CIPD - Employer support for learning qualifications

Learning, training and development

Originally issued April 2002; latest revision June 2007

This factsheet gives introductory guidance. It:

provides information about the sort of qualifications receiving financial support from employers, with an analysis by sector
describes the sort of conditions often attached to support, and asks whether they are effective as a means of retention
looks at whether time off is provided for study and the sorts of qualifications for which it is provided, again with an analysis by sector.

Background and context

The 2005 CIPD survey Who learns at work?¹ - a telephone survey of 750 people in employment - found that:

78% of the respondents had received some form of training in the previous 12 months
94% of these respondents who had undertaken training believed that it helped them to do their job better
20% of respondents had undertaken training, whether personal or work-related, in their leisure time
of those people who had undertaken training outside work, 39% stated that it was for purely personal interest, 38% purely work related interests – with the remainder saying it was for both reasons.

So the survey suggests a generally favourable attitude towards learning at work on the part of employees and that many employees will display commitment to their own learning. Many employers, therefore, are setting ways to align organisational and individual learning.

Offering employees a financial reward for the acquisition of relevant knowledge and skills is a feature of many training strategies. Nearly 10% of respondents in the 2004 CIPD survey Training and development² identified this activity as one of the three most important in helping employees to learn effectively at work. Qualifications for acquired knowledge and skills can, under the right circumstances, be an attractive incentive for individual learning, so employers will need to consider the extent to which they should support the acquisition of qualifications.

Source of the information

Most of the information in this factsheet is taken from the 2002 CIPD survey of training and development³, which asked about employer support for staff training with the aim of identifying the extent of support provided for the acquisition of different types of qualifications by employees. It is the last definitive survey on this topic that we have undertaken. Questions were asked about whether employers met costs of tuition and for what qualifications, whether conditions were imposed for support, and whether employers gave time off to those seeking qualifications. The survey was conducted by telephone in autumn 2001, among 502 training managers who were CIPD members.

A more recent study was undertaken by Incomes Data Services in 2006⁴. The relevant conclusions from this survey are set out towards the end of this factsheet. They show a broadly consistent set of conclusions to those found in the 2005 CIPD survey.

Which qualifications receive support?

The vast majority of respondents said they were prepared to meet at least some of the costs of tuition. Less than 3 per cent of respondents said that they would not reimburse the cost of any qualification. However, the extent of this support varied depending on the qualification in question, as Figure 1 shows.

Figure 1: Qualifications receiving financial support from employers

The public sector was more likely to fund postgraduate and undergraduate degrees than other sectors. Respondents in services were the least likely to provide funding for any type of qualification.

Do all employees receive support?

Earlier CIPD surveys have shown that employers provide different levels of support for employees' self-development, depending on their occupation. So far as the acquisition of qualifications was concerned, almost 40 per cent said that they would provide some support for all employees.

Around one-third of the respondents said their organisations would pay all the fees connected with gaining qualifications, with a further 5 per cent saying that they paid a percentage of the fees. The remaining 60 per cent said that the amount of fees they reimbursed depended on the circumstances of each individual case.

Figure 2 shows that employees in finance and manufacturing were more likely to get funding than those in other sectors, and those in public administration the least likely.

Figure 2: Proportion of respondents funding all employees, by sector

What determines whether funding is provided?

In the majority of establishments (58 per cent), the manager of the employee seeking a qualification was said to make the decision about whether funding is awarded. The main exception was the finance sector, where only 35 per cent said that the funding decision was at the managers' discretion. (This may be because it is often company policy to finance employees seeking, for example, accountancy qualifications.) Another factor influencing the provision of funding, mentioned by 56 per cent, is the type of course for which support is requested. As has been seen, professional qualifications are more likely to be funded than other qualifications.

Just over one-fifth of respondents (21.5 per cent) said that only particular categories of employee were eligible for support. Further questions were asked of these respondents about which categories were eligible or ineligible. Because of the small number of respondents (64), the findings can only be indicative but virtually all these respondents were likely to support managers. However, one-third said they would not fund manual workers. This supports the findings in a separate survey carried out towards the end of 2001, Who learns at work?³, that those with fewer qualifications and in lower-level occupations are offered fewer training opportunities.

The outcome of these decisions was influenced by the sector. Respondents in primary production were more likely to vary their support for funding in accordance with the category or status of employees than those in other sectors.

Are conditions usually attached to the provision of support?

Approximately 70 per cent of respondents providing financial support for employees seeking qualifications said they imposed a condition of support. This took the form of a promise to repay the fees if the employee leaves within a specified period of time. In a little under half of establishments, this condition applied to all employees while a further 20 per cent imposed conditions on some employees. Around one-third of the respondents do not have any such conditions of support attached to their financial aid. Figure 3 shows that the public sector is the least likely to impose a condition of support, while the finance sector is most likely to impose conditions.

Figure 3: Imposing conditions of support for those seeking qualifications

Where the repayment of fees if an individual left was a condition of support, the most common period for conditions to apply was two years, with 53 per cent of establishments imposing this as a condition of support. Only 9 per cent extended these conditions beyond two years, while 38 per cent only asked for repayment if the person left within a year. The public sector was more likely to impose a condition of support for between 12 months and two years, with 69.1 per cent favouring this time period, as Table 1 shows.

Table 1: Length of time within which repayment of fees is expected if employees leave

% imposing conditions	Up to 1 year	Between 1-2 years	Over 2 years
All sectors	38.1	53.2	8.8
Primary production	44.4	44.4	11.1
Manufacturing	42.7	45.1	12.2
Services	40.2	51.0	8.8
Finance	47.7	40.9	11.4
Public administration	26.6	69.1	4.3

Is it effective to impose conditions?

Respondents were asked whether they thought that imposing conditions of support was an effective method of retention. Approximately 40 per cent did not believe them to be effective, while a similar figure thought that they only worked for some employees. Less than 20 per cent believed that conditions of support were an effective method of retention for all employees. In the public sector almost half of respondents believed that they were not effective for any employees. As a passing comment, it seems odd that most organisations impose conditions when so many training managers believe them to be ineffective.

The topic of repayment of fees has been a subject of continuing interest on the CIPD communities discussions on our website. The most positive response was to a member who had introduced a clawback and retention clause. One member commented ‘It can be useful to have the choice to clawback as a disincentive for those who might abuse the system. And after all you can always waive the clawback where circumstances warrant it.’

Are employees rewarded for obtaining qualifications?

While most employers offer support for further learning, Table 2 shows that less than half financially rewarded those employees gaining relevant qualifications. Even fewer (11.5 per cent) rewarded all employees, with most of those who made an extra payment limiting this to some of their employees.

The chances of being rewarded vary considerably, depending on the sector. Establishments in financial services were far more likely to award a bonus to those who completed a relevant qualification than their counterparts in other sectors. In financial services 34.5 per cent of establishments provided a bonus for all their employees successfully completing their studies, but only 2.9 per cent of service sector establishments did so.

Table 2: Whether extra payments in salary or bonus are made to people who achieve a relevant qualification

% of establishments	Yes, for all	Yes, for some	No
All sectors	11.5	31.8	56.8
Primary production	7.7	15.4	76.9
Manufacturing	8.6	37.5	53.9
Services	2.9	30.2	56.8
Finance	34.5	25.5	40.0
Public administration	4.6	32.0	63.4

Is it normal to allow time off for studies?

Almost all respondents (94.2 per cent) said they provided time off to study. Of these, there was an almost equal division between those who said that they provided time off for all employees seeking qualifications, and those who provided time off only for some employees. In 62.1 per cent of the latter establishments, the decision to give time off was at managers' discretion.

Figure 4 shows that employees were more likely to be given time off for the pursuit of professional qualifications than for other qualifications.

Figure 4: Percentage of establishments providing time off which give time off for different types of qualifications

Figure 5 shows that people in financial services were more likely to receive time off for study than those in other sectors. Here again the differences were substantial: 72 per cent of establishments in financial services provided time off, compared with only 42 per cent in manufacturing.

Figure 5: Percentage of establishments giving time off to all employees

The Incomes Data Services survey

In 2006 Incomes Data Services (IDS) undertook a wide ranging survey of time off and special leave⁴. It included the following conclusions about educational activity:

’The majority of organisations featured are prepared to grant some time off work for those employees engaged in educational activities, including further or higher education courses. Whether such time off is paid or unpaid usually depends on whether the education is ‘sponsored’ in some way by the employer and whether or not it is ‘job-related’.’
’In over half of the featured organisations, some paid education leave is available for employees. Vocational courses are more likely to attract paid time off that those that are not relevant to the employer’s business.’

References

CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF PERSONNEL AND DEVELOPMENT. (2005). Who learns at work? Employees' experiences of training and development. London: CIPD. Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/surveys
CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF PERSONNEL AND DEVELOPMENT. (2004) Training and development 2004. Survey report. London: CIPD. Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/surveys
CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF PERSONNEL AND DEVELOPMENT. (2002) Training and development 2002. Survey report. London: CIPD. Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/surveys
INCOMES DATA SERVICES. (2006) Time off and special leave. HR Study 821. London: IDS.

Employer support for learning qualifications