Discussion and Conclusion

With the COVID-19 public health and economic crisis causing massive and sustained levels of unemployment, short-term training is likely to play a key role in our nation’s recovery strategy.¹ Short-term training programs certainly provide some value to graduates who acquire new and relevant job-related skills and credentials, and to employers who benefit from a more qualified workforce. The accessibility of short-term training compared to lengthier programs makes it an attractive option for jobseekers, dislocated workers, career changers, and incumbent workers looking to progress in their careers. However, program value cannot fully be assessed without taking into account the cost incurred by students and the short- and long-term benefits to program completion, in the form of employment, earnings, and career advancement opportunities.

In Washington, much like in other states, the public workforce system, state financial aid, and occupation-specific training subsidies fund many short-term training programs. Yet even if public dollars were to fully fund short-term training programs, removing financial burdens for those who enroll, many graduates would still land jobs that fail to pay a living wage. And the short-term training graduates who earn the least, many of whom are college-educated, tend to enroll in female-dominated programs and go on to become essential workers in female-dominated and racially diverse care occupations. Unfortunately, these earnings trends based on occupation are not unique to Washington State. Nationally, across all occupations, the annual mean wage is $56,310, but child care workers ($26,790), home health aide, personal care aides, and nursing assistant/aide ($29,320) earn substantially less. Workers in male-dominated automotive mechanics ($47,060), truck and bus driver ($52,090), and electrician ($61,550) occupations earn close to or more than the average American worker.²

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act requires that governors or state agencies disseminate information about eligible training providers and the performance and costs associated with the training programs they offer via a searchable database—something Washington State did long before the federal requirement. Now every state has a website similar to Career Bridge to inform individuals about training opportunities in their communities and the job and earnings prospects they can expect following program completion.³

Greater transparency about short-term training program costs and outcomes—albeit an important decision-making tool for jobseekers and a useful resource for evaluating the effectiveness of public investments in training—will not eliminate bad jobs. Neither will dissuading people from pursuing training that leads to low-paying work, or worse, blaming individuals for choosing low-wage work that might be well aligned with their personal interests and/or offer a more conducive environment or schedule for balancing family and other obligations. The reality is care jobs in the early childhood and health sectors are in demand and expected to grow. They require skilled professionals to provide the quality of care that children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities deserve. Market forces would suggest that the critical importance and challenging nature of care work, coupled with high rates of worker turnover, would translate into better compensation. But deep-rooted obstacles such as societal biases and exclusionary labor laws have long prevented equal access to quality jobs for women and people of color.

The findings outlined in this report speak to the importance of labor policies that ensure living wages, not to mention family-sustaining benefits for all workers. Washington State boasts the second-highest minimum wage in the U.S., behind Washington DC, and the state has committed to incremental cost-of-living adjustments to this wage based on the federal Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.⁴ This will certainly help, but the state-wide minimum wage falls short of the living wage many families need to get by.

Washington has been a leader in using state education, employment, and wage data systems to assess the value of taxpayer-funded training.⁵ By using these data to examine whether short-term training graduates were employed one year after program completion and their hourly and annual earnings, this analysis provides a glimpse into the value of this training, which accounts for nearly a quarter of all training in the state.

However, to determine whether short-term training graduates are employed in a field aligned with their training, the extent to which short-term training programs lead to sustained wage increases, and whether short-term training serves as a stepping-stone to advanced career training and career progression, more research is needed. Washington recently passed legislation requiring employers to provide quarterly reports of the standard occupational classifications or job titles of workers, in addition to employee wages and hours worked, beginning in October 2021.⁶ This occupational data will facilitate a more comprehensive evaluation of all training programs.

Other states and the federal government should follow Washington’s lead. Before even more public investments go toward short-term training programs, it is important to determine whether they are delivering on their promise to jobseekers and helping to dismantle systemic labor market inequities that predominantly hinder women, people of color, and those with fewer educational opportunities.