Research

Summary page

Research

Reasons for new apprentices' non-completions

Introduction

‘New apprenticeships’ is the umbrella term used to group apprenticeships and traineeships. Both arrangements are for combining employment with training leading to formal, nationally recognised qualifications. Since 1994, the numbers working under these arrangements have grown rapidly, roughly doubling between 1994 and 1999 to over a quarter of a million.

Along with a rise in the number of those undertaking new apprenticeships has been an increase in the number of those who, for whatever reason, fail to complete their training. In 1999 around 60 000 people fell into this category. There is evidence that the number of those who start but do not complete has increased slightly in the second half of the 1990s. More importantly, the non-completion rate is far higher for trainees than that for apprentices although the former is still on a par with normal rates of labour mobility for young people.

The purpose of this study was to explore the behavioural factors which might explain why non-completions might be higher among trainees than among apprentices and, more generally, what causes a non-completion. If there are systemic factors and they remain unaddressed, numbers for those failing to complete will continue to move in tandem with new commencements. Our focus was on both elements of the new apprenticeship—the contract of employment as well as the contract of training. Too many recent reviews of the new apprenticeship system had, we felt, neglected the employment aspect.

As well as having a dual focus, we also adopted a dual perspective by involving both parties in the study. This consisted of a survey of 797 apprentices and trainees who did not complete their training, and 462 of their employers, followed by several focus groups with new apprentices, employers and training providers, in which the survey findings and possible remedies to lower attrition rates were discussed. The study is fully representative of non-completers but has one major limitation: we are not able to say how and why non-completers are different from those who do complete their training—we can only identify the leaving factors that are relatively important among non-completers.

Different types of new apprentices

We have already pointed to the need to distinguish apprentices from trainees because of their differential rates of non-completion. Apprentices were defined as those working in a trades occupation whose contract of training was to lead to an Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) level III certificate or higher. One in three non-completers were apprentices when defined this way, while the remaining two-thirds were trainees. Three other ways of dividing up new apprentices also proved important in our study, in explaining the differing motivations and expectations that people brought to their work and training:

Age: most non-completers were young—over half were under 21 years of age—but a significant proportion were older, reflecting high growth in commencements among this group. One in four of all non-completers were aged 25 years or more, almost all of them (94%) trainees.
New versus existing employees: the sample was equally split between those who were hired new to the organisation and began their apprenticeship or traineeship, and those who had been working there for some time before commencing their training. Three in four of the existing employees were trainees.
Employer size: almost two in three of all non-completers worked in small organisations (i.e. those with less than 100 employees). Apprentices in particular were heavily concentrated in small organisations, with all but one in ten working there. By contrast, trainees were found in organisations of all sizes.

What did new apprentices expect from their work and training?

Most new apprentices commenced their apprenticeship or traineeship because they wanted the work. This was the case for over half of new employees, be they apprentices (54%) or trainees (62%). Trainees, in particular, were rarely motivated by a desire to obtain a qualification. For newly commencing trainees, just 16% said their main objective was to get a qualification, while 23% of existing employees who started a traineeship said this was the case.

There was also a significant minority of new apprentices who said that they were obliged to commence, either as a condition of taking the work, or because they were existing employees whose employers suggested it. More than half (54%) of those who were existing employees who went on to commence a traineeship fell into this category.

Most new apprentices considered themselves to be well informed about what their apprenticeship or traineeship would entail. Somewhere between 60% and 85% agreed with each of five statements covering their expectations ranging from ‘I was given good information about what to expect’ (which generated the least agreement) through to ‘I had a good idea of the skill level required of me’ (which generated the most agreement).

In comparison with apprentices, trainees, as a whole, reported themselves to be less well informed. This may be because of the relative longevity of apprenticeships as a pathway to labour market entry and, because of the rapid rise in traineeship commencements, many are in areas where these arrangements are new. Both these factors would tend to hinder the ready accessibility of information for those starting traineeships.

In-work experience of new apprentices

New apprentices were more circumspect in assessing their working environment. Three in four agreed that they liked their work colleagues, and three in five agreed that their workplace was ‘a good place to work’. There was less agreement, matched by equal levels of disagreement, with the statements that ‘I was paid well’ and ‘Managers listened to employees in making decisions’. Overall, there were many new apprentices who did not have a favourable experience at work. Those working for smaller employers were somewhat less likely to have a favourable experience.

The other element of the new apprenticeship to consider is the training. Apprentices and trainees (and their employers) were asked about the provision of training, whether they had a training plan and whether they discussed their training needs with their employers. Just over a quarter of new apprentices (27%) took part in both on-the-job and off-the-job training, 54% took part in one or the other, while the remaining 19% claimed that they did not take part in any training—a remarkable finding, if true.

For the 81% who said that they had participated in training, this is of most value where the training is structured—that is, if it develops transferable skills that are nationally recognised because they follow a formal training program. Using the survey, we defined structured training as: taking part in off-the-job training, or a program of on-the-job training, the content and structure of which is described in a training plan. Applying this definition, 61% of new apprentices, on their accounts, took part in structured training— 58% of trainees and 66% of apprentices. Participation was positively related to how much of their apprenticeship or traineeship they had completed, but there were still significant minorities—one in five apprentices and three in ten trainees—who had not taken part in any structured training despite the fact that their training had almost drawn to a close.

Employers’ accounts differed considerably from those of apprentices and trainees. All but 3% reported that they provided structured training consistent with the definition above.

Why did they stop their contract of training?

In seven out of eight cases (86%) the contract of training was severed at the same time as the employment relationship—that is, non-completion largely arises because apprentices and trainees stop working for that employer. Most do so, it seems, because of something to do with the employment relationship, rather than anything to do with the training per se.

Just over half of all new apprentices reported that they stopped their training for jobrelated reasons. Among the remainder, one in five stopped because the employer initiated it (i.e. they were made redundant or dismissed), one in six for reasons to do with training
(e.g. to transfer to another apprenticeship or traineeship) and one in ten for personal or other reasons. These accounts are very similar in magnitude to those given by employers, which suggests we should take them at face value.

The decision to separate was made, in more than half of cases, by the apprentice or trainee—again, an account confirmed by employers. However, one in four new apprentices said the decision was forced on them, while just one in ten employers thought this was the case.

Among the contributory factors in the decision to go, the one which elicited most agreement among apprentices and trainees was their being treated as cheap labour. Almost half of all new apprentices were of this view. While training was not the principal factor in the decision to stop in most cases, for 29% of new apprentices their belief that they weren’t learning anything was a contributory factor. More alarmingly, 23% of new apprentices felt that they had been bullied at work and that this had motivated them to stop.

What are they doing now?

In considering why people stopped their jobs and training, we must also consider what alternatives were open to them and what happened to them subsequently. The survey identified the current employment and education status of the former apprentice and trainee between nine and 21 months after stopping their training.

Almost three in four (73%) changed jobs, which, happily, for two in three movers turned out to be both better paying and to have superior working conditions. Those who did not rate their former workplace highly were much more likely to believe themselves now better off.

Nine per cent of former new apprentices remained with the same employer. Nearly all of these were trainees, most of whom were 25 years or more in age. There were 14% of new apprentices who were unemployed. This proportion was highest among those whose departure had been initiated by the employer. Finally, 5% had left the labour force altogether—unsurprisingly, this was most common among those who stopped for personal or ‘other’ reasons.

We were also able to identify any ongoing participation in education and training among the apprentices and trainees. The most dramatic finding was that 44% of apprentices were not, strictly speaking, non-completers—that is, they had gone on to recommence their apprenticeship with a different employer. This was the case for only 11% of trainees. Among those who had left their new apprenticeship for training-related reasons, one in three had recommenced training with another employer.

In addition to those recommencing, a further 12% of new apprentices had remained within the education system by either taking up full-time study (6%) or part-time study (6%). Nonetheless, by far the most common outcome—for 49% of apprentices and 76% of trainees—was to not take part in any form of education or training.

Summing-up

Three key findings arise from this study to raise issues for policy makers and training providers. The first is that many trainees had, at best, only a tenuous connection to the training aspect of their new apprenticeship. Compared with apprentices, trainees were:

more likely to say they were obliged to undertake training and less likely to say they wanted a qualification
less well informed about what the training would entail
less likely to have participated in structured training
less likely to have left for training-related reasons
more likely to stop training, but remain with the same employer
much less likely, if they had changed jobs, to have recommenced training

Part of these differences is explained by differences in the characteristics of apprentices and trainees. For example, trainees were much more likely to be older and to be existing employees—areas where much of the recent growth in commencements has occurred.

A second key finding is that many non-completers had an unsatisfactory working relationship. Around two in five did not think their workplace was a good place to work, and a similar proportion was not happy with their boss. More than half left because of reasons related to the work, while approaching half felt they were being used as cheap labour and a quarter felt they were being bullied. While we have no evidence to say that completers have a better time of it at work, it is reasonable to infer that unsatisfactory working relationships are inimical to completion.

The third key finding is to do with problems in the provision of training. While training, or the lack of it, was not the prime motivator for most in the decision to stop, it was for one in six new apprentices. Moreover, 29% said a contributory factor to them leaving was because they believed they were not learning anything. Finally, according to noncompleters, one in five took part in no training at all, while only three in five took part in the kind of structured training that is the benchmark of new apprenticeships—if they are to be believed over their employers, then something is awry in monitoring and quality.

Ways of reducing non-completion

We have drawn on these three key findings to partially shape our ideas for ways of reducing rates of non-completion. These consist of:

improving the fit between new apprentices and employers by
– pre-engagement personal capability assessments for new apprentices
– clearer specification of requirements by employers
– better linkages/incentives for intermediaries and employment brokers
– more effective matching arrangements
improving the in-work experience by
– offering post-take-up support
– requiring employers to observe a fair employment standard
– making the services of an ombudsman available to resolve disputes
better assistance for older new apprentices

In addition, it is also important that non-completion is recognised within the training system as a key performance issue. This will require revisions to administrative data collection so that rates of completion and non-completion can be adequately monitored, and remedial action taken where required.