Research: State Practices Around Industry Certification (EERC Rutgers University)

Last Updated: 06/26/2024

Overview

The Education and Employment Research Center (EERC) at Rutgers University conducted a Survey of State Practices Around Industry Certification. The aim of the study was to provide a snapshot of state policy and practice around industry certification data.

From December 2023 to January 2024, the survey collected data on how states collect data on certifications and what they hope to collect in the future. The EERC surveyed 122 members in the State Noncredit Data Project (SNDP), as well as 18 noncredit data leaders from other states. There were 40 responses from 30 states, for a 29% response rate.

The SNDP is a learning community from more than 30 states and more than 72 organizations across the U.S. It is managed by the EERC.

Reported in April 2024, the study showed that while many states are interested in capturing industry certification data, few are able to systematically collect the data.

The study concluded that states that want to make progress in this area may need to build partnerships or leverage state and federal funding mechanisms to motivate key stakeholders.

Background

Industry certifications are time-limited nondegree credentials earned by passing a performance-based assessment that demonstrates a specific set of skills. Examples are CompTIA for IT professionals, or a Certified Medical Assistant certification for healthcare workers. These certifications are not issued by higher education institutions; they are issued through industry or professional groups.

Job seekers, certification providers, and employers want to know how many students receive them and how effective are they at boosting earnings and employment? But industry certifications are difficult nondegree credentials to measure, in large part because they are issued by third party providers who "own" the data. This then complicates data collection efforts.

Findings

The study found that state agencies and related influencers in most of the states want to capture industry certification data, but for the most part they are not capable of consistently doing so.

One in four respondents report that their organization currently collects information on which noncredit programs are associated with industry certifications. Many states are still developing processes for collecting industry certification data. Almost two-thirds of 30 respondents who answered a question about outcomes data report their state was actively collecting data on industry certification outcomes at the time the survey was conducted.

There are at least three different approaches to data collection, in order of popularity (many respondents are using two or more of these processes for collecting outcomes data, noting each method has drawbacks, particularly self-reported data which has validity problems): (1) self-reported from students; (2) directly from credential issuers; (3) employer surveys.

Beyond the inherent issue of needing to rely on third party providers for reliable information about industry certification earners, respondents described several challenges to collecting industry certification data, such as: (1) siloed state agencies, (2) strong local control of institutions, and (3) lack of centralized strategy.

Almost half of respondents are seeking to develop a deeper understanding of industry certification outcomes (e.g., completion rates, in-field employment, completer wages, earnings, upward mobility).

Many respondents want to determine the return on investment (ROI) of industry certification-connected programs. Some respondents highlighted the connection between program ROI and future funding requests; others the value of outcomes data in planning and growing these programs.

Several respondents indicated the types of industry credentials their states most want to capture in their datasets are: (1) those that focus on high-demand credentials, (2) those on the state’s approved credentials list, and (3) specific industries such as healthcare, renewable energy, or information technology.

Respondents are especially interested in collecting outcomes data, to inform program design decisions and demonstrate the value of industry certification-affiliated programs to state legislators and system leaders.

Data on industry certifications are challenging to capture. Industry certification data are highly decentralized and difficult to systematically collect. Three key factors are driving developments around data collection of certifications: partnerships, reporting requirements (federal and state funding mandates), and state funding formulas.

Partnerships with industry organizations across state agencies and other stakeholders enable some states to capture data they would not otherwise be able to access.
Reporting requirements for federal programs like Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOWA), guidelines for inclusion on the state’s Eligible Training Providers List (ETPL), or specific state mandates influence industry certification data collection efforts in some states.
State funding formulas shape industry certification data collection efforts in some states. For example, reimbursement for some noncredit programs is now based on certifications.

Conclusions

The study illuminates strategies stakeholders can use to promote data collection for industry certifications and the noncredit data infrastructure more broadly:

State noncredit leaders can work to develop data sharing relationships between state agencies, institutions, and third-party providers.
Policymakers can support efforts by providing resources for the collection and analysis of industry certification and other types of noncredit data.
While industry certification data collection is still in the early stages of development in most states, interest around non-degree credentials is growing and this is expected to spur data collection efforts.