UKCES Employer Skills Survey 2015
Source: data.gov.uk (2018-05-08)

The 2015 Employer Skills Survey (ESS15) is the third in the series of UK-wide skills surveys run by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES). 

The survey gives us a unique insight into the skills issues employers face and the actions they are taking to address them, providing a unique skills perspective alongside other labour market information. There is no other business survey on this scale: our researchers conducted over 91,000 interviews across the UK economy.

Topics covered in the survey include training and staff development, vacancies and skills shortages, employee skill gaps, retention of workforce and underutilisation of skills.

The ESS15 results provide a comprehensive source of data for users:

• Employers can identify how they compare to their sector in their provision of training or own experience of skill deficiency and identify key challenges and opportunities for their sector; 

• Individuals and careers advisers can identify sectors and occupations experiencing particular shortages; 

• Providers of training and development can use the results to help shape provision to need in their locality or their specialist areas. 

Data are available for the UK, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, as well as Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) and Local Education Authority (LEA) areas in England.

Investment in Training 
Survey 2015:  
Technical Report 
Evidence Report 99 
May 2016 

 
 
 
[This page is intentionally left blank] 
 
 

Investment in Training Survey 
2015: 
Technical Report 
 
 
 
 
 
Mark Winterbotham, Jan Shury and Jessica Huntley Hewitt 
IFF Research 
 
Alex Thornton, Rosie Sutton and Adam Leach 
UK Commission for Employment and Skills 
 
 
 
 
 
May 2016 
 

 
 
 
 
 
[This page is intentionally left blank] 
 

v
Table of Contents 
1 
Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 
1.1 
Background .............................................................................................................. 1 
2 
Key Findings Tables .................................................................................... 2 
3 
Technical Annex .......................................................................................... 4 
3.1 
Original weighting design ....................................................................................... 4 
3.2 
Weighting adjustment ............................................................................................. 4 
3.3 
Alternate weighting considerations ....................................................................... 6 
3.4 
Analysis and checking of the reweights ............................................................... 6 
3.5 
Impact of the reweight on training expenditure ................................................... 7 

vi 
Tables and figures 
Table 2.1  
Total training expenditure and spend per person trained and per employee 
(2011 to 2015) ................................................................................................................................... 2 
Table 2.2  
Training expenditure in 2015 by country, the proportion spent on off-the-job 
elements, and the breakdown of total training expenditure (both on-the-job and off-the-job) 
by key elements ............................................................................................................................... 3 
Table 3.1  
Comparison of 2015 profile if the original weight had been used with the 
revised weighting approach ........................................................................................................... 5 

1
1 
Introduction 
1.1 
Background 
The Investment in Training survey is a follow-up survey to the Employer Skills Survey, 
looking more specifically at training that employers provide for their employees, and how 
much employers invest in this.   
This publication is a supplement to the Employer Skills Survey 2015 report, and presents 
training expenditure figures, by country, broken down into its constituent elements. 
It also tracks training expenditure figures over time, incorporating findings from the 2011 
and 2013 Investment in Training surveys.  
It is worth noting that for the 2015 data, a new weighting strategy was implemented to 
improve the accuracy of the training spend estimates. This new weighting strategy was 
also retrospectively applied to both the 2011 and 2013 data files. Readers who are familiar 
with the Investment in Training 2011 and 2013 reports will therefore find that the historical 
figures presented here do not exactly match those previously presented. A technical annex 
contains a more detailed explanation of the revised weighting strategy, analysis of its 
effectiveness, and impact on training spend.    
 
 
 

2
2 
Key Findings Tables 
Table 2.1 shows investment figures (i.e. using the revised weighting approach) for total 
training expenditure, spend per person trained, and spend per employee at a UK level and 
within country. 
As discussed in the main report, the 2015 UK spend of £45.4bn was a six per cent increase 
on the £43.0bn spend in 2013, and a four per cent increase on the 2011 figure of £43.8bn1. 
Employers’ total investment in training was equivalent to around £2,610 per person trained 
and £1,640 per employee. Although a slight increase on 2013, these figures were in line 
with 2011.  This is due to the fact that, although overall spend in 2015 was higher than in 
2011, the numbers in employment and the number trained also both increased. 
Table 2.1  
Total training expenditure and spend per person trained and per employee 
(2011 to 2015) 
 
2011 
2013 
2015 
 
Total 
Spend per 
person trained 
Spend per 
employee 
Total 
Spend per 
person trained 
Spend per 
employee 
Total 
Spend per 
person trained 
Spend per 
employee 
UK 
£43.8bn 
£3.0k 
£1.6k 
£43.0bn 
£2.6k 
£1.6k 
£45.4bn 
£2.6k 
£1.6k 
Country 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
England 
£37.3bn 
£3.0k 
£1.6k 
£36.4bn 
£2.6k 
£1.6k 
£39.0bn 
£2.7k 
£1.7k 
Northern 
Ireland 
£1.2bn 
£2.8k 
£1.6k 
£1.1bn 
£2.6k 
£1.5k 
£0.9bn 
£2.0k 
£1.3k 
Scotland 
£3.7bn 
£2.7k 
£1.6k 
£3.5bn 
£2.3k 
£1.5k 
£3.4bn 
£2.3k 
£1.4k 
Wales 
£1.6bn 
£2.5k 
£1.4k 
£1.9bn 
£2.7k 
£1.7k 
£2.1bn 
£2.8k 
£1.8k 
Spend in Wales increased in 2015 to £2.1bn, an eight per cent increase from £1.9bn in 
2013; this, along with a six per cent increase in total spend in England, drove the overall 
UK increase in training expenditure in 2015.   
The increase in total spend in Wales was not simply a product of increased employment: 
Wales had the highest spend per employee of the four nations, with this figure having 
increased steadily since 2011. 
In contrast, Northern Ireland and Scotland present a picture of decreasing overall spend, 
with the decrease between 2011 and 2015 particularly marked in Northern Ireland (a 22 
per cent fall, compared to an eight per cent drop over the same period in Scotland).  Spend 
in these two countries on a per-trainee and per-employee basis in 2015 was also lower 
than that in England and Wales. 
                                                 
1 It is worth noting that training expenditure figures for 2011 and 2013 have not been adjusted for inflation. 

3
Table 2.2 summarises results on the breakdown of training expenditure by country.  
Table 2.2  
Training expenditure in 2015 by country, the proportion spent on off-the-job 
elements, and the breakdown of total training expenditure (both on-the-job and off-the-job) 
by key elements 
Row percentages 
Unwtd 
Base 
Expenditure 
on training 
% spent on 
off-the-job 
training 
 
Wages of 
trainees 
Wages 
of 
trainers 
Fees to 
external 
providers 
Other 
UK 
12,614 
£45.4bn 
50 
% 
48 
19 
7 
27 
Country 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
England 
9,616 
£39.0bn 
50 
% 
48 
19 
7 
26 
Northern Ireland 
699 
£0.9bn 
55 
% 
44 
18 
7 
31 
Scotland 
1,065 
£3.4bn 
52 
% 
45 
19 
7 
29 
Wales 
1,234 
£2.1bn 
54 
% 
47 
16 
5 
31 
Each nation spent around half of their total training expenditure on off-the-job training, 
although this was slightly higher in Northern Ireland (55 per cent) and Wales (54 per cent) 
and slightly lower in Scotland (52 per cent) and England (50 per cent).   These results were 
all in line with 2013, aside from a five percentage point increase in the proportion spent by 
Welsh employers on off-the-job training (up from 49 per cent in 2013). 
Although Welsh employers spent a greater proportion of their total training expenditure on 
off-the-job training than those in England and Scotland, they spent less on fees to external 
providers (five per cent, compared with seven per cent in each other nation).  Welsh 
employers also spent less on wages of trainers (16 per cent, compared with 18 to 19 per 
cent in the other nations).  Both of these figures were a decrease from 2013, when Welsh 
employers spent seven per cent of total spend on fees to external providers, and 22 per 
cent on wages of trainers. 
Employers in Northern Ireland spent the least on the wages of trainees (44 per cent, down 
from 49 per cent in 2013), closely followed by Scotland (45 per cent, down from 48 per cent 
in 2013). 
 
 
 

4
3 
Technical Annex 
3.1 
Original weighting design 
The weighting design used in 2011 and 2013 placed priority on training type, size and 
sector at a UK level.  The weighting approach used three grids at a UK level with population 
targets for each of: 
 On-job only trainers 
 Off-job only trainers 
 Those that trained both on and off the job. 
Each of these three grids was a matrix of sector interlocked with size of employer.  In the 
final stage of the process a rim weight was applied by geography (country and English 
regions).  Population figures for training employers were taken from weighted ESS data in 
each year. 
This weighting design provided an accurate estimate of training expenditure within training 
type at a UK level, but was less accurate at estimating spend within country; this was due 
to the fact that the weighting was not designed to match the profile of establishment size 
within country. 
Where the size profile of training employers within country did not fully match the population 
profile this could have a considerable impact on the training expenditure figures for each 
country, particularly where the largest employers were over- or under-represented, as was 
the case for Scotland and Wales respectively. 
3.2 
Weighting adjustment 
The new weighting approach built on the original weighting approach by multiplying each 
of the original weights either up or down to correct the size profile of establishments within 
each country (in effect, ‘weighting the weights’). 
Table 3.1 shows the target profile of establishment size within each country, the profile 
achieved by the original weighting strategy, and the profile achieved by the new or adjusted 
weighting strategy. 
 
 

5
Table 3.1  
Comparison of 2015 profile if the original weight had been used with the 
revised weighting approach 
 
Target Profile 
Original Weight 
Revised approach 
 
n 
% 
n 
% 
n 
% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
England 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 to 4 
392,702 
40.2 
381,983 
39.1 
392,629 
40.2 
5 to 9 
238,678 
24.4 
246,833 
25.3 
238,633 
24.4 
10 to 24 
194,613 
19.9 
200,551 
20.5 
194,577 
19.9 
25 to 49 
78,343 
8.0 
78,111 
8.0 
78,329 
8.0 
50 to 99 
40,732 
4.2 
38,467 
3.9 
40,725 
4.2 
100+ 
31,674 
3.3 
30,617 
3.1 
31,668 
3.2 
Northern Ireland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 to 4 
13,785 
40.8 
18,219 
54.0 
13,771 
40.8 
5 to 9 
8,667 
25.6 
6,725 
19.9 
8,658 
25.6 
10 to 24 
6,550 
19.4 
5,302 
15.7 
6,544 
19.4 
25 to 49 
2,650 
7.8 
1,851 
5.5 
2,648 
7.8 
50 to 99 
1,370 
4.1 
1,226 
3.6 
1,368 
4.1 
100+ 
766 
2.3 
432 
1.3 
766 
2.3 
Scotland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 to 4 
38,614 
37.9 
39,433 
38.5 
38,783 
37.9 
5 to 9 
26,909 
26.4 
21,737 
21.2 
27,027 
26.4 
10 to 24 
21,574 
21.2 
19,350 
18.9 
21,668 
21.2 
25 to 49 
7,865 
7.7 
9,728 
9.5 
7,899 
7.7 
50 to 99 
3,841 
3.8 
7,112 
6.9 
3,858 
3.8 
100+ 
3,179 
3.1 
5,068 
4.9 
3,193 
3.1 
Wales 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 to 4 
20,085 
39.0 
25,552 
49.9 
19,993 
39.0 
5 to 9 
13,059 
25.4 
12,013 
23.5 
13,000 
25.4 
10 to 24 
10,519 
20.4 
8,209 
16.0 
10,471 
20.4 
25 to 49 
4,238 
8.2 
3,275 
6.4 
4,219 
8.2 
50 to 99 
1,978 
3.8 
1,269 
2.5 
1,969 
3.8 
100+ 
1,570 
3.1 
895 
1.7 
1,563 
3.1 
As an illustration of the weighting approach, the 2 to 4 size band was over-represented 
within Northern Ireland by the original weighting strategy. Therefore, the weight for each 
record in Northern Ireland with 2 to 4 staff was multiplied by 0.76, to reduce the size of the 
overall 2 to 4 group and bring it in line with the population. 
Conversely, as the 100+ size band in Northern Ireland was under-represented by the 
original weighting, each record in that group was multiplied by 1.77, therefore increasing 
the size of the 100+ size band to bring it in line with the population. 
 
 

6
3.3 
Alternate weighting considerations 
Other options for reweighting the data were considered by an independent leading industry 
statistician, alongside the one finally adopted (and described in this report). The two 
alternate options that were tested (full interlocking weights, and using a series of rim 
weights only) are described below.   
Full interlocking weights 
Although grossing up on a full interlocking basis, with interlocked grids covering size by 
sector within training type within country, would theoretically be the most robust strategy, 
this approach was quickly determined to be unsuitable for the Investment in Training 
dataset as the base sizes were too low to support such an approach (there were too many 
cells with a low number of or no respondents). With four countries, six size bands 14 
sectors, and three training types, this would require 1,008 cells within the overall weighting 
matrix.  
Rim weights only 
The second alternative approach considered was to weight entirely by separate rim 
weights, with individual rim weights applied for: 
 Country (and English region) 
 Size within country 
 Sector within country 
 Training type within country. 
To assess the effectiveness of this rim-weights-only approach, these weights were applied 
to the data and the resulting profile analysed and compared against the reweighting 
strategy that was finally adopted. The results of this are discussed below. 
3.4 
Analysis and checking of the reweights 
Each weighting strategy (the ‘adjusted reweight’ and ‘the rim-weights-only’) was first 
checked by comparing the weighted profiles achieved with the target population profile (that 
is, all employers in the UK that had conducted any training).  
In the case of the adjusted reweight, due to its multi-stage nature, the weighted profiles 
were checked against the target at both the intermediate stage (interlocking weights and 
regional rim weight only), and the final stage (a multiplier applied to the weights to correct 
for size within country). 

7
The two proposed weighting strategies were tested using chi-squared analysis to enable a 
focus on the main areas of weakness of each scheme. 
The rim-weights-only approach performed best on single variable targets and within 
country, but was weak on the two-way targets (size within sector, size within training type, 
and sector within training type). 
The adjusted weighting scheme performed better on the two-way targets, but was weaker 
on the targets for sector within country, and training type within country. 
Based on this, the adjusted weight was assessed to be the better approach, as it performed 
better on more of the two-way targets (size within country, size within sector, size within 
training type and sector within training type), and these targets were likely to be the most 
important when estimating training spend. 
The approach adopted gives an optimal balance between the need for robust country and 
robust sectoral estimates. 
3.5 
Impact of the reweight on training expenditure 
The greatest impact of the reweight was in the total spend figures for the Devolved 
Administrations. The 2015 reweight increased (compared with applying the weighting 
approach originally employed in 2011 and 2013) the spend figure for Wales by 33 per cent, 
and the figure for Northern Ireland by 13 per cent, and decreased the figure for Scotland 
by 19 per cent (with England remaining largely unchanged, a one per cent increase). 
At an overall level the effect was much smaller: as a result of the adjusted reweight, the 
overall total spend for 2011 decreased by three per cent, the spend for 2013 increased by 
0.3 per cent, and the spend for 2015 increased by one per cent. 
The breakdown of different training spend elements also remained largely unchanged by 
the reweight at a UK level. 
Confidence intervals were also calculated for the reweighted 2015 total training spend.  
Assuming no design effect, at a 95 per cent confidence level, the minimum spend was 
£43.1bn, and the maximum spend £47.8bn.  
3.6 
Impact of post-publication revision to the core ESS weighting 
The core ESS weighting was revised in May 2016 following the original publication due to 
an error with some regional level population targets within Wales and Northern Ireland 
(see the main UK technical report for full details2).   
                                                 
2 www.gov.uk/government/publications/ukces-employer-skills-survey-2015-uk-report 

8
Following these revisions made to the main ESS weighting, the impact on the Investment 
in Training weighting was assessed. The impact of updating the Investment in Training 
weighting using the revised training population figures from the main ESS data proved to 
be negligible, with no spend figures changing at a statistically significant level.  As a result, 
the decision was taken not to change the Investment in Training weighting.  However, some 
changes occurred to the figures for spend per trainee and spend per employee, as the 
figures for numbers trained and numbers of employees are taken from the main ESS data; 
these revised figures appear in the updated report published on 26th May 2016. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 

9
 
Evidence  Reports present  detailed  ﬁndings  of  
the research produced by the UK Commission for 
Employment and Skills. The reports contribute  to 
the accumulation of knowledge and intelligence on 
skills and employment issues through the review of 
existing evidence or through primary research. 
 
UKCES 
Renaissance House 
Adwick Park 
Wath-upon-Dearne Rotherham 
S63 5NB 
T xx-xxxx-xxxx 
 
This document is available at  
www.gov.uk/ukces 
 
ISBN 978-1-908418-74-6 
© UKCES 1st Ed/01/16 
 
 
UKCES 
Sanctuary Buildings 
Great Smith St. Westminster London 
SW1P 3BT 
T xx-xxxx-xxxx