1 / 51

Center on Philanthropy Panel Study What’s new, dynamic analysis, and COPPS in the classroom

Center on Philanthropy Panel Study What’s new, dynamic analysis, and COPPS in the classroom. ARNOVA 37 th Annual Conference Philadelphia November 22, 2008. Panelists. Mark Wilhelm IUPUI Economics Center on Philanthropy at IU Richard Steinberg IUPUI Economics

brian
Download Presentation

Center on Philanthropy Panel Study What’s new, dynamic analysis, and COPPS in the classroom

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Center on Philanthropy Panel StudyWhat’s new, dynamic analysis, and COPPS in the classroom ARNOVA 37th Annual Conference Philadelphia November 22, 2008

  2. Panelists Mark Wilhelm IUPUI Economics Center on Philanthropy at IU Richard Steinberg IUPUI Economics Center on Philanthropy at IU Eleanor Brown Pomona College Economics

  3. Acknowledgements Patrick Rooney IUPUI Economics Interim Executive Director, Center on Philanthropy at IU UnaOsili IUPUI Economics Interim Research Director, Center on Philanthropy at IU Center Staff

  4. Funding support Atlantic Philanthropies funded 2001, 2003, 2005. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is funding the 2007 and 2009 data collection, and this data dissemination work. Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund also funded the 2007 data collection. Center on Philanthropy 20th Anniversary Sponsors, Faculty & Staff, and other sponsors also are funding the 2009 data collection.

  5. Outline of the Presentation COPPS and PSIDquick overview. What’s new in 2007 & 2009. Linking one year of COPPS to more PSID data from that year. Dynamic analysis: linking COPPS data from the same people over time. Linking COPPS to geographical data.

  6. Outline (continued) Using COPPS in the classroom. Additional training opportunities. Ask questions!

  7. What is COPPS? • Data on giving and volunteering collected from 8,000 American families. • The same 8,000 families are interviewed every other year. • The study is a module within the long-running Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). • PSID is among the nation’s best data resources for social science research.

  8. PSID Design National sample: 5,000 families in 1968. 8,002 families in 2005. Genealogical panel: children forming own families are followed. High response rates (96% or higher, wave-to- wave) Re-contact families that have gone non- response.

  9. PSIDDesign (continued) Subsamples: ◦1968 – nationally-representative. ◦1968 – low-income oversample. ◦1997 – immigrant refresher. 2,708 families head or spouse is African- American. 558 families head or spouse is Hispanic ethnicity.

  10. Instruments in the PSID Family survey (“core”). ◦1968-97 annual, 1999-biennial. ◦8,002 families in 2005. Child Development Supplement (CDS) ◦2,017 families, 2,908 children in 2002. ◦1997, 2002, 2007. ◦Primary care giver interview, child interview. Transition into Adulthood (TA) ◦745 young adults in 2005, 1,118 in 2007.

  11. Income(CPS quality) Employment, wages, job characteristics Expenditures Housing Education Child care Govt. programs Wealth, savings Health and health care costs Marriage and fertility history Charitable giving Volunteering Religion Domains in family data core

  12. Religious (congregations) Basic necessities Health Neighborhoods & communities International aid Unit of analysis: family unit – husband & wife Combined funds (United Way, etc.) Education Youth & family services Environment Arts Open ended Charitable giving

  13. Religious (congregations) Senior citizens Social change Unit of analysis: husband & wife Children & youth People in poor health People in need Open ended Volunteering

  14. Religious service attendance • Unit of analysis: husband & wife

  15. Data availability • Easy-to-use extracts: ◦http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/Research/ giving_fundraising_research.aspx#COPPS ▪Click on “COPPS data extracts” ◦ 2001, 2003, 2005. ◦ 2007 projected to be available in Spring 2009.

  16. What’s new in 2007 & 2009 • Charitable giving just as in 2003 & 2005, but . . . • . . . there will be no volunteering and religious attendance data.

  17. Strengths Content domains. Data quality. Life course. Panel: public policy effects. Dynamics. Intergenerational.

  18. Linking the extract to other PSID data:One year • The PSID web site: http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/ • PSID Data Center: http://simba.isr.umich.edu/ Searchable→ Data cart. • User Guide Tutorial #1.

  19. One year (continued) • PSIDautomatically provides “Family interview number” that you merge to the “Family ID” (fid) in the easy-to-use extract.

  20. Dynamic analysis: Linking the extracts to PSID data from several years • Following “stable” families over the years is easy: ◦ “Stable” means single head does not partner, or head and spouse stay together. ◦ Stable is important for giving analysis: unit of analysis is the family. ◦ Get the unique identifier for the person who is the head in (say) 2005.

  21. Dynamic analysis (continued) • Stable (continued) ◦ Unique identifier is the “1968 Family ID” and the “Person number” (Last name, first name). ◦ Follow that person back through time, getting his/her 2003, 2001 Family IDs. ◦ 2005 “Family composition change” identifies the families stable over 2003-2005. ◦ Tutorial . . .

  22. Dynamic analysis (continued) ◦ Tutorial http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Guide/tutorials/ Default.aspx ▪ User Guide Tutorial #2 ▫ Also shows you how to use the Data Center. ▫ Tutorials show you how to get data in Excel spreadsheets that you can then use in the classroom.

  23. Dynamic analysis (continued) • Following families in transition is complicated: ◦ Decide which 2005 person – head or spouse you will follow back. ◦ Usually, follow the person with the PSID “gene.” ◦ Then, same as following the stable families. ◦ Tutorial: User Guide Tutorial #3

  24. Linking COPPS to geographical data • State identifiers are in the publicly available data. • By special contract you can get the PSID-Geocode Match files. ◦ Match to Census data at the county, MSA, tract & block level. ◦ https://ssl.isr.umich.edu/psid/geocode

  25. Statistics (Bus. and Economics) Fund Development for Nonprofits (SPEA 558) Nonprofit &Voluntary Sector (SPEA 521) Econometrics (undergraduate) Econometrics (graduate) Applied Microeconomics I Applied Microeconomics II Nonprofit Economy & Public Policy COPPS in the Classroom

  26. COPPS in the Classroom (continued) Use the easy-to-use extracts to give students data on giving or volunteering in an EXCEL spreadsheet. Descriptive statistics & cross-tabs. Term papers. Replication studies.

  27. Weights Descriptive statistics ◦ Use the family weight and all observations or ◦ Skip the weights and use the nationally- representative subsample. Regressions ◦ Descriptive: use family weights and all observations. ◦ Behavioral: depends on assumptions about homogeneity.

  28. Training opportunities On-line tutorials at PSID. On-line User Guide at PSID. ◦ http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Guide/UG/tablcont.html ◦ Hill, Martha. 1992. The panel study of income dynamics. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Inter-university Consortium for Political & Social Research (ICPSR) Summer Program has offered a “PSID course”, but infrequently. ◦ Check: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/sumprog/

  29. Training opportunities (continued) Statacourses: ◦ Net courses: good & cheap. ◦ Public courses: in person, but more expensive. ◦ http://www.stata.com/

  30. Research opportunities Content domains. ◦ Effect of un-realized wealth changes on giving. Life course. ◦ Effect of past on current giving. ◦ Effect of life transitions. Panel: public policy effects. ◦ Taxes. ◦ Crowd-out (the geocodes).

  31. Research opportunities (continued) Dynamics. ◦ Giving now as a function of giving in the past. Intergenerational. ◦ Giving now as a function of parent giving now. ◦User Guide Tutorials #5a and 5b.

  32. The end

  33. Health, well-being Psychological, social well-being Family environment School environment Education Intellectual achievement Time use Future expectations about schooling, work Sibling relationships Spending, saving Parenting Caregiver social, psychological resources Absent parents Religion Domains in the CDS

  34. Income Work, wages Expenditures Housing Education Skills, abilities Time use Responsibilities Wealth Expectations Health Social and psychological well-being Marriage, dating Child rearing Parent relationships Religion Domains in the TA

  35. Religion content – family data core Religious preference. Attendance. 1968-1972, 2003-05 Religious giving. 2001-09 Religious volunteering. 2003-05 Tsunami relief through place of worship. 2005 Important to leave inheritance to religious org.? 2007 Help from a church. 1999-2003, 2001-05

  36. CDS Primary care giver:About self Attendance at religious clubs & activities other than services. ◦also reported for other care giver & child. Importance of religion (apart from attendance at services). Importance of spirituality/faith (apart from religion). If parent(s) absent: How often does absent parent(s) attend religious activities with child?

  37. CDS Primary care giver:About child (ages 6 and older) Child’s attendance at religious services. ◦also reported for other care giver & child. Child’s participation in religious activities. ◦Which activities? ◦How much time? Talk to child about giving money (all ages).

  38. CDS Child:About self (ages 12 and older) Present religion (open-ended). If religion named: ◦Importance of religion. ◦How much comfort from your religion. ◦Attendance at services. ◦Attendance at clubs & activities. If religion = none (dk, rf): ◦Are you a spiritual person? ◦If yes:  How important is spirituality to you?  How much comfort from your spirituality?

  39. CDS Child (continued) How many of your friends go to church regularly? (ages 10 and older) Give money? (ages 8 and older) 02, 07.

  40. CDS Child:Time diary Attending services and/or participating: ◦Ushering, singling in choir, etc. Religious practice, individual or in a small group: ◦Praying, meditating, etc. Religious helping groups: ◦Missionary society, youth groups, etc.

  41. CDS Child:Time diary (continued) Other groups: ◦Bible study, not primarily helping-related. Weekday, weekend. 97, 02, 07.

  42. Transition into Adulthood Religious preference (open-ended). If preference named: ◦Importance of religion. ◦Attendance at services. All asked: ◦Are you a spiritual person? ◦If yes:  How important is spirituality to you?

  43. Transition into Adulthood (continued) Volunteer – religious groups, not including worship. 05, 07.

  44. Religious schooling CDS asks primary care giver (97, 02, 07): Did child ever attend religious school (instead of a public school)? ◦Which grades? Core respondent asked same questions of all others in the family (95).

  45. Examples of previous research Religiosity & risk tolerance (Siegel 2005). Religious giving & cohort change (Wilhelm et al. 2007). Religious giving: intergenerational transmission (Wilhelm et al. 2008). Religious groups: generosity (Smith et al. 2008).

  46. Promising research areas Effect of religion on adult outcomes: ◦ labor market, earnings, saving, consumption, welfare receipt, education, marriage, divorce, fertility, health, mental health, generosity, volunteering. Children’s religious development. Effect of religion on children’s development: ◦ cognitive development, social development, risky behavior, health. Effect of religion on parenting: ◦ parenting styles, warmth, investment.

  47. Promising research areas (continued) Effect of religion the transition to adulthood. Intergenerational transmission of attendance. ◦ three generations. Attendance over the life-cycle. Marriage across religious groups → outcomes.

  48. Getting started Data extracts: 01, 03, 05 core family data. http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/Research/giving_fundraising_research.aspx#COPPS Full data: http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/

  49. What’s on the horizon? Religion module in the 2011 wave (contingent on funding). Religious preference update. ◦ More detail. Theological orientation. ◦ Biblical literalism. ◦ Importance. ◦ Conservative/liberal.

  50. Template title • Template text ataon giving and volunteering collected from 8,000 American families. • Template text same 8,000 families are if I want interviewed every other year. • Template text (PSID). • •◦▫▪

More Related