The Limitations of Short-term Training as an Equitable Recovery Strategy

This week, the Senate is poised to vote on an expansive bipartisan research and development bill that, among other things, would expand eligibility for federal Pell Grants to postsecondary programs as short as eight weeks—down from the current minimum of 15 weeks or 600 clock hours. Unlike previous short-term Pell proposals that policymakers in Washington have been advancing for years, this legislation would require public and nonprofit postsecondary institutions to demonstrate that short-term training graduates earn a median wage increase of 20 percent after program completion and make information about completion and employment rates, and earnings publicly available.

Short-term training is an attractive proposition, especially after the massive and sustained levels of unemployment caused by the COVID-19 public health and economic crisis that have disproportionately impacted women and people of color. It presents as a solution for helping dislocated workers learn discrete, occupation-specific skills and quickly reenter the labor market. Short-term training also tends to be more affordable than traditional postsecondary degree pathways. In the midst of declining higher education enrollment during the pandemic, more people are flocking to short-term programs.

Yet the evidence on whether short-term training positions youth and adults to secure good, family-sustaining jobs is mixed. New research from New America on programs less than 15 weeks in Washington State indicates that short-term training programs do have higher completion rates compared to longer ones. Furthermore, the average median hourly earnings for all short-term training graduates ($17.84) exceeds the state’s minimum hourly wage ($13.50). But the typical short-term training program graduate earns $33,696 annually, which is less than the $37,000 median annual wage for a high school graduate.

Additionally, the data suggest wide variations in earnings based on who pursues short-term training and their field of study. For instance, men and women enroll in short-term training at comparable rates but graduates of male-dominated programs (e.g. truck driving, welding, computer and information systems security) earn significantly more than those who complete female-dominated programs in education and healthcare. Graduates of programs with a higher share of bachelor's degree holders such as computer and information systems security programs also tend to enter high-paying careers, suggesting that traditional college is still of high value. However, graduates of female-dominated and more racially diverse short-term training programs in home health and early childhood education have a larger share of college-educated students than male-dominated programs and still earn the least.

With the exception of nursing graduates, the average person who completes a common short-term training program of study earns at least the minimum wage. But whether one is earning a living wage depends on their family composition and financial obligations. According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which calculates state-specific living wage models to serve as alternative, more accurate measures of basic needs compared to the federal poverty threshold, the living wage for a single working adult in Washington State is $13.47/hour. A sole earner in a two-adult household must make $20.40/hour, whereas each working adult in a two-adult household must earn $10.20/hour to get by. Add dependent children and one’s required living wage increases.

Once again, many graduates of female-dominated short-term training programs fail to earn a living wage. As such, we can’t make sweeping policy decisions based on program averages or outlier programs with strong labor market outcomes that are not reflective of the experiences of most individuals.

Furthermore, proposals to devote more public dollars to short-term training are based on the flawed assumption that the cost of short-term training is what presents a persistent and pervasive structural barrier to high-quality, well-paying jobs. In many states, the public workforce system, state financial aid, and occupation-specific training subsidies fund short-term training programs. For instance, training for home care and early childhood jobs, which are in high demand, is offered at little or no cost in Washington. Yet these program graduates go on to earn the least. Even if public dollars were to fully fund these programs, many graduates would still land jobs that fail to pay a living wage.

It’s true that short-term training likely provides some value to graduates who acquire new and relevant job-related skills and credentials, and certainly to employers who benefit from a more qualified workforce. But the data on short-term training outcomes requires us to interrogate the underlying labor market conditions that perpetuate low wages for skilled work. Now is not the time for us to be short-sighted. We must resist the urge to harken back to our pre-pandemic economy, which left millions of workers, particularly women and people of color, behind. A recovery strategy that rests on quickly retraining individuals for in-demand, poor-paying jobs fails to address the structural flaws and inequities that have long existed in our country.

Enjoy what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter to receive updates on what’s new in Education Policy!