to check ALL answers that would apply to the respondent's situation.

[3]Question wording. The wording is not in the data file.

[4] [6] Order of the multiple responses. The number is not in the data file.

[5]A symbol is recorded on the roster to determine whether or not respondent is a noncustodial parent ("N").

[7]Variable number used to calculate the location of the variable in the ASCII file. In this example, the numbers in the data file are identified as V105, V106, V107, V108, and V109, respectively.

3 examples --

<Example 1> If a respondent had 1 child living with the other parent, V105 is coded as 1 ("yes") and V106, V107, V108, and V109 are coded as 2 ("no"). Then, this respondent is identified as the noncustodial parent and will be asked about questions in Child Support Section later.

<Example 2> If a respondent had 2 children, one living with grandparents and the other living at school, V106 and V107 are coded as 1 ("yes"), and V105, V108, and V109 are coded as 2 ("no"). This respondent is identified as the noncustodial parent and will receive Child Support questions later.

<Example 3> If a respondent had 1 child living in somewhere else other than the other parent's home, the grandparent's home, school, or institutions, V109 is coded as 1 ("yes"), and V105, V106, V107, and V108 are coded as 2 ("no"). This respondent will skip the questions in the Child Support Section.

[8]Although this is in the format of an open-ended answer, all the responses are coded as 1 (Yes, the child lived with other people or places) or 2 (No, the child lived with the other parent, with other relatives, at school, or at institutions).

[9]The column number in 80-column "card image." The number was for initial data entry. The number is not in the data file and is for reference use only.

[10]A symbol is recorded on the roster to determine whether respondents will skip questions in the Child Support Section ("W"), or answer questions in the Child Support Section as a custodial ("C") or noncustodial parent ("N").

Example 3: question with open-ended categories

[1] 9.[2]The natural father is sometime made the legal father of the child(ren) even though he does not marry the child(ren)'s mother. The natural father becomes the legal father if he signs a statement agreeing that he is the father or if a court decides that he is the father.

I am going to describe some ways in which situations like this are handled. Please tell me which of these, if any, describes your situation.

[3]READ CATEGORIES UNTIL R SELECTS ONE. 509 23 [5]

[4]

[6] [7]

A court decides that the man is the child(ren)'s father 1 (GO TO Q.34)

A court decides that the man is not the child(ren)'s father 2 (GO TO Q.115)

The man signs a legal statement agreeing that he is

the child(ren)'s father 3 (GO TO Q.34)

The man disagrees that he is the father but does agree to

help support the child(ren) 4 (GO TO Q.34)

The man disagrees that he is the child(ren)'s father and

refuses to help support the child(ren) 5 (GO TO Q.115)

IF VOLUNTEERED none of these 6 (GO TO Q.10)

[8]10. [9] What happened in your situation?

[10] RECORD ANSWER VERBATIM


[1][8]Question number. In each section, questions start from question 1. The number is not shown in the data file.

[2][9]Question wording. The wording is not in the data file.

[3]Instruction for interviewers. The instruction is not in the data file. In this example, the instruction asks interviewers to read categories until respondents select one answer.

[4]The column number in 80-column "card image." The number was for initial data entry. The number is not in the data file and is for reference use only.

[5]Variable number used to calculate the location of the variable in the ASCII file. In this example, the variable in the data file is identified as V509.

[6] Code of the variable. The codes are in the data file.

[7]Question skip. In this example, interviewers are instructed to skip to different question in the same section. This information is not in the data file.

[10]Verbatim responses. The coding of the open-ended categories are documented in Appendix B. For example, V509 and V720 have the same question wording (Q. 10). Codes for open-ended categories are found in V699 and V921.


List of Appendices

In addition to this user's guide, there are 6 appendices available on request. They are:

Appendix A: Questionnaire and Codebook

Appendix B: Open-ended Categories

Appendix C: Question Flow Chart

Appendix D: Question Wording of the Response Category Experiment

Appendix E: Variable List

Appendix F: Variable Frequency Distributions and Value Labels


Ordering Data and Documentation

This data set is "Wisconsin Children, Incomes, and Program Participation Survey (CHIPPS) of 1985." To order a print copy of Appendices A, B, C, and D, contact:

Data and Information Services Center (DISC)
University of Wisconsin--Madison
Sewell Social Science Building, Room 3308
1180 Observatory Drive
Madison, WI 53706
disc@mailplus.wisc.edu

To order a copy of the following related publications, please contact the Institute for Research on Poverty.



Related Publications

Corbett, Thomas. 1986. "Introduction to CHIPPS: The 1985 Wisconsin Survey of Children, Incomes, and Program Participation." Unpublished Manuscript, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin-Madison, February.

Corbett, Thomas, Irwin Garfinkel, and Nora Cate Schaeffer. 1988. "Public Opinion about A Child Support Assurance System." Social Service Review, (62)(4)(Dec.): 632-48. Also published as Institute for Research on Poverty, Reprint No. 594 and Discussion Paper No. 834-87, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

MacDonald, Maurice. 1986. "Objectives, Procedures, and Sampling Results for CHIPPS (The 1985 Wisconsin Survey of Children, Incomes, and Program Participation)." Unpublished Manuscript, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin-Madison, February.

MacDonald, Maurice. 1986. "Economic and Demographic Characteristics of Custodial and Absent Parents in Wisconsin: Results from the Wisconsin Survey of Children, Incomes, and Program Participation (CHIPPS)." Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Paper, No. 809-86, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Seltzer, Judith A., Nora Cate Schaeffer, and Hong-Wen Charng. 1989. "Family Ties after Divorce: The Relationship between Visiting and Paying Child Support." Journal of Marriage and the Family 51:1013-31. Also published as Institute for Research on Poverty, Reprint No. 613, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Schaeffer, Nora Cate. 1989. "The Frequency and Intensity of Parental Conflict: Choosing Response Dimensions." Journal of Marriage and Family 51: 759-66.

Schaeffer, Nora Cate. 1990. "Principles of Justice in Judgments about Child Support." Social Forces 69: 157-79. Also published as Institute for Research on Poverty, Reprint No. 633 and Discussion Paper No. 852-87, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Schaeffer, Nora Cate and Hong-Wen Charng. 1991. "Two Experiments in Simplifying Response Categories: Intensity Ratings and Behavioral Frequencies." Sociological Perspectives (34): 165-82.