4.39 Training

This section reviews and describes the core data collections and year-by-year variations present within the NLSY79 training sections.  Descriptive tables present the number of respondents participating in various types of training programs by survey year.  Summary variable tables for the NLSY79 provide details on the types of training programs and training providers about which data have been collected across surveys.

Users should keep in mind that these data provide only a partial picture of the entire training investments of an individual.  A fundamental concern of the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor, which funded the 1979–86 rounds of the NLSY79, was the efficacy of various Federally funded employment and training programs in helping youths to acquire skills and secure employment. 

In addition to these regularly fielded series, special data collections that focused on high school courses, degrees and certifications, and time use provide supplementary information on NLSY79 respondents’ training investments.  The "Government Training & Jobs Programs," "Educational Attainment & School Enrollment," and "School & Transcript Surveys" sections of this guide review some of these additional variables.

Core Data Collection:  In general, the “Training” or “Other Training” sections of each NLSY79 questionnaire (1) collect information on each respondent’s participation since the date of the last interview in three (or more) training programs and (2) confirm and update information on two (or more) training programs in which he or she was enrolled on the date of last interview.  For each program, a core set of variables is collected on the type of provider offering the training, start and stop dates (month and year), whether the training was completed, and the number of hours per week usually spent in each training program (Table 4.39.1).

Table 4.39.1 Core Data Collection: NLSY79 Training 1979-86 and 1988-2004

Below is a discussion of the variations present in the fielding of the “Other Training” or “Training” sections of the 1979–2006 questionnaires, followed by an overview of types of training providers and the primary types of training about which data have been collected within the following five sections of the NLSY79 questionnaire:  “Other Training,” “Training,” “Jobs,” “Government Training,” and “Military.”

Year-by-Year Variations:  During the 1979–86 surveys, the focus of the NLSY79 training data collection was on the types of formal training programs in which a respondent was enrolled other than those already reported in the previously administered jobs, government training, military, and regular schooling sections of the questionnaire.  After 1987, the series of questions concerning government-sponsored training was no longer fielded and the “Other Training” section was renamed “Training.”  The types of information collected for the 1979–86 and 1988–2006 survey years differ; each is discussed separately below.

Data collection during the 1979–86 interviews was limited to only those training programs in which the respondent had been enrolled for one month or more.  Specific information on the  occupation for which the respondent was being trained was also gathered in these years.  In addition to the core sets of variables described above, the 1979 questionnaire included the following sets of questions:  (1) retrospective questions on up to three training programs in which the respondent had participated before 1978 and on up to four other types of training in which he or she had ever participated and (2) information on the activities of the respondent during the summer of 1978, such as that he or she worked at a regular job or an odd job, was on vacation, participated in a training program, or was enrolled in regular school.  Included within the 1979 and 1980 training sections was a series of questions on the types of degrees or certifications that the respondent had ever received or received since the last interview.   Age restrictions during the 1979 and 1980 interviews limited the administration of these other training questions to respondents who were 16 years of age and older.  The supplemental 1981 Time Use - Time Spent in Other Training” section gathered, from those who had been enrolled during the past seven days in a training program, information on the type of training provider and the hours spent at the training school.

The 1982–84 questionnaires included an expanded series detailing (1) the firm specificity of each training program, that is, whether a respondent had enrolled in a given occupational training in order to qualify for a specific job at a specific firm; (2) the involvement, if any, of the respondent’s employer in encouraging or requiring the training and whether the training took place during regular work hours; (3) the source of money to pay for the training, such as employer, self, friends, government, or bank, with a distinction made between outright grants and loans; (4) the relationship to the respondent of those persons who encouraged enrollment in the training, such as friend, relative, employer (former or prospective), job counselor, or teacher; and (5) the primary reason the respondent enrolled in the specific occupational training program, for example, jobs are plentiful, pay is high, program sounded interesting, or [the training] related to the job at the time.

 Because the 1987 survey was conducted mainly by telephone, the interview was abbreviated and only one question was asked about training.  In this survey, respondents simply reported whether any training or assistance had been received from any government-sponsored program.

The 1988–92 series dropped the one-month training duration limitation, the question that specified the job or occupation for which the respondent was being trained, and some of the provider types, such as barber/beauty school, flight school, and nurses program, that had been coding categories since 1979.  The 1988 reference period was the last two years; other surveys referred to only the period since last interview.  Company training programs run by the employer were differentiated from those conducted at the work place by someone other than the employer and those that took place outside of work.  The number of training programs for which data were released was expanded to four.  New questions included who paid for or sponsored each training program, whether the training was used on the respondent’s current/most recent job, whether the training resulted in the respondent getting a different job, and the type of training that had been provided, such as skilled classroom training, basic/remedial skill training, on-the-job training, or work experience.  Definitions of each training type and of some of the providers offering such training, drawn from the 1991 NLSY79 Question by Question Specifications, are listed in Table 4.39.2.  Table 4.39.3 presents, by survey year, sex, and race/ethnicity, the number of respondents enrolled in the six types of training programs for which data were collected during the 1988–94 interviews.

Beginning in 1990, two questions were added on the relationship of each training program to the respondent’s promotion possibilities, that is, was the training necessary to get a promotion and did it assist the respondent in obtaining a promotion.  Information was collected beginning in 1991 on the primary reason the respondent enrolled in the training program (this question had been taken out after 1984 but was returned to the survey in 1991), the specific employer who sponsored the training, and whether a guaranteed student loan was used to pay for the training.

Table 4.39.2 Definitions of Training and Training Providers: Definitions from the NLSY79 Question-by-Question Specifications. (1991)

Note:  Descriptions of service providers and training types specific to Federally funded employment and training programs can be found in the 1979–91 Question-by-Question Specifications.  Users should note that, to some extent, these types of training and training providers are respondent-defined.

The 1993 series of training questions included the collection of information on (1) up to six training programs in which the respondent was enrolled since last interview and (2) up to four in which he or she was participating as of the last interview date.  For those respondents who were enrolled at either point in time in a training program sponsored by an employer, a new question elicited information on whether the respondent had to be working for that employer for a period of time before training was made available.

Those enrolled in any training program were asked a series of (1) skill transferability questions, that is, the amount of skills learned in each training program that the respondent thought would be useful in doing a different kind of work for the (same) employer or in doing the same kind of work for a different employer and (2) high school course relevancy questions, that is, whether the skills learned in this training program added to those acquired in high school courses in which the respondent had enrolled and, for those who did not take such high school courses, how much of what was learned in the training program could have been learned in high school.

Table 4.39.3 Number of Respondents Participating in Training by Survey Year,
Type of Training, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity: NLSY79 1988-94

In addition to this expanded set of questions on formal training experiences of NLSY79 respondents, the 1993 survey collected, for the first time, information on informal training opportunities.  Those respondents with a current (or most recent) civilian job were asked a series of questions designed to tap the methods used to either learn their job or to upgrade skills required on that job. 

Those respondents with a CPS employer who had implemented workplace changes in the past 12 months that necessitated the learning of new job skills were asked for information on (1) the type(s) of changes, such as a new product, service, or equipment was introduced; an upgrade of employee’s basic skills or computer skills was needed; employer policies regarding safety, compensation, or benefits were changed; (2) whether the training was acquired from (not already reported) classes/seminars, supervisors, coworkers, self-study, or some other means reported by the respondent; and (3) for each training mode, the number of weeks and hours per week spent in such training and the degree to which respondents thought skills learned in each program would be useful in doing a different kind of work for the (same) employer or in doing the same kind of work for a different employer.  Respondents with a CPS employer who reported that they were not able to perform 100 percent of their current job duties at the time they first started doing the job were asked the same set of training and skill transferability questions listed above.  Loewenstein and Spletzer (1994) review training questions in the 1993 NLSY79 and other data sets, including the 1991 CPS, the 1986 NLS of the High School Class of ‘72, and the Employment Opportunity Pilot Project, and present some initial findings from the 1993 NLSY79.

Types of Training Providers:  Information has been collected during all survey years on the type of organization providing the training in which NLSY79 respondents participated.  Provider types for which data have been consistently gathered across survey years include company training, business school, vocational/technical institute, and apprenticeship program.  Questions fielded during select survey years specified other training providers such as nurses program, barber/beauty school, flight school, seminars or training programs at work/outside of work, and vocational rehabilitation center.  Table 4.39.4 presents, by survey and sex, the number of respondents attending programs offered by training providers.  Users should note that names of identical and additional agencies can be found in (1) the 1979–87 government training and jobs programs questions; (2) the 1979 degrees and certifications data collection; and (3) the 1980 time use in “other training” series. 

Types of Skill Training Across Questionnaire Sections:  Comparable types of training data collected within various sections of the questionnaire, the “Government Training,” “Jobs,” “Military,” “Training,” or “Other Training” sections, have been grouped together in Table 4.39.5.  Variables represented in the table include those that have the following types of training represented either within their variable title or as a coding category:  basic skill training, occupational skill training (classroom), occupational skill training (on-the-job), or occupational skill training (apprenticeship program).  Questions on employer-specific training were fielded during select survey years and are also included in Table 4.39.5.  Variables dealing with participation in programs called “work experience” are excluded since the focus of such activities is the development of good work habits and not the acquisition of basic or occupational skills.

Table 4.39.4  Number of Respondents Participating in Training Programs
by Survey Year, Type of Program, and Sex, 1979–2006

Users should note that (1) universes for the various sets of training and provider variables differ and (2) there is not always a clear distinction between types of training or types of providers or services. The wording of some questions, for example, combines more specific on-the-job training with general work experience. Similarly, the training category “on-the-job training“ can be a type of vocational/technical program, a service provided in conjunction with either a government job or a government training program, or a type of training for a military job.

Table 4.39.5  “Other Training” & “Training” Sections
of the NLSY79 Surveys: 1979–2006

Survey Instruments:  These data are collected in the following sections of the NLSY79 questionnaires:

Other Training/Training:  Section 14 (1979), Section 11 (1980), Section 10 (1981–82), Section 9 (1983–86), Section 8 (1988–2002), and the Employer Supplements (ES) (1984–87 and 1993).

Government Training:  Section 13 (1979); Section 10 (1980); Section 9 (1981–82); and Section 8 (1983–87).

Government Jobs:  Sections 9 and 10 (1979); Section 8 (1980); Section 7 (1981–82); Section 6 (1983–87), and the Employer Supplements (ES) (1980–87).

CPS:  Section 5 (1989 and 1990).

Military:  Section 7 (1979), Section 6 (1980), Section 5 (1981), and Section 4 (1982–85).

Time Use:  Sections 15 and 16 (1981).

Documentation: "Attachment 3: Industry and Occupation Codes" in the NLSY79 Codebook Supplement presents the Census Bureau codes used to classify the job for which the respondent was being trained (1979–86) and the field/trade in which a certificate, license, or journeyman’s card was obtained (1979 & 1980). "Attachment 6: Other Kinds of Training" provides the two-digit codes for up to four other types of training in which the respondent had ever participated as of the 1979 interview. "Attachment 7: Other Certificate Codes" provides the 1979 coding for up to four degrees or licenses ever received.  Sections G-I of the NLSY High School Transcript Survey:  Overview and Documentation provide alphabetical and numeric lists of high school course codes and a copy of the “Transcript Coding Sheet.”

Data Files:  Core training variables are found in the area of interest “Training.”  The 1979 and 1980 collections of degrees and certifications are located in “Degrees & Certificates.”  The 1979 activities during last summer series is in “Misc. 1979.”  The set of remedial courses taken while in high school are located in “School Survey,” and the 1981 time use questions can be found in “Time Use.”  The 1989 and 1990 CPS experience prior to current job variables are located in “Misc. xxxx” and the military training/OJT series are in “Military.”  The “Transcript Survey” area of interest contains the high school subject course code variables.

Comparison to Other NLS Cohorts:  In each survey, information has been collected from the NLSY79 young adults, on their participation in training programs. The NLSY97 asks all respondents who were at least 16 years old whether they had ever participated in any occupational training programs outside of their regular schooling.  For each program, the survey then collects basic information, including the type of program, start and stop dates, time devoted to the training, periods of nonattendance lasting a week or longer during training sessions of at least two weeks, and whether the program was completed (and if not, the reason).  Original Cohort respondents were asked questions about training both on and off the job and focused on government training programs.  Users should consult the BLS website at www.bls.gov/nls or the appropriate cohort’s User’s Guide for more information about exact questions and universes.

References

Bartel, Ann P. and Sicherman, Nachum.  “Technological Change and On-the-Job Training of Young Workers.”  Working Paper, Columbia University, 1993.

Bureau of Labor Statistics.  “Education and Training of American Workers.”  Paper Prepared for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development National Experts Group on Training Statistics.  Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Labor, 1990.

Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Work & Family:  Employer-Provided Training Among Young Adults.  Report No 838.  Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Labor, 1993.

Gritz, R. Mark.  “The Impact of Training on the Frequency and Duration of Employment.”  Journal of Econometrics 57,1–3 (May–June 1993): 21–51.

Heckman, James J.; Cameron, Stephen V.; and Schochet, Peter Z.  “The Determinants and Consequences of Public Sector and Private Sector Training.”  Discussion Paper 92-15.  Washington, DC:  Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 1992.

Hills, Stephen M.  “Longitudinal Analyses of Training Processes in the United States.”  Columbus, OH:  CHRR, The Ohio State University, 1982.

Hills, Stephen M. and Leigh, Duane.  “Employer-Sponsored Training, Union Status, and the Wage Rates of Young Women.”  Presented:  Vancouver, B.C., Meetings of the Western Economic Association, 1987.

Leigh, Duane E.  “What Kinds of Training ‘Work’ for Noncollege Bound Youth.”  Report for the General Accounting Office, 1989.

Loewenstein, Mark A. and Spletzer, James R.  “Informal Training:  A Review of Existing Data and Some New Evidence.”  NLS Discussion Paper No. 94-20.  Washington, DC:  Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 1994.

Lynch, Lisa M.  “The Impact of Private Sector Training on Race and Gender Wage Differentials and the Career Patterns of Young Workers.”  Discussion Paper 92-8.  Washington, DC:  Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 1992.

Lynch, Lisa M.  “The Role of Off-the-Job versus On-the-Job Training for the Mobility of Women Workers.”  The American Economic Review 81,1 (May 1991): 151–56.

Mangum, Stephen L. and Ball, David E.  “Military Skill Training:  Some Evidence of Transferability.”  Armed Forces and Society 13,3 (Spring 1987): 425–41.

Mangum, Stephen L. and Ball, David E.  “The Transferability of Military-Provided Occupational Training in the Post-Draft Era.”  Industrial and Labor Relations Review 42,2 (January 1989): 230–45.

National Center for Research in Vocational Education and Center for Human Resource Research.  NLSY High School Transcript Survey:  Overview and Documentation.  Columbus, OH:  CHRR, The Ohio State University.

Pollard, Tom.  “An Overview of the Post School Vocational Training Experiences of Youth.”  In Pathways to the Future.  A Report on the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth Labor Market Experience in 1979.  Michael E. Borus, ed.  Columbus, OH:  CHRR, The Ohio State University, 1981.

Schiller, Bradley R.  “Minimum Wage Youth:  Training and Wage Growth.”  In Proceedings of the Forty-Third Annual Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research Association (1990): 266–75.

Veum, Jonathan R.  “Sources of Training and their Impact on Wages.”  Industrial Labor Relations Review 48,4 (July 1995): 812–26.

Veum, Jonathan R.  “Training Among Young Adults:  Who, What Kind, and for How Long?”  Monthly Labor Review 116,8 (August 1993): 27–32.

Waite, Linda J. and Berryman, Sue E.  “Job Stability Among Young Women:  A Comparison of Traditional and Nontraditional Occupations.”  American Journal of Sociology 92,3 (November 1986): 568–95.