NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report June 1999

Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Reports

Employer Aid for

Postsecondary Education

John B. Lee, Ed.D.

Suzanne B. Clery

JBL Associates, Inc.

C. Dennis Carroll, Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Education Research and Improvement NCES 1999-181
U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

C. Kent McGuire

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Pascal D. Forgione, Jr.

Commissioner

Postsecondary Division

C. Dennis Carroll

Associate Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing,

and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional

mandate to collect, collate, analyze and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in

the United States. NCES conducts and publishes reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and

significance of education statistics; assists state and local education agencies in improving their statistical

systems; and reviews and reports on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete and

accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful and high quality data to the U.S.

Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users,

and the general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a

variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information

effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we

would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20208-5574

June 1999

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page address is

http://nces.ed.gov

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Employer Aid for Postsecondary

Education, NCES 1999-181, John B. Lee and Suzanne B. Clery. Project Officer: C. Dennis Carroll.

Washington, DC: 1999.

Contact:

Aurora D’Amico

(202) 219-1365
iii

FOREWORD

This report examines the utilization of employer aid. This includes the description of the

types of employees and educational and training programs that employers support.

The report uses data from two sources: the 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study (NPSAS:96) and the Adult Education component of the 1995 National Household

Education Survey (NHES:95). NPSAS:96 is the fourth in a series of surveys conducted by the

U.S. Department of Education. NPSAS:96 represents students of all ages and backgrounds at all

types of accredited postsecondary institutions (from less-than-2-year institutions that provide

short-term vocational training to 4-year colleges and universities) during the 1995-96 academic

year. NHES:95 is a random telephone survey of households. For the Adult Education

component, up to two adults in each household reported their adult education activities. Among

these activities were enrollment in credential, adult basic skills, work-related and other structured

training or educational programs such as recreation or self-improvement activities.

The percentages and means presented in this report were produced using the NPSAS:96

and NHES:95 Data Analysis Systems (DAS). The DAS is a microcomputer application that

allows users to specify and generate their own tables from the NPSAS and NHES datasets. It

produces the design-adjusted standard errors that are necessary for testing the statistical

significance of differences shown in the tables. For more information about the DAS and

directions for obtaining access through the Internet, see appendix B.
iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Writing these reports is very much a team effort. Our thanks go to all that helped during

the various phases of developing this report. Barry Christopher, Robert Harmon and Saharla

Jama of JBL Associates produced and formatted tables, checked statistical statements and edited

text. Vicky Dingler of MPR Associates provided technical expertise in developing variables for

the Data Analysis System. Dennis Carroll of NCES provided the guidance and recommendations

that come from many years of experience. Special thanks go to Ellen Bradburn from the

Education Statistics Services Institute who provided technical review. Final reviews were

provided by Kenneth Redd of Sallie Mae, Christopher Chapman, Michael Cohen and Kristin Perry

of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Nevzer Stacey of the Office of

Educational Research and Improvement, and Elizabeth Warner of the Planning and Evaluation

Service.
v

HIGHLIGHTS

Two National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data sets provided the data for this

report: National Household Education Survey (NHES) and National Postsecondary Student Aid

Survey (NPSAS). NHES provides information describing all educational activities of adults, and

NPSAS provides detailed information about how employers help students pay for their education

if they attended a postsecondary institution.

According to NHES, 13 percent of adults participated in credential programs in 1995.

That was less than either the 21 percent of adults who participated in work-related programs or

the 20 percent who participated in other structured programs. Forty-one percent of the adults in

credential programs were seeking bachelor’s degrees. Another 19 percent were seeking

associate’s degrees. In some cases, a credential program may include professional certification.

One-half of adults who were executives, administrators and managers who enrolled in

credential programs received financial assistance from their employers. This compared with 10

percent of the employees who were in marketing and sales, and 4 percent of those who were

handlers, cleaners, helpers, or laborers.

Seventy-two percent of adults employed as engineers, surveyors, or architects who

enrolled in credential programs received cash assistance from their employers. That was more

than those who were: social scientists or lawyers; teachers, except for postsecondary; writers,

artists, entertainers or athletes; health technologists; in marketing and sales; administrative

support; service; construction; production; transportation and material moving; or handlers,

cleaners, helpers and laborers.

Adults who worked part-time were less likely to receive employer financial aid if they

enrolled in credential programs than those who worked full-time. Seven percent of adults who

worked part-time received cash assistance from their employers if they took credential programs

compared with 37 percent of those who worked full-time.

NPSAS data indicate that 6 percent of all undergraduates received financial aid from their

employer. Four percent of the undergraduates who perceived themselves as students who worked
HIGHLIGHTS

vi

received employer financial aid compared with 25 percent of those who defined themselves as

undergraduate employees. The following findings are limited to those undergraduate employees

who enrolled.

The control of the institution was related to the probability of receiving employer financial

aid. Forty-six percent of the undergraduate employees (employed undergraduates who

considered themselves primarily employees rather than students) who attended private, not-forprofit institutions received employer financial aid compared with 23 percent of those who

attended public institutions.

The level of program in which students were enrolled also related to the probability of

receiving employer financial aid. Thirty-four percent of the undergraduate employees who were

enrolled in bachelor’s degree programs received employer financial aid compared with 23 percent

of those enrolled in institutions that offered associate’s degrees, and 18 percent of those enrolled

in certificate programs. Undergraduate employees who enrolled in business programs were more

likely to receive employer financial aid than were those in humanities, social and behavioral

sciences, education, and life sciences.

The average employer financial aid amount awarded to undergraduate employees was

$932, and ranged from $432 for those attending institutions with tuition and fees below $1,000 to

$3,437 for those attending institutions with tuition and fees between $5,000 and $7,499.

Employer financial aid recipients in public institutions received $510 compared with $2,321

received by those in private, not-for-profit institutions.

Thirteen percent of graduate and first-professional students (this category includes medical

doctors, lawyers, and architects) received employer financial aid. Master’s degree students were

more likely to receive employer financial aid than were doctoral or first-professional students.

Sixteen percent of master’s degree students received employer financial aid compared with 5

percent of the doctoral and first-professional students.

The average employer financial aid amount awarded to graduate students was $2,451.

Male recipients received a higher average amount of employer financial aid than females. Males

received an average employer financial aid award of $2,987 compared with $1,980 received by

females.
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD .......................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................iv

HIGHLIGHTS..........................................................................................................................v

LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................ix

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................xi

INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1

Data Sources and Definitions...........................................................................................5

NPSAS ................................................................................................................5

NHES ..................................................................................................................5

Definition of employer aid ....................................................................................7

Differences between NHES and NPSAS...............................................................8

RESULTS FROM NHES..........................................................................................................9

Types of Education and Training Programs......................................................................9

Characteristics of Adults Participating in Adult Education Programs..............................17

Credential programs...........................................................................................17

Students who work and employees who attend school ............................17

Work-related programs......................................................................................18

Student characteristics............................................................................18

Occupation-related characteristics...........................................................19

Other structured programs .................................................................................20

Adult Education and Employer Aid................................................................................23

Credential programs...........................................................................................23

Employee characteristics.........................................................................25

Reasons for education.............................................................................28

Enrollment characteristics.......................................................................28

The relationship between employment and enrollment status, and employer

financial aid ............................................................................................34

Work-related programs......................................................................................36

Other structured programs .................................................................................42

RESULTS FROM NPSAS......................................................................................................48
CONTENTS

viii

Undergraduates .............................................................................................................50

Employed undergraduates’ primary roles............................................................50

Characteristics of undergraduate employees .......................................................51

Average employer financial aid amount awarded to undergraduate employees....58

Graduate and First-Professional Students.......................................................................59

Characteristics of graduate students who received employer financial aid............59

Graduate students by degree sought ...................................................................64

Average employer financial aid amount awarded to graduate students who

received employer financial aid...........................................................................66

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH EMPLOYER AID RECEIPT FOR

UNDERGRADUATE EMPLOYEES AFTER CONTROLLING FOR BACKGROUND

VARIATION...........................................................................................................................68

CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY ........................................................................................73

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................76

Glossary Index...............................................................................................................76

NHES:95 Variables .......................................................................................................78

Respondent characteristics .................................................................................78

Credential programs variables.............................................................................82

Other structured programs variables...................................................................86

Work-related programs variables........................................................................87

Other variables...................................................................................................89

NPSAS:96 Undergraduate Variables..............................................................................90

NPSAS:96 Graduate and First-Professional Student Variables.......................................97

APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES ................................................................................104

The 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96).........................104

The 1995 National Household Education Survey (NHES:95).......................................104

Data Analysis System...................................................................................................105

Statistical Procedures...................................................................................................107

Adjustment of Means to Control for Background Variation .........................................109
ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Percentage distribution of adults in credential programs according to type of

institution offering program, by selected characteristics: 1995 ........................................ 14

2 Percentage of adults who participated in credential, work-related or other

structured programs, by selected characteristics: 1995 ................................................... 21

3 Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in credential programs who received

employer aid according to type of employer aid received, by respondent

demographics: 1995....................................................................................................... 26

4 Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in credential programs who received

employer aid according to type of employer aid received, by employment and adult

education characteristics: 1995 ...................................................................................... 29

5 Percentage distribution of adults who participated in credential programs

according to type of employer aid received, by enrollment status and hours worked

per week: 1995.............................................................................................................. 35

6 Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in work-related programs who received

employer aid according to type of employer aid received, by respondent

demographics: 1995....................................................................................................... 37

7 Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in work-related programs who received

employer aid according to type of employer aid received, by employment and adult

education characteristics: 1995 ...................................................................................... 39

8 Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in other structured programs according

to employer support, by respondent demographics: 1995 ............................................... 43
LIST OF TABLES

x

9 Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in other structured programs according

to employer support, by employment and adult education characteristics: 1995.............. 45

10 Percentage distribution of undergraduate employees and percentage of

undergraduate employees who received employer financial aid by primary role

while enrolled and working: 1995-96 ............................................................................. 51

11 Percentage of undergraduate employees who received employer financial aid, and

average employer financial aid award received, by selected characteristics: 1995-96....... 53

12 Percentage distribution of undergraduate employees according to institution type,

by employer financial aid receipt: 1995-96 ..................................................................... 58

13 Percentage of graduate students who received employer financial aid, and average

employer financial aid award received, by selected characteristics: 1995-96.................... 61

14 Percentage distribution of graduate and first-professional students by degree

sought, according to selected characteristics: 1995-96 ................................................... 66

15 Percentage of undergraduate employees who received employer financial aid, and

the adjusted percentage after taking into account the covariation of the variables

listed: 1995-96............................................................................................................... 69

B.1 Standard errors for table 3: Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in credential

programs who received employer aid according to type of employer aid received,

by respondent demographics: 1995 .............................................................................. 106
xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Percentage of adults who participated in credential, work-related, other structured,

or ESL, ABE or GED programs: 1995 ............................................................................9

2 Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in ESL, ABE or GED classes according

to type of employer aid received: 1995........................................................................... 10

3 Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in credential programs according to

highest level program enrolled in: 1995.......................................................................... 11

4 Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in credential programs who received

employer financial aid according to level of degree program: 1995................................. 24

5 Percentage of undergraduates who received any aid, federal aid, institutional aid,

state aid and employer financial aid: 1995-96 ................................................................. 49

6 Percentage of graduate and first-professional students who received any aid,

federal aid, institutional aid, state aid and employer financial aid: 1995-96...................... 50

7 Percentage distribution of graduate and first-professional students according to

type of degree sought: 1995-96...................................................................................... 65

1

INTRODUCTION

Employers are interested in helping their employees continue their education. According

to the National University Continuing Education Association (NUCEA), 90 percent of companies

currently offer continuing education benefits and 97 percent plan to offer them by the year 2000.1

Another survey found that 75 percent of the surveyed employers provided tuition benefits.2

NUCEA reports that the benefit ranks above childcare, flextime and family leave benefits in

popularity with employees.

Three explanations suggest why employers are willing to invest in their employees’

education. First, if the average age of the workforce continues to increase as the baby boom

generation passes age 40,3 it would be appropriate to maintain and upgrade the skills of an older

workforce. Second, education is essential to worker productivity and America’s continuing

competitiveness in the global economy. Economic research has confirmed that there is a link

between education and worker productivity.4 Third, the number of jobs that demand special skills

and higher educational preparation is increasing faster than those that require no special training.5

Employers have some incentive to compensate employees for tuition benefits because the

support is usually exempt from federal income tax. This has not always been the case and the

continuation of this provision is in doubt. Previous Congresses have resisted making this benefit

permanent; the 105th Congress extended the benefit for another year in 1998.

The U.S. Department of Labor reports that the number of jobs requiring at least an

associate’s degree will grow faster than average job growth.6 Jobs requiring the least education

 

1National University Continuing Education Association. Lifelong Learning Trends. (Washington, D.C.: 1996).

2University of Pennsylvania. “The Landscape,” Change. (Washington, D.C.: Institute for Research on Higher Education, March/April 1997), p. 39.

3U. S. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1997. (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census, 1997), p. 25.

4U.S. Department of Education. Education and the Economy: An Indicators Report. (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics,

1997), www.NCES.ed.gov/pubs97/97939.html.

5U.S. Department of Labor. Change in Employment by Education and Training Category, 1994-2005. (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Labor

Statistics, 1995).

6U.S. Department of Labor. Employment Outlook: 1994-2005. (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1995), p. 7.
RESULTS FROM NHES

2

will experience the slowest growth while professional specialties will encounter the fastest job

growth. Many employees will have an incentive to improve their job prospects by continuing

their education.

Employers provide the majority of the work-related employee training. This type of

training is important to the employer, but is seldom conducted with the assistance of colleges and

universities. According to a National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) report, based on

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, 41 percent of the U.S. workforce received skills

improvement training on the job in 1991, up from 35 percent in 1983.7 Employees differ in their

chances of participating in job training. The study reported that employer-provided training was

more likely to be provided to those with more education. Sixty-one percent of employees with a

college education participated in employer-provided training, compared with 46 percent with

some college and 29 percent with a high school diploma or less. Workers in highly skilled

occupations such as managerial, professional or technical jobs were more likely to participate in

employer-provided training than those in less skilled occupations. Those who participated in

employer-provided training benefited by increased earnings compared with those who did not.

In 1995, the BLS did a survey of employer-provided training.8 The report confirmed the

fact that employer-provided training is widespread. Eighty-four percent of employees received

some type of formal training and 96 percent received some type of informal training on the job.

Computer training was the most commonly received type of job-skills training (38 percent of

employees) and occupational-safety training was the type of general skills training taken most

frequently by 58 percent of the employees.

The BLS survey found that participation in training programs was not evenly distributed

among employees. The youngest and oldest workers were less likely to have received formal

training during the last 12 months than were workers ages 25 to 54. The total hours of training

were lowest for the youngest and oldest workers. Workers 24 years of age or younger and 55

years or older received about one-half as many hours of training as workers between these ages.

Employees with less than two, or more than four, years of experience received more training than

did those with two to four years of experience. Perhaps employers are willing to provide general

 

7U.S. Department of Education. Education and the Economy: An Indicators Report. (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics,

1997), www.ed.gov/NCES/pubs97/97939.html.

8U.S. Department of Labor. 1995 Survey of Employer-Provided Training-Employee Results. (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Labor Statistics,

1996), stats.bls.gov/news.release/sept.nws.htm.
RESULTS FROM NHES

3

training for new workers, but offer specialized training when the employee is more experienced in

his or her job. Alternatively, training may not be appropriate until the new employee is

experienced in the job. Full-time workers received more training than did part-time workers.

Level of education before employment was also related to employee participation in

employer-sponsored training, according to the BLS survey. Workers with a high school

education or less were less likely to participate in training than were workers with more

education. Sixty percent of employees with no more than a high school diploma participated in

employer-provided training programs compared with 90 percent of employees with bachelor’s

degrees or higher. Because prior education level is associated with income, it is not surprising

that being in the lowest earnings quartile was associated with a lower probability of receiving

training than employees in higher earnings quartiles.

Background differences such as prior education may be associated with the variation in

training activities experienced by members of the racial and ethnic groups surveyed. According to

BLS, white, non-Hispanic employees received more training than black, non-Hispanic or Hispanic

employees.9

Organization type, industry, and employee occupation all relate to participation in

employer-provided training programs. Smaller organizations, those with fewer than 100

employees, and those that provided fewer benefits overall were less likely to provide training than

larger organizations who provided more employee benefits of all types. Service workers were

less likely to receive training than those in other occupations while professional and technical

workers received the most training. By industry, manufacturing employees received the most

training and retail trade the least. Those in more technical or professional jobs were also more

likely to participate in employer-provided training.

Much of the growth in college and university enrollment over the last decade came from

an increase in the number of part-time students. Between 1984 and 1993, full-time undergraduate

enrollment increased 13 percent while part-time enrollment increased 20 percent.10 Many of these

part-time students were working adults. College leaders may interpret this as evidence that

 

9U.S. Department of Labor. 1995 Survey of Employer-Provided Training-Employee Results. (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Labor Statistics,

1996), stats.bls.gov/news.release/sept.nws.htm.

10U. S. Department of Education. Digest of Education Statistics, 1995. (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, 1995), p. 189.
RESULTS FROM NHES

4

employees have turned to their institutions to improve their job skills but colleges rank last in a list

of employer-provided training settings.

The BLS report ranked the employer-provided training settings:

ß Classes by company training personnel 76%

ß Classes or workshops by outside trainers 48%

ß Lectures, conferences or seminars 36%

ß Educational institutions 17%

This report is limited to examining the support employers provide employees attending

postsecondary education institutions. However, postsecondary education, or credential

education, is only one type of education activity supported by employers. In terms of employer

support, job training may be the most important category of adult and continuing education.

The BLS survey suggests that organizations other than colleges and universities may

provide the bulk of adult training. Employers and employees may not perceive traditional

academic programs as relevant to their specific job-training needs. Thus, college and university

enrollment may not increase as more working adults seek specialized job training. Some

postsecondary institutions may provide contract training to employers outside of the regular credit

program.

Most job training is short: the BLS estimates that employees spend a total of 89 hours per

year in job training.11 That represents the time it would take to complete one three-unit academic

class. Traditional academic programs take more time and are not as focused on specific job skills

as industry consultants and training organizations. This finding challenges the expectation that

postsecondary degree and credential programs may develop as major providers of recurring job

training. The fact remains that employer aid is an important source of support for a minority of

postsecondary students.

Employers may be less likely to provide support to individuals enrolling in courses for selfimprovement, recreation, or health reasons, and some courses may not have costs associated with

them. For example, soon-to-be parents may take childbirth classes as part of their prenatal health

 

11U.S. Department of Labor. 1995 Survey of Employer-Provided Training-Employee Results. (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Labor Statistics,

1996), stats.bls.gov/news.release/sept.nws.htm.
RESULTS FROM NHES

5

care programs, while others may attend Bible study classes at their church. These may qualify as

adult education and may be free.

Several questions provide the organizational basis for this report:

1. What types of training and education did employers support?

2. How important were postsecondary institutions in providing employer-supported

training and education compared with other sources of education?

3. Which postsecondary institutions were most likely to enroll students who received

help from their employers?

4. Which types of employees were most likely to receive financial support from

employers if they enrolled in a credential program?

DATA SOURCES AND DEFINITIONS

NPSAS

This report draws on two data sets. The first is the 1995-96 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96) which is a nationally representative sample of students enrolled in

accredited postsecondary institutions. The sample limits the results to undergraduate, graduate

and first-professional students enrolled in degree granting programs. The database includes

details on institutional characteristics, description of students, educational price of attendance, and

student aid received by students. NPSAS provides a detailed description of adults who enroll in

credit classes and how they pay for their education. NPSAS does not provide information on

education that takes place outside accredited postsecondary institutions.

NHES

The second source is the 1995 National Household Education Survey (NHES:95). NHES

is a random telephone survey of households. Sampled household members were weighted to

represent the U.S. civilian, non-institutionalized population. The survey questions covered two

topics: the Adult Education component collected information about adult participation in adult

education programs, and the Early Childhood Program Participation component collected

information about participation in childcare and early childhood programs.
RESULTS FROM NHES

6

This analysis reports findings from the NHES Adult Education component, which was

based on interviews with 19,722 respondents 16 years or older who were not enrolled in

elementary or secondary school, or not on active duty in the military. Up to two adults in each

household were selected as a respondent to describe adult education activities.

Respondents were asked about their participation in seven types of adult education

activities or programs:

ß Adult basic education and General Equivalency Degree classes (ABE/GED)

ß English as a Second Language studies (ESL)

ß Courses taken toward college degrees or vocational diplomas (credential programs)

ß Apprenticeship programs

ß Career or work-related programs

ß Other formally structured courses

ß Computer-only or video-only classes

Individuals could indicate that they participated in more than one type of adult education

activity. They might have also participated in more than one program in a type of education

activity. In the former case, the separate programs were counted as independent events. In the

latter case, the individual activities were combined and treated as one. Those who participated in

more than one type of activity are reported for each activity separately.

Work-related programs included any formally structured education or training specifically

related to work. This did not include informal on-the-job training. Work-related programs

excluded academic credential programs taken to improve work skills. This does not mean that the

academic programs were not related to work. Other structured programs included such things as

arts and crafts, sports or recreation, first aid or childbirth, Bible study, or any other types of

formal courses not included in any other section.

Adults who participated in ABE/GED and ESL courses were consolidated into one group

for this analysis. Because they were so scarce, analysis was not completed on adults who

participated in apprenticeship programs. Further, the survey was structured so very few questions

were asked about computer or video classes; therefore, this category was excluded from the

analysis as well.
RESULTS FROM NHES

7

The NHES survey was structured so that questions and items were worded differently

across the education categories. Although an effort was made to make the different categories as

homogeneous as possible, it was not possible to report the same information about each type of

adult education program.

The typology of classes is necessarily ambiguous. When respondents were asked to

classify programs in which they participated, they may not have had the same understanding as the

professional educators who designed the classification system. Therefore, the category “other

structured programs” may include work-related programs along with those taken for personal

reasons. Credential programs may include courses taken for “continuing education units” (CEUs)

or other certificates not commonly associated with college degrees or postsecondary certificates.

Some respondents indicated that they enrolled full-time, but they attended for less than a month.

When respondents indicate that they attended full-time, it may not coincide with the traditional

academic measure of an academic year.

Definition of employer aid

The NHES data can be distilled to two definitions of employer aid. In practice, employer

assistance ranges from allowing flextime so employees could fit a class into their schedule, to

paying the price of the class. Examples of employer support include providing facilities for the

class to be held on-site, or allowing the employee time off with or without pay. Employer support

means the employer facilitated the training or education using means other than cash payment. If

cash support was provided, it is classified as “employer paid,” if the employer provides any other

type of assistance, it is called “employer provided support.”

Employer aid means that the employer provided cash payment to the employee for his or

her participation in a formal training or education program. Employer aid for education may take

several forms. Examples include paying all or part of the tuition at a postsecondary institution or

paying for attendance at a conference where the employee attended a training workshop. Any

amount of cash support from the employer qualified as employer aid for training. The student

may have received other support from the employer in addition to cash. All students who

received cash payment were classified as receiving employer aid and not included in the employer

support group. All the reporting categories are mutually exclusive.

In the case of NPSAS, the only reported employer support is financial aid. It is not

possible to report other types of employer support because the information was not collected.
RESULTS FROM NHES

8

Differences between NHES and NPSAS

These ambiguities in the NHES data limit the value of direct comparisons to NPSAS.

Results from the two datasets are not directly comparable for at least three reasons. First, they

did not have the same purpose: NHES asked questions about a range of educational activities

while NPSAS collected more detailed information on students enrolled in accredited

postsecondary education. Second, the NPSAS project collected data exclusively from students

attending postsecondary institutions, the institution they attended, and their parents. The NHES

project collected information from a sample of households, whether or not they had been involved

in formal education or training over the previous year. Third, the two surveys asked different

questions.

Given their differences, the two databases complement one another. They provide

different views of employer support for employees who participated in education or training

programs. The NHES data allow examination of the participation in all types of education and

training programs. This database helps put formal postsecondary education in context of the

larger spectrum of training and educational activities. Perhaps most importantly, the NHES data

are unique in allowing identification of the types of training employers supported in addition to

credential programs offered by postsecondary institutions. The weakness of the NHES data is

that NHES does not provide information about the amount of cash support provided by

employers and only very general information about the programs taken.

The NPSAS data provide no information about education and training activities outside

accredited postsecondary institutions. The NPSAS data provide information about educational

programs, the financial details, and the characteristics of undergraduates and graduate students in

accredited postsecondary institutions. This database provides more detail about the price of

attendance and other forms of support the students received than the NHES database.

The NHES tables are presented first in this report to provide an overview of the types of

training and education for which students received employer aid. The NPSAS tables follow with

more detailed information about students who received employer financial aid while enrolled in

accredited postsecondary institutions. Results from the two data sets are not comparable.
9

RESULTS FROM NHES

TYPES OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS

The central purpose of this report is to describe the use of employer-provided financial aid

by students seeking a degree or credential. Credential programs are not the only type of

education or training activity that employers might fund. In addition to providing cash

compensation to employees who take education or training programs, employers might provide

other types of support such as time off, access to a room for the class or changing the work

schedule to accommodate the class schedule.

Figure 1 shows the enrollment of adults in several different types of education or training

programs. Twenty-one percent of adults reported enrolling in work-related programs and 20

percent in other structured programs compared with 13 percent in credential programs.

Figure 1—Percentage of adults who participated in credential, work-related, other structured, or ESL, ABE

or GED programs: 1995

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey

(NHES:95), 1995 Adult Education Data Analysis System.

13.0

20.9

19.9

1.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

Credential programs Work-related programs Other structured

programs

ESL, ABE or GED

programs

Type of program

Percentage
RESULTS FROM NHES

10

Two percent of adults participated in English as a Second Language (ESL), Adult Basic

Education (ABE) or General Equivalency Degree (GED) programs (figure 1). Twenty-one

percent of adults who enrolled in ESL, ABE or GED classes received cash assistance from their

employer and 34 percent received some other type of employer aid; 45 percent did not receive

employer assistance of any type (figure 2). Too few people enrolled in ESL, ABE or GED classes

to make meaningful comparisons between those who did or did not receive employer aid. For this

reason, the report does not provide any further analyses of participants in ESL, ABE and GED

programs.

Figure 2—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in ESL, ABE or GED classes according to type of

employer aid* received: 1995

*Respondents who received cash assistance from their employers may or may not have received other forms of employer support.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey (NHES:95), 1995 Adult

Education Data Analysis System.

According to NHES, 13 percent of adults participated in credential programs at some

point during the year (figure 1). This may overestimate the actual enrollment. Because

respondents were asked to classify their own education or training program, the meaning of the

No employer aid

44.9%

Employer provided other 

support

33.9%

Employer paid*

21.2%
RESULTS FROM NHES

11

term credential may not coincide with the formal definition used by educators. Many respondents

may have identified training related to job credentials or certificates as academic credentials. It

was not possible to conclude that a credential program as defined in NHES equated with

enrollment in a postsecondary credential program.

Forty-one percent of the adults in credential programs were seeking bachelor’s degrees

(figure 3). This was followed by 19 percent who sought associate’s degrees. Fourteen percent

sought vocational or technical certificates, and 13 percent sought master’s degrees. The

remaining students were distributed among other degree programs.

Figure 3—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in credential programs according to highest level

program enrolled in: 1995

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey

(NHES:95), 1995 Adult Education Data Analysis System.

Most adults seeking credentials or degrees enrolled in postsecondary institutions. Some,

however, enrolled in programs offered by providers other than traditional colleges and

Vocational/technical 

certificate

14.2%

Associate's degree

19.2%

Bachelor's degree

40.9%

Doctoral degree

2.5%

First-professional degree

3.3%

Other

7.2%

Master's degree

12.8%
RESULTS FROM NHES

12

universities. Table 1 displays the distribution of adults who enrolled in credential programs

according to provider. Fifty-three percent of the adults seeking credentials or degrees attended a

4-year college or university.12 Another 23 percent attended 2-year community or junior colleges,

6 percent attended 2-year vocational or technical schools, and 5 percent attended private

vocational or trade schools. These four institutional types accounted for 87 percent of the

credential enrollment. However, some adults reported enrolling in credential programs provided

by businesses or industries (3 percent), professional associations (1 percent), primary or

secondary schools (1 percent), or other providers (5 percent). Four percent report having

enrolled in multiple institutions.

Given that these latter types of institutions do not usually provide postsecondary

education, three possible explanations may clarify the results. First, some organizations whose

principal business is not education offered credential programs. For example, hospitals often have

formal academic programs in medical specialties. Second, colleges and universities may provide

classes in non-campus settings, which may have confused respondents about which organization

provided the education. Third, adults may have taken Continuing Education Units (CEUs) or

other certification classes required by their occupations or employers. These credits would not

have qualified as credits provided by accredited postsecondary education institutions, but they

may have been interpreted as academic credits by the adults.

Adults who sought education and training from postsecondary institutions usually

reported seeking degrees affiliated with the institutions’ levels. For example, 79 percent of those

seeking bachelor’s degrees attended 4-year institutions, as did 89 percent of those seeking

master’s degrees and 83 percent of those seeking doctoral degrees. Further, 71 percent of the

adults seeking associate’s degrees were enrolled in 2-year colleges. Adults who reported seeking

degrees not congruent with the level of institution may have reported long-term goals rather than

the actual program of current enrollment. For example, an adult with a long-term goal of a

bachelor’s degree or higher may have enrolled in a 2-year college.

Although the reporting categories provide useful information, care should be taken in

using the results of the NHES analysis to describe enrollment in vocational and technical

programs. Twenty-three percent of adults who sought vocational/technical degrees or certificates

did so in 2-year vocational or technical schools. Another 15 percent of adults who sought

 

12It was not possible to distinguish between public and private, 4-year providers on NHES.
RESULTS FROM NHES

13

vocational/technical certificates or degrees took their instruction from other providers that were

not listed separately, 11 percent from businesses or industries, and 5 percent from professional

associations. None of these latter providers qualify as postsecondary institutions. These results

suggest that some adults may have a broader definition of credential education than that offered

by accredited postsecondary institutions.
RESULTS FROM NHES

14

Table 1—Percentage distribution of adults in credential programs according to type of institution offering program, by selected characteristics : 1995

2-year 2-year

Primary/ community vocational or 4-year Private

secondary or junior technical college or vocational or Business, Professional

school college school university trade school industry association Other Multiple

 Total 0.9 22.8 5.5 53.3 5.0 2.8 1.3 4.5 4.0Highest level of credential program enrolled in

Vocational/technical certificate 2.9 14.3 22.8 6.2 20.7 10.7 4.6 15.1 2.8Associate’s degree 0.7 70.8 6.7 12.3 2.9 0.6 0.3 2.4 3.4Bachelor’s degree 0.3 13.3 1.0 79.0 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.7 4.5Master’s degree 0.4 2.9 0.1 89.4 1.1 0.2 0.0 2.1 3.8Doctoral degree 0.7 2.4 0.0 82.7 2.4 0.6 0.0 7.2 4.2First-professional degree 0.0 6.4 2.0 69.9 2.9 1.8 4.2 3.0 9.9Other 2.2 15.8 6.0 28.2 13.4 11.9 5.4 15.1 2.1

Average hours in class per week for part-time credential programs1

Less than four 1.3 21.6 5.7 49.6 5.0 4.1 1.9 5.6 5.2Four to six 1.2 31.4 5.9 42.7 4.7 3.1 1.2 3.5 6.3More than six 0.9 32.8 6.4 37.1 5.5 4.6 0.9 5.8 6.0

Average hours in class per week for full-time credential programs2

Less than four 2.3 15.0 3.8 52.5 2.5 2.5 1.6 11.7 8.3Four to six 0.7 16.0 4.1 55.3 3.3 5.8 2.7 8.3 4.0More than six 0.6 19.7 5.2 59.9 5.2 1.2 0.9 3.2 4.2

Average months in class for part-time credential programs1

Less than three 1.4 19.1 6.1 36.3 9.9 8.2 1.0 8.0 10.0Three to five 1.6 31.0 6.3 41.7 4.1 2.4 1.1 5.6 6.2Six to eight 0.7 34.3 7.4 42.1 4.0 3.0 1.4 2.5 4.8Nine to twelve 0.3 30.8 4.4 51.7 2.7 3.5 2.0 3.0 1.7

Average months in class for full-time credential programs2

Less than three 0.5 16.8 11.8 28.2 12.1 6.8 4.8 10.4 8.7Three to five 0.4 22.9 6.3 48.5 5.7 1.6 0.7 6.6 7.3Six to eight 1.9 24.3 4.1 57.6 4.0 1.1 0.4 2.3 4.5Nine to twelve 0.1 14.4 3.3 74.5 3.3 0.7 0.7 1.6 1.3
RESULTS FROM NHES

15

Table 1—Percentage distribution of adults in credential programs according to type of institution offering program, by selected characteristics : 1995--Continued

2-year 2-year

Primary/ community vocational or 4-year Private

secondary or junior technical college or vocational or Business, Professional

school college school university trade school industry association Other Multiple

Credential program part of assistantship or fellowship

Part of assistantship or fellowship 0.0 5.8 0.6 84.5 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3Not part of assistantship or fellowship 0.0 9.0 2.6 80.2 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0

Employer required credential program3

Employer required 1.6 7.2 3.8 32.0 4.0 12.0 6.2 17.8 15.4Employer did not require 0.6 24.6 4.9 55.7 3.9 2.5 1.0 2.8 4.0

Employer aid provided for credential program part of union contract4

Aid part of union contract 0.5 21.3 6.3 34.1 2.3 5.2 8.0 15.0 7.4Aid not part of union contract 0.7 21.8 4.1 51.6 2.9 5.4 1.9 5.2 6.4

Number of courses

One 2.9 17.4 12.1 31.5 12.6 8.0 3.7 11.9 0.0Two 1.4 26.8 4.3 46.5 6.3 3.0 1.2 8.3 2.4More than two 0.3 23.5 4.1 59.7 3.0 1.5 0.7 2.1 5.2

Employer aid for credential programs5

No employer aid 1.1 26.5 6.7 53.2 6.8 0.7 0.3 2.4 2.3Employer paid4 1.0 16.8 4.8 44.2 2.5 9.4 4.5 8.5 8.3Employer provided other support 0.4 21.7 3.0 62.9 4.1 1.2 0.2 2.5 4.0
RESULTS FROM NHES

16

Table 1—Percentage distribution of adults in credential programs according to type of institution offering program, by selected characteristics : 1995--Continued

2-year 2-year

Primary/ community vocational or 4-year Private

secondary or junior technical college or vocational or Business, Professional

school college school university trade school industry association Other Multiple

Major, highest level credential program

Humanities 0.8 12.6 1.6 78.3 0.7 0.9 0.2 1.2 3.7Social, behavioral science 0.0 18.7 1.4 74.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 3.9Life, physical science 0.0 16.7 2.5 75.1 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.5Mathematics 0.0 35.2 15.4 34.6 5.8 3.6 0.0 2.0 3.5Computer, information science 0.7 21.4 6.9 52.0 3.8 5.2 4.0 1.8 4.3Engineering 0.7 18.5 1.7 71.5 1.2 0.2 -- 2.6 3.6Education 0.9 27.4 3.6 53.3 4.5 2.4 1.0 1.9 5.0Business, management 0.4 30.1 8.9 41.8 10.1 -- 1.2 3.7 3.9Health 2.5 23.5 16.4 24.5 5.5 8.6 0.4 13.8 4.7Vocational, technical 0.9 20.4 6.2 49.4 7.1 2.4 1.5 8.0 4.1Other -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Sample size too small for a reliable estimate.

1Includes only respondents who participated in part-time credential programs.2Includes only respondents who participated in full-time credential programs.3Includes only employed respondents.4Includes only employed respondents who received employer aid.5Respondents who received cash assistance from their employer may or may not have received other forms of employer support.NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. The zero percentages in the table round to less than 0.1 percent.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey (NHES:95), 1995 Adult Education Data AnalysisSystem.
RESULTS FROM NHES

17

CHARACTERISTICS OF ADULTS PARTICIPATING IN ADULT EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Credential programs

Students who work and employees who attend school

The NHES data include all adults regardless of whether they worked or not, but so few

adults did not work that it is not possible to report them separately. However, these non-working

adults are included in the tables, except where it has been noted that variables apply to employed

respondents only. The NHES database does not provide information that allows users to directly

determine whether credential students perceived themselves as primarily students who worked or

employees who took classes. Yet, the results suggest that many respondents were students who

worked. This status was surmised by students’ enrollment patterns. Adults working part-time

while they attended school full-time, especially if they were under 24 years of age and not

married, may be classified for purposes of this report as postsecondary students who worked. As

will be seen later, a relationship exists between enrollment intensity and employer support.

Table 2 shows that one-half of the adults who were less than 24 years old enrolled in

credential programs. Older adults were less likely to enroll in credential programs. Sixteen

percent of those between 24 and 39 years of age enrolled in credential programs. Eight percent of

those 40 to 54 years of age, 1 percent of those 55 to 69 years old, and less than 1 percent of those

70 or older enrolled in credential programs. Students under 24 years of age are generally defined

as traditional age students.

Another factor related to enrollment in credential programs was marital status. Adults

who were married or divorced were less likely to have taken credential programs than were those

who had never been married. Eight percent of adults who were married and 11 percent of those

who were divorced took credential programs compared with 34 percent of those who were never

married.

Financially or occupationally established adults were less likely than others to enroll in

credential programs. One indicator of being financially established is home ownership. Seven

percent of the homeowners were enrolled in credential programs, compared with 19 percent of

the renters and 30 percent of those who had other living arrangements. Also, adults who earned

$20,000 or less annually were more likely to enroll in credential programs than were those with

earnings in one of the higher income categories. Twenty percent of adults with incomes $20,000

or less were enrolled in credential programs during the previous year compared with 14 percent
RESULTS FROM NHES

18

for those with incomes between $20,001 and $35,000, 11 percent between $35,001 and $50,000,

and 8 percent $50,001 or more.

Students working part-time and not receiving employee benefits were more likely to be in

credential programs compared with others. Adults who did not receive any employee benefits

were more likely to have enrolled in credential programs than were those who had a job with

employee benefits, 26 percent compared with 14 percent. Adults who worked less than 30 hours

a week (part-time) were more likely to have enrolled in credential programs than those who

worked 30 or more hours (full-time). Twenty-seven percent of those who worked part-time

enrolled in credential programs, compared with 13 percent of the full-time workers.

These results suggest that a large share of adults enrolled in credential programs may have

been postsecondary education students who worked. This concept has been developed in a

previous NCES report.13 Several factors are consistent with this conclusion. First, one-half of the

adults less than 24 years of age were in credential programs, compared with 16 percent of those

between 24 and 39. Second, 34 percent of adults who were never married were in credential

programs, compared with 8 percent of those who were married. Third, 27 percent of those who

worked part-time enrolled in a credential program, compared with 13 percent of those who

worked full-time, which suggests that many of the former were students who worked. Finally, 26

percent of the adults who received no employee benefits were enrolled in a credential program,

compared with 14 percent of those who did receive employee benefits.

Work-related programs

Student characteristics

Twenty-one percent of adults participated in work-related programs. Work-related

programs tend to cover topics that are more specific, taught in concentrated courses, and are

offered by different providers than credential programs provided by accredited postsecondary

programs. Examples of these types of courses are computer software applications, time

management or sales training courses.

Adults between the ages of 24 and 54 were more likely to participate in work-related

programs than were those who were younger or older. Twenty-seven percent of those aged 24 to

 

13U.S. Department of Education. Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1995-96, (Washington, D.C.: National

Center for Education Statistics, 1998), www.NCES.ed.gov/pubs98/98084.htm.
RESULTS FROM NHES

19

39 and 30 percent of those 40 to 54 years old participated in work-related programs, compared

with 13 percent of those under 24, 11 percent of those between 55 and 69 years old and 1 percent

of those 70 and over (table 2). Twenty-four percent of the adults who were married participated

in work-related programs and were more likely to have participated than those who had never

been married (19 percent).

More established adults were more likely to participate in work-related programs than

those who were not as well established. The definition of established adults includes home

ownership, earning more than $20,000 annually, or receipt of employer benefits. Adults who

owned their home were more likely to have participated in work-related programs (24 percent)

than were those who rented (17 percent). Adults who earned $20,000 or less were less likely to

have participated in work-related programs than were those who earned more than $20,000.

Nineteen percent of those earning $20,000 or less participated in work-related programs; the

share taking work-related programs jumped to 35 percent for those earning between $20,001 and

$35,000, and reached 44 percent and 45 percent for the next two higher income categories.

Further, adults who received employee benefits from their employer were at least twice as likely

to have participated in work-related programs (35 percent) as those who did not receive employee

benefits (15 percent).

Occupation-related characteristics

Participation in work-related programs varied by occupation. Forty-one percent of adults

who were executives, administrators or managers participated in work-related programs.

Occupations where employees were less likely to participate in work-related programs included

marketing and sales (23 percent), administrative support (28 percent), service (20 percent),

agriculture, forestry and fishing (11 percent), production (14 percent), transportation and

materials moving (15 percent), and handlers, cleaners, helpers, or laborers (8 percent).

Participation in work-related programs also varied by industry. Fourteen percent of adults

in agriculture, forestry, or fishing industries participated in work-related training. In comparison,

adults working in the following industries had a higher probability of participating in work-related

training: finance, insurance and real estate (47 percent), service (28 percent), health services (44

percent), education (41 percent), and public administration (45 percent).
RESULTS FROM NHES

20

Other structured programs

Other structured training and education programs include a wide range of programs that

adults took for personal reasons. By definition, they were not work-related nor associated with

receiving a degree or certificate. Twenty percent of adults enrolled in other structured programs.

Gender, age, and having dependents were each associated with the probability of enrolling

in other structured programs. Females were more likely to participate in other structured

programs (24 percent) than males (16 percent). Adults under 55 were more likely to participate

than those 55 or older (22 percent for all adults 54 or younger compared with 16 and 13 percent

for adults 55-69 and 70 and older, respectively). Adults with no household members under 18

were less likely to participate in other structured programs (18 percent) compared with those with

household members under 18 (22 percent of those with one and those with two or more

household members under 18).

Both low income and less education were associated with lower probabilities of enrolling

in other structured programs. Adults with total household incomes of $20,000 or less were less

likely to participate in other structured programs than were those with incomes over $20,000 (14

percent compared with 19, 22, and 25 percent). Adults with high school diplomas or less were

less likely to participate in other structured programs than those with some postsecondary

education, associate’s, bachelor’s or master’s degrees (16 and 9 percent compared with 25, 27, 27

and 29 percent respectively). No significant differences existed in the chance of participating in

other structured programs by levels of personal income. Twenty-one to 23 percent of those in

each category of personal income reported participating in another structured program.

Two characteristics were associated with participation in all three types of training and

education programs. The first was age. Adults 55 and over were less likely than those who were

younger to participate in any of the three programs. The second was education. Those adults

with high school diplomas were less likely to participate in any of the three types of training than

those with associate’s degrees (7 percent compared with 21 percent for those who participated in

credential programs; 14 percent compared with 32 percent for those who participated in workrelated programs; and 16 percent compared with 27 percent for those who participated in other

structured programs).
RESULTS FROM NHES

21

Table 2—Percentage of adults who participated in credential, work-related or other structured programs,

by selected characteristics: 1995

Credential Work-related Other structured

programs programs programs

 Total 13.0 20.9 19.9

Gender

Male 12.7 21.8 15.8

Female 13.3 20.2 23.5

Race/ethnicity

White, non-Hispanic 12.6 22.8 20.8

Black, non-Hispanic 15.5 16.2 18.9

Hispanic 10.8 11.8 13.8

American Indian/Alaskan Native 16.5 20.6 21.6

Asian/Pacific Islander 19.0 18.1 15.9

Other 16.9 15.2 18.1

Marital status

Married 8.1 23.5 21.2

Separated 9.2 16.4 16.9

Divorced 10.7 23.4 19.0

Widowed 0.9 3.7 13.2

Never married 33.7 19.1 19.1

Age

Less than 24 49.9 13.0 21.8

24-39 16.1 26.8 21.6

40-54 8.2 30.3 22.2

55-69 1.1 11.0 16.0

70 or more 0.1 1.4 12.6

Highest level of education completed

Less than high school 2.0 5.1 8.5

High school diploma or equivalent 6.9 14.2 15.7

Some postsecondary education 27.7 22.3 24.7

Associate’s degree 20.8 32.1 27.4

Bachelor’s degree 13.6 36.1 27.0

Graduate degree 15.7 40.4 29.1

Number of household members under 18

None 12.9 17.8 18.2

One 15.0 24.5 22.4

Two or more 11.8 26.1 22.2

Own or rent home, or other arrangement

Own home 7.4 23.5 20.6

Rent home 19.4 17.4 18.2

Other arrangement 29.6 14.9 19.8
RESULTS FROM NHES

22

Table 2—Percentage of adults who participated in credential, work-related or other structured programs,

by selected characteristics: 1995--Continued

Credential Work-related Other structured

programs programs programs

Language spoken most at home

English 13.3 21.8 20.5

Spanish 5.4 5.5 10.3

Other language 17.0 12.6 11.4

Annual personal earnings

$20,000 or less 20.0 19.3 21.1

$20,001-$35,000 13.7 35.2 23.2

$35,001-$50,000 10.6 43.9 21.8

Over $50,000 7.9 45.4 23.1

Total household income

$20,000 or less 13.3 8.1 13.9

$20,001-$35,000 11.5 16.8 19.3

$35,001-$50,000 13.8 25.7 22.3

Over $50,000 13.5 34.9 25.0

Respondent's current occupation

Executive, administrative, managerial 10.2 41.3 22.7

Engineer, surveyor, architect 18.6 43.5 24.3

Natural scientist, mathematician 14.1 58.9 24.4

Social scientist/worker, lawyer 20.0 59.5 31.2

Teacher, postsecondary 7.5 40.7 25.3

Teacher, except postsecondary 23.9 52.3 36.3

Physician, dentist, veterinarian 7.7 67.7 17.7

Registered nurse, pharmacist 15.9 71.2 32.5

Writer, artist, entertainer, athlete 18.2 21.8 28.9

Health technologist/technician 23.9 45.5 32.1

Technologist, not health 22.6 40.5 29.0

Marketing, sales 18.0 22.5 20.6

Administrative support 16.6 28.2 24.5

Service 19.6 20.2 22.4

Agriculture, forestry, fishing 8.9 10.6 15.2

Mechanic, repairer 10.0 26.8 15.6

Construction 9.1 16.2 17.9

Precision production 7.4 22.9 16.2

Production 10.4 13.9 10.7

Transportation, material moving 8.2 14.5 10.3

Handler, cleaner, helper, laborer 14.1 8.2 8.4

Other 17.5 33.2 20.8

Multiple jobs, multiple occupations 26.8 40.0 27.4
RESULTS FROM NHES

23

Table 2—Percentage of adults who participated in credential, work-related or other structured programs,

by selected characteristics: 1995--Continued

Credential Work-related Other structured

programs programs programs

Industry of respondent's current job

Agriculture, forestry, fishing 6.0 14.2 14.7

Mining 3.5 28.9 22.5

Construction 8.7 17.0 16.4

Manufacturing 9.9 21.5 15.1

Transportation, public utilities 12.7 31.3 22.7

Wholesale trade 10.3 12.6 14.8

Retail trade 21.3 12.6 17.5

Finance, insurance, real estate 16.0 47.4 24.0

Service 17.0 28.2 25.2

Health services 18.7 44.4 28.9

Education 19.5 41.3 28.0

Public administration 15.4 44.7 26.1

Other 12.2 29.4 19.5

Multiple jobs, multiple industries 26.9 39.8 26.4

Hours worked per week*

Less than 30 27.1 20.5 25.8

30 or more 12.6 33.2 21.3

Employer provided any employee benefits*

Employer did provide employee benefits 13.6 34.6 22.0

Employer did not provide employee benefits 26.3 15.4 22.7

*Includes only employed respondents; therefore, totals may not be within the range of the subgroup estimates.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey

(NHES:95), 1995 Adult Education Data Analysis System.

ADULT EDUCATION AND EMPLOYER AID

Credential programs

The following section provides a description of adults’ characteristics in credential

programs by the type of employer aid they received. Employers may have helped employees with

support such as cash assistance, release time, classroom space, or instruction. Of the 13 percent

of adults enrolled in credential programs, 43 percent did not receive any type of assistance, cash

or other, from their employer (table 3). One-third of adults in credential programs received some

help from their employers, but no cash assistance. The final 24 percent reported some cash

assistance from their employers. An individual who received cash assistance might have received

other employer support also. The following comparisons reflect only credential program
RESULTS FROM NHES

24

participants who received cash support that employers paid for all or part of the price of

attendance.

Figure 4 shows that one-quarter of those receiving employer financial aid were seeking

bachelor’s degrees. Twenty percent of the adults who received employer financial aid were

seeking master’s degrees and 21 percent were seeking vocational/technical certificates. Seventeen

percent of the employer financial aid recipients were seeking associate’s degrees, and 12 percent

were in other degree programs. The remaining adults sought either doctoral (2 percent) or firstprofessional degrees (3 percent).

Figure 4—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in credential programs who received employer financial

aid according to level of degree program: 1995

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey

(NHES:95), 1995 Adult Education Data Analysis System.

Vocational/technical 

certificate

20.6%

Associate's degree

17.2%

Bachelor's degree

25.1%

Master's degree

20.4%

Doctoral degree

1.6%

First-professional degree

3.0%

Other

12.2%
RESULTS FROM NHES

25

Employee characteristics

Employees with higher incomes who participated in credential programs were more likely

to receive employer financial assistance for their educational expenses than were others. In

addition, males were more likely to obtain employer financial aid than females, and married

employees received more help than those who were single, as did employees living with children

compared with those not living with children.

Table 3 shows that adults under age 24 were less likely to receive financial help for

credential program expenses from their employers than those who were older. Seven percent of

adults who were less than 24 years old and enrolled in credential programs received cash support

from their employers, compared with 32 percent of those who were aged 25 to 39. Recall that

one-half of the adults under 24 enrolled in credential programs (table 2).

Family status and gender were related to receipt of educational financial aid from

employers. Twenty-seven percent of males who enrolled in credential programs had their

employer pay at least part of the educational expenses compared with 21 percent of females (table

3). Married adults enrolled in credential programs were three times as likely to have their

employers paying at least part of the expenses (39 percent) than those who were never married

(12 percent). Finally, about one-third (34 percent) of adults with two or more household

members under 18 enrolled in credential programs had their employer paying at least part of the

price of attendance compared with one-fifth of those without any minor household members.

Employers were more likely to pay for credential programs for higher-paid adults. Eleven

percent of those with personal earnings of $20,000 or less who enrolled in credential programs

had their employers pay at least part of their education expenses (table 4). Forty-five percent of

those earning between $20,001 and $35,000 received financial help from their employers if they

enrolled in credential programs. The share receiving support for those earning between $35,001

and $50,000 was 56 percent, and 58 percent for those earning more than $50,000. Compared

with those who earned $20,000 or less, all of those in the higher income categories were more

likely to receive employer financial aid if they enrolled in a credential program.
RESULTS FROM NHES

26

Table 3—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in credential programs who received employer aid*

according to type of employer aid received, by respondent demographics: 1995

No Employer

employer Employer provided

aid paid* support

 Total 42.9 23.9 33.3

Gender

 Male 40.4 27.0 32.6

 Female 45.1 21.0 33.9

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 41.1 25.2 33.8

 Black, non-Hispanic 49.4 23.3 27.3

 Hispanic 53.7 14.1 32.2

 American Indian/Alaskan Native -- -- --

 Asian/Pacific Islander 33.3 21.0 45.6

 Other 43.3 15.4 41.3

Marital status

 Married 39.5 38.6 21.9

 Separated 42.4 39.8 17.9

 Divorced 45.2 30.5 24.3

 Widowed -- -- --

 Never married 44.8 12.3 42.9

Age

 Less than 24 43.8 7.0 49.2

 24-39 42.4 31.7 25.9

 40-54 42.4 41.0 16.7

 55-69 35.3 55.7 9.0

 70 or more -- -- --

Highest level of education completed

 Less than high school 57.8 23.2 19.1

 High school diploma or equivalent 40.1 30.6 29.3

 Some postsecondary education 43.6 16.3 40.1

 Associate’s degree 42.1 29.3 28.6

 Bachelor’s degree 43.7 29.0 27.3

 Graduate degree 39.7 34.0 26.4

Number of household members under 18

 None 43.3 20.4 36.3

 One 41.3 24.4 34.3

 Two or more 43.1 33.5 23.3
RESULTS FROM NHES

27

Table 3—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in credential programs who received employer aid*

according to type of employer aid received, by respondent demographics: 1995--Continued

No Employer

employer Employer provided

aid paid* support

Own or rent home, or other arrangement

 Own home 38.1 40.2 21.7

 Rent home 45.7 15.7 38.6

 Other arrangement 45.3 13.3 41.4

Language spoken most at home

 English 42.5 24.2 33.4

 Spanish 60.9 8.2 30.9

 Other language 47.7 20.4 32.0

--Sample size is too small for a reliable estimate.

*Respondents who received cash assistance from their employer may or may not have received other forms of employer

support.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey

(NHES:95), 1995 Adult Education Data Analysis System.

Fifty percent of the executive, administrative, and managerial employees received financial

help from their employers if they enrolled in credential programs. Compared with them, those in

marketing and sales (10 percent) and handlers, cleaners, helpers and laborers (4 percent) were less

likely to have received financial help from their employers for credential programs.

Employers were more likely to help pay for credential programs for their employees in

technological occupations. This may reflect the need of organizations to keep abreast of current

technology. Seventy-two percent of the employees in engineering, surveying or architecture who

enrolled in credential programs received financial help from their employers. This was at least

double the rate of employer cash support for those in the following occupations: social

scientist/worker, lawyer (25 percent); teacher, except postsecondary (24 percent); writer, artist,

entertainer athlete (11 percent); health technologist (33 percent); technologist, not health (35

percent); marketing, sales (10 percent); administrative support (25 percent); service (17 percent);

construction (32 percent); production (32 percent); transportation (19 percent); handler, cleaner,

helper and laborer (4 percent); and those with multiple jobs/multiple occupations (18 percent).
RESULTS FROM NHES

28

Reasons for education

Respondents were more likely to report that their employers paid for their education if the

employee’s reason for taking some adult education was to improve his or her skills for the current

job, than if this was not the reason. Forty-four percent of adults who enrolled in credential

programs or took adult education to improve or advance in their jobs received financial support

from their employer. This was at least 4 times more than the 10 percent of those who did not

enroll in adult education for such a reason. Adults who enrolled in credential programs were less

likely to have received employer financial aid if they enrolled to train for new jobs (12 percent)

compared with those who did not enroll for this reason (34 percent).

Enrollment characteristics

Employers were more likely to pay for employees’ full-time credential education if they

were enrolled in programs for less than three months. Forty percent of respondents enrolled in

credential programs full-time for less than three months received financial help from their

employer. Eighteen percent of those enrolled between three and five months received employer

help, as did 10 percent of those enrolled between six and eight months and 10 percent of those

enrolled nine months or more. Traditional academic enrollment suggests that a full-time student

would be enrolled for at least three months out of the year. When a full-time student was enrolled

for less than three months, adults may have reported courses for updating professional

certification or continuing education unit (CEU) classes as credential programs.

Adults enrolled in credential programs who sought associate’s, bachelor’s or doctoral

degrees were less likely to receive employer financial aid (22, 14 and 17 percent) than the 37

percent enrolled in vocational/technical programs. This result should be interpreted with

consideration for the possibility that the short credential programs may not qualify as accredited

postsecondary programs.

Two reasons may explain these findings. First, a year-round, full-time education program

may be a significant distraction from work. Enrolling full-time in a credential program is a major

commitment and represents a potential loss of work time. Employers may have been more likely

to pay for more focused employee training that required less time and minimized employee

absence from work, rather than general education.

Second, those who enrolled as year-round, full-time students in longer credential

programs may tend to be students who worked to meet expenses rather than employees who
RESULTS FROM NHES

29

attended school. Since this distinction would suggest less attachment to work, employers may

have been less willing to pay for these students’ more general educational goals that may not be

related to their jobs. This might explain why full-time students were less likely to receive

employer financial aid benefits than were part-time students.

The fact that adults who paid more than $100 to enroll were less likely to have received

employer financial aid for credential programs than those who paid nothing is consistent with the

finding that those who paid higher tuition for full-time enrollment were less likely to receive help.

Forty-five percent of adults who enrolled in credential programs and paid nothing out of their own

pocket received help from their employer. Those paying an average price of attendance per class

of more than $100 were less likely to have received employer help than those who paid nothing.

One-third of those who paid between $100 and $499 received employer help, as did 23 percent of

those paying between $500 and $999, 14 percent of those paying between $1,000 and $2,499, 9

percent of those paying between $2,500 and $4,999, and 10 percent of those paying $5,000 or

more.

Table 4—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in credential programs who received employer aid1

according to type of employer aid received, by employment and adult education characteristics:

1995

No Employer

employer Employer provided

aid paid1support

 Total 42.9 23.9 33.3

Annual personal earnings

 $20,000 or less 49.0 11.1 39.9

 $20,001-$35,000 37.3 44.5 18.3

 $35,001-$50,000 26.2 55.5 18.3

 Over $50,000 29.4 57.6 13.1

Total household income

 $20,000 or less 46.0 10.4 43.6

 $20,001-$35,000 46.4 22.2 31.4

 $35,001-$50,000 39.2 31.0 29.7

 Over $50,000 39.9 33.0 27.1
RESULTS FROM NHES

30

Table 4—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in credential programs who received employer aid1

according to type of employer aid received, by employment and adult education characteristics:

1995--Continued

No Employer

employer Employer provided

aid paid1support

Respondent’s current occupation

 Executive, administrative, managerial 33.7 49.8 16.5

 Engineer, surveyor, architect 20.5 72.2 7.3

 Natural scientist, mathematician 26.8 53.2 20.0

 Social scientist/worker, lawyer 50.4 24.7 25.0

 Teacher, postsecondary -- -- --

 Teacher, except postsecondary 56.8 23.6 19.6

 Physician, dentist, veterinarian -- -- --

 Registered nurse, pharmacist 30.3 45.2 24.4

 Writer, artist, entertainer, athlete 57.5 10.6 31.9

 Health technologist/technician 35.1 33.1 31.8

 Technologist, not health 40.6 34.8 24.6

 Marketing, sales 47.8 10.0 42.2

 Administrative support 48.0 25.2 26.8

 Service 42.3 16.7 41.0

 Agriculture, forestry, fishing -- -- --

 Mechanic, repairer 27.8 53.2 19.0

 Construction 40.7 32.1 27.3

 Precision production -- -- --

 Production 52.3 32.2 15.5

 Transportation, material moving 52.5 19.0 28.6

 Handler, cleaner, helper, laborer 72.9 4.1 23.0

 Other 37.7 35.2 27.0

 Multiple jobs, multiple occupations 39.3 18.3 42.5

Industry of respondent’s current job

 Agriculture, forestry, fishing -- -- --

 Mining -- -- --

 Construction 50.1 25.3 24.6

 Manufacturing 42.9 43.0 14.1

 Transportation, public utilities 41.6 43.8 14.6

 Wholesale trade 44.5 23.0 32.5

 Retail trade 48.0 6.5 45.6

 Finance, insurance, real estate 41.9 38.6 19.5

 Service 50.1 14.7 35.1

 Health services 40.0 29.2 30.8

 Education 45.8 30.1 24.1

 Public administration 38.0 44.1 17.9

 Other 42.8 41.6 15.7

 Multiple jobs, multiple industries 35.6 18.2 46.2
RESULTS FROM NHES

31

Table 4—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in credential programs who received employer aid1

according to type of employer aid received, by employment and adult education characteristics:

1995--Continued

No Employer

employer Employer provided

aid paid1support

Employer provided any employee benefits2

 Employer did provide employee benefits 38.7 36.8 24.5

 Employer did not provide employee benefits 48.8 3.5 47.8

Number of credential programs participated in

One 44.3 22.9 32.8

More than one 30.0 32.2 37.8

Respondent average cost for credential programs

None 30.8 45.4 23.8

Less than $100 37.5 47.3 15.2

$100-$499 45.3 33.1 21.7

$500-$999 48.7 22.8 28.4

$1,000-$2,499 44.9 14.1 41.0

$2,500-$4,999 44.6 8.6 46.8

$5,000 or more 43.1 9.7 47.2

Respondent total cost for credential programs

None 30.8 45.4 23.8

Less than $100 37.9 46.5 15.6

$100-$499 45.3 33.5 21.2

$500-$999 50.1 22.4 27.5

$1,000-$2,499 45.0 16.7 38.3

$2,500-$4,999 44.5 11.5 44.0

$5,000 or more 42.2 10.3 47.6

Took adult education for personal reasons

Took adult education for personal reasons 44.6 22.7 32.7

Did not take adult education for personal reasons 42.1 24.4 33.5

Took adult education to improve basic skills

Took adult education to improve basic skills 52.9 19.4 27.8

Did not take adult education to improve basic skills 42.8 23.9 33.3

Took adult education to improve or advance in job

Took adult education to advance in job 36.0 44.1 19.9

Did not take adult education to advance in job 47.5 10.2 42.3

Took adult education to meet requirements

Took adult education to meet requirements 40.9 17.1 42.1

Did not take adult education to meet requirements 43.4 25.7 30.9
RESULTS FROM NHES

32

Table 4—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in credential programs who received employer aid1

according to type of employer aid received, by employment and adult education characteristics:

1995--Continued

No Employer

employer Employer provided

aid paid1support

Took adult education to train for new job

Took adult education to train for new job 49.3 11.8 38.9

Did not take adult education to train for new job 37.6 33.7 28.7

Highest level of credential program enrolled in

Vocational/technical certificate 44.1 37.1 18.9

Associate’s degree 44.8 21.8 33.4

Bachelor’s degree 43.1 14.3 42.6

Master’s degree 40.6 35.4 24.0

Doctoral degree 32.5 17.0 50.5

First-professional degree 42.9 24.1 33.0

Other 41.8 41.0 17.2

Type of institution offering program

Primary/secondary school 57.2 27.2 15.6

2-year community or junior college 50.3 17.7 32.0

2-year vocational or technical school 57.4 22.8 19.9

4-year college or university 42.0 19.4 38.6

Private vocational or trade school 59.9 12.4 27.7

Business, industry 10.0 76.1 13.9

Professional association 9.7 85.0 5.3

Other 26.2 52.1 21.7

Multiple 23.0 46.3 30.7

Major, highest level credential program

Humanities 47.8 12.3 39.9

Social, behavioral science 40.5 7.5 52.0

Life science, physical science 29.1 19.8 51.1

Mathematics 41.5 31.5 27.0

Computer, information science 33.0 36.1 30.9

Engineering 47.0 16.6 36.5

Education 44.1 32.2 23.7

Business, management 46.8 15.6 37.6

Health 39.5 39.2 21.3

Vocational, technical 44.5 14.1 41.4

Other -- -- --

Average hours in class per week for full-time credential programs3

Less than three 40.4 38.5 21.1

Three to six 35.3 31.7 33.1

More than six 44.2 10.7 45.0
RESULTS FROM NHES

33

Table 4—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in credential programs who received employer aid1

according to type of employer aid received, by employment and adult education characteristics:

1995--Continued

No Employer

employer Employer provided

aid paid1support

Average hours in class per week for part-time credential programs4

Less than four 38.5 44.3 17.2

Four to six 43.5 34.3 22.2

More than six 39.3 32.9 27.9

Average months in class for full-time credential programs3

 Less than three 42.9 40.1 17.0

 Three to five 42.3 17.6 40.1

 Six to eight 47.6 9.6 42.8

 Nine to twelve 40.3 9.9 49.8

Average months in class for part-time credential programs4

 Less than three 43.4 16.1 40.6

 Three to five 43.1 32.0 25.0

 Six to eight 41.3 40.0 18.7

 Nine to twelve 41.2 40.7 18.1

Credential program part of assistantship or fellowship

Part of assistantship or fellowship -- 1.7 98.3

Not part of assistantship or fellowship -- 37.1 62.9

Employer required credential program2

Employer required credential program 20.0 65.0 15.0

Employer did not require credential program 40.6 25.7 33.7

Employer aid provided for credential program part of union contract2

Aid part of union contract (

5

) 79.7 20.3

Aid not part of union contract (

5

) 46.2 53.9
RESULTS FROM NHES

34

Table 4—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in credential programs who received employer aid1

according to type of employer aid received, by employment and adult education characteristics:

1995--Continued

No Employer

employer Employer provided

aid paid1support

Number of courses

One 44.4 38.7 17.0

Two 41.9 39.1 19.1

More than two 42.7 17.7 39.7

--Sample size is too small for a reliable estimate.

1Respondents who received cash assistance from their employer may or may not have received other forms of employer support.

2

Includes only employed respondents.

3

Includes only respondents who participated in full-time credential programs.

4

Includes only respondents who participated in part-time credential programs.

5Not applicable. This variable applies only to respondents who received employer aid.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. Total is not within the range of some of the subgroup

estimates due to the number of observations with missing values within the subgroups.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey

(NHES:95), 1995 Adult Education Data Analysis System.

The relationship between employment and enrollment status, and employer financial

aid

Categorizing adults by whether they worked full- or part-time and whether they enrolled

in credential programs full- or part-time provided the ability to further analyze who was most

likely to receive employer financial aid. So few adults did not work that it was not possible to

report non-working adults as a separate category. These non-working adults are included in the

tables, except where it has been noted that specific variables apply to employed respondents only.

The evidence suggests that adults participating in credential programs who worked full-time were

more likely to receive employer financial aid than were those who worked part-time (37 percent

versus 7 percent; table 5). Thirteen percent of those who were enrolled in credential programs

part-time and worked less than 30 hours per week (part-time) received employer financial aid

compared with 44 percent of those who worked 30 hours or more a week (full-time). Full-time

employees were also more likely than part-time employees to have received employer financial aid

if they enrolled in credential programs full-time (26 percent compared with 5 percent).

Table 5—Percentage distribution of adults who participated in credential programs according to type of

employer aid1 received, by enrollment status and hours worked per week: 1995
RESULTS FROM NHES

35

No Employer

employer Employer provided

aid paid1support

Participated in credential program

 Total 42.9 23.9 33.3

Hours worked per week2

 One to thirty 43.2 6.5 50.3

 More than thirty 40.5 37.2 22.3

Participated in credential program full-time3

 Total 43.1 13.7 43.2

Hours worked per week2

 One to thirty 41.3 4.6 54.1

 More than thirty 41.0 26.1 32.8

Participated in credential program part-time4

 Total 40.7 36.3 23.0

Hours worked per week2

 One to thirty 44.4 12.6 43.0

 More than thirty 38.8 43.9 17.3

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

1Respondents who received cash assistance from their employer may or may not have received other forms of employer support.

2

Includes only employed respondents.

3A value greater than zero for the “credential programs: average months, full-time” variable was used to determine full-time

participation in credential programs.

4A value greater than zero for the “credential programs: average months, part-time” variable was used to determine part-time

participation in credential programs.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey

(NHES:95), 1995 Adult Education Data Analysis System.

Employer support could have included allowance for time off or a flexible work schedule

that permitted employees to take classes. This may help explain the large share of part-time

employees who received other employer-provided support if they enrolled in credential programs.

Over one-half (54 percent) of the adults who worked part-time while enrolled full-time in

credential programs received other support from their employers. This compares to 33 percent

who received employer financial aid by those who worked full-time and enrolled in credential

programs full-time. Forty-three percent of those who worked part-time and attended credential
RESULTS FROM NHES

36

programs part-time received employer support. That compares to 17 percent of the full-time

workers who received employer support when they enrolled in credential programs part-time.

Work-related programs

Employers generally paid the educational expenses of employees enrolled in work-related

programs that did not award academic credits. Among adults participating in work-related

programs, 88 percent of them received employer cash assistance and 12 percent received some

other type of support (table 6). All adults enrolled in work-related programs received some form

of employer support; thus, there is no column for “no support” included on table 6.

Older adults who participated in work-related programs were more likely to receive cash

assistance from their employers than were the youngest. Seventy-four percent of adults less than

24 who reported taking work-related programs received employer cash support compared with 89

percent of those between 24 and 39 years old and 40 to 54 years old. Ninety percent of those

between 55 and 69 years of age received employer support if they took work-related programs.

Employers paid for work-related programs for 90 percent of the adults who owned their

homes, compared with 84 percent of those who rented their homes. Further, 82 percent of the

adults who earned less than $20,000 in personal annual income received cash support from their

employers for work-related program participation (table 7). That was less than those who earned

more than $20,000 (89, 93, and 92 percent respectively for progressively higher income levels).

Adults who participated in adult education to improve job skills or advance in their jobs

and enrolled in work-related programs were more likely to receive employer support, 91 percent,

than the 69 percent who received help while enrolling in adult education for other purposes.

Those who indicated that they did not enroll in adult education to prepare for new jobs were more

likely to receive employer support (90 percent) than were those who did (72 percent).
RESULTS FROM NHES

37

Table 6—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in work-related programs who received employer aid*

according to type of employer aid received, by respondent demographics: 1995

Employer

Employer provided

paid* other support

 Total 87.9 12.1

Gender

 Male 88.7 11.3

 Female 87.2 12.8

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 88.3 11.7

 Black, non-Hispanic 87.4 12.6

 Hispanic 84.6 15.4

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 89.3 10.7

 Asian/Pacific Islander 85.2 14.8

 Other 85.0 15.0

Marital status

 Married 90.1 9.9

 Separated 90.1 9.9

 Divorced 83.4 16.6

 Widowed 93.0 7.0

 Never married 82.5 17.5

Age

 Less than 24 73.9 26.1

 24-39 88.9 11.1

 40-54 88.7 11.3

 55-69 89.5 10.5

 70 or more -- --

Highest level of education completed

 Less than high school 76.9 23.1

 High school diploma or equivalent 90.4 9.6

 Some postsecondary education 87.0 13.0

 Associate’s degree 90.5 9.5

 Bachelor’s degree 88.3 11.7

 Graduate degree 87.5 12.5

Number of household members under 18

 None 87.0 13.0

 One 88.5 11.5

 Two or more 89.2 10.8
RESULTS FROM NHES

38

Table 6—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in work-related programs who received employer aid*

according to type of employer aid received, by respondent demographics: 1995--Continued

Employer

Employer provided

paid* other support

Own or rent home, or other arrangement

 Own home 90.3 9.7

 Rent home 84.0 16.0

 Other arrangement 78.7 21.3

Language spoken most at home

 English 88.2 11.8

 Spanish 78.3 21.7

 Other language 76.3 23.7

--Sample size too small for a reliable estimate.

*Respondents who received cash assistance from their employer may or may not have received other forms of employer

support.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey

(NHES:95), 1995 Adult Education Data Analysis System.

Employees who worked for companies that did not provide other employee benefits were

less likely to receive cash support if they participated in work-related programs. About two-thirds

(67 percent) of the adults who worked for organizations that did not have employee benefits

received cash support from their employers if they took work-related programs. That compared

with 91 percent of those who received cash support for work-related programs if they worked for

employers who did provide employee benefits.

It was rare for employers to require employees to participate in work-related programs

and not pay for it; however, if the training was not required, employers were less likely to pay.

Ninety-three percent of adults whose employers required them to participate in work-related

programs received employer support compared with 82 percent of those whose employers did not

require them to participate.
RESULTS FROM NHES

39

Table 7—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in work-related programs who received employer aid1

according to type of employer aid received, by employment and adult education characteristics:

1995

Employer

Employer provided

paid1other support

 Total 87.9 12.1

Annual personal earnings

 $20,000 or less 82.2 17.8

 $20,001-$35,000 89.2 10.8

 $35,001-$50,000 92.7 7.3

 Over $50,000 92.2 7.8

Total household income

 $20,000 or less 76.2 23.8

 $20,001-$35,000 88.4 11.6

 $35,001-$50,000 87.9 12.1

 Over $50,000 90.5 9.5

Respondent’s current occupation

 Executive, administrative, managerial 93.4 6.6

 Engineer, surveyor, architect 94.8 5.2

 Natural scientist, mathematician 96.3 3.7

 Social scientist/worker, lawyer 88.8 11.2

 Teacher, postsecondary 83.7 16.3

 Teacher, except postsecondary 82.2 17.8

 Physician, dentist, veterinarian 64.6 35.4

 Registered nurse, pharmacist 84.6 15.4

 Writer, artist, entertainer, athlete 76.9 23.1

 Health technologist/technician 82.1 17.9

 Technologist, not health 92.1 7.9

 Marketing, sales 90.1 9.9

 Administrative support 92.0 8.0

 Service 83.2 16.8

 Agriculture, forestry, fishing -- --

 Mechanic, repairer 94.4 5.6

 Construction 79.1 20.9

 Precision production 88.5 11.5

 Production 95.9 4.1

 Transportation, material moving 82.1 17.9

 Handler, cleaner, helper, laborer -- --

 Other 92.6 7.4

 Multiple jobs, multiple occupations 79.8 20.2
RESULTS FROM NHES

40

Table 7—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in work-related programs who received employer aid1

according to type of employer aid received, by employment and adult education characteristics:

1995--Continued

Employer

Employer provided

paid1other support

Industry of respondent’s current job

 Agriculture, forestry, fishing 83.4 16.6

 Mining -- --

 Construction 78.1 21.9

 Manufacturing 94.6 5.4

 Transportation, public utilities 94.2 5.8

 Wholesale trade 100.0 --

 Retail trade 84.4 15.6

 Finance, insurance, real estate 90.3 9.7

 Service 85.3 14.7

 Health services 85.2 14.8

 Education 83.8 16.2

 Public administration 95.9 4.1

 Other 95.7 4.3

 Multiple jobs, multiple industries 79.8 20.2

Employer provided any employee benefits2

 Employer did provide employee benefits 90.5 9.5

 Employer did not provide employee benefits 67.0 33.0

Respondent average cost for work-related classes

 None 96.7 3.3

 Less than $100 83.2 16.8

 $100-$499 65.3 34.7

 $500-$999 54.0 46.0

 $1,000-$4,999 47.2 52.8

 $5,000 or more -- --

Took adult education for personal reasons

 Took adult education for personal reasons 87.9 12.1

 Did not take adult education for personal reasons 88.0 12.0

Took adult education to improve basic skills

 Took adult education to improve basic skills -- --

 Did not take adult education to improve basic skills 88.0 12.0

Took adult education to improve or advance in job

 Took adult education to improve or advance in job 90.7 9.3

 Did not take adult education to improve or advance in job 68.9 31.1

Took adult education to meet requirements

 Took adult education to meet requirements 78.1 21.9

 Did not take adult education to meet requirements 89.1 10.9
RESULTS FROM NHES

41

Table 7—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in work-related programs who received employer aid1

according to type of employer aid received, by employment and adult education characteristics:

1995--Continued

Employer

Employer provided

paid1other support

Took adult education to train for new job

 Took adult education to train for new job 72.3 27.7

 Did not take adult education to train for new job 89.8 10.2

Average hours in class per week for work-related classes

 Less than four 76.9 23.1

 Four to eight 84.2 15.8

 More than eight 88.7 11.3

Average weeks in class for work-related classes

 One 90.9 9.1

 Two 91.5 8.5

 Three to five 89.6 10.4

 More than five 72.6 27.4

Employer required work-related class2

 Employer did require work-related class 93.4 6.6

 Employer did not require work-related class 81.9 18.1

Employer aid provided for work-related course as part of union contract3

 Employer aid provided as part of union contract 94.3 5.7

 Employer aid not provided as part of union contract 92.8 7.2

Number of courses taken

 One 80.8 19.2

 Two to five 91.8 8.2

 More than five 93.9 6.1

--Sample size too small for a reliable estimate.

1Respondents who received cash assistance from their employer may or may not have received other forms of employer support.

2

Includes only employed respondents.

3

Includes only employed respondents who received employer aid.

NOTE: Total is not within the range of some of the subgroup estimates due to the number of observations with missing values

within the subgroups.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey

(NHES:95), 1995 Adult Education Data Analysis System.
RESULTS FROM NHES

42

Other structured programs

The questions about other structured programs were asked slightly differently than those

asked in the other educational sections. The NHES survey only asked whether the adult received

any support or no support from his or her employer for the other structured program. The

support could have been instruction, cash, or any other form of assistance. Thus, table 8 displays

whether the adult received any form of employer assistance if he or she enrolled in a formal

education or training program that did not fit into another category and could be called “other

structured program.” Thirty percent of adults who participated in other structured programs

received support from their employers while 70 percent received no support.

The theme of employers supporting education and training for older, more established

adults was also found for those who enrolled in other structured programs. The results indicate

that each of the following characteristics were associated with receipt of employer financial aid:

age, marital status and family incomes. Again, employers were more likely to support

participation in other structured programs if the adults’ reason for enrolling was to improve or

advance in their jobs rather than for other reasons.

Twenty percent of adults less than 24 years old received employer support if they

participated in other structured programs compared with 29 percent of those 25 to 39 years old

and 36 percent of those 40 to 54 years old. In addition, married adults were more likely to

receive employer support for participation in other structured programs than those never married,

32 compared with 22 percent. Finally, adults whose household incomes were less than $20,000

were less likely to receive employer financial aid for other structured programs (24 percent) than

those with household incomes $35,001 to $50,000 (33 percent; table 9).

As previously stated, females were more likely than males to participate in other

structured programs; however, males were more likely to receive employer support than females

for participation in other structured programs, 34 compared with 27 percent (table 8). The data

do not suggest any reason for this outcome. It may be that females had greater inclinations to

enroll in courses related to their personal interests than did males. Alternatively, perhaps women

may have been less likely to work for employers who provided any type of educational support.
RESULTS FROM NHES

43

Table 8—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in other structured programs according to employer

support, by respondent demographics: 1995

No Employer

employer provided

support support

 Total 70.2 29.8

Gender

 Male 65.9 34.1

 Female 73.2 26.8

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 69.9 30.1

 Black, non-Hispanic 70.5 29.6

 Hispanic 74.2 25.8

 American Indian/Alaskan Native -- --

 Asian/Pacific Islander 63.6 36.4

 Other 72.0 28.0

Marital status

 Married 68.1 31.9

 Separated 73.3 26.7

 Divorced 63.0 37.0

 Widowed 79.3 20.7

 Never married 77.6 22.4

Age

 Less than 24 80.1 20.0

 24-39 70.7 29.3

 40-54 63.7 36.4

 55-69 74.9 25.1

 70 or more -- --

Highest level of education completed

 Less than high school 72.8 27.2

 High school diploma or equivalent 67.4 32.6

 Some postsecondary education 72.2 27.8

 Associate’s degree 64.2 35.8

 Bachelor’s degree 71.1 28.9

 Graduate degree 71.5 28.5

Number of household members under 18

 None 70.5 29.5

 One 71.7 28.3

 Two or more 68.3 31.7
RESULTS FROM NHES

44

Table 8—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in other structured programs according to employer

support, by respondent demographics: 1995--Continued

No Employer

employer provided

support support

Own or rent home, or other arrangement

 Own home 68.8 31.2

 Rent home 72.1 27.9

 Other arrangement 72.9 27.1

Language spoken most at home

 English 70.0 30.0

 Spanish 75.9 24.1

 Other language 77.6 22.4

--Sample size is too small for a reliable estimate.

NOTE: Percentage may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey

(NHES:95), 1995 Adult Education Data Analysis System.

Eighteen percent of adults in other structured programs who enrolled in adult education

for personal reasons received employer support, compared with 68 percent of those who did not

enroll for personal reasons (table 9). Conversely, 45 percent of those who enrolled to improve or

advance in their jobs received employer support compared with 15 percent of those whose reason

for enrolling was not to improve or advance in their jobs.

Those employees who worked for an employer that provided employee benefits were

more likely to receive support from their employer if they participated in other structured

programs compared with those employees who worked for organizations that did not provide

employee benefits (34 percent compared with 19 percent).

Most other structured programs were short. Fifty-two percent of those who participated

for a week received support from their employers. The share dropped to 27 percent for those in a

program for two to five weeks and 17 percent for those in programs for five weeks or more.
RESULTS FROM NHES

45

Table 9—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in other structured programs according to employer

support, by employment and adult education characteristics: 1995

No Employer

employer provided

support support

 Total 70.2 29.8

Annual personal earnings

 $20,000 or less 73.4 26.6

 $20,001-$35,000 67.5 32.5

 $35,001-$50,000 65.4 34.6

 Over $50,000 64.6 35.4

Total household income

 $20,000 or less 76.0 24.0

 $20,001-$35,000 69.6 30.4

 $35,001-$50,000 67.4 32.6

 Over $50,000 69.4 30.6

Respondent’s current occupation

 Executive, administrative, managerial 70.8 29.2

 Engineer, surveyor, architect 70.0 30.0

 Natural scientist, mathematician 59.1 40.9

 Social scientist/worker, lawyer 63.2 36.8

 Teacher, postsecondary 73.2 26.8

 Teacher, except postsecondary 62.2 37.8

 Physician, dentist, veterinarian -- --

 Registered nurse, pharmacist 66.5 33.5

 Writer, artist, entertainer, athlete 72.9 27.1

 Health technologist/technician 64.6 35.4

 Technologist, not health 68.4 31.6

 Marketing, sales 86.6 13.4

 Administrative support 76.6 23.4

 Service 65.3 34.7

 Agriculture, forestry, fishing -- --

 Mechanic, repairer 46.5 53.5

 Construction 57.6 42.4

 Precision production 60.8 39.2

 Production 68.9 31.1

 Transportation, material moving 62.2 37.8

 Handler, cleaner, helper, laborer -- --

 Other 78.0 22.0

 Multiple jobs, multiple occupations 67.8 32.2
RESULTS FROM NHES

46

Table 9—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in other structured programs according to employer

support, by employment and adult education characteristics: 1995--Continued

No Employer

employer provided

support support

Industry of respondent’s current job

 Agriculture, forestry, fishing 44.8 55.2

 Mining -- --

 Construction 62.8 37.2

 Manufacturing 71.4 28.6

 Transportation, public utilities 63.0 37.0

 Wholesale trade 84.7 15.3

 Retail trade 87.8 12.2

 Finance, insurance, real estate 78.6 21.4

 Service 74.5 25.5

 Health services 65.5 34.5

 Education 61.6 38.4

 Public administration 57.7 42.3

 Other 77.3 22.7

 Multiple jobs, multiple industries 66.4 33.6

Employer provided any employee benefits*

 Employer did provide employee benefits 66.4 33.6

 Employer did not provide employee benefits 80.8 19.2

Respondent average cost for other structured programs

 None 50.8 49.2

 Less than $100 78.4 21.6

 $100-$499 84.5 15.5

 $500-$999 88.9 11.1

 $1,000-$2,499 80.4 19.6

 $2,500 or more -- --

Respondent total cost for other structured programs

 None 50.8 49.2

 Less than $100 78.5 21.5

 $100-$499 84.2 15.8

 $500-$999 83.0 17.0

 $1,000-$2,499 77.1 22.9

 $2,500 or more 83.5 16.5

Took adult education for personal reasons

 Took adult education for personal reasons 82.4 17.6

 Did not take adult education for personal reasons 32.4 67.6

Took adult education to improve basic skills

 Took adult education to improve basic skills -- --

 Did not take adult education to improve basic skills 70.1 29.9
RESULTS FROM NHES

47

Table 9—Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in other structured programs according to employer

support, by employment and adult education characteristics: 1995--Continued

No Employer

employer provided

support support

Took adult education to improve or advance in job

 Took adult education to improve or advance in job 54.7 45.3

 Did not take adult education to improve or advance in job 85.5 14.5

Took adult education to meet requirements

 Took adult education to meet requirements 66.3 33.7

 Did not take adult education to meet requirements 70.6 29.4

Took adult education to train for new job

 Took adult education to train for new job 75.1 24.9

 Did not take adult education to train for new job 69.4 30.6

Average hours per week for other structured programs

 Less than four 59.6 40.4

 Four to six 56.8 43.2

 More than six 73.0 27.0

Average weeks in class for other structured programs

 One 47.7 52.3

 Two to five 73.4 26.6

 More than five 83.2 16.8

Type of institution offering program

 Primary/secondary school 70.1 29.9

 College or university 72.9 27.1

 Other 69.5 30.5

Number of other structured programs participated in

 One 73.8 26.2

 Two 64.5 35.5

 Three or more 64.8 35.2

--Sample size is too small for a reliable estimate.

*Includes only employed respondents.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey

(NHES:95), 1995 Adult Education Data Analysis System.
48

RESULTS FROM NPSAS

This section provides results from the NPSAS data. These data provided detailed

information describing employer support of students enrolled in accredited postsecondary

institutions. NPSAS provided information on the characteristics of those who received employer

financial aid, and the average amount of cash assistance employer aid recipients received. In

addition, the data provide details about institutional characteristics, cost of education and other

sources of financial support. The results from NPSAS are not directly comparable to the NHES

results. The NPSAS definition of credential program only includes information about programs

provided by accredited postsecondary institutions instead of the broader definition implicit in the

NHES results.

Figure 5 shows that financial aid provided by employers helped 6 percent of

undergraduates. Undergraduates were more likely to receive federal, institutional, or state aid

than employer financial aid: 36 percent received federal aid, 16 percent received institutional aid,

and 12 percent received state aid. By this measure, employer financial aid was a minor source of

aid for undergraduates. As will be seen later, employers were an important source of aid for

undergraduates who were taking classes while working full-time.
RESULTS FROM NPSAS

49

Figure 5—Percentage of undergraduates who received any aid, federal aid, institutional aid, state aid and

employer financial aid: 1995-96

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Employers also helped graduate and first-professional students pay for their education.

Thirteen percent of graduate and first-professional students received employer financial aid (figure

6). Due to differences in how graduate and first-professional students pay for their education,

data are collected differently and their results are reported separately from undergraduates.

49.7

35.7

15.9

11.5

6.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Any aid Federal aid Institutional aid State aid Employer aid

Source of aid

Percentage
RESULTS FROM NPSAS

50

Figure 6—Percentage of graduate and first-professional students who received any aid, federal aid,

institutional aid, state aid and employer financial aid: 1995-96

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Graduate and First-Professional Data Analysis System.

UNDERGRADUATES

Employed undergraduates’ primary roles

NPSAS differentiates students who worked to pay for education from employees who

took classes. Thirty-six percent of the undergraduates considered themselves primarily employees

who were enrolled in school, and 64 percent said they were primarily students who worked to

meet expenses (table 10). This was an important distinction when analyzing who received

employer financial aid.

The student’s primary role while employed and enrolled was a predictor of employer

financial aid receipt. Twenty-five percent of the employed undergraduates who considered

51.9

24.8 25.0

2.2

12.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Any aid Federal aid Institutional aid State aid Employer aid

Source of aid

Percentage
RESULTS FROM NPSAS

51

themselves primarily employees received employer financial aid. Four percent of those who

identified themselves as students who worked to meet expenses received employer financial aid.

Because so few respondents who were primarily students who worked received employer

financial aid, they were not analyzed further in this report. Those who were primarily employees

who went to school are designated in this report as undergraduate employees.

Table 10—Percentage distribution of undergraduate employees* and percentage of undergraduate

employees who received employer financial aid by primary role while enrolled and working:

1995-96

All undergraduate Received employer

employees financial aid

 Total 100.0 6.0

Primary role while enrolled and working

 Student worked to meet expenses 63.7 4.3

 Employee decided to enroll in school 36.3 24.9

*Undergraduate employees are employed undergraduates who considered themselves primarily employees who enrolled in

school, about 36 percent of all employed undergraduates.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Characteristics of undergraduate employees

Twenty-five percent of undergraduates who identified themselves as primarily employees

who enrolled (undergraduate employees) received employer financial aid (table 11). The results

suggest that compared with other undergraduate employees, those who were independent,

married, older, had higher income, were full-time employees, and enrolled part-time were more

likely to receive employer financial aid. Undergraduates who attended private, not-for-profit

institutions, as well as those who attended 4-year institutions were more likely to receive

employer financial aid than were those who attended other types or levels of institutions.

Independent undergraduate employees were more likely to receive employer financial aid

than those who were dependent, 29 percent compared with 5 percent (table 11). Thirty-four

percent of married undergraduate employees received employer financial aid, compared with 19

percent who were not married. Further, 31 percent of undergraduate employees 24 or older

received employer financial aid, compared with 6 percent of those less than 24.
RESULTS FROM NPSAS

52

Receipt of employer financial aid was associated with the type and control of the

institution attended by the undergraduate employee. Forty-six percent of undergraduate

employees who attended private, not-for-profit institutions received employer financial aid

compared with 23 percent for those who attended public institutions, while 11 percent of

undergraduate employees who attended private, for-profit institutions received employer financial

aid compared with 46 percent of those who attended private, not-for-profit institutions. Thirtyfive percent of undergraduate employees who attended 4-year institutions received employer

financial aid, compared with 22 percent of those in 2-year, and 8 percent of those in less-than-2-

year institutions. Undergraduate employees who were enrolled in institutions offering bachelor’s

degrees were more likely to receive employer financial aid (33 percent) than were those who

enrolled in institutions offering certificates or other formal awards (17 percent), or associate’s

degrees (25 percent).

Undergraduate employees who worked every week while enrolled were three times as

likely to receive employer financial aid as those who worked less than one-half of the weeks while

they were enrolled, 27 percent compared with 8 percent. Further, 28 percent of those who

worked 30 or more hours a week received employer financial aid compared with 8 percent of

those who worked less than 30 hours a week (part-time). Finally, 16 percent of undergraduate

employees who attended school full-time received employer financial aid while 28 percent of

those who attended part-time received employer financial aid. The results suggest that those who

worked full-time were more likely to have received employer financial aid than were those

working part-time.

The results also indicate that undergraduate employees who enrolled in business programs

were more likely to receive employer financial aid than were those who enrolled in humanities,

social and behavioral sciences, life sciences and education. At least twice as many undergraduate

employees enrolled in the business programs, 35 percent, received employer financial aid

compared with those in humanities, social/behavioral sciences and education (15 percent for

each), and in life sciences (14 percent). {t=5.55, 4.37, 4.31, 4.23}

Grade point average (GPA) was associated with receipt of employer financial aid.

Undergraduate employees with higher GPAs were more likely to receive employer financial aid

than were those with lower GPAs. Ten percent of undergraduate employees who attained GPAs

of less than 2.00 received employer financial aid compared with 25 percent of those with GPAs

between 2.00 and 3.49, and 33 percent of those with GPAs of 3.50 or higher.
RESULTS FROM NPSAS

53

Another characteristic that differentiated undergraduate employees who received employer

financial aid from those who did not was employment in technical occupations. Undergraduate

employees in technical occupations were more likely to receive employer financial aid than were

those in clerical or service occupations (41 percent compared with 21 and 16 percent).

Undergraduate employees who received aid from some other sources were less likely to

receive employer financial aid than were those who did not receive aid from other sources. Eight

percent of undergraduate employees who received federal aid also received employer financial aid

compared with 29 percent who did not receive federal aid. Eight percent of those who received

state aid received employer financial aid compared with 26 percent who did not receive state aid.

One of three situations may explain these results. First, undergraduate employees who did not

receive employer financial aid benefits may have had to turn to other sources for financial aid.

Second, the employer may have paid enough of the educational expenses for the employee that

the employee may not have needed other sources of aid. Third, employer financial aid recipients

may not have qualified for need-based aid from government sources.

Table 11—Percentage of undergraduate employees* who received employer financial aid, and average

employer financial aid award received, by selected characteristics: 1995-96

Received Average

employer employer financial

financial aid aid received

Total 24.9 $932

Degree program during first term

Certificate or award 18.2 850

Associate’s degree 23.0 490

Bachelor’s degree 33.8 1,890

Undergraduate, non-degree program 28.8 359
RESULTS FROM NPSAS

54

Table 11—Percentage of undergraduate employees* who received employer financial aid, and average

employer financial aid award received, by selected characteristics: 1995-96--Continued

Received Average

employer employer financial

financial aid aid received

Undergraduate field of study

Humanities 14.6 875

Social, behavioral sciences 15.1 1,399

Life sciences 14.2 --

Physical sciences -- --

Mathematics -- --

Computer, information science 35.9 1,194

Engineering 34.7 806

Education 14.7 --

Business, management 34.9 1,239

Health 23.9 1,134

Vocational, technical 21.2 --

Other technical, professional 18.9 666

Dependency status

Dependent 5.2 968

Independent 29.2 930

Gender

Male 24.7 900

Female 25.1 956

Marital status

Not married 18.9 891

Married 34.0 958

Separated 12.8 --

Race/ethnicity

White, non-Hispanic 27.2 916

Black, non-Hispanic 23.3 1,042

Hispanic 17.7 720

Asian/Pacific Islander 6.0 --

American Indian/Alaskan Native 6.3 --

Other -- --

Age

Less than 24 6.3 935

24 or older 30.6 932

Income percentile

1

st-25th percentile 10.6 506

26th-50th percentile 10.8 599

51st-75th percentile 27.5 783

76th-100th percentile 35.0 1,118
RESULTS FROM NPSAS

55

Table 11—Percentage of undergraduate employees* who received employer financial aid, and average

employer financial aid award received, by selected characteristics: 1995-96--Continued

Received Average

employer employer financial

financial aid aid received

Income and dependency level

Dependent

 Less than $20,000 6.4 --

 $20,000-$29,999 1.5 --

 $30,000-$39,999 1.9 --

 $40,000-$49,999 4.3 --

 $50,000-$59,999 11.6 --

 $60,000-$69,999 5.0 --

 $70,000 or more 5.1 --

Independent

 Less than $10,000 13.0 572

 $10,000-$19,999 16.0 624

 $20,000-$29,999 30.6 727

 $30,000 or more 36.8 1,060

Single parent, independent students only

Respondent was a single parent 26.4 896

Respondent was not a single parent 24.6 939

Federal aid (except VA/DOD)

Did receive federal aid 8.4 1,382

Did not receive federal aid 28.6 902

Institutional aid

Did receive institutional aid 30.0 1,356

Did not receive institutional aid 24.6 895

State aid

Did receive state aid 7.7 1,410

Did not receive state aid 25.8 925

Highest level offering

Certificate or other formal award 17.2 530

Associate’s degree 24.9 431

Bachelor’s degree 33.0 1,165

Master’s degree or equivalent 36.4 1,905

Doctoral degree 31.9 1,617

First-professional degree -- --

Grade point average

Less than 2.00 10.1 619

2.00-3.49 24.5 937

3.50 or higher 33.4 832
RESULTS FROM NPSAS

56

Table 11—Percentage of undergraduate employees* who received employer financial aid, and average

employer financial aid award received, by selected characteristics: 1995-96--Continued

Received Average

employer employer financial

financial aid aid received

Occupation

Clerical 21.0 917

Manager 29.8 1,211

Professional 29.5 924

Technical 40.6 1,065

Service 15.5 589

Sales 19.7 1,294

Proprietor 21.0 --

Skilled laborer 20.5 919

Military 41.8 975

Homemaker -- --

Other 22.7 623

Not working 32.9 --

Principal job related to major

 Job related to major 37.5 882

 Job not related to major 13.9 1,063

Institutional control

Public 23.0 510

Private, not-for-profit 45.6 2,321

Private, for-profit 10.9 2,704

Weeks employed while enrolled

Worked every week while enrolled 26.7 936

Worked most of the weeks while enrolled 14.5 745

Worked about half of the weeks while enrolled 21.9 --

Worked less than half of the weeks while enrolled 7.9 --

Tuition and fees for terms attended

Less than $1,000 24.5 432

$1,000-$2,499 25.6 1,399

$2,500-$4,999 30.5 2,781

$5,000-$7,499 23.3 3,437

$7,500-$9,999 15.4 --

$10,000 or more 26.8 --

Average hours worked per week while enrolled

Less than 30 7.5 852

30 or more 28.2 936
RESULTS FROM NPSAS

57

Table 11—Percentage of undergraduate employees* who received employer financial aid, and average

employer financial aid award received, by selected characteristics: 1995-96--Continued

Received Average

employer employer financial

financial aid aid received

Institution enrollment

Less than 1,000 12.3 1,262

1,000-2,499 31.0 1,722

2,500-4,999 36.4 1,201

5,000-7,499 27.0 693

7,500-9,999 29.1 725

10,000 or more 22.7 761

Undergraduate class level

First year/freshman 20.4 658

Second year/sophomore 31.9 759

Third year/junior 31.3 2,016

Fourth year or more/senior 35.8 2,051

Attendance intensity

Full-time 15.8 1,569

Part-time 28.0 816

Level of institution

Less-than-2-year 7.6 1,691

2-year 22.1 425

4-year 34.5 1,694

--Sample size too small for a reliable estimate.

*Undergraduate employees are employed undergraduates who considered themselves primarily employees who enrolled in

school, about 36 percent of all employed undergraduates.

NOTE: Total is not within the range of some of the subgroup estimates due to the number of observations with missing values

within the subgroup.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Table 12 shows that two-thirds of undergraduate employees enrolled in public, 2-year or

less institutions. Seventeen percent of undergraduates attended public, 4-year, institutions, and 10

percent attended private, not-for-profit, 4-year institutions.

Sixty percent of the undergraduate employees who received employer financial aid

attended public, 2-year or less institutions, compared with 69 percent of those who did not

receive employer financial aid. Nineteen percent of the undergraduate employees who received

employer financial aid attended private, not-for-profit, 4-year institutions compared with 7 percent
RESULTS FROM NPSAS

58

of those who did not receive employer financial aid. Two percent of undergraduate employees

who received employer financial aid attended private, for-profit institutions, while 6 percent of

those who did not receive employer financial aid attended private, for-profit institutions.

Table 12—Percentage distribution of undergraduate employees* according to institution type, by employer

financial aid receipt: 1995-96

Private,

Public, not-for-profit, Private,

2-year Public, less-than- not-for-profit, Private,

or less 4-year 4-year 4-year for-profit

 Total 66.7 16.9 1.4 9.8 5.3

Employer financial aid 

 Did receive employer financial aid 60.3 16.9 1.1 19.4 2.3

 Did not receive employer financial aid 68.8 16.9 1.5 6.6 6.3

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

*Undergraduate employees are employed undergraduates who considered themselves primarily employees who enrolled in

school, about 36 percent of all employed undergraduates.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

Average employer financial aid amount awarded to undergraduate employees

Undergraduate employees received an average employer financial aid amount of $932

(table 11). Several factors were associated with the average amount of employer financial aid

received by undergraduate employees: institutional characteristics, students’ grades, being in

managerial rather than service occupations and enrollment status.

The amount of employer financial aid received by undergraduate employees was related to

the price of attendance. Undergraduate employees who attended postsecondary institutions with

tuition and fees of less than $1,000 received smaller average employer financial aid amounts than

those attending institutions with higher tuition and fees. Those attending institutions with tuition

and fees below $1,000 received $432 compared with $1,399 for those in institutions with tuition

and fees between $1,000 and $2,499; $2,781 was received by those paying tuition and fees

between $2,500 and $4,999; and $3,437 was received by those paying tuition and fees between

$5,000 and $7,499.
RESULTS FROM NPSAS

59

Employer financial aid amounts were also associated with the type and control of the

institutions the undergraduate employees attended. Undergraduate employees who attended

public institutions received an average employer financial aid amount of $510, compared with the

$2,321 received by those who attended private, not-for-profit institutions and $2,704 by those

who attended private, for-profit institutions. Undergraduate employees who attended 2-year

institutions received an average of $425 in employer financial aid. This award was less than the

amount received by those in less-than-2-year institutions and 4-year institutions, $1,691 and

$1,694 respectively.

Undergraduate employees who sought bachelor’s degrees received larger average

employer financial aid amounts than those who sought certificates or associate’s degrees. Those

pursuing bachelor’s degrees received $1,890 compared with $850 received by those who sought

certificates or awards and $490 by those who sought associate’s degrees.

GRADUATE AND FIRST-PROFESSIONAL STUDENTS

Characteristics of graduate students who received employer financial aid

The general characteristics associated with the receipt of employer financial aid by

undergraduates were consistent with those found for graduate students; those who were older,

had higher incomes, worked full-time and enrolled part-time were more likely to receive employer

financial aid. However, institutional characteristics had a different relationship with receipt of

employer financial aid for graduate students than was found for the undergraduates. Graduate

students charged a lower tuition were more likely to receive employer financial aid than were

those charged higher tuition, and institutional control was not related to employer financial aid

receipt.

Table 13 shows that older graduate students were more likely to receive employer

financial aid than were those who were younger. Five percent of graduate students who were less

than 24 years of age received employer financial aid compared with 10 percent of those who were

between 24 and 29 years old, 16 percent of those 30 to 39 years of age, and 15 percent of those

40 or older. Further, 5 percent of graduate students who earned less than $10,000 and 6 percent

of those between $10,000 and $19,999 received employer financial aid, compared with 13 percent

of those who earned between $20,000 and $29,999 and 20 percent of those who earned $30,000

or more.
RESULTS FROM NPSAS

60

A graduate student’s occupation was related to receipt of employer financial aid.

Graduate students in technical (38 percent) and managerial occupations (40 percent) were more

likely to receive employer financial aid compared with those in service occupations (4 percent),

and more likely than those teaching school (22 percent). Graduate students whose jobs were

related to their major were more likely to receive employer financial aid (28 percent) than those in

majors not related to their jobs (18 percent).

Unlike undergraduates, graduate students with lower tuition were more likely to receive

employer financial aid than were those who attended higher tuition institutions. Fifteen percent of

graduate students who attended institutions with tuition and fees less than $1,500 received

employer financial aid compared with 7 percent of those who attended institutions with tuition

and fees between $9,000 and $13,499 and 2 percent of those paying $13,500 or more. Many

graduate students may have attended part-time, so tuition and fees may reflect the intensity of

enrollment, not necessarily the institutional control.

Whether the institution was public or private, not-for-profit was not associated with the

chances for receipt of employer financial aid. Twelve percent of the graduate and firstprofessional students in public institutions received employer aid compared with 13 percent in

private, not-for-profit institutions. Graduate students who attended comprehensive institutions

were more likely to have received employer financial aid than were those attending research

universities (15 percent compared with 9 percent).

Forty-two percent of graduate students who considered themselves primarily employees

received employer financial aid, compared with 5 percent of those who considered themselves

primarily students working to meet expenses. Also, graduate students who attended less than

full-time were at least three times as likely to receive employer financial aid than those who

enrolled full-time, 19 percent compared with 6 percent respectively. Further, graduate students

who worked 30 or more hours per week were at least five times as likely to have received

employer financial aid as those who worked less than 30 hours, 35 compared with 6 percent.

Graduate students who did not receive some other types of financial assistance were more

likely to receive employer financial aid than were those who did receive other financial assistance.

Graduate students who did not receive federal aid were three times as likely to receive employer

financial aid than were those who did receive federal aid, 15 compared with 5 percent. Graduate
RESULTS FROM NPSAS

61

students who did not borrow for their graduate education were more likely to receive employer

financial aid compared with those who did, 16 compared with 7 percent.

Five percent of doctoral or first-professional degree students received employer financial

aid compared with 16 percent of the Master’s degree students. Doctoral and first-professional

students were also less likely to have received employer aid than students who were in

postbaccalaureate (13 percent) or other graduate programs (12 percent).

Table 13—Percentage of graduate students who received employer financial aid, and average employer

financial aid award received, by selected characteristics: 1995-96

Received Average

employer employer financial

financial aid aid received

 Total 12.5 $2,451

Gender

 Male 12.6 2,987

 Female 12.5 1,980

Marital status

 Not married 10.2 2,518

 Married 16.1 2,379

 Separated 7.0 --

Primary role while enrolled and working*

 Student working to meet expenses 5.0 3,363

 Employee who decided to enroll in school 41.8 2,197

Highest level offering

 Postbaccalaureate certificate -- --

 Master’s degree 16.4 1,918

 Post-master’s certificate 16.9 1,687

 Doctoral degree 12.6 2,687

 First-professional degree 2.4 3,866

Degree program during first term 1995-96

 Postbaccalaureate certificate 13.0 1,524

 Master’s degree 15.9 2,620

 Doctoral or professional degree 4.8 3,357

 Other graduate program 12.2 1,272

Year of first bachelor’s degree

 1989 or earlier 27.1 2,219

 1990-1993 16.7 2,656

 1994 or later 13.6 2,502
RESULTS FROM NPSAS

62

Table 13—Percentage of graduate students who received employer financial aid, and average employer

financial aid award received, by selected characteristics: 1995-96--Continued

Received Average

employer employer financial

financial aid aid received

Year began graduate education

 1989 or earlier 20.3 --

 1990-1993 21.5 2,160

 1994 or later 19.9 2,891

Grant aid

 Did receive grant aid 37.2 3,119

 Did not receive grant aid 2.2 2,358

Age

 Less than 24 5.1 2,568

 24-29 10.4 2,559

 30-39 15.9 2,767

 40 or older 15.3 1,886

Household income

 Less than $10,000 4.8 4,192

 $10,000-$19,999 5.7 2,252

 $20,000-$29,999 13.2 2,347

 $30,000 or more 19.8 2,241

Attendance intensity

 Full-time 5.5 4,985

 Part-time 18.5 2,300

Tuition and fees for terms attended

 Less than $1,500 15.0 885

 $1,500-$2,999 15.7 1,958

 $3,000-$4,499 14.8 3,180

 $4,500-$8,999 10.9 4,084

 $9,000-$13,499 7.2 7,147

 $13,500 or more 2.2 --

Average hours worked per week while enrolled

 Less than 30 5.9 2,120

 30 or more 34.5 2,281

State aid

 Did receive state aid 6.4 --

 Did not receive state aid 12.6 2,462

Federal aid (except VA/DOD)

 Did receive federal aid 4.5 3,215

 Did not receive federal aid 15.2 2,376
RESULTS FROM NPSAS

63

Table 13—Percentage of graduate students who received employer financial aid, and average employer

financial aid award received, by selected characteristics: 1995-96--Continued

Received Average

employer employer financial

financial aid aid received

Institutional aid

 Did receive institutional aid 17.8 2,028

 Did not receive institutional aid 13.2 2,316

Graduate assistantship or fellowship

 Did receive assistantship or fellowship 5.1 5,402

 Did not receive assistantship or fellowship 13.4 2,310

Borrowed for graduate education

 Borrowed for graduate or first professional education 7.4 2,533

 Did not borrow for graduate or first professional education 15.5 2,428

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 14.4 2,304

 Black, non-Hispanic 10.4 2,696

 Hispanic 5.2 --

 Asian/Pacific Islander 5.0 --

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 6.7 --

 Other 2.3 --

Principal job related to major*

 Job related to major 27.5 2,288

 Job not related to major 17.8 2,028

Institutional control

 Public 11.6 1,806

 Private, not-for-profit 13.2 3,235

 Private, for-profit 28.0 2,627

Carnegie code

 Research 8.8 3,505

 Doctoral 14.3 2,139

 Comprehensive 15.3 1,922

 Other 13.8 2,373

Graduate field of study

 Humanities 4.5 --

 Social, behavioral sciences 6.3 --

 Life and physical sciences 2.7 --

 Engineering, computer science, mathematics 5.0 --

 Education 5.1 --

 Business, management 14.2 3,014

 Health 3.3 2,201

 Other 3.4 4,290
RESULTS FROM NPSAS

64

Table 13—Percentage of graduate students who received employer financial aid, and average employer

financial aid award received, by selected characteristics: 1995-96--Continued

Received Average

employer employer financial

financial aid aid received

Occupation

 Clerical, sales 18.6 2,317

 Craftsman, skilled operator 22.5 --

 Farming 43.7 --

 Homemaker -- --

 Laborer -- --

 Manager 39.6 2,395

 Military 45.6 --

 Not working 1.6 --

 Professional 24.0 2,677

 Proprietor -- --

 Protective service -- --

 School teacher 22.0 850

 Service occupations 4.0 --

 Technical 37.5 2,467

--Sample size is too small for a reliable estimate.

NOTE: Total is not within the range of some of the subgroup estimates due to the number of observations with missing values

within the subgroups.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Survey (NPSAS:96), Graduate and First-Professional Data Analysis System.

Graduate students by degree sought

Fifty-six percent of the graduate students were enrolled in master’s degree programs,

which made it the largest category of graduate student enrollment (figure 7), compared with onequarter of the postgraduate students who were doctoral or first-professional degree students, 10

percent enrolled in postbaccalaureate certificate programs, and another 10 percent enrolled in

“other graduate programs.”

One reason doctoral and first-professional degree students were less likely to receive

employer financial aid than those seeking other graduate degrees may have been that they were

more likely than those who sought other types of graduate degrees to enroll full-time (table 14).

Sixty-two percent of the doctoral or first-professional students enrolled full-time, compared with

31 percent of those seeking master’s degrees, 22 percent of those seeking postbaccalaureate

degrees, and 13 percent of those enrolled in other graduate programs.
RESULTS FROM NPSAS

65

Figure 7—Percentage distribution of graduate and first-professional students according to type of degree

sought: 1995-96

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Graduate and First-Professional Data Analysis System.

Another factor associated with doctoral and first-professional students being less likely to

receive employer aid is that they were more likely to work part-time than graduate students

seeking other degrees. Sixty-eight percent of the doctoral and first-professional students worked

less than 30 hours a week, compared with 40 percent of those seeking postbaccalaureate degrees,

38 percent of those seeking master’s degrees, and 24 percent of those seeking other graduate

degrees.

A final reason that doctoral or first-professional students were less likely to receive

employer aid is because they were more likely to identify themselves as students who worked to

meet expenses than graduate students in other programs. Seventy-one percent of doctoral or

first-professional graduate students were students working to meet expenses, compared with 38

percent of the master’s degree students, 32 percent of those seeking a postbaccalaureate degrees,

and 12 percent seeking other degrees.

Postbaccalaureate

certificate

10.0%

Master's degree

55.5%

Doctoral or firstprofessional degree

24.9%

Other graduate program

9.6%
RESULTS FROM NPSAS

66

Table 14—Percentage distribution1 of graduate and first-professional students by degree sought, according

to selected characteristics: 1995-96

Doctoral or

Post-baccalaureate Master’s first-professional Other graduate

certificate degree degree program

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Attendance intensity

 Full-time 22.1 31.0 61.9 12.6

 Part-time 77.9 69.0 38.1 87.4

Average hours worked per week while enrolled

 Less than 30 40.4 38.1 68.3 24.4

 30 or more 59.6 61.9 31.7 75.6

Primary role while enrolled and working2

 Student worked to meet expenses 32.0 37.3 70.5 11.7

 Employee decided to enroll 68.0 62.7 29.5 88.3

1The columns sum to 100 vertically for each selected characteristic.

2

Includes only employed respondents

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995-96 National

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Graduate and First-Professional Data Analysis System.

Average employer financial aid amount awarded to graduate students who received

employer financial aid

Overall, the average employer financial aid awarded was $2,451 to graduate students

(table 13). The findings show that the characteristics associated with receiving larger average

employer financial aid awards include being male, in professional or managerial occupations

compared with schoolteachers, studying business, and higher average tuition. Age and income

level of the recipient had significant relationships with the likelihood of receiving employer

financial aid with two exceptions. Graduate students from 30-39 years of age were not

significantly more likely to receive employer aid than those 40 and older, and those with

household incomes of less than $10,000 were not significantly more likely to receive employer aid

than those with household incomes from $10,000 to $19,999. There was no significant

relationship between either age or household income, and amount of employer financial aid

received.

Male graduate students received larger average employer financial aid awards than

females, $2,987 compared with $1,980. This may be associated with career and occupational
RESULTS FROM NPSAS

67

differences between men and women. An alternate explanation may be the demand of family

responsibilities on women that forces them to enroll for fewer units.

Graduate students charged tuition and fees of less than $1,500 received an average

employer financial aid amount of $885. Graduate students who attended institutions with tuition

and fees between $1,500 and $2,999 received an average employer financial aid award of $1,958.

Those who attended institutions with tuition and fees between $3,000 and $4,499 received an

average employer financial aid award of $3,180; those who attended institutions with tuition and

fees between $4,500 and $8,999 received an average employer financial aid award of $4,084; and

those who attended institutions with tuition and fees between $9,000 and $13,499 received an

average employer financial aid award of $7,147. Each average employer financial aid award was

higher for graduate students paying tuition and fees of $1,500 to $13,499 than the employer

financial aid awards made to those paying tuition and fees less than $1,500. Graduate students

who attended private, not-for-profit institutions received an average employer financial aid award

of $3,235, which is greater than the $1,806 received by graduate students in public institutions.

Occupation was associated with the average amount of employer financial aid received.

Graduate students who taught school received an average employer financial aid award of $850,

which was less than the $2,677 received by those who were professionals, $2,395 received by

managers, or the $2,317 received by those in clerical and sales occupations

Graduate students who were primarily students working to meet expenses received a

greater amount of employer aid than those who were primarily employees who enrolled, $3,363

compared with $2,197. Also, the employer financial aid amount received by graduate students

working less than 30 hours was not significantly different than that received by those working 30

or more hours per week. Whether the graduate students were in majors related to their jobs was

not associated with the employer financial aid award amount. However, graduate students who

enrolled full-time, and may have incurred higher tuition and fees, received $4,985, about twice as

much as those who enrolled less than full-time, $2,300.
68

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH EMPLOYER AID RECEIPT FOR

UNDERGRADUATE EMPLOYEES AFTER CONTROLLING FOR

BACKGROUND VARIATION

Crosstabulations have limitations when used with survey data. Sample size restricts the

number of cells into which the data can be usefully subdivided. In many instances, complex

interrelationships that cannot be disentangled in tabular analysis exist among variables. A linear

regression model was used to overcome the limitations of crosstabulations by taking the effects of

all variables in the model into account simultaneously and controlling for interrelationships among

variables that could influence findings in the crosstabulations. The model produces adjusted

means.

14 By estimating the joint effect of all variables taken together, the regression model was

used to test individual parameters while holding the influence of other variables constant.

Because of the interrelationships among variables, it was of interest to learn if differences still

existed with the use of a linear multiple regression model.

Table 15 shows the adjusted percentages of undergraduate employees who received

employer financial aid, taking into account several characteristics. The unadjusted percentages

are included for comparison.

After taking the other variables in the model into consideration, several findings remained

consistent with the tabular analysis, while several others changed. Undergraduate employees

whose jobs were related to their majors were still more likely to have received employer financial

aid than were those whose jobs were not related to their majors. The regression also confirmed

that undergraduate employees who received federal aid were less likely to have received employer

financial aid than were those who did not receive federal aid. Further, after adjusting the

percentages, high grade point averages remained a predictor of receiving employer financial aid

compared with low grade point averages, as did being a business or management major compared

with majoring in humanities, social or behavioral sciences, or education. In addition, senior

undergraduate employees were more likely to receive employer financial aid than first

year/freshmen in both the crosstabular and linear regression analyses. Finally, the crosstabular

 

14Appendix B contains a description of the means adjustment method.
FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH EMPLOYER AID RECEIPT FOR UNDERGRADUATE EMPLOYEES

AFTER CONTROLLING FOR BACKGROUND VARIATION

69

finding that Asian/Pacific Islander undergraduate employees were less likely to receive employer

financial aid than were those who were white, non-Hispanic was confirmed by the linear

regression.

After taking the other variables in the model into consideration, none of the other findings

revealed in the crosstabular analysis were significant.

Table 15—Percentage of undergraduate employees1 who received employer financial aid, and the adjusted

percentage after taking into account the covariation of the variables listed2: 1995-96

Unadjusted Adjusted Least squares Standard

percentage3percentage4coefficient5error6

 Total 24.9 24.9 0.09 16.69

Age 

 24 or older 30.6 24.7 † †

 Less than 24 6.3 * 25.7 0.97 6.47

Attendance intensity

 Part-time 28.0 24.8 † †

 Full-time 15.8 * 25.4 0.61 3.73

Institutional control

 Private, not-for-profit 45.6 34.0 † †

 Public 23.0 * 23.8 -10.17 5.82

 Private, for-profit 10.9 * 23.4 -10.61 8.95

Undergraduate class level

 First year/freshman 20.4 20.7 † †

 Second year/sophomore 31.9 28.1 7.37 3.99

 Third year/junior 31.3 34.0 * 13.33 5.06

 Fourth year or more/senior 35.8 * 35.1 * 14.34 5.65

Degree program during first term

 Certificate or award 18.2 20.6 † †

 Associate's degree 23.0 27.9 7.33 4.28

 Bachelor's degree 33.8* 21.3 0.74 7.18

 Undergraduate, non-degree program 28.8 24.6 4.04 6.11

Dependency status

 Dependent 5.2 14.8 † †

 Independent 29.2* 27.1 12.28 6.87
FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH EMPLOYER AID RECEIPT FOR UNDERGRADUATE EMPLOYEES AFTER

CONTROLLING FOR BACKGROUND VARIATION

70

Table 15—Percentage of undergraduate employees1 who received employer financial aid, and the adjusted

percentage after taking into account the covariation of the variables listed2: 1995-96--Continued

Unadjusted Adjusted Least squares Standard

percentage3percentage4coefficient5error6

Institution enrollment

 Less than 1,000 12.3 25.7 † †

 1,000-2,499 31.0 * 26.2 0.53 8.55

 2,500-4,999 36.4 * 28.5 2.83 8.85

 5,000-7,499 27.0 * 27.2 1.50 9.10

 7,500-9,999 29.1 * 26.8 1.13 9.03

 10,000 or more 22.7 * 23.0 -2.67 8.37

Gender 

 Male 24.7 24.3 † †

 Female 25.1 25.4 1.07 3.00

Grade point average

 Less than 2.00 10.1 18.0 † †

 2.00-3.49 36.4 * 24.6 6.61 3.65

 3.50 or higher 24.5 * 29.3 * 11.39 3.74

Average hours worked per week while enrolled

 30 or more 28.2 26.2 † †

 Less than 30 7.5 * 18.1 -8.14 4.19

Institutional aid

 Did receive institutional aid 30.0 34.8 † †

 Did not receive institutional aid 24.6 24.2 -10.56 5.54

Level of institution

 4-year 34.5 27.8 † †

 2-year 22.1 * 24.1 -3.71 6.11

 Less-than-2-year 7.6 * 19.9 -7.89 10.48

Undergraduate field of study

 Business, management 34.9 30.0 † †

 Humanities 14.6 * 16.4 * -13.58 4.62

 Vocational, technical 21.2 * 30.8 0.78 7.56

 Other technical, professional 18.9 * 26.1 -3.90 4.46

 Social, behavioral sciences 15.1 * 14.0 * -15.98 6.76

 Life sciences 14.2 16.1 -13.90 9.78

 Physical sciences -- 20.3 -9.69 20.12

 Mathematics -- 21.7 -8.24 19.44

 Computer, information science 35.9 29.0 -0.99 6.89

 Engineering 34.7 35.6 5.58 5.63

 Education 14.7 * 14.9 * -15.04 5.61

 Health 23.9 22.8 -7.15 4.79
FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH EMPLOYER AID RECEIPT FOR UNDERGRADUATE EMPLOYEES

AFTER CONTROLLING FOR BACKGROUND VARIATION

71

Table 15—Percentage of undergraduate employees1 who received employer financial aid, and the adjusted

percentage after taking into account the covariation of the variables listed2: 1995-96--Continued

Unadjusted Adjusted Least squares Standard

percentage3percentage4coefficient5error6

Income percentile

 1st-25th percentile 10.6 28.0 † †

 26th-50th percentile 10.8 18.2 -9.73 4.99

 51st-75th percentile 27.5 * 26.2 -1.82 4.98

 76th-100th percentile 35.0 * 26.6 -1.41 5.41

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 27.2 25.6 † †

 Black, non-Hispanic 23.3 27.2 1.61 4.15

 Hispanic 17.7 22.7 -2.89 4.71

 Asian/Pacific Islander 6.0* 9.1* -16.52 8.23

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 6.3 * 15.3 -10.34 12.62

 Other -- -5.4 -30.96 40.69

Weeks employed while enrolled

 Worked every week while enrolled 26.7 24.9 † †

 Worked most of the weeks while enrolled 14.5 * 24.6 -0.34 4.74

 Worked about half of weeks while enrolled 21.9 32.1 7.15 11.79

 Worked less than half of weeks while enrolled 7.9 * 20.7 -4.21 9.26

Principal job related to major

 Job not related to major 13.9 17.3 † †

 Job related to major 37.5 * 30.6 * 13.30 2.92

Marital status

 Married 34.0 25.4 † †

 Not married 18.9* 24.8 -0.64 3.46

 Separated 12.8 20.9 -4.53 8.58

State aid

 Did receive state aid 7.7 16.7 † †

 Did not receive state aid 25.8 * 25.3 8.65 6.70

Federal aid (except (VA/DOD)

 Did receive federal aid 8.4 11.3 † †

 Did not receive federal aid 28.6 * 28.3 * 16.96 4.32
FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH EMPLOYER AID RECEIPT FOR UNDERGRADUATE EMPLOYEES AFTER

CONTROLLING FOR BACKGROUND VARIATION

72

Table 15—Percentage of undergraduate employees1 who received employer financial aid, and the adjusted

percentage after taking into account the covariation of the variables listed2: 1995-96--Continued

Unadjusted Adjusted Least squares Standard

percentage3percentage4coefficient5error6

Tuition and fees for terms attended

 Less than $1,000 24.5 23.0 † †

 $1,000-$2,499 25.6 29.3 6.21 4.39

 $2,500-$4,999 30.5 32.0 8.98 6.90

 $5,000-$7,499 23.3 27.6 4.54 9.94

 $7,500-$9,999 15.4 28.0 4.94 13.56

 $10,000 or more 26.8 27.9 4.86 13.66

*p < .05.

†Not applicable for the reference group.

1Undergraduate employees are employed undergraduates who considered themselves primarily employees who enrolled in

school, about 36 percent of all employed undergraduates.

2The italicized group in each category is the reference group being compared.

3The estimates are from the NPSAS:96 Undergraduate Data Analysis System.

4The percentages are adjusted for differences associated with other variables in the table (see appendix B).

5Least squares coefficient, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B).

6Standard error of least squares coefficient, adjusted for design effect, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:96), Undergraduate Data Analysis System.
73

CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY

Employer financial aid may be a minor student aid program in relation to federal, state,

and institutional efforts. Nonetheless, it can be a significant source of assistance for both older

and part-time students (see table 11). The average undergraduate employer financial aid recipient

received $932 and the average graduate recipient received $2,451 from his or her employer.

The two data sources used for this report, NHES and NPSAS, provide information

describing the award of employer financial aid to help employees further their education. The two

datasets represent different approaches to collecting data. NHES collected data from a sample of

families and NPSAS collected information from a sample of students enrolled in postsecondary

institutions. Given the differences, there was general agreement on several points. First,

respondents over 24 and married were more likely to receive employer financial aid than were

those who were younger and single. Second, those who worked full-time and attended school

part-time were more likely to receive employer financial aid. Third, those students who worked in

technical fields were more likely to receive employer financial aid than were those in many other

occupational areas. Fourth, graduate students seeking master’s degrees were more likely to

receive employer financial aid than were those seeking doctoral or first-professional degrees.

The results from NPSAS and NHES suggest that employer financial aid to help employees

attend postsecondary institutions was modest. NHES suggests that employers were more likely

to provide support for work-related training than they were for credential enrollment. NPSAS

indicates that 6 percent of the undergraduates received aid from their employer. The aid was

concentrated among those students who identified themselves as employees who attend school.

One-quarter of these students received employer financial aid.

In the introduction, four questions were posed. The report provided information related

to each of the four.

1. What types of training and education did employers support?

The NHES data indicate that employers tended to support work-related programs in

preference to credential programs. Eighty-eight percent of the employees who participated in
CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY

74

work-related programs received financial aid from their employer compared with 24 percent of

those in credential programs. Twenty-one percent of adults participated in work-related

programs compared with 13 percent who enrolled in credential programs.

Among undergraduates in credential programs, the greater likelihood of receiving

employer support for work-related programs was still evident. According to NPSAS, adults

enrolled in business programs were much more likely to receive employer financial aid than were

those who enrolled in postsecondary programs such as humanities or social sciences. Graduate

students enrolled in business programs were also more likely to receive employer financial aid

than were those in other programs. The NHES data told a different story because it was not

possible to report results for those undergraduates who were primarily students who worked

separately from those who were primarily employees who took classes.

2. How important were postsecondary institutions in providing employer supported

training and education compared with other sources of education?

Adults were more likely to participate in work-related programs or other structured

programs than they were in credential programs. The NHES results suggest that some employees

identified as credential-seeking students may have been enrolled in professional certification

programs of some type that were not offered by postsecondary institutions. The implication of

these findings is that postsecondary institutions’ credential programs may account for a relatively

small share of the total education and training paid for by employers. Employees were more likely

to receive employer assistance if they participated in short programs rather than those that were

an academic quarter or semester in length.

3. Which postsecondary institutions were most likely to enroll students who received

aid from their employers?

Sixty percent of the undergraduate employees who received employer financial aid

attended public, less-than-4-year institutions. Another 17 percent attended public, 4-year

institutions and 19 percent attended private, not-for-profit, 4-year institutions. Undergraduate

employees who attended private, not-for-profit institutions were twice as likely to receive

employer financial aid as were those who attended public institutions.

4. Which types of employees were most likely to receive financial support from

employers if they enrolled in a credential program?
CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY

75

The NPSAS data indicated that undergraduates who perceived themselves primarily as

students who worked were less likely to receive employer financial aid than were those who

identified themselves as employees who attended school (called undergraduate employees in this

report). Undergraduate employees who worked full-time rather than part-time were more likely

to receive employer aid. The NHES data indicated that those students who worked full-time

were more likely to have their employer pay for enrollment in a credential program than were

those who worked part-time.

Employees in technical fields had a higher chance of receiving employer financial aid than

those in occupations such as sales and marketing. In addition, employees in executive,

management, or professional positions were more likely to receive employer financial aid than

were those in occupations such as administrative assistant.
76

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

This glossary describes the variables used in this report. The variables were taken directly from the NCES

NPSAS:96 Undergraduate, NPSAS:96 Graduate and First-Professional, and NHES:95 Adult Education Data

Analysis Systems (DAS). These are NCES software applications that generate tables from their respective data. A

description of the DAS software can be found in appendix B. The variable labels are italicized; the variable name

as it appears in the DAS is shown to the right. The variables are listed by variable category within the appropriate

dataset, and in alphabetical order by variable label.

GLOSSARY INDEX

NHES:95 Variables

Respondent characteristics

Age...................................................................AGE

Annual personal earnings ......................PERSEARN

Gender...............................................................SEX

Highest level of education completed .......IBGRADE

Hours worked per week.............................. PAYHRS

Industry of respondent’s current job .......INDUSTRY

Language spoken most at home.................IBSPEAK

Marital status.......................................AMARSTAT

Number of household members under

18 .................................................... HHUNDR18

Own or rent home, or other

arrangement.................................. HOWNHOME

Race/ethnicity .................................................RACE

Reason for adult education

participation: advance in job ...............IMPROVE

Reason for adult education

participation: improve basic skills................ RRR

Reason for adult education

participation: meet requirements........MEETREQ

Reason for adult education

participation: personal reasons......... PERSONAL

Reason for adult education

participation: train for new job................. TRAIN

Respondent’s current occupation.................. OCCUP

Total household income .......................... HINCOME

Credential programs variables

Credential programs: average cost............ CR_COST

Credential programs: average hours,

full-time............................................ CRFT_HRS

Credential programs: average hours,

part-time ...........................................CRPT_HRS

Credential programs: average

months, full-time............................. CRFT_MNT

Credential programs: average

months, part-time ............................ CRPT_MNT

Credential programs: employer aid.............CR_EMP

Credential programs: employer

provided due to union agreement.........CRD_UNI

Credential programs: employer

required.................................................CR_REQ

Credential programs: enrollment

level ..................................................... CR_PGM

Credential programs: major field of

study .....................................................MAJOR1

Credential programs: number of

courses.............................................CRD_NCLS

Credential programs: part of

assistantship or fellowship...................CR_ASST

Credential programs: participation .........CRDIPART

Credential programs: total cost .............. CR_TCOST

Credential programs: type of

institution offering program................ CRD_PRV

Other structured programs variables

Other structured programs: average

cost .....................................................SA_COST

Other structured programs: average

hours..................................................... SA_HRS

Other structured programs: average

weeks................................................... SA_WKS

Other structured programs: employer

aid.........................................................SA_EMP
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

77

Other structured programs: number

of programs ........................................... SANEW

Other structured programs:

participation .........................................SAACTY

Other structured programs: provider

type........................................................SA_PRV

Other structured programs: total cost .....SA_TCOST

Work-related programs variables

Work-related programs: average cost ...... WR_COST

Work-related programs: average

hours ................................................. WR_THRS

Work-related programs: average

weeks in class......................................WR_WKS

Work-related programs: employer

aid .......................................................WR_EMP

Work-related programs: employer

required ............................................... WR_REQ

Work-related programs: employer

provided due to union contract.............. WR_UNI

Work-related programs: number of

programs taken..................................... WRNEW

Work-related programs: participation....... WRACTY

Other variables

Employer provided any employee

benefits..............................................BENEFITS

ESL, ABE or GED programs:

employer aid....................................... ESL_EMP

ESL, ABE or GED programs:

participation ......................................BSPARTIC

NPSAS:96 Undergraduate

variables

Age as of 12/31/95............................................AGE

Attendance intensity ................................ATTEND2

Average hours worked per week

while enrolled................................... HRSWORK

Dependency status......................................DEPEND

Degree program during first term............DEGFIRST

Employer aid .......................................EMPLYAMT

Federal aid................................................TFEDAID

Gender...................................................... GENDER

Grade point average ........................................ GPA2

Highest level offering............................. HLOFFER2

Income percentile......................................PCTALL2

Income and dependency level.....................INCOME

Institution enrollment .............................ENRLSIZE

Institution type (level and control)..............SECTOR

Institutional aid ....................................... INSTAMT

Institutional control ................................ CONTROL

Level of institution ....................................... LEVEL

Marital status ........................................SMARITAL

Occupation .............................................. STUOCC1

Primary role while enrolled and

working.................................................SEROLE

Principal job related to major................. SERELMAJ

Race/ethnicity................................................. RACE

Single parent ..........................................SINGLPAR

State aid ...............................................STATEAMT

Tuition and fees for terms attended............TUITION

Undergraduate field of study.....................MAJORS3

Undergraduate class level ......................UGLEVEL1

Weeks employed while enrolled............SEENRWKS

NPSAS:96 Graduate and firstprofessional student variables

Age as of 12/31/95............................................ AGE

Any aid ...................................................... TOTAID

Average hours worked per week

while enrolled ...................................HRSWORK

Attendance intensity..................................ATTEND

Borrowed for graduate education ............ BORAMT3

Carnegie code........................................CARNEGIE

Degree sought......................................... DEGFIRST

Employer aid.......................................EMPLYAMT

Federal aid ...............................................TFEDAID

Gender ......................................................GENDER

Graduate assistantship or fellowship..........ASTAMT

Graduate field of study..............................MAJORS4

Grant aid ................................................... TOTGRT

Highest level offering .............................HLOFFER2

Household income ..................................... INCOME

Institutional aid ....................................... INSTAMT

Institutional control ................................ CONTROL

Marital status ........................................SMARITAL

Occupation .............................................. STUOCC1

Primary role while enrolled and

working.................................................SEROLE

Principal job related to major................. SERELMAJ

Race/ethnicity................................................. RACE

State aid ...............................................STATEAMT

Tuition and fees for terms attended............TUITION

Year began graduate education............... GRADPYR

Year of first bachelor’s degree ..................SABA-YR
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

78

NHES:95 VARIABLES

Respondent characteristics

Age AGE

Age of the respondent at the time of the survey.

Less than 24

24-39

40-54

55-69

70 or more

Annual personal earnings PERSEARN

Respondent’s personal earnings over the past 12 months.

$20,000 or less

$20,001-$35,000

$35,001-$50,000

Over $50,000

Gender SEX

Male

Female

Highest level of education completed IBGRADE

Less than high school

High school diploma or equivalent

Some postsecondary education

Associate’s degree

Bachelor’s degree

Graduate degree

Hours worked per week PAYHRS

The total number of hours per week usually worked for pay including all jobs.

None

One to thirty

More than thirty
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

79

Industry of respondent’s current job INDUSTRY

Industry of the respondent’s job(s) in 1995. Each respondent was asked about up to three jobs in 1995. If more

than one was indicated, this variable was coded as multiple jobs, multiple industries.

Agriculture, forestry, fishing

Mining

Construction

Manufacturing

Transportation, public utilities

Wholesale trade

Retail trade

Finance, insurance, real estate

Service

Health services

Education

Public administration

Other

Multiple jobs, multiple industries

Language spoken most at home IBSPEAK

Primary language spoken in respondent’s home.

English

Spanish

Other language

Marital status AMARSTAT

Married

Separated

Divorced

Widowed

Never married

Number of household members under 18 HHUNDR18

Number of household members under 18 living in home, regardless of relationship or dependency.

None

One

Two or more
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

80

Own or rent home, or other arrangement HOWNHOME

Own home

Rent home

Other arrangement

Race/ethnicity RACE

American Indian/Alaskan NativeA person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America

and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or

community recognition.

Asian/Pacific Islander A person having origins in any of the Asian or Pacific Islander original

peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, or

Pacific Islands. This includes people from China, Japan, Korea, the

Philippine Islands, Samoa, India and Vietnam.

Black, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa, and

not of Hispanic origin.

Hispanic A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American,

or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

White, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North

Africa, or the Middle East (except those of Hispanic origin).

Other A person not in one of the above categories.

Reason for adult education participation: advance in job IMPROVE

Whether the respondent participated in adult education to improve, advance or keep up-to-date on the current job.

Applies to any type of adult education the respondent participated in.

Took adult education to improve or advance in job

Did not take adult education to improve or advance in job

Reason for adult education participation: improve basic skills RRR

Whether the respondent participated in adult education to improve basic reading, writing, or mathematics skill.

Applies to any type of adult education the respondent participated in.

Took adult education to improve basic skills

Did not take adult education to improve basic skills

Reason for adult education participation: meet requirements MEETREQ

Whether the respondent participated in adult education to meet requirements for a high school diploma or GED,

diploma, degree or certificate of completion. Applies to any type of adult education the respondent participated in.

Took adult education to meet requirements

Did not take adult education to meet requirements
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

81

Reason for adult education participation: personal reasons PERSONAL

Whether the respondent participated in adult education for personal, family or social reasons. Applies to any type

of adult education the respondent participated in.

Took adult education for personal reasons

Did not take adult education for personal reasons

Reason for adult education participation: train for new job TRAIN

Whether the respondent participated in adult education to train for a new job or career. Applies to any type of

adult education the respondent participated in.

Took adult education to train for new job

Did not take adult education to train for new job

Respondent’s current occupation OCCUP

Occupation of the respondent’s job(s) in 1995. Each respondent was asked about up to three jobs in 1995. If more

than one was indicated, this variable was coded as multiple jobs, multiple occupations.

Executive, administrative, managerial

Engineer, surveyor, architect

Natural scientist, mathematician

Social scientist/worker, lawyer

Teacher, postsecondary

Physician, dentist, veterinarian

Registered nurse, pharmacist

Writer, artist, entertainer, athlete

Health technologist/technician

Technologist, not health

Marketing, sales

Administrative support

Service

Agriculture, forestry, fishing

Mechanic, repairer

Construction

Precision production

Production

Transportation, material moving

Handler, cleaner, helper, laborer

Other

Multiple jobs, multiple occupations
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

82

Total household income HINCOME

The total income of all persons in the household over the past year, including salaries or other earnings, interest,

retirements, and so on.

$20,000 or less

$20,001-$35,000

$35,001-$50,000

Over $50,000

Credential programs variables

Credential programs: average cost CR_COST

The average cost the respondent incurred per credential program during the past 12 months. Each respondent was

questioned about up to three credential programs they may have participated in.

None

Less than $100

$100-$499

$500-$999

$1,000-$2,499

$2,500-$4,999

$5,000 or more

Credential programs: average hours, full-time CRFT_HRS

The average hours per week spent in credential program(s) on a full-time basis during the past 12 months. Each

respondent was questioned about up to three credential programs they may have participated in.

Less than three

Three to six

More than six

Credential programs: average hours, part-time CRPT_HRS

The average hours per week spent in credential programs on a part-time basis during the past 12 months. Each

respondent was questioned about up to three credential programs they may have participated in.

Less than four

Four to six

More than six
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

83

Credential programs: average months, full-time CRFT_MNT

The average months the respondent spent in credential programs on a full-time basis during the past 12 months.

Each respondent was questioned about up to three credential programs they may have participated in.

Less than three

Three to five

Six to eight

Nine to twelve

Credential programs: average months, part-time CRPT_MNT

The average months the respondent spent in credential programs on a part-time basis during the past 12 months.

Each respondent was questioned about up to three credential programs they may have participated in.

Less than three

Three to five

Six to eight

Nine to twelve

Credential programs: employer aid CR_EMP

Combination of employer aid received by respondent for enrollment in credential program(s). Respondents who

received financial assistance may or may not have received other forms of employer support as well.

No employer aid

Employer paid

Employer provided support

Credential programs: employer provided due to union agreement CRD_UNI

Whether the employer support provided for credential program(s) was part of a union agreement.

Aid part of union contract

Aid not part of union contract

Credential programs: employer required CR_REQ

Whether the credential program(s) was required by the employer.

Employer required credential program

Employer did not require credential program
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

84

Credential programs: enrollment level CR_PGM

The highest level credential program the respondent was enrolled in.

Vocational/technical certificate

Associate’s degree

Bachelor’s degree

Master’s degree

Doctoral degree

First-professional degree

Other

Credential programs: major field of study MAJOR1

Major field of study for highest level credential program the respondent was enrolled in.

Humanities

Social, behavioral science

Life science/physical science

Mathematics

Computer, information science

Engineering

Education

Business, management

Health

Vocational, technical

Other

Credential programs: number of courses CRD_NCLS

Number of courses taken in credential program(s) the respondent enrolled in during the past 12 months.

One

Two

More than two

Credential programs: number of credential programs participated in CRDIPNEW

Number of credential programs the respondent participated in during the past 12 months.

One

More than one
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

85

Credential programs: part of assistantship or fellowship CR_ASST

Whether the credential program(s) was required as part of an assistantship or fellowship.

Part of assistantship or fellowship

Not part of assistantship or fellowship

Credential programs: participation CRDIPART

Whether the respondent participated in any credential program during the past 12 months.

Participated in credential programs

Did not participate in credential programs

Credential programs: total cost CR_TCOST

The total cost the respondent incurred for credential program(s). Each respondent was questioned about up to

three credential programs they may have participated in.

None

Less than $100

$100-$499

$500-$999

$1,000-$2,499

$2,500-$4,999

$5,000 or more

Credential program: type of institution offering program CRD_PRV

Institution where the respondent received instruction for the credential program(s).

Primary/secondary school

2-year community or junior college

2-year vocational or technical school

4-year college or university

Private vocational or trade school

Business, industry

Professional association

Other

Multiple
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

86

Other structured programs variables

Other structured programs: average cost SA_COST

The average cost incurred by respondent for all other structured program(s) during the past 12 months. Each

respondent was questioned about up to three other structured programs.

None

Less than $100

$100-$499

$500-$999

$1,000-$2,499

$2,500-$4,999

$5,000 or more

Other structured programs: average hours SA_HRS

Average number of hours the respondent spent per program during the past 12 months in other structured

program(s). Each respondent was questioned about up to three other structured programs.

Less than four

Four to six

More than six

Other structured programs: average weeks SA_WKS

The average number of weeks per year the respondent spent in other structured programs during the past 12

months. Each respondent was questioned about up to three other structured programs.

One

Two to five

More than five

Other structured programs: employer aid SA_EMP

Combination of employer aid received for other structured programs.

No employer aid

Employer provided support

 Other structured programs: number of programs SANEW

Number of other structured programs the respondent participated in during the past 12 months.

One

Two

Three or more
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

87

Other structured programs: participation SAACTY

Whether the respondent participated in other structured program during the past 12 months.

Participated in other structured program

Did not participate in structured program

Other structured programs: provider type SA_PRV

Institution where the respondent received instruction for the structured program(s).

Primary/secondary school

College or university

Other

Other structured programs: total cost SA_TCOST

The total cost incurred by respondent for all other structured programs during the past 12 months. Each

respondent was questioned about up to three other structured programs.

None

Less than $100

$100-$499

$500-$999

$1,000-$2,499

$2,500 or more

Work-related programs variables

Work-related programs: average cost WR_COST

The average cost incurred by respondent for all work-related programs during the past 12 months. Each

respondent was questioned about up to six work-related programs.

None

Less than $100

$100-$499

$500-$999

$1,000-$2,499

$2,500-$4,999

$5,000 or more
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

88

Work-related programs: average hours WR_THRS

The average hours in class per week the respondent spent in all work-related programs during the past 12 months.

Each respondent was questioned about up to six work-related programs.

Less than four

Four to eight

More than eight

Work-related programs: average weeks in class WR_WKS

The average number of weeks per year spent in all work-related programs during the past 12 months. Each

respondent was questioned about up to six work-related programs. This variable reflects the average number of

weeks spent in all work-related programs the respondent participated in.

One

Two

Three to five

More than five

Work-related programs: employer aid WR_EMP

Combination of employer aid received for work-related programs the respondent participated in. Respondents who

received financial assistance may or may not have received other forms of employer support as well.

Employer paid

Employer provided other support

Work-related programs: employer required WR_REQ

Whether the employer required any of the work-related programs in which the respondent enrolled.

Employer required work-related programs

Employer did not require work-related programs

Work-related programs: employer provided due to union contract WR_UNI

Whether the employer support provided for work-related programs was given as a part of a union agreement.

Employer aid provided as part of union contract

Employer aid not provided as part of union contract
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

89

Work-related programs: number of programs taken WRNEW

Number of work-related programs the respondent participated in during the past 12 months.

One

Two to five

More than five

Work-related programs: participation WRACTY

Whether the respondent participated in any work-related programs during the past 12 months.

Participated in work-related program

Did not participate in work-related program

Other variables

Employer provided any employee benefits BENEFITS

Whether the respondent’s employer provided benefits other than educational support such as medical sick pay,

retirement, or vacation pay, to the respondent, as reported by the respondent.

Employer did provide employee benefits

Employer did not provide employee benefits

ESL, ABE or GED programs: employer aid ESL_EMP

Combination of employer aid received for ESL, ABE or GED programs.

No employer aid

Employer paid

Employer provided other support

ESL, ABE or GED programs: participation BSPARTIC

Whether the respondent participated in any ESL, ABE, or GED program during the past 12 months.

Participated in ESL, ABE or GED programs

Did not participate in ESL, ABE, or GED programs
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

90

NPSAS:96 UNDERGRADUATE VARIABLES

Age as of 12/31/95 AGE

Less than 24

24 or older

Any aid TOTAID

The total amount of financial aid received from all sources in 1995-96, including federal, state, institution and

other sources. The percentage of students who received any financial aid is the percentage with positive amounts

recorded for this variable.

Did receive any aid

Did not receive any aid

Attendance intensity ATTEND2

Student's attendance status in September 1995 as defined by the institution.

Full-time

Part-time

Average hours worked per week while enrolled HRSWORK

The average hours the student worked per week while enrolled. This variable is based on student’s report of

average hours worked during 1995-96. Average hours greater than sixty were recorded to sixty, and a student with

zero jobs was recoded as zero on hours worked.

Less than 30

30 or more

Dependency status DEPEND

Student’s dependency status.

Dependent: Students were financially dependent if they did not meet any of the criteria for

independence (see below).

Independent: A student was considered independent by meeting one of the following criteria:

• Was 24 or older as of 12/31/95.

• Was a veteran.

• Was an orphan or ward of the court.

• Had legal dependents, other than spouse.

• Was married, and not claimed by parents on 1995 tax returns.

• Was a graduate student and not claimed as a dependent by parents on 1995 tax return.
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

91

Degree program during first term DEGFIRST

Degree program the student was enrolled in during first term of the academic year.

Certificate or award

Associate’s degree

Bachelor’s degree

Undergraduate, non-degree program

Employer aid EMPLYAMT

Total amount of employer aid received by the student. Employer aid is financial aid received from the business,

corporation, institution, or individual that employed the student. It includes tuition waivers for employees of

postsecondary institutions and their dependents. The percentage of students with employer aid is the percentage

with positive amounts recorded for this variable. The average amount received is the average of all students who

received employer aid.

Received employer aid

Did not receive employer aid

Federal aid TFEDAID

The total amount of federal financial aid, including loans, grants, work-study, and all other federal aid the student

received, excluding Veterans’ Administration/Department of Defense aid. The percentage of students who

received any federal aid is the percentage with positive amounts recorded for this variable.

Did receive federal aid

Did not receive federal aid

Gender GENDER

Male

Female

Grade point average GPA2

Student’s grade point average during 1995. The grade point average format used by each institution was identified

and converted to the 0.0-4.0 scale.

Less than 2.00

2.00-3.49

3.50 or higher
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

92

Highest level offering HLOFFER2

The highest level degree offering of the institution where the student was sampled.

Certificate or other formal award

Associate’s degree

Bachelor’s degree

Master’s degree or equivalent

Doctoral degree

First-professional degree

Income percentile PCTALL2

This indicates income percentiles for all students in 1995. It is equal to the proportion of the sample who had an

income lower than that recorded for the student in the survey. It uses parents’ income if the student is dependent.

If the student is independent, his or her income was used.

1

st-25th percentile

26th-50th percentile

51st-75th percentile

76th-100th percentile

Income and dependency level INCOME

This is the income level and dependency status of the student. Parents’ or guardians’ income is the income source

for dependent students; the source of independent students' income combines their own earnings and those of their

spouse, if married.

Dependent student:

Less than $20,000 Income of less than $20,000 in 1995.

$20,000 to $29,999 Income between $20,000 and $29,999 in 1995.

$30,000 to $39,999 Income between $30,000 and $39,999 in 1995.

$40,000 to $49,999 Income between $40,000 and $49,999 in 1995.

$50,000 to $59,999 Income between $50,000 and $59,999 in 1995.

$60,000 to $69,999 Income between $60,000 and $69,999 in 1995.

$70,000 or more Income of $70,000 or higher in 1995.

Independent student:

Less than $10,000 Income of less than $10,000 in 1995.

$10,000 to $19,999 Income between $10,000 and $19,999 in 1995.

$20,000 to $29,999 Income between $20,000 and $29,999 in 1995.

$30,000 or more Income of $30,000 or higher in 1995.
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

93

Institution enrollment ENRLSIZE

This variable indicates the size of the institution’s enrollment. It is the sum of undergraduate, graduate and firstprofessional students.

Less than 1,000

1,000-2,499

2,500-4,999

5,000-7,499

7,500-9,999

10,000 or more

Institution type (level and control) SECTOR

Indicates the level and control of the NPSAS institution where the respondent was surveyed.

Public, 2-year or less

Public, 4-year

Private, not-for-profit, less-than-4-year

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year

Private, for-profit

Institutional aid INSTAMT

This variable indicates the total amount of institutional aid the student received. Institutional aid includes grants

and loans from the institution attended, institution-sponsored work-study, and all other institutional aid, including

research and teaching assistantships. Institutional aid also includes assistantships funded by federal research

grants. The percentage of students with institutional aid is the percentage with positive amounts recorded for this

variable.

Did receive institutional aid

Did not receive institutional aid

Institutional control CONTROL

The control of the institution where the student was sampled.

Public

Private, not-for-profit

Private, for-profit

Level of institution LEVEL

Less-than-2-year

2-year

4-year
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

94

Marital status SMARITAL

The student’s marital status on the date the student applied for financial aid (based on the Free Application for

Federal Student Aid), or if the student did not apply for financial aid, marital status as reported by the institution.

Not married Student was not married.

Married Student was married.

Separated Student was separated.

Occupation STUOCC1

Indicates respondent’s principal occupation for employed undergraduates. The job used for occupation coding was

the principal job held while enrolled.

Clerical

Manager

Professional

Technical

Service

Sales

Proprietor

Skilled laborer

Military

Homemaker

Other

Not working

Primary role while enrolled and working SEROLE

It applies to respondents who were employed while enrolled.

Student worked to meet expenses

Employee decided to enroll in school

Principal job related to major SERELMAJ

Was the principal job related to the student’s major field, as reported by the respondent.

Job related to major

Job not related to major
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

95

Race/ethnicity RACE

American Indian/Alaskan Native A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North

America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal

affiliation or community recognition.

Asian/Pacific Islander A person having origins in any of the Asian or Pacific Islander

original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian

Subcontinent, or Pacific Islands. This includes people from China,

Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, Samoa, India and Vietnam.

Black, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa,

and not of Hispanic origin.

Hispanic A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South

American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

White, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe,

North Africa, or the Middle East (except those of Hispanic origin).

Other A person not in one of the above categories.

Single parent SINGLPAR

Identifies independent students who were single parents. Students were considered to be single parents if they had

dependents and were not married. In other words, students who were single caretakers of dependents were

considered single parents.

Respondent was a single parent

Respondent was not a single parent

State aid STATEAMT

Indicates the total amount of state aid received. State aid includes state grants, loans, state-sponsored work-study,

and all other state financial aid. The percentage of students who received state aid is the percentage with positive

amounts recorded for this variable.

Did receive state aid

Did not receive state aid

Tuition and fees-amount for terms attended TUITION

Actual amount of tuition charged the student for the terms attended through 1995-96, as reported by the institution.

The student report was used if institutional data were not available or if the student attended more than one

institution during the academic year. The average amount is the average of all students, including those who did

not have any tuition or fees.

Less than $1,000

$1,000-$2,499

$2,500-$4,999

$5,000-$7,499

$7,500-$9,999

$10,000 or more
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

96

Undergraduate class level UGLEVEL1

Student's year in college or university:

First year/freshman

Second year/sophomore

Third year/junior

Fourth year or more/senior

Undergraduate field of study MAJORS3

Indicates student’s major field of study.

Humanities

Social, behavioral sciences

Life sciences

Physical sciences

Mathematics

Computer, information science

Engineering

Education

Business, management

Health

Vocational, technical

Other technical, professional

Weeks employed while enrolled SEENRWKS

Indicates if student worked for all, most, half, or less than half of weeks while enrolled.

Worked every week while enrolled

Worked most of the weeks while enrolled

Worked about half of the weeks while enrolled

Worked less than half of the weeks while enrolled
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

97

NPSAS:96 GRADUATE AND FIRST-PROFESSIONAL STUDENT VARIABLES

Age as of 12/31/95 AGE

Less than 24

24-29

30-39

40 or older

Any aid TOTAID

The total amount of financial aid received from all sources in 1995-96, including federal, state, institution and

other sources. The percentage of students who received any financial aid is the percentage with positive amounts

recorded for this variable.

Did receive any aid

Did not receive any aid

Attendance intensity ATTEND

Student's attendance status in September 1995 as defined by the institution.

Full-time

Part-time

Average hours worked per week while enrolled HRSWORK

The average hours the student worked per week while enrolled. Students with zero jobs were recorded to zero on

hours worked. Average hours greater than 60 were recorded to 60.

Less than 30

30 or more

Borrowed for graduate education BORAMT3

The cumulative amount borrowed for graduate education through 1996. The percentage of students with positive

values for this variable is the percentage who borrowed for graduate education.

Borrowed for graduate or first-professional education

Did not borrow for graduate or first-professional education
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

98

Carnegie code CARNEGIE

Carnegie classification code for student's institution.

Research These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs, are committed to

graduate education through the doctorate, and give high priority to research. They

award 50 or more doctoral degrees each year and receive at least $15.5 million in

federal support annually.

Doctoral These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are committed

to graduate education through the doctorate. They award at least 10 or more

doctoral degrees in 3 or more disciplines annually, or 20 or more doctoral degrees

in one or more disciplines.

Comprehensive These institutions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and are committed

to graduate education through the master’s degree. They award 20 or more

master’s degrees annually in one or more disciplines.

Other These institutions include graduate centers, maritime academies, military

institutes, and institutions that do not fit any other classification category.

Degree sought DEGFIRST

Indicates the degree program in which the respondent was enrolled during the first term at the NPSAS institution.

Postbaccalaureate certificate

Master’s degree

Doctoral or first-professional degree

Other graduate program

Employer aid EMPLYAMT

Total amount of employer aid received by the student. Employer aid is financial aid received from the business,

corporation, institution, or individual by whom the student is employed. It includes tuition waivers for employees

of postsecondary institutions and their dependents. The percentage of students with employer aid is the percentage

with positive amounts recorded for this variable. The average amount received is the average of all students who

received employer aid.

Received employer aid

Did not receive employer aid

Federal aid TFEDAID

The total amount of federal financial aid, including loans, grants, work-study, and all other federal aid the student

received, excluding Veterans’ Administration/Department of Defense aid. The percentage of students who

received any federal aid is the percentage with positive amounts recorded for this variable.

Did receive federal aid

Did not receive federal aid
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

99

Gender GENDER

Male

Female

Graduate assistantship or fellowship ASTAMT

Indicates amount of assistantships/fellowships received during 1995-96. It is the sum of amounts from all

research, teaching and other assistantships or fellowships during the year. It is also classified as other type of aid

in the award grid. It is often treated as employer salaries rather than financial aid by institutions and may not be

recorded in the financial aid records. The percentage of students with positive amounts on this variable is the

percentage with an assistantship or fellowship.

Did receive assistantship or fellowship

Did not receive assistantship or fellowship

Graduate field of study MAJORS4

Indicates student’s major field of study.

Humanities

Social, behavioral sciences

Life and physical sciences

Engineering, computer science, mathematics

Education

Business, management

Health

Other

Grant aid TOTGRT

The total amount of all grants and scholarships, federal, institutional and other received by the student. Grants are

a type of student financial aid that does not require repayment or employment. Grants include scholarships and

fellowships. Tuition waivers and employer aid are considered grant aid. The percentage of students with grants is

the percentage with positive amounts recorded for this variable.

Did receive grant aid

Did not receive grant aid
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

100

Highest level offering HLOFFER2

The highest level degree offering of the institution where the student was sampled.

Postbaccalaureate certificate

Master’s degree

Post-master’s certificate

Doctoral degree

First-professional degree

Household income INCOME

Total household income in 1994, derived from dependency and categorical income levels.

Less than $10,000 Income of less than $10,000 in 1995.

$10,000 to $19,999 Income between $10,000 and $19,999 in 1995.

$20,000 to $29,999 Income between $20,000 and $29,999 in 1995.

$30,000 or more Income of $30,000 or higher in 1995.

Institutional aid INSTAMT

Indicates the total amount of institutional aid the student received. Institutional aid includes grants and loans from

the institution attended, institution-sponsored work-study, and all other institutional aid, including research and

teaching assistantships. Institutional aid also includes assistantships funded by federal research grants. The

percentage of students with institutional aid is the percentage with positive amounts recorded for this variable.

Did receive institutional aid

Did not receive institutional aid

Institutional control CONTROL

The control of the institution where the student was sampled.

Public

Private, not-for-profit

Private, for-profit

Marital status SMARITAL

The student’s marital status on the date the student applied for financial aid (based on the Free Application for

Federal Student Aid), or if the student did not apply for financial aid, marital status as reported by the institution.

Not married Student was not married.

Married Student was married.

Separated Student was separated.
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

101

Occupation STUOCC1

Indicates student’s principal occupation. The job used for occupation coding was the principal job held while

enrolled.

Clerical, sales

Craftsman, skilled operator

Farming

Homemaker

Laborer

Manager

Military

Not working

Professional

Proprietor

Protective service

School teacher

Service occupations

Technical

Primary role while enrolled and working SEROLE

Primary role of student who worked while enrolled, as indicated by student.

Student working to meet expenses

Employee who has decided to enroll in school

Principal job related to major SERELMAJ

Was the principal job related to the student’s major field, as reported by the respondent.

Job related to major

Job not related to major
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

102

Race/ethnicity RACE

American Indian/Alaskan Native A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North

America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal

affiliation or community recognition.

Asian/Pacific Islander A person having origins in any of the Asian or Pacific Islander

original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian

Subcontinent, or Pacific Islands. This includes people from China,

Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, Samoa, India and Vietnam.

Black, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa,

and not of Hispanic origin.

Hispanic A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South

American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

White, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe,

North Africa, or the Middle East (except those of Hispanic origin).

Other A person not in one of the above categories.

State aid STATEAMT

Indicates the total amount of state aid received. State aid includes state grants, loans, state-sponsored work-study,

and all other state financial aid. The percentage of students who received state aid is the percentage with positive

amounts recorded for this variable.

Did receive state aid

Did not receive state aid

Tuition and fees for terms attended TUITION

Actual amount of tuition charged the student for the terms attended through 1995-96, as reported by the institution.

Student report was used if institutional data were not available or if the student attended more than one institution

during the academic year. The average amount is the average of all students, including those who did not have any

tuition or fees.

Less than $1,500

$1,500-$2,999

$3,000-$4,499

$4,500-$8,999

$9,000-$13,499

$13,500 or more

Year began graduate education GRADPYR

The year the student began graduate education. Based on student reported year of entrance into graduate

education.

1989 or earlier

1990-1993

1994 or later
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

103

Year of first bachelor’s degree SABA_YR

Indicates year attained first bachelor’s degree for those with bachelor’s degree.

1989 or earlier

1990-1993

1994 or later
104

APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES

THE 1995-96 NATIONAL POSTSECONDARY STUDENT AID STUDY (NPSAS:96)

The 1995-96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96) is a comprehensive

nationwide study conducted by the Department of Education’s National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES) to determine how students and their families pay for postsecondary education.

It also describes demographic and other characteristics of students enrolled. The study is based

on a nationally representative sample of all students in postsecondary education institutions,

including undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional students. Students attending all types

and levels of institutions are represented in the sample, including public and private institutions

and less-than-2-year institutions, 2-year institutions, and 4-year colleges and universities. The

study is designed to address the policy questions resulting from the rapid growth of financial aid

programs, and the succession of changes in financial aid program policies since 1986. The first

NPSAS study was conducted in 1986-87, then again in 1989-90, and 1992-93.15

THE 1995 NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD EDUCATION SURVEY (NHES:95)

The 1995 National Household Education Survey (NHES:95) is also a nationwide study

conducted by NCES. It provides descriptive data on the educational activities of the U.S.

population and offers a variety of statistics on the U.S.’s condition of education. The NHES:95

goes beyond traditional, school-based data collection systems to a household-based data

collection. A household survey has the potential to provide data to address many current issues in

education, such as preprimary education, school safety and discipline, adult education, and

activities related to citizenship.

The first full-scale NHES was implemented in the spring of 1991; the second and third

were conducted in the spring of 1993 and the spring of 1995, respectively. Each of these

collections included two topical components. The two survey components of the NHES:95,

Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) and Adult Education (AE), addressed the same

 

15 For more information on the NPSAS survey, consult U.S. Department of Education. National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 1995-96

(NPSAS:96) Methodology Report, NCES 98-073 by John A. Riccobono, Roy W. Whitmore, Timothy J. Gabel, Mark A. Traccarella, Daniel J. Pratt

and Lutz K. Berkner. Project Officer: Andrew G. Malizio. (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, 1997).
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES

105

topics as the NHES:91. The AE component of NHES:95 was utilized for this report. For the AE

component, households were selected randomly and interviews were completed with 19,722

adults 16 years and older who were not currently enrolled in elementary or secondary school and

not on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces. Data collection was from January 1995 to April

1995.

DATA ANALYSIS SYSTEM

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the NPSAS:96 and NHES:95

Data Analysis Systems (DAS). The DAS software makes it possible for users to specify and

generate their own tables from the NPSAS:96 and NHES:95 data. With the DAS, users can

replicate or expand upon the tables presented in this report. In addition to the table estimates, the

DAS calculates proper standard errors16 and weighted sample sizes for these estimates. For

example, table B.1 contains standard errors that correspond to table 3, and was generated by the

DAS. If the number of valid cases is too small to produce a reliable estimate (less than 30 cases),

the DAS prints the message “low-N” instead of the estimate.

In addition to tables, the DAS will also produce a correlation matrix of selected variables

to be used for linear regression models. Included in the output with the correlation matrix are the

design effects (DEFTs) for each variable in the matrix. Since statistical procedures generally

compute regression coefficients based on simple random sample assumptions, the standard errors

must be adjusted with the design effects to take into account the NPSAS:96 and NHES:95

stratified sampling method. (See discussion under “Statistical Procedures” below for the

adjustment procedure.)

 

16The NPSAS:96 and NHES:95 samples are not simple random samples and, therefore, simple random sample techniques for estimating sampling

error cannot be applied to these data. The DAS takes into account the complexity of the sampling procedures and calculates standard errors

appropriate for such samples. The method for computing sampling errors used by the DAS involves approximating the estimator by the linear terms of

a Taylor series expansion. The procedure is typically referred to as the Taylor series method.
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES

106

Table B.1– Standard errors for table 3: Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in credential programs

who received employer aid* according to type of employer aid received, by respondent

demographics: 1995

No Employer

employer Employer provided

aid paid* support

 Total 1.0 0.8 1.0

Gender

 Male 1.5 1.3 1.5

 Female 1.4 1.1 1.3

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 1.2 1.0 1.1

 Black, non-Hispanic 2.9 2.4 2.6

 Hispanic 3.3 2.3 3.1

 American Indian/Alaskan Native -- -- --

 Asian/Pacific Islander 5.5 5.7 6.0

 Other 6.6 4.5 6.7

Marital status

 Married 1.6 1.6 1.3

 Separated 7.5 7.5 5.3

 Divorced 3.5 3.2 2.9

 Widowed -- -- --

 Never married 1.4 0.9 1.4

Age

 Less than 24 1.7 0.8 1.7

 24-39 1.5 1.4 1.3

 40-54 2.3 2.3 1.7

 55-69 9.3 10.1 5.3

 70 or more -- -- --

Highest level of education completed

 Less than high school 6.2 5.0 4.5

 High school diploma or equivalent 2.5 2.4 2.4

 Some postsecondary education 1.5 1.1 1.5

 Associate’s degree 3.3 2.9 3.1

 Bachelor’s degree 2.5 2.2 2.3

 Graduate degree 2.7 2.6 2.5

Number of household members under 18

 None 1.3 1.0 1.3

 One 2.2 1.9 2.2

 Two or more 2.1 2.1 1.8
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES

107

Table B.1– Standard errors for table 3: Percentage distribution of adults enrolled in credential programs

who received employer aid* according to type of employer aid received, by respondent

demographics: 1995--Continued

No Employer

employer Employer provided

aid paid* support

Own or rent home, or other arrangement

 Own home 1.5 1.6 1.3

 Rent home 1.7 1.2 1.7

 Other arrangement 2.1 1.5 2.0

Language spoken most at home

 English 1.0 0.9 1.0

 Spanish 6.3 3.0 6.1

 Other language 7.2 6.3 6.6

--Sample size is too small for a reliable estimate.

*Respondents who received cash assistance from their employer may or may not have received other forms of employer

support.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey

(NHES:95), 1995 Adult Education Data Analysis System.

For more information about the NPSAS:96 and NHES:95 Data Analysis Systems, consult

the NCES DAS Website (WWW.PEDAR-DAS.org) or contact:

Aurora D’Amico

NCES Data Development and Longitudinal Studies Group

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208-5652

(202) 219-1365

Internet address: adamico@ed.gov

STATISTICAL PROCEDURES

The descriptive comparisons were tested in this report using Student’s t statistic.

Differences between estimates are tested against the probability of a Type I error, or significance

level. The significance levels were determined by calculating the Student’s t values for the

differences between each pair of means or proportions and comparing these with published tables

of significance levels for two-tailed hypothesis testing.
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES

108

Student’s t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the

following formula:

E1 – E2

t = (1)

se1

2

 + se2

2

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding standard

errors. This formula is valid only for independent estimates. When estimates are not independent

a covariance term must be added to the formula. If the comparison is between the mean of a

subgroup and the mean of the total group, the following formula is used:

Esub – Etot

(2)

se2

sub + se2tot- 2p se2sub

where p is the proportion of the total group contained in the subgroup.17

When comparing two percentages from a distribution that adds to 100 percent, the

following formula is used:

E1 – E2

(3)

se2

1 + se22 – 2( r )se1se2

where r is the correlation between the two estimates.18 The estimates, standard errors, and

correlations can all be obtained from the DAS.

There are hazards in reporting statistical tests for each comparison. First, comparisons

based on large t statistics may appear to merit special attention. This can be misleading, since the

magnitude of the t statistic is related not only to the observed differences in means or percentages

but also to the number of students in the specific categories used for comparison. Hence, a small

difference compared across a large number of students would produce a large t statistic.

 

17U.S. Department of Education, A Note from the Chief Statistician, No. 2. (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, 1993).

18Ibid.
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES

109

A second hazard in reporting statistical tests for each comparison occurs when making

multiple comparisons among categories of an independent variable. For example, when making

paired comparisons among different levels of income, the probability of a Type I error for these

comparisons taken as a group is larger than the probability for a single comparison. When more

than one difference between groups of related characteristics or “families” are tested for statistical

significance, one must apply a standard that assures a level of significance for all of those

comparisons taken together.

Comparisons were made in this report only when p<=.05/k for a particular pairwise

comparison, where that comparison was one of k tests within a family. This guarantees both that

the individual comparison would have p<=.05 and that for k comparisons within a family of

possible comparisons, the significance level for all the comparisons will sum to p<=.05.19

For example, in a comparison of the percentages of males and females who enrolled in

postsecondary education only one comparison is possible (males versus females). In this family,

k=1, and the comparison can be evaluated without adjusting the significance level. When students

are divided into five racial-ethnic groups and all possible comparisons are made, then k=10 and

the significance level of each test must be p<=.05/10 or p<=.005. The formula for calculating

family size (k) is as follows:

k = [ j * ( j – 1 ) ] / 2 (4)

where j is the number of categories for the variable being tested. In the case of race-ethnicity,

there are five racial-ethnic groups (American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, black

non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and white non-Hispanic), so substituting 5 for j in equation 4,

k = [ ( 5 ) ( 5 – 1 ) ] / 2 = 10 (5)

ADJUSTMENT OF MEANS TO CONTROL FOR BACKGROUND VARIATION

Tabular results are limited by sample size when attempting to control for additional factors

that may account for the variation observed between two variables. For example, when

examining the percentages of those who completed a degree, it is impossible to know to what

 

19The standard that p<=.05/k for each comparison is more stringent than the criterion that the significance level of the comparisons should sum to

p<=.05. For tables showing the t statistics required to ensure that p<=.05/k for a particular family size and degrees of freedom, see Olive Jean Dunn,

“Multiple Comparisons Among Means,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 56 (1961), pp. 52-64.
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES

110

extent the observed variation is due to low-income status differences and to what extent it is due

to differences in other factors related to income, such as type of institution attended, parents’

education, and so on. However, if a nested table were produced showing income within type of

institution and within parent’s education, the cell sizes would be too small to identify the patterns.

When the sample size becomes too small to support controls for another level of variation, one

must use other methods to take such variation into account.

To overcome this difficulty, multiple linear regression was used to obtain means that were

adjusted for covariation among a list of control variables.20 The dependent variable, receiving

employer aid, was regressed on a set of descriptive variables such as gender, race-ethnicity, etc.

Substituting ones or zeros for the subgroup characteristic(s) of interest and the mean proportions

for the other variables results in an estimate of the adjusted proportion for the specified subgroup,

holding all other variables constant. For example, consider a hypothetical case in which two

variables, age and gender, are used to describe an outcome, Y (such as completing a degree). The

variables age and gender are recoded into a dummy variable representing age and a dummy

variable representing gender:

Age A

24 years or older 1

Under 24 years old 0

Gender G

Female 1

Male 0

The following regression equation is then estimated from the correlation matrix output

from the DAS:

Y = a + ß1A + ß2G (6)

 

20For more information about regression, see M. S. Lewis-Beck, Applied Regression, vol. 22 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1980) and

W. D. Berry and S. Feldman, Multiple Regression in Practice, vol. 50 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 1987).
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES

111

To estimate the adjusted mean for any subgroup evaluated at the mean of all other

variables, one substitutes the appropriate values for that subgroup’s dummy variables (1 or 0) and

the mean for the dummy variables representing all other subgroups. For example, suppose Y

represents earning a degree, and is being described by age (A) and gender (G), coded as shown

above, with means as follows:

Variable Mean

A 0.355

G 0.521

Next, suppose the regression equation results in:

Y = 0.15 + (0.17)A + (0.01)G (7)

To estimate the adjusted value for older students, one substitutes the appropriate

parameter estimates and variable values into equation 7.

Variable Parameter Value

a 0.15 --

A 0.17 1.000

G 0.01 0.521

This results in:

Y = 0.15 + (0.17)(1) + (0.01)(0.521) = 0.325 (8)

In this case, the adjusted mean for older students is 0.325 and represents the expected

chance of the outcome for older students who look like the average student across the other

variables (in this example, gender). In other words, the adjusted percentage of older students who

attained a degree is 32.5 percent (0.325 x 100 for conversion to a percentage).
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES

112

It is relatively straightforward to produce a multivariate model using the DAS, since one

of the output options of the DAS is a correlation matrix, computed using pairwise missing values

and weighted to account for complex sample design and nonresponse.21 This matrix can be used

by most statistical software packages as the input data to produce least-squares regression

estimates of the parameters. That was the general approach used for this report, with an

additional adjustment to incorporate the complex sample design into the statistical significance

tests of the parameter estimates (described below). For tabular presentation, parameter estimates

and standard errors were multiplied by 100 to match the scale used for reporting unadjusted and

adjusted percentages.

Most statistical software packages assume simple random sampling when computing

standard errors of parameter estimates. Because of the complex sampling design used for NHES

and NPSAS, this assumption is incorrect. A better approximation of their standard errors is to

multiply each standard error by the average design effect associated with the independent variable

(DEFT),22 where the DEFT is the ratio of the true standard error to the standard error computed

under the assumption of simple random sampling. It is calculated by the DAS and produced with

the correlation matrix.

 

21Although the DAS simplifies the process of making regression models, it also limits the range of models. Analysts who wish to use other than

pairwise treatment of missing values or to estimate probit/logit models (which are the most appropriate for models with categorical dependent

variables) can apply for a restricted data license from NCES. For more information on these alternative model specifications, see John H. Aldrich and

Forrest D. Nelson, “Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models,” Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, vol. 45. (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

University Press, 1984).

22The adjustment procedure and its limitations are described in C. J. Skinner and T. M. F. Smith (eds.). Analysis of Complex Surveys. (New York:

John Wiley & Sons, 1989).