Participation in Registered Apprenticeship Programs by young people ages 16 to 24 more than doubled between 2015 and 2025, rising from 185,201 registered youth apprentices to 411,371. Despite this expansion, no standard definition of a youth apprenticeship program exists. This report addresses the gap by defining four models of youth apprenticeship based on their delivery partners:

• high school-aligned youth apprenticeship programs
• college-aligned youth apprenticeship programs
• career and technical education (CTE) center-aligned youth apprenticeship programs, and
• other youth-focused programs

By comparing the experiences of youth participating in these types of programs to youth participating in adult apprenticeship programs that are not focused on youth, we can better understand the advantages and disadvantages of these program models.

Why This Matters

Youth apprenticeship has drawn bipartisan support at the state and federal level, yet the field lacks established definitions of what counts as a youth apprenticeship program and the different types of program models. Previous approaches have defined youth apprenticeship by apprentices’ age, rather than by program features. Definitions that are based on program features have not been applied in a standardized way to the thousands of apprenticeship programs that focus on youth. This makes it difficult to compare programs, learn across them, or target investments. Without definitions grounded in current working models, policymakers and practitioners risk overlooking lessons or misapplying lessons to programs that operate differently. As youth apprentice enrollment continues to rise, choices about how to define, design, fund, and scale youth apprenticeship will shape its future trajectory.

What We Found

• All models of youth apprenticeship serve a higher share of young women than the 12.7 percent of youth apprentices in adult programs who are women. Almost half of the youth apprentices in high school-aligned and CTE center-aligned programs are young women, while 15.6 percent of youth in college-aligned programs are young women and 16.5 percent of youth in other youth-focused programs are young women.
• All models of youth apprenticeship serve a higher share of rural apprentices than the 6.6 percent of youth in adult programs who live in rural areas. CTE center-aligned programs serve the highest share of rural youth (11.8 percent), followed by college-aligned (10.8 percent), other youth-focused (9.3 percent), and then high school-aligned programs (8.9 percent).
• Models of youth apprenticeship vary widely in the types of occupations they serve, but all models have a significantly lower share of youth apprentices training in construction occupations than the 63.8 percent of youth in adult programs. High school-aligned programs have the most occupations, serving at least five percent of apprentices. Education is the most popular occupational group for high school- and CTE center-aligned programs, while the highest share of youth in college-aligned programs train in installation and maintenance occupations. All youth models serve a higher share of youth apprentices in production occupations than in adult programs.
• Only other youth-focused programs offer comparable on-the-job training (OJT) to the OJT offered in adult programs. The mean OJT length for youth in other youth-focused programs was 6,109 hours, and the median was 8,000 hours, compared with the 6,194 hour mean and 7,000 median of youth in adult programs. College-aligned programs follow with a 5,643 hour mean and 6,000-hour median OJT length, with high school- and CTE center-aligned programs sharing a similar, shorter OJT.
• All models of youth apprenticeship offer a lower average starting wage than the $20.14 per hour for youth in adult programs. College-aligned and other youth-focused programs come the closest ($16,70 and $16.17, respectively), followed by CTE center-aligned programs ($14.63). High school-aligned programs have the lowest average starting wage of all models, at $13.75 per hour.

How We Did It

We developed definitions for four youth apprenticeship program models that could be consistently applied to administrative data on thousands of Registered Apprenticeship Programs. These definitions are based on an apprenticeship program’s sponsoring organization, delivery partners, and the ages of participating apprentices.

We then analyzed data from the Registered Apprenticeship Partners Information Database System (RAPIDS)—the case management system for apprenticeship in most states—to identify characteristics of apprentices across the youth apprenticeship models. We then compared youth in these program models with youth apprentices in adult apprenticeship programs. This approach allowed us to describe who each model served and how experiences differed.