a very small fraction of women participated in

such programs. (See table 1.) Among women
who did, the number of hours they spent in the

program was substantial.

Similar to the differences in the number of
weeks spent in training, the number of hours
spent in training was greater for blacks than for

whites and Hispanics. In particular, blacks aver-

Table 3. Average number of hours per week spent in training, 1986-91, among Individuals aged 21-29 in 1986
who recelved training

Source of training
Vocational Corre- Seminars
Characteristic Any Business | and technical | spondence | Apprentice- | Company | ‘gutside | Other
training | training |"Wemutes. | courses ships | training | Cr work

All persons . 21.2 14.6 18.5 18.5 27.4 22.7 19.0 19.0
Sex:

Male... 24.5 7A 19.7 21.9 27.9 26.0 22.5 22.0

Female... 17.6 13.0 17.4 14.5 25.4 18.7 15.8 15.9
Race a thicty

White . 21.0 12.4 17.9 18.7 28.1 22.4 19.1 18.5

Black . 22.4 18.2 20.4 18.9 24.5 244 18.5 22.0

Hispanic 213 19.9 18.8 14.4 27.0 23.5 17.8 18.4
Education:

Less than high school 21.0 15.9 20.3 34.0 307 20.8 171 218

High school graduate . 20.3 14.4 19.2 q7.4 24.6 22.1 17.4 17.2

Some college . - . . 22.4 18.1 18.5 15.9 32.4 24.3 18.3 19.7

College graduate 21.3 10.3 12.4 19.0 26.1 22.2 20.7 20.6
Armed Forces Qualifying Test Score:

Less than50 ....... . . 20.8 17.8 20.7 15.1 29.0 22.4 176 20.1

Greater than or equal to 50,

but less than 65 . nae 20.1 16.3 18.3 22.2 19.8 22.3 15.7 17.3
Greater than or equal to 65,
but less than 80 . . 1.6 14.0 244 21.8 27.8 22.9 16.7 20.0
Greater than or equal to 80. 1.2 125 14.7 16.5 314 22.7 20.5 18.1

Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.
|
Table 4. Average total hours spent in training, 1986-91, among individuals aged 21-29 In 1986 who received

training
Source of training
Characteristic Vocational Corre- Seminars
Any Business | and technical | spondence | Apprentice- | Company outside | Other
training | training | "institutes. | courses ships training | ot work
Allpersons........ 0.2.20. 263.9 302.5 425.4 185.8 690.3 180.2 64.41 252.4
319.3 221.4 396.0 231 624.9 241.6 87.4 304.8
204.6 354.2 451.1 131.4 790.8 107.4 426 202.1
Face or etnicty:

White . 247.6 223.6 413.4 190.5 716.0 1748 64.1 228.5
Black ... . . 364.7 447.41 419.4 188.7 659.5 219.1 63.3 440.5
Hispanic. 000.2 269.5 327.2 576 108.2 388.1 1776 64.3 166.6

Education:
Less than high school . . . 277.7 347.8 3178 143.9 422.4 99.9 69.8 483.7
High school graduate... . 277.4 2798 444.8 210.0 644.9 156.9 57.9 233.7
Some college 282.3 462.0 534.4 293.8 5715 185.6 45.1 187.0
College graduate 228.5 128.0 156.1 96.3 935.5 195.3 798 255.3
Armed Forces Qualifying Test Score:
Less than 50 .............. . | 3113 403.5 385.7 166.9 344.9 162.8 795 396.1
Greater than or equal to ‘50,
but less than 65 ...... 255.2 368.1 4125 215.3 254.4 145.3 34.9 310.1
Greater than or equal to 65,
but less than 80... a 310.2 319.3 563.2 298.0 865.5 178.5 65.4 207.4
Greater than or equal to 80 . 233.4 154.9 360.5 122.9 844.8 192.4 68.1 199.3

Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Youth

Monthly Labor Review August 1993 31



Training Among Young Adults

Table 2. | Average numbers of weeks spent in training, 1986-91, among Individuals ages 21-29 in 1986 who
received training
Source of training
rector Vocational Corre- Seminars
Characteristic Any Business | and technical | spondence | Apprentice- | Company | “outside | Other
training | training |"ingtitutes | courses ships training | of work

Allpersons..... 20. .eeceeeeeee | 122 177 19.6 13.5 23.7 74 48 127
Sex:

Male. . 133 126 18.5 15.9 24.0 8.2 55 13.6

Female... 44 21.0 205 10.6 22.4 59 44 12.0
Race or ethnicity:

White . . 11.6 14.9 19.1 135 24.0 70 48 119

Black ... 162 23.9 19.1 15.0 24.2 82 48 19.6

Hispanic . 127 19.0 26.1 93 167 68 44 93
Education:

‘Less than high schoo! . 12.8 158 15.4 77 148 62 44 183

High school graduate 132 179 20.0 14.4 24.0 63 46 137

Some college . . 12.7 237 24.0 22.4 18.9 78 36 98

College graduate . . 105 93 10.4 8.1 128 76 56 14
‘Armed Forces Qualifying Test score:

Less than 50... eee eee eee 155 24.4 7.4 22.5 126 66 52 177

Greater than or equal to 50,

butless than65.......2....... 122 19.3 19.0 124 13.5 61 27 16.2
Greater than or equal to 65,
but less than 80 . 12.6 18.0 22.1 13.6 26.3 63 64 102
Greater than or equal to 80 114 11.0 19.4 116 324 73 47 14.2
Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.

ents. Young adults spent about 21 hours per week
in training during the weeks they received it. Par-
ticipants in apprenticeship programs experienced
the most intense form of training, averaging about
27 hours per week. In contrast, individuals who
attended business schools experienced the least
intense form of training, averaging fewer than 15
hours per week. There was little variation in inten-
sity among the other forms of training.

The table provides figures on the typical num-
ber of hours per week participants spent in training
programs, by individual characteristics. The aver-
age intensity of training was higher for males than
for females. This disparity is fairly consistent
across the sources of training, there being no form
of training in which average hours per week spent
in training was higher for females than for males.

There is very little variation in intensity of
training by race, education, or score on the Armed
Forces Qualifying Test. However, the data indi-
cate that college graduates and those who scored
in the highest test category averaged fewer hours
per week in business schools and vocational or
technical institutes than did others. Also, high
school dropouts averaged the most hours per week.
in correspondence courses.

Total hours in training

It is possible to create a measure of total hours
spent in each type of training by taking the product

30 Monthly Labor Review August 1993

of the, separate questions about the number of
weeks of training and the number of hours per
week of training.'? Table 4 provides information
on the total hours spent in training among those
who received it. Because of the small differences
in training intensity, most of the differences in av-
erage total hours in training mirror the differences
in weeks spent in training. Young adults who re-
ceived any training spent about 264 hours in train-
ing programs. Individuals who participated in ap-
prenticeship programs spent the most hours in
training, averaging nearly 700 hours in this form
of training over the 1986-91 period. Recipients of
training from vocational or technical institutes
spent the second highest number of hours in train-
ing, averaging about 425 hours in those institu-
tions. Participants in seminars outside of work av-
eraged about 64 hours in such seminars, fewer
than the number of hours spent in any of the other
forms of training.

The data in table 4 indicate that there is sub-
stantial variation by gender in total hours of
training. Male training recipients spent about 3
hours in training for every 2 spent in training by
female training recipients. In particular, men
spent about twice as much time in company
training than did women, whereas women spent
more time in business schools, vocational and
technical institutes, and apprenticeship programs
than did men. The figures for apprenticeship pro-
grams are interesting in light of the fact that only



Training Among Young Adults

aged more hours in company training and busi-
ness schools than did whites or Hispanics. His-
panics averaged the most hours spent in voca-
tional or technical institutes and the fewest in
apprenticeships.

There is no pattern in total hours spent in train-
ing by educational level or score on the Armed
Forces Qualifying Test. However, time spent in
company training appears to be positively associ-
ated with education. There is no consistent rela-
tionship between the score on the Armed Forces
Qualifying Test and the number of hours spent in
company training. However, those with test scores
greater than or equal to 65 spent more time in
company training than did others.

Summary

Currently, little is known about who receives
training and the extent of training that is re-
ceived by those who do receive it. This infor-
mation gap exists primarily because there is a
lack of comprehensive and representative data
on actual investment in training. In this article,
data from the National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth are used to examine who acquires differ-
ent types of training, as well as the duration, in-
tensity, and total hours spent in training by re-
cipients of different forms of training. Sources
of training include business schools, appren-
ticeships, vocational and technical institutes,
correspondence courses, company training, and

Thirty-eight percent of young adults received
some form of training over the 1986-91 period.
Those who received training spent about 12
weeks, 21 hours per week, and 264 total hours in
training. Employer-provided training is the most
common form of training, with nearly 24 percent
of the cohort receiving this form of training. Re-
cipients of company training are more likely to be
white, be male, and have a higher education and
aptitude (as measured by the score on the Armed
Forces Qualifying Test) than are those who did not
receive company training. Nonwhites and women
are more likely to seek training off the job.

While few clear patterns emerge in the dura-
tion, intensity, and total hours spent in training by
individual characteristics, two that do are as fol-
lows. First, male recipients of training receive
more training than do female recipients of training,
‘on account of both the longer duration and the
higher intensity of training men receive. However,
part of this gender differential may reflect the fact
that men spend more time working than women do
and, as a result, have more opportunities to receive
employer-provided training.

Second, while blacks are less likely to receive
training than whites are, black training recipients
get more hours of training than whites or Hispan-
ics who receive training, primarily because the av-
erage number of hours per week of training is
Jonger for blacks than for the others. In particular,
black training recipients acquire more hours of
company training and training from business

seminars outside of work. schools than do whites or Hispanics. oO
Footnotes
' See Work and Family: Jobs Held and Weeks Worked by § Ibid.

Young Adults, Report 827 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, August
1992).

2 For an examination of the increase in demand for skilled
workers, see Lawrence F. Katz and Kevin M. Murphy,
“Changes in Relative Wages, 1963-1987: Supply and De-
mand Factors,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 107,
No. 1, 1992, pp. 35-78.

> See summaries of the literature by Burt S. Bamow,
“The Impact of cera Programs on Earnings,” Journal of
Human Resources, Vol. 22, No. 2, 1987, pp. 157-93; and
Charles Brown, “Empirical Evidence on Private Sector
Training,” in Investing in People, Vol. I (Washington,
Commission on Workforce Quality and Labor Market Effi-
ciency, 1989).

“The sample is restricted to those interviewed in 1991, and
the 1991 sample weight is used.

5 Vocational rehabilitation centers are also a potential
source of training specified in the survey. However, because
the number of individuals who took this form of training was
extremely small, itis included in the “other” category.

* See Anthony P. Carnevale and Leila J. Gainer, The
Learning Enterprise (Washington, Employment and Training
Adminstration, 1986).

” Carnevale and Gainer, The Learning Enterprise

32. Monthly Labor Review August 1993

® All inferences drawn in the text are statistically signifi-
cant at the 90-percent confidence level. Standard errors are
available from the author upon request.

‘© See Work and Family: Employer-Provided Training
among Young Adults, Report 838 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
February 1993).

"These groups are mutually exclusive. That is, the His-
panic category includes those blacks and whites who catego-
rize themselves as Hispanic and who, therefore, are not
included among blacks or whites.

"2 Similar gender and race differentials in the receipt of on-
and off-the-job training are found in Lisa Lynch, “The Im-
pacts of Private Sector Training on Race and Gender Wage
Differentials and the Career Patterns of Young Workers,” Na~
tional Longitudinal Surveys Discussion Paper No. 8 (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 1991); and Michael R. Pergamit and
Janice Shack-Marquez, “Earnings and Different Types of
Training,” Working Paper No. 165 (Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics, 1987).

'3 Average total hours are calculated by taking the product
of the number of weeks and the number of hours per week and
computing the mean. Average total hours do not necessarily
equal the product of the average number of weeks and the
average number of hours per week.



Jonathan R. Veum

Jonathan R. Veum is an
economist in the Office
of Economic Research,
Bureau of Labor Statist

Training among young adults:
who, what kind, and for how long?

Data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth show
that 38 percent of young adults received training

during 1986-91; whites and men were more likely to receive
company training, while nonwhites and women

were more highly represented in off-the-job training programs

hanges in productivity are often attrib-

uted 10 investment in education and

training. Consequently, improvements in
the quality of the American work force through
enhanced education and training are often deemed
necessary for the United States to compete in the
global market. Training received by young men
and women is particularly important, given that
those in their early years in the labor market tend
to make numerous job changes. On average, dur-
ing their first 10 years in the labor force, individu-
als work for approximately eight employers.’ Be-
cause changes in the structure of the economy
appear to have increased the demand for highly
skilled workers, training may play an important
role in enhancing the skills, productivity, and
wages of young adults.”

Research into the acquisition of training and
the time spent in training programs is extremely
limited, basically because there is a lack of com-
prehensive data on actual investment in training.
Collecting data on training is complicated by the
fact that training is in many ways a difficult con-
cept to measure and quantify, as workers can re-
ceive training informally through methods such as
observing coworkers, learning by doing, and
speaking with supervisors.

Most previous research on training has focused
primarily on government training programs and
training received from the current employer.’ For
the most part, the data used in these studies pro-

vide only crude measures of the incidence and du-
ration of training, and the samples used are often
not nationally representative.

This article presents information on the acqui-
sition of training, using data from the National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth. These data de-
scribe a sample of young men and women who
were between the ages of 14 and 22 in 1979 and
who have been interviewed annually since that
year. In 1991, the sample, which includes an over-
representation of blacks and Hispanics, had 9,018
respondents, In all computations, weights are used
to adjust for different sampling rates and nonre-
sponse rates, so that the data are nationally repre-
sentative of the age cohort.*

The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
contains some of the most comprehensive data
currently available on training. Between 1979 and
1986, the survey collected information about the
occurrence and duration of all government-spon-
sored training programs and all privately sup-
ported training that lasted at least 4 weeks. In sub-
sequent years, the questions on training were
changed so that respondents were asked about all
types of training (up to four programs) since the
last interview, regardless of duration. Potential
sources of training include business schools, voca-
tional and technical institutes, correspondence
courses, apprenticeships, company training, and
seminars outside of work.' All of these exclude
any training received through formal schooling.

Monthly Labor Review August 1993 27

4



Training Among Young Adults

Also, none of them captures the full extent of in-
formal training an individual may have received.

This analysis of young workers examines data
on training from 1986 to 1991, a period in which
the age range of the sample changed from 21-29
to 26-34. The age range is crucial, because past
research indicates that most formal employer-
based training is provided to workers between the
ages of 25 and 34.° The discussion focuses on who
received training, as well as the duration of train-
ing, measured in weeks, and the intensity of train-
ing, measured in hours per week. A comprehen-
sive measure of total hours of training over the
period is also provided.

Sources of training

The sources of training mentioned above exclude
training received from community and junior col-
leges, as well as training received directly from the
military, which accounts for the largest share of
government expenditures on training.’ Despite
these limitations, the data allow for an analysis of
a wider range of programs than any other source.
In previous research, training, defined by partici-
pation in a government training program or by
training received from the current employer, has
usually been treated as a homogeneous good. By
contrast, the various types of training analyzed in
this article include heterogenous forms received
both on and off the job. These forms of training are
important, because companies often choose to
train only those workers who are most likely to
generate returns to the firm. Workers not chosen
by the company, but who still desire training, may
obtain it on their own through other sources.

Different types of off-the-job training can pro-
vide skills for different types of occupations. For
instance, business schools generally offer training
for those interested in accounting, computer pro-
gramming, and other business-related areas. Vo-
cational and technical schools provide skills to in-
dividuals seeking training to become, among other
things, mechanics and repairmen, technicians,
machinists, welders, carpenters, electricians, and
truckdrivers. Correspondence courses and semi-
nars outside of work both offer training for a wide
variety of occupations.

Apprenticeship programs probably combine
both classroom instruction and on-the-job train-
ing to a greater extent than any other form of
training. Under the National Apprenticeship Act
of 1937, employers, groups of employers, and
unions determine the requirements of and finance
the training in apprenticeship programs, although
the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training is re-
sponsible for establishing the framework of ba-
sic standards. Apprenticeships are most com-
mon in the carpentry, electrical, and pipe trades.*

28 Monthly Labor Review August 1993

Who receives training?

Table 1 indicates that 38 percent of young adults
received some form of training over the 1986-91
period. Nearly 24 percent of the sample received
company training, the leading source of training.
Approximately 1 of 10 individuals participated
in seminars outside of work, while about 1 of 20
attended a vocational or technical institute. Par-
ticipation in business schools, correspondence
courses, and apprenticeships each accounted for
less than 2 percent of the training of the cohort.

The table gives figures on the receipt of training
by a variety of individual characteristics: sex, race
and ethnicity, educational attainment, and score on
the Armed Forces Qualifying Test, which is used
as a measure of aptitude. The score on this test is
derived from selected sections of the Armed Serv-
ices Vocational Aptitude Test and ranges in value
from 0 to 105. The score is considered a measure
of trainability and is a primary criterion of eligi-
bility for enlistment in the Armed Forces.

There were very few differences between men
and women in the overall likelihood of receiving
training, but there were some differences by gender
across the different types of training programs.’
Men were more likely than women to receive em-
ployer-provided training and to participate in ap-
prenticeships. Part of the gender differential in the
receiptof company training may reflect the fact that
men are more strongly attached to the labor force
than are women. Previous research suggests that
the probability of receiving training is fairly similar
among men and women who are strongly attached
to the labor force." The data also indicate that
women were more likely than men to participate in
many of the off-the-job forms of training, such as
business schools, vocational or technical institutes,
and seminars outside of work.

Whites were more likely to receive training
than were blacks or Hispanics, primarily because
whites were more likely to receive company train-
ing and to participate in seminars outside of
work.'' Blacks and Hispanics were more likely
than whites to attend business schools and voca-
tional or technical institutes.

The likelihood of receiving training increased
with education and score on the Armed Forces
Qualifying Test. These results are driven primar-
ily by a positive association of both education and
aptitude with the receipt of company training and
training received from seminars outside of work.
The other forms of training exhibit no clear pattern
by education or score on the Armed Forces Quali-
fying Test. The findings for company training are
particularly important, given the notion that em-
ployers tend to train their “best” workers and, con-
sequently, many workers who could benefit from
training may not in fact receive it. Apparently,


Table 1. Percent of individuals aged 21-29 in 1986 who received training, 1986-91
Source of training
Characteristic Vocational Corre- Seminars
traning | ‘wainteg® [and technical] spondence | APprenvee | Company | “outside | Other
Institutes | courses of work

Allpersons....... 0.22... 38.0 16 48 19 15 237 11.0 45
Sox:

Male... 38.9 13 44 24 24 25.5 10.5 44

Female... 374 20 52 18 6 219 115 47
Race or ethnicity:

White . 30.4 1 44 2.0 15 249 12.3 45

Black .... 34.8 34 72 19 18 19.5 56 42

Hispanic 33.0 29 50 17 12 178 7A 5.0
Education:

Less than high schoo! 189 9 46 1.9 1.0 a7 22 4.0

High school graduate... . 33.5 20 61 16 17 19.4 74 46

Some college . 445 18 52 2.0 18 28.0 132 49

College graduate 50.1 12 2.0 29 o 35.3 218 42
‘Armed Forces Qualifying Test score:

Less than 50 ............ . 215 1.9 48 13 1 92 24 48

Greater than or equal to 50,

but less than 65.......... 35.3 24 80 20 1.9 19.7 78 2.9
Greater than or equal to 65,
but less than 80... 38.3 1.9 5.0 19 2.0 24.3 94 52

Greater than or equal to 80. - 46.6 WW 33 22 12 31.7 174 47

Nore: Percentages may add to more than 100 because some individuals received training from more than one source.

Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.

firms provide training mostly to the highly edu-
cated and those with high aptitudes.

Overall, the data suggest that while employer-
provided training is the most common form of
training received by young adults, training re-
ceived from institutions outside of the workplace
plays an important role for those who are less
likely to receive company training. Whites and
males are more likely to receive employer-pro-
vided training than others. Conversely, nonwhites
and females are more highly represented in off-
the-job training programs."

Duration of training

Table 2 gives the average number of weeks spent
in various training programs by training recipi-
ents. Between 1986 and 1991, young adults who
participated in a training program spent about 12
weeks in training. Those who participated in ap-
prenticeship programs experienced training dura-
tions of about 24 weeks, longer than any other
form of training. In contrast, individuals who at-
tended seminars outside of work spent only about
5 weeks in these programs. Those who received
company training also spent a relatively short time
(about 7 weeks) in the programs,

The data in table 2 indicate that male training
recipients averaged about 2 more weeks in train-
ing than did female training recipients, primarily
because men spent a little over 2 weeks more in

company training than did women. Again, this
gender differential may reflect the fact that men
tend to work more weeks than women do and,
consequently, have more opportunities to spend
time in company training. The data indicate that
women spent more weeks than men did in off-the-
job forms of training, such as business schools and
vocational schools.

Among training recipients, blacks spent more
weeks in training than did either whites or Hispan-
ics, primarily because they averaged more weeks
in company training and business schools than did
whites and Hispanics. Hispanics averaged more
weeks in vocational and technical institutes than
the other groups did.

The number of weeks spent in training exhibits
noclear patterns by either education or score on the
Armed Forces Qualifying Test. However, the
number of weeks spent in business schools appears
to be inversely related to the score on the test,
whereas the number of weeks spent in apprentice-
ships appears to be positively associated with the
score on the test. Also, individuals with a score
greater than or equal to 80 on the Armed Forces
Qualifying Test averaged more weeks in company
training than did other training recipients.

Intensity of training

Table 3 shows the average number of hours per
week devoted to training among training recipi-

Monthly Labor Review August 1993 29