Short-term workforce training programs have short-term effects
A Pell Grant experiment fails to produce results
Under current law, Pell Grants provide federal financial aid to low-income students, but only those students who are pursuing their initial undergraduate degree, and for programs that require at least one semester of instruction.
Some federal policymakers (not to mention Linda McMahon, Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education) have expressed interest in potentially easing these requirements and letting students access Pell Grants after they have already earned a college degree, as a supplement, or to pursue degrees and certificates that are much shorter in duration.
The timing couldn’t be better for a new study out this week from the Institute of Education Sciences looking at two experiments testing these Pell Grant eligibility questions. Experiment 1 provided a random sample of students with access to Pell Grants after they had already earned a bachelor’s degree. Experiment 2 provided a random sample of students access to Pell Grants even though they were pursuing relatively short credentials (requiring an average of just 11 weeks of training).
In the short run, both experiments produced promising results. Being offered a Pell Grant significantly increased enrollment and subsequent completion rates. It also increased completion rates in high-demand programs, as defined by occupations that the U.S. Department of Labor projected to grow rapidly, to have a large number of job openings, or be new and emerging occupations in high-growth fields.
In numeric terms, Experiment 2, the one that provided support for students pursuing short-term programs, boosted enrollment rates by 15 percentage points, completion rates by 9 percentage points, and completion in a high-demand field by 8 percentage points. All of these were statistically significant. That may seem like a reasonable investment for an average cost of only $1,312 per student.
Except… the effects didn’t translate into improved employment outcomes. The experimental programs ran from November 2012 to March 2017. The new IES study followed the students over time and found that, compared to the control groups who did not get the Pell Grant aid, they did not have higher employment rates or earnings throughout the course of 2020 or 2021.
Now, it’s possible we should discount the follow-up study because it took place during the COVID-19 years, but the researchers broke out the results during the worst of the economic downturn and as the economy roared back to life. You might think the extra boost would give the treatment group an edge over their peers, but throughout both years, the bonus Pell Grant recipients did no better than the comparison group who received no extra federal aid.
You might also want to know more about which specific programs the students used the money for. Experiment 1 students were more likely to earn credentials in health professions, business and marketing, or computer and information sciences. Experiment 2 students were mostly earning credentials in “transportation and materials moving,” health professions, and construction trades. You might quibble with these specific trades and ask whether they were truly “high-demand,” but the study relied on the best thinking at the time from the U.S. Department of Labor. If students were gaining “high-demand” credentials and still not finding meaningful work, well, that says something about our ability to predict what programs are likely to provide meaningful career opportunities, and it should cast doubt on how successful such an experiment would be if scaled up nationwide.
But ultimately, the results of these Pell Grant experiments fall broadly in line with the findings on other short-term training and credentials programs. They may help students somewhat, at least in the short term, but the gains aren’t enough to lift someone up out of poverty or even to a more meaningful standard of living.