School directors districts - Refer to the school district coverage for most up to date district boundary changes. In Washington, members of the local school board are called school directors. As a group, they provide governance of the school district. That leadership promotes student achievement through planning, policy setting, advocacy and monitoring performance so each and every student succeeds. The school board makes decisions and sets policy regarding matters such as bond and levy elections, budget adoption, facilities, curriculum adoption, employee relations, and transportation. Each school district has an elected 5 member school board. The school district is divided into 5 director districts (with the exception of Griffin School District) and the candidate must live in the director district they run in. Everyone in the whole school district gets to vote on all the director district candidates. Every 10 years the director district boundaries are adjusted to reflect population changes. Last updated on 28 February 2017 by KLB.

Abstract

The main objective of the interventions supported by this impact evaluation is to strengthen linkages between communities and school to improve education outcomes. Rigorous evidence generated from the research will provide valuable information to Pakistani policy makers, donors and development practitioners on the ways in which school based management reforms can be strengthened in low-governance environments like Sindh, Pakistan. The findings of this research are valuable for the ongoing dialogue with the GoSindh on school based management, one of the critical reform area supported under the Second Sindh Education Sector Program (SEP-II).

The impact evaluation is a component of the World Bank's ongoing technical and advisory support to the Government of Sindh for improving the quality and performance of government primary schools as part of its medium-term, multi-pronged Sindh Education Sector Reform Program (SERP-II). An important subprogram under SERP and SERP-II has been the revitalization of school management committees (SMCs) in government schools, with the provision of annual school improvements grants and basic guidelines on SMCs rights, roles and responsibilities across Sindh province. An area of concern in these early efforts has been poor or dissipating community interest and engagement. The interventions piloted in select districts of rural Sindh were designed by the World Bank in partnership with the Reform Support Unit, which is the implementation arm of the Education and Literacy Department of GoSindh. The aim of these interventions was to explore concrete ways to elicit meaningful and sustained local community engagement in improving education outcomes.

Both the baseline survey and the interventions were implemented in three pilot districts in 2012 and 2013. The core intervention being evaluated is community engagement to revitalize SMCs under two distinct mechanisms: 1) a community-level meeting to engage the community in a dialogue for school improvement via SMCs; 2) a virtual network of community members to engage in a similar dialogue supported through text messages on mobile phones.

The first intervention arm makes use of an existing social platform, enabling community members to participate in traditional meetings to acquire information and engage the community in dialogue and discussion on school-related issues. The second arm has created an innovative virtual platform through which registered community members receive school-related information, anonymously send text messages about these issues and receive a summary of key observations or issues twice every month.

The baseline survey, documented here, was implemented in January 2012 - January 2013. There is no midline survey for this study. The endline survey will start in January 2015.

Geographic coverage

Mirpur Khas, Mitiari and Sanghar districts in Sindh province.

Analysis unit

The unit of randomization for the intervention is a village.

Administered questionnaires have the following units of analysis: individuals (teachers, students, parents), households, schools, and communities.

Universe

All primary schools and rural households in Mirpur Khas, Mitiari and Sanghar districts in Sindh province.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The districts chosen for the study were based on district ranks in terms of school density in the district and school participation rates from the Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement Survey (PSLM) and Administrative School Census (ASC) data respectively. One district each was chosen from the low, middle and top category to make an overall representative sample of rural Sindh. By this method, the final districts selected were Mirpur Khas, Mitiari and Sanghar. Using the ASC data in terms of number of schools, Mitiari was ranked the third smallest district, Mirpur Khas was ranked at number twelve (middle rank) and Sanghar at number eighteen (top rank). Using the PSLM for education indicators (proportion of adults who ever attended school and school participation rate of primary-age children), Sanghar ranked at the top followed by Mitiari (median) and lastly by Mirpur Khas.

The Administrative School Census (ASC) data is collected by the Government of Sindh every year to provide an updated list of primary schools in all districts of Sindh. The census data for 2010-2011 was used to randomly draw 300 villages within our sample districts. However, because of poor quality of administrative census data, researchers conducted a census listing of all households and also mapped all primary schools in these 300 villages to set the population frame for the study.

• School Sampling Strategy

The school sampling strategy was primarily to target all primary schools in the main settlement that were either open on the day of visit or closed for a period of less than one year. In addition, 15% of the remaining schools in these villages were also surveyed to capture spillover effects. For villages with no school in the main settlement, all schools located out of the main settlement were surveyed1. For villages that did not meet these criteria, all schools were sampled even if the school was closed for more than one year. 4 villages had to be dropped because no school was found in village-level mapping of primary schools.

• Household Sampling Strategy

The household sampling strategy for each village was to randomly select 20 households from the main settlement and 8 households from the peripheral settlements conditional on the household having at least one child of school going age (5-16 years). From this list, the first 16 households were to be surveyed and in case the head of the household was not available, the household was substituted from the list of four buffer households. For the peripheral settlement, any 4 out of the 8 households were surveyed2. In addition, household questionnaires were also administered to all SMC members from the target schools, approximately 4 households in a village.

Overall, on the school level 514 school, 454 head teacher, 409 teacher and 4,573 student questionnaires were administered. On the household level, 6,505 head of the household, 6,503 spouse, 5,281 child and 901 school management committee questionnaires were administered.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

School Surveys

Detailed data on school-level variables such as enrollment, attendance, teacher on-task, facilities, school committees, funding and expenditure were collected through a set of four questionnaires: School Observation, Teacher Roster, Head Teacher and Teacher Questionnaire. In addition, a list of School Management Committees (SMC) members was enumerated at the school-level for household surveys.

School Observation Questionnaire

School questionnaire consisted of five sections and was based on the observation of the enumerator about school building, facilities, hygiene conditions, on-going classroom practices and teacher activities. The questionnaire also required the enumerator to record school GPS coordinates and school visit details.

Head Teacher Questionnaire

Head Teacher questionnaire compromised of two parts: information based on the head teacher’s knowledge and information based on official school records. The first part gathered data on the respondent’s personal and professional background as well as his knowledge of students, school facilities and SMC. The second part collected official school details on school improvement plan, enrollment, attendance, fee, SMC funds and expenditures.

School Teacher Questionnaire

Teacher questionnaire consisted of nine sections and was administered to all teachers present in the school . It gathered the personal and professional information of the teacher as well as his perceptions on SMC functionality, student learning and returns to education.

Teacher Roster Questionnaire

Teacher Roster collected information on teachers that are currently teaching in the school and those that left or transferred over the last two years. The survey recorded teacher information on attendance, contact number, gender, contract type, pay scale and class taught. For teachers that have left, it also covered information on reasons for leaving school. The information for the roster is to be provided by the head teacher or the senior most teacher in the school.

Household Surveys

The baseline survey also covered households to gather information on demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, parent choices about child’s school, parent engagement with school’s SMC, adult perceptions of returns to schooling and quality of learning through four set of questionnaires: Household Roster, Household Head Questionnaire, Spouse of Head Questionnaire and SMC Member Questionnaire.

Household Roster Questionnaire

The household roster questionnaire collected information about gender, age, marital status, education and job status of all members of the household. This roster information was filled by the head of the household but in case of his absence, the survey was filled by other members that were required to explain their relationship to the head.

Head of the Household Questionnaire

The head of the household questionnaire consisted of fifteen sections and collected detailed information on family members, education, consumption pattern, business details, household expenditures and incomes. It also recorded information on about the respondent’s aspirations, awareness about the SMC, trust in the education system and perceptions about returns to education and quality of learning in the respective school.

Questionnaire for Female

This study builds on a one-year pilot project conducted in a single county in Northern Mississippi and funded by the Ford Foundation which examined the social factors underlying the formation, coping and survival strategies of female-headed households in the rural south. This study expands the pilot study to include four rural counties in the United States. It examines the lives of low-income female-headed households in these counties, including the support network of the participants, job opportunities available to them, their coping mechanisms, their relationships with men, the organization and administration of the local public welfare and social service delivery system, and the political and civic environment of a rural community. Participants were asked to describe aspects of the community in which they live, the state-supported services available to them, and the work opportunities available. Approximately 18-24 Black and White women heads of households in this study were selected from each of two counties in Mississippi and two counties in Tennessee. They were between 20 and 40 years of age, and of mixed socioeconomic backgrounds. Social service agency heads, fathers, school superintendents, and business leaders were also interviewed. Participants were located through local headstart programs, through schools, referrals from social service agencies, and through the participants themselves. Data were collected through semi-structured, open ended life history interviews with the women, and extensive interviews with local political and civic leaders, managers and owners of local businesses, politicians, and welfare department directors and staff members. Variables assessed include family background, household composition, education, children, childcare, networks, religious organizations and activities, childbearing and goals and practices, employment, ways to supplement income, relationships, marital plans and values, fertility, health care, food and diet, housing, community and volunteer organizations, politics, income and income distribution, public aid/welfare department, race relations, and life events. A questionnaire was administered to the fathers assessing demographics, employment, family background, children, child support, extended family networks, marriage, religion, and the relationship with the child's mother. Social service agency heads were asked about the organizational structure of their jobs, how the agency was funded, the main problems in the community, the most important public and service organizations in the community, how effective their agency was in providing services to the community, how local businesses and industries respond to community needs, what they believed to be the most important cause of poverty in America, and they were asked typical community concern questions. The business leaders were asked to describe opportunities, obstacles, and prospects for different kinds of economic development in the county, the kind of labor force available and the skill level required, and their views on the problem of poverty in the county. School superintendents were asked about the special needs of the children from female headed households, about funds available for special programs, about teaching staff, mentors, drug problems in the schools, and receiving support from the school board members. Lastly, welfare department personnel were asked about the main problems in the community, how the local businesses and industries were responding to community needs, and if enough money was being spent on unemployment, housing, healthcare, and the general welfare of the community. The Murray Archive holds additional analogue materials for this study (audiotape and electronic text files of the interviews). If you would like to access this material, please apply to use the data. Audio Data Availability Note: This study contains audio data that have been digitized. There are 442 audio files available.

Abstract

The Nauru Population and Housing Census 2011 is funded by UNFPA and AusAID. Technical assistant was provided by the SPC/SDP from Noumea. The Census night took place on 30th October 2011 at 12 midnight. The fieldwork was scheduled to complete in 2 weeks and the final schedule was given 1-2 weeks extension time for supervisor's editing of forms.

Geographic coverage

• National
• District
• Enumeration area
• Household members

Analysis unit

Region/EA Identity Household questionnaire Person questionnaire

Universe

The survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents), all household, all population, all age, all sex, all nationality

Kind of data

Census/enumeration data [cen]

Sampling procedure

Not applicable to a full enumeration census

Sampling deviation

Not applicable to a full enumeration census

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Cleaning operations

Data editing took place at a number of stages throughout the processing, including: a) Office editing and coding b) During data entry c) Structure checking and completeness d) Secondary editing

Response rate

96%

Sampling error estimates

Not applicable to a full enumeration census

Data appraisal

Data quality tables are available to review the quality of the data and include the following:

Table H1. District by Type of building Table H2. District by Materials of Outerwalls Table H3. District by Period building first constructed Table H4. District by type of tenure Table H5A. District by Number of household rooms Table H5B. District by Number of household dining rooms Table H5C. District by Number of household kitchen Table H5D. District by Number of household total rooms Table H6. District by Shared bathroom Table H7. District by Shared kitchen Table H8A. District by Materials of roofing Table H8B. District by Roofing condition Table H9A. District by Materials of guttering Table H9B. District by Condition of guttering Table H10A. District by Materials for downpipe Table H10B. District by Condition for downpipe Table H11. District by Downpipe connected to storage Table H12. District by Main source of drinking water Table H13. District by Main source of water in general Table H14. District by Water storage capacity Table H15. District by Material of water storage Table H16. District by water availability during 'dry' periods Table H17. District by household sharing main water supply Table H18. District by Source of water when scarce Table H19A. District by purpose of underground water usage Table H19B. District by Abstraction of underground water usage Table H20. District by Main toilet facility Table H21. District by Toilet flushed with water sources Table H22. District by Toilet flushed drainage system type Table H23A.District by items working order (For sustaining quality of life) Table H23B. District by items working order (ICT and communications) Table H23C. District by items working order (Commercial or subsistence value) Table H24. District by Main source of lighting Table H25. District by main fuel for cooking Table H26. District by main source of electricity Table H27. District by Household subsistence activities Table H28. District by household have a kitchen garden Table H29. District by Agricultural Activities Table H30. District by Livestock Table H31. District by Cash Inflow during last three months Table H32. District by any household member died last 3 years

Table 1 . Total Households and Population by District Nauru:2011 Table 2. District by Broad Age Group and P2. Sex, Nauru:2011 Table 3. Population by single age by sex, Nauru:2011 Table 4. Population by District and 5 year age group and sex, NAURU:2011 Table 5. Population by District, Relationship to head of household by sex, NAURU:2011 Table 6 . Population by 5 year age group, and relationship to head of household by sex, NAURU:2011 Table 7. Population by District and Religion, Nauru:2011 Table 8. Population by religion, 5 year age group,Nauru:2011 Table 9. Population by district by country of birth, Nauru:2011 Table 10. Population by country of birth, 5 year age group and sex, Nauru:2011 Table 11. Population by district, whether mother still alive and living in the household, Nauru:2011 Table 12. Population by district and whether father is still alive, Nauru:2011 Table 13. Population by district, marital status and sex, Nauru:2011 Table 14. Population by 5 year age group, marital status and sex, Nauru:2011 Table 15. Population by district, mothers local tribe and sex, Nauru:2011 Table 16. Population by 5 year age group, mothers local tribe and sex, Nauru:2011 Table 17. Population by district, whether married to a Nauruan and sex, Nauru:2011 Table 18. Population by 5 year age group whether married to Nauruan and sex, Nauru:2011 Table 19. Population by district, nationality and sex, Nauru:2011 Table 20. Population by 5year age group, nationality and sex, Nauru:2011 Table 21. Population by district, citizenship and sex Table 22. Population by 5 year age group, citizenship and sex, Nauru:2011 Table 23. Population by district and difficulties, Nauru:2011 Table 24. Male population by district and difficulties, Nauru:2011 Table 25. Female population by district and difficulties, Nauru:2011 Table 26. Population by 5 year age group and difficulties, Nauru:2011 Table 27. Male Population by 5 year age group and difficulties, Nauru:2011 Table 28. Female Population by 5 year age group and difficulties, Nauru:2011 Table 29. Population by district, currently attending school and sex, Nauru:2011 Table 30. Popualtion 15 years and over, school attendace and sex, Nauru:2011 Table 31. Population 15 years and over by district , type of education institution attending, Nauru:2011 Table 32. Population 15 years and over by type of education institution attending and sex, Nauru:2011 Table 33. Population 15 years and over by highest qualification completed and sex, Nauru:2011 Table 34. Population 15 years and over by main activity and sex, Nauru:2011 Table 35. Population 15 years and over by labour force participation and sex, Nauru:2011 Table 36. Female population aged 15 years and over ever given birth, Nauru:2011 Table 37. Female population aged 15 years and over by total Children ever born Table 38. Female population aged 15 years and over by total male born, Nauru:2011 Table 39. Female population aged 15 years and over by total female born, Nauru:2011 Table 40. Female population aged 15 years and over and total children ever born, Nauru:2011 Table 41. Female population aged 15 years and over and total male ever born, Nauru:2011 Table 42. Female population aged 15 years and over and total female ever born, Nauru:2011

The United States Census Bureau conducts a Census of Governments every five years -- in years ending in "2" or "7" -- to collect information about governments in the United States. The Government Organization branch of the 1992 Census of Governments describes the organization and activities of local governments. The 1992 Local Government Directory Survey covered all county, municipal, town or township, school district, and special district governments that met the Census Bureau criteria for independent governments. The counts of local governments reflect those in operation on January 1, 1992. This collection includes three parts, each including information regarding a different type of government: (1) general purpose governments, (2) special district governments, and (3) school district governments (including dependent school systems but not Education Service Agencies). The data include information on various codes used to identify the government unit, its name, population in 1990, types of public services provided, or functions of special districts, political organization of general purpose governments as well as a detailed accounting of race and gender of elected and appointed officials. Special districts data provide information on area served, revenue powers, and functions, in addition to detailing race and gender counts of governing body members. School data provides enrollment information, number of schools, educational levels, area served, and a detailed accounting of race and gender of elected and appointed officials.

In 1980, the National Institute of Justice awarded a grant to the Cornell University College of Human Ecology for the establishment of the Center for the Study of Race, Crime, and Social Policy in Oakland, California. This center mounted a long-term research project that sought to explain the wide variation in crime statistics by race and ethnicity. Using information from eight ethnic communities in Oakland, California, representing working- and middle-class Black, White, Chinese, and Hispanic groups, as well as additional data from Oakland's justice systems and local organizations, the center conducted empirical research to describe the criminalization process and to explore the relationship between race and crime. The differences in observed patterns and levels of crime were analyzed in terms of: (1) the abilities of local ethnic communities to contribute to, resist, neutralize, or otherwise affect the criminalization of its members, (2) the impacts of criminal justice policies on ethnic communities and their members, and (3) the cumulative impacts of criminal justice agency decisions on the processing of individuals in the system. Administrative records data were gathered from two sources, the Alameda County Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) (Part 1) and the Oakland District Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) (Part 2). In addition to collecting administrative data, the researchers also surveyed residents (Part 3), police officers (Part 4), and public defenders and district attorneys (Part 5). The eight study areas included a middle- and low-income pair of census tracts for each of the four racial/ethnic groups: white, Black, Hispanic, and Asian. Part 1, Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) Data, contains information on offenders' most serious felony and misdemeanor arrests, dispositions, offense codes, bail arrangements, fines, jail terms, and pleas for both current and prior arrests in Alameda County. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and marital status. Variables in Part 2, District Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) Data, include current and prior charges, days from offense to charge, disposition, and arrest, plea agreement conditions, final results from both municipal court and superior court, sentence outcomes, date and outcome of arraignment, disposition, and sentence, number and type of enhancements, numbers of convictions, mistrials, acquittals, insanity pleas, and dismissals, and factors that determined the prison term. For Part 3, Oakland Community Crime Survey Data, researchers interviewed 1,930 Oakland residents from eight communities. Information was gathered from community residents on the quality of schools, shopping, and transportation in their neighborhoods, the neighborhood's racial composition, neighborhood problems, such as noise, abandoned buildings, and drugs, level of crime in the neighborhood, chances of being victimized, how respondents would describe certain types of criminals in terms of age, race, education, and work history, community involvement, crime prevention measures, the performance of the police, judges, and attorneys, victimization experiences, and fear of certain types of crimes. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and family status. For Part 4, Oakland Police Department Survey Data, Oakland County police officers were asked about why they joined the police force, how they perceived their role, aspects of a good and a bad police officer, why they believed crime was down, and how they would describe certain beats in terms of drug availability, crime rates, socioeconomic status, number of juveniles, potential for violence, residential versus commercial, and degree of danger. Officers were also asked about problems particular neighborhoods were experiencing, strategies for reducing crime, difficulties in doing police work well, and work conditions. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, level of education, and years on the force. In Part 5, Public Defender/District Attorney Survey Data, public defenders and district attorneys were queried regarding which offenses were increasing most rapidly in Oakland, and they were asked to rank certain offenses in terms of seriousness. Respondents were also asked about the public's influence on criminal justice agencies and on the performance of certain criminal justice agencies. Respondents were presented with a list of crimes and asked how typical these offenses were and what factors influenced their decisions about such cases (e.g., intent, motive, evidence, behavior, prior history, injury or loss, substance abuse, emotional trauma). Other variables measured how often and under what circumstances the public defender and client and the public defender and the district attorney agreed on the case, defendant characteristics in terms of who should not be put on the stand, the effects of Proposition 8, public defender and district attorney plea guidelines, attorney discretion, and advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of a defendant. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, religion, years of experience, and area of responsibility.

This map presents the full data available on the MLTSD GeoHub, and maps several of the key variables reflected by the Literary and Basic Skills Program of ETD.The Literacy and Basic Skills program (LBS) provides adults with the skills necessary to find employment, and is central to the government’s commitment to provide opportunities for Ontarians to build critical foundational skills (reading, writing and numeracy skills) and participate in the knowledge-based economy. The LBS program focuses on adults who live in Ontario and are unemployed, with special emphasis on people receiving income support. It is also open to employed Ontarians who need to improve their literacy and basic skills to maintain or upgrade their work skills, pursue further education or desire greater independence. The LBS program is divided into four streams, customized for Indigenous, Francophone, Deaf and Anglophone learners.

The program primarily serves adult learners who: want to improve their literacy and basic skills to achieve their goals of further education and training, employment or increased independenceare 19 years and older are able to speak and listen in English (or French) well enough to benefit fully from the program, and have been assessed as having limited literacy and basic skills.

Within the Employment Ontario service delivery framework, the LBS program is delivered through a network of service providers made up of colleges, school boards, and community-based organizations that deliver in English, French, and American Sign Language (ASL), and use culturally-sensitive learning approaches. In addition to in-person, the LBS program is also provided online through e-Channel, which uses web-based learning to enhance access to the LBS program, especially for those in rural or remote communities and persons with disabilities.

About This Data Set

This dataset contains data on LBS clients for each of the twenty-six Local Board (LB) areas in Ontario for the 2015/16 fiscal year, based on data provided to Local Boards and Local Employment Planning Councils (LEPC) in June 2016 (see below for details on Local Boards). Because E-Channel clients cannot be assigned to a particular service provider (and thus cannot be assigned to a particular Local Board area), all fields in this dataset, other than those that provide the total number of E-Channel learners, include in-person LBS clients only. These clients have been distributed across Local Board areas based on the address of the client’s Service Delivery Site.

About Local Boards

Local Boards are independent not-for-profit corporations sponsored by the Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development to improve the condition of the labour market in their specified region. These organizations are led by business and labour representatives, and include representation from constituencies including educators, trainers, women, Francophones, persons with disabilities, visible minorities, youth, Indigenous community members, and others. For the 2015/16 fiscal year there were twenty-six Local Boards, which collectively covered all of the province of Ontario.

The primary role of Local Boards is to help improve the conditions of their local labour market by: engaging communities in a locally-driven process to identify and respond to the key trends, opportunities and priorities that prevail in their local labour markets; facilitating a local planning process where community organizations and institutions agree to initiate and/or implement joint actions to address local labour market issues of common interest; creating opportunities for partnership development activities and projects that respond to more complex and/or pressing local labour market challenges; andorganizing events and undertaking activities that promote the importance of education, training and skills upgrading to youth, parents, employers, employed and unemployed workers, and the public in general.

In December 2015, the government of Ontario launched an eighteen-month Local Employment Planning Council pilot program, which established LEPCs in eight regions in the province formerly covered by Local Boards. LEPCs expand on the activities of existing Local Boards, leveraging additional resources and a stronger, more integrated approach to local planning and workforce development to fund community-based projects that support innovative approaches to local labour market issues, provide more accurate and detailed labour market information, and develop detailed knowledge of local service delivery beyond Employment Ontario (EO).

Eight existing Local Boards were awarded LEPC contracts that were effective as of January 1st, 2016. As such, from January 1st, 2016 to March 31st, 2016, these eight Local Boards were simultaneously Local Employment Planning Councils. The eight Local Boards awarded contracts were:Durham Workforce AuthorityPeel-Halton Workforce Development Group Workforce Development Board - Peterborough, Kawartha Lakes, Northumberland, HaliburtonOttawa Integrated Local Labour Market Planning Far Northeast Training BoarNorth Superior Workforce Planning Board Elgin Middlesex Oxford Workforce Planning & Development BoardWorkforce Windsor-Essex

MLTSD has provided Local Boards and LEPCs with demographic and outcome data for clients of Employment Ontario (EO) programs delivered by service providers across the province on an annual basis since June 2013. This was done to assist Local Boards in understanding local labour market conditions. These datasets may be used to facilitate and inform evidence-based discussions about local service issues – gaps, overlaps and under-served populations - with EO service providers and other organizations as appropriate to the local context.

Data on the following EO programs for the 2015/16 fiscal year was made available to Local Boards and LEPCs in June 2016:Employment Services (ES)Literacy and Basic Skills (LBS)Second Career (SC)Apprenticeship

This dataset contains the 2015/16 LBS data that was sent to Local Boards and LEPCs. Datasets covering past fiscal years will be released in the future.Notes

Data reporting on 5 individuals or less has been suppressed to protect the privacy of those individuals.Data published: Feb 1, 2017Publisher: Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development (MLTSD)Update frequency: Yearly Geographical coverage: Ontario