Introduction and Context

In Washington State, as throughout the rest of the United States, the COVID-19 public health and economic crisis has brought about historic levels of unemployment that have persisted for more than a year.¹ Most impacted are people of color, particularly Pacific Islanders and Black workers, women, and individuals with lower levels of education—communities that were not fully reaping the benefits of Washington’s pre-pandemic economic boom. The state estimates that hundreds of thousands of Washingtonians will need new skills in order to enter the post-pandemic economy. Under the leadership of Governor Jay Inslee, several state agencies have developed an economic recovery plan aimed at promoting economic stability for historically underserved and vulnerable populations. With a focus on credentials with economic value and building navigable education and training pathways, Washington’s inclusive recovery plan seeks to address the persistent and pervasive structural barriers to high-quality, well-paying jobs.²

As the entire nation grapples with growing labor market and income inequality made even more visible by COVID-19, policymakers at all levels of government are weighing a variety of public investments in education and training to help individuals secure good, family sustaining jobs. Short-term training—lasting less than three months—is often considered by policymakers and workforce leaders as a pathway to middle-skill jobs. It presents a solution for helping dislocated workers quickly reenter the labor market, supporting career advancement or transition opportunities for incumbent workers, and providing new high school graduates with occupation-specific skills needed to land a well-paying job. Short-term training programs are also appealing to youth and adults. They teach discrete, occupation-specific skills; are often more affordable than postsecondary degree pathways; and can often be stacked with other credentials to position workers along an educational and career path.

Given the enthusiasm among some policymakers for expanding access to short-term training, it is surprising how little we know about these types of programs in terms of who provides them, the occupations for which they tend to prepare workers, who enrolls in these programs, and what labor market outcomes are associated with program completion. A limited amount of research on short-term training programs suggests mixed results. While some programs provide demonstrable value to students in terms of employment and earnings outcomes, there is a great deal of variability based on program, provider, and student demographics. Men, whites, and students who already have some college or college credentials tend to have more favorable outcomes than women, students of color, and students who have a high school diploma or less.³

Whether short-term training programs yield positive and equitable outcomes is an important question that deserves attention as federal policymakers consider expanding the use of Pell Grants—need-based grants to low-income undergraduates—and as state policymakers weigh investments in short-term training as part of a higher education completion and economic recovery strategy.

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 provide the best glimpse into who accesses and benefits most from short-term training.