What Does “Youth Apprenticeship” Mean? The Answer, According to Each State

Thanks to Ali Ulin for providing considerable research support to this project.

The term “youth apprenticeship” seems relatively straightforward, but trying to understand exactly what it means can often feel like a dizzying exercise in semantics. Does it refer to youth in Registered Apprenticeship? Pre-apprenticeship? Non-registered apprenticeships designed for high school students?

The answer, in some ways, is all of the above. That’s because, in the United States, there is no federal legal definition of “youth apprenticeship.” In the absence of a federal definition, states have stepped in to create their own, and, without federal standards to shape them, these definitions often look quite different from one another. Reference the term “youth apprenticeship" to education and workforce leaders in Alaska, Indiana, and South Carolina, and they will likely picture three different programs.

As part of its mission to advance high-quality youth apprenticeship in the US, the Partnership to Advance Youth Apprenticeship (PAYA) has sought to provide the field with clarity about the term “youth apprenticeship” since its launch in 2018. The eight PAYA National Partners created a definition “youth apprenticeship”, along with a set of guiding principles, both of which emphasize quality and equity while still leaving room for customization of specific program standards. PAYA considers programs that include the following four components to be youth apprenticeships:

• Paid, on-the-job learning under the supervision of skilled employee mentors
• Ongoing assessment against established skills and competency standards
• Related, classroom-based instruction
• Culmination in a portable, industry-recognized credential and postsecondary credit

As more and more states have developed their own definitions of youth apprenticeship, PAYA has also conducted analyses of the definitional landscape to help the field understand what “youth apprenticeship” means in different states — and how those definitions align with PAYA’s. Three years ago, in 2021, we examined 15 different state definitions of youth apprenticeship, finding a patchwork of definitions that varied widely, even on basic components of apprenticeship. None of the definitions considered met all criteria outlined in PAYA’s own definition, though many met most of them.

This year, for National Apprenticeship Week, we’re revisiting and updating that project. We conducted a review of all 50 states and found that over half of all states — 30, plus the District of Columbia — have defined a youth model of apprenticeship, suggesting significant growth in the number of definitions since our 2021 scan [1]. Below we highlight key trends and complexities in our findings.

States have different “homes” for their youth apprenticeship definitions. In determining whether a state had a definition of youth apprenticeship, we took a fairly liberal approach, including states who define “youth apprenticeship” or describe a youth apprenticeship program model anywhere in state government materials. In some states, the definition is codified in state statutes (e.g., Indiana, Minnesota, or Vermont) or in state regulations (e.g., Georgia or Kentucky). In others, the definition is not codified, but still in a formal document, like a policy issuance (Maryland) or the state’s apprenticeship council’s program standards (Washington). But in many states, the definition is simply listed on the department of education or department of labor website.

We included all definitions, regardless of where they “live,” in this scan — but a definition’s home can determine how much legal weight it carries, giving certain definitions more “teeth” or legitimacy than others. Some definitions also point to the challenge of aligning youth apprenticeship programs across education and workforce systems. For example, Oregon’s definition of “youth apprenticeship” is spread across state statute and regulations. The state defines “youth apprenticeship” in a section of statute focused on career and technical education, but labor regulations create additional requirements youth apprenticeship programs must meet. This can make it confusing for program leaders on the ground to understand what standards must be met for their program to “count” as a youth apprenticeship, and is evidence of just how challenging it can be to create programs that exist across distinct systems.

Most — but not all — states with a definition of youth apprenticeship require their youth programs to be RAPs. We approached this scan with one major question in mind: how do states’ youth models of apprenticeship relate to Registered Apprenticeship? We found that, of the states that defined youth apprenticeship, two-thirds (22) require the youth model to meet the same standards as a RAP [5] (see Figure 1).

However, in many instances, the youth model comes with some additional parameters or specifications that aren’t required of traditional RAPs designed for adults. These modifications are largely focused on tweaking the RAP model to account for youth-specific needs, like formally connecting the related instruction and on-the-job training (OJT) components with the education system. For example, Oregon requires that some OJT be applied towards the youth apprentice’s high school graduation requirements, while in New Jersey, youth apprentices must earn academic credit (either secondary or postsecondary). Many definitions don’t list specific modifications but still imply a formal linkage with the K-12 education system by noting that the program must be integrated with the high school curriculum or be specifically designed to serve youth in high school. Regardless of any modifications, all 22 of these definitions still use the same foundational program model: RAP.

The same cannot be said for the 11 states that have defined a youth model of apprenticeship that is not the same as RAP [6] (see Figure 1). In fact, these 11 definitions vary considerably in terms of specificity and design of their models. Some definitions, like Indiana’s, outline a program that is essentially a shorter version of RAP: apprentices complete paid OJT, take related instruction courses (for secondary credit), and earn an industry-recognized credential. Sometimes, as in Alaska, “youth apprenticeship” is defined as pre-apprenticeship, a program that prepares participants for a RAP [7]. In other states, a definition of youth apprenticeship exists, in the state code or elsewhere, but it does not articulate any specific model, meaning nearly any program that combines some on-the-job (paid or unpaid) and classroom learning could meet that state’s definition of “youth apprenticeship.”

It’s worth noting that in the 20 states without any defined youth model of apprenticeship, RAPs designed for youth can and do exist. Some may even meet PAYA’s definition of youth apprenticeship. But without a state definition of youth apprenticeship, these programs do not have to follow any youth apprenticeship program standards or requirements created by their state government (though they would still have to meet the federal government’s RAP requirements).

Most definitions do not include all the criteria in the PAYA definition. In 2021, our analysis of 15 definitions found that none of them featured all four elements of PAYA's youth apprenticeship definition. In this scan, we found that three states — Indiana, Missouri, and Nebraska — meet the PAYA definition.

Many other definitions meet every element of the PAYA definition, with one exception: they do not require youth apprenticeship programs to provide postsecondary credit, though they may encourage it. Included in this category are most of the states that require their youth models to be RAPs (modified or not). This finding tracks with what PAYA Network and Grantee programs have reported about the challenges of building youth apprenticeship programs that bridge the secondary and postsecondary education systems.

The story of these 33 definitions is one of constant difference. No two definitions are exactly the same. The variance in specificity and articulated program models is considerable. States even use different terms to describe their youth model of apprenticeship. And one, Vermont, includes specifications around equity: the state mandates that its Registered Apprenticeship program (which includes youth apprenticeship) “develop and support strategies that promote diversity, equity, accessibility, and inclusion” in apprenticeship.

This patchwork of definitions and programs has implications for program quality and equity. Some definitions promote intentionally designed programs that address inequities, broaden apprentices’ postsecondary options, and provide the supports young people need to thrive. Others lack provisions necessary to foster strong programs or are so vague that they create room for weak programs to emerge. Definitions that don’t require apprentices to be paid, for example, prevent programs from effectively serving low-income students and developing equitable career pathways. Those that don’t articulate formal linkages with the education system may ultimately limit, rather than expand, participants’ postsecondary options. And since only eight states report having dedicated funding for youth apprenticeship, it can be hard for programs that meet their state's definition to remain sustainable in the long term.

Most importantly, all this variance provides a major accountability and data challenge. With so many different models in the mix, it’s difficult to understand how well (and why) programs work. Without strong data, advocates struggle to convince policymakers to increase state and federal support and funding for youth apprenticeship.

With the federal government unlikely to define “youth apprenticeship” soon, states are poised to continue developing and refining their own definitions. As they do so, PAYA recommends they keep in mind three key considerations:

• Definitions should articulate a clear and specific program model that includes criteria, like those in PAYA’s definition, that promote high-quality programs.
• There are benefits to enshrining definitions in statute so that they are enforceable and consistent across the state.
• States can support more seamless system alignment by ensuring one clear definition exists across education and labor statutes and regulations.

These considerations, while not a panacea, can help states ensure they are creating stronger, more equitable youth apprenticeship programs that bridge education and workforce systems and ensure young people make successful transitions out of high school.

[1] This number includes California which defines the term “youth apprentice” but not “youth apprenticeship”.

[2] Idaho’s program is called the "School To Registered Apprenticeship Program" while New Hampshire’s is the "ApprenticeshipNH High School program."

[3] Alaska and Maryland’s definitions of “youth apprenticeship” are not the same. In Alaska, this term is defined as a pre-apprenticeship, whereas Maryland’s youth apprenticeship program is more similar to an abbreviated RAP for high school students.

[4] In Alaska, the second model is called "School to Apprenticeship" and in Maryland, it is “the high school level of a Registered Apprenticeship.”

[5] This number includes both Alaska and Maryland.

[6] This number includes both Alaska and Maryland.

[7] Pre-apprenticeships are a distinct model from RAPs and have no federal definition. Depending on the state or program, they may or may not be paid and don’t necessarily result in an industry-recognized credential.