Frequency and nature of worker training
March 03, 2005
During the six-year period, 1989-1994, 53.2 percent of respondents in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLS79) never received any formal training. The respondents ranged in age from 24 to 37 during this period.
About a quarter of respondents received one spell of training, and about an eighth received two.
The most common type of training was formal company training, which accounted for 37.5 percent of all training spells. This was followed by seminars or training programs outside of work (18.4 percent) and seminars or training programs at work run by someone other than the employer (15.8 percent). Vocational or technical institutes were the fourth most-common type of training (9.7 percent of all training spells).
These data are from the BLS National Longitudinal Surveys program. The sample upon which the above figures are based consisted of 8,095 individuals who responded to each annual NLS79 interview between 1989 and 1994. For additional information, see "Worker training: what we’ve learned from the NLSY79," by Harley J. Frazis and James R. Spletzer, Monthly Labor Review, February 2005.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, The Economics Daily, Frequency and nature of worker training on the Internet at https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2005/feb/wk4/art04.htm (visited August 18, 2019).
Recent editions of Spotlight on Statistics
- 25 years of Worker Injury, Illness, and Fatality Case Data
Examines detailed historical data on work-related injuries, illnesses, and fatal injuries.
- Occupational employment projections through the perspective of education and training
Examines employment, projected employment growth, and wages for occupations with different education and training requirements.
- Workers in Alternative Employment Arrangements
A look at independent contractors, on-call workers, temporary help agency workers, and workers provided by contract firms.
- Labor force characteristics of people with a disability
Examines the labor force characteristics of people with a disability and compares them with the characteristics of people with no disability.