Estimating Public and Private Expenditures on Occupational Training 

 in the United States 

By: 

Kelly S. Mikelson 

The Urban Institute 

2100 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

and 

Demetra Smith Nightingale 

Institute for Policy Studies 

Johns Hopkins University 

Wyman Building 

3400 N. Charles St. 

Baltimore, MD 21218-2696 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Employment and Training Administration 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20210 

Contract No. AF-12536-02-30 

UI Project No. 07389-005-00 

December 2004 

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. 

The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the U.S. Department of 

Labor, Johns Hopkins University, The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. 
Acknowledgements 

Numerous individuals provided data, comments, and technical assistance on this study. We 

especially acknowledge Henry Chen for his able research assistance on all aspects of the project. 

In addition, Amber Sears assisted in collecting state-level information. Officials in several 

federal and state agencies, national associations, and foundations provided programmatic, 

budgetary, and fiscal data essential to the report and their assistance is gratefully acknowledged. 

We particularly thank Janet Javar and Stephen Wandner of the U.S. Department of Labor, 

Employment and Training Administration for their helpful comments, guidance, and support 

throughout the project. 
Table of Contents 

Executive Summary................................................................................................................... i

I. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1

A. Background and Policy Context ........................................................................................ 2

B. Objectives, Methodology, and Limitations ....................................................................... 3

II. Estimating Expenditures on Publicly-funded Job Training .......................................... 11

A. Federally-funded Job Training Expenditures.............................................................. 11

B. Shares of Federal Program Funding Devoted to Job Training .................................... 15

C. Number of Trainees in DOL Programs .......................................................................... 15

D. Per Trainee Expenditures ................................................................................................ 16

E. DOL Training by Target Group.................................................................................... 17

F. State-funded Job Training Expenditures........................................................................ 18

III. Estimating Expenditures on Privately-funded Job Training ......................................... 21

A. Estimates of Employer-Provided Training: Firm Perspective ..................................... 21

B. Estimates of Employer-Provided Training: Worker Perspectives................................ 25

C. Job Training Expenditures through Other Private Sources.......................................... 31

D. Summary about Privately-funded Job Training............................................................ 37

IV. Conclusion: Making Sense of Estimated Public and Private Expenditures on Job 

Training in the United States....................................................................................................... 39

V. References ............................................................................................................................ 43
List of Tables and Exhibits 

Table 1: Rankings of Selected States on Spending on Training............................20 

Table 2: Federal Spending on Job Training in 2002, by Department.....................40 

Table 3: Estimated Expenditures on Job Training and Number of 

 Trainees in Department of Labor Programs, 2002.................................42 

Exhibit 1: Federally-funded Job Training: Annual Expenditures on 

 Training for Programs Years 1998-2003...........................................1-1 

Exhibit 2: 2002 Obligations for Federal Programs that Provide Job Training, 

 Annual Expenditures, and Job Training Expenditures as 

 a Percent of Expenditures............................................................2-1 

Exhibit 3: U.S. Department of Labor Job Training: Number of 

 Training Participants Enrolled for Program Years 1998-2003..................3-1 

Exhibit 4: U.S. Department of Labor Job Training: Estimated Per Trainee 

 Spending for Program Years 1998-2003...........................................4-1 

Exhibit 5: 2002 U.S. Department of Labor Job Training by Target Group: 

 Training Expenditures, Number of Training Participants, 

 Per Trainee Spending ................................................................5-1 

Exhibit 6: Percentage of 2002 U.S. Department of Labor Job Training 

 Expenditures and Participants by Target Group..................................6-1 

Exhibit 7: State-funded Job Training Expenditures in 8 States in 

 1998 and 2003.........................................................................7-1 

Exhibit 8: Privately-funded Job Training in the United States: Expenditures, 

 Number of Program Participants, and Per Participant Spending ...............8-1 

Exhibit 9: Total Private Training Expenditures: 1986-2003.................................9-1 

Exhibit 10: Percentage of Workers Receiving Employer-Provided 

 Training Across Surveys and Over Time.........................................10-1 

Exhibit 11: Number of Hours of Employer-Provided Classroom Training 

 Received in One Year...............................................................11-1 

Exhibit 12: Incidence of Employer-Provided Training by Workers’ Characteristics.....12-1 

Exhibit 13: Average Hours of Employer-Provided Training by Workers’ 

 Characteristics........................................................................13-1 
List of Appendices 

Appendix A: Supplementary State-funded Occupational Training Exhibits 

Exhibit A-1: State-funded Job Training Expenditures in California: Source of Funding, 

Estimated Funding, Number of Trainees, and Estimated Cost Per Trainee 

in 1998 and 2003 

Exhibit A-2: State-funded Job Training Expenditures in Iowa: Source of Funding, 

Estimated Funding, Number of Trainees, and Estimated Cost Per Trainee 

in 1998 and 2003 

Exhibit A-3: State-funded Job Training Expenditures in Michigan: Source of Funding, 

Estimated Funding, Number of Trainees, and Estimated Cost Per Trainee 

in 1998 and 2003 

Exhibit A-4: State-funded Job Training Expenditures in Missouri: Source of Funding, 

Estimated Funding, Number of Trainees, and Estimated Cost Per Trainee 

in 1998 and 2003 

Exhibit A-5: State-funded Job Training Expenditures in New Jersey: Source of 

Funding, Estimated Funding, Number of Trainees, and Estimated Cost Per 

Trainee in 1998 and 2004 

Exhibit A-6: State-funded Job Training Expenditures in North Carolina: Source of 

Funding, Estimated Funding, Number of Trainees, and Estimated Cost Per 

Trainee in 1998 and 2003 

Exhibit A-7: State-funded Job Training Expenditures in Pennsylvania: Source of 

Funding, Estimated Funding, Number of Trainees, and Estimated Cost Per 

Trainee in 1998 and 2003 

Exhibit A-8: State-funded Job Training Expenditures in Texas: Source of Funding, 

Estimated Funding, Number of Trainees, and Estimated Cost Per Trainee 

in 1998 and 2003 

Appendix B: Private Entities’ Estimates of Job Training Expenditures: A List of Discussants 
i 

Executive Summary 

Retraining and upgrading the skills of incumbent workers and providing training to new labor 

force entrants, dislocated workers, and unemployed persons can help increase the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the workforce. Funding for occupational training comes from many sources—

the federal government, state and local governments, private employers, philanthropic 

foundations, and individual workers themselves. This report examines occupational training to 

present a preliminary picture of the total spending on job training in the United States. 

The information presented is particularly timely because employment programs have new 

challenges related to demographic, economic, and policy developments. For example, there may 

be more demand for training. The aging of the nation’s population means that the characteristics 

of the workforce are also changing, with more older workers than in the past—some of whom 

need retraining. The changing structure of the labor market suggests an increasing demand for 

certain types of workers in sectors such as health care, who might require special training. There 

is also increasing demand generally for highly skilled workers, especially workers with 

technological skills. 

On the federal policy side, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 dramatically altered the 

nature and mission of public programs, providing local Workforce Investment Boards and 

agencies with greater flexibility than in the past to respond to local labor market conditions—by, 

for instance, linking workforce development, economic development, and services through other 

public agencies as well as private employers. 

These demographic, economic, and policy changes have altered the profile of the workforce, the 

labor market, and the training delivery system, potentially creating a new set of demands on both 

employers that provide training and on workforce development programs seeking to address the 

occupational training needs of a changing workforce, especially by coordinating resources 

available through various sources. To provide context for the ongoing policy discussions about 

workforce preparation, the findings in this report provide information about the investment in job 

training in the nation. 

Limitations and Qualifications 

There are some important limitations and qualifications to the data and findings presented. 

Cross-program reporting differences. First, it is extremely difficult to precisely calculate the 

amount of federal spending on job training with readily available data, in large part because there 

are many different programs and funding streams, located in several different federal 

departments, often funded for different time periods (e.g., fiscal year, program year, multiple 

years). Most provide other services in addition to job training and do not routinely separate out 

the costs that are just for training. It is also difficult to calculate the total number of persons 

trained, since at the local level, programs increasingly blend and leverage funds from multiple 

sources to pay for training, but typically must report their activity separately for each program 

even if multiple sources are used. The estimates in this report are based on the best-available 
ii 

data at the time of the analysis, using information provided by officials in various federal 

agencies and programs, supplemented with published statistics and informed judgments of 

officials and the analysts and authors of this report. 

Variations in operational definitions of “training.” A second qualification regards the 

definition of “training” used in this report, which differs from the definition used in some 

programs. For the purposes of this study, a literal definition of job training is used to specifically 

capture vocational and/or occupational skills instruction. This means that job readiness training, 

education, adult education, and pre-training counseling are not included. Training under this 

definition is directly related in setting, focus or content to specific jobs or careers, and may occur 

in a number of settings, including: on-the-job, classroom, online or computer-based, work 

experience, internships, workplace-based training and apprenticeships.1 We exclude soft skills 

instruction, safety and health training, degree programs, and adult education (such as GED or 

high school courses) not related directly in setting, focus or content to specific jobs or careers. 

Basic education, post-secondary degree programs, adult education, pre-training preparation, and 

social and behavioral skills (the so-called “soft skills”) are important to skills development; 

however, they are not included in the definition of job training used in this report. Many 

individuals’ ability to participate in job training and gain job skills depend on such activities, and 

some programs are mandated to emphasize those skills in a comprehensive format. For example, 

the Job Corps Program’s Annual Report defines training as having three components: basic 

education, vocational skills, and social skills, and the program devotes over 44 percent of its 

resources to such training. The estimates presented in this report for Job Corps, therefore, 

substantially understate expenditures on training as defined and operationalized in that program; 

the Job Corps program reports indicate nearly three times as much spending on training as 

estimated in this report. 

In addition, the shift from the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) to WIA has resulted in 

increasing variation at the local service delivery level. The operational definition of “intensive 

services” versus “job training” for WIA purposes may not be the same across localities; some 

activities that are referred to as training in one site might be called intensive services in another. 

Unlike Job Corps, where the estimates presented in this report understate the programs’ 

investments in training, the effect of variation in One-Stop Centers’ definitions of training in 

reported data is unknown. 

Federal programs included. The third qualification relates to the programs included in this 

analysis. Programs in seven federal departments that can fund job training were examined: 

• Department of Labor 

• Department of Education 

• Department of Health and Human Services 

• Department of Housing and Urban Development 

 

1

 Apprenticeship training is defined as “a structured process combining classroom instruction and on-thejob training.” See Pindus, Nancy and Kellie Isbell. Involving Employers in Training: Literature Review.

Washington, DC: DOL/ETA Research and Evaluation Report Series 97-K, 1997, p. 4. 
iii 

• Department of Veterans Affairs 

• Department of the Interior 

• Department of Justice 

Other departments may also provide funds for employment-related activities, but are not 

included in this study for various reasons. The Department of Defense, for example, devotes 

considerable resources to training for specific occupations and skills, but this study is limited to 

non-Defense programs. Veterans Education Benefits programs are also excluded since 

individuals make some contributions to their educational fund while on active duty, and since 

over 90 percent of beneficiaries enroll in undergraduate degree programs. Certain employmentrelated programs are not included either because they do not provide job or occupational training 

per se. The Job Service in DOL provides employment and job placement services, but not job 

training. The Department of Agriculture’s Food Stamp Employment and Training Program is 

also excluded. Although it can fund any type of employment-related activity, the Food Stamp 

Employment and Training funds are primarily used for workfare/work experience and job search 

assistance. Fewer than two percent of Food Stamp Employment and Training participants begin 

job training and those that do are primarily funded by WIA or Vocational Education programs.2

 

Recognizing these limitations, we were asked to isolate the spending specifically going to job 

training, using a definition that allows comparability across programs, and defined literally as 

vocational and/or occupational skills training provided in a classroom, on-line, at the workplace, 

or through internships or apprenticeships. The results, therefore, should be viewed as 

approximations and as conservative lower bound estimates of total federal spending on training. 

The estimates are based on the computation methods and assumptions that are explicitly 

presented in the chapters, developed to provide a general overview of the scale of spending on 

job training in the United States. Further analysis and data collection would be needed to 

provide more precise and detailed estimates. 

Highlights of Major Findings 

• In 2002, between $3.2 billion and $5.3 billion was spent on job training by the 

federal government (excluding administrative costs). About one-third of this 

was through DOL programs, one-third was through the Department of 

Education’s (DOE) Pell Grants (at public and proprietary two-year 

institutions), and the final third was through dozens of programs in five other 

federal departments. 

• States spend perhaps another $500 million to $700 million a year on training, 

or about 13 to 16 percent as much as the federal government. 

 

2

 Gundersen, Craig, “State Use of Funds to Increase Work Slots for Food Stamp Recipients: Report to 

Congress,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ERS-FANRR No. 15, August 

2001. 
iv 

• Businesses spend considerably more on training than do the federal and state 

governments combined--between $46 billion and $54 billion a year in total 

training-related spending excluding administrative costs (or about 9 to 12 times 

as much as the government). Of this, between $8 billion and $17 billion 

represents direct training expenditures, excluding salaries as well as 

administrative costs (or about two to three times as much as the government if one 

were to use this restricted definition of training). 

• The average spending per trainee ranges from less than $1000 for some state 

and business programs, to between $100 and $3000 for most DOL workforce 

programs, and over $6000 for some programs that primarily train individuals 

with physical or mental disabilities. 

Federal Spending on Job Training in 2002, 

by Department 

(excluding administrative costs) 

(millions of dollars) 

Department Low Estimate High Estimate 

 $ % $ % 

Labor $ 1,147.4 36.0 $ 1,747.3 33.2

Education—Pell Grants 1,250.0 39.2 1,875.0 35.6

Education—all other 628.8 19.7 1,318.6 25.1

Health and Human Services 93.8 2.9 169.6 3.2

Veterans Affairs 40.4 1.3 121.1 2.3

Housing and Urban Development 26.9 0.1 26.9 0.1

Interior 3.1 <0.1 5.1 <0.1

Justice* 0 0 0 0

TOTAL FEDERAL $ 3,190.4 100.0% $ 5,263.6 100.0% 

* DOJ’s Serious and Violent Offender Program was not yet operational. 

Highlights about Federally-funded Job Training Expenditures through DOL 

• In 2002, DOL spent between $1.1 billion and $1.7 billion specifically on job 

training. This represents somewhere between 18 and 27 percent of the $6.5 

billion total spending in DOL employment-related programs in which a portion 

of expenditures are used for job training (non-training services include job 

search assistance, job placement, general education, life skills preparation and 

general employment services (Exhibit 2)3

. (About another billion dollars was 

spent on job placement and other employment-related services through the 

Employment Service (ES), which does not fund training. This means that 

 

3

 Some of the exhibits are several pages long. Therefore, all exhibits, sequentially numbered, are at the 

end of the narrative section of this report. 
v 

between 15 and 23 percent of all DOL expenditures on all employment-related 

DOL programs, including the Job Service, was for job training). 

• The top three DOL programs in terms of spending on job training are WIA 

Adult Services, WIA Dislocated Worker Programs, and the Jobs Corps. 

Together these three programs represent about two-thirds of all DOL spending on 

job training. 

• In 2002, nearly 500,000 trainees participated in DOL programs (Exhibit 3). This 

number includes some for whom training may have been funded by other 

programs (e.g., Pell Grants) as well as by DOL programs. 

• Approximately 35 percent of all funds spent on job training by DOL in 2002 

was for training in programs targeting dislocated workers and incumbent 

workers (Exhibit 6), such as WIA Dislocated Worker Programs, Skills Shortages 

Demonstrations, and Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

Highlights about Federal Job Training Expenditures through Non-DOL Departments 

In addition to the spending through DOL, about $2.0 to $3.5 billion was spent in 2002 on 

training through programs in six other federal departments, nearly half of which was through 

Pell Grants for persons enrolled in two-year post-secondary programs in community colleges 

and proprietary schools. (The analysis of Pell Grant spending excludes degree programs at fouryear colleges on the assumption that most job training occurs through two-year and proprietary 

schools.) 

• Department of Education (DOE). In 2002, DOE spent between $1.9 and $3.2 

billion on occupational or vocational training. This represents about 12 to 20 

percent of the total spending of $16.3 billion in DOE programs that fund some 

training. More than half of DOE’s training expenditures were through Pell 

Grants, and another 15 to 20 percent were through Carl Perkins Vocational and 

Technical or Tech Prep grants (about two-thirds of which is used in secondary 

schools). 

• Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In 2002, HHS spent 

between $94 and $170 million on job training. This represents about 1 percent of 

the $15.8 billion spent in programs that fund at least some job training. Over twothirds of HHS’s job training spending was through the Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF) program. 

• Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). About $27 million 

was used for job training in 2002 through HUD programs, all of which was 

through the Youth Build program. This represents about 45 percent of all Youth 

Build spending that year. While other HUD programs can potentially fund 

employment-related services, HUD encourages grantees to fund housing-related 
vi 

services and to link with other agencies and programs to fund other services, 

including job training and education. 

• Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). Veterans Affairs administers the 

Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program which spent $270 million in 

2002 on services, including between an estimated $40 to $121 million on job 

training.

• Department of the Interior (DOI). Between $3.1 and $5.1 million was spent in 

2002 through three DOI programs that include some funding for job training. 

• Department of Justice (DOJ). Within the Justice Department, the Serious and 

Violent Offenders program can fund some training, but as of 2004, that 

component was not yet operational. In addition, employment-related services, 

education, work assignments, and life preparation skills are provided to 

incarcerated individuals, and some facilities may use those funds, which represent 

a very small portion of DOJ’s budget, for some job skills training. 

Highlights about State-funded Job Training: 

• About $500 million was spent by states on job training in 2003 (excluding 

financial matching required by some federal programs). The National Governors’ 

Association (NGA) estimated that states spent about $710 million on job training 

in 1998, about half of which was in eight states.4

 We contacted administrators 

and officials in those eight states that had the greatest spending on training in 

1998, and learned that about $230 million was spent on training by these states in 

2003. This suggests that perhaps $500 million was spent on job training by all 

states in 2003, with the decrease from 1998 attributable to less favorable fiscal 

conditions. 

Highlights about Privately-funded Job Training: 

• Businesses spent about $46 to $54 billion on training in 2003, according to 

surveys of firms (the Survey of Employer Provided Training (SEPT) and Training 

Magazine). Of this, between $8 and $17 billion was for training only, excluding 

salaries paid. 

• There is wide variation in the reported percentage of workers that receive 

formal training, with firms reporting somewhat more training than workers 

 

4

 Bosworth, Brian, Dan Broun, Eric Foreman, and Cynthia Liston, “A Comprehensive Look at StateFunded, Employer-Focused Job Training Programs.” National Governors’ Association, Center for Best 

Practices. Washington, DC, 1999. 
vii 

report. Estimates range from a high of 70 percent of workers in 1995, according 

to the SEPT survey of firms, to a low of 20 percent in the 2001 Survey of Income 

and Program Participation (SIPP) as reported by workers, down from 24 percent 

in the 1996 SIPP. (Exhibit 10) Lerman, McKernan, and Riegg (2004) explain that 

some of the difference in these estimates can be attributed to varying samples and 

differences in the duration of training being measured. Workers’ reported receipt 

of training did not substantially change between the mid-90s and 2001, based on 

the updated analysis using the SIPP and the National Household Education 

Survey (NHES)—between one-fifth (SIPP) and one-third (NHES) of persons 18 

and older report receiving some employer-sponsored job training (Exhibit 12). 

• More-educated workers are more likely than less-educated workers to receive 

employer-provided training, according to NHES analyses. Workers with some 

college were twice as likely as workers with a high school degree or less to report 

receiving employer-sponsored training in 1995; this gap grew somewhat by 2001 

as the percentage of workers with high school education or less who received 

training declined. Asian/Pacific Islanders saw an increase (7 percentage points) in 

employer-provided training from 1995 to 2001, while other race/ethnicity groups 

remained constant or decreased marginally (Exhibit 12). 

• Unions often collaborate with businesses on job training. For example, the 

Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) of the AFL-CIO estimates 

that over $500 million in apprenticeship training is organized annually through 

the 15 international unions affiliated with the BCTD. Some of this is funded by 

DOL’s apprenticeship training programs, but much comes from businesses. 

Guaranteed as part of the collective bargaining agreements, apprenticeship 

programs are operated by private and public entities, including employers, 

employer associations, and labor-management organizations. 

• Some private funders (philanthropic foundations and corporations) provide 

funds to local community programs providing employment services, but their 

expenditures on training represent a very small share of foundation spending. 

• Individuals pay for some of their own job training, using savings, family 

resources, or student loans. For example, students may have obtained loans in 

the amount of .5 billion to 1 billion in 2002 for job training in post-secondary 

institutions. 
1 

I. Introduction 

In the 21st century, the United States must maintain a skilled and productive workforce to remain 

competitive in the increasingly global economy. Retraining and upgrading skills of incumbent 

workers as well as training new labor force entrants and dislocated workers are important 

strategies to that end. In addition to individuals investing in their own training, funding for 

workforce training comes from many sources—the federal government, state and local 

governments, private employers, and philanthropic foundations. The purpose of this report is to 

examine each of these sources and provide a general overall estimate of the total spending on job 

training in the United States. 

This study examines both publicly- and privately-funded job training. While the amount of 

literature estimating private expenditures on occupational training is relatively scant, there is 

evidence that most job training is funded privately.5

 By examining occupational training funded 

from any source, the analysis here presents a preliminary picture of the total amount of money 

spent on job training for workers in the United States. 

Specifically, in the following chapters, estimates are provided of expenditures on occupational 

training by federal agencies, eight states with sizable expenditures, and private and/or employerprovided training. Given the possible scope of each of these areas, this report should be viewed 

as a preliminary scan. While the focus is primarily on federally-funded occupational training, 

particularly in programs funded through the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Employment 

and Training Administration (ETA), the report provides an overall picture of the funding for 

occupational training in the United States. 

The federally-funded programs discussed are those where at least some portion of funding is 

spent on job training. As described in more detail below, programs that provide employmentrelated services but not job training per se, such as the Job Service, are not included in the 

estimates or discussed in this paper.6

 Where possible, estimates of occupational training 

expenditure trends are shown from the late 1990s through 2003. Estimates are provided for 

actual expenditures on training, excluding administrative and other non-training costs. Most 

 

5

 See Exhibit 8. 

6

 In consultation with DOL staff, programs within DOL that provide job training were identified. For 

programs in the other six federal agencies (i.e., Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, 

Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, Interior, Justice), some agencies provided more detail 

and explanation than others, but we have identified training programs in each department that are a major 

source of funding for job training. 
2 

importantly, the estimates are intended to be transparent, with a full documentation of sources 

and explanations of any assumptions made. 

A. Background and Policy Context 

Retraining and upgrading the skills of incumbent workers and providing training to new labor 

force entrants, dislocated workers, and unemployed persons are important to the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the workforce of the United States. The information presented in subsequent 

chapters is particularly timely because recent demographic, economic, and policy developments 

have created a new set of challenges and opportunities for workers, employers, and training 

programs. For example, there may be an increasing demand for retraining. The aging of the 

nation’s population means that the characteristics of the workforce are also changing, with more 

older workers than in the past—some of whom need retraining—and an increasing demand for 

certain types of workers in sectors such as health care, who might require special training. In 

addition, the structure of the economy has changed with more modest demand than in previous 

decades for workers in the manufacturing sector, and increasing demand generally for highly 

skilled workers, especially those with technological skills. While economic changes vary from 

region to region, from state to state, and within states, employers are seeking employees with the 

skill sets they need to remain competitive in the 21st century. 

On the federal policy side, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 dramatically altered the 

nature and mission of public employment programs. Local Workforce Investment Boards have 

greater flexibility than in the past to respond to local labor market conditions—by linking 

workforce development, economic development, and services through other public agencies and 

through private employers. Local workforce agencies and boards can and do structure their 

occupational training dollars to target industries and sectors where demand for workers is 

increasing. The U.S. Congress is preparing to reauthorize WIA, and that may involve further 

changes to program funding and priorities. 

These demographic, economic, and policy changes have altered the profile of the workforce, the 

labor market, and the training delivery system, potentially creating a new set of demands on both 

employers that provide training and on workforce development systems seeking to address the 

occupational training needs of a changing workforce, especially by coordinating resources 

available through various sources. To provide context for the ongoing policy discussions about 

workforce preparation, the findings in this report present information about the total investment 

in job training in the nation. 
3 

B. Objectives, Methodology, and Limitations 

Objectives. It is within this policy context that this study was initiated. The report provides a 

preliminary scan of the spending on training, and can serve as a framework on which other, more 

detailed, analyses of job training expenditures can build. There are two general objectives for 

this study: 

1. Estimate public expenditures on occupational training, the number of trainees, and 

per trainee costs by federal government agencies and for selected states. 

2. Estimate private, employer-sponsored expenditures on occupational training using 

estimates from published sources, discussions with representatives of selected private 

entities (e.g., foundations, labor-management partnerships, and non-profit 

organizations), and new analysis of large national databases. 

Methodology. In the estimates of the spending devoted to training by the federal government, 

state governments, and private businesses, the following uniform definition of job training, 

developed in conjunction with ETA officials, was used: 

For the purposes of this study, a literal definition of job training is used—specifically, 

vocational and/or occupational skills development. The occupational training included 

may occur in any of the following settings: on-the-job, classroom, online or computerbased, work experience, internships, or through an apprenticeships,7

 through training 

institutions, schools, community colleges, programs, and at the workplace. We are 

excluding from our definition of occupational training activities that do not relate directly 

in setting, focus, or content to specific jobs, occupations, or careers: behavioral or “soft 

skills,” safety and health training, high school diplomas, post-secondary degree programs, 

and adult education (such as GED or high school courses) are, therefore, excluded. Job 

readiness “training,” skills upgrading, and adult education are included as training under 

this definition only if they relate directly in setting, focus or content to specific jobs or 

careers.8

 We are including training-related expenditures (e.g., training books, trainers, 

supplies, certification tests, etc.), but excluding general administrative costs (e.g., 

facilities, supervisory costs). 

 

7

 Apprenticeship training is defined as “a structured process combining classroom instruction and on-thejob training.” See Pindus, Nancy and Kellie Isbell. Involving Employers in Training: Literature Review.

Washington, DC: DOL/ETA Research and Evaluation Report Series 97-K, 1997, p. 4. 
4 

Federal job training estimates. Data on federal expenditures on job training were 

obtained through an email request sent to administrators in relevant federal agencies, in order to 

compile consistent spending data across programs. The following seven federal departments 

were included: Department of Labor (DOL), Department of Education (DOE), Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 

Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), Department of the Interior (DOI), and Department of 

Justice (DOJ).9

Other departments also provide funds for training, but are not included in this study for various 

reasons.10 The Department of Defense, for example, devotes considerable resources to training 

for specific occupations and skills, but this study is limited to non-Defense programs. Veterans 

Education Benefits programs, mainly the Montgomery GI Bill, are also excluded since 

individuals make some contributions to their educational fund while in service and since over 90 

percent of beneficiaries enroll in undergraduate degree programs. Certain employment-related 

programs are not included either because they do not provide job or occupational training per se. 

The Job Service in DOL, for example, provides employment and job placement services, but not 

job training. The Department of Agriculture’s Food Stamp Employment and Training Program is 

also excluded, although it can fund any type of employment-related activity. Food Stamp 

Employment and Training funds are primarily used for workfare/work experience and job search 

assistance. Fewer than 2 percent of Food Stamp Employment and Training participants begin 

job training and those that do are primarily in WIA or Vocational Education programs.11

Federal agency representatives were asked to estimate, by program, the total annual expenditures 

on job training only (excluding all non-training and administrative costs), the annual number of 

trainees, and per trainee costs for each year from 1998 through 2003. 

 

8

 Macro, Bronwen, Sherry Almandsmith, and Megan Hague. “Creating Partnerships for Workforce 

Investment: How Services are Provided under WIA.” Berkeley Policy Associates. Washington, DC: 

DOL/ETA Occasional Paper 2003-08, December 2003, p. 8-1. 

9

 A report by the Mercatus Center also determined that, with the exception of Veterans Affairs, these are 

the primary federal departments that fund job training. See Ellig, Jerry, Maurice McTigue, and Steve 

Robinson, “Putting a Price on Performance: A Demonstration Study of Outcome-Based Scrutiny,” 

George Mason University: Mercatus Center, December 2000. 

10 The Mercatus Center report similarly excluded programs that primarily provided job placement or job 

search assistance or that were economic development in nature. That study also excluded the GI Bill. 

See Ellig, et al, 2000. 

11 Gundersen, Craig, “State Use of Funds to Increase Work Slots for Food Stamp Recipients: Report to 

Congress,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ERS-FANRR No. 15, August 

2001. 
5 

Where estimates were unavailable from federal program sources, training expenditures were 

estimated using information available from several sources including, but not limited to: 

• U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. “Summary of 

Budget Authority, Fiscal Years 2002-2003.” Washington, DC, May 2003. 

http://www.doleta.gov/budget/03req$.pdf. (Accessed July 27, 2004). 

• U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. “State Reporting 

of Formula Spending for Program Years 2000-2003 for Dislocated Workers, Adults, and 

Youth.” This series of 12 reports can be found at the 12 websites listed in the 

References. (Accessed July 27, 2004): 

• U.S. Government Printing Office. Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 

2005—Appendix. Washington, DC, January 2004. 

• U.S. Government Printing Office. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, 2003. 

Washington, DC, October 2003. http://12.46.245.173/pls/portal30/SYSTEM.PDF_ 

CATALOG_DYN.show (Accessed March 17, 2004). 

All sources and assumptions are documented, by program, in Exhibits 1, 3, and 4. It should be 

noted that the estimates were calculated using the best available information, which varies by 

program. For programs where actual or estimated expenditures on job training only were not 

provided, we used informed judgments to make assumptions and develop estimates, usually 

presenting a high estimate and a low estimate. This often involved discussions with agency staff. 

When the entries in Exhibits under the columns labeled “high estimate” and “low estimate” are 

the same, that means there was specific information or program reports that yielded a definitive 

figure and it was not necessary to develop approximate estimates. Readers are cautioned that 

these ranges should not be interpreted as an average of the low and the high estimates; instead 

they are an approximate range within which the actual spending may be. Averaging the low and 

high estimates would be inaccurate and inappropriate given the available data. 

State expenditures on training. This report also provides estimates of state-funded 

occupational training expenditures, the number of trainees, and per trainee costs for eight (8) 

states in 1998 and 2003. A National Governor’s Association (NGA) 1999 study entitled A 

Comprehensive Look At State-Funded, Employer-Focused Job Training Programs was the basis 
6 

for the examination of state-funded job training programs.12 The NGA study surveyed 47 states 

identified as operating state-funded employer-focused job training programs. The survey was 

conducted in April and May 1998. Using the NGA study, we selected for further examination 

the top eight ranked states in terms of the amount of state funds spent in 1998 on incumbent 

worker training programs. In rank order, they are: California, Texas, Iowa, Michigan, New 

Jersey, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and North Carolina. According to the NGA study, these eight 

states spent over $375 million dollars on state funded job training programs in 1998—this 

amounts to over half of the over $710 million13 spent on state-funded job training programs by 

all 50 states that year. These eight states were also eight of the top nine states in terms of total 

number of trainees statewide in 1998. Through telephone calls and emails, we obtained 2003 (or 

the most recent year available) information on any major state-funded job training programs in 

these eight states. By 2003, funding by the eight top ranked states had dropped from over $375 

million in 1998 to about $230 million. In cases where state-funded programs began after the 

NGA report was released, we provide the information for the program’s initial year. 

 Privately-funded job training. To estimate private- or employer-sponsored job training 

expenditures, we reviewed estimates from published sources and available surveys of firms (see 

Exhibit 8). We report estimates from four sources: the American Society for Training and 

Development (ASTD), the Survey of Employer Provided Training (SEPT), Training Magazine, 

and the National Employer Survey (NES).14 Where available, we report estimates for more than 

one year and compare years across different sources. 

In addition, new statistical analysis was conducted to update prior Urban Institute estimates of 

privately-funded job training as reported by individuals, rather than firms. Using methodology 

developed by Lerman, McKernan, and Riegg,15 the 2001 Survey of Income and Program 

Participation (SIPP) and the 2001 National Household Education Survey (NHES) were analyzed. 

 

12 Bosworth, Brian, Dan Broun, Eric Foreman, and Cynthia Liston, “A Comprehensive Look at StateFunded, Employer-Focused Job Training Programs.” National Governors’ Association, Center for Best 

Practices. Washington, DC, 1999. 

13 The authors summed the figures for all 50 states reported in Table 3 of the NGA report and found that 

1998 state funding for job training amounted to $707,991,522. The top eight ranked states spent 

$375,880,999 on job training programs in 1998, according Bosworth, et al. 

14 See Galvin, Tammy, “Industry Report 2003,” Training Magazine, October 2003, pp. 21-45; and 

American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), “State of the Industry: ASTD’s Annual 

Review of U.S. and International Trends in Workplace Learning and Performance,” 2003. 

15 Lerman, Robert I., Signe-Mary McKernan, and Stephanie Riegg, “The Scope of Employer-Provided 

Training in the U.S.: Who, What, Where, and How Much?” in Job Training in the United States: 

History, Effectiveness, and Prospects, O’Leary, Christopher J., Robert A. Straits, and Stephen A. 

Wandner, Editors, Kalamazoo, MI: The Upjohn Institute, 2004. 
7 

 Other sources of training funds. Telephone discussions were held with representatives of 

selected foundations, labor-management partnerships, and non-profit training providers to obtain 

information about non-public funding for job training spent or received in the past few years. 

Topics covered included: 

1. How much was spent/received in each of the past three to four years from non-public 

sources? 

2. For what types of training was funding spent/received? 

3. Who are the training providers? 

4. What are the types of trainees? 

5. What are the per participant costs? 

Limitations and Qualifications. There are some important limitations and qualifications to the 

data and findings presented. First, all programs included fund training as well as other 

employment-related services, but most programs do not break out costs by activity. With readily 

available data, it is extremely difficult to precisely calculate the amount of federal spending on 

job training, in large part because there are many different programs and funding streams, 

located in several different federal departments, often funded for different time periods (e.g., 

fiscal year, program year, multiple years). It is also difficult to calculate the total number of 

persons trained, since at the local level, programs increasingly blend and leverage funds from 

multiple sources to pay for training, but typically must report their activity separately for each 

program even if multiple sources are used. The estimates in this report are based on the bestavailable data at the time of the analysis, using information provided by officials in various 

federal agencies and programs, supplemented with published statistics and informed judgments 

of officials and the analysts and authors of this report. 

The second qualification relates to the programs included in this analysis. Programs in seven 

different federal departments than can potentially fund job training were examined. Other 

departments also provide funds for training, but are not included in this study for various 

reasons. The Department of Defense, for example, devotes considerable resources to training for 

specific occupations and skills and other employment-related services for military personnel and 

spouses, but this study is limited to non-Defense programs. Certain other employment-related 

programs are not included either because they essentially do not provide job or occupational 

 
8 

training per se. The Department of Commerce, for instance, supports training for individuals 

interested in starting businesses, but that program is not included here since it is more geared 

towards business and economic development rather than individual skills development. 

Similarly, some funds through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) can be 

used for employment services. The Job Service, in DOL, provides employment and job 

placement services, but not job training. The Department of Agriculture administers the Food 

Stamp Employment and Training Program, but since that primarily funds workfare/work 

experience and job search assistance, it is not included. Fewer than 2 percent of Food Stamp 

Program participants begin job training, and most of those are served through cooperative 

arrangements with WIA or Vocational Education.16

Finally, many students receive loans subsidized by the government, but public expenditures 

associated with those loan programs are not included here, since those expenditures are primarily 

related to administrative costs.17

A third qualification regards the definition of “training” used in this report, which differs from 

the definition used in some programs. Basic education, post-secondary degree programs, adult 

education, pre-training preparation, and social and behavioral skills (the so-called “soft skills”) 

are critically important to skills development. Many individuals’ ability to participate in job 

training and gain necessary job skills depend on such activities, and some programs are 

mandated to emphasize those skills in a comprehensive format. For example, the Job Corps 

Program’s Annual Report defines training as having three components: basic education, 

vocation, and social skills, and the program devotes over 44 percent of its resources on such 

training. The estimates presented in this report for Job Corps, therefore, substantially understate 

expenditures on training as defined and operationalized in that program. 

In addition, the shift from the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) to WIA has resulted in 

increasing variation at the local service delivery level. The operational definition of “intensive 

services” versus “job training” for WIA purposes may not be the same across localities; some 

activities that are referred to as training in one site might be called intensive services in another. 

Unlike Job Corps, where the estimates here understate the programs’ investments in training, the 

effect of variations in One-Stop Centers’ definitions of training in reported data is unknown. 

 

16 Gundersen, Craig, “State Use of Funds to Increase Work Slots for Food Stamp Recipients: Report to 

Congress,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ERS-FANRR No. 15, August 

2001. 

17 The Mercatus Center study also excluded loan programs in its analysis. See Ellig, et al (2000). 
9 

Recognizing these limitations, we were asked to isolate the spending specifically going to job 

training, using a definition that allows comparability across programs, and defined literally as 

vocational and/or occupational skills training provided in a classroom, on-line, at the workplace, 

or through internships or apprenticeships. The results, therefore, should be viewed as 

approximations and as conservative lower bound estimates of total federal spending on training. 

The estimates are based on the computation methods and assumptions that are explicitly 

presented in the chapters, developed to provide a general overview of the scale of spending on 

job training in the United States. Further analysis and data collection would be needed to 

provide more precise and detailed estimates. 

Structure of the Report. Section II of this report examines federally-funded job training 

expenditures and state-funded job training expenditures. Section III provides estimates of 

privately-funded job training expenditures from the three sources: a review of past analysis of 

surveys of firms, new statistical estimates of employer-provided training as reported by workers, 

based on the SIPP and NHES, and estimates of training expenditures from private entities. In 

both Sections II and III, the limitations of the resulting estimates are discussed. Section IV 

synthesizes the information presented in prior sections. 
10 
11 

II. Estimating Expenditures on Publicly-funded Job Training 

This section describes federal expenditures on job training through programs funded in seven 

different federal agencies. The estimates discussed in this chapter were obtained from federal 

program staff via an email request and follow up telephone calls, from various federal budget 

sources described in greater detail below, from published reports and evaluations, or from 

assumptions made by the authors. The sources and assumptions for each program’s estimates 

are provided in Exhibit 1. 

Exhibits 1 through 4 catalogue federally-funded programs where at least some portion of 

program funding is spent on job training. Programs that do not fund any job training are not 

included or discussed in this paper. Exhibits 1 through 4 provide estimates of total expenditures, 

expenditures on job training only, the number of training participants, and per trainee costs. 

Exhibit 5 presents the 2002 DOL job training expenditures by target group. It shows a low and a 

high estimate of total job training expenditures, number of training participants,18 and per trainee 

spending for each DOL program that provides at least some job training. Exhibit 6 shows the 

percentage of training expenditures attributable to each target group and the percentage of 

training participants within each target group. 

A. Federally-funded Job Training Expenditures 

The U.S. Department of Labor funds a number of programs that help individuals gain 

employment or career advancement through occupational skills training. Programs in other 

federal agencies can also support occupational training to individuals. Administrators in seven 

(7) federal departments19 were contacted about their job training programs, and sixty-nine 

programs that fund some job training were identified: 

• Department of Labor (DOL) (34 programs) 

• Department of Education (DOE) (13 programs) 

• Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (16 programs) 

• Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (1 program) 

 

18 Individuals may participate in one or more programs, therefore, the total number of participants 

reported likely exceeds the number of separate individuals trained. Exhibit 5 reports the number of 

participants, not the number of individuals. Likewise, the percentage estimates in Exhibit 6 show the 

percent of participants (not individuals) attributable to each target group. 

19 The Department of Defense is also a job training provider (e.g., Transition Assistance Program, Spouse 

Telework Employment Program, Military Spouse Resource Center project, Advanced Distributed 

Learning Centers, Career Advance Centers), however, this report is limited to non-Defense agencies. 
12 

• Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) (1 program) 

• Department of the Interior (DOI) (3 programs) 

• Department of Justice (DOJ) (1 program) 

For DOL and HHS programs, all data were verified by agency representatives. In programs in 

the other five federal departments, similar verifications were done for some programs. When 

program information was not available from agencies, public reports and material were used 

(e.g., written reports, the Internet) and, in some cases, estimates are based on informed 

assumptions made by the analysts based on available information, as noted on the Exhibits. 

Exhibit 1 shows estimates of total job training expenditures by program and by year.20 The far 

right column notes, for each program, the source of data and assumptions made to produce the 

estimates when that was necessary. Each agency was asked for the amount spent on training by 

program for each year from 1998 through 2003. Since it was difficult to obtain the annual 

training expenditures data for many programs, we focused on 2002. In programs where 

complete cost data were not available, high and low estimates of training expenditures were 

developed to suggest the possible range of spending based on the assumptions used (rather than a 

single-point estimate). 

The time periods for which data were available are also noted on Exhibit 1. In all cases, twelvemonth time frames are used. Data were requested for program years21 or fiscal years22 1998 

through 2003, or for the years in which the program was operating if it started after 1998. In 

general, the Department of Labor’s program funding is measured using a July-June program year 

while other federal agencies’ programs are measured using the federal fiscal year; rare 

exceptions are noted in Exhibit 1. However, a twelve-month period is used to report spending for 

each program. Grant programs are included even though some have low or fairly modest 

funding levels, because together they represent a substantial resource to local programs. Since 

grant programs typically provide funding for more than one year, annual estimates of training 

expenditure for grant programs are prorated in some cases, as noted. 

As shown at the top of Exhibit 1, between $3.2 and $5.3 billion was spent by the federal 

government on occupational job training in 2002. These are, respectively, the low and high 

estimates of training expenditures, calculated by totaling up the expenditures for the 69 programs 

 

20 Since some tables, such as Exhibit 1, are several pages long, all Exhibits are presented at the end of the 

narrative sections of this report. 

21 The Department of Labor’s program year begins July 1st and ends June 30th. For example, Program 

Year 1998 is from July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999. 

22 The federal fiscal year begins October 1st and ends September 30th. For example, Fiscal Year 1998 is 

from October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998. 
13 

from the seven federal departments shown on Exhibit 1. About one-third of the federal spending 

is in DOL programs, or between $1.2 and $1.7 billion in 2002. Another one-third of federal job 

training spending is through Pell Grants in DOE, or between $1.9 and $3.2 billion in 2002. The 

final one-third of federal spending on training was spread across dozens of other programs in 

DOE and five other departments as shown in Exhibit 1. Key findings for each department are 

presented in the following sections. 

Department of Labor. In 2002, DOL spent between $1.2 and $1.7 billion on job training, as 

indicated on Exhibit 1 (page 1-1, the Department of Labor shaded area). The three DOL job 

training programs with the greatest expenditures are the WIA Adult Programs, WIA Dislocated 

Worker programs, and Job Corps. Together these three programs represent about two-thirds of 

all DOL job training expenditures. Dislocated Worker programs spent between $280 million 

(low estimate) and $467 million (high estimate) on training in 2002. The Adult WIA program 

spent between $303 million and $505 million on training, and Job Corps spent $207 on training 

as defined in this study. It is worth noting again that this understates training expenditures in Job 

Corps using that program’s definition. 

Department of Education. DOE spent between $1.9 and $3.2 billion on occupational training in 

2002, as detailed in Exhibit 1 (page 1-9, Department of Education shaded area). More than half 

of DOE’s total training spending is attributed to Pell Grants, which is estimated to have spent 

between $1.3 billion (low estimate) and $1.9 billion (high estimate) on training in 2002. In 

addition, Perkins Act Vocational and Technical (Title I) and Technical Prep (Title II) grants 

spent between $386 million and $644 million, representing about 20 percent of DOE’s training 

expenditures. It is also estimated that between $203 million and $615 million was spent on 

training by Vocational Rehabilitation programs (state grants). Since we were not able to obtain 

job training expenditure figures for all DOE programs, estimates were produced using informed 

assumptions based on information obtained from DOE’s website, the Federal Budget, and 

selected research reports, as noted in Exhibit 1. 

Department of Health and Human Services. According to estimates developed for this study 

and reviewed by HHS officials, HHS programs spent between $94 million (low estimate) and 

$170 million (high estimate) on occupational job training in 2002, as shown on Exhibit 1 (page 

1-12, Department of Health and Human Services shaded area). While DHHS has many 

programs that can fund job training, the greatest expenditure on training in that department is the 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program for welfare recipients, with 

expenditures between $64 million and $107 million, representing about two-thirds of all HHS 

funding of job training in 2002. The next highest job training spending is for the combined 
14 

Refugee and Entrant Assistance Programs, which together spent between $17 million and $27 

million in 2002. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development. One HUD program—Youth Build —was 

identified that specifically provides training and other employment-related services, and this 

program is included in the inventory in Exhibit 1 (page 1-16, Department of Housing and Urban 

Development shaded area). The Youth Build program expended about $27 million on 

occupational training for disadvantaged youth aged 16 to 24 in 2003. HUD also administers 

several special housing assistance and community development programs that can fund 

employment-related services. These include: HOPE VI, Family Self-Sufficiency Program, 

Supportive Housing Program, Homeless Assistance Grants, the Community Development Block 

Grant, Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency Grants, Section 3 program, Jobs Plus and 

Moving to Work. These other programs are encouraged to use their HUD funds for housingrelated assistance and services and to link with other non-HUD service agencies to provide nonhousing services such as job training. Therefore, these programs are not included in our 

inventory since it is unlikely much funding is used for direct occupation-specific training. 

Department of Veterans Affairs. We also identified one program in the DVA—the Vocational 

Rehabilitation and Employment program—with total expenditures of $270 million, as shown on 

Exhibit 1 (page 1-16, Department of Veterans’ Affairs shaded area). It is estimated that between 

$40 million and $120 million is for non-degree job training, although this is a very rough 

approximation. The other major program in the DVA that funds education and training is the 

Montgomery GI Bill, funded in part by monthly contributions to personal accounts by active 

duty personnel contribute. Since nearly all GI Bill beneficiaries are enrolled in undergraduate 

degree programs and since some of the spending is derived from individual contributions while 

in service, it is excluded from this study. 

Department of the Interior. The DOI has three job training programs, primarily for Native 

Americans. As shown on Exhibit 1 (page 1-17, Department of Interior shaded area), we 

estimate, using DOI web-site data reports, that approximately $3.1 to $5.1 million was expended 

on job training in 2002 by the DOI. Two of the three programs serve only Native Americans 

while the third, the Ironworker Training Program, serves primarily Native Americans. 

Department of Justice. One program in DOJ can fund job training among other services—the 

Serious and Violent Offenders program. However, the funds allotted to the job training 

component of this program have not yet been spent. DOJ also administers other employmentrelated programs for incarcerated individuals, but they are not included here since they primarily 

fund education, prison industry work, life skills preparation and religious and social services. 
15 

B. Shares of Federal Program Funding Devoted to Job Training 

Using the information and details from Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2 shows the percentage of each 

program’s total funding that was used for job training in 2002, versus all other activities in the 

relevant program. The second column of Exhibit 2 is total program expenditures, the third and 

fourth columns are the high and low estimates of training expenditures, and the final two 

columns indicate the percentage of total expenditures that were devoted to job training (high and 

low estimates). 

Across all 69 programs identified in the seven federal departments that provide at least some 

funding for job training, between 8.2 percent and 13.5 percent of program funds were used for 

job training in 2002. The share of funds going to training varies by agency and program, with 

some special purpose programs, for example those providing vocational rehabilitation training 

for veterans and Native Americans, having a higher share of spending going to job training, 

compared to some larger more comprehensive programs such as WIA or Pell Grants. 

DOL’s expenditures on training accounted for nearly one-third of all federal job training 

expenditures in 2002. Among DOL programs that provide at least some occupational training, 

several programs spend a very small percentage of their funds on job training, as defined for this 

study. The Welfare-to-Work Grants Program, spent between 4 and 7 percent of the total 

expenditures in 2002 on training. Likewise, the Youth Offender Demonstration Project is 

estimated to have spent about 5 percent of expenditures on training while 9 percent of the Youth 

Opportunity Grant Program expenditures went to provide occupational training. These grant 

programs are focused on employment preparation and education and related services, more than 

on pre-employment training. Programs with a high percentage of program expenditures spent on 

training include the Trade Adjustment Assistance Training and the North American Free Trade 

Agreement Transitional Adjustment Assistance programs, with an estimated 82 to 85 percent of 

expenditures in 2002, respectively. This reflects the emphasis in these programs on retraining 

dislocated workers. 

C. Number of Trainees in DOL Programs 

Exhibit 3 shows the number of trainees for DOL programs. In 2002, nearly 500,000 trainees 

participated in DOL programs. The Adult Employment and Training Activities under WIA 

served the largest number of training participants with just over 100,000. Job Corps had over 

50,000 trainees. The three major WIA programs—adults, dislocated workers, and youth—

collectively served slightly over one quarter of a million trainees (program exiters). It is 

important to note that the WIA exiters as measured in the Workforce Investment Act 
16 

Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) represent unduplicated counts of individuals. Other 

programs, such as the H-1B Technical Skills Training Grants,23 record the number of enrollees 

per year, and these numbers are likely to include duplicate counts of some individuals. 

There were over 30 percent more WIA trainees (exiters) from the three major WIA programs in 

1998 than in 2002, probably reflecting the transition from JTPA to WIA, which occurred during 

this period. The very small decrease in overall training participants in DOL between 1998 and 

2002 reflects the fact that some non-WIA DOL programs increased enrollment and new 

programs began. New programs included the H-1B Technical Skills Training Grants, and the 

Incumbent/Dislocated Worker Skills Shortages II Demonstration Grants. Similarly, enrollments 

in some existing programs increased, such as those funded with ETA Earmark grants24 and those 

through the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program. 

D. Per Trainee Expenditures 

As shown in Exhibit 4, the average per trainee expenditure for DOL training was about $3200 in 

2002 (Exhibit 4). However, it is particularly difficult to estimate per trainee expenditures for 

most programs. In some programs where states have primary authority (e.g., Trade Adjustment 

Assistance, North American Free Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance), 

variations in internal state practices make determining per trainee expenditures at the national 

level extremely difficult without a more comprehensive research study. In many grant-funded 

programs (e.g., ETA Earmarks, High Growth Job Training Initiative), each program grantee may 

track per trainee costs, but this information is not available in the aggregate at the national level. 

Thus, some grant program national offices were able to provide per trainee costs for grantees, 

although not aggregated across all their grantees. Therefore, for some programs we computed a 

weighted average of costs per trainee and noted this accordingly in Exhibit 4 (e.g., Sectoral 

Employment Demonstration Grant, Incumbent/Dislocated Worker Skills Shortage II 

Demonstration Grant). 

Costs per trainee vary substantially from one training program to another. For example, the 

Disability IT Training program per trainee costs are estimated to be $8,490 in 2002. On the 

other hand, the Incumbent/Dislocated Worker Skills Shortages II Demonstration Grants average 

 

23 The H-1B Grants program has ended, with the last grants awarded in January 2004. 

24 Congressionally-designated provisions appropriate funds, called earmarks, in the annual federal budget 

for particular purposes, projects, or organizations. Earmarked workforce development projects are 

administered by DOL. Earmark appropriations increased substantially during the study period. 
17 

$1,007 per trainee—clearly a reflection of differences across programs in the types of services 

provided, the needs of the target population, and/or the duration of the training provided. 

E. DOL Training by Target Group 

DOL’s training programs serve many different target groups including: 

• Dislocated and incumbent workers 

• Adults 

• Youth 

• Older workers 

• Migrant and seasonal workers 

• Unemployed/underemployed/hard-to-employ (including welfare recipients) 

• Native Americans/Hawaiians/Alaskans 

• Veterans 

• Persons with physical and mental disabilities; and 

• Other miscellaneous groups 

According to the data compiled for each program, dislocated and incumbent workers receive 

more of DOL’s federal funding for occupational training than any other group (Exhibit 5). 

Approximately 35 percent of all funds spent on job training by DOL in 2002 funded training in 

programs that targeted dislocated and incumbent workers (Exhibit 6), or between $409 million 

and $603 million (Exhibit 5). These funds were used to train approximately 180,000 participants 

(Exhibit 5). 

The second largest category for DOL’s training dollars was programs serving adults through the 

Adult Employment and Training Activities under WIA; an estimated $300 to $510 million, or 26 

to 29 percent of 2002 expenditures on job training by DOL, was spent on approximately 100,000 

participants. Given that WIA training services are focused on those who are determined to need 

it most, presumably most of these trainees have barriers to employment or low skills. 

An estimated 4-5 percent (about $42 to $83 million) of DOL’s funds for job training in 2002 

were through the program specifically for older workers, in addition to older workers served 

through WIA adult and dislocated workers. In general, persons age 55 and older participate in 

community service work experience jobs through the Senior Community Service Employment 

Program (SCSEP), some of which also incorporate training for the job. Legislative changes in 

2000 shifted the program to emphasize training even more than in the past. In future years, data 

on number of trainees will be available. SCSEP is the only program specifically targeting older 

adults, and program funds can be used for on-the-job training or occupational training. SCSEP 

staff estimate that about 25 percent of participants received some training before the 2000 
18 

changes, rising to about 30 percent in 2001, 2002, and 2003 as programs began to implement the 

new changes. This suggests that in 2002, about 33,000 SCSEP participants received some 

occupation-specific training. In addition, some older workers may, instead, participate in WIA 

adult and dislocated worker programs, and some older worker programs may use both WIA and 

SCSEP funds for an individual’s activities. 

F. State-funded Job Training Expenditures 

According to a 1999 study25 conducted for the National Governors Association (NGA), states 

spent about $710 million on job training in 1998, with eight states accounting for about half of 

that spending (California, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, 

and Texas). Officials in those eight states, which had the highest levels of state-funded training 

in 1998 as reported in the 1999 study, were contacted as part of this current study and queried 

about their levels of state-funding, trainees, and costs per trainee in 2003, or the most recent year 

for which data are available. Based on the information those state officials provided for this 

study, two general conclusions can be drawn. First, state-funded job training programs in the top 

eight states (ranking based on 1998 funding) declined 38 percent in five years—from 

approximately $380 million in 1998 to about $230 million in 2003. Second, assuming these 

eight states continue to represent about half of all state funding on job training, it is likely that 

state funding on job training in 2003 was between about $500 million (low estimate) and $700 

million (high estimate), or about 12 to 13 percent of the amount spent by the federal government. 

The actual spending by state sources may be slightly higher since the estimates provided by state 

officials probably do not include federally-required matching funds required by some programs 

such as vocational rehabilitation and some grant programs. 

The updated information obtained from the eights states appears in Appendix A, Exhibits A-1 

through A-8, and is summarized in Exhibit 7. A few interesting points emerge. First, while the 

total of state spending on training in these eight states declined over the five years, some states 

maintained or even increased their spending. Over the five years, four states (California, Iowa, 

Michigan, Texas) substantially reduced state funding for occupational training by more than half, 

one state (Missouri) remained about same, and three states (New Jersey, North Carolina, and 

Pennsylvania) increased their spending on occupational training programs from 12 percent in 

Pennsylvania to 46 percent in North Carolina. 

 

25 Bosworth, Brian, Dan Broun, Eric Foreman, and Cynthia Liston, “A Comprehensive Look at StateFunded, Employer-Focused Job Training Programs.” National Governors’ Association, Center for Best 

Practices. Washington, DC, 1999. 
19 

The second point is that the number of state-funded training programs varies across states. Of 

the eight states contacted, three states have one major state-funded job training program 

(California, Michigan, and Pennsylvania), three state have two major programs (Iowa, Missouri, 

and New Jersey), Texas has three major programs, and North Carolina has four major programs. 

New Jersey was the only state to have a new job training program begin operating since 1998—

in 2003, the Supplemental Workforce Fund for Basic Skills was implemented to provide training 

in basic skills such as English as a Second Language, basic communication skills and basic 

personal computer software training. And, while half of the states reduced their state funding in 

job training programs between 1998 and 2003, Texas was the only state to discontinue a program 

entirely. The Texas program that was eliminated (the Smart Jobs Fund) as well as cuts in 

funding for the two other Texas job training programs resulted in an 80 percent reduction in 

overall state funding for job training programs in the state. 

The third interesting point is that despite the reduction in state-funded job training expenditures 

for these states combined, states’ strategies for funding job training remain largely unchanged 

among the top eight states. In 1998, over two-thirds of the state-funded programs were funded 

using general-fund appropriations while the majority of the remaining programs were funded 

using monies obtained through an assessment on employers that is based on the Unemployment 

Insurance (UI) fund tax. Beginning with California in 1983, states assessed a per-employee tax 

on employers covered by the UI program while reducing UI taxes at the same time. This 

separate tax is collected at the same time as UI taxes.26 Our discussions with state officials in 

2004 determined that of the 15 job training programs funded by the eight states in 2003, about 

half (7.5 programs) are funded using general-fund appropriations. Three and one-half programs 

are funded using an employer tax based on the UI program tax. Two programs in Iowa and 

Missouri rely on funding from the sale of bonds, and two are funded from other sources. 

Finally, the eight states were selected because they had relatively high levels of training spending

in 1998. However, as summarized in the chart below, seven of the eight were also the top seven 

states ranked by the number of trainees in 1998. The number of trainees increased by about 19 

percent across the eight states, even in some states where spending declined. By 2003, as shown 

on Exhibit 7, four of these states report that the number of trainees in their state-funded programs 

between 1998 and 2003 decreased (California, Iowa, and New Jersey), and four report an 

 

26 Bosworth, Brian, Dan Broun, Eric Foreman, and Cynthia Liston, “A Comprehensive Look at State 

Funded, Employer-Focused Job Training Programs.” Report prepared by Regional Technology Strategies, 

Inc. and the National Governors’ Association, Center for Best Practices. Washington, DC, 1999, p. 6. 
20 

increase (Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas). Of the three states that increased 

their overall spending on job training between 1998 and 2003, two also increased the number 

Table 1. 

Rankings of Selected States on Spending on Training, 

 Number of Trainees, and Cost Per Trainee

 Total State Funding Number of Trainees Average Cost Per Trainee 

 1998 

Rank 

2003 Rank 

(out of 8) 

1998 Rank 

(out of 50) 

2003 Rank 

(out of 8) 

1998 Rank 

(out of 50) 

2003 Rank 

(out of 8) 

California 1 1 2 6 5 3 

Iowa 3 7 14 8 2 NA 

Michigan 5 8 4 4 15 4 

Missouri 8 5 5 5 23 1 

New Jersey 4 3 6 7 21 5 

North Carolina 6 2 1 1 NA 6 

Pennsylvania 7 4 7 2 27 7 

Texas 2 6 9 3 6 2 

Source: Exhibit 7. 

of trainees. For example, North Carolina increased state funding by 46 percent, and the number 

of trainees increased by 17 percent over the five-year period. Of the four states where overall 

funding decreased between 1998 and 2003, in California and Iowa the number of trainees also 

decreased by 46 and 38 percent, respectively. In the case of Michigan, while state funding 

decreased by 65 percent, the number of trainees increased by 31 percent. 
21 

III. Estimating Expenditures on Privately-funded Job Training 

Privately-sponsored job training programs are those funded primarily using any non-public 

source of funds—such as businesses, industry groups, unions, and private foundations. Private 

training may be administered and funded in different ways. For example, private job training 

may be funded through one or more private employers directly or industry/employer 

organizations. Private- or employer-funded job training may be delivered by a private training 

provider, an employer on-the-job or at an offsite location, or through an employer’s contract with 

an otherwise publicly-funded state or local agency such as a local community college or One 

Stop Career Center. Finally, job training may be funded through private sources not related to an 

employer such as a foundation, individual, or organization. 

This section presents estimates of total annual expenditures on training by private sources, along 

with information on spending per firm and per trainee expenditures, percent of workers trained, 

and number of hours per year workers receive employer-funded training. The incidence and 

intensity of employer-provided training by various demographic characteristics of workers is 

also described. In addition to conducting some new statistical analysis of national databases, 

semi-structured discussions were also held with representatives of a few private organizations 

that provide and/or fund occupational training. In order to describe private- or employerprovided job training, three activities were carried out over the eight-month period from midFebruary to mid-August 2004: 

1. Reviewed published information and reports from past relevant research on the extent 

of job training and private funding of training; 

2. Updated statistical analysis of private sector funding of training based on recently 

released public-use data for the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) 

for 2001 and the National Household Education Survey (NHES) for 2001, applying 

methodologies developed by Lerman, McKernan, and Riegg (2004) for a prior Urban 

Institute study; and 

3. Telephone discussions with officials at seven private organizations to obtain 

information about non-public funding for job training. 

A. Estimates of Employer-Provided Training: Firm Perspective 

A canvassing of the literature indicates that there are very few published reports or articles that 

provide annual estimates of the amount of private spending on job training. A few were 

identified, however, and they are all based on four surveys of businesses: 
22 

(1) Surveys of samples of companies conducted by the trade organization, the American 

Society for Training and Development (ASTD). 

(2) The Survey of Employer-Provided Training (SEPT), administered to a sample of 

businesses. 

(3) Surveys of samples of businesses with 100 or more employees conducted by Training 

Magazine, a trade publication. 

(4) The National Employer Survey (NES), administered to a sample of businesses. 

The surveys vary in terms of the amount and types of information analyzed, the number or times 

the surveys have been conducted, and the years for which the information was collected. Exhibit 

8 summarizes the features of each of the four surveys of firms and key findings from published 

articles and summaries that analyzed data from each survey. Exhibit 8 includes, for each survey: 

• The sample and methodology used to obtain the employer-provided training estimates; 

• Total expenditures on employer-funded job training including non-training costs (e.g., 

salaries paid to trainees); 

• Total expenditures on employer-funded job training excluding non-training costs (e.g., 

salaries paid to trainees); 

• Estimated average per firm expenditures including non-training costs (e.g., salaries paid 

to trainees); 

• Estimated average per firm expenditures excluding non-training costs (e.g., salaries paid 

to trainees); 

• Estimated per trainee expenditures; 

• Percentage of workers who are trainees per firm; and 

• Percentage of firms providing training. 

• Citations for the articles and sources of the above findings based on analysis of two 

waves (years) of data from each survey. 

All four surveys collected job training information by surveying a sample of firms. The SEPT, 

NES, and Training Magazine weighted surveys are designed to be nationally representative, 
23 

while the ASTD unweighted surveys are not. The number of firms surveyed ranged from a low 

of 276 U.S. companies in the 2002 ASTD survey to a high of 4,501 firms in the 1993 SEPT. The 

size of firms surveyed also varied by survey—the NES surveyed businesses with 20+ employees 

(both years), and the SEPT (both years) surveyed firms with 50+ employees, and the Training 

Magazine surveyed firms with 100+ employees (both years). In general, for each survey, the 

methodology did not change significantly from the earlier to the later year. However, for the 

ASTD survey, the average firm size more than doubled from 3,281 employees in 1996 to 6,661 

employees in 2002; that is, unlike the other surveys, the ASTD surveyed very large firms. 

Each of the surveys have been analyzed and reported in the referenced citations noted at the 

bottom of Exhibit 8. Each of the surveys contributes some knowledge about the extent to which 

firms fund job training, as shown on Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 9 and summarized in the following 

sections. 

Total Expenditures on Job Training. It appears that, since about the mid-1990s, businesses 

have been spending between $46 billion and $54 billion a year on job training, including all 

activities related to training (e.g., costs of training as well as some non-training costs such as 

salaries, but excluding administrative and overhead costs). As summarized on Exhibit 8, studies 

that have analyzed the Training Magazine survey and the SEPT report that total expenditures on 

job training including salary costs (but excluding general administrative costs) in 1995 was $53.7 

and $45.5 billion dollars, respectively. The SEPT figure is higher, in part because that sample 

included more businesses--the SEPT survey included businesses with 50+ employees while the 

Training Magazine included businesses with 100+ employees. 

The Training Magazine survey is the only one of the four that asked firms about overall training 

expenditures for multiple years. Results from the study that analyzed that survey are shown on 

Exhibit 9, which indicates that employer-provided expenditures gradually increased each year 

from 1986 through 2001, then declined slightly in 2002 and 2003. In 2003, about $51.3 billion 

was spent by firms in total on all training (i.e., training plus salaries, but excluding administrative 

and overhead costs, shown on the top line). Of this, $13.9 billion in 2003 was spent by 

businesses on training only, excluding non-training costs such as salaries and administrative and 

overhead costs (shown on the bottom line), or about 76 percent more than in 1995. The trend in 

Exhibit 9 shows expenditures on training excluding non-training costs (bottom line) increased 

overtime with a small jump between 1999 and 2000. This jump can be explained by the changes 

in the way the survey measured administrative costs—administrative costs in the post-2000 

period includes only salaries while in the pre-2000 period administrative costs include salaries, 

facilities/overhead, and hardware costs. Training expenditures as measured without 
24 

administrative costs also declined after 2001, though it is not clear whether this trend will 

continue. 

Thus, of the $46 billion to $54 billion a year that firms spend on training, between $8 billion and 

$17 billion a year is spent specifically on training and related costs (e.g., including trainer 

salaries, books, materials, but excluding trainee salaries and excluding general administrative 

costs). This means that, depending on whether one uses the figure that excludes costs such as 

trainee salaries or the figure that represents total training expenditures, private firms spend 

between 2 and 12 times as much on training as the federal and state governments combined. 

Average Training Costs Per Firm. Estimates of the average training costs per firm appear to 

vary greatly depending on the sample of firms studied. Both the Training Magazine survey and 

the ASTD surveys asked firms about their training costs including and excluding administrative 

costs. Analysis of the ASTD survey reports that the average per firm training costs in 1996 were 

$1.6 million including administrative costs and $1.1 million excluding administrative costs. 

Analysis of the broader sample of firms surveyed by Training Magazine found somewhat lower 

spending per firm, averaging $334,515 including administrative costs, and $58,726 excluding 

administrative costs. The discrepancy in these estimates can be attributed to the larger size of the 

firms surveyed by ASTD. The ASTD survey further found that training costs more than tripled 

between 1996 and 2002 among these very large companies. The Training Magazine survey 

found that training costs excluding administration costs increased by 78 percent between 1995 

and 2003. 

Firm Training Expenditures Per Trainee. Reports suggest that firms spent between $700 and 

$800 per trainee in 1996, and that the spending increased to about $1000 per trainee in 2002. 

Estimates of job training expenditures per trainee are reported in studies based on the ASTD 

survey and SEPT. The analysis of the ASTD estimated that $726 was spent per trainee in 1996, 

and the analysis of SEPT reported that firms spent $798 per trainee in 1995. Analysis of 

subsequent ASTD surveys reports that per trainee costs had grown to $1043 in 2002, a 44 

percent increase. (Neither the Training Magazine survey nor the NES included questions on the 

per trainee costs of training.) 

Percentage of Workers Trained. About 70 percent of workers reportedly receive some firmsponsored training, according to the reports reviewed. Reported estimates of the percentage of 

workers that are trainees was about 69 percent based on the ASTD 1996 survey, and 70 percent 

based on the SEPT for 1995. Reports from subsequent ASTD surveys suggest that the 

percentage of workers that receive training increased by about 10 percent—from 69 to 79 

percent—between 1996 and 2002. 
25 

Percentage of Firms that Provide Training. Nearly all firms provide some employee training, 

according to the reports that are based on the four surveys. Estimates of the percentage of firms 

providing training ranged from 71 percent (from the 1995 SEPT survey of firms of all sizes), to 

81 percent (from the 1994 NES survey of firms with 10 or more employees) to 98 percent (from 

the 1993 SEPT survey of firms with 50 or more employees) and 100 percent (from ASTD’s 1996 

and 2002 survey of firms with 50 or more employees). Reports based on both NES and SEPT 

estimated that the percentage of firms providing training declined in the mid-1990s by about 4 

and 6 percent, respectively, while analysis using the ASTD surveys reported 100 percent of firms 

trained in 1996 and 2002. 

B. Estimates of Employer-Provided Training: Worker Perspectives 

The previous section summarized what analysis of selected surveys of employers found 

regarding firm-sponsored training. To examine the extent of employer-provided training from 

both the perspectives of employees and employers, we reviewed findings from an earlier Urban 

Institute study by Lerman, McKernan and Riegg,27 who analyzed three large data files that 

surveyed individuals and one, that surveyed employers. The three surveys of individuals they 

analyzed are: the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the National Household 

Education Survey (NHES), and the Current Population Survey (CPS). (They also analyzed the 

Survey of Employer-Provided Training (SEPT), which was described in the prior section.) We 

then updated the analysis of SIPP and NHES, using the same statistical methods as used in the 

earlier study to identify any changes that may have occurred over time, by updating some results 

of that earlier study. Before describing the updated results, we briefly describe the SIPP and 

NHES surveys and questions. 

The SIPP and NHES Data Files. The SIPP is a large-scale, national, longitudinal survey 

sponsored by the U.S. Census Bureau. The SIPP’s core survey collects monthly information 

form a stratified sample of the U.S. civilian non-institutionalized population. The 1996 panel 

includes interview data from April 1996 through March 2000 and started with a sample of 

40,188 households including 95,402 individuals. The 2001 panel includes interview data from 

February 2001 through January 2004 and started with a sample of 36,700 households including 

91,105 individuals. Both the 1996 and 2001 SIPP ask about incidence of training in the past 

 

27 Lerman, Robert I., Signe-Mary McKernan, and Stephanie Riegg, “The Scope of Employer-Provided 

Training in the U.S.: Who, What, Where, and How Much?” a chapter in Job Training in the United 

States: History, Effectiveness, and Prospects, O’Leary, Christopher J., Robert A. Straits, and Stephen A. 

Wandner, Editors, Kalamazoo, MI; The W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 2004. 
26 

twelve months and the amount of time spent in training. Using various demographic variables 

from the SIPP, we examine individuals’ characteristics by incidence and amount of training 

received. 

The NHES is a cross-sectional telephone survey of employed persons age 18+ who were not 

enrolled in elementary or secondary school. The Adult Education component of the NHES was 

conducted in 1991, 1995, 2001, and 2003 (the 2003 data have not yet been released). The NHES 

surveyed about 20,000 adults in 1995 and 10,873 adults in 2001. The 1995 and 2001 NHES 

provide information about employer-sponsored, work-related, classroom training in five 

categories: (1) credit courses/programs; (2) career or job-related classes; (3) apprenticeship; (4) 

basic skills or GED preparation; and (5) English as a Second Language (ESL). We examine the 

incidence of classroom training and hours spent on classroom training by various demographic 

characteristics. The 1995 and 2001 NHES ask the same questions, however, unlike the 1995 

NHES, the 2001 NHES computes a variable that provides total hours of classroom training in the 

past year across all five categories.28 Also, the 1995 NHES asks for actual hours in each 

employer-sponsored, college credit class while the 2001 NHES asks for the credit hours in each 

employer-sponsored, college credit class. 

Updated Findings. Exhibit 10 shows the combined results from the earlier Urban Institute 

analysis of the four data bases (including the SEPT which surveyed employers) plus the new 

updated analysis of the SIPP and NHES. The first pattern to note is that while the SEPT survey 

of employers found that in 1995, 70 percent of workers ages 16 and older in firms with 50 or 

more employees received employer-provided training in the prior year, based on employer 

reports. The analysis of the 1995 and 2001 NHES survey of individuals, however, found that 37 

percent of workers age 18 and older reported having received formal training in the prior year, 

up from 19 percent in 1991. The CPS analysis indicates that the percentage of workers 16 and 

older who received training with their current employer increased from 5 percent in 1981 to 12 

percent in 1983 and 16 percent in 1991. Finally, the SIPP analysis shows that, in 2001, 20 

percent of all respondents age 18-64 received employer-provided training, up from 13 percent in 

1993 but down from 24 percent in 1996. 

 

28 The 2001 documentation does not provide information about how the computed variable is created. 
27 

Lerman et al. explain that some of the difference in these estimates can be attributed to varying 

samples—for example, the SEPT includes only firms with 50 or more employees, the NHES 

focused on classroom training and the duration of training.29

The second finding is that, while total training may have increased, according to workers’ 

reports, employer-provided classroom training received within the prior year declined by more 

than half between 1995 and 2001, from 65 to 30 hours for all workers age 18 and above (Exhibit 

11). This finding should be viewed cautiously, though, since it is not clear that the estimate of 

employer-provided classroom training was measured exactly the same way in the NHES in 1995 

and 2001. In particular, while the estimate of classroom training is presented as part of the 

public-use file for 2001, each analyst must calculate the total number of classroom training hours 

for the 1995 NHES. 

The third finding is that, according to workers in both 1995 and 2001, the majority of training 

hours was in credit courses or programs, rather than basic skills preparation, apprenticeships, or 

other activities (Exhibit 11). Among workers who said they did receive employer-provided 

classroom training, in 1995 workers reported attending for about 178 hours, compared to about 

82 hours in 2001. Furthermore, workers in career or job-related courses spent considerably 

fewer hours in training, especially for apprenticeships, basic skills instruction, GED preparation, 

and English-as-a-Second Language (ESL). About 63 to 64 percent of workers reported zero 

hours of classroom training. 

Overall the incidence of employer-provided training does not appear to have changed 

significantly from the mid-1990s to 2001 according to NHES and SIPP analyses (see Exhibit 

12), although there have been some notable demographic shifts. The NHES examines employerprovided classroom training among employed persons age 18 and older while the SIPP examines 

employer-provided training for all persons age 18-64, regardless of employment status. 

Therefore, it is not surprising that the NHES finds higher rates of training in both 1995 and 

2001—about 13-17 percentage points higher. Given the different samples and questions, rather 

than compare the NHES with the SIPP, we examine the changes from the mid-1990s to 2001 for 

each survey. 

Slightly over one-third of all employed persons ages 18 and older received employer-provided 

classroom training according to the NHES data. And, while the overall percentage of worker 

 

29 Lerman, Robert I., Signe-Mary McKernan, and Stephanie Riegg, “The Scope of Employer-Provided 

Training in the U.S.: Who, What, Where, and How Much?” a chapter in Job Training in the United 

States: History, Effectiveness, and Prospects, O’Leary, Christopher J., Robert A. Straits, and Stephen A. 

Wandner, Editors, Kalamazoo, MI; The W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 2004. 
28 

receiving employer-provided training did not increase between 1995 and 2001, there were a few 

notable demographic shifts as measured in the NHES (Exhibit 12): 

• On average, more-educated workers are increasingly likely to receive employer-provided 

training compared to those who have less education. Workers with some college were 

twice as likely as workers with a high school degree or less to receive employersponsored training in 1995, and this gap grew somewhat by 2001 as the percentage of 

workers with high school education or less who received training declined. 

• On average, the incidence of training increased somewhat for those in the second (+2.4 

percentage points) and third (+4.6 percentage points) quartile earnings ranges. 

Meanwhile employer-provided training decreased by 5 percentage points for workers 

with earnings in the first quartile and decreased marginally (-0.5 percentage points) for 

workers with earnings in the fourth quartile. 

• Younger workers (24 and under) were much less likely to receive employer-provided 

training in 2001 (28 percent) than six years earlier (43 percent). Some of this shift may 

be explained by the aging of America’s workforce; however, it is unlikely that this 

explains the entire shift. Workers in all of the other age cohorts were more likely to 

receive training, on average, in 2001 than in 1995. 

• While the amount of training received by full-time workers (35+ hours per week) 

remained constant (38 percent), part-time workers (less than 35 hours per week) were 6 

percentage points less likely to receive training in 2001. 

• The gender gap in training developed according to the 2001 NHES, with one-third of 

men and 41 percent of women receiving employer-provided classroom training. 

• Asian/Pacific Islanders saw an increase (+7 percentage points) in employer-provided 

training from 1995 to 2001, while other race/ethnicity groups remained constant or 

decreased marginally. 

The SIPP data indicate that closer to one-quarter or one-fifth of all persons age 18-64 received 

employer-provided training in 1996 and 2001 data, respectively. According to SIPP data, nearly 

every demographic category saw some decline in employer-provided training; however, there are 

a few declines in training worth noting (Exhibit 12): 

• Small declines (by 3-5 percentage points) in training occurred across all educational 

categories. 
29 

• Workers with earnings in the second, third, and fourth quartile had employer-provided 

average training hours decrease somewhat (by 2.5 to 3.8 percentage points) while average 

training hours remained constant for workers with earnings in the first quartile between 

1996 and 2001. 

• Persons age 35 to 54 saw employer-provided training decline by about 5 percentage 

points between 1995 and 2001, on average, while older and younger age cohorts saw 

marginal declines. 

• Full-time workers (35+ hours per week) saw modest declines of 5 percentage points 

while part-time workers (less than 35 hours per week) saw little or no decline in 

employer-provided training between 1995 and 2001. 

• As with the NHES, the SIPP indicates that Asian/Pacific Islanders were the only racial 

and ethnic group to see an increase in the percentage receiving employer-provided 

training, however, the shift is marginal and may not be statistically significant. 

Exhibit 13 shows the average number of hours of employer-provided training as measured in the 

NHES in 1995 and 2001 and the SIPP in the 1996 and 2001 panels. Again, we examine changes 

over time in employer-provided within each survey. Overall the average number of hours of 

employer-provided training has declined from nearly 33 hours within the past 6 months in 1995 

to 15 hours in the 2001 NHES. However, as we discussed earlier, the change in the NHES 

between 1995 and 2001 are likely largely due to the change in the way hours of training are 

computed in the NHES survey. Therefore, we focus our discussion of the results on the 2001 

NHES. 

According to the 2001 NHES: 

• Respondents with some college (45 hours) or a Bachelor’s of the Arts degree or higher 

(42 hours) receive many more hours of employer-provided classroom training as 

measured in the 2001 NHES than respondents with a high school education or less (12 

hours). 

• Workers with earnings in the first quartile receive nearly 38 hours of training while 

workers with greater earnings receive many fewer hours of classroom, employerprovided training (26 to 30 hours). 

• Hours of classroom training decline with age, on average, with workers 25 and under 

reporting attending 74 hours per year compared to 50 percent of that figure for workers 
30 

age 25 to 34. The number of hours continues to decline precipitously with age with 

workers 55+ reporting receiving 9 hours, on average, within the past year. 

• Part-time workers report 53 hours of employer-provided training compared to 25 hours 

for full-time workers. This discrepancy may be because part-time workers are also often 

part-time students, though one might have thought that part-time workers might have less 

access to employer-provided training. 

• There is a small gender gap in training hours with women reporting 33 hours and men 28 

hours, on average. 

• There is a great amount of variance in hours of training reported by different ethnic and 

racial groups. Asian/Pacific Islanders report receiving 46 hours per year, the highest of 

any ethnic group, while American Indian/Alaskan Natives report 15 hours, the lowest of 

any group. Whites and blacks receive similar amounts of employer-provided training 

annually, 30 and 28 hours, respectively, while Hispanics receive 23 hours per year 

according to the 2001 NHES data. 

The analysis of SIPP data for 1996 and 2001 shows a decline in the number of hours of 

employer-provided training received by nearly every demographic group, except Asian/Pacific 

Islanders who saw a marginal increase and Hispanics and those with 1st quartile earnings who 

stayed about the same. Some changes within demographic group are of interest: 

• The declines in employer-provided training were greater for persons with some college or 

a Bachelor’s degree or higher than those with a high school education or less, though 

higher educated persons reported more training hours, on average, to begin with. 

• Higher income persons reported greater declines in the number of hours of employerprovided training, for example, those with third quartile earnings reported 6 percentage 

point decline in hours of training, on average. 

• All age cohorts experienced declines in training hours, and no discernable pattern 

emerges from the SIPP data. 

• White, black, and American Indian/Alaskan Natives all saw small decreases in the 

average number of hours of employer-provided training received. And, while the number 

of hour remained the same for Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islanders saw a marginally 

increase of 2 hours. 
31 

C. Job Training Expenditures through Other Private Sources 

To complement the estimates of the amount of training sponsored by private employers, we 

spoke with representatives from seven private entities to obtain their perspectives and 

information about non-public funding received or spent on job training through their institutions 

in the past several years. The entities contacted included:30

• Labor-management partnerships (i.e., Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership, Building 

and Trades Department of the AFL-CIO); 

• Non-profit organizations (i.e., Center for Employment and Training (CET), Seedco and 

the Non-Profit Assistance Corporation, and Morgan Memorial Goodwill Industries, Inc.); 

and 

• Foundations (i.e., The Abell Foundation, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation). 

Officials in labor-management partnerships and non-profit organizations were asked the 

following: 

1. How much, if any, was spent by your organization in the past year from non-public 

sources? What percentage is this of overall expenditures on job training? 

2. If non-public funding was NOT used for job training, why is so? What 

amount/percentage of the organizations annual budget is non-public funding? And 

what are the types of activities non-public funds would be spent on? 

3. If non-public funds were used for job training, what types of training was funded? 

4. What types of training are provided? 

5. What are the per participant costs? 

Foundation representatives were asked: 

1. How much was spent by your company or foundation on training in the past year? 

What percentage of the operating budget was spent on training? 

 

30 Despite several efforts, we were unable within the scope of this study to obtain comments from private 

businesses that fund their own incumbent worker or new hire training. 
32 

2. In general, what types of training were funded? 

3. Was training provided by public or private outside contractors (e.g., community 

college, private provider, etc.)? [Businesses only] 

4. What were the approximate per trainee costs (excluding administrative costs)? 

[Businesses only] 

Labor-Management Partnerships. Two major labor-management partnerships that provide job 

training were contacted—the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) of the 

AFL-CIO and the Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership (WRTP). While the AFL-CIO does 

not fund occupational training itself, the 15 international unions affiliated with the BCTD do 

provide job training opportunities for their members. These 15 unions provide apprentice and 

journeyworker31 training in the United States and abroad. Guaranteed as part of the collective 

bargaining agreements, the apprenticeship programs are operated by private and public sponsors, 

including employers, employer associations, and labor-management organizations.32 It is 

estimated that over $500 million is spent annually on apprenticeship training by the 15 

international unions.33

According to data tracked by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Apprenticeship Training, 

Employer and Labor Services, there are increasing numbers of apprentices in registered 

programs—an increase of 41 percent from 346,000 in 1997 to 489,000 in 2003.34 And, though 

data are only available for 27 states, over three-quarters of the apprenticeships are in the 

construction trades.35 

Officials at BCTD explained that given the cyclical need for workers coupled with the need for 

highly skilled labor in construction, the construction trade lends itself to apprenticeship 

programs. And all employees covered by one of the 15 international unions have access to 

apprenticeship training as part of the collective bargaining agreement. The funds to pay for 

training come from private employers, though these funds may be earned by employers from 

 

31 Journeyworker training refers to training available to building and construction trades union members 

after an apprenticeship to upgrade and/or increase a union member’s skills. 

32 Building and Construction Trades Department. “Apprenticeship Q&A.” http://www.bctd.org/ 

training/training.html (Accessed June 17, 2004). 

33 Ibid. 

34 Bennici, Frank J. with Jeff Strohl and Deborah Posner. “The Status of Registered Apprenticeship: An 

Analysis Using Data from the Registered Apprenticeship Information System.” Report prepared for the 

U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employer and Labor Services by Westat, 

April 2004, p. vi. 

35 Ibid., Table A-5. 
33 

privately- or publicly-funded construction projects. Training and/or apprenticeship costs are paid 

for through monies that are allocated to labor costs. Labor costs include funds for wages, 

pension funds, health and welfare, and training/apprenticeships; the exact proportions are 

decided by the collective bargaining agreement. 

Located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the WRTP is an association of 125 employers and unions that 

sponsors programs to increase job skills and retention and advancement for incumbent workers.36 

Approximately 12 percent of WRTP’s funding is from the private sector and this will increase to 

about 25 percent in 2005 as the construction industry provides $300,000 to $350,000 per year in 

additional funding. These private funds are used for pre-employment training in the form of a 

tutoring program for apprenticeship test preparation and to pay for pre-employment training for 

individuals not eligible for private funds.37 Employers also fund post-employment and 

incumbent worker training programs at WRTP. 

WRTP contracts with local technical colleges (equivalent to community colleges), 

apprenticeship training centers, and individual skilled workers in the Milwaukee metropolitan 

area. WRTP’s trainees include incumbent, dislocated, disadvantaged and workers as well as 

youth. Per trainees costs vary considerable depending on the program, but Independent Training 

Accounts (ITAs) typically allows training up to a cost of $1,500 to $2,500, according to DOL 

officials. Pre-employment training programs are typically 160 hours depending on the skill 

requirements of the job. 

Non-Profit Organizations. Three non-profit organizations that provide job training and related 

services were contacted—Seedco, CET, and Morgan Memorial Goodwill Industries. 38 Though 

similar in many respects, Seedco provides a range of services from economic development 

initiatives to affordable homeownership to workforce development while CET is focused on 

providing basic skills and vocational training in a simulated work environment. The core 

component of Goodwill’s job training and work programs is Employment Services providing 

services including job readiness, job-specific skills training, placement and retention support. 

 

36 For more information see The Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership’s website at 

http://www.wrtp.org. 

37 These types of pre-training activities would not be considered training according to the definition used 

in this study, but it is important to describe precisely what the program contacted provides. 

38 For-profit training and post-secondary institutions also provide training, but were not contacted. 

According to U.S. Department of Education reports, about 75 percent of the students in non-degree postsecondary programs are in for-profit institutions, and over 80 percent of students receive federal or state 

grants and over 80 percent receive loans. See U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Educational Statistics 2005-168. 
34 

Founded in 1986 and headquartered in New York City, Seedco (the Structured Employment 

Economic Development Corporation) operates programs in 15 states, and had an annual 

operating budget of approximately $7 million. Of the $7 million, approximately $600,000 (8.6 

percent) of Seedco’s annual operating budget is from private sources. None of Seedco’s private 

funding dollars are spent on occupational training, and officials there indicated that private 

funders specify how their donations should be spent and generally would not allow their funds to 

be spent on training, mainly because training can be funded using public monies. Private funds 

at Seedco are spent on activities the public/government will not support, such as: infrastructure, 

technology, developing curricula, outcome driven management processes, investing in new 

approaches, and research and development. 

The CET is headquartered in San Jose, California, operates 22 vocational education and training 

centers in 11 states, and has an annual operating budget of $28 million. Of the $28 million, 

approximately 20 percent ($5.6 million) of CET’s annual operating budget is from private 

sources (corporations, foundations, and individuals), though the amount of private funding varies 

from year to year depending on the economy. 

CET officials indicated that their organization pays tuition for individuals in training programs in 

demand occupations such as teachers for child care centers, healthcare occupations, building 

trades (e.g., construction, electrical), and truck driver training. The average tuition cost—$6,500 

per trainee—is paid for with a mix of public and private funds. Tuition pays for five activities: 

job training, job preparation, human development (i.e., soft skills), retention services, and 

outreach/recruitment. Of the total $6,500 tuition costs, the Executive Director of CET estimated 

that at least 75 percent ($4,875 per trainee) goes for job training. In fact, he explained that they 

provide “only training,” not job search, case management, or referral services. Therefore, 75 

percent of CET’s operating budget is spent on training, or approximately $4.2 million. CET 

estimates that it has served 3,500 clients across all 22 locations; this amounts to nearly $17.1 

million spent on job training. 

CET training is designed to reach disadvantaged persons and, therefore, has no minimum 

requirements for education (e.g., minimum reading level), or prior work experience, and accepts 

persons who have criminal records. CET officials feel that they are filling a niche that WIA 

cannot fill, and, in fact, One Stop Career Centers refer clients they are unable to serve to CET. 

In large urban areas where, for example, healthcare workers are in highest demand, CET works 

in conjunction with the One Stop Career Centers. 

Morgan Memorial Goodwill’s employment services program, located in Roxbury, one of 

Boston’s poorest communities, provides job-specific skills training and related services including 
35 

basic and core computer skills training, paid work experiences within Goodwill, placement, and 

career retention and advancement services. In each of the past three fiscal years (July 1 to June 

30), Boston’s Goodwill raised between $2 and $2.8 million from private sources. Of this, 

between 9 and 18 percent has been spent on job training and related services in each fiscal year. 

Goodwill uses this money to provide services to some of the hardest to serve individuals—those 

facing barriers to self-sufficiency including physical and cognitive disabilities, low educational 

achievement and illiteracy, homelessness, substance abuse, welfare dependency, limited English, 

and histories of domestic violence. Goodwill’s goal is independence and economic selfsufficiency, and their Employment Services program costs approximately $850 per person 

including both job training and related services. 

Foundations. Two foundations—The Abell Foundation and The Robert Wood Johnson 

Foundation—were contacted to determine whether and how much was spent on funding 

occupational funding programs. These foundations were selected because they were listed in 

The Foundation Directory, as providing grants for employment and training programs, 

suggesting that the foundation grants may also be used for occupation-specific training. 

Located in Baltimore, The Abell Foundation was founded over 50 years ago, and its primary 

focus today is providing services to very disadvantaged persons in an effort to break the cycle of 

urban poverty. The Abell Foundation has six program areas: education, health and human 

services, workforce development, community development, arts and culture, and conservation 

and environment. With an annual operating budget of about $11-12 million, the workforce 

development program area has a budget of approximately $1 million. 

Though it is difficult to separate out, an estimated 20 percent ($200,000) of the workforce 

development area dollars are spent on training itself, rather than non-training activities and other 

services (e.g., soft skills, retention, placement, and related services). Abell’s funds for 

occupational training are targeted towards training programs that serve individuals “outside the 

system.” That is, funded programs target individuals that do not meet the eligibility 

requirements for many publicly-funded training programs, which might require participants to 

have a high school diploma or GED, no criminal record, or a minimum reading level. 

The Abell Foundation has also funded research and evaluations of the Baltimore Workforce 

System to identify gaps in training and services that might be addressed by foundation grants. 

Some of the job training programs Abell is currently funding include: 

• Good Samaritan Hospital—Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) training program 
36 

• A 12-week culinary arts training program—Moveable Feast—developed for unemployed 

and underemployed Baltimore City residents. Graduates are then placed into employment 

with local restaurants and caterers. 

• STRIVE—a training program that provides primarily soft skills—has an apprenticeship 

program run by Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) for those participants who 

have completed core services. 

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s (RWJF) Human Capital division spent $55.79 million 

in 2003 for programs that “center on attracting, developing and retaining high-quality leadership 

and a workforce to improve health and health care.”39 With a mission to improve the health and 

health care of Americans, the RWJF does not sponsor job training programs. Their emphasis is 

on leadership training in the healthcare field and they provide leadership awards for mid-career 

healthcare professionals. While RWJF does sponsor a medical education summer program for 

undergraduates enrolling in medical school, scholarships are not available for schooling. The 

spokesperson for the RWJF said they are most concerned with increasing the number of doctors 

and nurses providing care and, to that end, they provide skill enhancements for people already in 

the health care field. While there may be a possibility of funding job training programs in the 

future, to date job training has not been a part of RWJF’s mission. 

Other private spending. In addition to the public expenditures on training and the spending 

provided by employers or by foundations that support local training programs, some of the costs 

of job training are borne by the individual workers themselves, say from savings, loans, or family 

resources.40 While it was not possible in this study to precisely estimate individual spending, 

some information about the scale of private financing was obtained from published reports about 

participation in post-secondary education. For example, of the 6.95 million students enrolled in 

two-year or less than two-year post-secondary institutions in the 2002 academic year, about 

195,000 had student loans that year averaging between $2400 (for public two-year schools) and 

$6000 (for private for-profit two-year schools). This means that students in two-year institutions 

obtained loans totaling between $468 million and $1.17 billion that year. If one were to apply 

the same assumptions as used earlier in Exhibit 1 to estimate what share of this might be for 

 

39 For more information see the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s website at 

http://www.rwjf.org/about/funding.jhtml. 

40 See U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, Enrollment in 

Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2002 and Financial Statistics Fiscal Year 2002, Institute of Education 

Statistics, NCES 2005 168; and U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 

Student Financing of Undergraduate Education: 1999-2000 Statistical Analysis Report, Office of 

Educational Research and Improvement NCES 2002-167. 
37 

training (versus degree programs), this suggests that between $234 million and $877 million in 

student loans were used for training (i.e., a low estimate assumption is that 50 percent is for 

training and a high estimate assumption is that 75 percent is for training). 

D. Summary about Privately-funded Job Training 

There are several limitations to the privately-funded estimates of job training discussed in this 

chapter. Some limitations are inherent to the methodology or to the data examined, as already 

noted. The existing employer surveys, for example, are based on different samples of firms, or 

that cover different time periods. To supplement the firm surveys, we contacted representatives 

of a few select organizations and institutions, although they cannot be viewed as represenative of 

all training organizations. Despite the obvious limitations, the information presented in this 

chapter from the various surveys of employers, reports, firms, and agencies suggests a few 

important points: 

• According to the published articles that summarize employer surveys, it appears that 

private spending by businesses on job training has been increasing in the past decade

in terms of total expenditures, per firm expenditures, per trainee costs, and the percentage 

of workers per firm who are trained. 

• Using both the surveys of workers and firms, there is considerable discrepancy between 

workers and firms about how much training workers receive--firms report somewhat 

more training than workers report. Firms report that about 70 percent of their workers 

receive training in a given year. This compares to about 20 to 25 percent of workers in 

firms with more than 100 employees who report receiving training, and 37 percent of 

workers in firms with more than 50 employees. Both employers and workers, though, 

report that the incidence of employer-provided training has increased in the past several 

years. 

• More-educated workers are increasingly likely to receive employer-provided training, 

according to NHES analyses. Workers with some college were twice as likely as workers 

with a high school degree or less to receive employer-sponsored training in 1995; this gap 

grew somewhat by 2001 as the percentage of workers with high school education or less 

who received training declined. 

• Private funders (philanthropic foundations and corporations) generally do not have 

detailed information about how much of their grant funding is going to training, 

however, it represents a very small share of foundation spending. Private foundations 
38 

also provide operating grants to local organizations implementing programs that might be 

used for job training, at the discretion of the grantee organizations. 

• Individual post-secondary education students obtain loans for vocational training, 

which may have totaled between $234 million and $877 million in 2002. 
39 

IV. Conclusion: Making Sense of Estimated Public and Private Expenditures on 

Job Training in the United States 

The previous sections presented information on the level of investment devoted to job training in 

the United States. This section provides a general summary of that information and trends 

observed. 

First, it is important to emphasize again that there are several limitations involved with 

producing these estimates. There is currently no precise way to calculate federal spending on job 

training, in large part because there are many different programs and funding streams, in seven 

federal departments,41 often funded for different times periods (e.g., fiscal year, program year, 

multiple years). It is even more difficult to calculate the number of persons trained, since at the 

local level, programs increasing blend and leverage funds from multiple sources (federal, state, 

local, and private) to pay for training. The estimates in this report are based on the best-available 

data at the time of the analysis, using reports provided by officials in various agencies and 

programs, supplemented with published data reports, and informed judgments of those officials 

and the analysts and authors of this report. The results, therefore, should be viewed as 

approximations, developed to provide a general overview of the scale of spending on job training 

in the U.S. 

In order to better understand the broad scope of job training, a mixed methodology was used to 

extract information from program data systems, longitudinal data files, and the federal budget. 

Then discussions were held with a small number of select federal and state officials and 

representatives of a few foundations, labor-management partnerships, and non-profit 

organizations, to determine their best judgment about training expenditures. The results were 

presented in the previous sections. 

Those results are synthesized here: 

• Federal expenditures on training in 2002 are estimated at between $3.2 and $5.3 billion—

about one-third of that is through DOL programs, one-third through Pell Grants (at twoyear and proprietary post-secondary schools), and one-third through dozens of other 

programs in six other federal departments. (See Table 2.) 
40 

Table 2. 

Federal Spending on Job Training in 2002, 

by Department 

(excluding administrative costs) 

(millions of dollars) 

Department Low Estimate High Estimate 

 $ % $ % 

Labor $ 1,147.4 36.0 $ 1,747.3 33.2

Education—Pell Grants 1,250.0 39.2 1,875.0 35.6

Education—all other 628.8 19.7 1,318.6 25.1

Health and Human Services 93.8 2.9 169.6 3.2

Veterans Affairs 40.4 1.3 121.1 2.3

Housing and Urban Development 26.9 0.1 26.9 0.1

Interior 3.1 <0.1 5.1 <0.1

Justice* 0 0 0 0

TOTAL FEDERAL $ 3,190.4 100.0% $ 5,263.6 100.0%

* DOJ’s Serious and Violent Offender Program was not yet operational. 

• Within the federal government, DOL programs represent about one-third of all training 

expenditures. Within DOL, the WIA Adult Programs and Dislocated Worker Programs 

spend the most on training (50 to 56 percent of all job training spending in DOL), 

followed by Job Corps (which represents about 12 to 18 percent of DOL’s training 

expenditures). Aside from DOL and Pell Grants, the next highest spending on training is 

through Vocational Rehabilitation and the Perkins Act Vocational and Technical 

Programs and Tech Prep Program. (See Table 3.) 

• States spend perhaps another $500 to $700 million a year on training, or about 12 to 17 

percent as much as the federal government. 

• Businesses spend between $46 and $54 billion a year on training for employees—perhaps 

more than ten times as much as the federal government and state governments combined. 

Of that amount, between $8 and $17 billion is spent specifically on training, excluding 

salaries, or about three times as much as the federal and state government combined 

spending.

In summary, we estimate that roughly $50 to $60 billion is spent on job training in the united 

states annually (excluding training provided by the department of defense and excluding training 

paid for by individual workers themselves). The majority of that—perhaps over 90percent—is 

 

41 The Department of Defense also provides training, but this study focuses only on non-defense 

departments and expenditures. 
41 

spent by private companies and employers to train their employees. The federal government 

represents about 6 to 8 percent of the total training expenditures, and states contribute about 1 

percent. 

While the private sector is the primary source of funds for training, it is important to bear in 

mind that higher level and higher income workers are considerably more likely to receive 

employer-funded training than other workers. There is also some evidence that private spending 

on training has declined somewhat in the past few years, perhaps due to the slow down in the 

economy after 2001. The federal government and, to a lesser extent, state governments are the 

primary sources of training funds for retraining incumbent and dislocated workers, training 

lower-level workers and, especially, new labor force entrants. 

Even within the primary programs that fund training, training itself is not the primary activity. 

The exceptions are the Trade Adjustment Assistance and the NAFTA Transitional Adjustment 

Assistance programs, where about 85 percent of the spending is for training. In DOL’s 

dislocated worker programs, for example, between 22 and 36 percent of total spending is for 

training; the rest is for other employment-related activities including job placement, job search 

assistance, testing, assessment, counseling, and life skills preparation. Even with Pell Grants, 

most funds go to students in four-year institutions or general liberal arts degree programs in twoyear schools, not to vocational training; we estimate that less than 20 percent of Pell Grant funds 

are for vocational training in two-year public or private schools. 

Thus, the private sector is the primary funder of worker training in general, especially for those 

with higher levels of education. The federal government, on the other hand, through a variety of 

programs—especially those in DOL and the Pell Grants--is the primary funding source for 

training low-income workers and students enrolled in vocational or occupational training. 

Training per se represents about one-fifth of all employment-related federal spending. 
42 

 Table 3. Estimated Expenditures on Job Training and Number of Trainees in DOL Programs, 2002* 

Program/Funding Source Low Estimate 

($000’s) 

High 

Estimate 

($000’s) 

Approximate 

Number of 

Trainees 

WIA-Dislocated Worker Programs 

WIA-Adult Activities 

WIA-Youth Activities 

Job Corps 

Senior Community Service Employment-National Programs 

Senior Community Service Employment-State Programs 

Welfare-to-Work Competitive Grants 

Welfare-to-Work Formula Grants 

Welfare-to-Work Tribal Grants 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

North American Free Trade Agreement Transitional Adjustment 

Assistance 

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Program 

Native American Employment and Training 

Youth Opportunity Grant Programs 

ETA Earmarks 

H-1B Technical Skills Training Grants 

Youth Offender Demonstration Project 

High Growth Job Training Initiative/Business Relations Group 

Disability Employment and IT Grants combined 

Incumbent/Dislocated Worker Skills Shortages II Demonstration 

Grants 

Quality Child Care Initiative 

Sectoral Employment Demonstration Grant 

Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program 

Veterans’ Workforce Investment Program 

Total Estimate for DOL Programs 

$280,215.0 

303,237.0 

47,801.4 

207,100.0 

33,050.4 

8,678.8 

3,720.2 

11,641.1 

32.0 

79,823.2 

30,000.0 

30,894.5 

20,291.4 

17,820.0 

26,596.3 

12,071.2 

2,695.0 

4,976.9 

6,711.0 

6,161.8 

2,351.3 

463.8 

8,603.8 

2,453.2 

$1,147389.5 

$467,025.0 

505,395.0 

159,338.0 

207,100.0 

66,100.8 

17,357.6 

7,440.4 

23,282.6 

64.0 

79,823.2 

30,000.0 

60,416.0 

20,291.4 

17,820.0 

26,596.3 

19,752.9 

2,695.0 

10,014.8 

6,711.0 

6,161.8 

2,351.3 

463.8 

8,603.8 

2,453.2 

$1,747,258.0 

93,400 

101,000 

63,700 

52,800 

26,100 

6,900 

2,700 

12,300 

not available 

40,700 

9,100 

15,900 

10,600 

not available 

7,200 

29,500 

not available 

not available 

900 

6,100 

1,800 

500 

10,000-13,000 

2,800-3,700 

496,000+ 

 *Other programs that either had no funding in 2002 or funded no job training were also reviewed and are on Exhibits 1 and 2. 
43 

References 

American Society for Training & Development (ASTD), “State of the Industry: ASTD’s Annual 

Review of U.S. and International Trends in Workplace Learning and Performance,” 

2003. 

Bennici, Frank J. with Jeff Strohl and Deborah Posner. “The Status of Registered 

Apprenticeship: An Analysis Using Data from the Registered Apprenticeship 

Information System.” Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of 

Apprenticeship Training, Employer and Labor Services by Westat, April 2004. 

Bosworth, Brian, Dan Broun, Eric Foreman, and Cynthia Liston, “A Comprehensive Look at 

State-Funded, Employer-Focused Job Training Programs.” National Governors’ 

Association, Center for Best Practices. Washington, DC, 1999. 

Building and Construction Trades Department. “Apprenticeship Q&A.” http://www.bctd.org/ 

training/training.html (Accessed June 17, 2004). 

Ellig, Jerry, Maurice McTigue, and Steve Richardson. “Putting a Price on Performance: A 

Demonstration Study of Outcome-Based Scrutiny.” George Mason University: Mercatus 

Center, December 2000. 

Frazis, Harley, Maury Gittleman, Michael Horrigan, and Mary Joyce, “Results from the 1995 

Survey of Employer-Provided Training.” Monthly Labor Review, June 1998, 121(6), pp. 

3-13. 

Frazis, Harley, Diane Herz, and Michael Horrigan, “Employer-Provided Training: Results from a 

New Survey.” Monthly Labor Review, May 1995, 118(5), pp. 3-17. 

Galvin, Tammy, “Industry Report 2003.” Training Magazine, October 2003, pp. 21-45. 

Gundersen, Craig, “State Use of Funds to Increase Work Slots for Food Stamp Recipients: 

Report to Congress,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ERSFANRR No. 15, August 2001. 

Lerman, Robert I., Signe-Mary McKernan, and Stephanie Riegg, ”The Scope of EmployerProvided Training in the U.S.: Who, What, Where, and How Much?” a chapter in Job 

Training in the United States: History, Effectiveness, and Prospects published by The 

W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Forthcoming 2004. 

Lynch, Lisa, and Sandra Black, “Beyond the Incidence of Employer-Provided Training.” 

Industrial & Labor Relations Review, October 1998, 52(1), pp. 64-81. 

Macro, Bronwen, Sherry Almandsmith, and Megan Hague, “Creating Partnerships for 

Workforce Investment: How Services are Provided under WIA.” Report prepared for the 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Training Administration, Office of Policy 

Development, Evaluation, and Research. Washington, DC: DOL/ETA Occasional Paper 

2003-08, December 2003. 
44 

North Carolina Community College System, “A Matter of Facts: The North Carolina 

Community College System Fact Book.” Raleigh, North Carolina, 2004. 

Pearson Government Solutions. “2001-2002 Title IV/Federal Pell Grant Program: End of Year 

Report.” U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. 

Washington, D.C., 2004. http://www.ed.gov/finaid/prof/resources/data/pell0102.pdf 

(Accessed August 26, 2004). 

Pindus, Nancy and Kellie Isbell. Involving Employers in Training: Literature Review.

Washington, DC: DOL/ETA Research and Evaluation Report Series 97-K, 1997. 

Schwarzenegger, Arnold. “California State Governor's Proposed Budget for 2004 - 2005. Labor 

and Workforce Development Section.” Sacramento, CA, January 9, 2004. 

Social Policy Research Associates. PY 2002 WIASRD Data Book. Report prepared for 

Performance and Results Office, Employment and Training Administration, Department 

of Labor. Washington, D.C., May 6, 2004. 

http://www.doleta.gov/performance/results/PY_2002_WIASRD_Databook.pdf. 

Stoddard, Susan, Stuart Hanson, and Tanya Temkin, “An Evaluation o Choice Demonstration 

Projects,” Berkeley, CA: InfoUse, 1999. 

Training Magazine Staff Editors, “Industry Report 1995: A Statistical Picture of Employee 

Training in America.” Training Magazine, October 1995. 

U.S. Department of Education. “2003 Campus-Based Programs Data Book.” Washington, D.C., 

2003. http://www.ed.gov/finaid/prof/resources/data/databook2003/index.html. 

(Accessed August 25, 2004). 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, Enrollment in 

Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2002 and Financial Statistics Fiscal Year 2002, Institute 

of Education Statistics, NCES 2005 168. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Student Financing of 

Undergraduate Education: 1999-2000 Statistical Analysis Report, Office of Educational 

Research and Improvement NCES 2002-167 

U.S. Department of Education. Office of Vocational and Adult Education. “Carl D. Perkins 

Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998. Program Year 2001-2002: Report to 

Congress on State Performance.” Washington D.C., May 2004. 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/resource/vereport01-02.doc 

U.S. Department of Education. Office of Vocational and Adult Education. “Funding Status of the 

Native American Vocational and Technical Education Program.” Washington, D.C., 

May 2004. http://www.ed.gov/programs/cteivep/funding.html 
45 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Administration on Developmental Disabilities 

Fact Sheet.” Washington, D.C., 2004. 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/add/factsheet.htm. (Accessed August 23, 2004). 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Fiscal Year 2002 TANF Financial Data.” 

Washington, D.C., 2002. http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofs/data/index.html. 

(Accessed July 1, 2004). 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Program Overview: Individual Development 

Accounts.” Washington, D.C., 2004. 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/demo/ida/background.html. (Accessed July 1, 

2004). 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Socials Services Block Grants 2002, Annual 

Report.” Washington, D.C., 2004. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs 

ocs/ssbg/annrpt/2002/. (Accessed August 24, 2004). 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Program Overview: Urban and Rural 

Community Development.” Washington, D.C., 2004. 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fbci/progs/fbci_ced.html. (Accessed July 1, 2004). 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. “Summary of Budget 

Authority, Fiscal Years 2002-2003.” Washington, DC, May 2003. 

http://www.doleta.gov/budget/03req$.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. “State Reporting of 

Formula Spending for Program Years 2000-2003 for Dislocated Workers, Adults, and 

Youth.” This series of 12 reports can be found at the following websites (Accessed July 

27, 2004): 

1. PY 2003 Dislocated Workers http://www.doleta.gov/budget/033104diswkrspend.pdf 

2. PY 2003 Adults http://www.doleta.gov/budget/033104adultspend.pdf 

3. PY 2003 Youth http://www.doleta.gov/budget/033104youthspend.pdf 

4. PY 2002 Dislocated Workers http://www.doleta.gov/budget/063003diswkrspend.pdf 

5. PY 2002 Adults http://www.doleta.gov/budget/063003adultspend.pdf 

6. PY 2002 Youth http://www.doleta.gov/budget/063003youthspend.pdf 

7. PY 2001 Dislocated Workers http://www.doleta.gov/budget/063002diswkrspend.pdf 

8. PY 2001 Adults http://www.doleta.gov/budget/063002adultspend.pdf 

9. PY 2001 Youth http://www.doleta.gov/budget/063002youthspend.pdf 

10. PY 2000 Dislocated Workers http://www.doleta.gov/budget/063001diswkrspend.pdf 

11. PY 2000 Adults http://www.doleta.gov/budget/063001adultspend.pdf 

12. PY 2000 Youth http://www.doleta.gov/budget/063001youthspend.pdf 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. “Summary of Budget 

Authority, Fiscal Years 2002-2003.” Washington, D.C., May 2003. 

http://www.doleta.gov/budget/03req$.pdf 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. “Job Corps Annual 

Report.” Washington, D.C., Program Year 1998. 
46 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. “Job Corps Annual 

Report.” Washington, D.C., Program Year 1999. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. “Job Corps Annual 

Report.” Washington, D.C., Program Year 2000. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. “Job Corps Annual 

Report.” Washington, D.C., Program Year 2001. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. “Job Corps Annual 

Report.” Washington, D.C., Program Year 2002. 

U.S. Government Printing Office. Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005—

Appendix. Washington, DC, January 2004. 

U.S. Government Printing Office. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, 2003. Washington, 

DC, October 2003. http://12.46.245.173/pls/portal30/SYSTEM.PDF_CATALOG_DYN. 

show (Accessed March 17, 2004). 

Van Buren, Mark E. and William Erskine, “State of the Industry: ASTD’s Annual Review of 

Trends in Employer-Provided Training in the United States.” Washington DC: American 

Society for Training and Development, February 2002. 
Exhibit 1: Federally-funded Job Training:

Estimated Annual Expenditures on Training for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

NA NA NA NA $5,263,514,029 NANA NA NA NA $3,190,306,867 NA

Total for DOL Programs that Provide at least some Occupational Training (High Estimate) $1,879,943,129 $1,712,835,940 $1,338,476,072 $1,562,186,781 $1,747,257,929 NATotal for DOL Programs that Provide at least some Occupational Training (Low Estimate) $1,281,897,233 $1,194,193,334 $911,698,067 $1,056,758,861 $1,147,389,530 NA

Dislocated Worker Employment and Training Activities 

(incl. admin)

$956,124,342 $1,331,681,114 $1,302,031,085 $807,901,735

Disl. Worker--high estimate of training expenditures (excl. admin)

$674,980,000 $552,405,000 $282,655,000 $348,745,000 $467,025,000

Disl. Worker--low estimate of training expenditures (excl. admin.)

$404,988,000 $331,443,000 $169,593,000 $209,247,000 $280,215,000

Adult Employment and Training Activities total 

expenditures (incl. Admin)

$741,965,220 $1,052,453,491 $1,089,853,396 $683,481,856

Adult-high estimate of training expenditures (excl. admin.) $591,840,000 $496,735,000 $264,010,000 $430,015,000 $505,395,000

Adult-low estimate of training expenditures (excl. admin) $355,104,000 $298,041,000 $158,406,000 $258,009,000 $303,237,000

Youth Activities--total expenditures (incl. admin) $792,299,114 $1,087,295,759 $1,173,388,196 $807,929,364 Tot

Statexpwer

Youth--high est. of expenditures on training (excl. admin.) $187,050,240 $167,898,788 $159,338,020 Hig

(PYprog$50recehighPY2precSouFor

Employment Training and Administration

Federally Funded Program

Annual Expenditures on Training (excluding administrative costs)

Department of LaborTotal for Federal Programs from 7 Agencies that Provide at least some Occupational Training (High Estimate)Total for Federal Programs from 7 Agencies that Provide at least some Occupational Training (Low Estimate)

TotobtarepoprovtherPY Admtrainnumassutrainstaffrom WIA rese

Workforce Investment Act of 1998

1-1
Exhibit 1: Federally-funded Job Training:

Estimated Annual Expenditures on Training for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Federally Funded Program

Annual Expenditures on Training (excluding administrative costs)

Youth--low est of expenditures on training (excl. admin.) $56,115,072 $50,369,636 $47,801,406 Low 

(PYinclPY2prec

1-2
Exhibit 1: Federally-funded Job Training:

Estimated Annual Expenditures on Training for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Federally Funded Program

Annual Expenditures on Training (excluding administrative costs)

Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP)--National Programs total expenditures (excl. 

admin.)

$270,968,563 $269,512,432 $271,065,830 $260,454,505 $264,396,351 $266,280,000

SCSEP National--high estimate of training expenditures (excl. admin.)

$67,740,738 $67,387,652 $67,771,369 $65,120,080 $66,100,804 $66,575,400

SCSEP National:--low estimate of training expenditures (excl. admin.)

$33,870,369 $33,693,826 $33,885,685 $32,560,040 $33,050,402 $33,287,700

Senior Community Service Employment Program 

(SCSEP)--State Programs total expenditures (excl. 

admin.)

$59,181,437 $60,637,568 $59,084,170 $69,695,495 $69,428,649 $66,570,000

SCSEP State-high estimate of training expenditures (excl. admin.)

$14,795,053 $15,161,539 $14,772,113 $17,425,601 $17,357,613 $16,643,850

SCSEP State--low estimate of training expenditures (excl. admin.)

$7,397,527 $7,580,770 $7,386,057 $8,712,800 $8,678,807 $8,321,925

Job Corps spending on training (excl. admin.) $163,600,000 $171,500,000 $176,100,000 $188,100,000 $207,100,000 NA Sou

200SumDat199

Welfare-to-Work Grants to States and Localities--Competitive Grants total estimated cumulative competitive grantee expenditures=$469,720,850(incl. admin.)

$0 $103,338,587 $103,338,587 $103,338,587 $103,338,587 $103,338,587

WtW-Competitive-- high estimate training expenditures (excl. admin.)

$0 $7,440,378 $7,440,378 $7,440,378 $7,440,378 $7,440,378

WtW-Competitive--low estimated training expenditures (excl. admin.)

$0 $3,720,189 $3,720,189 $3,720,189 $3,720,189 $3,720,189

Welfare-to-Work Grants to States and Localities--Formula Grants total estimated cumulative formula grantee expenditures=$1,469,861,811 (incl. admin.)

$0 $323,369,598 $323,369,598 $323,369,598 $323,369,598 $323,369,598

WtW-Formula-high estimate federal training costs (excl. admin.)

$0 $23,282,611 $23,282,611 $23,282,611 $23,282,611 $23,282,611

WtW-Formula--low estimate federal training costs (excl. admin.)

$0 $11,641,306 $11,641,306 $11,641,306 $11,641,306 $11,641,306

Welfare-to-Work Grants to Federally Recognized Tribes and Alaska Natives total estimated cumulative 

$0 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000

WtW Tribal high estimate of training costs (excl. admin.) $0 $64,000 $64,000 $64,000 $64,000 $64,000WtW Tribal low estimate of training costs (excl. admin.) $0 $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 $32,000Trade Adjustment Assistance --total expenditures (incl. admin.)

$96,700,000 $94,300,000 $92,665,343 $94,345,730 $94,494,164 $220,050,000

TAA--training expenditures (excl. admin.) $82,195,000 $80,155,000 $78,765,542 $80,000,000 $79,823,235 $190,000,000North American Free Trade Agreement Transitional Adjustment Assistance--total expenditures

$30,659,213 $36,888,399 $34,744,443 $35,653,584 $36,512,472 $36,997,999

NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance--training expenditures (excl. admin.)

$26,060,331 $31,355,139 $29,532,777 $30,000,000 $29,999,955 $30,000,000

DOon call eProsepaAnaof trtrainassuhalf compartis folocaand (199200For allotrainexpof to200TheThe All use expspenwerEvarepoexphalf estiappgrancostAnamillremfor of n

1-3
Exhibit 1: Federally-funded Job Training:

Estimated Annual Expenditures on Training for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Federally Funded Program

Annual Expenditures on Training (excluding administrative costs)

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers total expenditures (incl. admin.)

$73,000,000 $80,000,000 $75,000,000 $41,000,000 $80,770,000 $25,371,582

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers total expenditures (excl. admin.)

$62,050,000 $68,000,000 $63,750,000 $34,850,000 $68,654,500

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers high estimate-spending on training (excl. admin.)

$54,604,000 $59,840,000 $56,100,000 $30,668,000 $60,415,960

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers low est.spending on training (excl. admin.)

$48,051,520 $52,659,200 $49,368,000 $26,987,840 $30,894,525

Native American Employment and Training--training expenditures (excl. admin.)

$21,528,044 $19,760,388 $31,593,164 $31,541,541 $20,291,353 ETA

specExp

School-to-Work Grants--estimated total grantee expenditures (incl. admin.)

$286,000,000 $240,000,000 $105,000,000 $50,000,000 $0 $0

School-to-Work--high estimate of training expenditures (excl. admin.)

$150,150,000 $126,000,000 $55,125,000 $26,250,000 $0 $0

School-to-Work-low estimate of training expenditures (excl. admin.)

$100,100,000 $84,000,000 $36,750,000 $17,500,000 $0 $0

Faith-Based and Community Initiatives All grants are for capacity 

building and program 

development, not direct 

training

ThrwerAll expdire

Youth Opportunity Grant Program--total expenditures by grantees (incl. Admin.)

No funding $221,000,000 $220,000,000 $220,000,000 $198,000,000 $39,600,000

Youth Opportunity Grant Program--estimated expenditures on training (excl. admin.)

$0 $19,890,000 $19,800,000 $19,800,000 $17,820,000 $3,564,000

ETA Earmarks total (incl. Admin.) $0 $13,675,000 $36,262,000 $58,957,000 $62,649,000 $41,351,000 The 

the for or pothenumtrainspenExpjudgobli-all year 200acti199estiis th

Other ETA Demonstration Grants and Earmarks

Accon "manservestithat was 20012/3BudExpdiscprodfund$22natithe into sitego tOppdevcenprov

1-4
Exhibit 1: Federally-funded Job Training:

Estimated Annual Expenditures on Training for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Federally Funded Program

Annual Expenditures on Training (excluding administrative costs)

 Total Number of ETA Earmark Grants 0 13 42 89 106 116 The 

fundobtainst

Number of ETA Earmark Grants focused on providing occupational training

0 0 1 51 45 82

Percent of ETA Earmark Grants focused on providing occupational training

0 0.0% 2.4% 57.3% 42.5% 70.7%

Estimated Amount of ETA Earmark funds spent on occupational training (excl. admin.)

0 $0 $863,381 $33,784,348 $26,596,274 $29,230,879

H-1B Technical Skills Training Grants total expenditures (incl. admin)

Program not operating Program not operating $12,001,632 $44,207,937 $54,869,243 NA Figu

admto uto rerepoexpcapp

H-1B Grants--high estimate of training expenditures (excl. admin.)

$4,320,588 $15,914,857 $19,752,927 NA

H-1B Grants--low estimate of training expenditures (excl. admin.)

$2,640,359 $9,725,746 $12,071,233 NA

Youth Offender Demonstration Project (YODP)--total expenditures by grantees (incl. Admin.)

$10,500,000 No new funding $11,760,000 $53,900,000 $53,900,000 $53,900,000

YODP--estimated expenditures on training (excl. admin.) $525,000 $0 $588,000 $2,695,000 $2,695,000 $2,695,000High Growth Job Training Initiative/Business Relations Group (BRG) total funding (incl. Admin.)

Program not operating Program not operating Program not operating $23,910,396 $30,533,048 $25,776,267

BRG-high estimate of training expenditures (excl. admin.) $7,842,610 $10,014,840 $8,454,616BRG-low estimate of training expenditures (excl. admin.) $3,897,395 $4,976,887 $4,201,532Disability Employment Grants and Disability IT Grants-grant awards totals (incl. Admin.)

$6,800,000 $6,800,000 $6,800,000 No DEG or DITI 

Funding

$8,485,423 $8,485,423

TheyearcreaInfoassudemusedand and PY amotrainWhactuapptraincurrdevinstpercWIA 32.8totaDis200The Expdisc

prodeach wenthe remsurvpercbulk spec

1-5
Exhibit 1: Federally-funded Job Training:

Estimated Annual Expenditures on Training for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Federally Funded Program

Annual Expenditures on Training (excluding administrative costs)

Disability Employment Grants training expenditures (excl. admin.)

$6,011,700 $6,011,700 $6,011,700 No Funding $4,936,639 $4,936,639

Disability IT Training grants training expenditures (excl. admin.)

No funding No funding No funding No funding $1,774,392 $1,774,392

Incumbent/Dislocated Worker Skills Shortages II Demonstration Grants-expenditures on training (excl. admin.)

Program not operating Program not operating Program not operating $6,161,809 $6,161,809 $6,161,809 19 g

granendamohere of $

Quality Child Care Initiative--estimated expenditures on training (excl. admin.)

Program not 

operating

$3,248,788 No new funding $3,066,846 $2,351,307 No new funding Gra

duraTherembut 

Sectoral Employment Demonstration Grant expendiures on training (excl. admin.)

Program not operating Program not operating Program not operating $463,832 $463,832 No new funding 11 g

9/303/31occThe amoof $

Minority Colleges and Universities Workforce Partnerships and Training Strategies to Address Skill Shortages Demonstration Program - estimated expenditures on training (excl. admin.)

Program not operating Program not operating $2,619,744 $0 $0 $0 Gra

200werin thmay by tand train

Dislocated Worker Hardmark Grants total funds (incl. Admin.)

Program not operating $2,275,113 $3,259,803 $6,029,341 No new funding NA Info

hardmay addestiwith offiexpall c

Dislocated Worker Hardmark Grants--high estimate of training expenditures (Excl. admin.)

Program not operating $819,041 $1,173,529 $2,170,563 No new funding NA

Dislocated Worker Hardmark Grants--low estimate of training expenditures (excl. admin.)

Program not operating $500,525 $717,157 $1,326,455 No new funding NA

Infoanaappdislcom

trainFiguTheEmp

1-6
Exhibit 1: Federally-funded Job Training:

Estimated Annual Expenditures on Training for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Federally Funded Program

Annual Expenditures on Training (excluding administrative costs)

Comprehensive Incumbent/Dislocated Worker Retraining Demonstration Grants-expenditures on training (excl. admin.)

Program not operating Program not operating $3,018,157 $3,018,157 No new funding No new funding 6 gr

6/30occgranand to a 

Innovation in Apprenticeship for Women--total funding (incl. admin.)

$748,000 No new funding No new funding No new funding No new funding No new funding

Innovation in Apprenticeship for Women--estimated expenditure on training (excl. admin.)

$374,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Dislocated Worker Technology Demonstration Program - estimated expenditure on training(excl. admin.)

$3,582,295 $3,582,295 No new funding No new funding No new funding No new funding 12 g

6/30occgranand to a 

Contextual Learning Demonstration Program-total funding (incl. admin.)

Program not operating $6,195,699 No new funding No new funding No new funding No new funding

Contextual Learning Demonstration Program-estimated expenditure on training (excl. admin.)

$0 $3,097,850 $0 $0 $0 $0

Labor Organization Adjustment Assistance - total funding (incl. admin.)

$1,973,935 No new funding No new funding No new funding No new funding No new funding

Labor Organization Adjustment Assistance-estimated expenditure on training (excl. admin.)

$986,968 No new funding No new funding No new funding No new funding No new funding

Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP)--total expenditures (incl. Admin.)

Program not operating $3,000,000 $9,500,000 $16,900,000 $17,900,000 $17,600,000

HVRP--estimated expenditures on training (excl. admin.) $0 $2,082,960 $4,375,800 $7,938,480 $8,603,760 $7,155,060

Veterans' Employment and Training Service

8 grfor No appsubexp7 grEngon sfund50% AnnthertrainIn 1Sinc(paialso gransuppperhthe fundtrainHVproj4 grinfojudgexp

1-7
Exhibit 1: Federally-funded Job Training:

Estimated Annual Expenditures on Training for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Federally Funded Program

Annual Expenditures on Training (excluding administrative costs)

Veterans' Workforce Investment Program (VWIP) total spending (incl. Admin.)

$6,100,000 $7,300,000 $6,500,000 $5,800,000 $6,400,000 NA

VWIP--estimated expenditures on training (excl. admin.) $2,574,000 $2,856,600 $2,542,980 $2,447,280 $2,453,220 $0

AnnthertrainIn 1OJTtrainassusincsuppperhthe fundtrainHV

1-8
Exhibit 1: Federally-funded Job Training:

Estimated Annual Expenditures on Training for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Federally Funded Program

Annual Expenditures on Training (excluding administrative costs)

NA NA NA NA $3,193,564,209 NANA NA NA NA $1,878,842,743 NA

Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education-basic grant to states (Title I) and Tech Prep grants (Title II)-total funds (incl. Admin)

$1,288,000,000

Voc. Tech and Tech Prep expenditures on training (excl. admin.)--high estimate

$644,000,000

Voc. Tech and Tech Prep expenditures on training (excl. admin.)--low estimate

$386,400,000

State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders--total funding (incl. Admin.)

Program not operating Program not operating Program not operating $17,000,000 $17,000,000 $18,380,000

State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders--expenditures on training (excl. admin.)--high estimate

$8,500,000

State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders--expenditures on training (excl. admin.)--low estimate

$5,100,000

Native American Vocational and Technical Education Program (NAVTEP)

$14,750,000

NAVTEP-expenditures on training-high estimate $7,375,000NAVTEP-expenditures on training-low estimate $4,425,000Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions--total spending

$2,919,000 $4,067,028 $4,599,940 $5,588,287 $7,500,000 $6,954,500

Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutionsestimated spending on training (excl. admin) $2,627,100 $3,660,325 $4,139,946 $5,029,458 $6,750,000 $6,259,050Native Hawaiian Vocational Education $2,590,489 $2,602,618 $2,579,625 $2,639,618 $2,759,000 $2,950,000 For 

for projof JEstioffiyear

f i i f ll d

Total for DOE Programs that provide at least some Occupational Training (High Estimate)Total for DOE Programs that provide at least some Occupational Training (Low Estimate)

For StatActlead$1,1used 50% man30% abosecoTheout this for traincouAcc$14reguestithat 

Department of Education

Office of Vocational and Adult Education

AdmConschoAnatech trainfacinon

1-9
Exhibit 1: Federally-funded Job Training:

Estimated Annual Expenditures on Training for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Federally Funded Program

Annual Expenditures on Training (excluding administrative costs)

Vocational Rehabilitation-State Grants--Total Expenditures(excl. admin)

$2,349,796,388 200

Serv16. spenVRgran

Vocational Rehabilitation--State Grants-Expenditures on Services to Individuals (excl. admin)

$1,351,434,108 NA Serv

DepProinclcoaageincl$1,7fedeamo

Vocational Rehabilitation--State Grants-Expenditures on Training to Individuals (excl. admin)--high estimate

$614,568,919 Hig

Pro$78esti78.7

Vocational Rehabilitation--State Grants-Expenditures on Training to Individuals (excl. admin)--low estimate

$202,715,116 Low 

estivocHanDemRepesti

Supported Employment State Grants-total funding (incl. Admin)

$37,000,000

Supp. Empl. Grants-expenditures on training-high estimate (excl. admin.)

$18,500,000

Supp. Empl. Grants-expenditures on training-low estimate (excl. admin.)

$11,100,000

Rehabilitation Services--American Indians with Disabilities--total funding (incl. Admin)

$28,000,000

Rehab. Services Am. Ind. With Disabilities-expenditures on training-high estimate (excl. admin.)

$280,000

Rehab. Services Am. Ind. With Disabilities-expenditures on training-low estimate (excl. admin.)

$140,000

FunCFDassufundplacdiretrainSouAss

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

FunCFDassufundfollestitrainSouAss

1-10
Exhibit 1: Federally-funded Job Training:

Estimated Annual Expenditures on Training for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Federally Funded Program

Annual Expenditures on Training (excluding administrative costs)

Projects with Industry-total funding (incl. Admin.) $22,071,000 $22,071,000 $22,017,000 $21,927,538PWI-expenditures on training-high estimate (excl. admin) $11,008,500PWI-expenditures on training-low estimate (excl. admin) $6,605,100Independent Living State Grants-total funding (incl. Admin.) $22,000,000ILSG expenditures on training -high estimate $2,200,000ILSG expenditures on training -low estimate $1,100,000Pell Grant Program-total amt. of grants $11,600,000,000Pell Grants-expenditures on training-high estimate $1,875,000,000Pell Grants-expenditures on training-low estimate $1,250,000,000Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants-total amt.of grants

$918,000,000

FSEOG-expenditures on training-high estimate $2,622,790FSEOG-expenditures on training-low estimate $1,748,527

FY2assube ucapoutrfor estiSouAssFY2$11amoAnafor occdegSouIV/FFY2$91Proyear estiestiprogSouPro

Office of Student Financial Assistance

TheoccSepanadire(vermanSouAss

1-11
Exhibit 1: Federally-funded Job Training:

Estimated Annual Expenditures on Training for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Federally Funded Program

Annual Expenditures on Training (excluding administrative costs)

NA NA NA NA $169,623,491 NANA NA NA NA $93,771,035 NA

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families--total funds available to states (incl. Admin.) (incl. carryover)

$13,897,481,863

TANF-expenditures on training--high estimate (excl. admin.) $106,976,141TANF-expenditures on training--low estimate (excl. admin.) $64,185,685Tribal Work Programs (TANF and NEW) total spending (incl. Admin.)

$37,000,000

Tribal Work Programs-expenditures on training--high estimate (excl. admin.)

$5,920,000

Tribal Work Programs-expenditures on training--low estimate (excl. admin.)

$2,960,000

Social Services Block Grant-total spending (SSBG plus TANF transfers) (excluding admin.)

$2,408,770,000

Social Services Block Grant-total spending on education/training (excl. admin)(SSBG plus TANF transfers)

$18,000,000

SSBG (incl. TANF transfers)-spending on training-high estimate (excl. admin.)

$9,000,000

SSBG-spending (incl. TANF transfers) on training-low estimate (excl. admin.)

$5,400,000

Administration for Children and FamiliesTotal for HHS Programs that provide at least some Occupational Training (High Estimate)Total for HHS Programs that provide at least some Occupational Training (Low Estimate)

Profrom Expwas thisTrafor estiwas Sou

Department of Health and Human Services

In 1trib$76than that HHtrainestiestiadmSouACspenexcexp($2spenspenjudgSou

1-12
Exhibit 1: Federally-funded Job Training:

Estimated Annual Expenditures on Training for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Federally Funded Program

Annual Expenditures on Training (excluding administrative costs)

Community Services Block Grant total (incl. Admin.) $579,000,000 $635,561,383CSBG-training expenditures high estimate (excl. admin.) $6,000,000 $6,000,000CSBG-training expenditures low estimate (excl. admin) $2,400,000 $2,400,000Refugee and Entrant Assitance (REA)--State Grants total spending (incl. Admin.)

$230,000,000 $230 ,000,000

REA State Grants-expenditures on training--high estimate (excl. admin.)

$18,400,000

REA State Grants-expenditures on training--low estimate (excl. admin.)

$9,200,000

Refugee and Entrant Assistance Discretionary Grants total spending (incl. Admin.)

$85,000,000 $85,000,000

REA Discretionary-expenditures on training-high estimate (excl. admin.)

$6,800,000

REA Discretionary-expenditures on training-low estimate (excl. admin.)

$3,400,000

200Assappexp4% Sou200Assappexp4% SouPro(OCFY212,0traintrainaver($50sour

prog200that trainSouNat"FirCom

1-13
Exhibit 1: Federally-funded Job Training:

Estimated Annual Expenditures on Training for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Federally Funded Program

Annual Expenditures on Training (excluding administrative costs)

Developmental Disabilities Programs-total spending (incl. admin).

$140,800,000

DD Programs-expenditures on training high est. (excl. admin.)

$2,208,600

DD Programs-expenditures on training low est. (excl. admin.) $368,100Foster Care Independent Living Program-total fed funding (incl. Admin.)

$137,900,000 $137,900,000 $137,900,000 $137,900,000 $137,900,000 $137,900,000

ILP-expendiures on training-high est. (excl. admin.) $4,137,000ILP-expendiures on training-low est. (excl. admin.) $689,500Refugee Assistance--Voluntary Agency Programs total spending (incl. Admin.)

$59,000,000 $53,000,000

REA-VolAg--expenditures on training high est. (excl. admin.) $4,720,000REA-VolAg--expenditures on training low est. (excl. admin.0 $2,360,000

in CgranvoluprovexpestiSouProof wadmservfundempemplikeand assiGrafor was trainSouHHgranDisand NetFY2spenbuilgrandemFedspectrainSignestigranSouFac

1-14
Exhibit 1: Federally-funded Job Training:

Estimated Annual Expenditures on Training for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Federally Funded Program

Annual Expenditures on Training (excluding administrative costs)

Refugee and Entrant Assistance--Targeted Assistance total spending (incl. Admin.)

$44,000,000 $44,000,000

REA-Targeted- expenditures on training--high estimate (excl. admin.)

$3,520,000

REA-Targeted- expenditures on training--low estimate (excl. admin.)

$1,760,000

Individual Development Accounts (IDA)--grantee award totals (incl. Admin.)

program not operating $7,600,000 $6,900,000 $21,200,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000

IDA estimated expenditure on training (post-sec. ed. Occupation-related) (excl. admin.)

$153,750

Community Services Discretionary (CED) total spending (incl. Admin.)

$14,000,000 $14,000,000

CED-expenditures on training--high est. (excl. admin.) $140,000 $140,000CED-expenditures on training--low est. (excl. admin.) $70,000 $70,000Refugees and Entrant--Wilson/Fish Program total spending (incl. Admin.)

$12,000,000 $12,000,000

REA-Wilson/Fish--expenditures on training--high est (excl. admin.)

$960,000

REA-Wilson/Fish--expenditures on training--low est (excl. admin.)

$480,000

Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI)--grants awarded (incl. Admin.)

$4,374,277 $4,122,235 $7,713,625 $3,418,296 $4,300,000 $4,300,000

JOLI--expenditures on training-high est. (excl. admin.) $699,884 $659,558 $1,234,180 $546,927 $688,000 $688,000JOLI--expenditures on training-low est. (excl. admin.) $349,942 $329,779 $617,090 $273,464 $344,000 $344,000

REA200provexpestiSouTo ptrainto eestirateSouProwithrougthoscost appSouAccFY2millis uestiCSBlow SouDevProprogbusprovoccto ebe ucost moscomto 3 and Dom$4,3Sou

1-15
Exhibit 1: Federally-funded Job Training:

Estimated Annual Expenditures on Training for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Federally Funded Program

Annual Expenditures on Training (excluding administrative costs)

Chafee Independent Training Vouchers (aging out of foster care)

program not operating program not operating program not operating program not operating program not operating No 

200

Unaccompanied Alien Children Program total appropriation for FY2003

Program not operating $16,000,000 Spe

in 2Sou

$14,895,000 $17,595,000 $18,000,000 $22,970,250 $26,887,500 $24,219,900

Youth Build Program--total expenditures awarded by HUD (includes admin)

$33,100,000 $39,100,000 $40,000,000 $51,045,000 $59,750,000 $53,822,000

Youth Build Program--expenditures on training (includes admin)

$16,550,000 $19,550,000 $20,000,000 $25,522,500 $29,875,000 $26,911,000

Youth Build Program--expenditures on training (excludes admin)

$14,895,000 $17,595,000 $18,000,000 $22,970,250 $26,887,500 $24,219,900

$101,610,900 $101,079,900 $113,467,950 $104,240,250 $121,096,800 $125,913,150

$33,870,300 $33,693,300 $37,822,650 $34,746,750 $40,365,600 $41,971,050

Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program--total expenditures on employment/training, excluding subsistance allowances and admin. Costs

$225,802,000 $224,622,000 $252,151,000 $231,645,000 $269,104,000 $279,807,000 The 

disasubrelasuppprogSouApp

Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program--expenditures on training (high estimate)

$101,610,900 $101,079,900 $113,467,950 $104,240,250 $121,096,800 $125,913,150 In o

goinspensugin DvocThe 

betwincoHowindirequof a The parteduspencostcoutrain

Total for DVA Programs that provide at least some Occupational Training-low estimateTotal for HUD Programs that provide at least some Occupational Training

Department of Veterans' Affairs

Total for DVA Programs that provide at least some occupational training--high estimate

Department of Housing and Urban Development

1-16
Exhibit 1: Federally-funded Job Training:

Estimated Annual Expenditures on Training for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Federally Funded Program

Annual Expenditures on Training (excluding administrative costs)

Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program--expenditures on training (low estimate)

$33,870,300 $33,693,300 $37,822,650 $34,746,750 $40,365,600 $41,971,050 In o

goinspenresewhitrain

NA NA NA NA $5,084,100 NANA NA NA NA $3,050,460 NA

Indian Employment Assistance $7,800,000

IEA-expenditures on training high estimate $3,510,000IEA-expenditures on training low estimate $2,106,000Indian Vocational Training--United Tribes Technical College $2,980,000IVT-expenditures on training high estimate $1,341,000IVT-expenditures on training low estimate $804,600Ironworker Training Program $518,000ITP-expenditures on training high estimate $233,100ITP-expenditures on training low estimate $139,860

$0 $0

Serious and Violent Offenders Program not operating Program not operating Program not operating Program not operating $0 $0 The 

somHowhad EstiCFDhigh 30% SouEstiless that trainSou

Total for DOI Programs that provide at least some Occupational Training (Low Estimate)Total for DOI Programs that provide at least some Occupational Training (High Estimate)

Figures for 2003 may be incomplete or missing for some programs since the program year does not end until June 30, 2004.

Esti), leis thactuappSou

Notes: NA = Not Available.Department of JusticeDepartment of the Interior

Total for DOJ Programs that provide at least some Occupational Training

1-17
Exhibit 2: Obligations for Federal Programs that Provide Job Training, Estimated Annual Expenditures,

and Job Training Expenditures as a Percent of Expenditures, 2002

Annual Obligations

2002 1

Annual Total Program 

Expenditures 2

Annual Expenditures on 

Job Training--High 

estimate

(See Exhibit 1) 3 

Annual Expendiu

on Job Training L

Estimate

(See Exhibit 1)

$48,580,009,557 $39,008,559,258 $5,263,514,029 $3,190,306,868 

Total for DOL Programs that Provide at least some Occupational Training

$7,729,269,117 $6,544,985,650 $1,747,257,929 $1,147,389

 Dislocated Worker Employment and Training Activities

$1,520,000,000 a $1,302,031,085 $467,025,000 $280,215

 Adult Employment and Training Activities $951,000,000 a $1,089,853,396 $505,395,000 $303,237 Youth Activities $1,133,000,000 a $1,173,388,196 $159,338,020 $47,801

Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP)--National Programs

$345,000,000 a $264,396,351 $66,100,804 $33,050

Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP)--State Programs

$100,000,000 a $100,000,000 $17,357,613 $8,678

Job Corps $1,467,000,000 a $1,467,000,000 $207,100,000 $207,100Welfare-to-Work Grants to States and Localities--Competitive Grants

$500,000,000 a $103,338,587 $7,440,378 $3,720

Welfare-to-Work Grants to States and Localities--Formula Grants

$1,026,057,658 c $323,369,598 $23,282,611 $11,641

Federally Funded Program

Department of Labor

Employment Training and Administration

Workforce Investment Act of 1998

Total for Federal Programs from 7 Agencies that Provide at least some Occupational Training

2-1
Exhibit 2: Obligations for Federal Programs that Provide Job Training, Estimated Annual Expenditures,

and Job Training Expenditures as a Percent of Expenditures, 2002

Annual Obligations

2002 1

Annual Total Program 

Expenditures 2

Annual Expenditures on 

Job Training--High 

estimate

(See Exhibit 1) 3 

Annual Expendiu

on Job Training L

Estimate

(See Exhibit 1)

Federally Funded Program

Welfare-to-Work Grants to Federally Recognized Tribes and Alaska Natives

$1,000,000 c $400,000 $64,000 $32

Trade Adjustment Assistance $94,000,000 a $94,494,164 $79,823,235 $79,823North American Free Trade Agreement Transitional Adjustment Assistance

$37,000,000 a $36,512,472 $29,999,955 $29,999

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers $80,770,000 a $80,770,000 $60,415,960 $30,894Native American Employment and Training $55,000,000 a $55,000,000 $20,291,353 $20,291School-to-Work Grants $0 $0 $0 

2-2
Exhibit 2: Obligations for Federal Programs that Provide Job Training, Estimated Annual Expenditures,

and Job Training Expenditures as a Percent of Expenditures, 2002

Annual Obligations

2002 1

Annual Total Program 

Expenditures 2

Annual Expenditures on 

Job Training--High 

estimate

(See Exhibit 1) 3 

Annual Expendiu

on Job Training L

Estimate

(See Exhibit 1)

Federally Funded Program

Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Youth Opportunity Grant Program $225,000,000 c $198,000,000 $17,820,000 $17,820ETA Earmarks $62,649,000 $62,649,000 $26,596,274 $26,596H-1B Technical Skills Training Grants $90,733,000 b $54,869,243 $19,752,927 $12,071Youth Offender Demonstration Project (YODP) NA $53,900,000 $2,695,000 $2,695High Growth Job Training Initiative/Business Relations Group (BRG)

NA $30,533,048 $10,014,840 $4,976

Disability Employment and IT Grants combined $15,059,459 a $15,059,549 $6,711,031 $6,711Incumbent/Dislocated Worker Skills Shortages II Demonstration Grants

NA $10,807,226 $6,161,809 $6,161

Quality Child Care Initiative NA $3,563,868 $2,351,307 $2,351Sectoral Employment Demonstration Grant NA $749,867 $463,832 $463Minority Colleges and Universities Workforce Partnerships and Training Strategies to Address Skill Shortages Demonstration Program 

$0 $0 $0 

Dislocated Worker Hardmark Grants $0 $0 $0 Comprehensive Incumbent/Dislocated Worker Retraining Demonstration Grants

$0 $0 $0 

Innovation in Apprenticeship for Women $0 $0 $0 Dislocated Worker Technology Demonstration Program $0 $0 $0 Contextual Learning Demonstration Program $0 $0 $0 Labor Organization Adjustment Assistance $0 $0 $0 Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program $18,000,000 a $17,900,000 $8,603,760 $8,603Veterans' Workforce Investment Program $8,000,000 a $6,400,000 $2,453,220 $2,453

Veterans' Employment and Training ServiceOther ETA Demonstration Grants and Earmarks

Three rounds of faith-based and community initiative grants were made in 2002: states, intermediaries, a

program capacity development and expansion and linkages to One-Stops. No spending 

Department of Education

2-3
Exhibit 2: Obligations for Federal Programs that Provide Job Training, Estimated Annual Expenditures,

and Job Training Expenditures as a Percent of Expenditures, 2002

Annual Obligations

2002 1

Annual Total Program 

Expenditures 2

Annual Expenditures on 

Job Training--High 

estimate

(See Exhibit 1) 3 

Annual Expendiu

on Job Training L

Estimate

(See Exhibit 1)

Federally Funded Program

$16,907,275,000 $16,306,822,388 $3,193,564,209 $1,878,842

Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Educationbasic grant to states (Title I) and Tech Prep grants (Title II)-total funds (incl. Admin)

$1,780,000,000 a $1,288,000,000 $644,000,000 $386,400

State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders $20,000,000 a $17,000,000 $8,500,000 $5,100Native American Vocational and Technical Education Program

$14,750,000 c $14,750,000 $7,375,000 $4,425

Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions $6,000,000 a $7,500,000 $6,750,000 $6,750Native Hawaiian Vocational Education $2,950,000 c $2,759,000 $2,759,000 $2,759State Grants for Community Service for Expelled or Suspended Students

Total for DOE Programs that provide at least some Occupational TrainingOffice of Vocational and Adult EducationOffice of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

2-4
Exhibit 2: Obligations for Federal Programs that Provide Job Training, Estimated Annual Expenditures,

and Job Training Expenditures as a Percent of Expenditures, 2002

Annual Obligations

2002 1

Annual Total Program 

Expenditures 2

Annual Expenditures on 

Job Training--High 

estimate

(See Exhibit 1) 3 

Annual Expendiu

on Job Training L

Estimate

(See Exhibit 1)

Federally Funded Program

Vocational Rehabilitative--State Grants $2,481,000,000 a $2,349,796,388 $614,568,919 $202,715Supported Employment State Grants $37,000,000 a $37,000,000 $18,500,000 $11,100

2-5
Exhibit 2: Obligations for Federal Programs that Provide Job Training, Estimated Annual Expenditures,

and Job Training Expenditures as a Percent of Expenditures, 2002

Annual Obligations

2002 1

Annual Total Program 

Expenditures 2

Annual Expenditures on 

Job Training--High 

estimate

(See Exhibit 1) 3 

Annual Expendiu

on Job Training L

Estimate

(See Exhibit 1)

Federally Funded Program

Rehabilitation Services--American Indians with Disabilities

$25,575,000 c $28,000,000 $280,000 $140

Projects with Industry $22,000,000 a $22,017,000 $11,008,500 $6,605Independent Living State Grants $22,000,000 $2,200,000 $1,100Pell Grant Program $11,600,000,000 a $11,600,000,000 $1,875,000,000 $1,250,000Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants (FSEOG)

$918,000,000 a $918,000,000 $2,622,790 $1,748

$23,663,063,440 $15,817,729,020 $169,623,491 $93,771

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families $23,356,863,440 a $14,587,709,021 $106,976,141 $64,185Tribal Work Programs (TANF and NEW) $37,000,000 $5,920,000 $2,960Social Services Block Grant $18,000,000 $9,000,000 $5,400

Total for HHS Programs that provide at least some 

Occupational TrainingOffice of Student Financial AssistanceAdministration for Children and Families

Department of Health and Human Services

2-6
Exhibit 2: Obligations for Federal Programs that Provide Job Training, Estimated Annual Expenditures,

and Job Training Expenditures as a Percent of Expenditures, 2002

Annual Obligations

2002 1

Annual Total Program 

Expenditures 2

Annual Expenditures on 

Job Training--High 

estimate

(See Exhibit 1) 3 

Annual Expendiu

on Job Training L

Estimate

(See Exhibit 1)

Federally Funded Program

Community Services Block Grant $579,999,999 $6,000,000 $2,400Refugee and Entrant Assistance--State grants $230,000,000 $18,400,000 $9,200Refugee and Entrant Assistance-Discretionary grants $85,000,000 $6,800,000 $3,400State Councils on Developmental Disabilities $140,800,000 a $126,720,000 $2,208,600 $368Foster Care Independent Living Program $137,900,000 $4,137,000 $689Refugee Assistance--Voluntary Agency Programs $59,000,000 $4,720,000 $2,360Refugee and Entrant Assistance--Targeted Assistance $44,000,000 $3,520,000 $1,760Individual Development Accounts $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $153,750 $153Community Services Discretionary (CED) $2,500,000 $14,000,000 $140,000 $70Refugees and Entrant--Wilson/Fish Program $12,000,000 $960,000 $480Jobs for Low Income Individuals (JOLI) $5,000,000 $4,300,000 $688,000 $344

2-7
Exhibit 2: Obligations for Federal Programs that Provide Job Training, Estimated Annual Expenditures,

and Job Training Expenditures as a Percent of Expenditures, 2002

Annual Obligations

2002 1

Annual Total Program 

Expenditures 2

Annual Expenditures on 

Job Training--High 

estimate

(See Exhibit 1) 3 

Annual Expendiu

on Job Training L

Estimate

(See Exhibit 1)

Federally Funded Program

Chafee Independent Training Vouchers (Aging out of Foster Care)Unaccompanied Alien Children ProgramYouth Build Program $59,750,000 $26,887,500 $26,887Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program $269,104,000 $269,104,000 $121,096,800 $40,365

$11,298,000 $10,168,200 $5,084,100 $3,050

Indian Employment Assistance $7,800,000 c $7,020,000 $3,510,000 $2,106Indian Vocational Training--United Tribes Technical College

$2,980,000 c $2,682,000 $1,341,000 $804

Ironworker Program $518,000 c $466,200 $233,100 $139Serious and Violent Offenders NA NA $0 

3 Source: Figures from Exhibit 1; see Appendix B for sources.

Department of the Interior

1 Sources:

(a) U.S. Government Printing Office. "Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2004—Appendix." Washington, DC, January 2004.

(b) Employment and Training Administration. "Summary of Budget Authority, Fiscal Years 2002-2003." Washington, DC, May 2003. http://www.doleta.gov/budget/03r(c) U.S. Government Printing Office. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, 2003. Washington, DC, October 2003. http://12.46.245.173/CFDA/pdf_oct2003/whole.p

Department of Justice

2 Source: Figures from Exhibit 1. The sources (U.S. federal government contacts) for Exhibit 1 are listed in Appendix B. Excludes administrative costs

Notes: NA = Not Available.

Total for DOI Programs that provide at least some 

Occupational Training

program not funded until 2003

Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment of Veterans' Affairs

program not operating until 2003

2-8
Exhibit 3: U.S. Department of Labor Job Training: Number of Training Participants Enrolled for Program Years 1998

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Total for DOL Programs that Provide at least some Occupational Training 493,558 444,866 365,828 434,553 496,241 158,222 Dislocated Worker Employment and Training Activities 134,996 110,481 56,531 69,749 93,405 NA PY 2002 WIASRD Data B Adult Employment and Training Activities 118,368 99,347 52,802 86,003 101,079 NA PY 2002 WIASRD Data B Youth Activities 84,997 68,341 74,820 67,160 63,735 NA Tabulations of SPIR data f

Urban Institute Researcher

Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP)--National Programs

20,729 20,987 21,570 25,380 26,110 24,888 SCSEP data indicate the fo

1999: 83,946, 2000: 86,278Some received training or Oafter 2000 legislative changtraining. SCSEP staff assuSCSEP participants receive2002, and 2003, as they be

Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP)--State Programs

4,527 4,722 4,702 6,791 6,856 6,222 SCSEP data indicate the fo

1999: 18,887, 2000: 18,806Some received training or Oafter 2000 legislative changtraining. SCSEP staff assuSCSEP participants receive2002, and 2003, as they be

Job Corps 57,082 56,448 56,042 53,084 52,826 42,999 PY 2003 covers the period 

Sources: Job Corps Annua2001 and PY 2002; Job Co2000 through PY 2002; and completion PY 1998 – PY 

Welfare-to-Work Grants to States and Localities--Competitive Grants

2,727 2,727 2,727 2,727 2,727 0 Analysts estimates of traine

participants for 1998 - 200information obtained in the that 20 percent of participajointly, and 10 percent rece

Number of Training Participants Enrolled 

Workforce Investment Act of 1998

Department of Labor

Employment Training and Administration

Federally Funded Program

3-1
Exhibit 3: U.S. Department of Labor Job Training: Number of Training Participants Enrolled for Program Years 1998

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Number of Training Participants Enrolled 

Federally Funded Program

Welfare-to-Work Grants to States and Localities--Formula Grants

12,252 12,252 12,252 12,252 12,252 0 Analysts estimates of traine

participants for 1998 - 200information obtained in the that 20 percent of participajointly, and 10 percent rece

Welfare-to-Work Grants to Federally Recognized Tribes and Alaska NativesTrade Adjustment Assistance 24,577 30,910 32,266 32,112 40,745 35,549North American Free Trade Agreement Transitional Adjustment

Assistance

4,645 4,599 4,880 6,161 9,144 6,714

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers 12,576 11,518 11,937 14,899 15,857 7,178 PY 2003 information repre

only.

Native American Employment and Training 11,439 10,737 9,401 10,627 10,625 6,981 PY2003 information represSchool-to-Work Grants Data were not reported at the federal level, therefore, there are no data to develo

3-2
Exhibit 3: U.S. Department of Labor Job Training: Number of Training Participants Enrolled for Program Years 1998

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Number of Training Participants Enrolled 

Federally Funded Program

Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Youth Opportunity Grant Program NA NA NA NA NA NAETA Earmarks NA 0 80 5,226 7,209 10,817 This is an estimate of the p

training. The information wsubmitted. 

H-1B Technical Skills Training Grants Program not 

operating

Program not 

operating

7,977 14,747 29,520 NA Many participants require m

1B Grant program.

Youth Offender Demonstration Project (YODP) Program not 

operating

363 363 363 NA NA Sites generally ran for two 

and served a total of 1,090 

High Growth Job Training Initiative/Business Relations Group (BRG)

Program not 

operating

Program not 

operating

Program not 

operating

NA NA NA There is not an overall trac

data. This may be tracked 

Disability Employment Grants 861 840 700 No grantees

funded this 

year

731 1,072

Disability IT Training Program not 

operating

Program not 

operating

Program not 

operating

198 209 116

Incumbent/Dislocated Worker Skills Shortages II Demonstration

Grants

Program not 

operating

Program not 

operating

Program not 

operating

6,120 6,120 6,120 19 grantees served a total o

years beginning 6/29/01 an12/31/03. The grantees ranhigh of 2500 participants.

Quality Child Care Initiative Program not 

operating

894 No new 

funding

449 1,771 No new 

funding

Sectoral Employment Demonstration Grant Program not 

operating

Program not 

operating

Program not 

operating

539 539 NA 11 grantees served a total o

periods beginning 7/1/01 agrantees ranged from serviparticipants.People with Significant DiDeaf/ HH, Native AmericaPsychiatric Disabilities, HIDisabilities, Recovering SuMinority Youth.

Other ETA Demonstration Grants and Earmarks

Three rounds of faith-based and community initiative grants were made in 2002: states, intermediaries, a

program capacity development and expansion and linkages to One-Stops. No spending 

3-3
Exhibit 3: U.S. Department of Labor Job Training: Number of Training Participants Enrolled for Program Years 1998

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Number of Training Participants Enrolled 

Federally Funded Program

Minority Colleges and Universities Workforce Partnerships and Training Strategies to Address Skill Shortages Demonstration Program 

Program not 

operating

Program not 

operating

2,300 NA NA NA Grants to 8 Minority Colle

30 month period. One grandollars.The dollars were awarded ftraining in the total grant frhowever, this may be inaccdown by the grantee and, thother supportive services.

Dislocated Worker Hardmark Grants Program not 

operating

2,091 3,452 4,304 No new 

funding

NA Information given is for the 

began, however, periods of long. The period of perforbeginning or ending of a pa

Comprehensive Incumbent/Dislocated Worker Retraining Demonstration Grants

Program not 

operating

Program not 

operating

1,778 1,778 Program not 

operating

Program not 

operating

6 grantees served a total of 6/30/02. The grantees ranghigh of 1,354 participants.

Innovation in Apprenticeship for WomenDislocated Worker Technology Demonstration Program 923 923 Program not 

operating

Program not 

operating

Program not 

operating

Program not 

operating

12 grantees served a total o6/30/00. The grantees ranghigh of 350 participants.

Labor Organization Adjustment Assistance Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program NA 3,516 5,070-6,630 9,198-

12,028

9,968-13,036 8,290-

10,841

Veterans' Workforce Investment Program 2,860 3,171 2,946-3853 2,835-3,708 2,842-3,717 NA

Notes: NA = Not Available.Figures for 2003 may be incomplete or missing for some programs since the program year does not end until June 30, 2004.Individuals may participate in one or more programs, therefore, the total number of participants reported likely exceeds the number of separate individuals trained. 

Figures are based on actual estimate of 65-85% of all p2003

Veterans' Employment and Training Service

3-4
Exhibit 4: U.S. Department of Labor Job Training: Estimated Per Trainee Spending for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Average Per Trainee Spending for DOL Programs that Provide at least some Occupational Training Dislocated Worker Employment and Training Activities NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult Employment and Training Activities NA NA NA NA NA NA Youth ActivitiesSenior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP)--National ProgramsSenior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP)--State ProgramsJob Corps $2,866 $3,038 $3,139 $3,543 $3,920 NA Sources: Job Co

PY 2000, PY 20National SummaJob Corps Data PY 1998 – PY 1

Welfare-to-Work Grants to States and Localities--Competitive Grants NA NA NA NA NA NAWelfare-to-Work Grants to States and Localities--Formula Grants NA NA NA NA NA NAWelfare-to-Work Grants to Federally Recognized Tribes and Alaska NativesTrade Adjustment Assistance NA NA NA NA NA NA It is not feasible 

internal state praIt is not feasible on occupational report only occu

levels reflected aadministration. 

Estimated Per Trainee Spending 

Workforce Investment Act of 1998

Department of Labor

Employment Training and Administration

Federally Funded Program

Training costs foand OJT are not Data not availabthe cost per trainAccount is abouper trainee. 

4-1
Exhibit 4: U.S. Department of Labor Job Training: Estimated Per Trainee Spending for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Estimated Per Trainee Spending 

Federally Funded Program

North American Free Trade Agreement Transitional Adjustment Assistance NA NA NA NA NA NA It is not feasible 

internal state pra

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers $4,163 $3,962 $3,734 $3,798 $3,493 $3,535 PY 2003 inform

through 12/31/0

Native American Employment and Training $1,882 $1,840 $3,677 $3,228 $2,939 $2,801 ETA-DINAP pr

occupation-speWork Experien

School-to-Work GrantsFaith-Based and Community Initiatives Youth Opportunity Grant ProgramETA Earmarks NA NA NA NA NA NA The Earmark Ce

each program yeper trainee expe

Dislocated Worker Hardmark Grants Program 

not 

operating

$1,088 $944 $1,401 No new 

funding

NA Information give

hardmark grant bvary and may be performance oftending of a parti

Three rounds of faith-based and community initiative grants were made in 2002: states, inte

to be used for program capacity development and expansion and linkages to One-Stops. 

Data were not reported at the federal level, therefore, there are no data to 

Other ETA Demonstration Grants and Earmarks

4-2
Exhibit 4: U.S. Department of Labor Job Training: Estimated Per Trainee Spending for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Estimated Per Trainee Spending 

Federally Funded Program

H-1B Technical Skills Training Grants Program 

not 

operating

Program 

not 

operating

$1,506 $2,998 $1,859 NA

Youth Offender Demonstration Project (YODP)High Growth Job Training Initiative/Business Relations Group (BRG) Program 

not 

operating

Program 

not 

operating

Program 

not 

operating

NA NA NA There is not an o

provides aggreggrant basis.

Disability Employment Grants $6,982 $7,157 $8,588 No 

grantees 

funded this 

year

$6,753 $4,605

Disability IT Training Program 

not 

operating

Program 

not 

operating

Program 

not 

operating

No 

grantees 

funded this 

year

$8,490 $15,296

Incumbent/Dislocated Worker Skills Shortages II Demonstration Grants Program 

not 

operating

Program 

not 

operating

Program 

not 

operating

$1,007 $1,007 $1,007 19 grantees serv

during the three variously 6/30/0costs ranged fro

Quality Child Care Initiative Program 

not 

operating

$3,634 No new 

funding

$6,830 $1,328 No new 

funding

Sectoral Employment Demonstration Grant Program 

not 

operating

Program 

not 

operating

Program 

not 

operating

$861 $861 NA 11 grantees serv

during various p9/30/02, 12/31/0from a low of $1

Minority Colleges and Universities Workforce Partnerships and Training Strategies to Address Skill Shortages Demonstration Program 

Program 

not 

operating

Program 

not 

operating

$1,139 NA NA NA Grants to 8 Mino

awarded in 2000 not provide an eThe dollars were percentage of trachart may be infbecause training and, therefore, thsupportive servi

Dislocated Worker Technology Demonstration Program $2,531 $2,531 Program 

not 

operating

Program 

not 

operating

Program not 

operating

Program not 

operating

12 grantees servduring 7/1/98-6/of $539 to a high 

4-3
Exhibit 4: U.S. Department of Labor Job Training: Estimated Per Trainee Spending for Program Years 1998-2003

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Estimated Per Trainee Spending 

Federally Funded Program

Comprehensive Incumbent/Dislocated Worker Retraining Demonstration Grants

Program 

not 

operating

Program 

not 

operating

$1,698 $1,698 Program not 

operating

Program not 

operating

6 grantees servebetween 6/30/00 low of $863 to a 

Contextual Learning Demonstration ProgramInnovation in Apprenticeship for WomenLabor Organization Adjustment Assistance Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program NA $1,326 $2,340 $2,050 $1,972 $2,092 Annual expend

available. Figu

Veterans' Workforce Investment Program $2,452 $3,453 $2,382 $1,999 $2,579 NA Annual expendit

Figures are cost 

Notes: NA = Not Available.Figures for 2003 may be incomplete or missing for some programs since the program year does not end until June 30, 2004.

Veterans' Employment and Training Service

4-4
Target Group Program Name

High Estimate of 

Annual Expenditures 

on Job Training

(See Exhibit 1) 3 

Low Estimate of 

Annual Expenditures 

on Job Training

(See Exhibit 1)

Number of 

Training 

Participants

(See Exhibit 3)

Per Trainee 

Spending

(See Exhibit 4)

$1,742,229,601 $1,171,882,637 496,241 $3,187

Dislocated Worker Employment and Training 

Activities

$467,025,000 $280,215,000 93,405 NA

Trade Adjustment Assistance Training $79,823,235 $79,823,235 40,745 NA

North American Free Trade Agreement 

Adjustment Assistance Training

$29,999,955 $29,999,955 9,144 NA

H-1B Technical Skills Training Grants $19,752,927 $12,071,233 29,520 $1,859

Incumbent/Dislocated Worker Skills Shortages

II Demonstration Grants

$6,161,809 $6,161,809 6,120 $1,007

Sectoral Employment Demonstration Grant $463,832 $463,832 539 $861

Dislocated Worker Hardmark Grants $0 $0 Program not 

operating

NA

Comprehensive Incumbent/Dislocated Worker 

Retraining Demonstration Grants

$0 $0 Program not 

operating

Program not 

operating

Minority Colleges and Universities Workforce 

Partnerships and Training Strategies to 

Address Skill Shortages Demonstration 

Program 

$0 $0 0 $0

Dislocated Worker Technology Demonstration 

Program 

$0 $0 Program not 

operating

Program not 

operating

$603,226,758 $408,735,064 179,473 $1,242

Adults

Adult Employment and Training Activities $505,395,000 $303,237,000 101,079 NA

$505,395,000 $303,237,000 101,079 NA

Job Corps $207,100,000 $207,100,000 52,826 $3,920

Youth Activities $159,338,020 $47,801,406 63,735 NA

Youth Opportunity Grant Program $17,820,000 $17,820,000 NA NA

Youth Offender Demonstration Project 

(YODP)

$2,695,000 $2,695,000 NA NA

$386,953,020 $275,416,406 116,561 $3,920

Senior Community Service Employment 

Program (SCSEP)--National Programs

$66,100,804 $33,050,402 26,110 NA

Senior Community Service Employment 

Program (SCSEP)--State Programs

$17,357,613 $8,678,807 6,856 $3,038

$83,458,417 $41,729,209 32,966 NA

Migrant and 

Seasonal Workers

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Program $55,387,632 $55,387,632 15,857 $3,493

Youth

Total for All Programs Serving Older Workers

Older Workers

Exhibit 5: 2002 U.S. DOL Job Training by Target Group: Expenditures, Number of Program Participants, Per Participant 

Spending

Total for All Programs Serving Adults

Dislocated & 

Incumbent Workers

Total for All Programs Serving Dislocated & Incumbent 

Workers

Total for DOL Programs that Provide at least some 

Occupational Training

Total for All Programs Serving Youth

5-1
Target Group Program Name

High Estimate of 

Annual Expenditures 

on Job Training

(See Exhibit 1) 3 

Low Estimate of 

Annual Expenditures 

on Job Training

(See Exhibit 1)

Number of 

Training 

Participants

(See Exhibit 3)

Per Trainee 

Spending

(See Exhibit 4)

Exhibit 5: 2002 U.S. DOL Job Training by Target Group: Expenditures, Number of Program Participants, Per Participant 

Spending

$55,387,632 $55,387,632 15,857 $3,493

Welfare-to-Work Grants to States and 

Localities--Competitive Grants

$7,440,378 $3,720,189 2,727 NA

Welfare-to-Work Grants to States and 

Localities--Formula Grants

$23,282,611 $11,641,306 12,252 NA

$30,722,989 $15,361,495 14,978 NA

Native American Employment and Training $20,291,353 $20,291,353 10,625 $2,939

Welfare-to-Work Grants to Federally 

Recognized Tribes and Alaska Natives

$64,000 $32,000 NA

$20,355,353 $20,323,353 $10,625 $2,939

Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program $8,603,760 $8,603,760 9,968-13,036 $1,972

Veterans' Employment Program (also called 

Veterans' Workforce Investment Program)

$2,453,220 $2,453,220 2,842-3,717 $2,579

$11,056,980 $11,056,980 12,810-16,753 $2,276

Disability IT Training $1,774,392 $1,774,392 209 $8,490

Disability Employment Grants $4,936,639 $4,936,639 731 $6,753

$6,711,031 $6,711,031 940 $7,622

ETA Earmarks $26,596,274 $26,596,274 7,209 NA

High Growth Job Training Initiative/Business 

Relations Group (BRG)

$10,014,840 $4,976,887 NA NA

Quality Child Care Initiative $2,351,307 $2,351,307 1,771 $1,328

School-to-Work Grants $0 $0 0 0

Faith-Based and Community Initiatives $0 $0 0 0

Innovation in Apprenticeship for Women $0 $0 0 0

Contextual Learning Demonstration Program $0 $0 0 0

Labor Organization Adjustment Assistance $0 $0 0 0

$38,962,421 $33,924,467 8,980 $1,328

Total for All Programs Serving Native 

Americans/Hawaiians/Alaskans

Total for All Programs Serving 

Unemployed/Underemployed/Hard to Employ

Total for All Programs Serving Migrant and Seasonal 

Workers

Source: These figures are taken from Exhibits 1, 3, and 4. See these exhibits for sources.

Note: Individuals may participate in one or more programs, therefore, the total number of participants reported likely exceeds the number of separate 

individuals trained. This exhibit reports the number of participants, not the number of individuals. 

Total for All Programs Serving Veterans

Total for All Programs Serving Persons with Physical and 

Mental Disablities

Total for All Programs Serving Others

Veterans

Native Americans/

Hawaiians/

Alaskans

Others

Persons with 

Physical and 

Mental Disabilities

Unemployed/

Underemployed/

Hard to Employ

5-2
Target Group

Share of 

Expenditures 

(High Estimate) 

Share of 

Expenditures 

(Low Estimate) 

Share of 

Participants

Total for DOL Programs that Provide 

at least some Occupational Training 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Dislocated & Incumbent Workers 34.7% 35.0% 36.2%

Adults 29.1% 26.0% 20.4%

Youth 22.3% 23.6% 23.5%

Older Workers 4.8% 3.6% 6.6%

Migrant and 

Seasonal Workers 3.2% 4.7% 3.2%

Unemployed/Underemployed/

Hard to Employ 1.8% 1.3% 3.0%

Native Americans/

Hawaiians/Alaskans 1.2% 1.7% 2.1%

Veterans 0.6% 0.9% 3.0%

Persons with Physical and 

Mental Disablities 0.4% 0.6% 0.2%

All Other Target Groups 2.2% 2.9% 1.8%

Exhibit 6: Percentage of 2002 U.S. DOL Job Training Expenditures 

and Participants by Target Group

Note: These figures are taken from Exhibits 1, 3, and 4. See these exhibits for sources.

Individuals may participate in one or more programs, therefore, the total number of participants reported 

likely exceeds the number of separate individuals trained. This exhibit shows the percent of participants (not 

individuals) attributable to each target group. 

6-1
Percent of All Workers

(past year)

Percent of All Workers

(past year)

Percent Change

Percent of All 

Workers

Percent of All 

Workers

Percent Change 199

California $111,765,000 $50,800,000 -55% 72,469 38,880 -46% Iowa $37,654,722 $13,430,261 -64% 16,132 9,994 -38% Michigan $31,000,000 $10,797,410 -65% 51,909 68,185 31% Missouri $28,020,000 $27,661,400 -1% 71,771 1 47,972 -33% 

New Jersey $31,502,954 $35,900,000 14% 45,127 37,753 2 -16% 

North Carolina $30,938,323 $45,247,375 46% 549,226 641,156 17% Pennsylvania $29,000,000 $32,500,000 12% 39,708 141,508 256% Texas $76,000,000 $15,500,000 -80% 36,300 131,739 3 263% 

Total for 8 States $375,880,999 $231,836,446 -38% 110,330 139,648 19% 

2 Figures for New Jersey are not for FY 2003 but are for FY 2004 and are year-to-date through May 7, 2004.

Source: See Appendix C Exhibits C-1 through C-8 for details about state-funded job training programs and specific sources.

3 Figures are measured since program inception.

Exhibit 7:

State-funded Job Training Expenditures in 8 States in 1998 and 2003

State

 Estimated Total State Funding for All Programs Number of Trainees 

1 Number of trainees may be duplicated in some cases because a single employee may have been trained in more than one training category.

State/Private-1
1996

An unweighted survey of

a representative sample 

of 367 U.S. companies 

(p. 36)

[Average Firm Size: 

3,281 employees]

1993

A weighted survey of 8,467 

employers (p. 5)

Designed to be nationally 

representative of the universe 

(257,000) of businesses with 

50+ employees (p. 5)

1995

A weighted survey of 1,803

businesses with 100+ 

employees. 

Designed to be nationally 

representative of the universe 

(134,523) of businesses with 

100+ employees (p 2)

1994

A weighted survey of 2,945 

privately owned businesses. 

Designed to be nationally 

representative of all 

businesses with 20+ 

employees

2002

An unweighted survey of

a representative sample 

of 276 U.S. companies 

(p. 3)

[Average Firm Size: 

6,661 employees]

1995

A weighted survey of 1,063 

employers (p. 4) 

Designed to be nationally 

representative of the universe 

of businesses with 50+ 

employees (p. 4)

2003

A weighted survey of 1,650

businesses with 100+ 

employees. 

Designed to be nationally 

representative of the universe 

(149,154) of businesses with 

100+ employees (p. 2)

1997

A weighted survey of 4,212 

privately owned businesses. 

Designed to be nationally 

representative of all 

businesses with 20+ 

employees

1996 N/A 1993 N/A 1995 $45.5 Billion (2003 Appendix) 1994 N/A

2002 N/A 1995 $53.7 Billion (p. 5) 2003 $51.28 Billion (2003 Appendix) 1997 N/A

% Change N/A % Change N/A % Change 13% % Change N/A

1996 N/A 1993 N/A 1995 $7.9 Billion (2003 Appendix) 1994 N/A

2002 N/A 1995 $16.6 Billion (p. 5) 2003 $13.9 Billion (2003 Appendix) 1997 N/A

% Change N/A % Change N/A % Change 76% % Change N/A

1996 $1,637,219 (p. 41) 1993 N/A 1995 $334,515 (2003 Appendix) 1994 N/A

2002 $5,501,986 (p. 4) 1995 N/A 2003 $338,232 (2003 Appendix) 1997 N/A

% Change 236% % Change N/A % Change 1% % Change N/A

1996 $1,051,905 (p. 42) 1993 N/A 1995 $58,726 (2003 Appendix) 1994 N/A

2002 $3,614,805 (p. 6) 1995 N/A 2003 $93,192 (2003 Appendix) 1997 N/A

% Change 244% % Change N/A % Change 78% % Change N/A

1996 $726 (p. 41) 1993 N/A 1995 N/A 1994 N/A

2002 $1043 (p. 4) 1995 $798 (p. 5) 2003 N/A 1997 N/A

% Change 44% % Change N/A % Change N/A % Change N/A

1996 68.7% (p.41) 1993 N/A 1995 N/A ` 1994 40% + (p. 74)

2002 79.2% (p. 4) 1995 69.8% (p. 5) 2003 N/A 1997 N/A

% Change 11% % Change N/A % Change N/A % Change N/A

1996 100% 1993 98.2% (p. 5), 

(71% for Firms of All Sizes)

1995 N/A 1994 81.0% (p. 69)

2002 100% 1995 92.5% (p. 6) 2003 N/A 1997 77.6% (p. 34)

% Change 0% % Change -6% % Change N/A % Change -4%

Percentage of Firms Providing Training

Estimated Average Per Firm Expenditures Excluding Non-Training Costs (e.g., Salaries)

Estimated Expenditures Per Trainee

National Employer Survey 4

Percentage of Workers Who are Trainees per Firm

Exhibit 8: Privately-funded Job Training in the United States: Expenditures, Number of Program Participants, and Per Participant Spending

What was the methodology used to obtain the privately-provided training estimates?

Total Expenditures a on Privately-funded Job Training Including Non-Training Costs (e.g., Salaries)

Estimated Average Per Firm Expenditures Including Non-Training Costs (e.g., Salaries)

Training Magazine American Society for 3

Training & Development 1

Total Expenditures a on Privately-funded Job Training Excluding Non-Training Costs (e.g., Salaries) 

Survey of Employer Provided Training2

a Expenditures do not include costs for items such as: Facilities, Hardware (Training Magazine); Equipment, Supplies, Travel, and Facilities (SEPT).

1 Source of 1996 information: Van Buren, Mark E. and William Erskine, “State of the Industry: ASTD’s Annual Review of Trends in Employer-Provided Training in the United States.” Washington DC: 

American Society for Training and Development, February 2002.

Source of 2003 Information: American Society for Training & Development (ASTD), “State of the Industry: ASTD’s Annual Review of U.S. and International Trends in Workplace Learning and 

Performance,” 2003.

2

 Source of 1993 information: Frazis, Harley, Diane Herz, and Michael Horrigan, “Employer-Provided Training: Results from a New Survey.” Monthly Labor Review , May 1995, 118(5), pp. 3-17.

Source of 1995 information: Frazis, Harley, Maury Gittleman, Michael Horrigan, and Mary Joyce, “Results from the 1995 Survey of Employer-Provided Training.” Monthly Labor Review , June 1998, 

121(6), pp. 3-13.

3

 Source of 1995 information: Training Magazine Staff Editors, "Industry Report 1995: A Statistical Picture of Employee Training in America." Training Magazine , October 1995.

Source of 2003 information: Galvin, Tammy, "Industry Report 2003." Training Magazine , October 2003, pp. 21-45.

4

 Source of 1995 information: Lynch, Lisa, and Sandra Black, "Beyond the Incidence of Employer-Provided Training." Industrial & Labor Relations Review , October 1998, 52(1), pp. 64-81.

Source of 2003 information: Lerman, Robert I., Signe-Mary McKernan, and Stephanie Riegg, “The Scope of Employer-Provided Training in the U.S.: Who, What, Where, and How Much?” a chapter in 

Job Training in the United States: History, Effectiveness, and Prospects published by The Upjohn Institute, Forthcoming 2004. 
Note: Administrative costs prior to 2000 include salaries, facilities/overhead, and hardware; administrative costs from 2000-2

Exhibit 9: Total Private Training Expenditures: 1986-2003

0

102030405060

1986 1990 1994 1998 

Year

Billions of Dollars

Total training expendituresexcluding salaries and administrative costs

Total training expenditures excluding administrative costs

Source: Galvin, Tammy, "Industry Report 2003." Training Magazine , October 2003, pp. 21-45.
Exhibit 10: Percentage of Workers Receiving Employer-Provided 

Training Across Surveys and Over Time

Source: This exhibit is Figure 2 from Lerman, McKernan, and Riegg (2004) with updated data analyses for the SIPP and NHEinclude authors' tabulations of the 2001 SIPP and NHES public-use data. 

11 12 13

24

20 19

37 37

5

12

16

6

0

1020304050607080

1984

SIPP

(All people age 18-64 with

most recent training

employer-provided)

1996 1995 1983

Percent of Workers
1995 NHES 2001 NHES

Percent of All Workers

(past year)

Percent of All Workers

(past year)

Total hours per worker over 1-year period

(includes all workers)

65.4 30.1

Credit Courses/Programs 41.4 15.7

Career or Job-Related Courses 19.4 13.7

Apprenticeship 3.8 0.5

Basic Skills or GED Preparation 0.6 0.2

English as a Second Language 0.2 0.1

Hours per worker over 1-year period

(includes workers who said they received employer-provided 

classroom training within the past year)

178.2 82.0

Distribution of Classroom Training Received

0 Hours 63.9% 63.3%

1-40 Hours 15.0% 23.2%

41-80 Hours 6.2% 5.5%

81-120 Hours 3.1% 2.3%

121-160 Hours 2.0% 0.9%

160+ Hours 9.8% 4.9%

Sample Size 13,634 7,879

Source: This exhibit updates analyses of the 1995 NHES analyses in Lerman, McKernan, and Riegg (2004). Updated 

analyses include authors' weighted tabulations of the 2001 NHES public-use data. 

Exhibit 11: Number of Hours of Employer-Provided 

Classroom Training Received in One Year

(2) Differences in mean hours of training in the 1995 and 2001 NHES surveys may be the result of a change in the variables 

and calculation methods. The 1995 NHES, analyzed by Lerman et. al (2004), contained variables for responses to the the 

following questions: 1) How many weeks did you attend training? 2) How many hours per time unit did you attend 

training? In many instances, Lerman et. al (2004) then calculated training hours using the following equation: ( Hours/Day 

* Weeks * 7 Days/Week). The 2001 NHES asks the same questions, however, the 2001 public-use NHES provides a 

computed variable for total classroom training in the year. The 2001 documentation does not provide information about 

how the computed variable is created. Also, the 1995 NHES asks for actual hours in each work-related, college credit class 

while the 2001 NHES asks for the credit hours in each work-related, college credit class.

Notes: (1) The universe for the SIPP includes all persons age 18-64. The universe for the NHES includes employed 

persons age 18+. The NHES Surveys include only classroom training.

Hours per worker over 1-year period by Category

(includes all workers)
1995 NHES 2001 NHES 1996 SIPP 2001 SIPP

Worker Characteristics Percent of All Workers

(past year)

Percent of All Workers

(past year)

Percent of All 

Workers

(past year)

Percent of All 

Workers

(past year)

Total (formal training) 36.7% 36.7% 23.6% 20.2%

Education

High School or Less 22.2% 19.8% 14.5% 11.8%

Some College 44.1% 44.5% 28.1% 23.7%

BA or Higher 50.0% 54.1% 33.9% 29.0%

Earnings

First Quartile 27.1% 22.0% 10.9% 10.3%

Second Quartile 31.3% 33.7% 17.8% 15.1%

Third Quartile 42.1% 46.7% 29.2% 24.7%

Fourth Quartile 49.3% 48.8% 35.4% 30.0%

Age

24 years and younger 43.1% 28.1% 16.4% 14.9%

25 to 34 years 37.3% 40.6% 26.5% 23.9%

35 to 44 years 39.5% 40.3% 27.3% 22.5%

45 to 54 years 36.9% 42.3% 26.2% 21.5%

55 years and older 20.3% 23.5% 14.3% 13.7%

Usual Hours Worked per Week

Under 35 Hours 34.8% 28.5% 14.7% 13.1%

35 Hours or More 38.6% 38.5% 28.6% 24.1%

Sex

Men 36.0% 33.1% 22.1% 18.5%

Women 37.5% 40.6% 25.3% 22.1%

Race and Origin

White 37.8% 38.8% 24.2% 20.6%

Black 32.5% 29.2% 20.9% 17.2%

American Indian/Alaskan Native 36.5% 37.8% 22.3% 19.9%

Asian/Pacific Islander 36.3% 42.9% 17.2% 18.7%

Hispanic 24.6% 24.9% 14.5% 12.4%

Sample Size 13,634 7,879 44,138 35,815

Source: This exhibit updates analyses of the 1995 NHES and 1996 SIPP analyses in Lerman, McKernan, and Riegg (2004). Updated 

analyses include authors' weighted tabulations of the 2001 NHES and the 2001 SIPP public-use data. 

Exhibit 12: Incidence of Employer-Provided Training by Workers' Characteristics

Notes: The universe for the SIPP includes all persons age 18-64. The universe for the NHES includes employed persons age 18+. The 

NHES Surveys include only in-classroom training
1995 NHES 1995 NHES 2001 NHES 1996 SIPP 2001 SIPP

Worker Characteristics Percent of All Workers

(past year)

Percent of All Workers

(past year)

Percent of All Workers

(past year)

P

e

r

c

Average Hours of 

Training

(past year)

Average Hours of 

Training

(past year)

Total (formal training) 32.7 65.4 30.1 14.2 11.7

Education

High School or Less 15.0 30.0 11.6 9.9 8.9

Some College 55.6 111.2 45.4 18.0 13.9

BA or Higher 33.8 67.5 42.3 16.9 13.5

Earnings

First Quartile 41.6 83.2 33.8 6.2 6.5

Second Quartile 25.9 51.8 26.9 12.9 10.4

Third Quartile 27.6 55.1 30.8 18.3 14.5

Fourth Quartile 27.7 55.4 28.4 18.6 15.1

Age

24 years and younger 83.9 167.8 73.6 12.6 11.2

25 to 34 years 32.5 65.0 37.2 17.0 14.5

35 to 44 years 23.8 47.6 22.2 15.7 12.6

45 to 54 years 17.7 35.4 19.0 14.4 12.2

55 years and older 7.9 15.8 8.5 6.5 5.3

Usual Hours Worked per Week

Under 35 Hours 52.7 105.4 52.7 7.5 7.3

35 Hours or More 25.4 50.8 25.0 17.5 14.1

Sex

Men 34.1 68.2 27.5 14.3 11.1

Women 31.2 62.4 33.0 14.0 12.3

Ethnicity/Race and Origin

White 31.7 63.4 30.1 14.1 11.6

Black 35.3 70.6 28.0 16.2 12.7

American Indian/Alaskan Native 29.9 59.8 15.2 13.3 10.5

Asian/Pacific Islander 44.9 89.8 45.8 10.0 11.7

Hispanic 52.5 105.0 22.6 9.2 9.5

Sample Size 13,634 13,634 7,879 44,138 35,815

Notes: (1) The universe for the SIPP includes all persons age 18-64. The universe for the NHES includes employed persons age 18+. The NHES Surveys include only 

classroom training.

(2) Differences in mean hours of training in the 1995 and 2001 NHES surveys may be the result of a change in the variables and calculation methods. The 1995 NHES, 

analyzed by Lerman et. al (2004), contained variables for responses to the the following questions: 1) How many weeks did you attend training? 2) How many hours per 

time unit did you attend training? In many instances, Lerman et. al (2004) then calculated training hours using the following equation: ( Hours/Day * Weeks * 7 

Days/Week). The 2001 NHES asks the same questions, however, the 2001 public-use NHES provides a computed variable for total classroom training in the year. The 

2001 documentation does not provide information about how the computed variable is created. Also, the 1995 NHES asks for actual hours in each work-related, college 

credit class while the 2001 NHES asks for the credit hours in each work-related, college credit class.

Source: This exhibit updates analyses of the 1995 NHES analyses in Lerman, McKernan, and Riegg (2004). Updated analyses include authors' weighted tabulations of 

the 2001 NHES public-use data. 

Exhibit 13: Average Hours of Employer-Provided Training by Workers' Characteristics
Employment Training Panel

1998 Based on Unemployment Insurance (UI)

2003 Based on Unemployment Insurance (UI)

(The source of the funding is the 

employment training tax, a special tax levied 

on CA employers who participate in the 

unemployment insurance system.)

1998 $111,765,000

FY 2003 (July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004)

Total Budget

$50,800,000

FY 2003 Training Expenditures $39,000,000

FY 2003 Program Administration $8,400,000

FY 2003 Manu. & Technology Program $2,100,000

FY 2003 Marketing and Research $1,300,000

Percent change 1998-2003 -55%

1998 72,469

2003 38,880

Percent change 1998-2003 -46%

1998 $1,187

2003 $1,003

Percent change 1998-2003 -16%

Appendix Exhibit A-1:

State-funded Job Training Expenditures in California: Source of Funding, Estimated Funding, 

Number of Trainees, and Estimated Cost Per Trainee in 1998 and 2003

Sources of 2003 information:

(1) California State Governor's Proposed Budget for 2004 - 2005. Labor and Workforce Development 

Section, Pgs. LWD 1 - LWD 16.

(2) Reports and information received via email (5/14/04) from Mike Rice, Manager of Planning and 

Research Unit, California Employment Training Panel Program.

California

Source of 1998 information:

1

 NGA 1999.

Source of Funding

 Estimated State Funding

Number of Trainees

Estimated Average Cost Per Trainee
Iowa New Jobs Training 

Program 1

Iowa Jobs Training 

Program 2 Total

1998 sale of bonds a Workforce Development 

Fund b

2003 sale of bonds a Workforce Development 

Fund b

1998 $34,907,500 $2,747,222 c $37,654,722

FY 2003 (June 30, 2002-July 

1, 2003)

$10,255,000 $3,175,261 c $13,430,261

Percent change 1998-2003 -71% 16% -64%

1998 7,322 8,810 16,132

2003 2,031 7,963 9,994

Percent change 1998-2003 -72% -10% -38%

1998 $2,820 $442 $1,631

2003 d d NA

% change NA NA NA

Source of 2004 information:

1 Email, (6/17/04) Leanne Gerald, Workforce Program Manager, Iowa Department of Economic Development.

2

 Ibid.

Iowa

Estimated Average Cost Per Trainee

 Estimated State Funding

Source of Funding

Number of Trainees

d This information is not tracked programmatically.

c Administrative costs are not tracked programmatically, up to 17.42% of the funding is charged for each project 

awarded. 

b A workforce development fund account is established in the office of the treasurer of state, under control of the 

department of economic development. Upon payment in full of any obligation issued to fund a job training 

program under Iowa Code chapter 260E, the community college providing the job training program shall notify 

the department of the amount paid by the employer or business. The department of revenue and finance then 

credits, to the Workforce Development Account, 25 percent of that amount each quarter for a period of ten 

years. The maximum amount from all employers which shall be transferred to the workforce development 

account in any year is $10,000,000. The legislature makes an annual appropriation from the workforce 

development account to the workforce development fund.

a

 Community Colleges have the ability to issue federally tax-exempt and taxable certificates on behalf of the 

industry. Proceeds from the sale of the certificates are held until the actual training programs are completed. 

The company is then reimbursed after providing documentation of the actual training cost.

Appendix Exhibit A-2:

State-funded Job Training Expenditures in Iowa: Source of Funding, Estimated Funding, Number of 

Trainees, and Estimated Cost Per Trainee in 1998 and 2003

Source of 1998 information:

1 NGA 1999.

2 Email, (6/17/04) Leanne Gerald, Workforce Program Manager, Iowa Department of Economic Development.
Economic Development

Job Training (EDJT)

1998 General-fund appropriation

2003 General-fund appropriation

1998 $31,000,000

FY 2003 Oct 1, 2002 - Sept 30, 2003

Total Appropriation Excluding Administration 

Costs

$10,797,410

FY 2003 Expenditures on Rapid Response 

Grants for Economic Development Job 

Training

$5,000,000

FY 2003 Expenditures on

Competitive Grants $4,797,410

FY 2003 Expenditures on Worker Recruitment 

Grants $1,000,000

Percent change 1998-2003 -65%

1998 51,909

2003 68,185

2003 Year-to-date Trainees 510,281

Percent change 1998-2003 31%

1998 $723

2003 $513

Percent change 1998-2003 -29%

Appendix Exhibit A-3:

State-funded Job Training Expenditures in Michigan: Source of Funding, 

Estimated Funding, Number of Trainees, and Estimated Cost Per Trainee in 

1998 and 2003

Source of 2003 information: Telephone interview (4/28/04) and email (4/28/04) with 

Valerie Hoag, EDJT Managing Director, Michigan Economic Development 

Corporation.

Source of 1998 information: NGA 1999.

Michigan

Estimated Average Cost Per Trainee

Number of Trainees

 Estimated State Funding

Source of Funding
Department of 

Economic

Development 1

Department of 

Elementary and 

Secondary Education 2

1998 General-fund

appropriation

General-fund

appropriation

2003 General-fund

appropriation

General-fund

appropriation

1998 $15,000,000 $5,020,000 $8,000,000 $28,020,000

FY 2003 (July 1, 2002-June

30, 2003) Total Appropriation $8,800,000 $2,861,400 $16,000,000 $27,661,400

FY 2003 Governor's 

Withholding NA $110,000 NA $110,000

FY 2003 Administration 

Costs $1,760,000 $412,710 $3,200,000 $5,372,710

FY 2003 Training 

Expenditures $7,040,000 $2,338,690 $12,800,000 $22,178,690

Percent change 1998-2003 -41% -43% 100% -1%

1998 21,000 37,771 a 13,000 71,771

2003 24,639 21,465 1,868 47,972

Percent change 1998-2003 17% -43% -86% -33%

1998 $715 $132 $1,300 $716

2003 $286 $111 $6,852 $2,416

Percent change 1998-2003 -60% -16% 427% 238%

 Estimated State Funding

Source of Funding

a

 Number of trainees may be duplicated in some cases because a single employee may have been trained in more than one 

training category.

Source of 2003 information: 

1 Telephone interview (5/4/04) and email (5/4/04) with Amy Deem, Assistant Director of Employer Relations, Missouri 

Department of Economic Development.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

Total

Appendix Exhibit A-4:

State-funded Job Training Expenditures in Missouri: Source of Funding, Estimated Funding, Number of Trainees, 

and Estimated Cost Per Trainee in 1998 and 2003

Missouri

Source of 1998 information:

1 NGA 1999.

2

 Ibid.

3

 Ibid.

General-fund appropriation

(Funds for the program are 

generated by the sale of 

certificates; the certificates 

are then retired using a 

portion of the state 

employer withholding tax on 

all project-related new jobs 

that are created.)

Missouri Customized Training Program

(FY July 1 - June 30) Community College New 

Jobs Training Program 3

(FY July 1 - June 30)

 Estimated Average Cost Per Trainee

Number of Trainees a
Customized Training Program1 The Supplemental Workforce Fund 

for Basic Skills2 Total

1998 Based on Unemployment Insurance 

(UI)

Program begun in FY 2003a

2004 Workforce Development Partnership 

Fundb

Workforce Development Partnership 

Fundb

1998 $29,200,000 $2,302,954 (FY 2003

 a) $31,502,954

FY 2004 (7/1/03 - 6/30/04) $28,300,000 c $7,600,000 d $35,900,000

FY 2004 Total Budget Excluding

Administrative Costs $25,470,000 $6,840,000

FY 2004 Total Administrative Costs $2,830,000 c $760,000 d

FY 2004 Obligated Funds as of

5/7/04 $15,946,211 $3,053,967

FY 2004 To Date as of 5/7/04

Excluding Administrative Costs $14,351,590 $2,748,570 $17,100,160

FY 2004 Administrative Costs as of

5/7/04 $1,594,621 $305,397

Percent change 1998-2004 -51% 19% 14%

1998 40,000 5,127 (FY 2003

 a) 45,127

FY 2004 Number of Trainees to Date

as of 5/7/04 28,297 9,456 37,753

Percent change 1998-2004 -29% 84% -16%

1998 $557 $449 (FY 2003

 a) $503

FY 2004 Number of Trainees to Date

as of 5/7/04 $564 $323 $444

Percent change 1998-2004 1% -28% -12%

Source of Funding

Estimated Average Cost Per Trainee

Appendix Exhibit A-5:

State-funded Job Training Expenditures in New Jersey: Source of Funding, Estimated Funding, Number of Trainees, and 

Estimated Cost Per Trainee in 1998 and 2003

Source of 2004 information:

1 Email (5/7/04) with James Curran, Chief - Workforce Development and Technological Training, New Jersey Department of Labor, Office

of Customized Training.

2 Ibid.

Source of 1998 information:

1 NGA 1999.

2 Ibid.

c

 As of 5/7/04, $15,946,211 has been obligated for Customized Training Programs. Of the Customized Training funds for FY04, not more 

than 10% of the funds dedicated to the program will be applied to administration of the program.

d As of 5/7/04, we have obligated $3,053,967 for Supplemental Workforce Fund for Basic Skills programs. Of the Supplemental 

Workforce Fund for Basic Skills funds for FY04, not more than 10% of the funds dedicated to the program will be applied to 

administration of the program.

Number of Trainees

b

 Funds for these two programs are allocated annually from a non-lapsing, revolving Workforce Development Partnership Fund 

managed/invested by the Treasurer, State of New Jersey. Beginning in 1995, the balance in the fund as of 12/31 of the previous year 

shall not exceed 1.5 times the amount of contributions to the Unemployment Compensation Fund deposited for the calendar year. If the 

balance exceeds this amount, the excess will be returned to the Unemployment Compensation Fund.

a

 FY 2003 was the first year that the state of New Jersey awarded grants under terms of the Supplemental Workforce Fund for Basic 

Skills program.

New Jersey

 Estimated State Funding
Focused Industrial 

Training 1

New and Expanding 

Industry Program 2

Occupational 

Continuing Education 3

Human Resources 

Development Program 4

Total

1998 Half from general state 

revenue; half from a 

Worker Training Trust 

Fund (WTTF) supported 

by interest earned on the

state's Unemployment 

Insurance fund.

General-fund 

appropriation

General-fund 

appropriation

State Appropriations 5

2003 State Appropriations, 

House Bill 275, and 

Worker Training Trust 

Funds (WTTF) 5

State Appropriations and 

House Bill 275 5

State Appropriations 5 State Appropriations 5

1998 $3,708,032 $10,100,000 $10,500,000

 a $6,630,291 5 $30,938,323

FY 2002-2003

(July 1, 2002 - June 30,

2003) $2,125,917 6 $4,005,105 6 $35,399,175 6 $3,717,178 6 $45,247,375

Percent change 1998-

2003

-43% -60% 237% -44% 46%

1998 8,943 25,076 490,130 25,077 549,226

FY 2002-2003

(July 1, 2002 - June 30,

2003)

8,438 10,610 569,372 52,736 641,156

Percent change 1998-

2003

-6% -58% 14% 110% 17%

1998 $378 $385 NA NA $382

2002-2003

FY (July 1, 2002 - June

30, 2003)

NAb $377 5 NAb NAb $377

Percent change 1998-

2003

NA -2% NA NA -1%

Source of 2003 Information:

1 "A Matter of Facts: The North Carolina Community College System Fact Book" 2004, North Carolina Community College System. Section II, 

page 35.

2

 Ibid. Section II, page 38.

3

 Ibid. Section II, page 39.

4 Ibid. Section II, page 36.

5 Email (5/14/2004), Dr. Larry Keen, Vice President for Economic and Workforce Development, North Carolina Community College System. 6

 "A Matter of Facts: The North Carolina Community College System Fact Book" 2004, North Carolina Community College System. Section III, 

page 49. 

Appendix Exhibit A-6:

State-funded Job Training Expenditures in North Carolina: Source of Funding, Estimated Funding, Number of Trainees, and 

Estimated Cost Per Trainee in 1998 and 2003

a This figure is an estimate by the NGA 1999 Report's authors. The state estimates that 40 percent of the program's total budget ($31 million) 

for FY 1998 were spent on training that individuals arranged, and not employer-driven training. In addition, the state received revenue from a 

$35 fee charged for each trainee course. The $10.5 million reported above represents the employer-driven 60 percent of the total budget, 

minus the state revenue from the $35 fee. This revenue was subtracted from the total ($10.5 million) because the money defrays state 

expenditures

b Cost per trainee for Focused Industrial Training, Occupational Continuing Education, and Human Resources Development is not part of the 

state reporting requirement. Email (5/14/2004), Dr. Larry Keen, Vice President for Economic and Workforce Development, North Carolina 

Community College System.

Source of 1998 information:

1

 NGA 1999.

2 Ibid.

3

 Ibid.

4

 Email (6/07/2004), Dr. Larry Keen, Vice President for Economic and Workforce Development, North Carolina Community College System. 

North Carolina

Estimated Average Cost Per Trainee

Number of Trainees

Source of Funding

 Estimated State Funding
Customized Job Training a

1998 General-fund appropriation

2003 General-fund appropriation

1998 $29,000,000

FY 2003 (July 1,2002-June 30, 2003) $32,500,000

2003 Administration Costs $2,925,000 b

Percent change 1998-2003 12%

1998 39,708

2003 141,508

Percent change 1998-2003 256%

1998 $408

2003 $313

Percent change 1998-2003 -23%

Appendix Exhibit A-7:

State-funded Job Training Expenditures in Pennsylvania: Source of Funding, 

Estimated Funding, Number of Trainees, and Estimated Cost Per Trainee in 1998 and 

2003

Source of 1998 information:

NGA 1999.

Source of 2003 information:

Email (5/5/04) with Dana Bohn, CJT Coordinator, Center for Business & Financing, 

Department of Community and Economic Development.

b

 Administration costs are identified in the application but are not tracked programmatically, 

administrative costs average 9%. 

Pennsylvania

Estimated Average Cost Per Trainee

 Estimated State Funding

Source of Funding

Number of Trainees

a

 Customized Job Training Program consists of the Customized Job Training and Guaranteed 

Free Training. Figures shown are combined.
Skills Development 

Fund 1 Smart Jobs Fund 2

On-the-Job Training 

and Customized 

Training 3

Total

1998 General-fund 

appropriation

Based on 

Unemployment 

Insurance (UI)

WIA state discretionary 

money

2003 General-fund 

appropriation

This program was 

discontinued 3-4 years 

ago. The funds were not 

reallocated to another 

program. Remaining 

funds were used to 

recruit businesses to 

Texas.

WIA state discretionary 

money

1998 $13,000,000 $54,000,000 $6-12 Million $76,000,000

2003 $12,500,000 $0 About $3,000,000 $15,500,000

Percent change 1998-2003 -4% -100% -50 to 75% -80%

1998 15,300 21,000 NA 36,300

2003

(since inception in Sept. 1995)

117,898 0 13,841 131,739

Percent change 1998-2003 NA -100% NA 263%

1998 $862 $1,400 NA $1,131

2003

(since inception in Sept. 1995)

$937 $0 $3,397 $2,167

Percent change 1998-2003 9% -100% NA 92%

Appendix Exhibit A-8:

State-funded Job Training Expenditures in Texas: Source of Funding, Estimated Funding, Number of Trainees, and 

Estimated Cost Per Trainee in 1998 and 2003

Estimated Average Cost Per Trainee

Source of 1998 information: 

1 NGA 1999.

2 Ibid.

3 Information is appropriated funds for FY 2003 (September 2002-October2003) as reported in the annual report released in 

May/June 2004.

Source of 2003 information: 

1

 Information is appropriated funds for FY 2003 (September 2002-October2003) as reported in the annual report released in 

May/June 2004.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

Texas

Source of Funding

 Estimated State Funding

Number of Trainees
Appendix B: Private Entities’ Estimates of Job Training Expenditures: A List of Persons 

Contacted 

Non-Profits 

Diane Baillargeon 

President 

Seedco and the Non-Profit Assistance 

Corporation 

915 Broadway, 17th Floor 

New York, New York 10010 

Phone: 212-204-1340 

Carol Ishkanian 

Vice President of Development 

President & CEO 

Morgan Memorial Goodwill Industries, Inc. 

1010 Harrison Avenue 

Boston, MA 02119-2540 

Phone: (617) 445-1010 

Hermelinda Sapien 

Executive Director 

Center for Employment and Training 

National Headquarters 

Sobrato CET Center 

701 Vine Street 

San Jose, CA 95110 

Phone: (408) 287-7924 

Labor-Management Partnerships 

Allen Smith 

Senior Strategic Researcher 

Building & Construction Trades Department 

AFL-CIO 

815 16th Street, NW, Suite 600 

Washington, DC 20006 

Phone: (202) 347-1461 

Email: asmith@bctd.org 

Eric Parker 

Executive Director 

Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership 

532 E. Capitol Drive 

Milwaukee, WI 53212 

Phone: 414-906-4204 

Email: eparker@wrtp.org 

Foundations 

Melanie Styles 

The Abell Foundation 

111 S. Calvert Street, Suite 2300 

Baltimore, MD 21202-6174 

Phone: (410) 547-1300 

Email: styles@abell.org 

Connie Pechura 

Director of the Human Capital Division 

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 

PO Box 2316 

College Road East and Route 1 

Princeton, NJ 08543-2316 

Phone: (609) 627-7531 ext. 5795