This study is provided by ICPSR. ICPSR provides leadership and training in data access, curation, and methods of analysis for a diverse and expanding social science research community.

Community Healthy Marriage Initiative Survey for Six Cities, 2007-2010 (ICPSR 34719)

Principal Investigator(s): Lerman, Robert, Urban Institute; Bir, Anupa, RTI International


The Community Healthy Marriage Initiative (CHMI) evaluation was designed to evaluate community-level impacts of various relationship and marriage education programs. This study compared three sites which received grant funding from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) (Dallas, Texas; St. Louis, Missouri; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin) with three cities that did not receive grant-funding (Fort Worth, Texas; Kansas City, Missouri; and Cleveland, Ohio) to determine what impacts grant funding has on these types of programs. This collection includes two rounds of surveys, one conducted in 2007 and one conducted in 2009, for longitudinal comparison. Respondents were asked a series of questions regarding their knowledge of relationship and marriage education programs in their area, including where they had learned of the classes, what source of advertising they had heard or seen, whether they knew where the classes were held, and whether they had discussed the classes with someone else. Information was collected to gauge respondents' participation in these courses, including whether they had taken a class in the previous 18 months, how long they attended the courses, whether they had received other services as a result of attending the classes, and whether they had suggested the classes to someone else. Respondents were also queried on whether they would be interested in attending a relationship class or a parenting class. Additional topics included parental relationships with their children, and relationship quality. Demographic variables include relationship status, household composition, employment status, parental status, race, age, and household income.

Access Notes

  • Data in this collection are available only to users at ICPSR member institutions. Please log in so we can determine if you are with a member institution and have access to these data files.

    One or more files in this collection have special restrictions ; consult the restrictions note to learn more.

    This data collection may not be used for any purpose other than statistical reporting and analysis. Use of these data to learn the identity of any person or establishment is prohibited. To protect respondent privacy, this data collection is restricted from general dissemination. To obtain this file, researchers must agree to the terms and conditions of a Restricted Data Use Agreement in accordance with existing ICPSR servicing policies.


DS0:  Study-Level Files
DS1:  Round 1 Cross-sectional
No downloadable data files available.
DS2:  Round 2 Cross-sectional
No downloadable data files available.
DS3:  Longitudinal Weights
No downloadable data files available.

Study Description


Lerman, Robert, and Anupa Bir. Community Healthy Marriage Initiative Survey for Six Cities, 2007-2010. ICPSR34719-v3. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2014-10-02. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34719.v3

Persistent URL: https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34719.v3

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote XML (EndNote X4.0.1 or higher)


This study was funded by:

  • United States Department of Health and Human Services. Administration for Children and Families (233-03-0035)

Scope of Study

Subject Terms:    child rearing, children, community organizations, counseling, counseling services, domestic violence, education, educational programs, families, family conflict, family counseling, family history, family life, family relationships, family services, family structure, household composition, income, job history, marriage, marriage counseling, media use, parental attitudes, parenting skills, parents, public housing, public opinion, social services, social support, spouse abuse, spouses

Smallest Geographic Unit:    ZIP code

Geographic Coverage:    Cleveland, Dallas, Fort Worth, Kansas City (Missouri), Milwaukee, Missouri, Ohio, St. Louis, Texas, United States, Wisconsin

Time Period:   

  • 2007-10--2008-03
  • 2009-10--2010-03

Date of Collection:   

  • 2007--2010

Unit of Observation:    individual

Universe:    The universe for this collection includes 18- to 49-year-olds residing in the three demonstration communities (Dallas, Texas; St. Louis, Missouri; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin) and three comparison communities (Fort Worth, Texas; Kansas City, Missouri; and Cleveland, Ohio).

Data Type(s):    survey data

Data Collection Notes:

The variable PUBLICID is the individual-level linking variable for the three datasets.

The collection contains SAS and Stata program files which may be used to construct a longitudinal data set. Please refer to the Original P.I. Documentation for more information.

Several variables in the Round 1 and Round 2 data had responses which contained direct identifiers. To prevent disclosure risk, these responses have been masked using asterisks. Please see the ICPSR Codebook for additional information.

For additional information regarding the Community Healthy Marriage Initiative Survey for Six Cities, 2007-2010, please refer to the RTI Web site.


Study Purpose:    The purpose of CHMI was to examine the impacts of a community-wide effort aimed at improving relationship skills and increasing healthy marriage.

Sample:    The Community Healthy Marriage Initiative (CHMI) baseline sample was designed as a two-stage stratified random sample. In the first stage, address lists were purchased from the United States Postal Service of all households located within the specified ZIP codes for each of the six communities. The ZIP codes defined "service areas," or the areas where Community Healthy Marriage (CHM) programs expected to focus service delivery. The address lists formed the sampling frame for each community. The sampling frame was stratified by three variables: (1) access to CHM providers, (2) age, and (3) race/ethnicity, in Dallas and Fort Worth only, where diversity was more evident. Stratification served the purposes of controlling the variance on the selected variables, by ensuring the population distribution was preserved in the selected sample, forming groups for oversampling, and ensuring a geographic spread of the sample cases across the service areas. The follow-up sample consisted of all people who answered the baseline survey, plus a simple random sample of individuals who had attended marriage education activities at CHMI organizations.

Time Method:    Longitudinal

Weight:    Weights are included for each round of data collection, in addition to a separate set of weights for longitudinal analysis. The weighting formula accounted for probability of selection and for those individuals who were in the sampling frame of both the longitudinal survey and the participant survey.

Mode of Data Collection:    computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI), computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI)

Response Rates:    The response rate for the baseline sample was 73.6 percent. The response rate for the participant sample was 53.7 percent.

Extent of Processing:   ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

  • Created variable labels and/or value labels.
  • Standardized missing values.
  • Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.


Original ICPSR Release:   2014-04-29

Version History:

  • 2014-10-02 Updated restricted use documentation.
  • 2014-09-26 Updated the collection to include release of public-use documentation.

Related Publications


Metadata Exports

If you're looking for collection-level metadata rather than an individual metadata record, please visit our Metadata Records page.

Download Statistics