Event Attendance Tracking

Once a leader in women’s labor force participation, the US now trails peer countries; that impacts businesses and the US economy. 🔹 Canada, France, Germany and the UK, which had similar participation rates as the US in 1995, have increased their rates much beyond the US. The rate in the US rose by 2.3 percentage points since 1995; that is smaller than Canada (+9.4 ppts), France (+7.5 ppts), Germany (+11.1 ppts) and the UK (+9.1 ppts). 🔹 The Netherlands, Spain, Japan and Australia, which lagged the US in 1995, have not only caught up, but they now exceed the US. 🔹 Researchers cite several reasons for the US falling behind, including limited family and care policies such as paid leave and childcare subsidies, and greater availability of part-time work. Differences in tax systems, health care, disability benefits, and workplace culture also contribute. 🔹 According to a study by the US Labor Department, if the US had the same women’s prime-age participation rate as in Canada and Germany, around 5 million more women would be in the workforce. That translates to around $775 billion in additional economic activity each year. That is about the size of the economies of Belgium or Ireland; it is an untapped growth opportunity for US businesses. Women’s prime-age labor force participation rate in the US has stagnated compared to peer countries over the past three decades. Pandemic-era gains are now reversing, especially among college-educated mothers of young children. Declining participation, often driven by limited choices, undermines women’s career prospects and family financial stability. Employers are less likely to retain top talent, harming productivity. They can gain an edge over competitors by investing in flexible work arrangements, part-time opportunities, childcare benefits and paid leave. Overall, the US economy is smaller and grows more slowly.

Nationally, 2M+ high school students take dual enrollment college courses each year-- How many are enrolled at your local schools, and what are the gaps in access? In my latest Community College Research Center blog post, I present a set of dashboards showing disaggregated results by state, district, and school on participation in #DualEnrollment and #AdvancedPlacement nationwide. You can see the dual enrollment and AP hotspots in your state using the map feature, hover over districts to see detailed, school-level results, and view disaggregated trends in both state- and school-level participation in these early college courses (which we an others have shown to reliably provide a boost for students into and through college). Here's the post with the dashboard: https://lnkd.in/e3pzMuAd Here are some takeaways from the analysis: 💡 States differ quite a bit in terms of the overall dual enrollment participation rate: Nationally 10.6% of high schoolers took a DE course but in Washington, Indiana, and Iowa it's more than 25% and in 6 states it's under 5%. And differences state-by-state varies even more for specific subgroups of student (see the second tab). 🔎 Within states, there are substantial differences across school districts in the level of dual enrollment and AP participation-- and in many states these two programs serve geographically different areas (as you can see from toggling between DE and AP in the first tab) 🔍 🔍 Within districts with multiple high schools, there are key differences school-by-school both in overall participation as well as disparities by student subgroup (hover over the district in the map or view school-level results in the third tab) 📈 📊 Dual enrollment has steadily grown in the past 5 years -- even through the pandemic years -- but gaps in access for students of color, English learners, and students with disabilities remain in essentially every state and the vast majority of districts. These tools are meant to inform efforts to expand access to dual enrollment and other early college opportunities as an on-ramp into college and career opportunity after high school. They utilize federal data which is incredibly rich and actionable (e.g. each school is a principal or counselor that colleges can reach out to!) -- we need to ensure continuity in collection and access to the U.S. Department of Education Civil Rights data into the future! I'd love to hear how these tools can support your work and what you have learned about effective strategies for increasing access and broadening the benefits of dual enrollment 🙌 National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships

🔍 Trends in Adult Learning: New Data from the 2023 Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) 👉 See: https://lnkd.in/dSwDC4tc 📘This timely OECD Education and Skills report sheds light on the evolving landscape of adult learning across 31 countries. With rich data and sharp insights, it offers essential guidance for shaping inclusive and future-ready skills strategies. 🎯 Why it matters: Amid fast-paced technological, economic, and climate transitions, adult learning is a cornerstone for upskilling, employability, and social resilience. Yet, participation is stagnating or declining — even in advanced economies. 📌 Key Messages: ▪️Stagnating Participation: Only 40% of adults engage in learning yearly. Participation is falling in more countries than it's rising — a red flag for skills policy. ▪️A Narrow Focus on Short, Compliance-Based Training: Most learning is non-formal (37%) and very short (42% ≤ 1 day). Health & safety dominates, while broader reskilling needs — especially digital & transversal skills — remain underserved. ▪️Formal Learning in Decline: Only 8% of adults engage in formal education, mostly tertiary. Second-chance education plays a significant role in countries like 🇵🇹 Portugal, 🇬🇧 UK, 🇪🇸 Spain. ▪️Informal Learning at Work – A Hidden Engine: Highly prevalent but uneven. Daily workplace learning ranges from 4% (Poland) to 41% (Portugal). Recognition remains weak. ▪️Barriers Persist – and Are Unevenly Felt: Time, cost, and access limit participation — especially for women, low-skilled adults, and part-timers. Half of adults did not learn and didn’t want to, suggesting disengagement. ▪️Employer Role is Crucial: Two-thirds of training is employer-funded and occurs during working hours. Countries with strong employer engagement show higher participation. ⏭️Policy Call: From Fragmentation to Systemic Reform: The report calls for a paradigm shift — from short-term fixes to long-term strategies: 🔹 Flexible, stackable learning pathways 🔹 Broader certification of non-formal learning 🔹 Better targeting of low-skilled adults 🔹 Stronger public-private partnerships 🔹 Greater integration of adult learning into VET & skills strategies 🌐 Implications for VET systems: ▪️VET providers must step up as lifelong learning hubs, integrating short and longer-term learning, recognizing prior learning, and aligning offers with evolving job roles and digital transitions. 💡Conclusion: ▪️Adult learning must be seen not as a policy add-on, but as an essential building block for a just transition and economic adaptability. ▪️The report is a must-read for policymakers, education leaders, and employers alike. #LifelongLearning #SkillsForTheFuture #AdultEducation EU Employment and Skills Cedefop Eurofound European Training Foundation EfVET European Association of Institutes for Vocational Training (EVBB) European Vocational Training Association - EVTA EUproVET EURASHE eucen CoP CoVEs

In a world of accelerating market shifts, understanding stock market participation is more critical than ever. The latest data, visualized here by Visual Capitalist (April 2025), reveals fascinating global disparities in stock market engagement. The U.S. leads with 55% of the population participating, followed by Canada (49%) and Australia (37%). Meanwhile, despite having nearly 99 million shareholders, China’s participation rate remains just 7%, highlighting a vast under-tapped retail investor potential relative to population size. Recent market turbulence — from tech sector corrections to evolving central bank policies — has reignited conversations about financial literacy, access to investment platforms, and the resilience of retail investing communities. A few reflections: • Mature markets like the U.S. and Canada demonstrate the stabilizing power of widespread shareholder bases, even amid volatility • Emerging economies, despite growing absolute numbers of investors, still have significant room to deepen participation — a huge opportunity, but also a structural challenge • As digital platforms proliferate and financial inclusion initiatives expand, we may be standing at the edge of a historic shift in global investing patterns In this environment, trust, education, and smart regulation will be key to ensuring that broader participation translates into more resilient financial systems.

Mass Participation in Multiple Modes of Vibration: Why Higher Modes Matter When performing a modal response spectrum analysis, one of the most important checks is modal mass participation. It tells us how much of the structure's total mass is represented by the vibration modes included in the analysis. A common misconception is that the first mode dominates the entire response. While this may be true for regular, low-rise structures, irregular, taller, or torsionally sensitive buildings often require many modes to accurately capture their dynamic behavior. For each mode n: Participation Factor Γₙ = (φₙᵀM1) / (φₙᵀMφₙ) where: φₙ = mode shape vector M = mass matrix 1 = influence vector Effective Modal Mass Mₑₙ = Γₙ²(φₙᵀMφₙ) Mass Participation Ratio rₙ = Mₑₙ / Mₜₒₜ Cumulative Mass Participation R = Σrₙ Engineering practice generally aims to capture at least 90% of the total participating mass in each principal direction before terminating the modal extraction (subject to the governing building code and analysis procedure). Why is this important? • Captures the contribution of higher vibration modes. • Improves seismic force distribution along the height. • Better predicts floor accelerations and interstory drifts. • Identifies torsional response in asymmetric buildings. • Produces more reliable member forces and diaphragm demands. Since peak modal responses do not occur simultaneously, individual modal responses are combined using statistical methods such as: SRSS = √(ΣRᵢ²) or CQC = √(ΣΣρᵢⱼRᵢRⱼ) where ρᵢⱼ accounts for the correlation between closely spaced modes. A reliable vibration analysis is not about extracting more modes—it's about extracting enough modes to adequately represent the dynamic characteristics of the structure. Higher modes may contribute only a small percentage individually, but together they can significantly influence seismic performance, especially in irregular structures. #StructuralEngineering #EarthquakeEngineering #SeismicDesign #ModalAnalysis #ResponseSpectrum #Dynamics #FiniteElementAnalysis #StructuralDynamics #CivilEngineering #Engineering

An employer eliminated their annual open enrollment meeting. Sent a 2-minute video instead. Benefits participation jumped from 34% to 81% in one year. Turns out people don't hate benefits—they hate sitting through a 90-minute PowerPoint about deductibles at 4pm on a Wednesday. Here's what they did instead. For 8 years, HR spent 3 weeks preparing slides. Employees required to attend one of three sessions. 90 minutes of coverage tiers, network details, HSA vs FSA explanations, compliance disclosures. Average attendance: 72% (28% "had conflicts"). Of those who attended, employee surveys showed 19% could explain their deductible, 11% understood their HSA, and 4% knew what coinsurance meant. Most employees elected "same as last year" and hoped for the best. The new HR director asked a radical question: "What if we stopped explaining benefits like we're reading the legal fine print and started showing people what actually happens?" They fired the PowerPoint. Created a 2-minute video instead. No jargon. No bullet points. Just real scenarios. "Meet Sarah. She went to urgent care for a sprained ankle. Here's exactly what she paid with Plan A versus Plan B." "Meet James. His daughter needed her tonsils out. Here's what his HSA covered and what came out of pocket." Two minutes. Real people. Real numbers. Real consequences. Posted it to the company intranet. Sent it via email. Available 24/7. Employees could watch at their desk, at home, on their phone during lunch. Results Year 1: Voluntary benefits enrollment jumped from 34% to 81%. Employees actually understood what they were buying. HSA participation went from 12% to 67% because people finally understood it wasn't a "use it or lose it" situation. Plan selection shifted dramatically—47% of employees changed their plan choice based on the calculator showing their actual projected costs. Post-enrollment survey: 91% said they understood their benefits. Year 2 surprise: Health plan claims dropped 14% because people were in the right plans for their needs. High users in low-deductible plans. Healthy employees in HSA plans with lower premiums. Return: $97,000 in reduced claims from better plan matching, plus employees who actually knew what they had and how to use it. But the real win showed up in employee comments: "First time in 6 years I actually understood what I was choosing." "The video about disability insurance made me realize $23/paycheck was worth it. Glad I have it now." "I've been overpaying for coverage I didn't need for 4 years. The calculator showed me in 30 seconds." Open enrollment isn't broken because employees don't care. It's broken because we're still explaining healthcare like it's 1997 and everyone has time to decode insurance speak. Your employees want to make smart choices. They just need someone to show them what those choices actually mean in dollars they'll pay and care they'll receive. Clear beats comprehensive. Every single time.

At the beginning of 2025, we were told USDA would be “trimming fat.” But what we have seen looks a lot more like cutting into muscle, and the patient is bleeding. Let’s talk about what really stood out in the most recent USDA NASS reports. It wasn’t acres. It wasn’t even stocks. It was a lack of trust. The Prospective Plantings survey response rate dropped to 37.6%, the lowest on record. Just a few years ago, we were in the upper 40s. Go back a decade, and USDA surveys were operating at what’s considered the gold standard: 50%+ participation. Here’s the argument you’ll hear back: ➡️ “We don’t need as many responses anymore.” ➡️ “Farms are larger.” ➡️ “We can still capture a similar number of acres.” Technically, that’s true. But it misses the point. This isn’t just about acreage coverage. It’s about confidence in the current system. Because in the data science world, we all know: “Garbage in, garbage out.” And when participation drops this sharply, the question becomes: 👉 Are we still measuring reality… or estimating it with less and less grounding? We’ve already seen warning signs in the last 12 months: 📊 Questionable revisions (you know...the corn numbers) 📰 Reports losing depth, narrative, and transparency ✂️ Eliminated reports, more “black box” outputs, fewer explanations And this isn’t happening in a vacuum. Over the past year, USDA leadership pushed a clear message: ↘️ Reduce workforce ✂️ Cut costs We were told by the Secretary that programs like DRP and VERA would not impact data quality or reporting outputs. And yet… 📉 Participation has collapsed ✂️Analytical depth is thinning 📉 Confidence is slipping, not just among farmers, but across the entire industry This isn’t just trimming fat. This is cutting into muscle, and the patient is now bleeding out. Here’s the uncomfortable reality: 👉 You cannot reduce participation and reduce institutional capacity and expect the same outcomes. 👉 You cannot lose trust on the farm and maintain credibility in the data. 👉 You cannot weaken both ends of the system and call it efficiency. Last year’s drop in response raised eyebrows. How about this year’s collapse? Farmers are stepping back as their frustration rises. Analysts are questioning outputs. Confidence in the “gold standard” is eroding. And that gold standard matters. USDA data has long been the backbone, the foundation of global ag markets. If that foundation cracks, everything built on top of it becomes less certain. 📌 Bottom line: This isn’t about one report. It’s about a system under stress from both sides. And right now, the entire ag industry is watching and wondering: How much more “muscle” is left to cut at USDA? Are we still looking at the gold standard of ag data… or something else? #USDA #data #NASS #agriculture #agmarkets #agcommodities

Widening participation deserves to be back on the agenda given the very weak figures of late (e.g. recent attention on contextual offers here https://lnkd.in/evVUyi_6). Contextual offers might have an effect at the margins (though differential confirmation more effective). But the data suggests that structural factors around places and funding levels may be more important. The graph shows the entry rate of English under-represented groups through time. Arguably faster growth indicates a more positive widening participation (WP) environment, slower growth indicates less positive WP environment. Its never clear cut, but you might have four broad periods 2006-2011: Modest growth WP. Fairly average course funding levels per student, but low direct student fees. Number controls, but rising A level grades. 2012- 2019: Fast growth WP. High funding levels per student, very high (in real terms) student fees. Grants replaced by loans. No number controls (progressively), fixed A level grades. Also a period with explicit government targets on POLAR entry rates. 2020-2021: Very fast growth WP. Falling levels of real funding per student, still high (in real terms), but falling, student fees. No number controls. Rising and higher than normal A level grades . 2022-onwards. Slow growth/declines in WP. Very low levels of real funding (especially at lower tariff providers), falling and fairly low student fees (in real terms). No number controls. Falling/static A level grades. The two strongest periods for WP were then (i) when A level grades were temporarily boosted (and no number controls allowed people to use these); and (ii) when direct fees were high, courses were well resourced, and places were uncapped. So the data suggest that the most favourable environment for WP is unrestricted well funded places (particularly at lower tariff), with a further boost from rising grades at A level, and perhaps government targets/policy attention.

Right after the March 31 acreage report, I raised concerns around USDA survey participation and followed up directly with NASS to better understand the historical trend. The data confirmed it: response rates have been steadily declining, hitting a record low 37.6% in March — representing fewer than 28,000 producers. The trend — and this chart — hit No Bull subscribers’ inboxes two weeks ago. Now, USDA is moving to expand its survey efforts to improve precision in upcoming reports. Pending OMB approval, the agency aims to increase the sample size for the June 30 acreage report by 35%, and by 10% in subsequent quarterly reports. At yesterday’s USDA Data Users’ Meeting in Kansas City, NASS Administrator Joseph Parsons said this “should substantially boost usable reports and increase the precision of major field crop estimates.” This survey points to a clear participation problem — but that’s not USDA's only issue. There’s a personnel problem too, as staffing cuts have taken a toll, leaving what was once the most complete and reliable dataset on the planet anything but. If you are looking for an edge, look no further. 🔗 NoBullAg.com/insights

📉 𝘛𝘩𝘦 “𝘍𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦” 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘞𝘢𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐𝘵 𝘓𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘓𝘪𝘬𝘦 A brilliant reminder that data alone doesn’t tell the story—context does. I came across this dashboard by [Chimdi Nwosu], and it’s one of the clearest visual explanations I’ve seen about why labor force participation appeared to fall off a cliff after the Great Recession… and why many experts misdiagnosed it. 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗯𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀 𝘀𝗼 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 — 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘞𝘢𝘴 𝘊𝘺𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 The 2010s data made it appear as if the U.S. workforce was permanently shrinking. In reality, much of the drop was tied to a weak labor market, not a long-term demographic collapse. 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲-𝗔𝗴𝗲 𝗟𝗙𝗣𝗥 𝗧𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝗮 𝗩𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗗𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆: 𝘍𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘵𝘰 2025: 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦-𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘴 83.7%, 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘰. A “decline” that looked irreversible turned out to be a temporary sag in the business cycle. 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗲𝘀 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 The dashboard breaks the timeline into three distinct eras:  1. Recession (sharp decline)  2. Misdiagnosis (the “false decline”)  3. Recovery (steady rebound as full employment returned) This structure is what makes the visual so compelling—it's not just lines on a chart; it's a narrative supported by data. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗻: 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 + 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗪𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗼𝘄𝘀 Comparing peak-to-peak cycles instead of trough data prevents overreaction and bad forecasting. In short: zoom out before drawing conclusions. This is exactly the kind of visualization that elevates public discourse—clear, contextual, and grounded in strong analytical thinking. Awesome work, Chimdi Nwosu. #DataViz #Tableau #LaborEconomics #Analytics #MakeoverMonday #VisualizationDesign #DecisionIntelligence