Background on Short-term Job Training Programs

Most short-term job training programs—and the schools or training centers that provide them—are often referred to under the blanket terms of “career, vocational, or trade.” But these programs look and function very differently from program to program and school to school. To understand the history of how they have been financed and regulated, it is important to also understand the providers, the students, and what the programs have looked like over time.

The landscape of short-term program providers has evolved over the last 50 years. Much of this change can be attributed to a shift over the last several decades in how the U.S.—both in public policy and in business—approaches job training. Companies have increasingly relied on higher education to train their workers as changes in the labor market have increased the demand for postsecondary credentials. At the same time, the federal policies around education and training have influenced the supply, the suppliers, and the demand for programs.

For much of their history, for-profit (proprietary) colleges have been synonymous with short-term programs. While federal and state workforce dollars have funded short-term programs at both community colleges and for-profit colleges, for-profits have, until recently, been the primary providers of short-term programs for students using federal student aid.¹ Community and technical colleges often provide non-credit job training programs, but these offerings do not receive federal student aid dollars. Private companies have also created their own programs to train current or potential employees in skills specific to their needs, either by partnering with a school or creating their own in-house.

Still, the distinction between for-profit colleges and job training programs has not always been clear. In the 1990s, Democratic Rep. William Ford, the former chair of the House Committee on Education and Labor, showed just how synonymous for-profit colleges and job-training programs were thought to be. When the Washington Post called Ford a strong defender and attendee of trade schools—referring to the for-profit providers—he pointed to these differences and corrected the record. He said, “I went to Henry Ford Trade School, which was a euphemistic way to describe a plan in which, at age 14, I was paid 20 cents an hour to work in the Ford Motor Company while they taught me how to use tools….That was not a trade school that trained people to work for General Motors or Chrysler or anybody else. It was intended to train me…to become a tool and die maker for Ford Motor Company.”²

The assumption that Ford went to a for-profit college speaks to the vast market share these providers had at the time, where many viewed for-profit and short-term training as one and the same. The Venn diagram of short-term training and for-profit colleges of decades ago often looks like one circle instead of two overlapping circles. And that is especially true when talking about the programs that accessed federal student aid money.

The type of training offered by all providers has also varied over the years, covering the gamut of fields and occupations, including programs like welding, medical assisting, truck driving, auto mechanics, cosmetology, dog-grooming, and bartending, just to name a few. As the economy has changed, the definition of “vocational” has broadened to include many more industries and types of jobs. Short-term programs offered today include yoga instructing, real estate, and more. New entrants have brought in other programs, such as coding boot camps, to the space in recent years.

“Career training schools have been, and continue to be, a vital and necessary component of our higher education system….They provide students with the avenue to acquire needed skills allowing them to enter the labor market quickly or to upgrade or build upon existing skills enabling them to get a better job.”³ – Rep. Joseph Gaydos (D-PA)

Today, community and technical colleges, as well as private companies, offer more short-term programs, with an even greater diversity of offerings. Some four-year institutions offer a smaller number of them as well. However, for-profit colleges remain a significant player in the field, awarding 44 percent of all short-term certificates today.⁴ In the past, some were delivered by correspondence.⁵ Today, some are provided online.

While the providers and programs offered have shifted throughout the years, studies consistently show similarities in the types of students enrolled in them. A report from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 1976 explained that students in proprietary vocational programs were more likely to be from low-income families with limited educational attainment and more likely to be students of color.⁶ Today, little has changed, as students who enroll in and complete certificate programs are still more likely to come from low-income families and/or are more likely to be African American.⁷

The demographic makeup of these programs is hardly surprising, as low-income students are the ones who stand to gain the most from a quick earnings bump. They have fewer resources to pay for a longer program and, importantly, to cover their living expenses while they are enrolled. In fact, evidence suggests that the lack of access to enough financial aid for a four-year degree helps drive low-income students into shorter, cheaper programs.