The Urban Institute March 2009 

Center on Labor, Human 

Services, and Population

The Benefits and Challenges of 

Registered Apprenticeship: 

The Sponsors’ Perspective 

Karin 

 Martinson 

ROBERT LERMAN

LAUREN EYSTER

KATE CHAMBERS
 

The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: 

The Sponsors’ Perspective 

Robert I. Lerman 

The Urban Institute and American University 

Lauren Eyster 

The Urban Institute 

Kate Chambers 

The Urban Institute 

FINAL REPORT 

March 2009 

This report has been funded, either wholly or in part, with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Labor 

(USDOL), Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Office of Policy Development and Research (OPDR) 

under Contract Number DOLJ61A20358. The report has been edited by OPDR. The contents of this publication do 

not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Labor, nor does mention of trade names, 

commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement of same by the U.S. Government. 
 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The authors thank those who provided valuable assistance and insight into the development of 

this report. Anthony Swoope, Dana Daugherty, Laura Ginsburg, and Karin Brown, all from the 

Office of Apprenticeship, and Dan Ryan, from the Office of Policy Development and Research, 

graciously provided information on registered apprenticeship and comments on this paper. We 

also wish to acknowledge those who developed the sampling methodology and fielded the 

Survey of Registered Apprenticeship Sponsors – Planmatics, Inc., Westat, and Decision 

Information Resources, Inc. Finally, we thank Charlotte Schifferes, our Federal Project Officer 

who provided direction to the overall study of registered apprenticeship. Her guidance and 

comments, both on registered apprenticeship and on the survey, have been invaluable. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

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

II. Context of Registered Apprenticeship ............................................................................ 3 

2.1 Background................................................................................................................... 3 

2.2 Registered Apprenticeship in the United States............................................................ 4 

2.3 New ETA Initiatives ..................................................................................................... 7 

III. Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 9 

3.1 Overview....................................................................................................................... 9 

3.2 Sampling Methodology................................................................................................. 9 

IV. Characteristics of Sponsors and Their Programs........................................................ 11 

4.1 Industry ....................................................................................................................... 11 

4.2 Number of Employers and Type of Program.............................................................. 12 

4.3 Longevity of Programs ............................................................................................... 12 

4.4 Number of Apprentices............................................................................................... 13 

V. What Sponsors Value about Apprenticeship ............................................................... 15 

5.1 Background................................................................................................................. 15 

5.2 Overall Patterns in the Survey .................................................................................... 16 

5.3 Variations in Sponsors’ Views of the Benefits of Apprenticeship ............................. 18 

VI. Drawbacks Sponsors See in Registered Apprenticeship ............................................. 20 

VII. Program Completion ...................................................................................................... 22 

VIII. Sources for Recruiting Apprentices .............................................................................. 25 

IX. Integration of Apprenticeship with the Workforce Investment System.................... 27 

X. The Role of Related Instruction..................................................................................... 30 

10.1 Sources of Instruction ............................................................................................... 30 

10.2 Quality of Instruction................................................................................................ 31 

10.3 Who Pays for Related Classroom Instruction........................................................... 32 

10.4 When Related Instruction Is Provided and Payment of Apprentices........................ 32 

10.5 Variations in Perceptions of Quality and Non-Completion of Programs ................. 33 

XI. Records Kept by Sponsors ............................................................................................. 35 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

 

XII. Sponsors’ Views of the Registered Apprenticeship System ........................................ 37 

12.1 Types of Changes Sponsors Favor............................................................................ 37 

12.2 Interest in Competency-Based Training ................................................................... 39 

12.3 Satisfaction with Apprenticeship Registration Agency ............................................ 40 

XIII. Conclusions: Key Findings and Implications.............................................................. 42 

References.................................................................................................................................... 45 

Appendix A – Additional Tables ............................................................................................. A-1 

Appendix B – Methodology...................................................................................................... B-1 

Appendix C – Survey Responses with Weighted Sample Sizes and Standard Errors ....... C-1 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Apprenticeship is a method of training that emphasizes learning by doing. Apprentices 

are taught by experienced workers at the job site and practice their skills in real work 

assignments. In the U.S., the registered apprenticeship system offers a framework for 

developing and registering apprenticeship programs, of which, in Fiscal Year 2007, there were 

nearly 28,000, with over 465,000 active apprentices. The Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA) of the U.S. Department of Labor oversees the registered apprenticeship 

system by issuing standards, monitoring state agencies, and promoting registered apprenticeship. 

Registered apprenticeship program sponsors are individual employers or groups of 

employers (sometimes in collaboration with unions) who play a critical role. Sponsors recruit, 

screen and hire apprentices; develop formal agreements with them identifying the length of the 

program, skills to be learned, the wages to be paid at different points in time, and the required 

classroom instruction; and work with state apprenticeship agencies (SAAs) to make sure that 

their registered apprenticeship programs meet state and Federal requirements. 

To better understand the perspective of sponsors, who are mainly employers, ETA 

commissioned a survey to learn more about what sponsors value, dislike, or would like to see 

changed about registered apprenticeship. The survey of sponsors was conducted in 2007 with a 

random stratified sample drawn from 90 percent of eligible sponsors nationally. Sponsors were 

asked about characteristics of their program and about their views on the value, benefits, and 

drawbacks of registered apprenticeship, its integration with the workforce investment systems, 

apprentice completion and reasons for non-completion, and suggestions for possible 

improvement. There were a total of 974 responses (for an estimated response rate of just over 70 

percent). 

Characteristics of Sponsors and Their Programs 

Information from respondents in the survey showed the following: 

• Thirty-six percent of sponsors identified their industry as construction. About 11 percent 

indicated their organizations were in the utilities (gas, electric, or water services), and 10 

percent identified their industry as retail trade. 

• About 26 percent of the sponsors indicated they were in programs jointly administered by 

employers and organized labor. 

• Sixty percent of sponsors indicated that their program served only one employer, while 

40 percent served multiple employers. Among programs with multiple employers, 38 

percent had union involvement. The comparable figure for union involvement of single 

employer sponsors was 18 percent. 

• Fifty-three percent of sponsors had small programs, with only 1 to 4 apprentices, while 

about 17 percent had no current apprentices and 30 percent had 5 or more. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

ii 

• Forty-eight percent of the sponsors had programs that were over 10 years old and 31 

percent had programs between 6 and 10 years old. About 3 percent of sponsors had 

programs that were less than one year. 

The Value Sponsors See in Apprenticeship 

• Ninety-seven percent of sponsors of registered programs said they would recommend the 

program to others, with 86 percent stating they would “strongly” recommend it and 11 

percent indicating they would recommend it with reservations, due primarily to problems 

with accessing related instruction. 

• The most frequently cited benefit of apprenticeship, identified as very important by over 

80 percent of sponsors, was that it helped meet their demand for skilled workers. The 

second most frequently cited benefit (noted by 72 percent of sponsors) was 

apprenticeship’s role in reliably showing which workers have the skills needed. Other 

benefits, cited by 68 percent of sponsors as very important, were: raising productivity, 

strengthening worker morale and pride, and improving worker safety. A majority of 

sponsors also cited as important benefits the role of registered apprenticeship in worker 

recruitment and retention and in meeting licensing requirements. 

Drawbacks Sponsors See in Apprenticeship 

• Competitor firms’ bidding away trained apprentices, commonly called “poaching,” and 

thought by economists to be a major disincentive to employer involvement in 

apprenticeship, was a concern but not a deterrent among current sponsors in the survey. 

Surprisingly, only 25 percent of sponsors identified this as a significant problem while 29 

percent saw it as a minor problem, and 46 percent did not perceive it as a problem at all. 

However, even among sponsors who perceived poaching as a problem, about 85 percent 

would still strongly recommend apprenticeship to others. 

• About a quarter (24 percent) of sponsors viewed apprentices’ failure to complete their 

apprenticeship program as a significant problem; 31 percent saw it as a minor problem 

and 45 percent did not cite it as a problem. 

• Sponsors generally did not find costs to be a significant problem. Sixty-three percent of 

sponsors said related instruction costs were not a problem, although 30 percent viewed it 

as a minor problem and 6 percent as a major problem. Similarly, only 7 percent of 

respondents saw the costs of experienced workers’ time to instruct apprentices as a 

significant problem, while 34 percent indicated it was a minor problem. 

• Only small percentages of sponsors indicated they had significant problems with other 

aspects of registered apprenticeship, such as it taking too long to produce skilled workers 

(11 percent of respondents), too much effort to manage a program (6 percent) and too 

much paperwork (9 percent). 

 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

iii 

Program Completion 

• Sponsors reported high completion rates. Forty-four percent of sponsors said that the 

completion rate for their program was between 90 to 100 percent and 21 percent 

indicated it was between 70 and 89 percent, thus making a total of 65 percent of 

sponsors who reported completion rates at or above 70 percent. An additional 17 

percent identified their completion rates as between 50 and 69 percent. High completion 

rates were especially common in the aerospace, automotive manufacturing, energy, 

health services, retail, and transportation industries. 

• Thirty-six percent of sponsors identified personal issues as the reason for noncompletion, making this the most frequently cited reason. Performance problems on the 

job or in the classroom were the next most commonly cited reason, noted by 32 percent 

of sponsors. However, about 30 percent of the sponsors said non-completion was the 

result of apprentices earning a craft license and then taking another job before completing 

the program and 11 percent cited transfer to another program as a reason for noncompletion. These last reasons were particularly important in the construction industry.

Sources for Recruiting Apprentices 

• About 65 percent of sponsors identified current employees as an effective source for 

recruiting new apprentices, making this the most frequently cited source. About 40 

percent of sponsors indicated that educational institutions were an effective source. 

• No more than 20 percent of the sponsors cited the Internet, community-based 

organizations, private vocational schools, and pre-apprenticeship programs as effective 

recruitment sources. 

• Only 14 percent of sponsors indicated that the One-Stop Career Center system and unions 

were effective recruitment sources, making them the least frequently cited source. 

Integration of Apprenticeship into the Workforce System 

• Nearly 30 percent of sponsors said that they had at least one interaction with the public 

workforce investment system, with 17 percent reporting they used a One-Stop or Job 

Service to post apprenticeship openings and 16 percent reporting having applicants sent 

by the One-Stop or Job Service. 

• Sponsors of joint programs, older programs, programs with more apprentices, and 

programs in the construction industry were more likely than the average sponsor to 

interact with the workforce investment system. Being a sponsor of a joint program and of 

a larger apprenticeship program increased the likelihood of some interaction with the 

workforce system by 13 percent and 20 percent, respectively. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

iv 

Role of Related Instruction 

• Fifty-eight percent of the respondents identified community colleges and public technical 

college as the providers of related instruction. Nearly one in four sponsors said that the 

related instruction was provided at a sponsor-owned or operated facility and about 17 

percent reported they used proprietary trade schools. 

• Sponsors generally gave high marks to the quality of related classroom instruction. 

Approximately 80 percent ranked the instruction as excellent or near excellent. Only 5 

percent of the sponsors indicated that the instruction quality was poor or near poor while 

about 13 percent viewed instruction as average. 

• Seventy percent of sponsors said that employers provided the funds for related 

instruction, while 23 percent indicated that the apprentice covered such costs. 

• Fifty-eight percent of sponsors said related instruction was offered in the evening, 25 

percent said it was offered during work hours, and nine percent said that it was offered on 

weekends. 

• High quality of related instruction appeared to be correlated with sponsors recording 

higher percentages of individuals completing apprenticeship programs. 

• Sponsors who utilized public technical schools for related instruction, appeared to have 

higher completion rates among their apprentices, but no other source of such instruction 

exerted a significant impact on completions. 

Sponsors’ View of the Registered Apprenticeship System 

• Sponsors generally gave high marks to their state apprenticeship agencies (SAAs): 82 

percent said the SAAs did a good or excellent job in being timely; 80 percent gave 

similar ratings for clarity of guidance; 70 percent rated them good to excellent for use of 

on-line registration; and 64 percent gave them similar marks for promoting and 

publicizing registered apprenticeship. 

• Fifty-one percent of sponsors stated that more help in finding and screening applicants 

was important to them; 41 percent said they would like more help in finding related 

instruction; and 37 percent said they would like a simpler process for setting up a new 

program. 

Competency-Based Approaches 

• Over 55 percent of sponsors said they were interested in learning more about 

competency-based approaches in apprenticeship programs. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

v 

Key Findings and Implications 

• Strong support from current sponsors. Nearly nine of every 10 sponsors would “strongly 

recommend” registered apprenticeship to others. 

• Competitor firms’ bidding away trained apprentices (commonly called “poaching”) was 

a concern but not a deterrent to providing apprenticeship training. The problem was 

identified as a significant concern by about one in four sponsors and a minor concern by 

another 29 percent. 

• Completion rates reported by sponsors were very high with 54 percent saying that at 

least 80 percent of their apprentices completed their program. However, non-completion 

is of concern to over half of all sponsors; 24 percent identified it as a significant problem 

and 31 percent indicated it was a minor problem. 

• Sponsors often use current employees to recruit new apprentices but the second most 

frequently cited source was community colleges and public technical schools. The OneStop Career Center system and unions were the least frequently identified sources, each 

cited by only about 14 percent of all sponsors. 

• Many sponsors say they want help in finding and screening applicants, as well as in 

finding related instruction. A large share of sponsors also identified as important several 

operational improvements in the registered apprenticeship system, such as faster 

registration of apprentices (36 percent), a simpler process for setting up a program (37 

percent), more feedback on delayed or rejected approvals for programs (26 percent), and 

easier multi-state registration (32 percent). 

• Sponsors generally gave high marks to their State Apprenticeship Agencies. Eighty-two 

percent indicated the agencies did a “good” or “excellent” job in being timely; 80 

percent gave similar ratings for clarity of guidance; 70 percent gave similar marks for 

use of on-line registration; and 64 said the SAAs were “good” or “excellent” in 

promoting and publicizing registered apprenticeship. 

• The majority of sponsors wanted to know more about competency-based approaches. 

Just over 56 percent of survey respondents said they were interested in learning about, or 

how to use, competency-based apprenticeship training. 

• Sponsors’ interactions with the Workforce Investment System were generally quite 

limited. While nearly 30 percent of sponsors said that they had at least one interaction 

with the public workforce investment system, only 17 percent reported they used a OneStop Career Center or the Job Service to post apprenticeship openings and 16 percent 

reported they received applicants referred by a One-Stop or Job Service 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Apprenticeship is a method of training that emphasizes learning by doing. Apprentices 

are taught by experienced workers and supervisors at the job site and practice their skills in real 

work assignments. In the United States, the registered apprenticeship system, established under 

the 1937 National Apprenticeship Act (also called the Fitzgerald Act), provides a framework for 

this form of training. In fiscal year 2007 there were nearly 28,000 programs providing training 

to over 465,000 active apprentices, according to data from the Office of Apprenticeship (OA) in 

the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) of the U.S. Department of Labor. OA 

oversees the registered apprenticeship system, issuing regulations, providing guidance and 

technical assistance to sponsors and state agencies, maintaining a database, monitoring trends, 

and promoting registered apprenticeship. 

Registered apprenticeship program sponsors are individual employers or groups of 

employers (sometimes in collaboration with unions) who play a critical role. Sponsors recruit 

and hire apprentices; determine the content of the training, the partner for classroom instruction, 

and the number of apprentices to train; and develop formal agreements identifying the skills to 

be learned, wages to be paid, and the required classroom instruction. Sponsors also work with 

state apprenticeship agencies (SAAs) to make sure that their programs meet state requirements 

and standards as well as to register programs and apprentices. 

To better understand the perspective of sponsors, who are mainly employers, ETA 

commissioned a survey to learn about what sponsors value, dislike, or would like to see changed 

about registered apprenticeship. The survey was administered to a representative sample of 

sponsors, drawn from a sampling frame that covered 90 percent of all sponsors in the United 

States. A stratified random sample was used to oversample sponsors in high-growth industries 

and final results were appropriately weighted to assure results were nationally representative. 

The survey was fielded in the spring of 2007. This report presents and interprets the 

results of the survey, addressing the following questions: 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

2 

• Who trains apprentices — what are the characteristics of the sponsors of registered 

apprenticeship programs? 

• What are the key characteristics of registered apprenticeship programs in terms of 

size, type, and history? 

• What do sponsors value about registered apprenticeship? 

• What are the drawbacks or problems sponsors find in registered apprenticeship? 

• How do sponsors recruit apprentices? 

• How well integrated is registered apprenticeship with the workforce investment 

system? 

• What institutions provide related instruction? 

• What is the completion rate for apprentices and why do some apprentices fail to 

complete their programs? 

• What changes in the registered apprenticeship system would sponsors recommend? 

• What data do sponsors capture on their registered apprenticeship programs? 

• What are the implications of these results for policy and further research? 

The report addresses each of these questions and explores how they are connected to each 

other. The report also discusses the survey methodology and provides a contextual overview of 

apprenticeship. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

3 

II. CONTEXT OF REGISTERED APPRENTICESHIP 

2.1 Background 

Apprenticeship has existed for thousands of years1

 but it uses a method consistent with 

the findings of modern cognitive science on how individuals learn (Resnick 1987). 

Apprenticeship is particularly able to inculcate critical work-process knowledge, including 

specialized problem-solving practices in particular occupations (Borham 2004; Steedman et al. 

1998). The apprenticeship model also helps individuals develop an occupational identity, a 

professional ethic, and self-esteem based on accomplishment (Rauner 2007). 

While it is an important tool for helping workers develop their skills and earn a 

recognized and valued occupational credential, apprenticeship also likely raises their 

productivity. The literature on employer-provided training in general suggests it can achieve 

high returns in terms of worker productivity (Frazis and Loewenstein 1999).2 Given the in-depth 

nature of apprenticeship training, rigorous evaluation of its effect on productivity would likely 

show similar results. 

Apprenticeship plays a major role in training skilled workers in many countries 

(Steedman 2005; Leitch Commission 2006). The scale of apprenticeship has traditionally been 

largest in Central European countries, especially Austria, Denmark, Germany, and Switzerland. 

These countries typically use apprenticeship as a major component of school-to-work transition 

activities for 40-70 percent of youth in high schools or soon after high school. In recent years, 

several other advanced countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, have been 

expanding the role of apprenticeship (Steedman 2006; OECD 2006a). A recent report on the 

critical need to upgrade skills in the United Kingdom called for a major expansion of 

 

1

 Ancient Egypt and Babylon organized training in craft skills to maintain an adequate number of craftsmen. In the 

18th century BC, the Hammurabi Code of Babylon required artisans to teach their crafts to the next generation. 

2

 In this study, Frazis and Loewenstein used data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and the 

Employment Opportunity Pilot Project to obtain the most plausible estimates of returns to on-the-job training. They 

found that returns to training diminish with each additional hour of training. However, their estimates showed there 

are high wage returns from the initial intervention of formal training. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

4 

apprenticeship (Leitch Commission 2006). In Norway, a 1994 reform gave students a legal right 

to an apprenticeship as part of their three years of secondary education (OECD 2006a). 

2.2 Registered Apprenticeship in the United States 

Relative to other countries, apprenticeship plays a considerably smaller role in the United 

States (Gitter 1994; Winkelman 1997), where there are currently approximately 450,000 

apprentices in registered programs, with over 200,000 entrants per year — modest numbers 

compared to the millions of individuals in the United States who receive occupational training 

and education in all types of colleges and universities. Overall, the number of individuals in 

registered apprenticeship per year is about as high as the combined number of participants 

receiving training through the Workforce Investment Act’s Adult and Dislocated Worker 

programs, the Job Corps, and the Trade Adjustment Act (Mikelson and Nightingale 2004). The 

Federal costs for administering registered apprenticeship are quite modest (around $21 million), 

compared to the billions spent on other training programs, primarily because most of the costs of 

apprenticeship are borne by employers and state postsecondary education systems. 

 Although small in comparison to many countries and to U.S. college and university 

enrollments, apprenticeship in the United States has been growing, as evidenced by a 25 percent 

increase in apprentices from 1997-2003 (Bennici et al. 2004). 

Registered apprenticeship in the United States is also far more decentralized than in other 

countries. Although U.S. sponsors can use established curricula in their industry, they are not 

bound, as in many countries, by an external industry standard for determining the skills taught, 

the nature of work-based learning, the specific content of classroom instruction, and the tests of 

competencies. Nor are U.S. sponsors required to rely on representatives of industry, workers, 

and government to determine such program elements. Rather, sponsors and employers have the 

ability to customize apprenticeship training to their workforce needs, within the bounds of 

Federal and state standards. 

Even in the United States, however, apprenticeships must meet minimum standards in 

apprenticeable occupations and occasionally use external competency-based assessments. 

Within those limits, individual employers and groups of employers, sometimes in collaboration 

with unions, have considerable discretion in designing and operating their programs. Sponsors 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

5 

choose the apprentices, the content of the training, the type of partner for classroom instruction, 

and the number of apprentices to train. Since employers must spend their own resources on 

apprenticeship training, they have an incentive to increase the number of apprentices only when 

they believe they will require additional trained workers in the future. Compared to the systems 

in some other countries, the apprenticeship system in the U.S. is far more decentralized and relies 

more on employers’ decisions. 

A distinctive feature of registered apprenticeship in the U.S. is the contractual agreement 

that binds the apprenticeship sponsor, usually the employer, and the apprentice. This formal 

agreement clarifies expectations, helps assure fair treatment of apprentices, and creates a process 

by which apprentices are supported in their progress toward becoming the responsible, qualified 

workers that employers want. Apprentices must complete classroom instruction in theoretical 

aspects of their chosen field, as a complement to workplace learning. Unlike most education and 

training programs, registered apprenticeship involves wage payments, which typically increase 

over time in a series of steps, as apprentices complete established milestones in time and skill. 

Apprentices typically receive lower pay in expectation of receiving valuable training in return. 

A firm’s investments in registered apprenticeship thus includes apprentices’ wages and direct 

training costs (for related instruction) as well as costs associated with managing the program, 

experienced workers’ and supervisors’ time in instructing and mentoring apprentices, and 

inefficiencies created in the production process. 

Though registered apprenticeship in the U.S. is largely employer-driven and 

decentralized, SAAs play a critical role in registering apprenticeship programs, monitoring 

programs, providing technical assistance to current and potential sponsors, obtaining data on 

registered programs, and encouraging the development of new programs. ETA also has an 

important role in developing and enforcing regulations and standards, as well as in recognizing 

and monitoring SAAs. Federal staff also administer registered apprenticeship in 25 states and 

three territories; while state government staff administer the program in the remaining 25 states. 

One of the key goals of Federal standards is to discourage abuse of low-wage apprentices 

through inadequate training and advancement (Jacoby 1991). Thus, for a program to qualify to 

be registered, it must meet a set of standards, including: 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

6 

• Fair application procedures; 

• A schedule allowing the apprentice to receive training and work experience in the 

field; 

• Organized instruction in technical subjects required for the occupation (usually at 

least 144 hours per year); 

• A progressively increasing schedule of wages; 

• Proper supervision of on-the-job training; 

• Adequate facilities to train apprentices; 

• Periodic evaluation of apprentices’ progress in job performance and related 

instruction; 

• Maintenance of appropriate records; and 

• No discrimination in any phase of selection, employment, or training. 

Although discrimination is prohibited, there are far more men than women in 

apprenticeship. Given that construction and manufacturing are the leading industries in 

sponsoring apprenticeships, this result is perhaps not surprising, even though ETA has made 

substantial efforts to increase the number of women in apprenticeships in non-traditional 

occupations. Also, historically, apprenticeship programs typically had relatively few minorities 

(Marshall and Briggs 1967; Taylor 2006), in part because of barriers to entry, including 

prerequisites barring individuals with low educational attainments, requiring unpaid 

apprenticeship preparation and providing limited information on available apprenticeship slots. 

In recent years, however, the share of minorities in registered apprenticeships has increased to 

about one-third of all new registrants in construction programs (Bilginsoy 2005) and over onethird across all industries (in fiscal year 2007). 

U.S. apprenticeship programs have been highly concentrated in construction, 

manufacturing, and other selected fields, such as public safety and some military occupations. 

Since apprenticeship is new to many other industries such as health care and information 

technology, penetration of registered apprenticeship in these areas is only in the beginning stages 

of growth. While the number of active programs in the industries newer to apprenticeship is still 

small compared to traditional industries, there has been rapid expansion in some fields. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

7 

According to one study, the number of registered programs in energy more than doubled from 

1995 to 2003 and the number of programs in social services (e.g., child care) almost quadrupled 

from 1995 to 2003 (Bennici et al. 2004). However, registered apprenticeship programs in health 

services decreased slightly and information technology remained relatively flat over the 1995-

2003 period. 

While registered apprenticeship appears to be relatively inexpensive from a Federal 

perspective, its performance, in terms of earnings gains for participants, appears to be robust, at 

least in the few quantitative studies available. One estimate of the net impacts of apprenticeship 

indicated there were significant earnings gains for participants (Cook 1989). Another study 

found that the earnings gains associated with apprenticeship training in Washington State were 

substantial two to three years after leaving the program (Washington State Workforce Training 

2004). Those completing apprenticeships earned nearly $4,300 more per quarter than the 

primary comparison group. These earnings gains were nearly three times the comparably 

estimated gains for those graduating with a vocational degree from community colleges. 

2.3 New ETA Initiatives 

In 2001, ETA began the Advancing Apprenticeship Initiative (AAI) to encourage 

demand-driven strategies to address workforce challenges. ETA sought to develop registered 

apprenticeship programs in high-growth industries defined as those adding new jobs to the 

economy, causing growth in other industries, or using new technologies or innovations that 

require new skill sets from their workers. Under the AAI, ETA funded industry efforts to 

establish apprenticeships in new occupations and industries, such as in nursing, information 

technology, geospatial technology, advanced manufacturing, and maritime occupations. These 

initiatives involved the creation of industry standards and the provision of technical assistance 

and guidance to employers, with the goal of making registered apprenticeship a viable training 

option in the new industries and, in some cases, to stimulate new career ladders that would create 

more, and higher-paying, opportunities for workers in those industries. 

ETA efforts to expand apprenticeship were further supported by subsequent initiatives, 

which were intended to create demand-driven workforce investment policies focusing on 

employers as key decision-makers. Federal efforts to expand the use of apprenticeship to other 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

8 

employers in the United States thus require understanding how the apprenticeship system 

operates and what sponsors think about it. To learn more about these programs and the views of 

current sponsors, ETA undertook the survey that is the focus of this report. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

9 

III. METHODOLOGY 

3.1 Overview 

The Survey of Sponsors of Registered Apprenticeship was designed to capture nationally 

representative data on the characteristics and attitudes of registered apprenticeship sponsors. The 

survey was administered in March and April of 2007 via phone, fax, and Internet. A total of 947 

sponsors completed the survey instrument, which asked about the sponsor's program 

characteristics, benefits of registered apprenticeship, drawbacks or costs of registered 

apprenticeship, views on the apprenticeship system, interactions with the larger workforce 

investment system, and related instruction. A detailed description of the sampling methodology 

can be found in Appendix B.1 and information on the weighting of the responses and response 

rates can be found in Appendix B.2. A set of tables with responses to the survey, weighted 

sample sizes and error rates, can be found in Appendix C.3

 Additional data tables and a public 

use data file can be found at the website, http://wdr.doleta.gov/research. 

3.2 Sampling Methodology 

The sampling frame for the survey was comprised of 90 percent of the estimated universe 

of private sector sponsors, based on the 2006 data from the 32 states that fully participated in the 

Registered Apprenticeship Information System (RAIS) database and six additional states that 

agreed to provide individual level data for this one-time survey, at the request of OA. There 

were a total of 21,324 apprenticeship sponsors in the sampling frame, running an estimated 

24,700 apprenticeship programs for about 316,500 apprentices. Sponsors of registered programs 

in the military and in prisons were excluded since they were government programs rather than 

private sector efforts. 

Since there were far fewer sponsors in new and emerging industries and far more 

sponsors in the construction industry, the sampling frame was stratified into three mutually 

 

3

 The initial research design, an accompanying process study involving site visits to five states, the sampling and 

weighting methodologies for the survey, design of the survey instrument, survey data collection, data cleaning and 

data analysis were conducted by Planmatics, Inc. and its subcontractors, Westat and Decision Information Resources 

(DIR). 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

10 

exclusive groups by industry classification: 1) high growth, 2) construction and 3) “other” (not 

high growth or construction). Industries considered “high growth” included advanced 

manufacturing, aerospace, automotive, biotechnology, construction, energy, financial services, 

geospatial technology, health care, hospitality, information technology (IT), and transportation. 

Sponsors of high-growth industries were oversampled. 

Equally sized samples were randomly drawn from the three strata, with the goal of 

having a total sample of about 1,200. However, because of the likelihood of many sponsors 

being ineligible because they were no longer in business or had not had an apprentice within the 

last three years, additional sample members were drawn, resulting in a total sample of 1,792 

individuals. Of the initial sample, however, 28 percent were found or imputed to be “ineligible,” 

for the reasons noted above. Using the imputed number of ineligibles, the “best estimate” of the 

response rate was 71.3 percent for the 974 completed interviews. 

In the analysis of the data received, responses were weighted in order to generate 

nationally representative information. Weights were computed and assigned to ensure that the 

relative importance given to each response was equal to the incidence of the type of sponsor 

nationally. The base weights were determined using the inverse of the probabilities of selection 

of the sponsors into the sample. Then, adjustments to the weights were made for duplicates, 

unknown eligibility cases, and non-respondents in the final sampling frame. 

 Distributions of responses nationally and by different subgroups of sponsors were 

analyzed and cross-tabulations reviewed. Also, a host of factors were examined in regression 

analyses to see if they might have any effect on key responses. For example, in analyzing the 

sponsor-reported value placed on apprenticeship, the possible effects of the type of program, 

number, and source of apprentices were examined, among other factors. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

11 

IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF SPONSORS AND THEIR PROGRAMS 

The survey provides recent data on basic characteristics of sponsors and their 

apprenticeship programs. Sponsors were asked to identify their industry, if their program served 

one or more employers, if organized labor was involved in their program, how many years the 

program has been in existence, and how many current apprentices they have. 

4.1 Industry 

As Table 4.1 shows, the construction industry represented over a third (35.5 percent) of 

sponsors nationally. Two high-growth industries — energy and retail trade — had a strong 

toehold in registered apprenticeship, making up slightly over 20 percent of sponsors combined. 

Automotive manufacturing comprised almost 4 percent of the sponsors in the survey. Health 

services, hospitality, aerospace, automotive repair, information technology, and transportation 

had the fewest number of sponsors in the sample, each representing only 0.5 to 1.5 percent of the 

sample. The “Other” category, which included agriculture, wholesale trade, communications, 

government, services (other than health care, financial, and hospitality), and manufacturing 

industries (other than automotive, IT, and aerospace), had a large share, almost a third, of the 

sponsors. 

There were some regional differences in types of industries reported by sponsors.4 In the 

Northeast, Southwest, and West, the construction industry dominated, with 60 percent, 41 

percent, and 48 percent of sponsors, respectively. (See Table A.1 in Appendix A.) Registered 

apprenticeship sponsors in the energy industry had a presence in all regions. The Mid-Atlantic 

and Midwestern states had a greater spread across industries with a concentration of sponsors in 

the retail trade in the Mid-Atlantic region (30 percent) and in the automotive manufacturing 

industry in the Midwestern states (10 percent). All regions had a fairly high percentage of 

sponsors in the “Other” industry category, ranging from 20 percent in the Northeast to 44 percent 

in the Southeast. 

 

4

 The six DOL regions were used for the regional analysis. In general, Region I represents the Northeastern states; 

Region II, the Mid-Atlantic states; Region III, the Southeastern states; Region IV, the Southwestern states; Region 

V, the Midwestern states; and Region VI, the Western states. For the states that comprise these regions, please see 

the ETA webpage of the Regional Offices at http://www.doleta.gov/regions/regoffices/. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

12 

4.2 Number of Employers and Type of Program 

Sponsors can serve either one or multiple employers, and may have organized labor 

involved in their program. Most (60 percent) of the sponsors surveyed had registered 

apprenticeship programs that served only one employer though programs in IT and construction 

more often had multiple employers. 

Overall, about 26 percent of the sponsors indicated their programs were jointly 

administered by employers and organized labor. Among programs with multiple employers, 38 

percent had union involvement. For programs with only a single employer, the comparable 

figure for union involvement was 18 percent. 

 Regional analysis showed that, except in the West, the vast majority of sponsors were not 

in joint programs. Most programs in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Midwest served only one 

employer while most Southeastern programs served multiple employers. The Southwest and 

West had a more even split between serving one or multiple employers. 

4.3 Longevity of Programs 

Traditionally, registered apprenticeship programs are rooted in the construction and 

manufacturing industries and have been operating for many decades. As shown in Table 4.1, the 

oldest programs are in the automotive, construction, energy, transportation, and the combined 

and “other” industry categories. Aerospace, health care, hospitality, IT, and retail had the 

youngest programs at one to five years in existence. Overall, almost half the sponsors (48 

percent) had programs that were over 10 years old and 17 percent had programs six to ten years 

old. Thirty-one percent had programs that had been in existence for one to five years and about 

three percent had the newest programs (less than one year old). These findings held across the 

regions except that no new programs were found in the Southeast, Southwest, and West. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

13 

Table 4.1: Apprenticeship Sponsors by Industry, Duration, and Size of Programs 

Industry 

Percent of 

the Sample 

Most 

Common Age 

of Programs 

(in Years) 

Most Commonly 

Cited Number of 

Apprentices 

Currently in 

Program 

Aerospace .53 1-5 10-19 

Automotive Repair 1.15 More than 10 1-4 

Automotive Manufacturing 3.80 More than 10 1-4 

Construction 35.50 More than 10 1-4 

Energy (Gas, Electric, & Water) 10.56 More than 10 1-4 

Health Services 1.44 1-5 1-4 

Hospitality (Hotel, Restaurants, & Lodging) 1.35 1-5 1-4 

Information Technology – Manufacturing .65 6-10 1-4 

Information Technology – Communication 

Services .52 1-5 1-4 

Retail Trade 10.37 1-5 1-4 

Transportation .57 More than 10 1-4 

Combination of Biotechnology, 

Mining/Extraction, Finance, Insurance, Real 

Estate, & Homeland Security 

1.10 More than 10 1-4 

Other 32.46 More than 10 1-4 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Apprenticeship Sponsors 

4.4 Number of Apprentices 

Among the survey respondents, 53 percent of sponsors had 1 to 4 apprentices in their 

programs. Based on previous studies, this is typical of registered apprenticeship programs 

(Bennici et al. 2004). Table 4.2 shows that 17 percent of the sponsors surveyed had no 

apprentices in their program, 53 percent had 1 to 4 apprentices, and 8 percent had 5 to 9 

apprentices. Nearly 22 percent of sponsors had 10 or more apprentices in their programs. Most 

sponsors in almost all of the industries had 1 to 4 apprentices in their program (see Table 4.1). 

Only the aerospace industry had a substantial number of apprentices (10 to 19) in its programs. 

There were a few programs with very large numbers of apprentices, which created a highly 

skewed distribution of apprentices by the number of programs. This was borne out by 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

14 

descriptive statistics: there was a mode of one apprentice, a median of two apprentices, and a 

mean of 37. 

Table 4.2: Percentage of Sponsors by the Range of 

Apprentices in the Program 

Number of Apprentices Percentage of Sponsors 

No apprentices 17 

1-4 apprentices 53 

5-9 apprentices 8 

More than 10 apprentices 22 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of 

Apprenticeship Sponsors 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

15 

V. WHAT SPONSORS VALUE ABOUT APPRENTICESHIP 

5.1 Background 

Building worker skills requires an investment of resources today that yields a flow of 

returns in the form of enhanced productivity in the future. The enhanced skills may be specific 

in that they raise a worker’s productivity only within one firm, general in that the worker’s 

added capabilities can increase productivity to a range of firms, or some of both (for example, 

learning one firm’s computer system can be of help in another firm). Until recently, economic 

theory predicted that employers would be unlikely to finance general training because the 

workers capture all or nearly all of the associated gains in productivity. With added general 

skills, workers become more attractive to all firms and can thus command a higher wage. The 

fear that other employers will “poach” or hire away workers after training is thought to deter 

employers from providing the type of general training embodied in apprenticeship. Instead, 

employers theoretically have an incentive to invest only in firm-specific training. 

 In a challenge to this view, Acemoglu and Pischke (1999) showed that employers often 

have an incentive to finance general training because transaction costs in the labor market make 

it difficult for workers to quit and costly for employers to replace them. Also, firms providing 

the training know more than other firms about the content and value of the training and the skills 

acquired by individual workers. Many companies now realize that specific and general skills are 

often complementary—the ability to achieve high productivity gains from specific training 

increases the productivity of the worker’s general skills. Still, another issue is that the distinction 

between general and specific skills downplays the critical role of occupational skills that are 

general in the sense of having value to more than one firm but also are specific to a set of firms. 

Also, task-specific skills in one occupation are often transferable to tasks in other occupations 

using similar skills. Finally, some theorists argue that effective workers in any organization must 

obtain skills in the context of their work environment (Nelson 1997; Stasz 2001). 

 The survey of apprenticeship sponsors offers a practical window into what some 

employers say about the delivery of occupational and firm-specific training through 

apprenticeship. The survey instrument included a question about potential benefits of 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

16 

apprenticeship and which benefits sponsors considered “very important,” “somewhat important,” 

or “not important.” The list of potential benefits included items that touched on recruitment and 

retention, skills attainment, productivity, employee morale, and safety, and help in meeting 

licensing or other requirements. Also, an overall indication of sponsors’ support for and 

satisfaction was captured by a question as to whether the sponsor would recommend registered 

apprenticeship to others to train their workers in skilled occupations. 

5.2 Overall Patterns in the Survey 

 Sponsors in the survey appeared to be very supportive of registered apprenticeship. 

When asked whether they would recommend it to others, 97 percent said they would (including 

86 percent who would “strongly” recommend registered apprenticeship and 11 percent who said 

they would recommend it with reservations). Sponsors of older programs tended to be more 

likely to recommend registered apprenticeship than sponsors of newer programs; 90 percent of 

sponsors in programs in operation less than a year recommended registered apprenticeship, 

compared to 99 percent of sponsors or programs operating for 10 years or more. Only about 3 

percent of all sponsors answered that they would not positively recommend apprenticeship. 

Sponsors’ ratings of the benefits of registered apprenticeship are noted in Table 5.1. 

Nearly all said that their apprenticeship program helps them meet their need for skilled workers, 

with 83 percent of sponsors rating it as a “very important benefit and 14 percent saying this was 

“somewhat important.” Apprenticeship’s role in reliably documenting which workers have the 

appropriate skills, raising productivity and worker morale, and reducing safety problems were all 

identified by 70 percent of all sponsors as “very important,” while around 25 percent indicated 

these benefits were at least “somewhat important.” 

A lower percentage of sponsors (around 55 percent) noted apprenticeship was “very 

important” in helping them meet licensing requirements with 26 percent saying this benefit was 

“somewhat important.” 

 One interesting finding is that 56 percent of sponsors said that apprenticeship was “very 

important” in employee recruitment and retention—a proportion lower than for some other 

benefits. Thirty-four percent said this was somewhat important. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

17 

Table 5.1: Sponsor Views of Potential Benefits of Registered Apprenticeship 

 Percent of Sponsors in Each Category

Benefit of Apprenticeship 

Very 

Important 

Somewhat 

Important 

Not 

Important 

Helps meet our demand for skilled workers 83 14 3 

Helps with employee recruitment and retention 56 34 10 

Reliably shows which workers have the skills to do 

the job 

72 23 5 

Adds to productivity or high quality of services 70 25 5 

Saves money on workers’ pay 32 34 33 

Good for worker morale or pride 69 25 6 

Leads to fewer safety problems 68 24 8 

Helps us meet government requirements 54 26 20 

Helps us meet licensing requirements 56 21 23 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Apprenticeship Sponsors. 

Another interesting finding was that one-third of respondents said that saving money on 

pay was not an important benefit to them, one third said it was only “somewhat important,” and 

another third said such savings were “very important.” Among sponsors of joint programs, 72 

percent said pay savings was either “very” or “somewhat important,” as compared to 62 percent 

of sponsors in employer-only programs (see Table 5.2). These results may also reflect that pay 

savings are greater in companies where there are labor-management agreements. 

Table 5.2: Percentage of Sponsors of Joint and Non-Joint Program by View of 

Apprenticeship: Saves Money on Workers’ Pay 

Saves Money on Workers’ Pay 

Sponsor Characteristic 

Very 

Important

Somewhat 

Important 

Not 

Important 

Sponsor of a Joint Program 36 36 26 

Sponsor of an Employer-Only Program 30 32 35 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Apprenticeship Sponsors, 

Westat Inc. 

Although not asked to provide comments, nine sponsors volunteered their thoughts on the 

benefits of registered apprenticeship beyond the itemized categories. While these responses are 

not of quantitative importance, they do provide a more personal view of what apprenticeship 

means to at least these sponsors. One sponsor noted that apprenticeship contributed to a positive 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

18 

labor-management atmosphere while another noted that it allowed “greater participation from the 

minority community.” Two respondents were former apprentices and one said that “I owe my 

future to the program and wish to pass it along.” Finally, one sponsor summed up the benefits 

for the apprentice rather than for the employer, by stating that the apprenticeship program 

“provides a living wage for a human being and an opportunity to pursue dreams.”

 Overall, employer sponsors identified nearly all the listed benefits as “very important” or 

“somewhat important.” This finding is significant in itself, since it demonstrates that employers 

and other sponsors believe they are reaping a wide array of benefits from apprenticeship 

programs. 

5.3 Variations in Sponsors’ Views of the Benefits of Apprenticeship 

While responses about the value and benefits of apprenticeship were broadly positive, 

analysis was undertaken to determine if there were any significant differences among sponsors 

with different program characteristics (using willingness to strongly recommend as a proxy for 

satisfaction with registered apprenticeship). Factors considered were industry, program size, 

involvement of organized labor, age of the program, institution conducting related instruction, 

satisfaction with related instruction, sponsor role in financing related instruction, compensation 

of workers’ time in related instruction, and apprentice completion rates. (Results from the 

multivariate regression using these factors as independent variables are presented in Table A.2 

and Table A.3 in Appendix A.) 

There were several factors that had statistically significant effects on the likelihood of a 

strong recommendation, with the apprentice completion rate being the most notable. Sponsors 

with completion rates of 90 percent or greater were more likely to strongly recommend 

registered apprenticeship than the average. Sponsors of very small programs with 5 to 9 

participants and those with 10 to 39 apprentices were slightly more likely to strongly recommend 

registered apprenticeship, as were sponsors who gave higher ratings of their state agency’s 

performance. Also, sponsors using proprietary trade schools for related instruction appeared less

inclined to offer a strong recommendation. 

Overall, however, the differences between those most supportive and least supportive 

were small and most were not statistically significant. Sponsoring a joint program did not 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

19 

significantly raise or lower the strength of the apprenticeship recommendation, nor did the age of 

the apprenticeship program or the venues for providing related instruction (except proprietary 

schools). 

However, there were some more striking effects regarding sponsor willingness to 

strongly recommend apprenticeship when views on different types of benefits are considered for 

joint and employer-only sponsors (see Table A.4 in Appendix A). For example, joint program 

sponsors’ willingness to provide a strong recommendation was increased seven points among 

those who also saw apprenticeship as a way to save on worker pay but there was no statistically 

significant difference for sponsors of employer-only programs. This may be because 

apprenticeship offers a way for employers participating in collective bargaining agreements to 

gain some wage flexibility, which may not be a consideration for sponsors of unilateral 

programs. Similarly, joint sponsors who cited the benefits of apprenticeship for worker morale 

or pride were also more likely to strongly recommend it. 

For sponsors of employer-only programs, willingness to recommend apprenticeship was 

higher (and statistically significant) among those who place greater value on benefits associated 

with recruitment and retention, documenting worker skills, and improving safety. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

20 

VI. DRAWBACKS SPONSORS SEE IN REGISTERED APPRENTICESHIP 

As in other decisions regarding issues involving training and recruitment, sponsors are 

likely to weigh the benefits against the costs of registered apprenticeship. Since the survey 

covered only sponsors who participate in registered apprenticeship, most presumably view the 

benefits as being greater than the relevant costs. Still, it is crucial to know the costs or 

drawbacks sponsors viewed as the most troublesome to determine what administrative action or 

policy might be needed. 

Respondents to the survey were given a fixed list of costs and drawbacks and asked to 

indicate if each item was a problem, and if so, whether it was a minor or a significant problem. 

The responses are reported in Table 6.1. Overall, only two categories — on dropouts and 

poaching by competitors — were considered a problem by a majority of sponsors. Most 

sponsors said that they did not have a problem with the remaining costs and drawbacks that they 

were asked about — related instruction, experienced workers’ time, length of training, program 

management, and amount of paperwork — but around 40 percent saw these as at least a minor 

problem. 

Table 6.1: Sponsor Views of Potential Costs or Drawbacks of Registered Apprenticeship 

 

Percent of Sponsors in Each Category

Cost/Drawback of Apprenticeship 

Significant 

Problem Minor Problem Not a Problem 

Related Instruction 6 31 63 

Experienced Workers’ Time 8 35 58 

Too Much Time Required for Training 11 32 57 

Managing the Program 6 27 67 

Too Many Apprentices Drop Out 24 31 45 

Competitors Poach Workers After They 

Become Fully Skilled 

25 29 46 

Too Much Paperwork 9 30 61 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Apprenticeship Sponsors 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

21 

 Of particular interest is the sponsors’ concern that they will lose the workers they train to 

other employers. Employers’ fear that they will not recoup training costs because of “poaching” 

has been advanced in human capital theory as the central explanation for lack of employer 

support for general training. Fear of poaching was not as great a determinant of employer 

attitudes among sponsors as theory would suggest. Only about 25 percent of sponsors regarded 

poaching as a significant problem while another 29 percent saw it as a minor problem. The 

concern about poaching appeared to be greater for sponsors of employer-only program, 27 

percent of whom said it was a significant problem, compared to 18 percent of sponsors of joint 

programs, However, the impact of possible poaching should not be dismissed, as it may deter 

potential sponsors from starting new apprenticeship programs. 

Concern about dropouts was about as significant as that for poaching, with 25 percent of 

sponsors identifying it as a significant problem. This concern was more likely viewed as 

significant in employer-only programs (26 percent) than in joint programs (18 percent). 

Nearly 20 sponsors in the survey volunteered comments on other drawbacks and 

problems. A few focused on the lack of experienced workers to train apprentices and difficulties 

in finding qualified instructors. Other problems mentioned included: different fee structures 

across counties, lack of available educational sources in rural areas, lack of effective oversight by 

the program administrator, long and complicated application processes, and cost of related 

instruction. 

 While some sponsors reported a few select costs and drawbacks as significant problems, it 

is unclear whether these problems affected sponsors’ assessment of apprenticeship. Examining 

the relationship between costs or drawbacks and the willingness of the sponsor to provide a 

strong recommendation of registered apprenticeship (see Table A.5 in Appendix A) shows that 

sponsors who identified poaching and high dropout rates were not less likely to recommend 

apprenticeship. The drawbacks which were correlated with less enthusiastic sponsor attitudes 

related to concerns with managing the program, the time required for training, and the time 

expended by experienced workers. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

22 

VII. PROGRAM COMPLETION 

As in other workforce investment programs, completion rates for apprenticeship provide 

indicators of success both nationally and for individual programs. While there are few research 

projects on apprenticeship completion, a 2003 study of attrition and retention in construction 

industry apprenticeship programs offered some suggestive findings. Bilginsoy (2003) showed 

that completion was more likely for apprentices in joint programs than for unilateral employeronly programs. In addition, men were more likely to complete programs than women were, and 

minorities were less likely to complete than whites. Another study suggested that completion 

rates varied by program type within an industry and occupation and that numerous factors can 

affect completion (Bennici et al. 2004). Attrition depended on the long-term commitment 

necessary by apprentices, the recruitment and selection of apprentices, and the ability of sponsors 

to provide continuous employment to apprentices. Overall, the study found that after six years in 

a registered apprenticeship program, over 40 percent of apprentices completed their program. 

The sponsor survey provides insights about completion rates overall and among sponsors 

with different characteristics. As can be seen in Table 7.1, nearly 44 percent of sponsors 

estimated that completion rates for their programs were between 90 to 100 percent, and a 

majority of sponsors (54 percent) reported a rate of completion at or above 80 percent. However, 

about 35 percent reported completion rates below 70 percent and 18 percent said their 

completion rate was below 50 percent. High completion rates of 90 to 100 percent were 

especially common in the aerospace, automotive manufacturing, energy, health services, retail, 

and transportation industries. (See Table A.6 in Appendix A for more details.) 

The completion rates overall appear to compare quite favorably to the national 21.5 

percent graduation rate in 2005 for first-time, full-time students at community colleges (U.S. 

Department of Education 2007). In addition, apprenticeship completion rates seem to be slightly 

higher than, or at least on par with, credential rates from WIA adult and dislocated worker 

programs, at 66 and 71 percent respectively (DOL 2007b). 

Why apprentices fail to complete registered apprenticeship programs is a key concern for 

employers and program administrators. The survey asked sponsors about the main reasons for 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

23 

early departure and offered fixed responses in four categories: transfer to another apprenticeship 

program, gaining a craft license/taking another job before completion, problems with 

performance, and personal issues. Almost 70 percent of sponsors identified at least one of these 

reasons for non-completion. 

Table 7.1: Sponsor’s Estimate of the Completion Rate 

for Apprentices in Their Program 

Sponsor-reported 

Completion Rates 

Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Cumulative 

Percentage of 

Sponsors 

0 % 1.8 1.8 

1 – 9% 5.3 7.1 

10 – 19% 2.9 10.0 

20 – 29% 3.4 13.5 

30 – 39% 2.7 16.4 

40 – 49% 1.5 17.7 

50 – 59% 11.5 29.2 

60 – 69% 5.5 34.7 

70 – 79% 11.5 46.2 

80 – 89% 9.9 56.1 

90 – 100% 43.9 100.0 

Total 100 100 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of 

Apprenticeship Sponsors

The most commonly cited reason for non-completion, identified by 36 percent of 

sponsors, were personal issues (such as family needs, mental health or substance abuse problems, 

physical illnesses, and legal issues). The next most commonly cited reason, performance 

problems on the job or in the classroom, was identified by 32 percent of sponsors. (See Table 

7.2.) 

Almost 30 percent of the sponsors said non-completion was due to apprentices earning a 

license in a licensed occupation and then taking another job before completing the program. 

Nearly 11 percent of sponsors said that transferring to another apprenticeship program was a 

main reason for non-completion of their program. Fifty-five percent of those who said this was a 

major reason for non-completion were in the construction industry (which made up only 36 

percent of the respondents overall). Transferring among construction programs may be more 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

24 

likely if only because the plethora of programs available affords apprentices more opportunities 

for change. 

Table 7.2: Sponsors’ Views of Main Reasons for Non-Completion of Apprenticeship Program 

Reason for Non-Completion 

Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Percentage of 

Sponsors in the 

Construction 

Industry 

Transferred to Another Apprenticeship Program 11 55 

Gained Craft License/Took Another Job Before Completion 30 44 

Problems with Performance 33 42 

Personal Issues 36 38 

Other 29 30 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Apprenticeship Sponsors 

Almost 30 percent of the respondents (275 sponsors) offered open-ended comments on 

the reasons for non-completion. Several suggested that apprentices did not complete their 

program because they changed jobs or were promoted. A few others suggested that there was a 

lack of interest or maturity on the part of the apprentice. Others cited problems with the length 

of the program, a lack of work in the industry, or apprentices’ difficulties with the physical 

demands of the work. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

25 

VIII. SOURCES FOR RECRUITING APPRENTICES 

The survey data provide new insights into the views of sponsors regarding effective 

sources and practices. Sponsors were asked to identify sources that they found effective for 

recruiting new apprentices. Most respondents identified multiple methods (see Table 8.1). The 

source cited by the largest percentage of sponsors (66 percent) was current employees, while the 

second most frequently cited source (identified by over 40 percent of sponsors) was community 

colleges and public technical schools. A little over a third of sponsors also thought that 

newspapers and high schools were effective to use in recruiting new apprentices. 

None of the other recruitment methods, including Internet, One-Stop Career Centers, 

community-based organizations, pre-apprenticeship programs, and unions were cited by more 

than 20 percent of sponsors except for private vocational schools (22 percent). The One-Stop 

Career Center system and unions were the least frequently cited source for recruitment, each 

identified by only 14 percent of all sponsors. 

Over 110 sponsors, more than 10 percent of the sponsors, provided additional responses 

to the questions on effective sources of new apprentices. Nearly a third of these respondents 

named “word of mouth” through family and friends as an effective recruitment source. Other 

sources cited included walk-ins, cold calls, website, career fairs, other employers in the same 

industry, the military, juvenile probation, magazine ads, and temporary employees. 

Responses regarding recruitment sources varied by sponsor program characteristics. (See 

Table 8.1.) Sponsors of joint programs were more likely than employer-only sponsors to report 

that unions, newspapers, the Internet, and One-Stop Career Centers were effective in recruitment 

efforts. Sponsors operating programs for over 10 years reported a larger number of effective 

recruitment sources than did newer programs. Sponsors in the construction industry used many 

recruitment sources, but surprisingly unions were identified as effective recruiters for only 20 

percent of construction sponsors. One of the clearest patterns is that large sponsors, those with 

10 or more apprentices, cited many more recruitment methods than did smaller programs. For 

example, 76 percent of sponsors of large programs used current employees to recruit, a figure 

over 10 percentage points higher than all sponsors combined. In addition, large sponsors were 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

26 

more likely than others to believe in the effectiveness of high schools, community colleges and 

technical schools, One-Stop Career Centers, and pre-apprenticeship programs. While it is not 

surprising that large programs make use of many recruitment sources, it is not self-evident either. 

In principle, large programs could concentrate on a few proven suppliers of applicants. 

Table 8.1: Recruitment Methods Identified as Effective by Sponsors, by Sponsor Characteristics 

Recruitment 

Method 

All 

Sponsors 

Joint 

Program 

Sponsors 

Sponsors 

with Over 

10 Years 

in 

Operation 

Sponsors 

with 10 or 

More 

Apprentices 

Sponsors in 

the 

Construction 

Industry 

Sponsors 

with 

Completion 

Rates of 

90-100 

Percent 

Newspapers 35 47 42 48 45 35 

Internet 18 29 21 27 19 17 

One-Stop Career 

Centers 14 27 19 30 20 11 

CBOs 20 31 22 34 21 17 

High Schools 34 39 40 52 38 31 

Community 

College or 

Technical School 

41 48 48 54 42 43 

Private Vocational 

School 22 28 26 29 26 23 

Pre-Apprenticeship 18 29 22 32 21 16 

Current Employees 66 72 72 76 71 64 

Union 14 48 21 41 20 16 

Other 12 8 10 12 12 10 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Apprenticeship Sponsors 

The lack of variation among different subsets of sponsors is also of interest. For 

example, sponsors who achieve high completion rates might be expected to have distinctive 

recruitment patterns. In fact, however, the mix of recruitment sources for these sponsors is quite 

similar to the mix employed by sponsors as a whole. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

27 

IX. INTEGRATION OF APPRENTICESHIP WITH THE WORKFORCE 

INVESTMENT SYSTEM 

 The Federally-funded workforce investment system, run by the states and localities, is the 

main provider of public employment and training services in the United States and a significant 

resource for jobseekers and employers. Under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), 

employers are not only customers but also partners in creating a demand-driven system to 

provide workforce services. Employers comprise the majority of state and local Workforce 

Investment Boards (WIBs), which develop policy for implementing WIA programs. Local OneStop Career Centers, operated under the policies developed by WIBs, serve as the hub for 

employment and training services under WIA as well as providing access to many other services 

for both jobseekers and employers. 

 

Registered apprenticeship has historically operated separately from the other parts of the 

workforce investment system and currently does not have a strong presence in most local OneStop Career Centers. In order to build connections between the two systems, ETA issued policy 

guidance (U.S. Department of Labor 2007a) that suggested ways to integrate registered 

apprenticeship into the workforce system’s strategic planning processes and in such One-Stop 

Career Center operations as screening of applicants, referrals to apprenticeship programs, job 

fairs, and using ITAs to support related instruction. 

Greater integration, through these methods and others, requires careful and strategic 

planning as traditional differences in funding streams, reporting requirements, and overlapping 

purposes must be overcome. Currently, some level of integration between the workforce 

investment system and the registered apprenticeship program is occurring in various states and 

local areas. For example, the States of Washington and Kansas have taken steps towards 

integration by incorporating language into the state WIA plan, using WIA reserve funds for 

apprenticeship staff, and developing career guidance for secondary education institutions. 

 Data from the survey of apprenticeship sponsors provides some insight into the current 

level of integration of registered apprenticeship and the workforce system, particularly on four 

key dimensions: 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

28 

• Sponsor use of a One-Stop Career Center to post apprenticeship openings; 

• Workforce investment system referral of job applicants to sponsors; 

• Contact by the One-Stop Career Center or Job Service; and 

• Sponsor organization membership on WIBs. 

Survey findings showed that nearly 30 percent of sponsors had at least one interaction 

with the workforce system and 17 percent reported more than one type of interaction. As shown 

in Table 9.1, 17 percent of sponsors reported that they used a One-Stop or Job Service to post 

apprenticeship openings and 16 percent said the One-Stop or Job Service had referred applicants 

to them. Fewer sponsors (14 percent) said that they had been contacted by the One-Stop or Job 

Service to post openings and only eight percent of sponsors reported that their organization or 

company had a representative on the WIB. 

Sponsors with larger and longer-term programs as well as those that had organized labor 

involvement—particularly in the construction industry—appeared to have more interactions with 

the workforce investment system. However, those sponsors who reported completion rates of 90 

to 100 percent seemed to have less interaction than other subgroups of sponsors. 

Multivariate analysis of factors that may influence sponsors’ interaction with the 

workforce investment system yielded some statistically significant results. (See Table A.7 in 

Appendix A for full multivariate results.) Being a sponsor of a joint program and of a larger 

apprenticeship program increased the likelihood of some interaction with the workforce 

investment system by 13 percent and 20 percent, respectively. Plans to expand apprenticeship 

programs also increased the likelihood of interacting with the system. 

Two factors decreased the likelihood of interacting with the workforce investment system 

– high completion rates and being in a non-construction high-growth industry, but these factors 

only had a small marginal effect. Some factors appeared to have no effect on interaction with the 

workforce investment system – namely being a single-employer sponsor, having an older 

program, strongly recommending registered apprenticeship, and being in a WIRED region. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

29 

Table 9.1. Interaction with Broader Workforce System, by Characteristics of Sponsors 

Sponsor 

Characteristics 

Ever Used a 

One-Stop to 

Post 

Apprenticeship 

Openings 

One-Stop or 

Job Service 

Sent 

Applicants to 

Sponsor 

One-Stop or Job 

Service 

Contacted 

Sponsor about 

Posting 

Openings 

Sponsor 

Organization 

Representative 

Is a WIB 

Member 

All Sponsors 17 16 14 8 

Sponsors in WIRED 

Regions 23 25 20 9 

Sponsors Who Serve 

Multiple Employers 25 25 21 14 

Joint-Program Sponsors 33 32 26 17 

Sponsors with Over 10 

Years in Operation 21 22 20 12 

Sponsors with 10 or 

More Apprentices 40 37 32 19 

Sponsors in the 

Construction Industry 28 24 20 9 

Sponsors with 

Completion Rates of 90 

to 100 Percent 

14 12 8 7 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Sponsors of Registered Apprenticeship 

 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

30 

X. THE ROLE OF RELATED INSTRUCTION 

Instruction related to an apprenticeship program is critical to helping the apprentice learn 

the theoretical knowledge required in the occupation. Although apprenticeship is distinctive for 

its primary emphasis on experiential learning at the workplace, related instruction of a minimum 

of 144 hours is required for a registered program. The following section focuses on findings 

from the survey about related instruction, such as sponsors’ choice of institution to provide the 

instruction, who pays for it, and sponsors’ view of its quality. 

10.1 Sources of Instruction 

Community college and public technical colleges together were identified by 58 percent 

of all sponsors as sources of related instruction, as can be seen in Table 10.1, making these 

public institutions the most commonly cited. Approximately one in four (24 percent) sponsors 

said related instruction was supplied through the sponsors’ own facilities, while 17 percent said 

they turned to proprietary trade schools. Among sponsors who identified “other” sources, eight 

individuals specified that employer or industry associations were instructional providers. 

Table 10.1: Sources of Related Instruction (more than one 

response permitted for each sponsor) 

Source of Related Instruction 

As Reported by Sponsors All Sponsors 

Community College 31 

Distance Learning 6 

Public Technical College 27 

High School 11 

Proprietary Trade School 17 

Sponsor’s Own Facilities 24 

Other 14 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of 

Apprenticeship Sponsors 

 There were some notable differences between sponsors of single employer, joint, larger, 

and older programs and their counterparts. (See Table A.8 in Appendix A.) For sponsors that 

serve only one employer, 35 percent said they used community colleges as sources for related 

instruction compared to 25 percent of multi-employer sponsors. Sponsors of larger programs (17 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

31 

percent) were less likely to use public technical colleges than smaller programs (29 percent) for 

related instruction. 

Among single-employer sponsors 16 percent said they use sponsor-owned or operated 

training facilities for related training as compared to 35 percent of multi-employer sponsors. 

Sponsors of joint programs (36 percent), programs with 10 or more apprentices (47 percent), and 

programs more than 10 years old (28 percent) were more likely than their non-joint (19 percent), 

smaller (17 percent), and younger (19 percent) counterparts to use sponsor-owned or operated 

facilities. Use of high schools and propriety trade schools as sources of related instruction 

showed few major differences in these groups of sponsors. 

10.2 Quality of Instruction 

Sponsors generally gave high marks to the quality of related instruction, as shown in 

Table 10.2. Eighty percent ranked the instruction as excellent or near excellent (4 or 5 on a five 

point scale). Only 5 percent indicated that the instruction quality was poor or near poor (1 or 2) 

and about 13 percent viewed instruction as average (3). 

Table 10.2: Sponsors’ Ratings of Quality of Related 

Instruction Received by Apprentices 

(1 = poor, 5 = excellent) 

Quality Ratings All Sponsors 

1 2 

2 3 

3 13 

4 41 

5 39 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey 

of Apprenticeship Sponsors 

About 15 percent of the respondents (141 sponsors) offered comments regarding the 

reasons for poor quality of related instruction. Of these comments, about 67 percent, or twothirds, focused on specific problems with instructors, curriculum, or method of teaching, while 

about one-third focused on students’ difficulties. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

32 

10.3 Who Pays for Related Classroom Instruction 

The survey included a question regarding who was responsible for paying the costs of 

related instruction, and permitted sponsors to identify multiple sources. Seventy-two percent of 

the sponsors said the employer covered the direct costs of related instruction and 23 percent 

noted that apprentices paid some or all of the costs. Eleven percent of sponsors noted that the 

costs of related instruction were funded from a joint labor-management fund, and 9 percent said 

that it was paid with public funding from such sources as WIA, Pell grants, or state educational 

aid. Only a small percentage (5) of the respondents identified “other” sources of funding, with a 

handful indicating in comments that employers’ associations paid for related instruction. 

There were differences between single-employer and multi-employer sponsors. (See 

Table A.9 in the Appendix.) Among single-employer sponsors, 77 percent identified employers 

as the source of funds for related instruction, as compared to 66 percent of multi-employer 

sponsors. Single-employer sponsors were also less likely to use joint labor-management training 

funds (4 percent compared to 21 percent) and public funding (6 percent compared to 14 percent) 

than multi-employer sponsors. 

 Among sponsors of joint apprenticeship programs, 31 percent said labor-management 

training funds were a source for related instruction, while only 3 percent for sponsors of 

employer-only programs identified this source. Nonetheless, 60 percent of sponsors of joint 

programs said employers contributed to paying for related instruction as compared to 77 percent 

of sponsors of employer-only programs. Sixteen percent of sponsors of joint programs said that 

apprentices paid for related instruction, as compared to 25 percent of employer-only programs. 

10.4 When Related Instruction Is Provided and Payment of Apprentices 

Well over half (58 percent) of sponsors said related instruction was provided in the 

evening while 25 percent said it was provided during normal working hours and 26 percent said 

the times varied. Just under 9 percent of sponsors noted that related instruction was provided on 

weekends. About 31 percent of sponsors said that apprentices were paid for their time in related 

instruction, while 68 percent said that apprentices did not receive such pay. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

33 

10.5 Variations in Perceptions of Quality and Non-Completion of Programs 

 As discussed in Section V, the sponsors’ assessment of the quality of related instruction 

exerted no significant effect on whether sponsors would “strongly recommend” apprenticeship to 

others, but sponsors who used proprietary schools did appear to be slightly less likely to make a 

strong recommendation. This section examines the effect of various sources of instruction on the 

quality of instruction, as viewed by sponsors. Using a multivariate analysis of the determinants 

of quality as a function of the source of related instruction, we find a small, statistically 

significant negative effect of proprietary schools and a small, statistically significant positive 

effect of using the sponsor’s own facility (see Table A.10 in Appendix A). These effects 

remained statistically significant when joint-program and industry variables are included. 

Sponsors of joint programs also reported slightly higher than average quality of related 

instruction. Although some effects were statistically significant, they were small in magnitude, 

highlighting the fact that nearly all sponsors reported excellent or near excellent quality. 

An important question about related instruction is whether its source and quality have an 

effect on the rates at which apprentices complete programs. To examine the relationship among 

these factors, a model of the reported share of apprentices who complete the program as a 

function of the source of related instruction, who pays for related instruction, joint or non-joint 

program, industry, timing of related instruction, and sponsors’ assessment of the quality of 

related instruction was analyzed (see Table A.11 in Appendix A). The results indicated that the 

quality of related instruction raised the reported completion rates. Use of public technical 

schools was associated with statistically significant and higher completion rates, but there were 

no other significant effects on completion rates for other sources of instruction. Sponsors of joint 

programs in the automotive industry achieved higher than average completion rates while 

completion rates were lower in construction and retail industry programs. Another interesting 

finding was that having apprentices pay for the related instruction was associated with lower 

completion rates. However, paying apprentices for the time in related instruction was not 

associated with higher completion rates. 

An alternative way of estimating effects on completion rates is to use the natural log of 

completion rates as the dependent variable. This approach highlights percentage changes; a rise 

in the completion rate from 20 to 30 represented a 40.5-percent increase, while a rise from 50 to 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

34 

60 implied an 18-percent increase. Completion rates using this statistical method generally were 

higher if related instruction was provided in community colleges and in proprietary trade 

schools.
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

35 

XI. RECORDS KEPT BY SPONSORS 

The majority of sponsors kept records on a range of program information and 

performance-related statistics. Table 11.1 shows that almost 96 percent of sponsors kept records 

on the number of apprentices within their program and 88 percent tracked how many completed 

the program. Seventy percent of sponsors recorded the number of apprentices who stayed with 

the organization after completing their apprenticeship, while the number of sponsors who kept 

data on costs of instruction and benefits of apprenticeship was considerably lower (58 and 47 

percent, respectively). 

Table 11.1: Percent of Sponsors who Maintain Records, by Type 

of Information 

Type of Record Percent of Sponsors 

The number of apprentices 96 

How many complete the program 88 

Reasons for non completion 68 

How many pass state 

licensing/certification examination 

63 

How many stay with the organization 

after they complete their 

apprenticeship 

70 

Costs of related instruction 58 

Benefits of apprenticeship 47 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of 

Apprenticeship Sponsors 

Although almost all sponsors tracked the number of apprentices participating in their 

program, there was variation among sponsors on the type of information collected. Generally, 

sponsors with larger programs (based on number of apprentices) and older programs (as seen in 

Table 11.3) were more likely to have collected additional data. This occurred for several 

reasons. More established programs likely have had more time to implement mechanisms for 

collecting and storing data and to become more systematic in their data collection, since they 

have had to track multiple apprentices over time. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

36 

Tables 11.2 and 11.3 show the relationship between program characteristics and keeping 

data on program completion. Programs that had been in operation less than one year had the 

lowest percentage of sponsors (91 percent) who keep records on completion, followed by 

programs operating 1 to 5 years (at 94 percent), 6 to 10 years, and finally, with those programs 

operating the longest (more than 10 years). 

Table 11.2: Percent of Sponsors With Records on 

Apprentice Completion by Longevity of Program 

Number of Years Program 

Sponsored Percent of Sponsors 

Less than 1 year 91 

1 to 5 years 94 

6 to 10 years 97 

More than 10 years 98 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from 2007 Survey of 

Apprenticeship Sponsors 

Similar to the positive relationship between program size and the proportion of sponsors who 

keep records on completion Table 11.3 shows a positive relationship between the number of 

apprentices participating in a program and keeping records on non-completion. 

Table 11.3: Percent of Sponsors with Record of Reasons 

for Non-completion of Program, by Size of Program 

Number of Apprentices in 

Program Percent of Sponsors 

1 to 4 apprentices 61 

5 to 9 apprentices 68 

10 to 39 apprentices 80 

40 to 99 apprentices 89 

100 or more apprentices 90 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from 2007 Survey of 

Apprenticeship Sponsors 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

37 

XII. SPONSORS’ VIEWS OF THE REGISTERED APPRENTICESHIP 

SYSTEM 

Even though a high percentage of sponsors would “strongly recommend” registered 

apprenticeship to others, sponsors also identified a number of areas they would support 

changing. This section explores sponsors’ views on these potential changes, their interest in use 

of competency-based methods, and their satisfaction with the apprenticeship agency in their 

state. 

12.1 Types of Changes Sponsors Favor 

In the survey, sponsors were asked which specific potential changes were important to 

them. As displayed in Table 12.1, 51 percent of sponsors stated that more help in finding and 

screening applicants was important to them; 41 percent would like more help in finding related 

instruction, and 37 percent considered a simpler process for setting up a new program an 

important change. 

Table 12.1: Potential Changes to Apprenticeship that are Important to Sponsor 

Potential Changes Percent of Sponsors 

More help in finding and screening applicants 51 

Faster registration of apprentices 36 

Simpler process for setting up a new program 37 

Better “due process” for delayed of rejected program approvals 26 

Easier multi-state registration 32 

More help in finding related instruction 41 

More information on laws such as the Davis-Bacon Act 18 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Apprenticeship Sponsors 

There was little variation in these rates between sponsors with programs over 10 years’ 

old and those under 10 years’ old. (See Table A.12 in Appendix A.) However, differences in the 

numbers of employers served, labor involvement, and number of apprentices in the program 

highlighted differences in the importance of help in finding related instruction. Sponsors that 

served only one employer (45 percent), non-joint program sponsors (44 percent), and sponsors 

with fewer than 10 apprentices (43 percent) all found help in finding related instruction of 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

38 

greater importance than their counterparts. Sponsors in employer-only programs, as compared to 

those in joint programs, had higher levels of interest in changes such as faster registration (39 

percent compared to 28 percent) and a simpler set-up process for new programs (40 percent 

compared to 29 percent). 

Table 12.2 displays the potential changes to registered apprenticeship that are important 

to the sponsors by industry. There was very little disparity among the industries; however, the 

energy and automotive sectors almost always represented the lower bounds on each item and the 

retail trade sector represented the higher bounds of whether a potential change was identified as 

important.5

Table 12.2: Potential Changes to Apprenticeship that are Important to Sponsor, by Industry 

Percent of Sponsors

Potential Change Construction Automotive Energy Retail Other 

More help in finding and screening 

applicants 57 54 44 68 53 

Faster registration of apprentices 39 33 31 52 39 

Simpler process for setting up a new 

program 

38 50 41 45 41 

Better “due process” for delayed of 

rejected program approvals 28 23 30 31 28 

Easier multi-state registration 39 21 30 40 32 

More help in finding related instruction 40 44 38 48 49 

More information on laws such as the 

Davis-Bacon Act 41 4 14 2 7 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Apprenticeship Sponsors 

In addition to answering the survey questions, 11 percent (or 110 sponsors) provided 

suggestions for other changes they think are needed in registered apprenticeship. Suggestions 

included: increasing the number of qualified instructors, better quality instruction, reduced 

 

5

 “More information on laws such as the Davis-Bacon Act” is substantially more likely to be a change important to 

the construction industry because the Davis-Bacon Act requires all Federal government construction contracts over 

$2,000 to pay workers no less than the locally prevailing wages and benefits paid on similar projects. Therefore, 

this factor primarily affects the construction industry. This difference was also seen when the strata were analyzed. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

39 

paperwork requirements, more information on laws such as the Davis-Bacon Act, multi-state 

registration, changing the registration process, reduced time for program completion, and 

changing the ratio of skilled workers to apprentices. 

12.2 Interest in Competency-Based Training 

The survey also offered some insights on sponsors’ interest in competency-based 

training. Over 55 percent of sponsors indicated they were interested in learning about or how to 

use competency-based apprenticeship training. 

There was very little variation in levels of interest in competency-based approaches 

among industries. (See Table A.13 in Appendix A.) There was also little variation based on the 

duration the program had been running, whether they were part of a joint program, or whether 

they sponsored more than one employer. However, sponsors in the aerospace, IT 

(communications services), and transportation industries were more likely to be interested in 

learning about competency-based training, where construction and “other” industries were less 

likely to be interested. 

The most significant factor associated with an interest in competency-based training was 

the size of the programs (see Table 12.3). Among sponsors with 100 or more apprentices, 57 

percent expressed an interest in competency-based apprenticeship training, compared to 66 

percent of sponsors with 10 to 39 apprentices in their program. Overall, the figures suggest the 

potential for substantially expanding the role of competency-based apprenticeship training, 

especially in programs of modest scale. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

40 

Table 12.3: Percent of Sponsors Interested in Learning about CompetencyBased Apprenticeship, by Size of Program 

Number of Apprentices in Sponsor Program Percent of Sponsors 

0 48 

1 – 4 58 

5 – 9 58 

10 – 39 63 

40 – 99 60 

100 or more 57 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Apprenticeship Sponsors 

12.3 Satisfaction with their State Apprenticeship Agency 

In addition to asking sponsors to identify which changes were important to them and their 

interest in competency-based apprenticeship training, sponsors were also queried as to their 

views of the apprenticeship agency in their state and asked to rate their SAA on a scale ranging 

from “poor” to “excellent” in regard to several specific activities.6

 These activities included 

timeliness in processing applications and responding to inquiries, clear guidance on program 

registration and requirements, use of online registration, and promoting and publicizing 

registered apprenticeship. Generally, sponsors were quite satisfied with their apprenticeship 

registration agency, with a majority of sponsors rating their agency as either “good” or 

“excellent” on all factors. 

Table 12.3 shows that there is little variation across the identified factors. However, 

more sponsors rated “use of online registration” and “promoting and publicizing registered 

apprenticeship” as being “poor” or “fair” (29 percent and 34 percent, respectively) than they did 

“timeliness in processing applications and responding to inquiries” and “clear guidance on 

program registration and requirements” (both 19 percent). 

 

6

 As discussed in the introduction, the apprenticeship registration agency is either the state apprenticeship agency or 

the Federal OA representative in the state. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

41 

Table 12.3: Sponsors’ Rating of the State Apprenticeship Agency 

Percent of Sponsors

Rated Factor Poor Fair Good Excellent

Timeliness in processing applications and responding to inquiries 7 12 44 38 

Clear guidance on program registration and requirements 6 13 43 37 

Use of online registration (if applicable) 13 16 42 28 

Promoting and publicizing registered apprenticeship 11 23 44 22 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Apprenticeship Sponsors 

With one exception, there was little disparity between industries over whether they rated 

an aspect of their apprenticeship registration agency as either “good” or “excellent.” (See Table 

A.14 in Appendix A.) The automotive manufacturing industry tended to have lower ratings than 

other industries on timeliness of and guidance from SAAs. 

There was also little to no difference in ratings among sponsors in programs of different 

longevity but there were some differences between single-employer and multiple-employer 

sponsors (see Table A.15 in Appendix A.). One interesting finding is that sponsors of joint 

programs rated the apprenticeship registration agency “excellent” on all activities at higher 

percentages than non-joint programs. However, sponsors of employer-only programs were more 

likely than sponsors of joint programs to rate their SAA as “good” on timeliness in processing 

applications, clarity of guidance, and use of online registration. 

However, there were some noticeable differences among sponsors of programs with 

different sizes (see Table A.16 in Appendix A). For example, when asked about their agency’s 

timeliness in processing applications and responding to inquiries, 51 percent of sponsors whose 

programs had 100 or more apprentices rated the agency’s performance as “excellent” compared 

to 35 percent of programs with 1 to 4 apprentices, 39 percent of programs with 5 to 9 

apprentices, 45 percent of programs with 10 to 39 apprentices, and 34 percent of programs with 

40 to 99 apprentices. 

 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

42 

XIII. CONCLUSIONS: KEY FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS 

The survey of registered apprenticeship sponsors provides, for the first time, data on a 

nationally representative group of registered apprenticeship sponsors concerning the operation of 

their programs, their views on the effectiveness of apprenticeship, and their recommendations for 

improving the registered apprenticeship system. Until now, policymakers and researchers had to 

rely on anecdotal evidence about registered apprenticeship, especially on the sponsors’ 

characteristics and perspectives. Key findings from the survey are discussed below: 

1) Strong support from current sponsors. Nearly nine of every 10 sponsors would 

“strongly recommend” registered apprenticeship to others. Over 80 percent of sponsors 

particularly valued registered apprenticeship’s role in helping them meet their demand for skilled 

workers, while over 65 percent thought that registered apprenticeship provided important 

benefits in raising productivity, strengthening the morale and pride of workers, and improving 

worker safety. Current sponsors would likely be helpful in efforts to further market registered 

apprenticeship, if ETA undertakes such efforts. 

2) Competitor firms’ bidding away trained apprentices (commonly called “poaching”)

was a concern but not a deterrent to providing apprenticeship training. The disincentives to 

employers providing occupation-specific, apprenticeship training because competing firms will 

hire (or “poach”) workers trained through apprenticeship did not appear to be as pervasive as 

economic theory has suggested. The problem was identified as significant by about one in four 

sponsors and was seen as a minor concern for another 29 percent. Surprisingly, it was not 

perceived as a problem at all for almost half of apprenticeship sponsors. Moreover, even among 

sponsors who perceived poaching as an important problem, about 85 percent would still strongly 

recommend apprenticeship to others. 

3) Completion rates reported by sponsors were very high with 54 percent saying that at 

least 80 percent of their apprentices complete their program. However, non-completion is of 

concern to over half of all sponsors; 24 percent identified it as a significant problem and 31 

percent indicated it was a minor problem. The most commonly cited reasons for non-completion 

(identified by 36 percent of sponsors) were personal issues (such as family needs, mental health 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

43 

or substance abuse problems, physical illnesses, and legal issues). Performance problems on the 

job or in the classroom were the next most commonly cited reason (32 percent). Developing 

new approaches, possibly involving linkages with the workforce investment system, such as 

better screening or access to supportive services, might help reduce non-completion. 

4) Sponsors often use current employees to recruit new apprentices but the second most 

frequently cited source were community colleges and public technical schools. The Internet, 

One-Stop Career Centers, community-based organizations, private vocational schools, and preapprenticeship programs were cited far less frequently. The One-Stop Career Center system and 

unions were the least frequently identified sources for recruitment, each cited by only about 14 

percent of all sponsors. 

5) Many sponsors say they want help in finding and screening applicants, as well as in 

finding related instruction. A large share of sponsors also identified as important several 

operational improvements in the registered apprenticeship system, such as faster registration of 

apprentices (36 percent), a simpler process for setting up a program (37 percent), more feedback 

on delayed or rejected approvals for programs (26 percent), and easier multi-state registration (32 

percent). There might potentially be an expanded role for the workforce investment system in 

assisting in screening and identifying sources of related instruction. 

6) Sponsors generally gave high marks to their SAAs. Eighty-two percent indicated the 

agencies did a “good” or “excellent” job in being timely; 80 percent gave similar ratings for 

clarity of guidance; 70 percent gave similar marks for use of on-line registration; and 64 said the 

SAAs were “good” or “excellent” in promoting and publicizing registered apprenticeship. 

Conversely, a substantial minority thought their SAAs were doing only a “fair” or “poor” job in 

promoting registered apprenticeship. 

7) The majority of sponsors wanted to know more about competency-based approaches. 

Just over 55 percent of survey respondents said they were interested in learning about, or how to 

use, competency-based apprenticeship training. This finding was consistent with some sponsors 

indicating that programs take too long to complete. Provision of competency-based criteria in 

apprenticeship programs may help sponsors in exploring modifications to the way programs are 

designed. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

44 

 

8) Sponsors’ interactions with the workforce investment system were generally quite 

limited. Although nearly 30 percent of sponsors reported having had at least one interaction with 

the workforce system, only 17 percent reported that they used a One-Stop Career Center to post 

apprenticeship openings; 16 percent had been sent applicants by the One-Stop Career Center; 14 

percent had been contacted by the One-Stop Career Center to post openings; and only 8 percent 

reported that their organization or company had a representative sit on the WIB. Closer ties to 

the workforce investment system might help at least some sponsors (particularly sponsors of 

smaller programs) in recruiting and screening potential apprentices, and in possibly accessing 

services that would enable more apprentices to finish their programs. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

45 

REFERENCES 

Acemoglu, Daron and Jorn-Steffen Pischke. 1999. “Beyond Becker: Training in Imperfect 

Labor Markets.” Economic Journal Features 109: F112-142. 

Becker, Gary. 1964. Human Capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Bennici, Frank, with Jeff Strohl and Deborah Posner. 2004. Unpublished. 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. Rockville, MD: Westat. 

Bilginsoy, Cihan. 2005. “Registered Apprentices and Apprenticeship Programs in the U.S. 

Construction Industry between 1989 and 2003: An Examination of the AIMS, RAIS, and 

California Apprenticeship Agency Databases.” Working Paper 2005-09. Department of 

Economics. University of Utah. 

Bilginsoy, Cihan. 2003. “The Hazards of Training: Attrition and Retention in Construction 

Industry Apprenticeship Programs.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 57: 1. 54-67. 

Borham, Nick. 2004. “Oriented the work-based curriculum toward work process knowledge: a 

rationale and German case study.” Studies in Continuing Education. 26:2. 209-227. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2007. Occupational Employment and Statistics. www.bls.gov. 

Cook, Robert. 1989. Analysis of Apprenticeship Training from the National Longitudinal Study 

of the Class of 1972. Rockville, MD: Westat. 

Frazis, H., and Loewenstein M.A. 1999. Reexamining the Returns to Training: Functional 

Form, Magnitude, and Interpretation. Working Paper 325. Washington, DC: Bureau of 

Labor Statistics. 

Gitter, Robert J. 1994. "Apprenticeship-Trained Workers: United States and Great Britain.” 

Monthly Labor Review. April. 

Jacoby, Daniel. 1991. “The Transformation of Industrial Apprenticeship in the United States.” 

Journal of Economic History 52: 4: 887- 910. 

Leitch Commission. 2006. Leitch Review of Skills: Prosperity for all in the global economy—

world class skills. Final Report. London: Her Majesty’s Treasury. HMSO. December. 

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/6/4/leitch_finalreport051206.pdf 

Marshall, Ray, and Vernon Briggs. 1967. The Negro and Apprenticeship. Baltimore, Maryland: 

Johns Hopkins Press. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

46 

Mikelson, Kelly, and Demetra Nightingale. 2004. “Estimating Public and Private Expenditures 

on Occupational Training in the United States. Report to the U.S. Department of Labor. 

Employment and Training Administration. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. 

Nelson, Bonalyn. 1997. “Should Social Skills Be in the Vocational Curriculum? Evidence from 

the Automotive Repair Field.” In Transitions in Work and Learning: Implications for 

Assessment. Edited by Alan Lesgold, Michael Feuer, and Allison Black. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 

Planmatics, Inc. 2008. Registered Apprenticeship: Findings from Site Visits to Five States. 

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. 

Rockville, MD. 

Rauner, Felix. 2007. “Vocational Education and Training—A European Perspective.” Identities 

at Work, edited by Alan Brown, Simone Kirpal, and Felix Rauner. Dordrecht, The 

Netherlands: Springer. 

Resnick, Lauren. 1987. “Learning In School and Out.” Educational Researcher 16: 9. 13-20. 

Stasz, Catherine. 2001. “Assessing Skills for Work.” Oxford Economic Papers 3: 385–405. 

Steedman, Hilary. 2005. “Apprenticeship in Europe: ‘Fading’ or Flourishing?” Centre for 

Economic Performance Discussion Paper No. 710. London: London School of Economics. 

Steedman, Hilary, Howard Gospel, and Paul Ryan. 1998. Apprenticeship: A Strategy for Growth. 

Centre for Economic Performance. London: London School of Economics. 

Taylor, T. Shawn. 2006. The Pathway to Apprenticeship: Roadblocks to Registration of 

Minorities and Women in Building Trade Union Apprenticeship Training Programs in 

Northeastern Illinois. Chicago: City of Colleges of Chicago, March. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center on Educational Statistics. 2007. Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System. Washington, DC. http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. 2007a. Leveraging 

Registered Apprenticeship as a Workforce Development Strategy for the Workforce 

Investment System, Training and Employment Guidance Letter 2-07, July 12. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. 2007b. PY05 State by 

State Performance Summaries. Washington, DC. 

http://www.doleta.gov/performance/Results/AnnualReports/PY05_Annual_Summaries_final.

xls

U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2005. Registered Apprenticeship Programs: Labor 

Can Better Use Data to Target Oversight. Washington, DC. August. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

47 

Washington State Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board. 2004. Workforce 

Training Results: 2004. Olympia, WA: State of Washington. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

A-1 

APPENDIX A 

ADDITIONAL TABLES 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

A-2 

Table A.1: Distribution of Sponsors by Industry in Each Region 

Regions

Industry Northeast

MidAtlantic Southeast Southwest Midwest West 

Aerospace 

Automotive Repair 2.2 

Automotive Manufacturing 10.5 

Construction 59.6 25.3 33.3 40.5 23.3 47.7 

Energy (Gas, Electric, & 

Water) 14.2 4.7 11.5 16.7 10.6 9.8 

Health Services 4.0 

Hospitality (Hotel, 

Restaurants, & Lodging) 1.9 2.2 

Information Technology – 

Manufacturing 

Information Technology – 

Communication Services 

Retail Trade 30.5 8.0 

Transportation 

Combination of Aerospace, 

Automotive Repair and 

Manufacturing, IT, 

Transportation, 

Biotechnology, 

Mining/Extraction, Finance, 

Insurance, Real Estate, & 

Homeland Security 

 

Other 19.6 30.2 44.0 34.4 39.5 34.2 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Apprenticeship Sponsors, Westat Inc. 

Note: Cells with no entry indicated less than 0.5 percent of the sample. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

A-3 

Table A.2: Determinants of the Likelihood of Strongly Recommending 

Registered Apprenticeship to Others

 

Explanatory Variables Coefficient 

Joint Program -0.004 

Construction 0.024 

Automotive 0.078

Energy 0.048

Retail -0.017 

Sponsored Program 1 to 5 Years -0.055 

Sponsored Program 6 to 10 Years 0.010 

Sponsored Program More Than 10 Years 0.014 

Number of Apprentices, 5 to 9 **0.067

Number of Apprentices, 10 to 39 **0.074

Number of Apprentices, 40 to 99 0.025 

Number of Apprentices, 100 or more 0.061

Rating of the Agency ***0.042

Rating of Related Instruction -0.001 

Community College -0.013 

Distance Learning 0.007 

Public Technical College 0.024 

High School -0.051 

Proprietary Trade School ***-0.095

Sponsor's Facility -0.011 

40-59% Completion Rate 0.057 

60-79% Completion Rate **0.062 

80-89% Completion Rate 0.059 

90-100% Completion Rate ***0.086 

Number of Observations 795 

Pseudo R2 0.12 

Source: Probit analyses conducted by authors from Survey of Sponsors of 

Registered Apprenticeship 

Note 1: The coefficients capture the marginal impact of a one unit increase in 

the independent variables on the likelihood of strongly recommending 

apprenticeship. 

Note 2: * ** and *** represent statistical significance at the 5 and 1 percent levels. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

A-4 

Table A.3: Percentage of Sponsors Strongly Recommending Registered 

Apprenticeship, by Sponsor Characteristics 

Sponsor Characteristics Percent of Sponsors 

All Sponsors 87 

Sponsors That Serve One Employer 86 

Sponsors That Serve Multiple Employers 88 

Sponsors of Joint Programs 90 

Sponsors of Non-Joint Programs 85 

Sponsors of Programs with 10 Years or More in Operation 91 

Sponsors of Programs in Operation Less Than 10 Years 82 

Sponsors with 10 or More Apprentices 95 

Sponsors with Less Than 10 Apprentices 84 

Sponsors with Completion Rates of 90-10 Percent 90 

Sponsors with Completion Rates of Less than 30 Percent 73 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Apprenticeship Sponsors 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

A-5 

Table A.4: The Relationship Between Benefits of Apprenticeship and the Likelihood of Strongly 

Recommending Registered Apprenticeship to Others, by Joint or Non-Joint Program 

Impact of Importance of Benefit on Likelihood of a 

Strong Recommendation

Benefits of Registered Apprenticeship Joint Program Non-Joint Program 

Helps meet our demand for skilled workers **0.074 0.033 

Helps with employee recruitment and retention 0.010 ***0.057

Reliably shows which workers have the skills to do 

the job -0.035 ***0.076 

Adds to productivity or high quality of services 0.032 -0.002 

Saves money on workers’ pay **0.054 -0.014 

Good for worker morale or pride **0.067 0.030 

Leads to fewer safety problems 0.030 **0.044

Helps us meet government requirements 0.007 0.030 

Helps us meet licensing requirements 0.010 -0.002 

Number of Observations 248 578 

Pseudo R2 0.23 0.18 

Source: Probit analyses conducted by authors from Survey of Sponsors of Registered Apprenticeship 

Note: ** and *** represent statistical significance at the 5 and 1 percent levels. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

A-6 

Table A.5: How Sponsors’ Perceptions of Significant Problems Affect a Sponsors’ Willingness to 

Recommend Registered Apprenticeship Strongly to Others 

Cost/Drawback of Apprenticeship 

Marginal Impact of Cost on the Likelihood of 

Recommending Apprenticeship Strongly 

Related Instruction -0.058 

Experienced Workers’ Time **-0.091 

Too Much Time Required for Training ***-0.147 

Managing the Program ***-0.146 

Too Many Apprentices Drop Out -0.036 

Competitors Poach Workers After They Become 

Fully Skilled 0.033 

Too Much Paper Work -0.059 

Source: Probit analyses conducted by authors from Survey of Sponsors of Registered Apprenticeship 

Note: The independent variables equal 1, if the cost represents a significant problem, and zero otherwise. The 

symbols ** and *** represent statistical significance at the 5 and 1 percent levels. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

A-7 

Table A.6: Distribution of the Reported Apprenticeship Completion Rates Among 

Sponsors in Specific Industries 

Industry 

90–100 

Percent 

80–89 

Percent 

Less Than 

80 Percent 

Aerospace 67 0 36 

Automotive Repair 40 13 47 

Automotive Manufacturing 65 15 20 

Construction 31 11 58 

Energy (Gas, Electric, & Water) 48 11 41 

Health Services 68 4 28 

Hospitality (Hotel, Restaurants, & Lodging) 37 0 63 

Information Technology – Manufacturing 43 0 57 

Information Technology – Communication 

Services 16 14 70 

Retail Trade 46 8 46 

Transportation 46 18 36 

Combination of Biotechnology, 

Mining/Extraction, Finance, Insurance, Real 

Estate, & Homeland Security 

52 10 38 

Other 54 6 40 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Apprenticeship Sponsors 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

A-8 

Table A.7: Factors That Influence Interaction with the Public Workforce System 

Influential Factors on 

Interaction with Workforce System 

Impact of Factor on Likelihood of 

Interacting with the Workforce System 

Sponsoring a Single Employer -0.021 

Sponsoring a Joint Program ***0.140 

More than 10 Years in Existence 0.034 

More than 10 Apprentices in Program ***0.190 

Plans to Expand Program ***0.096 

Strongly Recommends Registered Apprenticeship 0.004 

90-100 Percent Completion Rates **-0.080 

In a WIRED Region 0.037 

In a Non-Construction High Growth Industry ***-0.095 

Public Funding Pays for Related Instruction **0.121 

No. of Observations 627 

Pseudo R2 0.229 

Source: Probit analyses conducted by authors from Survey of Sponsors of Registered Apprenticeship 

Note 1: The dichotomous variable for a higher level of interaction with the workforce system was created by 

adding together the variables on the 4 dimensions of interaction with the workforce system listed in Table 10.1. 

If a sponsor had answered “yes” to 2 or more of these dimensions, they were categorized as having a higher 

level of interaction and coded as “1.” If the sponsor only answered “yes” to one or none of the dimensions, 

they were categorized as having a low or no level of interaction with the workforce system and coded as “0.” 

The coefficients capture the marginal impact of a one unit increase in the independent variables on the 

likelihood of interacting with the workforce system. 

Note 2: ** and *** represent statistical significance at the 5 and 1 percent levels. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

A-9 

Table A.8: Percentage of Sponsors Identifying Sources of Related Instruction, by Sponsor Characteristics (more than one possible for each sponsor) Sources Providing Related Instruction 

All 

Sponsors 

Sponsors 

that Serve 

Only One 

Employer 

Sponsors 

that Serve 

Multiple 

Employers 

Joint 

Program 

Sponsors 

Non-Joint 

Program 

Sponsors 

Sponsors 

with Over 

10 Years 

in 

Operation 

Sponsors 

in 

Operation 

for 10 

Years or 

Less 

Spo

with 

M

Ap

ti

Community College 31 35 25 26 33 32 30 Distance Learning 6 7 5 5 6 5 7 Public Technical College 27 29 23 23 28 27 26 High School 11 12 9 5 13 9 12 Proprietary Trade School 17 17 17 13 18 17 17 Sponsor’s Own Facilities 24 16 35 36 19 28 19 Other 14 13 16 20 12 14 14 Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Apprenticeship Sponsors 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

A-10 

Table A.9: Distribution of Reported Funders of Related Instruction, by Sponsor Characteristics (more than one possible for each sponsor) Funder of Related Instruction 

All 

Sponsors 

Sponsors 

that Serve 

Only One 

Employer 

Sponsors 

that Serve 

Multiple 

Employers 

Joint 

Program 

Sponsors 

Non-Joint 

Program 

Sponsors 

Sponsors 

with Over 

10 Years 

in 

Operation 

Sponsors 

in 

Operation 

for 10 

Years or 

Less 

Spo

with 

M

Ap

ti

Employer 72 77 66 60 77 32 30 Apprentice 23 23 23 16 25 5 7 Joint LaborManagement Training Fund 

11 4 21 31 3 27 26 

Public Funding (e.g., WIA, Pell grants, state aid) 

9 6 14 10 8 9 12 

Other Source 5 4 8 8 4 17 17 Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Apprenticeship Sponsors 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

A-11 

Table A.10: Factors That Influence High Sponsor Ratings of Related Instruction 

Factors Associated with Satisfaction 

with Related Instruction 

Impact of Factor on Rating of 

Related Instruction 

Union 0.101 

Community College 0.084 

Distance Learning -0.005 

Public Technical School -0.034 

High School 0.019 

Proprietary/Trade School ***-0.167 

Sponsors' Facility ***0.278 

Employer Pays -0.070 

Worker Pays -0.143 

Joint Program Pays 0.088 

Construction -0.025 

Automotive 0.049 

Energy -0.077 

Number of Observations 

R2

921 

0.03 

Source: Probit analyses conducted by authors from Survey of Sponsors of Registered Apprenticeship 

Note 1: The dichotomous variable for a high sponsor rating of related instruction was coded as “1” if the 

respondent indicated a “4” or “5” rating (“5” being excellent) and “0” if the sponsor indicated a “1”, “2”, 

or “3” (“1” being poor). The coefficients capture the marginal impact of a one unit increase in the 

independent variables on the likelihood of interacting with the workforce system. 

Note 2: ** and *** represent statistical significance at the 5 and 1 percent levels. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

A-12 

Table A.11: Factors That Influence Sponsor-Reported Program Completion Rates 

Factors Associated with 

Reported Completion Rates 

Effect of Factor on 

Reported Completion Rate 

Sponsor Gave High Rating of Quality of Related Instruction ***8.80 

Community College 2.53 

Distance Learning 1.65 

Public Technical School ***9.30 

High School 2.83 

Proprietary/Trade School 3.55 

Sponsors' Facility -0.60 

Employer Pays 0.910 

Worker Pays -5.24 

Joint Program Pays 0.28 

Public Pays -2.78 

Joint ***6.92 

Construction ***-6.81 

Automotive 8.15 

Energy ***-3.15 

Retail -9.63 

Number of Observations 

R2

921 

0.06 

Source: Ordinary Least Squares analyses conducted by authors from Survey of Sponsors of Registered 

Apprenticeship 

Note: ** and *** represent statistical significance at the 5 and 1 percent levels. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

A-13 

Table A.12: Percentage of Sponsors Citing Potential Area of Change As Important, by Sponsor Characteristics Factor Considered Important to Change 

All 

Sponsors 

Sponsors 

that Serve 

Only One 

Employer 

Sponsors 

that Serve 

Multiple 

Employers 

Joint 

Program 

Sponsors 

Non-Joint 

Program 

Sponsors 

Sponsors 

with Over 

10 Years 

in 

Operation 

Sponsors 

in 

Operation 

for 10 

Years or 

Less 

More help in finding and screening applicants 51 53 47 48 52 49 53 Faster registration of apprentices 36 35 39 28 39 36 37 Simpler process for setting up a new program 

37 38 36 29 40 34 41 

Better “due process” for delayed of rejected program approvals 

26 24 28 25 26 27 24 

Easier multi-state registration 32 30 35 26 34 33 32 More help in finding related instruction 41 45 35 33 44 40 42 

More information on laws such as the Davis-Bacon Act 18 15 22 14 19 18 17 

Other 11 12 10 13 11 11 12 Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Apprenticeship Sponsors 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

A-14 

Table A.13: Percentage of Sponsors Interested in Learning about CompetencyBased Apprenticeship, by Sponsor Characteristics 

Sponsor Characteristics Percent of Sponsors 

All Sponsors 55 

Sponsors That Serve One Employer 54 

Sponsors That Serve Multiple Employers 58 

Sponsors of Joint Programs 53 

Sponsors of Non-Joint Programs 56 

Sponsors of Programs with 10 Years or More in Operation 54 

Sponsors of Programs in Operation Less Than 10 Years 57 

Sponsors with 10 or More Apprentices 61 

Sponsors with Less Than 10 Apprentices 54 

Sponsors by Industry 

Aerospace 64 

Automotive Repair 46 

Automotive Manufacturing 57 

Construction 54 

Energy (Gas, Electric, & Water) 55 

Health Services 56 

Hospitality (Hotel, Restaurants, & Lodging) 53 

Information Technology – Manufacturing 58 

Information Technology – Communication Services 100 

Retail Trade 59 

Transportation 66 

Combination of Biotechnology, Mining/Extraction, 

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, & Homeland Security 55 

Other 29 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Apprenticeship Sponsors 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

A-15 

Table A.14: Percentage of Sponsors by Industry Who Provided Good or Excellent Ratings on 

the Performance of their State Apprenticeship Agency on Key Activities 

Percent of Sponsors with Ratings of Good or Excellent

Industry of Sponsor 

Timeliness in 

Processing 

Applications 

and 

Responding 

to Inquiries 

Clear 

Guidance on 

Program 

Registration 

and 

Requirements 

Use of 

Online 

Registration 

Promoting and 

Publicizing 

Registered 

Apprenticeship

Aerospace 76 88 38 86 

Automotive Repair 61 54 83 82 

Automotive Manufacturing 85 83 70 69 

Construction 83 81 72 66 

Energy (Gas, Electric, & 

Water) 82 76 78 71 

Health Services 79 70 90 81 

Hospitality (Hotel, 

Restaurants, & Lodging) 90 86 62 71 

Information Technology – 

Manufacturing 78 68 63 27 

Information Technology – 

Communication Services 100 73 57 63 

Retail Trade 77 87 60 63 

Transportation 88 80 76 62 

Combination of 

Biotechnology, 

Mining/Extraction, Finance, 

Insurance, Real Estate, & 

Homeland Security 

82 81 67 59 

Other 86 74 58 80 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Apprenticeship Sponsors 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

A-16 

Table A.15: Percentage of Sponsors Who Provided Good or Excellent Ratings of their State Apprenticeship Agby Sponsor Characteristics 

Percent of Sponsors

Sponsors that Serve 

Only One Employer 

Sponsors that Serve 

Multiple Employers 

Joint Program 

Sponsors 

Non

Rated Factor Good Excellent Good Excellent Good Excellent GoTimeliness in processing applications and responding to inquiries 

44 38 43 38 38 44 45 

Clear guidance on program registration and requirements 44 37 44 35 41 43 45 Use of online registration (if applicable) 42 26 46 27 32 37 48 Promoting and publicizing registered apprenticeship 45 19 41 25 41 29 44 Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Apprenticeship Sponsors 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

A-17 

Table A.16: Percentage of Sponsors Who Provided Good or Excellent Ratings of their State Apprenticeship Agencyby Size of Sponsor Program 

Percent of Sponsors

1–4 Apprentices 5–9 Apprentices 

10–39 

Apprentices 

40–99 

Apprentices 

Rated Factor Good Excellent Good Excellent Good Excellent Good ExcelleTimeliness in processing applications and responding to inquiries 45 35 43 39 38 44 45 34 Clear guidance on program registration and requirements 48 31 39 42 40 37 41 31 

Use of online registration (if applicable) 49 22 48 20 32 41 32 25 

Promoting and publicizing registered apprenticeship 45 17 50 15 35 28 41 26 

Source: Weighted Tabulations from the 2007 Survey of Apprenticeship Sponsors 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship 

 

APPENDIX B 

METHODOLOGY 

 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-2 

SAMPLING AND WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY 

Prepared by Lou Rizzo, Tiandong Li, and Frank Bennici, Westat1

SAMPLING METHODOLOGY 

SAMPLE DESIGN 

The Survey of Registered Apprenticeship was designed to draw a probability sample from 

a frame of all apprenticeship sponsors in the United States who were registered with the Office 

of Apprenticeship Training, Employer, and Labor Services, or a recognized State apprenticeship 

agency. These sampled sponsors were then asked to complete an instrument in which they 

provided descriptive information about their programs as well as their views about various 

aspects of registered apprenticeship. The initial sample design called for three separate mutually 

exclusive groups of sponsors, for which high-precision unbiased estimators were required. 

These groups of sponsors included those with registered programs in 

1) High-growth industries (not including construction); 

2) Construction industry; and, 

3) Other non-construction and non-high-growth industries. 

 The SIC code definitions for sponsors with programs each of these domains are given in 

tables B-12 through B-17. The goal was to have a large enough sample in each of these domains 

so that there would be standard errors of no more than 2.5% for any population percentage (e.g., 

the percentage of sponsors in the domain who answer a particular yes/no question in the 

affirmative). This corresponded to a sample size of 400 under simple random sampling for each 

of these three domains. 

The actual sponsors’ frame at the time of sampling is described in Table B1-1 below. 

There was a set of sponsors whose stratum status could not be fully determined, due to 

inadequate information provided on industry status. This is the fourth stratum as given in Table 

B1-1 below. It is designated as ‘non-construction, unknown-growth’ as we do know that these 

sponsors are not in the construction industry (domain 2), but we don’t know whether they are in 

the designated high-growth industries (domain 1) or in the complement set (domain 3). 

 

1 Appendix B was produced by Westat, Inc. of Rockville, MD 20850 using Federal funds from the U.S. Department 

of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Policy Development and Research (OPDR) under 

Contract Number AF-12547-02-30 with Planmatics, Inc. Westat was a subcontractor to Planmatics, Inc. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-3 

Table B-1. Sponsors’ counts on the sampling frame by stratum. 

Stratum Sponsor count 

Percent of 

frame 

 

1-Smaller high growth 3,674 17.2% 

2-Construction 8,976 42.1% 

3-Other 8,071 37.9% 

4-Non construction unknown growth 603 2.8% 

Total all sponsors 21,324 100.00% 

The sample design was a stratified random sample design, using the four strata as given in 

Table B-1, (as described, for example, in Cochran [1977], Chapter 5). The sample sizes were 

assigned to each of these strata anticipating attrition from both non-response and ineligibility. A 

total attrition rate of 36% was expected (i.e., 64% of the sampled sponsors were expected to 

provide interviews, finally). The overall target sample size was 1,792, with an expected total of 

1,147 completed interviews. Definitions of domains and SIC industry coding for each state are 

discussed the methodology that we used to decide on the target interview sample sizes given in 

Table B-2 below. In a nutshell, the target interview sample sizes were set to achieve a precision 

equivalent to a sample size of 400 (a maximum standard error for percentages of 2.5%) for each 

of the three domains. 

Table B-2. Stratum sample sizes for revised design. 

 

Target 

interviews 

Predicted 

response 

Predicted 

eligibility 

Target 

sample size 

Stratum 1 360 0.8 0.8 563 

Stratum 2 384 0.8 0.8 601 

Stratum 3 359 0.8 0.8 561 

Stratum 4 43 0.8 0.8 67 

Total 1,147 1,792 

Below is a description of the frame of sponsors, the sampling process, and the final sample 

of sponsors. 

FRAME OF SPONSORS 

The respondent universe consisted of all sponsors of active2

 apprenticeship programs 

registered either with the state offices of the DOL’s Office of Apprenticeship (OA), or a 

recognized State Apprenticeship Agency or Council (SAA or SAC). The sampling frame 

included states that fully participated in the Registered Apprenticeship Information System 

(RAIS) database and six additional states. Thirty-two states fully participated in RAIS (of which 

23 were OA states and nine were SAC/SAA states). In order to assure a sampling frame that was 

nationally representative of all sponsors, DOL sought a one-time download of data from seven 

states that had the largest numbers of programs among states that do not fully participate in the 

RAIS. Data was obtained from six of the seven states. 

 

2

 To be active, a program must have had an apprentice within the last two years. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-4 

There were a total of 21,324 apprenticeship sponsors on the final sampling frame, 

corresponding to 24,708 programs and 316,545 apprentices. It should be noted that military 

sponsors were excluded as out-of-scope from this frame3

. In addition, any Corrections industry 

sponsors who had only prisoners as apprentices were excluded4

 (Corrections sponsors with 

corrections officer apprentice programs were included on the frame). Table B-3 gives the 

distribution of programs across sponsors: 19,829 sponsors had exactly one program and 1,495 

had two or more programs. The largest sponsor (in terms of programs) had 68 programs. 

Table B-3. Distribution of programs across sponsors on the frame. 

Distributional 

statistic 

Exactly 

one 

program 

Greater 

than one 

program 

All 

sponsors 

N 19,829 1,495 21,324 

SUM 19,829 4,879 24,708 

MEAN 1.00 3.26 1.16 

MINIMUM 1 2 1 

25th PERCENTILE 1 2 1 

MEDIAN 1 2 1 

75th PERCENTILE 1 3 1 

MAXIMUM 1 68 68 

Table B-4 provides a distribution for the frame by number of current apprentices. 4,358 of 

the sponsors had no current apprentices5; 12,270 had one to four apprentices currently; and 4,696 

had five or more apprentices currently. The largest sponsor had 6,308 apprentices. 

Table B-4. Distribution of apprentices across sponsors on the frame.

Distributional statistic 

No current 

apprentices 

One to four 

current 

apprentices 

Five or more 

current 

apprentices All sponsors 

N 4,358 12,270 4,696 21,324 

Percent of total 20% 58% 22% 100% 

SUM 0 20,829 295,716 316,545 

MEAN 0 1.70 62.97 14.84 

MINIMUM 0 1 5 0 

25th PERCENTILE 0 1 7 1 

MEDIAN 0 1 14 1 

75th PERCENTILE 0 2 45 4 

MAXIMUM 0 4 6,308 6,308 

The distribution by sampling stratum is given in Table B-5. 

 

3

 These were distinguished by text strings in the name such as ‘DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE’, ‘ARMY’, 

‘NAVY’, ‘AIR FORCE’, ‘MARINES’ and ‘COAST GUARD’. 

4

 These were distinguished by having a text string such as ‘DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS’ or ‘DEPT OF 

CORRECTIONS’, and also having occupation codes which were not corrections officers. 

5

 Sponsors with no apprentices currently are generally new programs which will have apprentices in the near future. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-5 

Table B-5. Distribution of sponsors and apprentices by sampling stratum on the frame. 

Stratum 

Count of 

sponsors 

Percent of 

sponsors 

Count of 

apprentices 

Percent of 

apprentices 

Mean 

apprentices 

per sponsor 

1 3,674 17.2% 44,670 14.1% 12.2 

2 8,976 42.1% 229,563 72.5% 25.6 

3 8,071 37.9% 37,965 12.0% 4.7 

4 603 2.8% 4,347 1.4% 7.2 

Total 21,324 100.00% 316,545 100.0% 15.6 

Frame distributions for other characteristics (SIC code, state, program type) are provided in 

the section below on the sample frame. 

SAMPLING PROCEDURES 

The frame and sample sizes are given in Table B-6 below. Each sponsor within the 

sampling strata had an equal chance of selection. The sampling rates are equal to the sample size 

divided by the frame size. The sampling process was systematic (see for example Cochran 

(1977), Chapter 8). In this process, the frame set in the stratum is ordered (see below for the sort 

order), with each sponsor receiving a unit weight. The sampling interval is computed as the 

inverse of the sampling rate. A uniform random number between 0 and the sampling interval is 

computed. The random number is rounded up to give the first sampled unit. For stratum 1 for 

example, the sampling interval is 6.53. A uniform random number between 0 and 6.53 is drawn. 

If for example, it is 2.35, then this is rounded up to 3, and the 3rd sponsor on the list is selected. 

The remaining sample is generated by adding multiples of the sampling interval to the random 

number, rounding up, and then drawing that sponsor. For example, multiples of 6.53 are added to 

the random start of 2.35 (2.35+6.53, 2.35+(2*6.53), 2.35+(3*6.53), etc.), which are then rounded 

up. This sequence for example will be (3, 9, 16, 23, etc.), and the 3rd, 9th, 16th, 23rd etc., sponsors 

will be in this particular sample. Each particular sponsor in stratum 1 for example has a 1 in 6.53 

chance of being selected, but neighboring sponsors on the ordered list can never be sampled 

together (the joint probabilities of selection are much higher for sponsors seven or eight units 

apart on the ordered list, and are zero for sponsors one through six units apart). 

 

Table B-6. Frame and sample sizes for each sampling stratum. 

Stratum 

Frame 

count of 

sponsors 

Sample 

count of 

sponsors 

Sampling 

rate 

Sampling 

interval 

1 3,674 563 15.32% 6.53 

2 8,976 601 6.70% 14.94 

3 8,071 561 6.95% 14.39 

4 603 67 11.11% 9.00 

Total 21,324 1,792 8.40% NA 

The ordering for each stratum is generated using a ‘serpentine sort’ based on size category 

and SIC code. The size category is trichotomous, with level 1 no apprentices, level 2 one to four 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-6 

apprentices, and level 3 five or more apprentices. Size category level 1 precedes size category 

level 2, which precedes size category level 3 in the ordering within each stratum. Note that the 

systematic sampling procedure along with this ordering guarantees that sample percentages for 

each size category level will be close to the frame percentages (so that none of the three size 

categories are under- or over-sampled). Within each size category level, the ordering is by twodigit SIC code. The ordering is ‘serpentine’ in that the ordering is ascending by SIC code within 

the first size category level, is descending by SIC code within the second size category level, and 

ascending by SIC code within the third size category level. Along with the systematic sampling 

procedure, this spreads the sample over SIC codes as much as possible (as ‘neighbors’ in the sort 

order have SIC codes not much different). 

FINAL SAMPLE DISTRIBUTIONS 

The final sample sizes by stratum are given in Table B-6. Within each stratum, the 

sampling rate was constant: each sponsor had an equal chance of selection. 

Table B-7 below is a parallel table to Table B-4: it provides the distribution of apprentice 

size across the sample (as opposed to the distribution of apprentice size across the frame). These 

are weighted sample distributions. The ‘weights’ in this case are the inverse of the probabilities 

of selection of the sponsors, adjusting for the differentials in sampling rates. The weighted 

sample percentages are unbiased estimators of the frame percentages. Any deviation is due to 

sampling error (states getting less or more sponsors than their population share due to the 

randomized sampling process). As can be seen in comparing the two tables, the sampling 

deviation is not large. 

Table B-7. Distribution of apprentices across sponsors in the sample. 

Distributional statistic 0 apprentices 

1 to 4 

apprentices 

5 or more 

apprentices All sponsors 

N 4,359 12,267 4,698 21,324 

Percent of total 20% 58% 22% 100% 

Weighted SUM 0 20,395 278,192 298,588 

MEAN 0 1.66 59.21 14.00 

MINIMUM 0 1 5 0 

25th PERCENTILE 0 1 8 1 

MEDIAN 0 1 16 1 

75th PERCENTILE 0 2 39 4 

MAXIMUM 0 4 2,098 2,098 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-7 

Table B-8 below presents frame percentages of sponsors and weighted sample percentages 

of sponsors by state, and Table B-9 presents frame and weighted sample percentages of 

apprentices by state, (the percentages are of apprentices rather than sponsors). Note that the 

variability for the apprentice percentages is higher because of the presence of outliers increasing 

the sampling variances (sponsors with large numbers of apprentices). 

Table B-8. Frame and sample percentages of sponsors by state. 

State 

 Frame 

percent 

 Weighted 

sample 

percent State 

 Frame 

percent 

 Weighted 

sample 

percent 

AK 0.94 0.90 MS 0.44 0.39

AL 0.45 0.40 NC 1.24 1.31 

AR 4.31 4.64 ND 0.33 0.29 

AZ 0.57 0.63 NH 2.97 2.96 

CA 2.27 2.37 NJ 6.76 6.82 

CO 1.41 1.41 NV 1.01 1.04 

CT 6.53 6.39 NY 3.01 2.76 

FL 1.28 1.41 OH 4.98 5.22 

FM 0.01 0.00 OK 0.40 0.33 

GA 0.82 0.64 PA 5.93 5.84 

GU 0.18 0.12 SC 0.30 0.54 

HI 0.07 0.03 SD 1.15 1.19 

IA 1.92 1.69 TN 1.35 1.28 

ID 1.24 1.30 TX 1.97 2.01 

IL 2.48 2.12 UT 2.25 2.37 

IN 3.72 3.34 VA 15.17 15.22 

KS 1.28 1.26 VT 0.01 0.00 

KY 1.35 1.41 WI 8.24 8.21 

MI 6.18 6.60 WV 2.42 2.27 

MO 2.59 2.74 WY 0.49 0.53 

Table B-9. Frame and sample percentages of apprentices by state. 

State 

 Frame 

percent 

 Weighted 

sample 

percent State 

 Frame 

percent 

 Weighted 

sample 

percent 

AK 0.64 0.33 MS 0.56 0.59

AL 0.50 0.64 NC 2.52 1.62 

AR 2.08 6.35 ND 0.20 0.07 

AZ 1.50 5.77 NH 0.47 0.58 

CA 23.13 15.72 NJ 2.07 1.01 

CO 1.34 0.37 NV 2.65 1.60 

CT 1.46 1.18 NY 6.70 5.84 

FL 4.90 4.81 OH 5.41 13.97 

FM 0.00 0.00 OK 0.37 0.62 

GA 1.18 0.74 PA 5.89 4.76 

GU 0.09 0.04 SC 0.22 0.26 

HI 0.05 0.00 SD 0.28 0.54 

IA 1.26 0.89 TN 1.23 1.41 

ID 0.32 0.52 TX 2.92 5.57 

IL 5.02 1.42 UT 0.92 0.71 

IN 2.94 2.38 VA 5.44 4.18 

KS 0.71 1.87 VT 0.00 0.00 

KY 0.67 0.55 WI 5.61 6.91 

MI 2.78 3.65 WV 1.19 0.92 

MO 4.70 1.57 WY 0.10 0.04 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-8 

Table B-10 presents frame and weighted sample percentages by program type. Sponsors 

could be joint programs, or not, and could be multiple programs, or not. In some cases, one or 

the other program-type status was missing. These are given as separate categories in the table. 

The weighted sample and population percentages are very close. 

Table B-10. Frame and sample percentages by program type. 

Joint 

Program/ 

Nonjoint 

Program 

Multiple 

program/ 

Single 

program 

 Frame 

percent 

Weighted 

sample 

percent 

Missing Missing 7.73 7.77 

Joint Missing 2.84 3.18 

Joint Multiple 5.41 5.17 

Joint Single 7.14 6.71 

Non-joint Missing 7.37 7.18 

Non-joint Multiple 2.64 2.80 

Non-joint Single 66.86 67.20 

Total Total 100.0 100.0 

Table B-11 presents frame and sample percentages for each major industry area. Note that 

many sponsors had no SIC information (or conflicting SIC information), and are in the ‘missing’ 

category. The frame and weighted sample percentages are very close. 

Table B-11. Frame and weighted sample percentages by SIC industry area.

Industry area 

 Frame 

percent 

Weighted 

sample 

percent 

 

Agriculture 01-09 0.19 0.06 

Mining 10-14 0.18 0.25 

Construction 15-17 35.81 35.81 

Manufacturing 20-39 18.24 18.18 

Transportation and Communication 40-49 4.28 4.26 

Wholesale Trade 50-51 0.53 0.61 

Retail Trade 52-59 3.70 3.70 

Financial Services 60-67 0.44 0.45 

Services 70-89 16.69 16.70 

Government 90-99 2.37 2.28 

Missing SIC2 17.57 17.66 

Total 100.0 100.0 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-9 

DEFINITIONS OF DOMAINS AND STRATA 

The three domains of interest for the strata (discussed at the beginning of this appendix) 

are defined in terms of industry by a four-digit SIC-code. All four-digit SIC codes in SIC 15, 16, 

and 17 are in the construction domain. Tables B-12 through B-14 present the four-digit SIC 

codes in domains 1, 2, and 3 respectively. 

In some cases, there was information about the sponsor at the two-digit SIC code level, but 

not a full four-digit code. In some cases, the two-digit SIC codes mapped completely into one of 

the three domains. Tables B-15 and B-16 present two-digit SIC codes which map completely 

into domains 1 and 3 respectively. Table B-17 presents two-digit SIC codes which ‘straddle’ 

domains 1 and 3 (i.e., there are four-digit SIC codes in domain 1 and in domain 3 from this twodigit SIC category). 

Table B-12. High growth (non-construction) four-digit SIC codes (Domain 1).

Energy: 1221, 1222, 1241, 1311, 1321, 1381, 1382, 1389, 2911, 2999, 4612, 4613, 4619, 4911, 4922, 4923, 4924, 

4925, 4931, 4932, 4939, 4941, 4971, 5172 

Information 

Technology 

3571, 3572, 3575, 3577, 3578, 3661, 3663, 3669, 3671, 3672, 3674, 3675, 3676, 3677, 3678, 3679, 7371, 

7372, 7374, 7375, 7376, 7377, 7378, 7379 

Aerospace 3721, 3724, 3728, 3761, 3764, 3769, 3812, 9661 

Automotive 3711, 3713, 3714, 7532, 7536, 7537, 7538, 7539, 7549 

Biotechnology 2833, 2834, 2835, 2836, 8731, 8733, 8734 

Geospatial 2752, 2754, 2759, 3821, 3822, 3823, 7389, 9511, 9532 

Retail Trade 

(Merchandizing only) 

5211, 5231, 5251, 5261, 5271, 5311, 5331, 5399, 5411, 5421, 5431, 5441, 5451, 5461, 5499, 5511, 5521, 

5531, 5541, 5551, 5561, 5571, 5599, 5611, 5621, 5632, 5641, 5651, 5661, 5699, 5712, 5713, 5714, 5719, 

5722, 5731, 5734, 5735, 5736, 5912, 5921, 5932, 5941, 5942, 5943, 5944, 5945, 5946, 5947, 5948, 5961, 

5962, 5963, 5983, 5984, 5989, 5992, 5993, 5994, 5995, 5999 

Transportation 4011, 4013, 4111, 4119, 4121, 4131, 4141, 4142, 4151, 4173, 4212, 4213, 4214, 4215, 4221, 4222, 4225, 

4226, 4231, 4311, 4412, 4424, 4432, 4449, 4481, 4482, 4489, 4491, 4492, 4493, 4499, 4512, 4513, 4522, 

4581, 4724, 4725, 4729, 4731, 4783, 4785, 4789 

Homeland Security 7381,7382, 9211, 9221, 9222, 9223, 9224, 9229, 9431, 9621

Hospitality 5812, 5813, 7011, 7021, 7032, 7033, 7041 

Financial Services: 6011, 6019, 6021, 6022, 6029, 6035, 6036, 6061, 6062, 6081, 6082, 6091, 6099, 6111, 6141, 6153, 6231, 

6282, 6289, 6311, 6321, 6324, 6331, 6351, 6361, 6371, 6399, 6411, 6512, 6513, 6514, 6515, 6517, 6519, 

6531, 6541, 6552, 6553, 6712, 6719, 6722, 6726, 6732, 6733, 6792, 6794, 6798, 6799 

Health Services 8011, 8021, 8031, 8041, 8042, 8043, 8049, 8051, 8052, 8059, 8062, 8063, 8069, 8071, 8072, 8082, 8092, 

8093, 8099 

 

Table B-13. Construction four-digit SIC codes (Domain 2).

Construction: 1521, 1522, 1531, 1541, 1542, 1611, 1622, 1623, 1629, 1711, 1721, 1731, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1751, 1752, 

1761, 1771, 1781, 1791, 1793, 1794, 1795, 1796, 1799 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-10 

Table B-14. Other, non-construction, non-high growth four-digit SIC codes (Domain 3). 

Advanced 

(High-Tech) 

Manufacturing 

2011, 2013, 2015, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2026, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2037, 2038, 2041, 2043, 2044, 

2045, 2046, 2047, 2048, 2051, 2052, 2053, 2061, 2062, 2063, 2064, 2066, 2067, 2068, 2074, 2075, 2076, 

2077, 2079, 2082, 2083, 2084, 2085, 2086, 2087, 2091, 2092, 2095, 2096, 2097, 2098, 2099, 2111, 2121, 

2131, 2141, 2211, 2221, 2231, 2241, 2251, 2252, 2253, 2254, 2257, 2258, 2259, 2261, 2262, 2269, 2273, 

2281, 2282, 2284, 2295, 2296, 2297, 2298, 2299, 2311, 2321, 2322, 2323, 2325, 2326, 2329, 2331, 2335, 

2337, 2339, 2341, 2342, 2353, 2361, 2369, 2371, 2381, 2384, 2385, 2386, 2387, 2389, 2391, 2392, 2393, 

2394, 2395, 2396, 2397, 2399, 2411, 2421, 2426, 2429, 2431, 2434, 2435, 2436, 2439, 2441, 2448, 2449, 

2451, 2452, 2491, 2493, 2499, 2511, 2512, 2514, 2515, 2517, 2519, 2521, 2522, 2531, 2541, 2542, 2591, 

2599, 2611, 2621, 2631, 2652, 2653, 2655, 2656, 2657, 2671, 2672, 2673, 2674, 2675, 2676, 2677, 2678, 

2679, 2711, 2721, 2731, 2732, 2741, 2761, 2771, 2782, 2789, 2791, 2796, 2812, 2813, 2816, 2819, 2821, 

2822, 2823, 2824, 2841, 2842, 2843, 2844, 2851, 2861, 2865, 2869, 2873, 2874, 2875, 2879, 2891, 2892, 

2893, 2895, 2899, 2951, 2952, 2992, 3011, 3021, 3052, 3053, 3061, 3069, 3081, 3082, 3083, 3084, 3085, 

3086, 3087, 3088, 3089, 3111, 3131, 3142, 3143, 3144, 3149, 3151, 3161, 3171, 3172, 3199, 3211, 3221, 

3229, 3231, 3241, 3251, 3253, 3255, 3259, 3261, 3262, 3263, 3264, 3269, 3271, 3272, 3273, 3274, 3275, 

3281, 3291, 3292, 3295, 3296, 3297, 3299, 3312, 3313, 3315, 3316, 3317, 3321, 3322, 3324, 3325, 3331, 

3334, 3339, 3341, 3351, 3353, 3354, 3355, 3356, 3357, 3363, 3364, 3365, 3366, 3369, 3398, 3399, 3411, 

3412, 3421, 3423, 3425, 3429, 3431, 3432, 3433, 3441, 3442, 3443, 3444, 3446, 3448, 3449, 3451, 3452, 

3462, 3463, 3465, 3466, 3469, 3471, 3479, 3482, 3483, 3484, 3489, 3491, 3492, 3493, 3494, 3495, 3496, 

3497, 3498, 3499, 3511, 3519, 3523, 3524, 3531, 3532, 3533, 3534, 3535, 3536, 3537, 3541, 3542, 3543, 

3544, 3545, 3546, 3547, 3548, 3549, 3552, 3553, 3554, 3555, 3556, 3559, 3561, 3562, 3563, 3564, 3565, 

3566, 3567, 3568, 3569, 3579, 3581, 3582, 3585, 3586, 3589, 3592, 3593, 3594, 3596, 3599, 3612, 3613, 

3621, 3624, 3625, 3629, 3631, 3632, 3633, 3634, 3635, 3639, 3641, 3643, 3644, 3645, 3646, 3647, 3648, 

3651, 3652, 3691, 3692, 3694, 3695, 3699, 3715, 3716, 3731, 3732, 3743, 3751, 3792, 3795, 3799, 3824, 

3825, 3826, 3827, 3829, 3841, 3842, 3843, 3844, 3845, 3851, 3861, 3873, 3911, 3914, 3915, 3931, 3942, 

3944, 3949, 3951, 3952, 3953, 3955, 3961, 3965, 3991, 3993, 3995, 3996, 3999 

Agriculture: 0111, 0112, 0115, 0116, 0119, 0131, 0132, 0133, 0134, 0139, 0161, 0171, 0172, 0173, 0174, 0175, 0179, 

0181, 0182, 0191, 0211, 0212, 0213, 0214, 0219, 0241, 0251, 0252, 0253, 0254, 0259, 0271, 0272, 0273, 

0279, 0291, 0711, 0721, 0722, 0723, 0724, 0741, 0742, 0751, 0752, 0761, 0762, 0781, 0782, 0783, 0811, 

0831, 0851, 0912, 0913, 0919, 0921, 0971 

Mining: 1011, 1021, 1031, 1041, 1044, 1061, 1081, 1094, 1099, 1231, 1411, 1422, 1423, 1429, 1442, 1446, 1455, 

1459, 1474, 1475, 1479, 1481, 1499 

Communication 

 (and Utilities): 

4812, 4813, 4822, 4832, 4833, 4841, 4899, 4952, 4953, 4959, 4961 

Wholesale Trade: 5012, 5013, 5014, 5015, 5021, 5023, 5031, 5032, 5033, 5039, 5043, 5044, 5045, 5046, 5047, 5048, 5049, 

5051, 5052, 5063, 5064, 5065, 5072, 5074, 5075, 5078, 5082, 5083, 5084, 5085, 5087, 5088, 5091, 5092, 

5093, 5094, 5099, 5111, 5112, 5113, 5122, 5131, 5136, 5137, 5139, 5141, 5142, 5143, 5144, 5145, 5146, 

5147, 5148, 5149, 5153, 5154, 5159, 5162, 5169, 5171, 5181, 5182, 5191, 5192, 5193, 5194, 5198, 5199 

The Rest of Service: 7011, 7021, 7032, 7033, 7041, 7211, 7212, 7213, 7215, 7216, 7217, 7218, 7219, 7221, 7231, 7241, 7251, 

7261, 7291, 7299, 7311, 7312, 7313, 7319, 7322, 7323, 7331, 7334, 7335, 7336, 7338, 7342, 7349, 7352, 

7353, 7359, 7361, 7363, 7373, 7383, 7384, 7513, 7514, 7515, 7519, 7521, 7533, 7534, 7542, 7622, 7623, 

7629, 7631, 7641, 7692, 7694, 7699, 7812, 7819, 7822, 7829, 7832, 7833, 7841, 7911, 7922, 7929, 7933, 

7941, 7948, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7996, 7997, 7999, 8111, 8211, 8222, 8231, 8243, 8244, 8249, 8299, 8322, 

8331, 8351, 8361, 8399, 8412, 8422, 8611, 8621, 8631, 8641, 8651, 8661, 8699, 8711, 8712, 8713, 8721, 

8732, 8741, 8742, 8743, 8744, 8748, 8811, 8999 

The Rest of Public 

Administration: 

9111, 9121, 9131, 9199, 9311, 9411, 9441, 9451, 9512, 9531, 9611, 9631, 9641, 9651, 9711, 9721 

 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-11 

Table B-15. Two digit SIC codes only in the high growth non-construction domain (Domain 1). 

Transportation 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 

Retail Trade 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 

Financial Services: 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 

Health Services 80 

Homeland Security 92 

 

Table B-16. Two digit SIC codes only in the non-high-growth, non-construction domain 

(Domain 3). 

Agriculture 01, 02, 07, 08, 09 

Mining 10, 14 

Manufacturing 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39 

Communication 48 

Wholesale Trade 50 

Service 70, 72, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 88, 89 

Public Administration 91, 97 

 

Table B-17. Two digit SIC codes in both Domains 1 and 3.

Mining and Construction 12, 13 

Manufacturing 27, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37, 38 

Communication 46, 49 

Trade 51 

Service 73, 75, 87 

Government 94, 95, 96, 99

 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-12 

 

WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY 

This section describes experiences in the field, construction of sampling weights, 

adjustments, and response rates for the Survey of Registered Apprenticeship Sponsors. The 

sampling weights had the following components (which were multiplied together to give the 

final weights): 

 The base weight: the inverse of the probability of selection of the sponsor into the 

study sample; 

 An adjustment to the base weight for duplicates; 

 An adjustment for eligible and nonresponding sample units. 

The base weights, adjustments for duplicates, and adjustments for nonresponding sample units 

are all discussed below. 

BASE WEIGHTS 

The base weight wi was the inverse of the probability of selection pi at the time of sampling 

(the index i indicates sponsor i). The probability of selection at the time of sampling was based 

on assignment of sponsors to one of four strata as follows: 

1) High-growth industries; 

2) Construction industry; 

3) Other, including non-construction and non-high-growth industries; and 

4) Unknown industry. 

Under the sample design, the sampling rate was much higher for stratum 1, given the 

smaller frame numbers and the considerable interest in this group: 15.32%. The sampling rate 

for strata 2 and 3 were 6.7% and 6.95% respectively. The fourth category was given an 

intermediate sampling rate (11.11%), given our uncertainty as to whether these really belonged 

in stratum 1 or stratum 3. Table B-18 summarizes the frame counts at the time of sampling, the 

assigned sample sizes, the sampling rates, and the base weights (the reciprocal of the sampling 

rate). The sections on sampling methodology (see above) provide further details regarding the 

sample design. 

Table B-18. Sampling rates and base weights from the sponsor frame. 

Stratum 

Frame 

count of 

sponsors 

Sample 

count of 

sponsors 

Sampling 

rate pi

Base 

weight wi 

1 3,674 563 15.32% 6.53 

2 8,976 601 6.70% 14.94 

3 8,071 561 6.95% 14.39 

4 603 67 11.11% 9.00 

Total 21,324 1,792 8.40% NA 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-13 

ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BASE WEIGHTS FOR DUPLICATES 

There were a total of 21,324 apprenticeship sponsors in the final sampling frame, 

corresponding to 24,708 programs and 316,545 apprentices. The section above on sample 

methodology details the sources for the sampling frame, and the process for generating the final 

sampling frame, including exclusions and other changes from the source data. This frame even 

after careful processing had ‘false sponsor records’ of two kinds. The first kind involved 

‘sponsors’ who turned out to be ineligible because they were out-of-business or had not had an 

apprentice for at least three years. The second kind were duplicate records, i.e., multiple records 

which corresponded to single sponsors. 

The ineligible sponsors are easy to handle: they are viewed as never really belonging to the 

frame in the first place, and are simply dropped from both frame and sample. The duplicates are 

not as easy to handle. For these duplicates, it was necessary to identify all records in the sample 

which corresponded to a single sponsor, using information collected from the sponsors 

themselves. A single sponsor was then assigned a probability of selection based on their 

multiple chances of being included. Supposing that there are m (m=2,3,4,....) records for a 

particular sponsor s, with frame probabilities of selection p1, p2, ..., pm, the probability and 

weight assigned to the sponsor were as follows: 

1

1

1

1

1 (1 ) 1 (1 )

−

=

−

=

⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ = −∏ − = = −∏ −

m

i

s s i

m

i

s i p p w p p

The logic of this is as follows: the stratified systematic design is viewed as being 

approximated by a Poisson sampling process, with each unit having one-by-one an independent 

chance of selection pi determined by its stratum. A sponsor ends up in the sample if any one of 

their associated records is sampled. Thus, a sponsor is not sampled if and only if none of the m

records for the sponsor are sampled. The chance of this is ∏=

−

m

i

pi

1

(1 ) , the product of the 

probabilities that each record is not sampled. The probability the sponsor is sampled is then the 

complement of this, which is ∏=

− −

m

i

pi

1

1 (1 ). It should be noted that the adjustment was only 

made for the m duplicates in the sample, not the M duplicates in the frame. No attempt was 

made to go back to the original frame and identify all M duplicates at that level, as this was not 

feasible. Thus the correct weight 

1

1

1 (1 ) ~

−

=

⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ = −∏ −

M

i

s i w p may be somewhat smaller then the 

weight we are computing which is equal to 

1

1

1 (1 )

−

=

⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ = −∏ −

m

i

ws pi . The sampling weight was 

adjusted downwards correctly for its multiple chances of selection, but possibly not quite far 

enough. This may introduce a small bias. It should be noted that no adjustments were made for 

sample units for which there were no duplicates in the sample (m equals 1), but only for 

duplicates on the frame which didn’t happen to be sampled, i.e., M is greater than 1. In this case, 

the original weight was used rather than a more appropriate lower weight, which was, however, 

impossible to compute. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-14 

Note that this base weight adjustment was made whether or not the sponsor was ultimately 

a respondent or non-respondent. If, on the other hand the sponsor was identified as ineligible, 

then all of the records were ruled as such and their weights left alone. In the sample, 56 records 

were duplicates. Seventeen of the sponsor records were assigned as non-respondents or 

ineligibles and the weights were retained. Further discussion of the 17 cases can be found be in 

the next section. The remaining 39 duplicate records were associated with 13 sponsors and were 

dropped (given zero base weights and coded out as duplicates). 

All of the 73 records associated with the 13 sponsors had an aggregate base weight of 749. 

The aggregate weight for the same set of records after the adjustment for duplicates was 185. 

Thus in a sense 749 frame records are re-evaluated as corresponding to only 185 real sponsors, 

resulting in effect in a frame count drop of 564. 

There was one case in which a sponsor with multiple records actually provided multiple 

interviews for multiple programs associated with the sponsor. In this case, the adjusted weight 

was divided between these interviews, so that in effect the interviews were ‘averaged together’ to 

represent the single weight for the sponsor. 

ADJUSTMENTS FOR UNKNOWN ELIGIBILITY CASES AND RESPONSE RATES 

Table B-19 presents a breakdown of disposition codes after the 56 cases discussed in 

Section 3 were re-weighted. The base weight total here is 20,760, which is 564 less than the 

frame total of 21,324 (see Table B-18). 

Ineligibles and unknown-eligibility cases were a large portion of the sample. The known 

ineligibles included the duplicates6

, sponsors which had no apprentices in the last three years, 

and sponsors no longer in business. Following the American Association for Public Opinion 

Research (AAPOR 2004) procedures, only units which are positively confirmed to fall into one of 

these categories were coded out as ineligible. 

 

6

Thirty-nine of these duplicates received zero base weights, following the procedure discussed in Section 3. The 

remaining 17 duplicates could not be associated with an eligible sponsor, and retained their original weights. 

Among the 17 duplicates, 7 were recoded to “refused interview” since the sponsor only had duplicates and ineligible 

records and 10 stayed as ineligible and kept the weights, as the linkage information to other records were missing. 

Thus, the sum of weight is 147 (rather than 0). 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-15 

Table B-19. Unweighted and weighted counts by disposition status. 

Eligibility outcome 

Sample 

count 

Percent of 

grand 

total 

Sum of 

base 

weight 

Percent 

of grand 

weighted 

total 

1-Completed interviews 947 52.8% 11,303 54.4% 

1-Refused interviews 80 4.5% 919 4.4% 

Total confirmed eligible 1,027 57.3% 12,221 58.9% 

2-Duplicates 49 2.7% 147 0.7% 

3-No apprentices in last 3 years 272 15.2% 3,102 14.9% 

3-No longer in business 49 2.7% 542 2.6% 

Total confirmed ineligible 370 20.6% 3,791 18.3% 

4-Answering machine 1717 9.5% 2,102 10.1% 

4-Busy signal 3 0.2% 35 0.2% 

4-Disconnected 65 3.6% 797 3.8% 

4-Fax/modem 20 1.1% 220 1.1% 

4-Gatekeeper refusal 1 0.1% 7 0.0% 

4-No answer 33 1.8% 384 1.8% 

4-Respondent unavailable 55 3.1% 646 3.1% 

4-Wrong number 47 2.6% 558 2.7% 

Total unknown eligibility 395 22.0% 4,748 22.9% 

 

Total 1,792 100.0% 20,760 100.0% 

The unknown eligibility group consists of those cases for which not enough information 

could be collected to confirm that the sponsor was either out of business or hadn’t had an 

apprentice in three years. In computing response rates, we used ‘RR3’ as given in AAPOR 

2004, which takes those with unknown eligibility and imputes some of them as equivalent to 

refusals and some of them as equivalent to ineligibles (splitting the difference, so to speak). The 

percentage used to allocate the unknown cases to eligible and ineligible is simply the eligibility 

rate among the cases with known eligibility. Table B-20 presents this imputation process done 

over the full sample (in generating the weights, this imputation is done separately within 

assigned cells, as discussed in later sections below). 

 

7

One record was recoded to "refused interview" when all other records associated with this sponsor were duplicates. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-16 

Table B-20. Calculations of response rates by imputing unknown eligibility cases. 

Eligibility outcome 

Sum of 

base 

weights 

Percent of 

weighted 

total before 

imputation 

Eligibility 

rate among 

known 

eligible 

Imputations of 

unknown 

eligibility 

Sum of 

base 

weights 

after imputation 

Percent of 

weighted 

total after 

imputation 

Percent 

among 

eligibles 

after 

imputation 

 

1-Completed interviews 11,303 54.4% 11,303 54.4% 71.3% 

2-Refused interviews 919 4.4% 4,543 21.9% 28.7% 

(1+2)-Total confirmed eligible 12,221 58.9% 76.3% 15,846 76.3% 

3-Total confirmed ineligible 3,791 18.3% 23.7% 4,915 23.7% 

4a-Imputed as nonresponse 3,624 

4b-Imputed as ineligible 1,124 

4-Total unknown eligibility 4,748 22.9% 4,748 0.0% 

 

Total 20,760 100.0% 20,760 100.0% 

The first step is to compute the (base-weighted) eligibility rate among the cases with 

known eligibility (‘1’, ‘2’, and ‘3’). This rate is 76.3%. The base weights for the total unknown 

eligibility cases add up to 4,748; among these, 76.3% is allocated to eligible (with such eligible 

non-respondents treated like a refusal), and 23.7% allocated to ineligible. The resultant 

breakdown is given in the column ‘Sum of base weights after imputation.’ In this column, the 

unknown eligibility numbers now become completed and refused eligibles, and ineligibles. The 

eligibility rate computed among these numbers is 76.3%, as expected. The response rate is then 

computed as 1/(1+2), with the ‘2’ numbers augmented with the imputed unknown eligibility 

numbers. The resultant response rate is 71.3%. 

It is clear that using 76.3% as the eligibility rate for the unknown eligibility numbers is 

simply a reasonable estimate (a “best guess”), though the true rate may be more or less. One can 

assign lower and upper bounds to the response rate by making the extreme assumptions that all 

of the unknown eligibility numbers are eligible (and thereby non-respondents) and that all of the 

unknown eligibility numbers are ineligible, respectively. These response rates are given in Table 

B-21, along with the best-practices response rate. 

Table B-21. Response rate ranges, based on imputation rate assumptions

Upper bound response rate 92.5% 

Best practices response rate 71.3% 

Lower bound response rate 66.6% 

At the end of this appendix, Tables B-29 and B-30 show the unweighted counts by 

response status across strata and state. 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-17 

ADJUSTMENT FOR UNKNOWN ELIGIBILITY CASES 

The overall (weighted) eligibility rate among sponsors with known eligibility was 75.9%. 

The first step in generating nonresponse adjustments is to allocate unknown eligibility cases to 

non-respondents and ineligibles. In the generation of cells, the Statistical Package for the Social 

Sciences (SPSS) Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detector (CHAID) for Windows software 

package was utilized. CHAID is a classification algorithm that divides a population into 

homogeneous subgroups with respect to a target characteristic (dependent variable). The target 

characteristic must be a categorical variable with either nominal or ordinal categories. The 

analysis in CHAID begins by dividing the population into two or more groups based on the 

categories of the best predictor. Each of these groups is then divided into smaller subgroups 

based on the best available predictor at each level (predictors included stratum, census division, 

broad SIC category, program size, and sponsor type—see eligibility cell columns in Tables B-22 

and B-23). The splitting process continues until either there is no significant predictor remaining 

or the minimum cell size requirement is met. 

The first set of cells was generated based on differential unknown eligibility rates. Most of 

these cases are imputed as non-respondents, so that differential unknown eligibility rates will 

translate into differential response rates. The CHAID analysis was done separately within each 

of the four sampling strata. Table B-22 presents the results of the analysis. The first two strata 

were partitioned into two subcategories. Strata 3 and 4 were not partitioned (no significant 

predictors were found). 

The adjustment for unknown eligibility is done separately within each cell, with the 

unknown eligibility aggregate base weight ‘dispersed’ over the eligible and ineligible units 

within the cell. The weights for the known eligibility units are all proportionately increased. In 

effect we are ‘imputing’ some of the unknown eligibility units as eligible and ineligible 

according to the weighted percentages of eligible and ineligible within the cell. The eligible and 

ineligible units are ‘representing’ the unknown eligibility units within the cell: if the unknown 

eligibility rate is high then the adjustment factor will be high. Writing each cell as c=1,...,C

(where C=6 in this case) the set of unknown-eligibility units in the cell as SUK(c), the set of 

eligible units as SE(c) and the set of ineligible units as SI(c), (so that SUK(c), SE(c), and SI(c) are 

mutually exclusive and exhaustive of the cell) the adjustments for each cell are: 

∑ ∑

∑ ∑ ∑

∈ ∈

∈ ∈ ∈

+

+ +

=

( ) ( )

( ) ( ) ( ) _ ( )

s S c

s

s S c

s

s S c

s

s S c

s

s S c

s

E I

E I UK

w w

w w w

ELIG UNK c

The weights for each unit s after this step are as follows: 

⎪

⎩

⎪

⎨

⎧

∈

∈

∈

=

0 ( )

* _ ( ) ( )

* _ ( ) ( )

s S c

w ELIG UNK c s S c

w ELIG UNK c s S c

u

UK

s I

s E

s
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-18 

Table B-22. Cells with differential eligibility unknown rates. 

Stratum Eligibility cell 

Response 

status 

Sum of 

base 

weights 

Percent 

of base 

weights 

Eligibility 

rate 

 

1-High-growth NC Other than SIC 40-49 Eligible 1373 49.1% 65.5% 

1-High-growth NC Other than SIC 40-49 Ineligible 724 25.9% 

1-High-growth NC Other than SIC 40-49 Unknown Elg 698 25.0% 

1-High-growth NC Other than SIC 40-49 Total 2795 100.0% 

1-High-growth NC SIC codes 40-49 Eligible 590 80.4% 90.9% 

1-High-growth NC SIC codes 40-49 Ineligible 59 8.0% 

1-High-growth NC SIC codes 40-49 Unknown Elg 85 11.6% 

1-High-growth NC SIC codes 40-49 Total 733 100.0% 

2-Construction Other than PT Joint Eligible 4365 60.7% 82.3% 

2-Construction Other than PT Joint Ineligible 941 13.1% 

2-Construction Other than PT Joint Unknown Elg 1882 26.2% 

2-Construction Other than PT Joint Total 7187 100.0% 

2-Construction Program type Joint Eligible 1269 87.6% 95.5% 

2-Construction Program type Joint Ineligible 60 4.1% 

2-Construction Program type Joint Unknown Elg 119 8.2% 

2-Construction Program type Joint Total 1449 100.0% 

3-NonConstr other All Eligible 4238 53.0% 69.1% 

3-NonConstr other All Ineligible 1899 23.8% 

3-NonConstr other All Unknown Elg 1856 23.2% 

3-NonConstr other All Total 7993 100.0% 

4-NonConstr unk growth All Eligible 387 64.2% 78.2% 

4-NonConstr unk growth All Ineligible 108 17.9% 

4-NonConstr unk growth All Unknown Elg 108 17.9% 

4-NonConstr unk growth All Total 603 100.0% 

All All Eligible 12221 58.9% 76.3% 

All All Ineligible 3791 18.3% 

All All Unknown Elg 4748 22.9% 

All All Grand total 20760 100.0% 

ADJUSTMENT FOR NON-RESPONDENTS 

The next step is adjustment for the non-respondents. The respondents are reweighted 

within nonresponse cells to represent both the respondents and the non-respondents in the cell. 

Ineligible units have their weights left alone. CHAID was done separately within each of the 

four sampling strata to choose a set of cells which were as heterogeneous as possible in these 

adjustment factors. Table B-23 presents the results of the analysis: nine cells across the four 

strata. 

The final adjustment for nonresponse is done separately within each cell, with the nonrespondents’ aggregate weights ‘dispersed’ over the respondents within the cell. The weights for 

the respondent units are all proportionately increased. The responding units are ‘representing’ 

the nonresponding units within the cell: if the nonresponse rate is high then the adjustment factor 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-19 

will be high. Writing each cell as d=1,...,D (where D=9 in this case), the set of responding units 

in the cell as SR(d), the set of nonresponding units as SNR(d) and the set of ineligible units as 

SI(d), (so that SUK(d), SE(d), and SI(d) are mutually exclusive and exhaustive of the cell) the 

adjustments for each cell are: 

∑

∑ ∑

∈

∈ ∈

+

=

( )

( ) ( ) ( )

s S d

s

s S d

s

s S d

s

R

R NR

u

u u

NRADJ d

The final weights for each unit s after this step are as follows: 

⎪

⎩

⎪

⎨

⎧

∈

∈

∈

=

0 ( )

( )

* ( ) ( )

s S d

u s S d

u NRADJ d s S d

W

NR

s I

s R

s

Table B-23 presents the selected cells and the ‘cooperation rates’ within the cells. The 

terminology ‘cooperation rate’ is used here as these adjustments only reflect respondents vs. 

known-eligibility non-respondents (not the imputed portion of the unknown-eligibility nonrespondents). 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-20 

Table B-23. Cells with differential cooperation rates. 

Stratum Eligibility cell Response status 

Sum of 

base 

weights 

Percent 

of base 

weights 

Cooperation 

rate 

 

1-High-growth NC SIC 40-49 small size Ineligible 110 14.7% 94.0% 

1-High-growth NC SIC 40-49 small size Nonrespondent 38 5.1% 

1-High-growth NC SIC 40-49 small size Respondent 598 80.1% 

1-High-growth NC SIC 40-49 small size Total 746 100.0% 

1-High-growth NC SIC 40-49 large size Ineligible 0 0.0% 100.0% 

1-High-growth NC SIC 40-49 large size Nonrespondent 0 0.0% 

1-High-growth NC SIC 40-49 large size Respondent 294 100.0% 

1-High-growth NC SIC 40-49 large size Total 294 100.0% 

1-High-growth NC Other than SIC 40-49 Ineligible 922 37.0% 87.2% 

1-High-growth NC Other than SIC 40-49 Nonrespondent 200 8.0% 

1-High-growth NC Other than SIC 40-49 Respondent 1367 54.9% 

1-High-growth NC Other than SIC 40-49 Total 2489 100.0% 

2-Construction Other than NY, NJ, PA Ineligible 1016 15.1% 93.6% 

2-Construction Other than NY, NJ, PA Nonrespondent 364 5.4% 

2-Construction Other than NY, NJ, PA Respondent 5339 79.5% 

2-Construction Other than NY, NJ, PA Total 6719 100.0% 

2-Construction NY, NJ, PA Ineligible 324 16.9% 98.7% 

2-Construction NY, NJ, PA Nonrespondent 20 1.1% 

2-Construction NY, NJ, PA Respondent 1573 82.1% 

2-Construction NY, NJ, PA Total 1917 100.0% 

3-NonConstr other Manuf, service no appr Ineligible 1124 56.3% 82.8% 

3-NonConstr other Manuf, service no appr Nonrespondent 150 7.5% 

3-NonConstr other Manuf, service no appr Respondent 722 36.2% 

3-NonConstr other Manuf, service no appr Total 1996 100.0% 

3-NonConstr other Manuf, service <=1 appr Ineligible 1049 23.0% 94.1% 

3-NonConstr other Manuf, service <=1 appr Nonrespondent 206 4.5% 

3-NonConstr other Manuf, service <=1 appr Respondent 3317 72.5% 

3-NonConstr other Manuf, service <=1 appr Total 4572 100.0% 

3-NonConstr other Not manuf, service Ineligible 300 21.0% 81.7% 

3-NonConstr other Not manuf, service Nonrespondent 206 14.5% 

3-NonConstr other Not manuf, service Respondent 919 64.5% 

3-NonConstr other Not manuf, service Total 1425 100.0% 

4-NonConstr unk growth All Ineligible 132 21.8% 95.3% 

4-NonConstr unk growth All Nonrespondent 22 3.6% 

4-NonConstr unk growth All Respondent 450 74.5% 

4-NonConstr unk growth All Total 603 100.0% 

All All Ineligible 4977 24.0% 92.4% 

All All Nonrespondent 1206 5.8% 

All All Respondent 14577 70.2% 

All All Total 20760 100.0% 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-21 

TABLES OF FINAL WEIGHT TABULATIONS 

The tables in this section present weighted percentages of sponsors by size, state, program 

type, and industry. These are aggregated over the responding sponsors, using as weights their 

final nonresponse-adjusted weights. If the weighting process has successfully adjusted for 

differential response patterns, then one should see that these final nonresponse-adjusted 

percentages are close to the corresponding percentages from the original sample. These 

percentages (as well as the frame percentages) are included in the tables. As can be seen in all 

tables, the final respondents have percentages close to those of the frame and weighted sample, 

when the nonresponse-adjusted final weights are used. There is no evidence of potential for bias 

if the final weights are utilized. 

Table B-24. Frame, sample, and final sample percentages by stratum.

Sampling 

stratum Frame percent 

 Weighted 

sample percent 

Final 

respondents 

weighted 

sample percent 

 

Stratum 1 17.23 17.23 17.00 

Stratum 2 42.09 42.09 41.60 

Stratum 3 37.85 37.85 38.50 

Stratum 4 2.83 2.83 2.90 

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 

Table B-25. Frame, sample, and final sample percentages by size.

Subgroup 

 Frame 

percent 

Weighted 

sample 

percent 

Final 

respondents 

weighted 

sample 

percentage 

 

Sponsors with no apprentices 20.44 20.44 20.37 

Sponsors with 1 to 4 apprentices 57.54 57.53 56.51 

Sponsors with 5 or more apprentices 22.02 22.03 23.12 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-22 

Table B-26. Frame, sample, and final sample percentages by program type.

Joint 

Program/ 

Nonjoint 

Program 

Multiple 

program/ 

Single 

program 

 Frame 

percent 

Weighted 

sample 

percent 

Final 

respondents 

weighted 

sample 

percentage 

Missing Missing 7.73 7.77 7.91 

J Missing 2.84 3.18 3.30 

J M 5.41 5.17 5.69 

J S 7.14 6.71 6.89 

N Missing 7.37 7.18 6.30 

N M 2.64 2.80 2.58 

N S 66.86 67.20 67.34 

Total Total 99.99 100.01 100.01 

Table B-27. Frame, sample, and final sample percentages by SIC industry area.

Industry area 

 Frame 

percent 

Weighted 

sample 

percent 

Final 

sample 

percent 

 

Agriculture 01-09 0.19 0.06 0.22 

Mining 10-14 0.18 0.25 0.24 

Construction 15-17 35.81 35.81 33.97 

Manufacturing 20-39 18.24 18.18 20.36 

Transportation and Communication 40-49 4.28 4.26 3.63 

Wholesale Trade 50-51 0.53 0.61 0.83 

Retail Trade 52-59 3.7 3.7 3.76 

Financial Services 60-67 0.44 0.45 0.46 

Services 70-89 16.69 16.7 17.31 

Government 90-99 2.37 2.28 2.74 

Missing SIC2 17.57 17.66 16.48 

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-23 

Table B-28. Frame, sample, and final sample percentages by state.

State 

 Frame 

percent 

 Weighted 

sample 

percent 

Final 

weights 

sample 

percent 

AK 0.94 0.90 0.75 

AL 0.45 0.40 0.31 

AR 4.31 4.64 3.16 

AZ 0.57 0.63 0.62 

CA 2.27 2.37 2.12 

CO 1.41 1.41 1.69 

CT 6.53 6.39 6.63 

FL 1.28 1.41 1.56 

FM 0.01 0.00 0.00 

GA 0.82 0.64 0.48 

GU 0.18 0.12 0.00 

HI 0.07 0.03 0.05 

IA 1.92 1.69 1.47 

ID 1.24 1.30 1.50 

IL 2.48 2.12 2.46 

IN 3.72 3.34 3.46 

KS 1.28 1.26 1.13 

KY 1.35 1.41 1.43 

MI 6.18 6.60 7.65 

MO 2.59 2.74 2.98 

MS 0.44 0.39 0.46 

NC 1.24 1.31 1.23 

ND 0.33 0.29 0.37 

NH 2.97 2.96 2.49 

NJ 6.76 6.82 6.96 

NV 1.01 1.04 0.83 

NY 3.01 2.76 2.83 

OH 4.98 5.22 5.49 

OK 0.40 0.33 0.41 

PA 5.93 5.84 6.28 

SC 0.30 0.54 0.56 

SD 1.15 1.19 1.37 

TN 1.35 1.28 1.02 

TX 1.97 2.01 2.26 

UT 2.25 2.37 2.42 

VA 15.17 15.22 15.01 

VT 0.01 0.00 0.00 

WI 8.24 8.21 7.74 

WV 2.42 2.27 2.49 

WY 0.49 0.53 0.36 

Total 100.02 99.98 100.00 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-24 

Table B-29. Unweighted counts by response status and strata 

 Strata 

Response Status 

1-High-Growth, 

Non-Construction 2-Construction 3 – Other 4- NonConstr unk growth All 

277 363 266 41 947 

Respondent 49.20% 60.40% 47.42% 61.19% 52.85% 

28 20 30 2 80 

Non-respondent 4.97% 3.33% 5.35% 2.99% 4.46% 

138 84 136 12 370 

Ineligible 24.51% 13.98% 24.24% 17.91% 20.65% 

Eligibility 120 134 129 12 395 

Unknown 21.31% 22.30% 22.99% 17.91% 22.04% 

563 601 561 67 1792 

All 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 

Table B-30. Unweighted counts by response status and state. 

State Response Status 

 Respondent 

Nonrespondent Ineligible Eligibility 

Unknown Total 

6 1 3 4 14 

 AK 42.86% 7.14% 21.43% 28.57% 100.00% 

2 2 2 2 8 

 AL 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 100.00% 

17 4 42 8 71 

 AR 23.94% 5.63% 59.15% 11.27% 100.00% 

9 0 2 2 13 

 AZ 69.23% 0.00% 15.38% 15.38% 100.00% 

25 0 15 10 50 

 CA 50.00% 0.00% 30.00% 20.00% 100.00% 

17 0 7 5 29 

 CO 58.62% 0.00% 24.14% 17.24% 100.00% 

66 5 2 23 96 

 CT 68.75% 5.21% 2.08% 23.96% 100.00% 

17 1 3 6 27 

 FL 62.96% 3.70% 11.11% 22.22% 100.00% 

3 0 3 5 11 

 GA 27.27% 0.00% 27.27% 45.45% 100.00% 

0 0 0 4 4 

 GU 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 

1 0 0 0 1 

 HI 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-25 

State Response Status 

 Respondent 

Nonrespondent Ineligible Eligibility 

Unknown Total 

17 1 10 8 36 

 IA 47.22% 2.78% 27.78% 22.22% 100.00% 

14 1 3 3 21 

 ID 66.67% 4.76% 14.29% 14.29% 100.00% 

20 0 15 7 42 

 IL 47.62% 0.00% 35.71% 16.67% 100.00% 

37 3 10 10 60 

 IN 61.67% 5.00% 16.67% 16.67% 100.00% 

15 0 4 10 29 

 KS 51.72% 0.00% 13.79% 34.48% 100.00% 

11 2 6 5 24 

 KY 45.83% 8.33% 25.00% 20.83% 100.00% 

62 9 36 18 125 

 MI 49.60% 7.20% 28.80% 14.40% 100.00% 

41 1 11 10 63 

 MO 65.08% 1.59% 17.46% 15.87% 100.00% 

4 1 2 1 8 

 MS 50.00% 12.50% 25.00% 12.50% 100.00% 

15 1 3 8 27 

 NC 55.56% 3.70% 11.11% 29.63% 100.00% 

6 0 1 0 7 

 ND 85.71% 0.00% 14.29% 0.00% 100.00% 

22 2 4 16 44 

 NH 50.00% 4.55% 9.09% 36.36% 100.00% 

60 2 20 30 112 

 NJ 53.57% 1.79% 17.86% 26.79% 100.00% 

6 1 4 6 17 

 NV 35.29% 5.88% 23.53% 35.29% 100.00% 

34 3 3 8 48 

 NY 70.83% 6.25% 6.25% 16.67% 100.00% 

46 3 21 22 92 

 OH 50.00% 3.26% 22.83% 23.91% 100.00% 

6 0 0 1 7 

 OK 85.71% 0.00% 0.00% 14.29% 100.00% 

52 1 32 23 108 

 PA 48.15% 0.93% 29.63% 21.30% 100.00% 

6 0 0 3 9 

 SC 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 100.00% 

13 1 7 4 25 

 SD 52.00% 4.00% 28.00% 16.00% 100.00% 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-26 

State Response Status 

 Respondent 

Nonrespondent Ineligible Eligibility 

Unknown Total 

9 1 4 8 22 

 TN 40.91% 4.55% 18.18% 36.36% 100.00% 

22 1 9 6 38 

 TX 57.89% 2.63% 23.68% 15.79% 100.00% 

16 2 15 9 42 

 UT 38.10% 4.76% 35.71% 21.43% 100.00% 

143 16 34 63 256 

 VA 55.86% 6.25% 13.28% 24.61% 100.00% 

84 13 23 36 156 

 WI 53.85% 8.33% 14.74% 23.08% 100.00% 

18 0 13 8 39 

 WV 46.15% 0.00% 33.33% 20.51% 100.00% 

5 2 1 3 11 

 WY 45.45% 18.18% 9.09% 27.27% 100.00% 

947 80 370 395 1792 

 Total 52.85% 4.46% 20.65% 22.04% 100.00% 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

B-27 

REFERENCES 

American Association for Public Opinion Research. 2004. Standard Definitions: Final 

Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcomes Rates for Surveys, 3rd edition. Lenexa, KS: 

AAPOR. 

Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 

 

 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-1 

APPENDIX C 

SURVEY RESPONSES WITH WEIGHTED SAMPLE SIZES 

AND STANDARD ERRORS 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-2 

SURVEY RESPONSES WITH WEIGHTED SAMPLE SIZES AND STANDARD 

ERRORS 

Q1: Industry that best describes sponsor’s company or organization 

Industry Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Aerospace 0.529 82 0.2110 

Automotive Repair 1.15 182 0.2904 

Automotive Manufacturing 3.80 599 0.6312 

Construction 35.50 5,597 1.6731 

Energy – Gas / Electric / Water Services 10.56 1,666 0.9803 

Health Services 1.44 227 0.3133 

Hospitality (Hotel, Restaurants, and Lodging) 1.35 212 0.3127 

Information Technology – Manufacturing 0.65 102 0.2757 

Information Technology – Communication Services 0.52 82 0.2299 

Retail Trade 10.37 1,635 1.0757 

Transportation 0.57 90 0.2493 

Combine - Biotechnology; Energy - Mining/Extraction, 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; or Homeland 

Security 

1.10 174 0.3264 

Other 32.46 5,118 1.6145 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q2: Sponsor’s program serves: 

Program serves: Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

One employer only 60.22 9,495 1.6818 

Multiple Employers 39.46 6,221 1.6794 

Don’t Know 0.18 28 0.1357 

Missing 0.15 23 0.1455 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-3 

Q2a: Organized labor involved in sponsor’s program 

Organized labor involved in sponsor’s program Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 26.04 4,105 1.4595 

No 72.83 11,483 1.4824 

Don’t Know 0.88 138 0.3089 

Missing 0.26 40 0.1810 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q4: Number of years organization has been sponsoring registered apprenticeship programs 

Number of years Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Less than 1 year 3.18 502 0.5864 

1 to 5 years 30.61 4,826 1.5962 

6 to 10 years 17.15 2,704 1.2967 

More than 10 years 47.81 7,538 1.7149 

Don’t Know 1.25 198 0.3686 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q5: Number of apprentices your program currently sponsors 

Number of apprentices program currently sponsors Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

0 17.00 2,614 1.3164 

1 -4 52.65 8,093 1.7336 

5 - 9 8.46 1,301 0.9662 

10 - 19 6.20 952 0.8053 

20 - 39 4.75 731 0.7065 

40 - 59 2.11 324 0.4700 

60 - 99 2.25 346 0.4732 

100- 199 3.02 465 0.5827 

200 - 499 2.17 333 0.4964 

500 or more 1.38 212 0.3999 

Total 100.00 15,371 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-4 

Q6: Last time sponsor’s program had an apprentice 

Last time sponsor’s program had an apprentice Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

2003 or earlier 11.31 294 2.7293 

2004 13.67 355 2.9432 

2005 22.35 581 3.5797 

2006 40.67 1,056 4.2072 

2007 12.00 312 2.7613 

Total 100.00 2,598 . 

Q6a: Number of apprentices last time sponsor’s program had an apprentice 

Number of apprentices last time 

sponsor’s program had an apprentice 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Less than 5 93.88 2,407 1.9931 

5 or more 6.12 157 1.9931 

Total 100.00 2,564 . 

Q7: Sponsor plans to continue apprenticeship program next year 

Sponsor plans to continue 

apprenticeship program next year 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 88.35 13,930 1.0970 

No 7.39 1,166 0.8886 

Don’t Know 4.08 644 0.6854 

Refused 0.00 0 . 

Missing 0.18 28 0.1381 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-5 

Q7a: If sponsor plans to continue apprenticeship program next year, how many registered 

apprentices do they expect 

Number of apprentices expected if sponsor 

anticipates continuing program next year 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

1 -4 63.40 8,698 1.7627 

5 - 9 8.36 1,146 1.0311 

10 - 19 7.61 1,044 0.9601 

20 - 39 5.27 723 0.7925 

40 - 59 2.54 348 0.5585 

60 - 99 5.98 821 0.8513 

100- 199 2.72 373 0.5881 

200 - 499 2.54 348 0.5649 

500 or more 1.60 219 0.4593 

Total 100.00 13,719 . 

Q8: Sponsor has plans to expand the number of apprentices in program 

Sponsor has plans to expand the 

number of apprentices in program 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 46.83 7,384 1.7150 

No 45.13 7,116 1.7087 

Don’t Know 7.84 1,236 0.9151 

Refused 0.00 0 . 

Missing 0.19 30 0.1445 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q9a: Views on apprenticeship: Helps meet sponsors demand for skilled workers 

Helps meet demand for skilled workers Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Very important 82.59 13,022 1.3162 

Somewhat important 13.63 2,149 1.1936 

Not important 3.10 489 0.5957 

Don’t Know 0.40 63 0.2175 

Refused to answer 0.15 23 0.1455 

Missing 0.13 20 0.1300 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-6 

Q9b: Views on apprenticeship: Helps with employee recruitment and retention 

Helps with employee recruitment and retention Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Very important 54.78 8,636 1.7137 

Somewhat important 33.82 5,332 1.6323 

Not important 9.81 1,547 1.0426 

Don’t Know 1.32 207 0.4060 

Refused to answer 0.15 23 0.1455 

Missing 0.13 20 0.1300 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q9c: Views on apprenticeship: Reliably shows which workers have the skills to do the job 

Reliably shows which workers 

have the skills to do the job 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Very important 70.36 11,094 1.5752 

Somewhat important 23.25 3,666 1.4522 

Not important 5.14 810 0.7768 

Don’t Know 0.70 110 0.2933 

Refused to answer 0.15 23 0.1455 

Missing 0.40 63 0.2289 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q9d: Views on apprenticeship: Adds to productivity or high quality services 

Adds to productivity or high quality services Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Very important 69.87 11,016 1.5840 

Somewhat important 24.21 3,849 1.4779 

Not important 4.90 772 0.7611 

Don’t Know 0.55 87 0.2743 

Refused to answer 0.15 23 0.1455 

Missing 0.13 20 0.1300 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-7 

Q9e: Views on apprenticeship: Saves money on workers’ pay 

Saves money on workers’ pay Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Very important 30.97 4,882 1.5931 

Somewhat important 33.40 5,266 1.6167 

Not important 32.43 5,113 0.6064 

Don’t Know 2.83 446 0.5789 

Refused to answer 0.00 0 . 

Missing 0.38 60 0.2051 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q9f: Views on apprenticeship: Good for worker morale/pride 

Good for worker morale/pride Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Very important 68.59 10,814 1.5941 

Somewhat important 24.51 3,864 1.4706 

Not important 5.74 905 0.8156 

Don’t Know 0.75 119 0.2974 

Refused to answer 0.15 23 0.1455 

Missing 0.26 41 0.1836 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q9g: Views on apprenticeship: Leads to fewer safety problems 

Leads to fewer safety problems Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Very important 66.53 10,489 1.6273 

Somewhat important 23.82 3,756 1.4641 

Not important 8.46 1,333 0.9747 

Don’t Know 0.78 123 0.3100 

Refused to answer 0.15 23 0.1455 

Missing 0.27 42 0.1887 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-8 

Q9h: Views on apprenticeship: Helps sponsors meet government requirements 

Helps meet government requirements Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Very important 52.19 8,229 1.7158 

Somewhat important 25.09 3,955 1.4875 

Not important 19.36 3,052 1.3567 

Don’t Know 2,24 353 0.4938 

Refused to answer 0.26 40 0.1824 

Missing 0.87 137 0.3346 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q9i: Views on apprenticeship: Helps sponsors meet licensing requirements 

Helps meet licensing requirements Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Very important 53.22 8,391 1.7114 

Somewhat important 20.92 3,298 1.3958 

Not important 21.79 3,436 1.3961 

Don’t Know 3.07 484 0.5715 

Refused to answer 0.15 23 0.1455 

Missing 0.86 136 0.3160 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q9j: Views on apprenticeship: Some other benefit 

Some other benefit Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Very important 73.21 149 14.5095 

Somewhat important 4.90 10 5.1338 

Not important 10.62 22 10.4685 

Refused to answer 11.27 23 11.0307 

Total 100.00 204 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-9 

Q10: Sponsor would recommend to others that they use registered apprenticeship to train their 

workers in skilled occupations 

Recommend to others that they use registered 

apprenticeship to train workers 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes, strongly 83.69 13,195 1.2816 

Yes, with reservations 10.51 1,656 1.0553 

No 2.90 458 0.5933 

Don’t Know 2.11 333 0.5030 

Refused to answer 0.25 39 0.1758 

Missing 0.54 86 0.2715 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q11a: Costs or possible drawbacks in regard to registered apprenticeship: Cost of related 

instruction 

Cost of related instruction Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Not a problem 62.83 9,906 1.6653 

Minor problem 30.18 4,759 1.5794 

Significant problem 6.18 975 0.8485 

Don’t Know 0.37 59 0.2020 

Refused to answer 0.14 22 0.1370 

Missing 0.29 46 0.2041 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q11b: Costs or possible drawbacks in regard to registered apprenticeship: Cost of experienced 

workers’ time 

Cost of experienced workers’ time Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Not a problem 56.36 8,885 1.7052 

Minor problem 34.47 5,434 1.6331 

Significant problem 7.63 1,202 0.9247 

Don’t Know 1.26 199 0.3841 

Refused to answer 0.00 0 . 

Missing 0.29 46 0.2041 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-10 

Q11c: Costs or possible drawbacks in regard to registered apprenticeship: Takes too long to 

produce skilled workers 

Takes too long to produce skilled workers Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Not a problem 56.66 8,933 1.7056 

Minor problem 30.73 4,845 1.5884 

Significant problem 11.26 1,776 1.1010 

Don’t Know 0.68 107 0.2853 

Refused to answer 0.25 39 0.1758 

Missing 0.43 67 0.2456 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q11d: Costs or possible drawbacks in regard to registered apprenticeship: Too much effort to 

manage a program 

Too much effort to manage a program Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Not a problem 66.29 10,452 1.6287 

Minor problem 26.48 4,176 1.5188 

Significant problem 6.08 958 0.8260 

Don’t Know 0.59 93 0.2755 

Refused to answer 0.00 0 . 

Missing 0.56 88 0.2776 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q11e: Costs or possible drawbacks in regard to registered apprenticeship: Too many apprentices 

drop out before completion 

Too many apprentices drop out before completion Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Not a problem 43.51 6,859 1.6950 

Minor problem 29.75 4,691 1.5760 

Significant problem 23.48 3,701 1.4811 

Don’t Know 2.44 384 0.5401 

Refused to answer 0.00 0 . 

Missing 0.83 131 0.3377 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-11 

Q11f: Costs or possible drawbacks in regard to registered apprenticeship: Competitors poach 

apprentices when they become fully skilled 

Competitors poach apprentices 

when they become fully skilled 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Not a problem 45.17 7,121 1.7063 

Minor problem 28.38 4,474 1.5533 

Significant problem 24.26 3,825 1.4840 

Don’t Know 1.36 214 0.3959 

Refused to answer 0.14 22 0.1370 

Missing 0.70 111 0.3129 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q11g: Costs or possible drawbacks in regard to registered apprenticeship: Too much paperwork 

Too much paperwork Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Not a problem 60.50 9,538 1.6824 

Minor problem 29.84 4,705 1.5733 

Significant problem 8.79 1,385 0.9823 

Don’t Know 0.32 51 0.1992 

Refused to answer 0.00 0 . 

Missing 0.56 88 0.2776 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q11h: Costs or possible drawbacks in regard to registered apprenticeship: Some other cost or 

drawback 

Some other cost or drawback Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Not a problem 31.93 139 9.6143 

Minor problem 17.20 75 8.1983 

Significant problem 45.91 200 10.4060 

Don’t Know 4.96 22 4.9076 

Refused to answer 0.00 0 . 

Missing 0.00 0 . 

Total 100.00 436 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-12 

Q12a: Potential changes to apprenticeship important to sponsor: More help in finding and 

screening applicants 

More help in finding and screening applicants Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 50.62 7,981 1.7172 

No 49.38 7,786 1.7172 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q12b: Potential changes to apprenticeship important to sponsor: Faster registration of 

apprentices 

Faster registration of apprentices Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 36.12 5,696 1.6588 

No 63.88 10,071 1.6588 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q12c: Potential changes to apprenticeship important to sponsor: Simpler process for setting up a 

new program 

Simpler process for setting up a new program Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 37.14 5,856 1.6666 

No 62.86 9,910 1.6666 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q12d: Potential changes to apprenticeship important to sponsor: Better “due process” for delayed 

or rejected program approvals 

Better “due process” for delayed 

or rejected program approvals 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 25.78 4,065 1.5156 

No 74.22 11,702 1.5156 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q12e: Potential changes to apprenticeship important to sponsor: Easier multi-state registration 

Easier multi-state registration Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 31.90 5,029 1.6098 

No 68.10 10,737 1.6098 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-13 

Q12f: Potential changes to apprenticeship important to sponsor: More help in finding related 

instruction 

More help in finding related instruction Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 40.78 6,430 1.6913 

No 59.22 9,337 1.6913 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q12g: Potential changes to apprenticeship important to sponsor: More information on laws such 

as the Davis-Bacon Act 

More information on laws 

such as the Davis-Bacon Act 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 17.95 2,830 1.3721 

No 82.05 12,937 1.3721 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q12h: Potential changes to apprenticeship important to sponsor: Other important change 

Other important change Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 11.38 1,794 1.0744 

No 88.62 13,972 1.0744 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q12i: Potential changes to apprenticeship important to sponsor: Don’t Know 

Don’t Know Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 4.08 643 0.6603 

No 95.92 15,124 0.6603 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q12j: Potential changes to apprenticeship important to sponsor: Refused 

Refused Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 1.84 291 0.4639 

No 98.16 15,476 0.4639 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-14 

Q12k: Potential changes to apprenticeship important to sponsor: Missing 

Missing Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 1.95 308 0.4607 

No 98.05 15,459 0.4607 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q13: Sponsor ever used the Registered Apprenticeship website found at 

http://www.doleta.gov/atels_bat/ 

Ever used the Registered Apprenticeship website Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 24.04 3,760 1.4472 

No 74.61 11,763 1.4751 

Don’t Know 1.01 160 0.3324 

Refused to answer 0.00 0 . 

Missing 0.34 54 0.2080 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q14: Sponsor has interest in learning about, or how to use, competency-based apprenticeship 

training 

Has interest in competency-based 

apprenticeship training 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 55.39 8,733 1.7056 

No 41.82 6,594 1.6906 

Don’t Know 2.31 364 0.5276 

Refused to answer 0.14 22 0.1370 

Missing 0.34 54 0.2080 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-15 

Q15a: Rate apprenticeship registration agency on the following factor: Timeliness in processing 

applications and responding to inquiries 

Timeliness in processing applications and 

responding to inquiries 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Poor 6.12 964 0.8173 

Fair 11.11 1,752 1.0873 

Good 41.41 6,528 1.6930 

Excellent 36.23 5,713 1.6469 

Don’t Know 2.68 422 0.5691 

Refused 0.00 0 . 

No Answer / Not Applicable 2.46 387 0.5355 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q15b: Rate apprenticeship registration agency on the following factor: Clear guidance on 

program registration and requirements 

Clear guidance on program 

registration and requirements 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Poor 5.90 930 0.7980 

Fair 13.05 2,057 1.1693 

Good 42.44 6,692 1.7005 

Excellent 34.70 5,471 1.6267 

Don’t Know 1.89 298 0.4833 

Refused 0.00 0 . 

No Answer / Not Applicable 2.01 317 0.4817 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q15c: Rate apprenticeship registration agency on the following factor: Use of on-line registration 

Use of on-line registration Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Poor 5.71 901 0.7894 

Fair 7.74 1,220 0.9268 

Good 19.52 3,077 1.3728 

Excellent 11.49 1,812 1.0610 

Don’t Know 13.84 2,183 1.2142 

Refused 0.07 11 0.0730 

No Answer / Not Applicable 41.62 6,562 1.6910 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-16 

Q15d: Rate apprenticeship registration agency on the following factor: Promoting and 

publicizing registered apprenticeship 

Promoting and publicizing 

registered apprenticeship 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Poor 9.38 1,478 1.0166 

Fair 18.91 2,981 1.3530 

Good 34.47 5,435 1.6288 

Excellent 16.88 2,662 1.2713 

Don’t Know 5.35 843 0.7877 

Refused 0.07 11 0.0730 

No Answer / Not Applicable 14.94 2,356 1.2265 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q16a: Sponsor keeps records of: The number of apprentices 

The number of apprentices Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 93.86 14,799 0.8153 

No 6.14 968 0.8153 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q16b: Sponsor keeps records of: How many apprentices complete program 

Number of apprentices who complete program Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 86.00 13,560 1.2072 

No 14.00 2,207 1.2072 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q16c: Sponsor keeps records of: Reasons for non-completion 

Reasons for non-completion Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 65.67 10,353 1.6341 

No 34.33 5,413 1.6341 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-17 

Q16d: Sponsor keeps records of: How many pass state licensing / certification examination 

Number who pass state licensing / 

certification examination 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 60.65 9,562 1.6765 

No 39.35 6,205 1.6765 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q16e: Sponsor keeps records of: How many stay with sponsor’s organization once they complete 

their apprenticeship 

Number who stay with organization once 

they complete their apprenticeship 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 67.80 10,690 1.6049 

No 32.20 5,077 1.6049 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q16f: Sponsor keeps records of: Cost of related instruction 

Cost of related instruction Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 56.48 8,904 1.7006 

No 43.42 6,862 1.7006 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q16g: Sponsor keeps records of: Benefits of apprenticeship 

Benefits of apprenticeship Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 45.87 7,232 1.7107 

No 54.13 8,535 1.7107 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q16h: Sponsor keeps records of: Don’t Know 

Don’t Know Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 1.86 293 0.4477 

No 98.14 15,474 0.4477 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-18 

Q16i: Sponsor keeps records of: Refused 

Refused Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 0.41 65 0.2348 

No 99.59 15,702 0.2348 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q16j: Sponsor keeps records of: Missing 

Missing Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 0.82 129 0.3185 

No 99.18 15,638 0.3185 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q17: Percentage of those who start an apprenticeship in sponsor’s program and actually 

complete the program 

Percentage who complete the program Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

0 % 1.80 270 0.4688 

1 – 9% 5.27 790 0.8239 

10 – 19% 2.92 438 0.6149 

20 – 29% 3.41 512 0.6503 

30 – 39% 2.73 408 0.5997 

40 – 49% 1.51 227 0.4450 

50 – 59% 11.49 1,722 1.1398 

60 – 69% 5.55 830 0.7938 

70 – 79% 11.32 1,696 1.1325 

80 – 89% 9.91 1,485 1.0554 

90 – 100% 44.08 6,605 1.7411 

Total 100.00 14,984 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-19 

Q18a: Main reasons why apprentices didn’t complete sponsor’s program: Transferred to another 

apprenticeship program 

Transferred to another apprenticeship program Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 10.76 1,696 1.0671 

No 89.24 14,070 1.0671 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q18b: Main reasons why apprentices didn’t complete sponsor’s program: Gained craft 

license/took another job before completion 

Gained craft license/ 

took another job before completion 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 29.53 4,656 1.5734 

No 70.47 11,110 1.5734 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q18c: Main reasons why apprentices didn’t complete sponsor’s program: Problems with 

performance (on the job or in the classroom) 

Problems with performance Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 32.53 5,129 1.6054 

No 67.47 10,638 1.6054 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q18d: Main reasons why apprentices didn’t complete sponsor’s program: Personal issues 

(illness, family needs, drugs, alcohol) 

Personal issues Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 36.48 5,751 1.6587 

No 63.52 10,015 1.6587 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q18e: Main reasons why apprentices didn’t complete sponsor’s program: Other reason 

Other reason Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 28.67 4,521 1.5501 

No 71.33 11,246 1.5501 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-20 

Q18f: Main reasons why apprentices didn’t complete sponsor’s program: Don’t Know 

Don’t Know Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 0.00 0 0.0000 

No 100.00 15,767 0.0000 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q18g: Main reasons why apprentices didn’t complete sponsor’s program: Refused 

Refused Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 5.34 843 0.7897 

No 94.66 14,924 0.7897 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q18h: Main reasons why apprentices didn’t complete sponsor’s program: Missing 

Missing Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 2.64 417 0.5409 

No 97.36 15,350 0.5409 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q19: Sponsor ever used a One-Stop Center to post apprenticeship openings 

Ever used a One-Stop Center 

to post apprenticeship openings 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 16.82 2,651 1.2769 

No 81.63 12,870 1.3161 

Don’t Know 1.34 212 0.3610 

Refused to answer 0.11 17 0.1103 

Missing 0.10 16 0.1046 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-21 

Q20: One-Stop Center or Job Service has sent applicants to the sponsor’s apprenticeship 

program 

One-Stop Center or Job Service sent 

applicants to the apprenticeship program 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 16.10 2,538 1.2523 

No 73.00 11,509 1.5127 

Don’t Know 10.14 1,598 1.0234 

Refused to answer 0.00 0 . 

Missing 0.76 120 0.7643 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q21: One-Step Center or Job Service has contacted the sponsor about posting apprenticeship 

programs 

One-Stop Center or Job Service contacted 

about posting apprenticeship openings 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 13.83 2,181 1.1835 

No 77.89 12,280 1.4182 

Don’t Know 7.63 1,204 0.8988 

Refused to answer 0.0 0 . 

Missing 0.64 102 0.2726 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q22: Someone in sponsor’s organization is a member of the local Workforce Investment Board 

Someone in sponsor’s organization is a member of 

the local Workforce Investment Board 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 7.68 1,211 0.8978 

No 82.46 13,001 1.2837 

Don’t Know 9.56 1,507 0.9887 

Refused to answer 0.0 0 . 

Missing 0.30 48 0.1835 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-22 

Q23a: Potential sources for obtaining applicants for registered apprenticeship which sponsor has 

found effective in getting good applicants for their apprenticeship program: Newspaper wantadvertisement 

Newspaper want-advertisement Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 34.77 5,482 1.6324 

No 65.23 10,285 1.6324 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q23b: Potential sources for obtaining applicants for registered apprenticeship which sponsor has 

found effective in getting good applicants for their apprenticeship program: Internet listing 

Internet listing Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 18.20 2,870 1.2972 

No 81.80 12,896 1.2972 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q23c: Potential sources for obtaining applicants for registered apprenticeship which sponsor has 

found effective in getting good applicants for their apprenticeship program: Referrals from local 

One-Stop Center / Job Service 

Referrals from local One-Step Center / Job Service Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 13.81 2,177 1.1754 

No 86.19 13,590 1.1754 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q23d: Potential sources for obtaining applicants for registered apprenticeship which sponsor has 

found effective in getting good applicants for their apprenticeship program: Community-based 

organization 

Community-based organization Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 19.77 3,118 1.3606 

No 80.23 12,649 1.3606 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-23 

Q23e: Potential sources for obtaining applicants for registered apprenticeship which sponsor has 

found effective in getting good applicants for their apprenticeship program: High schools 

High schools Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 34.07 5,371 1.6292 

No 65.93 10,395 1.6292 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q23f: Potential sources for obtaining applicants for registered apprenticeship which sponsor has 

found effective in getting good applicants for their apprenticeship program: Community college 

or public technical school 

Community college or public technical school Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 40.50 6,385 1.6829 

No 59.50 9,381 1.6829 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q23g: Potential sources for obtaining applicants for registered apprenticeship which sponsor has 

found effective in getting good applicants for their apprenticeship program: Private vocational 

school 

Private vocational school Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 22.16 3,494 1.4304 

No 77.84 12,273 1.4304 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q23h: Potential sources for obtaining applicants for registered apprenticeship which sponsor has 

found effective in getting good applicants for their apprenticeship program: Pre-apprenticeship 

program 

Pre-apprenticeship program Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 17.60 2,774 1.3067 

No 82.40 12,992 1.3067 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-24 

Q23i: Potential sources for obtaining applicants for registered apprenticeship which sponsor has 

found effective in getting good applicants for their apprenticeship program: Current employees 

Current Employees Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 65.77 10,370 1.6278 

No 34.23 5,397 1.6278 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q23j: Potential sources for obtaining applicants for registered apprenticeship which sponsor has 

found effective in getting good applicants for their apprenticeship program: Union 

Union Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 13.47 2,123 1.1251 

No 86.53 13,643 1.1251 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q23k: Potential sources for obtaining applicants for registered apprenticeship which sponsor has 

found effective in getting good applicants for their apprenticeship program: Other source 

Other source Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 12.28 1,936 1.1354 

No 87.72 13,831 1.1354 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q23l: Potential sources for obtaining applicants for registered apprenticeship which sponsor has 

found effective in getting good applicants for their apprenticeship program: Don’t Know 

Don’t Know Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 0.00 0 0.0000 

No 100.00 15,767 0.0000 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-25 

Q23m: Potential sources for obtaining applicants for registered apprenticeship which sponsor has 

found effective in getting good applicants for their apprenticeship program: Refused 

Refused Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 0.54 85 0.2522 

No 99.46 15,682 0.2522 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q23n: Potential sources for obtaining applicants for registered apprenticeship which sponsor has 

found effective in getting good applicants for their apprenticeship program: Missing 

Missing Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 0.90 142 0.3158 

No 99.10 15,625 0.3158 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q24a: Organization which supplies the related instruction for your program: Community College 

Community College Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 30.99 4,887 1.5873 

No 69.01 10,880 1.5873 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q24b: Organization which supplies the related instruction for your program: Distance learning 

provider 

Distance learning provider Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 5.78 911 0.7879 

No 94.22 14,856 0.7879 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q24c: Organization which supplies the related instruction for your program: Public technical 

college 

Public technical college Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 26.97 4,252 1.5243 

No 73.03 11,514 1.5243 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-26 

Q24d: Organization which supplies the related instruction for your program: High school 

High school Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 10.59 1,669 1.0756 

No 89.41 14,098 1.0756 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q24e: Organization which supplies the related instruction for your program: Proprietary trade 

school 

Proprietary trade school Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 16.71 2,635 1.3041 

No 83.29 13,131 1.3041 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q24f: Organization which supplies the related instruction for your program: Sponsor-owned or 

operated training facility 

Sponsor-owned or operated training facility Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 23.55 3,713 1.4312 

No 76.45 12,053 1.4312 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q24g: Organization which supplies the related instruction for your program: Other organization 

Other organization Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 13.92 2,194 1.1782 

No 86.08 13,572 1.1782 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q24h: Organization which supplies the related instruction for your program: Don’t Know 

Don’t Know Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 1.85 293 0.4648 

No 98.15 15,474 0.4648 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-27 

Q24i: Organization which supplies the related instruction for your program: Refused 

Refused Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 0.14 22 0.1370 

No 99.86 15,745 0.1370 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q24j: Organization which supplies the related instruction for your program: Missing 

Missing Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 0.38 60 0.2199 

No 99.62 15,707 0.2199 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q24aa: Rate the quality of related instruction received most recently by your apprentices 

Quality of instruction received by apprentices 

(1= poor, 5= excellent) 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

1 2.48 391 0.5509 

2 2.86 450 0.5976 

3 13.39 2,112 1.1887 

4 40.83 6,437 1.6865 

5 39.10 6,164 1.6714 

Don’t Know 1.35 213 0.3944 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q25a: Instruction paid by: The employer 

The employer Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 71.89 11,334 1.5359 

No 28.11 4,432 1.5359 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-28 

Q25b: Instruction paid by: The apprentice 

The apprentice Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 23.16 3,651 1.4730 

No 76.84 12,115 1.4730 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q25c: Instruction paid by: Joint labor-management training fund 

Joint labor-management training fund Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 10.74 1,693 1.0493 

No 89.26 14,073 1.0493 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q25d: Instruction paid by: Public funding (WIA, Pell grants, state aid) 

Public funding (WIA, Pell grants, state aid) Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 8.97 1,414 0.9729 

No 91.03 14,353 0.9729 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q25e: Instruction paid by: Other 

Other source Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 5.32 839 0.7472 

No 94.68 14,928 0.7472 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q25f: Instruction paid by: Don’t Know 

Don’t Know Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 1.21 191 0.3549 

No 98.79 15,576 0.3549 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-29 

Q25g: Instruction paid by: Refused 

Refused Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 0.00 0 0.0000 

No 100.00 15,767 0.0000 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q25h: Instruction paid by: Missing 

Missing Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 0.19 30 0.1411 

No 99.81 15,737 0.1411 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q26a: Time when apprentices take related instruction: During working hours 

During working hours Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 25.44 4,011 1.4512 

No 74.56 11,756 1.4512 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q26b: Time when apprentices take related instruction: Evening 

Evenings Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 57.74 9,103 1.6791 

No 42.26 6,664 1.6791 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q26c: Time when apprentices take related instruction: Weekends 

Weekends Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 8.61 1,357 0.9669 

No 91.39 14,409 0.9669 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-30 

Q26d: Time when apprentices take related instruction: Varies 

Varies Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 25.78 4,065 1.4860 

No 74.22 11,702 1.4860 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q26e: Time when apprentices take related instruction: Don’t Know 

Don’t Know Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 0.60 95 0.2769 

No 99.40 15,672 0.2769 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q26f: Time when apprentices take related instruction: Refused 

Refused Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 0.00 0 0.0000 

No 100.00 15,767 0.0000 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q26g: Time when apprentices take related instruction: Missing 

Missing Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 0.77 122 0.3034 

No 99.23 15,645 0.3034 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-31 

Q27: Apprentices in sponsor’s program receive pay for any time spent in related classroom 

instruction 

Apprentices receive pay for any time spent in 

related classroom instruction 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 30.20 4,761 1.5414 

No 67.88 10,703 1.5742 

Don’t Know 1.66 262 0.4626 

Refused 0.00 0 . 

Missing 0.26 41 0.1577 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q28: Sponsor has tried to register their program in another state 

Tried to register program in another state Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 3.87 611 0.6444 

No 94.72 14,934 0.7452 

Don’t Know 0.64 101 0.2493 

Refused 0.00 0 . 

Missing 0.77 121 0.2999 

Total 100.00 15,767 . 

Q28a: If tried to register program in another state, was sponsor successful 

Successfully registered program in another state Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 66.65 555 6.8470 

No 14.41 25 1.7817 

Don’t Know 41.86 114 4.9902 

Refused 17.39 17 2.0866 

Missing 44.97 121 5.2913 

Total 100.00 832 . 
The Benefits and Challenges of Registered Apprenticeship: The Sponsors’ Perspective 

C-32 

Q28b: Number of states total sponsor’s program registered 

Number of states program registered Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

1 58.07 342 8.6211 

2 14.66 86 5.9008 

3 27.27 160 7.9739 

Total 100.00 588 . 

Q29: In the last few years, company has hired workers who completed apprenticeships in other 

companies 

Company hired works who complete 

apprenticeships in other companies 

Percentage 

of Sponsors 

Weighted 

N 

Standard 

Error 

Yes 34.75 5,424 1.6410 

No 56.04 8,748 1.7126 

Don’t Know 6.07 947 0.8225 

Refused 0.00 0 . 

Missing 3.14 490 0.5917 

Total 100.00 15,609