Problem
Training is concentrated in a few providers, and some Sector Skill Councils act as both regulator and training provider
- National
The CAG audit found around 84% of training targets allocated to 10% of training providers, while half of all providers shared about 2% between them. Three Sector Skill Councils — Media and Entertainment, Domestic Workers, and Construction — acted as both the sector's standard-setting body and as training providers, and appear within that top decile. Among the largest providers, more than a hundred recorded placement below ten per cent. NCVET was established in 2018 precisely to separate regulation from delivery. Evidence confidence: High.
This is the most specific entry on this branch of the catalogue. The evidence behind it is below.
Who is responsible
- Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship · Ministry or Department
- National Council for Vocational Education and Training (NCVET) · Regulatory body
- National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) · Union Government
- Comptroller and Auditor General of India · Constitutional or statutory institution
Evidence and sources
- CAG Report No. 20 of 2025 — Performance Audit of PMKVY · Government documentProvider concentration and regulator-as-provider findings.
Alongside this
Around half of Industrial Training Institute capacity goes unused, and the trades offered do not match where people work
NITI Aayog's 2023 assessment found ITI seat utilisation at roughly 48% across a network of more than 14,000 institutes. NCVT management-information data shows two trades — electrician and fitter — accounting for about half of all occupied ITI seats, with the services sector, which is around 60% of GDP, barely represented in ITI course catalogues that remain oriented towards manufacturing. Evidence confidence: High for utilisation and trade concentration. The very low placement figure that circulates for the ITI system conflicts sharply with other employment-outcome figures for the same system and is deliberately not recorded here.
Only a small fraction of the working-age population has received formal vocational training
PLFS-based analysis puts formal vocational training at around 4.1% of the population aged 15 to 59 as of 2023 — more than double the 1.8% recorded in 2017, but still leaving about 65% who have received no vocational or technical training of any kind, formal or informal. Informal routes have grown quickly over the same period and partly substitute, but they do not carry certification or portability across employers. Evidence confidence: High — consistent across independent analyses of the same official PLFS series.
Unemployment rises with education level, and graduates are worse affected than the less educated
Every source reviewed agrees on the structure: unemployment is near-zero among the least educated, rises through secondary education, and peaks among graduates and postgraduates. PLFS reports overall unemployment for those aged 15 and above at around 3%, youth unemployment substantially higher, and unemployment among the educated higher again. State variation is pronounced, with Kerala, Odisha, Bihar and Tamil Nadu reported highest and Delhi and Gujarat lowest. No single headline graduate-unemployment percentage is recorded here: the figures in public circulation differ by definition, age band and year and cannot be reconciled from the sources reviewed. Evidence confidence: High for the structural gradient and the state variation; the headline percentage is genuinely contested.
Whether skill training leads to employment is no longer systematically measured
The Comptroller and Auditor General's performance audit of PMKVY found overall placement of about 41% under the short-term training component. Current scheme reporting shows a far smaller share of trained candidates with a recorded placement — but the two are not comparable, because placement tracking was delinked in PMKVY 4.0, which monitors candidates for a year after certification instead. The honest statement of the problem is the loss of a comparable outcome measure, not a bare placement percentage; a raw current ratio published without that caveat would be a factual error. Evidence confidence: High for the CAG finding and for the fact of the tracking change; deliberately no current placement percentage is recorded here.
Skill training volume is not aligned to where skills are projected to be needed
The CAG performance audit found that the top five states by projected skill requirement under the national policy accounted for more than half of projected need but received under 35% of fresh trainings, while three states not among the top five took around 22%. Certification is similarly concentrated by trade: around 40% of certifications fell in just ten job roles out of 724. Training is being delivered where it is easy to deliver rather than where it is needed. Evidence confidence: High — findings of a CAG performance audit.
A large share of skill certificates cannot be traced to an identified trainer or assessor
The CAG audit found trainer identification recorded as null or zero for 2,30,758 batches covering 61,12,030 certified candidates, and assessor contact details recorded as null or none for 3,27,220 batches covering 93,01,810 certified candidates. Biometric attendance devices were absent or non-functional at inspected training centres, and Aadhaar-enabled attendance was not followed for the recognition-of-prior-learning component. Scheme rules require certified trainers and assessors; the audit could not confirm that requirement was met for these batches. A certificate whose training cannot be evidenced devalues the ones that are genuine. Evidence confidence: High.
Do you support action on this problem?