Opening Workforce Pell to Noncredit Programs will Leave Students Worse Off and Waste Taxpayer Dollars

Noncredit workforce development programs are getting a lot of attention as some proponents push to make them eligible for the Workforce Pell funding that will be available on July 1, 2026 from H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

A longstanding TICAS concern about low-quality, short-term programs is that they have historically left students worse off. Our research and analysis have frequently advocated that the federal government bolster student protections and take steps to prevent bad actors and subpar programs from accessing federal aid. With the expansion of Pell for short-term workforce programs, these concerns remain and will require states to play a greater role in protecting current and future students and workers.

While not all noncredit workforce development programs may be of low-quality and expose students to predatory and fraudulent practices, there are at least four reasons why state leaders should approach these programs’ eligibility for Workforce Pell with caution:

• The lack of noncredit data infrastructure at the state and institutional levels;
• The potential worsening of student transfer outcomes;
• The unintended consequences of transferring training costs away from employers; and
• The erosion of students’ limited lifetime Pell eligibility.

The state noncredit data infrastructure is very spotty.

Congress tasked states with identifying which programs will be eligible for Workforce Pell. When they assess evidence to determine which programs might qualify for these funds based on the criteria provided by Congress (see INSERT) they will quickly realize that for noncredit programs the information needed to make these decisions just doesn’t exist. What we know about the eight states in Rutgers University’s State Noncredit Data Project is that none of them have complete data on all noncredit credential outcomes—if any—including whether the noncredit program graduate went on to pursue and complete any postsecondary credential. Across all states, Virginia collects the most noncredit data across a range of categories, including academic outcomes, labor market outcomes, and course and program tuition costs—but even its data on noncredit credential outcomes is incomplete. The absence of data elevates the risk that states may move forward by relying on spotty data, and should give federal policymakers pause, as well.

It will be very difficult for noncredit programs to meet the portability, stackability, and transferability requirements baked into Workforce Pell.

To reiterate, every eligible Workforce Pell program must prepare students to pursue a related certificate or degree (from the same or a different provider) and ensure that their short-term program will be accepted for credit toward that degree or certificate.

The Community College Research Center (CCRC) defines stackable credentials as “sequential postsecondary awards that allow individuals to progress on a career path” and has found that noncredit credentials are frequently (and mistakenly) conflated with stackable credentials. Less than five percent of all credential holders have earned stackable credentials. The CCRC has also worked with five colleges to improve the data collection necessary for them to build noncredit-to-credit pathways, which suggests that the lack of noncredit data infrastructure is both a state and institutional issue.

We also can’t ignore how challenging it has always been for students taking credit-bearing courses to get those credits recognized or applied toward their degree program when they attempt to transfer from one institution to another. Many students experience credit loss when they attempt to transfer their credits to a new institution, and when they are accepted, it is usually in the form of elective credits that may not apply toward the degree or certificate program. Those issues are likely to be more acute with noncredit programs that are transferred to an individual college through a credit for prior learning arrangement.

Beware of the unintended consequences of transferring program costs from employers to the public

Employers have always played a role in financing their employees’ noncredit education and training, including in states that appropriate dollars to noncredit and short-term credential programs. Workforce Pell may transfer costs from the private sector to the public sector without an associated benefit to students. State and local leaders will also need to pay extra attention to the programs without strong labor market outcomes and the economic impact these programs will have on the individuals, communities, and regions in their state.

Lifetime Pell eligibility implications

Workforce Pell Grants count toward students’ six-year lifetime Pell Grant allotment, so students who use Pell for a short-term credential will have fewer semesters of eligibility available should they choose to pursue an associate, bachelor’s, or other degree program in the future.

The amount of time, energy, and resources that both state and college leaders would need to spend to make noncredit programs eligible for Workforce Pell may be better spent creating new, for-credit programs that meet the requirements of the new federal law. Nonetheless, to reduce the risks for students and workers who wish to take advantage of Workforce Pell funding, state and institutional leaders must improve state data collection; ensure credential alignment, transferability, and stackability across providers; consider new ways to hold employers financially accountable; and be prepared to address the long-term impacts on a student’s lifetime Pell eligibility. Our model state legislation offers a starting point that will help states improve their ability to assess the quality of Workforce Pell programs, bolster student protections, and prevent bad actors and subpar programs from accessing this significant expansion of federal aid.