My da|ra Login

Detailed view

metadata language: English

Community Healthy Marriage Initiative Survey for Six Cities, 2007-2010

Version
v3
Resource Type
Dataset : survey data
Creator
  • Lerman, Robert (Urban Institute)
  • Bir, Anupa (RTI International)
Other Title
  • Version 3 (Subtitle)
Publication Date
2014-04-29
Funding Reference
  • United States Department of Health and Human Services. Administration for Children and Families
Language
English
Free Keywords
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
Description
  • Abstract

    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.
  • Abstract

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

    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.
  • Methods

    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..
  • Methods

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

    Datasets:

    • DS0: Study-Level Files
    • DS1: Round 1 Cross-sectional
    • DS2: Round 2 Cross-sectional
    • DS3: Longitudinal Weights
Temporal Coverage
  • 2007-10 / 2008-03
    Time period: 2007-10--2008-03
  • 2009-10 / 2010-03
    Time period: 2009-10--2010-03
  • 2007 / 2010
    Collection date: 2007--2010
Geographic Coverage
  • Cleveland
  • Dallas
  • Fort Worth
  • Kansas City (Missouri)
  • Milwaukee
  • Missouri
  • Ohio
  • St. Louis
  • Texas
  • United States
  • Wisconsin
Sampled 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). Smallest Geographic Unit: ZIP code
Sampling
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.
Collection Mode
  • computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI), computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI)

    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.

Note
2014-10-02 Updated restricted use documentation.2014-09-26 Updated the collection to include release of public-use documentation. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Health and Human Services. Administration for Children and Families (233-03-0035).
Availability
Download
One or more files in this study are not available for download due to special restrictions; consult the study documentation to learn more on how to obtain the data.
Alternative Identifiers
  • 34719 (Type: ICPSR Study Number)
Relations
  • Is new version of
    DOI: 10.3886/ICPSR34719.v2
Publications
  • Bir, Anupa, Lerman, Robert, Corwin, Elise, MacIlvain, Brian, Beard, Allison, Richburg, Kelly, Smith, Kevin. Impacts of a Community Healthy Marriage Iniatitive. Final Report.OPRE # 2012–34A, Washington, DC: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. 2012.
    • ID: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/chmi_impactreport.pdf (URL)
  • Bir, Anupa, Lerman, Robert, Kofke-Egger, Heather, Nichols, Austin, Smith, Kevin. The Community Healthy Marriage Initiative: Impacts of a Community Approach to Strengthening Families. Technical Supplement.OPRE # 2012–3, Washington, DC: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. 2012.
    • ID: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/chmi_impact_analysis_tech.pdf (URL)

Update Metadata: 2015-08-05 | Issue Number: 6 | Registration Date: 2015-06-16

Lerman, Robert; Bir, Anupa (2014): Community Healthy Marriage Initiative Survey for Six Cities, 2007-2010. Version 3. Version: v3. ICPSR - Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34719.v3