Short-Term Credentials

Short workforce training can support the economic outcomes of displaced and unemployed workers, but only if it is carefully designed to connect directly to durable, high-quality jobs. State policies can support effective, employer-connected training programs and overall economic growth by providing targeted financial support for training participants, training providers, and employers who provide training themselves. In Indiana and Washington, state policymakers have combined different funding streams to encourage collaborative partnerships and ensure that all workers have opportunities to make their next career step.

Based on comprehensive data from the Washington Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board, this analysis explores short-term training programs, including which providers offer them and in which occupation-specific programs of study; the demographics of those who enroll in programs; and outcomes for program completers or graduates. Given limitations on the maintenance and matching of student-level data at the federal level, state-specific analyses of training program participation and outcomes like these provide the best glimpse into who accesses and benefits most from short-term training.

Given the rapid growth in short-term programs, and policymakers’ fast-growing interest to invest federal higher education dollars into very-short-term credentials, we explore what the research does—and does not— show us about such credentials’ utility in the labor market. With concerns about equity, our review of the literature guides us towards caution, as a strong push for short-term certificates may run the risk of reifying socioeconomic stratification.

Policymakers are interested in extending federal higher education dollars to programs fewer than 15 weeks. This analysis shares key facts about the outcomes and equity implications of very-short-term (15 weeks or fewer) programs. This analysis of nationally representative survey data from the Adult Training and Education Survey, combined with insights from a series of focus groups conducted on behalf of New America, suggest that many short-term programs fall short of their promises, with many graduates left unemployed or facing very poor earnings. Post-completion earnings are especially low for people of color and women.

The collapse of good labor market opportunities for workers without a college degree is the elephant in the room in higher education policy discussions today. A high school diploma no longer provides a guarantee of financial security, let alone opens the door to the middle class. In response, some lawmakers and advocates have introduced a host of proposals known as “short-term Pell.” Dressed up as innovation, this idea is the latest iteration of short-term programs for Americans not interested in going to traditional college — but the historical record shows little compelling evidence that these programs offer a promising future.

This report examines the legislative and regulatory history of short-term programs under federal higher education law. The lessons from those earlier reforms can help guide policymakers in their current efforts to address the educational needs of Americans.

One controversial proposal to extend Pell Grants to very, very short-term programs could have significantly higher costs—for students as well as for taxpayers—than lawmakers are predicting. In the long term, expanding Pell Grants to short-term programs could mean that, in the future, it’s harder for millions of students to afford to go to college and less likely they’ll earn a credential that pays off.

As Congress weighs making federal Pell grants available for short-term programs, new data calls into question whether this strategy will lead to quality jobs.

The Education Department finally released a long-awaited evaluation report of one of its experiments, testing the efficacy of providing Pell Grants for very-short-term programs, but the report did little but disappoint who had hoped for substantive new findings.

Absent of a large-scale federal workforce investment in response to the COVID-19 economic crisis, some crucial resources could fill a need.

Lawmakers need to design pathways that connect people back to the labor market — not just throw money at programs that will come up short.

The Relaunching America’s Workforce Act would provide $15 billion for critical employment and training efforts in response to the COVID.

Introduced last year, Sen. Kamala Harris's 21st Century SKILLS Act can't address the pandemic's employment impacts on its own. But coupled with infrastructure investments that prioritize reemployment in stable, well-paid, and upwardly mobile jobs, it could still help Americans get back on their feet.

Short-term credential programs are rapidly expanding around the country, and the trend is likely to continue through new federal and state investments in workforce development. Yet concerns about racial and gender inequity, and concerns about program and credential quality surround this growing postsecondary option. We talk with experts, policymakers, and practitioners on today’s show to understand the current landscape of short-term credential programs and the key issues that need to be addressed while these programs expand. Lumina podcast guests include: Kermit Kaleba, Strategy Director at Lumina Foundation; Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA); Jesse O’Connell, Strategy Director at Lumina Foundation; Randy Stamper, Assistant Vice Chancellor of the Virginia Community College System; and, Dr. Monique Ositelu, Senior Policy Analyst at New America and Founder/Data Strategist at Itàn.  

Wesley Whistle wrote an article in Forbes about the pitfalls of short-term Pell Grants.