The trend of working remotely has been slowly increasing globally since 2015, with a *** to ***** percent annual increase rate. However, the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 upended the world economy and global markets. Employment trends were no exception to this, with the share of employees working remotely increasing to some ** percent in 2022 from just ** percent two years prior. The industry with the highest share of remote workers globally in 2023 was by far the technology sector, with over ** percent of tech employees worldwide working fully or mostly remotely. How are employers dealing with remote work? Many employers around the world have already adopted some remote work policies. According to IT industry leaders, reasons for remote work adoption ranged from a desire to broaden a company’s talent pool, increase productivity, and reduce costs from office equipment or real estate investments. Nonetheless, employers worldwide grappled with various concerns related to hybrid work. Among tech leaders, leading concerns included enabling effective collaboration and preserving organizational culture in hybrid work environments. Consequently, it’s unsurprising that maintaining organizational culture, fostering collaboration, and real estate investments emerged as key drivers for return-to-office mandates globally. However, these efforts were not without challenges. Notably, ** percent of employers faced employee resistance to returning to the office, prompting a review of their remote work policies.

Before the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 17 percent of U.S. employees worked from home 5 days or more per week, a share that increased to 44 percent during the pandemic. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the remote working trend, as quarantines and lockdowns made commuting and working in an office close to impossible for millions around the world. Remote work, also called telework or working from home (WFH), provided a solution, with employees performing their roles away from the office supported by specialized technology, eliminating the commute to an office to remain connected with colleagues and clients. What enables working from home?

To enable remote work, employees rely on a remote work arrangements that enable hybrid work and make it safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technology supporting remote work including laptops saw a surge in demand, video conferencing companies such as Zoom jumped in value, and employers had to consider new communication techniques and resources. Is remote work the future of work?

The response to COVID-19 has demonstrated that hybrid work models are not necessarily an impediment to productivity. For this reason, there is a general consensus that different remote work models will persist post-COVID-19. Many employers see benefits to flexible working arrangements, including positive results on employee wellness surveys, and potentially reducing office space. Many employees also plan on working from home more often, with 25 percent of respondents to a recent survey expecting remote work as a benefit of employment. As a result, it is of utmost importance to acknowledge any issues that may arise in this context to empower a hybrid workforce and ensure a smooth transition to more flexible work models.

Percentage of workforce teleworking or working remotely prior to February 1, 2020, on March 31, 2020, and percentage of workforce able to carry out a majority of their duties during the COVID-19 pandemic, by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, business employment size, type of business and majority ownership.

Experimental estimates from the Annual Population Survey for homeworking in the UK, including breakdowns by sex, full-time or part-time, ethnicity, occupation, industry, qualifications, hours worked, pay and sickness absence among others. Includes regression outputs on the different outcomes for homeworkers.

As of 2023, 8.9 percent of employed people in the European Union usually worked from home. This share of home-office workers varied widely between European countries, with a 21 percent of finish workers usually working from home, compared to only one percent of Romanian workers. It was in general more common for women to work from home usually than men, however, this was notably reversed in some countries, such as Ireland where almost 23 percent of men regularly worked from home.

A survey of 1,500 NSW workers during August and September 2020 (2020 Remote Working Survey) and March and April 2021 (2021 Remote Working Survey), commissioned to understand workers' experiences of and attitudes to remote and hybrid working. To be eligible, respondents had to be employed NSW residents with experience of remote working in their current job. After accounting for unemployed people and those whose jobs cannot be done remotely—for example, dentists, cashiers and cleaners—the sample represents around 59 per cent of NSW workers. Workers answered questions on: • their attitudes to remote working • the amount of time they spent working remotely • their employers’ policies, practices, and attitudes • how they spent their time when working remotely • how barriers to remote working have changed • the barriers they faced to hybrid working • their expectations for future remote working

“Telework”, “home office” and “work from home” have recently become very prominent working concepts due to social distancing regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a study by Kohlrausch and Zucco (2020), in Germany the share of people who regularly work from home has increased from about 4% before the pandemic to approx. 20% during the first wave of the pandemic. Furthermore, the share of workers who alternate between business and home office also increased. In this development, telework was not equally distributed across all occupational and social groups. With the project “Household structures and economic risks in East and West Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic: compensation or accumulation? (KOMPAKK)” we define economic risks that people were exposed to due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We therefore calculate several risk factors based on survey data from 2017 and 2018. As some occupations might be well executed from home while others are not, we created an index which reflects the possibility of working from home.

Data on working patterns and location of work of adults in Great Britain, including costs and benefits of homeworking and future expectations. Survey data from the Opinions and Lifestyle Survey (OPN).

This dataset comes from the biennial City of Tempe Employee Survey question about feeling safe in the physical work environment (building). The Employee Survey question relating to this performance measure: “Please rate your level of agreement: My physical work environment (building) is safe, clean & maintained in good operating order.” Survey respondents are asked to rate their agreement level on a scale of 5 to 1, where 5 means “Strongly Agree” and 1 means “Strongly Disagree” (without “don’t know” responses included).The survey was voluntary, and employees were allowed to complete the survey during work hours or at home. The survey allowed employees to respond anonymously and has a 95% confidence level. This page provides data about the Feeling Safe in City Facilities performance measure. The performance measure dashboard is available at 1.11 Feeling Safe in City FacilitiesAdditional InformationSource: Employee SurveyContact: Wydale HolmesContact E-Mail: Wydale_Holmes@tempe.govData Source Type: CSVPreparation Method: Data received from vendor and entered in CSVPublish Frequency: BiennialPublish Method: ManualData Dictionary (update pending)

The study on the future of work was conducted by Kantar Public on behalf of the Press and Information Office of the Federal Government. During the survey period from 13 to 22 June 2023, German-speaking people aged 16 to 67 in Germany, excluding pensioners, were surveyed in online interviews (CAWI) on the following topics: current life and work situation, future expectations, the use of AI and the digitalization of the world of work as well as attitudes towards demographic change and the shortage of skilled workers. The respondents were selected using a quota sample from an online access panel. Future: general life satisfaction; satisfaction with selected aspects of life (working conditions, education, qualifications, health situation, professional remuneration, family situation, financial situation); expectations for the future: rather confident vs. rather worried about the private and professional future; rather confident vs. rather worried about the professional future of younger people or the next generation; rather confident vs. rather worried about the future of Germany; confidence vs. concern regarding the competitiveness of the German economy in various areas (digitalization and automation of the working world, climate protection goals of industry, effects of the Ukraine war on the German economy, access to important raw materials such as rare earths or metals, reliable supply of energy, number of qualified specialists, general price development, development of wages and salaries, development of pensions); probability of various future scenarios for Germany in 2030 (Germany is once again the world export champion, unemployment is at an all-time low - full employment prevails in Germany, the energy transition has already created hundreds of thousands of new jobs in German industry, Germany has emerged the strongest in the EU from the crises of the last 15 years, the price crisis has led to the fact The price crisis has meant that politics and business have successfully set the course for the future, citizens can deal with all official matters digitally from home, German industry is much faster than expected in terms of climate targets and is already almost climate-neutral, Germany is the most popular country of immigration for foreign university graduates, the nursing shortage in Germany has been overcome thanks to the immigration of skilled workers). 2. Importance of work: importance of different areas of life (ranking); work to earn money vs. as a vocation; importance of different work characteristics (e.g. job security, adequate income, development prospects and career opportunities, etc.). 3. Professional situation: satisfaction with various aspects of work (job security, pay/income, development/career opportunities, interesting work, sufficient contact with other people, compatibility of family/private life and work. Work climate/ working atmosphere, further training opportunities, social recognition, meaningful and useful work); job satisfaction; expected development of working conditions in own professional field; recognition for own work from the company/ employer, from colleagues, from other people from the work context, from the personal private environment, from society in general and from politics; unemployed people were asked: currently looking for a new job; assessment of chances of finding a new job; pupils, students and trainees were asked: assessment of future career opportunities; reasons for assessing career opportunities as poor (open). 4. AI: use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the world of work rather as an opportunity or rather as a danger; expected effects of AI on working conditions in their own professional field (improvement, deterioration, no effects); opportunities and dangers of digitization, AI and automation based on comparisons (all in all, digitization leads to a greater burden on the environment, as computers, tablets, smartphones and data centers are major power guzzlers vs. All in all, digitalization protects the environment through less mobility and more efficient management, artificial intelligence and digitalization help to reduce the workload and relieve employees of repetitive and monotonous tasks vs. artificial intelligence and digitalization overburden many employees through further work intensification. Stress and burnouts will increasingly be the result, artificial intelligence and digitalization will primarily lead to job losses vs. artificial intelligence and digitalization will create more new, future-proof jobs than old ones will be lost, our economy will benefit greatly from global networking through speed and efficiency gains vs. our economy is threatened by global networking by becoming more susceptible to cyberattacks and hacker attacks, digitalization will lead to new, more flexible working time models and a better work-life balance vs. digitalization will lead to a blurring of boundaries between work and leisure time and thus, above all, to more self-exploitation by employees). 5. Home office: local focus of own work currently, before the corona pandemic and during the corona pandemic (exclusively/ predominantly in the company or from home, at changing work locations (company, at home, mobile from on the road); Agreement with various statements on the topic of working from home (wherever possible, employers should give their employees the opportunity to work from home, working from home leads to a loss of cohesion in the company, working from home enables a better work-life balance, digital communication makes coordination processes more complicated, home office makes an important contribution to climate protection due to fewer journeys to work, home office leads to a mixture of work and leisure time and thus to a greater workload, home office leads to greater job satisfaction and thus to higher productivity, since many professions cannot be carried out in the home office, it would be fairer if everyone had to work outside the home); attitude towards a general 4-day working week (A four-day week for everyone would increase the shortage of skilled workers vs. a four-day week for everyone would increase motivation and therefore productivity). 6. Demographic change: knowledge of the meaning of the term demographic change; expected impact of demographic change on the future of Germany; opinion on the future in Germany based on alternative future scenarios (in the future, poverty in old age will increase noticeably vs. the future generation of pensioners will be wealthier than ever before, in the future, politics and elections will be increasingly determined by older people vs. the influence of the younger generation on politics will become much more important, our social security systems will continue to ensure intergenerational fairness and equalization in the future vs. the distribution conflicts between the younger and older generations will increase noticeably, future generations will have to work longer due to the shortage of skilled workers vs. people will have to work less in the future due to digitalization and automation and will be able to retire earlier). 7. Shortage of skilled workers: shortage of skilled workers in own company; additional personal burden due to shortage of skilled workers; company is doing enough to counteract the shortage of skilled workers; use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the company could compensate for the shortage of skilled workers; evaluation of various measures taken by the federal government to combat the shortage of skilled workers (improvement of training and further education opportunities, increasing the participation of women in the labor market (e.g. by expanding childcare services, more flexible working hours, offers for older skilled workers to stay in work longer, facilitating the immigration of foreign skilled workers); evaluation of the work of the federal government to combat the shortage of skilled workers; attractiveness (reputation in society) of various professions with a shortage of skilled workers (e.g. social pedagogues/educators); evaluation of the work of the federal government to combat the shortage of skilled workers. B. social pedagogue, nursery school teacher, etc.); job recommendation for younger people; own activity in one of the professions mentioned with a shortage of skilled workers. Demography: sex; age; age in age groups; employment; federal state; region west/east; school education; vocational training; self-placement social class; employment status; occupation differentiated workers, employees, civil servants; industry; household size; number of children under 18 in the household; net household income (grouped); location size; party sympathy; migration background (respondent, one parent or both parents). Additionally coded were: consecutive interview number; school education head group (low, medium, high); weighting factor.

WageIndicator is interviewing people around the world to discover what makes the Coronavirus lockdown easier (or tougher), and what is the COVID-19 effect on our jobs, lives and mood. WageIndicator shows coronavirus-induced changes in living and working conditions in over 110 countries on the basis of answers on the following questions among others in the Corona survey: Is your work affected by the corona crisis? Are precautionary measures taken at the workplace? Do you have to work from home? Has your workload increased/decreased? Have you lost your job/work/assignments? The survey contains questions about the home situation of respondents as well as about the possible manifestation of the corona disease in members of the household. Also the effect of having a pet in the house in corona-crisis times is included.

In 2022, around 24 percent of respondents who were working remotely worldwide stated that they were working less compared to the previous year, while around 44 percent of respondents reported that they were working more.

The Synthetic Employee Attrition Dataset is a simulated dataset designed for the analysis and prediction of employee attrition. It contains detailed information about various aspects of an employee's profile, including demographics, job-related features, and personal circumstances.

The dataset comprises 74,610 samples, to facilitate model development and evaluation. Each record includes a unique Employee ID and features that influence employee attrition. The goal is to understand the factors contributing to attrition and develop predictive models to identify at-risk employees.

This dataset is ideal for HR analytics, machine learning model development, and demonstrating advanced data analysis techniques. It provides a comprehensive and realistic view of the factors affecting employee retention, making it a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners in the field of human resources and organizational development.

FEATURES:

Employee ID: A unique identifier assigned to each employee. Age: The age of the employee, ranging from 18 to 60 years. Gender: The gender of the employee Years at Company: The number of years the employee has been working at the company. Monthly Income: The monthly salary of the employee, in dollars. Job Role: The department or role the employee works in, encoded into categories such as Finance, Healthcare, Technology, Education, and Media. Work-Life Balance: The employee's perceived balance between work and personal life, (Poor, Below Average, Good, Excellent) Job Satisfaction: The employee's satisfaction with their job: (Very Low, Low, Medium, High) Performance Rating: The employee's performance rating: (Low, Below Average, Average, High) Number of Promotions: The total number of promotions the employee has received. Distance from Home: The distance between the employee's home and workplace, in miles. Education Level: The highest education level attained by the employee: (High School, Associate Degree, Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree, PhD) Marital Status: The marital status of the employee: (Divorced, Married, Single) Job Level: The job level of the employee: (Entry, Mid, Senior) Company Size: The size of the company the employee works for: (Small,Medium,Large) Company Tenure: The total number of years the employee has been working in the industry. Remote Work: Whether the employee works remotely: (Yes or No) Leadership Opportunities: Whether the employee has leadership opportunities: (Yes or No) Innovation Opportunities: Whether the employee has opportunities for innovation: (Yes or No) Company Reputation: The employee's perception of the company's reputation: (Very Poor, Poor,Good, Excellent) Employee Recognition: The level of recognition the employee receives:(Very Low, Low, Medium, High) Attrition: Whether the employee has left the company, encoded as 0 (stayed) and 1 (Left).

Dataset population: All usual residents aged 16 and over in employment the week before the census

Location of where people live when working

The location in which an individual lives when they are working.

Place of work

The location in which an individual works.

Geographies of origin areas:

• UK Local Authorities (merged) 2011

Geographies of destination areas:

• UK Local Authorities (merged) 2011
• 2011 UK SWS additional workplace codes

For the area in which people live while they are working, if that address is a work-related second address that is outside of the UK then this is signified by code OD0000005.

*The following codes are used for area of workplace that is not an LAD geographic code:

OD0000001 = Mainly work at or from home

OD0000002 = Offshore installation

OD0000003 = No fixed place

OD0000004 = Outside UK*

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner. This study examined the ways in which home is conceptualised, experienced and evaluated by homeworkers, a hard-to-reach group. It explored the impact of homeworking on the experience of home and family life and sought to identify ways in which working from home may challenge the traditional stereotypical view of home. A pilot study suggested that the homeworking experience may be differentiated by economic, spatial and gender factors revealing potential tensions and inequalities among the broad range of people who work from home. The research sought to: explore the existence of supports, inequalities and tensions in the homeworking experience; and establish the particular qualities of home that are enhanced with working from home, as well as those that are limited by this activity. The study used mixed methods, including face-to-face qualitative interviews with individuals and focus groups, and a semi-structured questionnaire, from which a quantitative data file was complied. The qualitative sample consisted of 60 men and women who worked from home (45 individual interviewees, and fifteen other respondents comprising three focus groups), in varied types of work including professional, semi-skilled and unskilled. Four population areas in Northern England and Wales were targeted for this study. The quantitative data set included 62 questionnaires from a separate sample of national homeworkers. Key findings suggest that homeworking is differentiated by gender role, type of work and expectations. Furthermore there are both positive and negative aspects to the homeworking experience for all homeworkers. For example, flexibility is desired and enjoyed but this brings longer working hours. Finally, home is enhanced for some and invaded for others, but most make a conscious effort to make working from home viable. Main Topics: The qualitative interviews cover paid work done at home, how the interviewee began homeworking, location in the home used for work, how family/partner copes with interviewee's home work, enjoyment of homeworking, choice of other jobs outside the home, positive and negative aspects of homeworking, perception of how treated in comparison to other workers, structure of typical working day, separation of work and home life, leisure time activities, breaks from work, local neighbourhood, perceptions of home and changes brought on by working from home. Variables in the quantitative data file include interviewee number (the 45 interviews may be linked by number to the respondent information in the data file), age, gender, rural/urban location, type of work, employment status, employment details and sector, hours of work, employment and homeworking history, living arrangements and household, children and childcare, computer use, community access, ways of working from home, comparison with other ways of working and work locus of control. Standard Measures (questionnaire - quantitative data file): General Health Questionnaire short (12) form (data included on the file but may not be listed in the questionnaire); The Work Locus of Control Scale (Spector, 1988). Quota sample Purposive selection/case studies Volunteer sample Face-to-face interview Self-completion Psychological measurements

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents median income data over a decade or more for males and females categorized by Total, Full-Time Year-Round (FT), and Part-Time (PT) employment in Home Lake township. It showcases annual income, providing insights into gender-specific income distributions and the disparities between full-time and part-time work. The dataset can be utilized to gain insights into gender-based pay disparity trends and explore the variations in income for male and female individuals.

Key observations: Insights from 2023

Based on our analysis ACS 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates, we present the following observations: - All workers, aged 15 years and older: In Home Lake township, the median income for all workers aged 15 years and older, regardless of work hours, was $76,250 for males and $24,375 for females.

These income figures highlight a substantial gender-based income gap in Home Lake township. Women, regardless of work hours, earn 32 cents for each dollar earned by men. This significant gender pay gap, approximately 68%, underscores concerning gender-based income inequality in the township of Home Lake township.

- Full-time workers, aged 15 years and older: In Home Lake township, among full-time, year-round workers aged 15 years and older, males earned a median income of $88,750, while females earned $45,938, leading to a 48% gender pay gap among full-time workers. This illustrates that women earn 52 cents for each dollar earned by men in full-time roles. This level of income gap emphasizes the urgency to address and rectify this ongoing disparity, where women, despite working full-time, face a more significant wage discrepancy compared to men in the same employment roles.

Remarkably, across all roles, including non-full-time employment, women displayed a similar gender pay gap percentage. This indicates a consistent gender pay gap scenario across various employment types in Home Lake township, showcasing a consistent income pattern irrespective of employment status.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates. All incomes have been adjusting for inflation and are presented in 2023-inflation-adjusted dollars.

Gender classifications include:

• Male
• Female

Employment type classifications include:

• Full-time, year-round: A full-time, year-round worker is a person who worked full time (35 or more hours per week) and 50 or more weeks during the previous calendar year.
• Part-time: A part-time worker is a person who worked less than 35 hours per week during the previous calendar year.

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column presents the data year. Expected values are 2010 to 2023
• Male Total Income: Annual median income, for males regardless of work hours
• Male FT Income: Annual median income, for males working full time, year-round
• Male PT Income: Annual median income, for males working part time
• Female Total Income: Annual median income, for females regardless of work hours
• Female FT Income: Annual median income, for females working full time, year-round
• Female PT Income: Annual median income, for females working part time

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Home Lake township median household income by race. You can refer the same here

Dataset shows an individual’s statistical area 3 (SA3) of usual residence and the SA3 of their workplace address, for the employed census usually resident population count aged 15 years and over, by main means of travel to work from the 2018 and 2023 Censuses.

​

The main means of travel to work categories are:

• Work at home
• Drive a private car, truck, or van
• Drive a company car, truck, or van
• Passenger in a car, truck, van, or company bus
• Public bus
• Train
• Bicycle
• Walk or jog
• Ferry
• Other.

​

Main means of travel to work is the usual method which an employed person aged 15 years and over used to travel the longest distance to their place of work.

​

Workplace address refers to where someone usually works in their main job, that is the job in which they worked the most hours. For people who work at home, this is the same address as their usual residence address. For people who do not work at home, this could be the address of the business they work for or another address, such as a building site.

​

Workplace address is coded to the most detailed geography possible from the available information. This dataset only includes travel to work information for individuals whose workplace address is available at SA3 level. The sum of the counts for each region in this dataset may not equal the total employed census usually resident population count aged 15 years and over for that region. Workplace address – 2023 Census: Information by concept has more information.

​

This dataset can be used in conjunction with the following spatial files by joining on the SA3 code values:

• Statistical area 3 2023 (generalised)

​

Download data table using the instructions in the Koordinates help guide.

​

Footnotes

​

Geographical boundaries

Statistical standard for geographic areas 2023 (updated December 2023) has information about geographic boundaries as of 1 January 2023. Address data from 2013 and 2018 Censuses was updated to be consistent with the 2023 areas. Due to the changes in area boundaries and coding methodologies, 2013 and 2018 counts published in 2023 may be slightly different to those published in 2013 or 2018.

​

Subnational census usually resident population

The census usually resident population count of an area (subnational count) is a count of all people who usually live in that area and were present in New Zealand on census night. It excludes visitors from overseas, visitors from elsewhere in New Zealand, and residents temporarily overseas on census night. For example, a person who usually lives in Christchurch city and is visiting Wellington city on census night will be included in the census usually resident population count of Christchurch city. 

​

Population counts

Stats NZ publishes a number of different population counts, each using a different definition and methodology. Population statistics – user guide has more information about different counts. 

​

Caution using time series

Time series data should be interpreted with care due to changes in census methodology and differences in response rates between censuses. The 2023 and 2018 Censuses used a combined census methodology (using census responses and administrative data).

​

Workplace address time series

Workplace address time series data should be interpreted with care at lower geographic levels, such as statistical area 2 (SA2). Methodological improvements in 2023 Census resulted in greater data accuracy, including a greater proportion of people being counted at lower geographic areas compared to the 2018 Census. Workplace address – 2023 Census: Information by concept has more information.

​

Working at home

In the census, working at home captures both remote work, and people whose business is at their home address (e.g. farmers or small business owners operating from their home). The census asks respondents whether they ‘mostly’ work at home or away from home. It does not capture whether someone does both, or how frequently they do one or the other.

​

Rows excluded from the dataset

Rows show SA3 of usual residence by SA3 of workplace address. Rows with a total population count of less than six have been removed to reduce the size of the dataset, given only a small proportion of SA3-SA3 combinations have commuter flows.

​

About the 2023 Census dataset

For information on the 2023 dataset see Using a combined census model for the 2023 Census. We combined data from the census forms with administrative data to create the 2023 Census dataset, which meets Stats NZ's quality criteria for population structure information. We added real data about real people to the dataset where we were confident the people who hadn’t completed a census form (which is known as admin enumeration) will be counted. We also used data from the 2018 and 2013 Censuses, administrative data sources, and statistical imputation methods to fill in some missing characteristics of people and dwellings.

​

Data quality

The quality of data in the 2023 Census is assessed using the quality rating scale and the quality assurance framework to determine whether data is fit for purpose and suitable for release. Data quality assurance in the 2023 Census has more information.

​

Quality rating of a variable

The quality rating of a variable provides an overall evaluation of data quality for that variable, usually at the highest levels of classification. The quality ratings shown are for the 2023 Census unless stated. There is variability in the quality of data at smaller geographies. Data quality may also vary between censuses, for subpopulations, or when cross tabulated with other variables or at lower levels of the classification. Data quality ratings for 2023 Census variables has more information on quality ratings by variable.

​

Main means of travel to work quality rating

Main means of travel to work is rated as moderate quality.

Main means of travel to work – 2023 Census: Information by concept has more information, for example, definitions and data quality.

​

Workplace address quality rating

Workplace address is rated as moderate quality.

Workplace address – 2023 Census: Information by concept has more information, for example, definitions and data quality.

​

Using data for good

Stats NZ expects that, when working with census data, it is done so with a positive purpose, as outlined in the Māori Data Governance Model (Data Iwi Leaders Group, 2023). This model states that "data should support transformative outcomes and should uplift and strengthen our relationships with each other and with our environments. The avoidance of harm is the minimum expectation for data use. Māori data should also contribute to iwi and hapū tino rangatiratanga”.

​

Confidentiality

The 2023 Census confidentiality rules have been applied to 2013, 2018, and 2023 data. These rules protect the confidentiality of individuals, families, households, dwellings, and undertakings in 2023 Census data. Counts are calculated using fixed random rounding to base 3 (FRR3) and suppression of ‘sensitive’ counts less than six, where tables report multiple geographic variables and/or small populations. Individual figures may not always sum to stated totals. Applying confidentiality rules to 2023 Census data and summary of changes since 2018 and 2013 Censuses has more information about 2023 Census confidentiality rules.

​

Percentages

To calculate percentages, divide the figure for the category of interest by the figure for ‘Total stated’ where this applies.

​

Symbol

-999 Confidential

​

Inconsistencies in definitions

Please note that there may be differences in definitions between census classifications and those used for other data collections.

The distance, in kilometres, between a person's residential postcode and their workplace postcode measured in a straight line. A distance travelled of 0.1km indicates that the workplace postcode is the same as the residential postcode. Distances over 1200km are treated as invalid, and an imputed or estimated value is added."Work mainly at or from home" is made up of those that ticked either the 'Mainly work at or from home' box for the address of workplace question, or the "Work mainly at or from home" box for the method of travel to work question."Other" includes no fixed place of work, working on an offshore installation and working outside of the UK.Distance is calculated as the straight line distance between the enumeration postcode and the workplace postcode.CoverageThis dataset is focused on the data for Birmingham at Ward level. Also available at LSOA, MSOA and Constituency levels.About the 2021 CensusThe Census takes place every 10 years and gives us a picture of all the people and households in England and Wales.Protecting personal dataThe ONS sometimes need to make changes to data if it is possible to identify individuals. This is known as statistical disclosure control. In Census 2021, they:

Swapped records (targeted record swapping), for example, if a household was likely to be identified in datasets because it has unusual characteristics, they swapped the record with a similar one from a nearby small area. Very unusual households could be swapped with one in a nearby local authority. Added small changes to some counts (cell key perturbation), for example, we might change a count of four to a three or a five. This might make small differences between tables depending on how the data are broken down when they applied perturbation.For more geographies, aggregations or topics see the link in the Reference below. Or, to create a custom dataset with multiple variables use the ONS Create a custom dataset tool.Population valueThe value column represents All usual residents aged 16 years and over in employment the week before the census.The percentage shown is the value as a percentage of All usual residents aged 16 years and over in employment the week before the census within the given geography.

This dataset reflects the volume and percentage of MCG employees by home and work _location. Data is determined by information currently in employee personnel file (Data includes full-time and part-time regular employees only). Update Frequency : Annually

This commuter mode share data shows the estimated percentages of commuters in Champaign County who traveled to work using each of the following modes: drove alone in an automobile; carpooled; took public transportation; walked; biked; went by motorcycle, taxi, or other means; and worked at home. Commuter mode share data can illustrate the use of and demand for transit services and active transportation facilities, as well as for automobile-focused transportation projects.

Driving alone in an automobile is by far the most prevalent means of getting to work in Champaign County, accounting for over 69 percent of all work trips in 2023. This is the same rate as 2019, and the first increase since 2017, both years being before the COVID-19 pandemic began.

The percentage of workers who commuted by all other means to a workplace outside the home also decreased from 2019 to 2021, most of these modes reaching a record low since this data first started being tracked in 2005. The percentage of people carpooling to work in 2023 was lower than every year except 2016 since this data first started being tracked in 2005. The percentage of people walking to work increased from 2022 to 2023, but this increase is not statistically significant.

Meanwhile, the percentage of people in Champaign County who worked at home more than quadrupled from 2019 to 2021, reaching a record high over 18 percent. It is a safe assumption that this can be attributed to the increase of employers allowing employees to work at home when the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020.

The work from home figure decreased to 11.2 percent in 2023, but which is the first statistically significant decrease since the pandemic began. However, this figure is still about 2.5 times higher than 2019, even with the COVID-19 emergency ending in 2023.

Commuter mode share data was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates, which are released annually.

As with any datasets that are estimates rather than exact counts, it is important to take into account the margins of error (listed in the column beside each figure) when drawing conclusions from the data.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because data is not available for Champaign County, no data for 2020 is included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes a dataset on Means of Transportation to Work.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (18 September 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (10 October 2023).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (14 October 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (26 March 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (26 March 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 September 2018).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (14 September 2017).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (19 September 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S0801; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).