With the passage of Workforce Pell, much is to be determined in its implementation. If ever data and research were essential to guide policy, now is the time—as the country faces a real need to figure out what programs are valuable investments for learners. This vital and urgent issue is a front and center focus of the Non-degree Credentials Research Network (NCRN). The recent NCRN conference, “Research on Outcomes: What We’ve Learned Lately About the Labor Market Outcomes of NDC,” brought together a rich array of cutting-edge research on the topic.
Meeting Learner Expectations
Make no mistake, students want their credentials to produce tangible results in the workforce. Mina Dadgar, founder and executive director of Education Equity Solutions, advises that colleges need to align programs with quality jobs to ensure graduates find immediate value in their education, even if a credential is stackable. Otherwise, learners may not return for further training.
Dadgar’s research on community college programs in the manufacturing sector uncovered a disconnect between how learners, primarily those of color, and college personnel view the ultimate goal of a program of study. Learners want a living wage, opportunities for advancement, and good working conditions. On the other hand, college personnel often describe a program’s goals as “getting one’s foot in the door” or “gaining awareness of the industry.” Colleges can better serve students by designing programs that prepare them for advanced roles with significant wage premiums.
Assessing Earnings Premiums
Short-term credentials can provide a pathway toward economic mobility for students who choose the right programs. The problem is that critical data isn’t readily and widely available to consumers. Jason Jabbari of Washington University in St. Louis and Peter Bahr of the Strada Institute for the Future of Work shared their respective research projects, which both point to earnings premiums for certificate programs in certain fields. In fact, those who earn certificates can earn more than associate degree holders in some cases, Jabbari found. He noted that the findings do not replicate “the standard economic model of earnings, education, and time.”
Still, nondegree credentials offer no guarantee. Bahr uncovered uneven outcomes when evaluating longitudinal data from a sample of more than 128K noncredit students in Texas. Winning fields were transportation and engineering with above-average gains. However, learners in fields like nursing and allied health saw below-average gains, and students in numerous fields saw no gains at all, raising important questions about program selection and guidance.
Evaluating the Affordability of Short-Term Credentials
Short-term programs are often marketed as a more cost-effective solution and a way to avoid the significant debt that can come with higher education. However, the cost of attending short-term credential programs varies widely, with tuition and fees ranging from $0 to $26,700 per month among workforce training providers. Jinann Bitar’s team at EdTrust calculated the cost of short-term credentials, including tuition, fees, and living expenses, and found that workers and learners may need financial assistance to access programs. Given that emerging data on the ROI of these programs is mixed, students should beware of credentials that don’t align with high-quality jobs.
Implications for Workforce Pell
Panelists agreed that guardrails are needed to protect learners from programs that overpromise and under-deliver, especially considering the inequities that can result when misinformed or under-informed students pursue programs that fail to lead to meaningful outcomes. Harry Holzer of Georgetown University pointed out that we still don’t know why people enroll in programs that don’t have value.
Bahr posited that students have “an irrationally small amount of information on which to base their decisions or ill-timed information that’s not coming at the juncture at which they need to be able to make decisions.” Mentoring and coaching, he argued, could be effective in guiding students and helping them better understand their skills and interests, but access to such resources often varies. Workforce Pell doesn’t necessarily solve for these issues. To ensure true pathways to opportunity, policymakers must take a thorough approach to evaluating the limited data that is available and invest in generating more.
What’s Next
The conversation at the NCRN conference made clear that we must proceed with caution and rigor. We need to better understand why some credentials consistently deliver value while others fall short. We also need more long-term data over time and across regions so researchers can better understand differences in workforce demands. These insights will be essential for shaping quality controls and ensuring Workforce Pell achieves its intended impact.
Add your name to our mailing list to stay updated on future NCRN activities.
The Education and Employment Research Center at Rutgers University’s School of Management and Labor Relations focuses on better understanding how education intersects with the labor market. This piece is one in a series, The Real Deal, by researchers associated with the center exploring what we know about the quality of nondegree credentials.