Search results

The Eurobarometer series is a unique cross-national and cross-temporal survey program conducted on behalf of the European Commission. These surveys regularly monitor public opinion in the European Union (EU) member countries and consist of standard modules and special topic modules. The standard modules address attitudes towards European unification, institutions and policies, measurements for general socio-political orientations, as well as respondent and household demographics. The special topic modules address such topics as agriculture, education, natural environment and resources, public health, public safety and crime, and science and technology.

This round of Eurobarometer surveys covers the following special topics: (1) vocational education and training (VET), (2) social situations and expectations, (3) family planning, (4) internal security of the European Union (EU), and (5) climate change. Questions pertain to level of education completed, work sector, opinions about and experience with VET, life satisfaction, expectations for the next 12 months, and life situations compared to 5 years ago. Also, opinions were collected on challenges to the security of the EU, as well as renewable energy in 2050.

Demographic and other background information collected includes age, gender, nationality, marital status and parental relations, occupation, age when stopped full-time education, household composition, ownership of a fixed or mobile telephone and other goods, difficulties in paying bills, level in society, and Internet use. In addition, country-specific data includes type and size of locality, region of residence, and language of interview (select countries).

The Eurobarometer series is a unique cross-national and cross-temporal survey program conducted on behalf of the European Commission. These surveys regularly monitor public opinion in the European Union (EU) member countries and consist of standard modules and special topic modules. The standard modules address attitudes towards European unification, institutions and policies, measurements for general socio-political orientations, as well as respondent and household demographics. The special topic modules address such topics as agriculture, education, natural environment and resources, public health, public safety and crime, and science and technology.

Eurobarometer 81.3 covered the following special topics: (1) Attitudes of European Citizens Towards the Environment and (2) Skills and Qualifications in the EU. Respondents' opinions were collected regarding their concern about environmental issues such as protection of natural resources, biodiversity, and pollution; their level of knowledge of these issues; and if they trusted various agencies such as the local government, trade unions, or consumer associations to provide reliable information about environmental issues. Respondents were also questioned about how environmental, social, and economic factors affected their quality of life, which group or groups were most responsible for addressing environmental issues, and which solutions they felt would have the strongest impact. Additional questions were asked regarding which skills were most important to achieve success in the workforce, where such skills could best be obtained, and the ease of accessing information on how to pursue educational opportunities to acquire these skills. Respondents were also asked about their socioeconomic position in society, whether their voice was being heard in the electoral system, and their opinions on if their home country and the European Union were generally going in the right or wrong direction.

Demographic and other background information collected includes age, gender, nationality, marital status, occupation, age when stopped full-time education, household composition, difficulties in paying bills, self-assessed level in society, self-assessed social class, and Internet use. In addition, country-specific data includes type and size of locality, region of residence, and language of interview (select countries).

The Evaluation of Florida's Avon Park Youth Academy and STREET Smart Program, 2002-2008 contains data gathered on youth involved in programs which aim to increase educational outcomes, increase labor force participation, and reduce recidivism.

Avon Park Youth Academy (APYA) is a secure custody residential facility that provides specialized, remedial education and intensive vocational training to moderate risk youth committed to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). The STREET Smart program (SS) was the reentry component of the program, which provided community support and educational and vocational services to APYA participants on a voluntary basis after their release to the community. In the last several years, APYA/SS has received national and international recognition as a "Promising Program" for juvenile offenders. Both the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) determined that a rigorous evaluation was required to assess whether APYA/SS could progress from a "Promising Program" to an "Evidence-based Practice."

To conduct this evaluation, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) designed and conducted a field trial that randomly assigned youth committed to DJJ to the APYA/SS program or a control group. This experimental design permitted a rigorous test of the hypothesis that compared to the control group, APYA/SS participants would demonstrate more positive educational achievement, increased labor force participation, and reduced recidivism outcomes after community release.

The 360 youth assigned to the experimental control group stayed at APYA for an average of 9.7 months from 2002-2005. Of these, 301 youth completed participation in the SS program by March 2006. The youth were observed for a three-year period after their community release dates. This included an interview following release from incarceration to collect data on educational achievements, employment, and justice system program experiences. All subjects had reached the 36-month follow-up threshold as of May 2008.

The Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG), administered by the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was created to provide education and training to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients and other low-income individuals for occupations in the healthcare field that pay well and are expected to either experience labor shortages or be in high demand.

HPOG programs are expected to target skills and competencies demanded by the healthcare industry; support career pathways; result in an employer- or industry-recognized certificate or degree; combine supportive services with education and training services to help participants overcome barriers to employment; and provide services at times and locations that are easily accessible to targeted populations.

In 2010, the first round of HPOG awards was made to 27 organizations located across 20 states to carry out five-year programs in their areas. The first round of HPOG grant awards is referred to as HPOG 1.0. In 2015, a second round of HPOG grant awards was made to 32 organizations located across 21 states for a new five-year period. This second round of grants is referred to as HPOG 2.0.

HPOG is authorized as a demonstration program with a mandated federal evaluation. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) is utilizing a multi-pronged evaluation strategy to document the operations and assess the success of the HPOG program. The evaluation strategy aims to provide information on program implementation, systems change, outcomes, and impacts.

This collection is organized into 22 data parts, including:

• 3 HPOG National Implementation Evaluation datasets of employers (DS1), grantees (DS2), and management and staff (DS3) surveys
• a HPOG 15-month follow-up survey dataset (DS4)
• an analysis file with HPOG participant covariates and outcomes (DS5)
• 6 Performance Reporting System (PRS) datasets
• 3 datasets from the Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education Evaluation (PACE) containing a subset of respondents who participated in both HPOG and PACE studies
• 5 datasets from the 3 year follow up impact reports (DS15 to DS20)
• 2 datasets from the 6 year follow up impact reports (DS21 and DS22)

The PRS is the federal management information system for HPOG grantees that was designed to support participant record and case management, program performance measurement, and program evaluation research.

• The Participant dataset (DS6) is at the person-level and contains background information on participants at the time of intake into the HPOG program.

• The Participant Supplemental dataset (DS7) is at the person-level and contains supplemental information for participants who participated in the HPOG impact evaluation.

• The Education dataset (DS8) contains the date and type of remedial pre-training activities of participants during the HPOG program. This dataset is at the training-level, with one row for each educational activity.

• The Employment dataset (DS9) contains the date and type of employment development activities of participants during the HPOG program, as well as job characteristics of participants who find employment. This dataset is at the employment activity level, with one row for each employment activity.

• The Services dataset (DS10) is at the person-level and contains the date and type of supportive services received by participants from the HPOG program.

• The Training dataset (DS11) contains the date and type of vocational training received by participants from the HPOG program. This dataset is at the training level, with one row for each occupational training activity.

The PACE study was designed to produce rigorous evidence for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers about the effectiveness of nine career pathways approaches that sought to increase credentials, employment, and self-sufficiency among low-income, low-skilled Americans. The 3 HPOG subset datasets from this study include the Basic Information Form Data File (DS12), the First Follow-Up Data File (DS13), and the Self-Administered Questionnaire Data File (DS14). For more information about the PACE study, please see its ICPSR study page (ICPSR #37289).

The follow-up impact report contains a 3 Year Updated Analysis Data File (DS15). Augmented Credentials Data File (DS16) contains data about previous academic and trade school accreditations. Augmented Job Spells Data File (DS17) pertains to the participant's duration of the training and income-based questions. Augmented School Spells Data File (DS18) contains data about the duration of education. Job Conditions Data File (DS19) pertains to job conditions and coworker support. Person Level Data File (DS20) contains person-level data on job benefits and conditions, training, income, self-perception, support networks, and childcare. The 6 year follow-up impact report contains a 6 year Updated Analysis Data File (DS21) and a 6 Year Survey Data File (D22).

Various demographic information, such as age, sex, race, and ethnicity, is also included in the data.

The purpose of the Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG) Program was to provide education and training to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients and other individuals with low incomes for occupations in the healthcare field that pay well and are expected to either experience labor shortages or be in high demand.

HPOG programs used the career pathways framework that combines education, occupational training, and support services to help participants enter and advance in a sequence of occupations within a specific sector or occupational cluster. Such programs seek to address many of the challenges that might prevent low-income and other disadvantaged adults from succeeding on a chosen pathway. For example, programs are flexible, with strong supports, and connect participants to employers and employment, including work-based learning opportunities. HPOG programs were expected to:

• target skills and competencies demanded by the healthcare industry
• support clearly defined career pathways
• result in an employer- or industry-recognized certificate or degree
• combine supportive services with education and training services to help participants overcome barriers to employment; and
• provide training and services at times and locations that are easily accessible to targeted populations.

Both rounds of HPOG funding were administered by the Office of Family Assistance (OFA) within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In 2010, OFA awarded a first round of five-year HPOG funding (HPOG 1.0) to 32 organizations located across 23 states. In 2015, OFA awarded a second round of HPOG funding (HPOG 2.0) to 32 organizations located across 21 states for a new five-year period.

Abt Associates and its partners conducted a National Evaluation of HPOG 2.0. The Abt research team (Abt) conducted in-depth interviews with program participants as part of the Descriptive Evaluation component of the National Evaluation. The goal of these in-depth interviews was to gain insights into the motivations, decision making, expectations, and experiences of HPOG 2.0 program participants. The sample included 153 program participants across 14 local HPOG 2.0 programs. Interviews were semi-structured and covered a common set of topics: career pathways; employment and education histories; experience of the HPOG 2.0 training; managing work, family, and training; and finances.

Quantitative data from HPOG 2.0 are available in ICPSR 38247.

The Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG), administered by the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was created to provide education and training to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients and other low-income individuals for occupations in the healthcare field that pay well and were expected to either experience labor shortages or be in high demand. Following on a first round of HPOG awards in 2010 ("HPOG 1.0"), a second round of 32 five-year grants across 21 states were funded in 2015 ("HPOG 2.0"). After an additional one-year extension, the HPOG 2.0 grants concluded in 2021.

Local HPOG programs were expected to target skills and competencies demanded by the healthcare industry; support career pathways; result in an employer- or industry-recognized certificate or degree; combine supportive services with education and training services to help participants overcome barriers to employment; and provide services at times and locations that are easily accessible to targeted populations.

HPOG was authorized as a demonstration program with a mandated federal evaluation. The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) is utilizing a multi-pronged evaluation strategy to document the operations and assess the success of the HPOG program. The evaluation strategy for HPOG 2.0 includes several key components:

• The impact evaluation randomly assigns eligible participants to either a treatment group that has access to HPOG services or a control group that does not have access to HPOG but can receive other services available in the community ("business as usual") to assess the impacts of the HPOG programs. Data from the short-term impact evaluation are DS1-DS5.
• The participant and program data includes baseline intake and services data, including data captured in the HPOG 2.0 Participant Accomplishment and Grant Evaluation System (PAGES), a participant tracking and program management system that included data on participant characteristics, engagement in activities and services, and training and employment outcomes. PAGES also included the activities and supports that grantees offered. HPOG 2.0 grantee staff entered data in PAGES. Data from baseline and PAGES are DS6-DS11.
• The descriptive evaluation includes implementation, outcomes, and local service delivery systems studies of the grants and will help interpret findings from the impact study. The descriptive study also includes in-depth qualitative interviews with a small sample of HPOG study participants. Data from the in-depth interviews are available in ICPSR 38561.
• The cost benefit analyses will assess the costs and benefits of a standard HPOG program. Data from this component are forthcoming.

For more information, users are encouraged to see the National Evaluation of the 2nd Generation of Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG 2.0 National Evaluation) on the OPRE website.

This dataset contains annual measures of training and vocational schools in the United States from 1990 through 2022. The data include counts, per capita densities, area densities, and employment figures for twelve categories of training and vocational establishments: business and secretarial schools, data processing schools, general educational services, beauty schools and barber colleges, vocational schools, dance schools, instruction schools and camps, arts and crafts schools, music and drama schools, vehicle driving schools, reading and speaking schools, and personal development schools.

The unit of analysis is either the Census Tract or ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA), with separate files standardized to 2010 Census Tract boundaries, 2020 Census Tract boundaries, 2010 ZCTA boundaries, and 2020 ZCTA boundaries. Each file covers all census tracts or ZCTAs in the fifty United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, and US island territories.

Business establishment data were drawn from the National Establishment Time Series (NETS) database, which was cleaned and geocoded to Census Bureau TIGER/Line shapefiles. Population denominators came from the American Community Survey and Decennial Census. The data cleaning protocol addressed known NETS limitations by re-geocoding addresses, standardizing SIC codes across time, collapsing duplicate records, and removing businesses located at residential addresses using Zillow's ZTRAX data.

Key variables include count (e.g., count_businesscho), per capita density per 1000 population (e.g., den_datascho), area density per square mile (e.g., aden_vocationscho), and total employment (e.g., emps_beautyscho) for each establishment category. The Census Tract 2020 dataset includes both tract_fips20 and tract_fips22 variables to accommodate Connecticut's 2022 county boundary changes.

The Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education (PACE) study was designed to produce rigorous evidence for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers about the effectiveness of nine career pathways approaches that sought to increase credentials, employment, and self-sufficiency among low-income, low-skilled Americans. Funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, PACE included nine program-specific evaluation reports. The study was led by Abt Associates, in partnership with MEF Associates, The Urban Institute, and the University of Michigan.

Each program-specific evaluation included an implementation study that examined the design and operation of the program and enrolled students' participation patterns, and an impact study that used an experimental design to measure differences in educational and employment outcomes between individuals randomly assigned to a group that could receive services from the PACE program (treatment group) and a group that could not but could participate in other services in the community (control group). Program impacts were measured 18 to 24 months following random assignment, depending on the program. Follow-up impact reports will cover three and six years after random assignment.

The collection includes the following 15 data files:

• Analysis Data File (9,242 cases; 152 variables)
• Basic Information Form Data File (9,242 cases; 79 variables)
• Case Manager/Advisor Data File (108 cases; 223 variables)
• Instructional Staff Data File (135 cases; 510 variables)
• Manager/Supervisor Data File (41 cases; 202 variables)
• First Follow-up Data File (7,139 cases; 1,432 variables)
• Self-Administered Questionnaire Data File (9,242 cases; 96 variables)
• 3 Year Updated Analysis Data File (9,242 cases; 1,676 variables)
• Augmented Credentials Data File (5,862 cases; 29 variables)
• Augmented Job Spells Data File (13,540 cases; 31 variables)
• Augmented School Spells Data File (7,013 cases; 29 variables)
• Job Conditions Data File (5,702 cases; 28 variables)
• Person Level Data File (6,772 cases; 290 variables)
• 6 Year Follow-up Survey Data File (3,279 cases; 322 variables)
• 6 Year Updated Analysis Data File (3,279 cases; 177 variables)

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

The Release data portion of the Pathways study contains information from 1,130 interviews ("release interviews") reflecting the youths' perceptions regarding various aspects of the residential experience and institutional environment (e.g., accounts of program operations and services provided, ratings regarding the participant's feelings of his or her safety in the facility). The release interview was conducted within 30 days prior to or after release from a facility and in a separate session apart from the time point interview. This was done to minimize the burden on the research participant and to ensure adequate attention to institutional ratings. The restricted time period within which to conduct the release interview reduced the likelihood that intervening events and experiences would skew the participant's recall of the stay.

Study participants could contribute more than one release interview, depending upon the number of institutional placements he/she had over the seven-year follow-up period. The current release data reflects ratings from 686 unique individuals. It should be recognized that not every institutional stay for every youth produced a release interview. On the basis of the number of reported institutional stays in the sample, it is estimated that a release interview was obtained for approximately 54 percent of the total number of residential stays experienced by study participants. Release interviews were missed if the research interviewer was not aware of the institutional stay (e.g. it occurred between time point interviews) or if the interviewer only became aware of the institutional stay at a point that was too late to schedule a release interview within the required window surrounding the release date.

The 686 individuals reflected in the release data represent 51 percent of the Pathway study participants (n=1,354) and 56 percent of Pathways participants who had a least one institutional stay (n=1,234; 120 Pathways youths had no institutional stays). On average, these 686 youths had 1.6 interviews. The number of interviews per unique person ranges from one to eight.

Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project (WRP) was one of the earliest statewide welfare reform programs initiated under waivers of federal welfare rules granted before the passage of the 1996 federal welfare reform law. This program, which operated from 1994 to 2001, was designed to increase work and reduce reliance on welfare. WRP required that welfare recipients work in a wage-paying job after they had received cash assistance for a specified number of months (30 months for single-parent families and 15 months for two-parent families). Recipients received help finding jobs and were offered minimum-wage community service jobs if they could not find unsubsidized employment. If a recipient did not comply with the work requirement, the state took control of their grant, used the money to pay their bills, and required them to attend frequent meetings at the welfare office. The WRP program also included a set of financial incentives that were intended to encourage and reward work. WRP served as a model for Vermont's current welfare program, which took effect in mid-2001.

This study provides users with most of the data that were used for the final report. Parents who were applying for or receiving cash assistance in Vermont between July 1994 and December 1996 were assigned, at random, to one of three groups: (1) the WRP group, whose members received the financial work incentives and were subject to the work requirement; (2) the WRP Incentives Only group, whose members received the incentives but were not subject to the work requirement; or (3) the Aid to Needy Families with Children (ANFC) group, whose members remained subject to the pre-WRP welfare rules, which included neither the incentives nor the work requirement. Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) followed all three groups for six years, using computerized records and a survey.

Data sources for this study were the Vermont and New Hampshire unemployment insurance earning records, Vermont ANFC (Aid to Needy Children) records, food stamp records, and other administrative records, as well as a survey questionnaire based on the quality of their jobs, wages, education, welfare use, education, job training, children's education, and childcare.