Sector-specific job training
- Outcomes
- High-quality employment
Strategy overview
Training for well-paying jobs in growing industries with advancement potential: Sectoral training programs prepare participants for in-demand careers that have strong starting wages, strong local labor demand and clear opportunities for advancement. These programs typically serve youth and adults from underrepresented or economically disadvantaged backgrounds. They vary in length, from short-term (15 weeks) to longer-term (up to two years), depending on the industry and credentialing requirements.
A focus on technical, academic, and professional skills: Successful programs integrate industry-specific technical training with foundational academic instruction and professional skill development. Training often includes a mix of classroom instruction, hands-on learning, and employer-driven skill-building to ensure participants are job-ready.
Exposure to real-world work settings: Work-based learning opportunities—such as apprenticeships, internships, or structured employer placement partnerships—are central to effective programs. These experiences allow participants to apply their skills in professional settings, develop soft skills, and build relationships with potential employers.
Comprehensive supports to maximize completion: Sectoral training programs recognize that financial and logistical barriers can limit participation and completion and often provide intensive coaching and other support services. Programs are typically offered at no or low cost, with public investment, private donations, and subsidies from partner-employers covering student costs. Many offer tuition-free or low-cost training, alongside direct financial support such as stipends, transportation assistance, childcare support, and access to professional clothing. These resources help mitigate the opportunity costs of participation.
Strong connections to local employers: Employer involvement is critical to ensuring training aligns with workforce needs. Programs are often designed in collaboration with industry partners, who help shape curricula, provide work-based learning opportunities, and offer direct hiring pathways for graduates. This process creates a virtuous cycle, where participants are better prepared to meet the needs of employers than the general labor pool and employers, in turn, have a pipeline of skilled, job-ready workers.
There is strong evidence that sectoral job training programs can significantly improve employment outcomes and earnings for participants from low-income backgrounds. Rigorous studies, including multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), have identified a handful of sectoral programs that have produced substantial and sustained wage gains. Success is not guaranteed, however, as the reviews below document. Careful design and implementation are essential to ensure positive results. Experts generally agree that aligning training with employer needs, providing comprehensive support services, and incorporating work-based learning opportunities enhance program effectiveness. Programs tested to date have been relatively small, and adaptations that may be needed to scale them need careful designed and tested to ensure that impact are maintained across larger and varying populations and industries.
A 2022 research synthesis found that sector-specific employment programs lead to substantial increases in earnings, training and career services received, and attainment of occupational credentials and certificates.
A 2021 meta-analysis of sector-skill training found that the career pathways approaches – which typically embody sectoral training – can improve educational, and sometimes, employment and earnings, outcomes.
2024 research from the Pathways to Work Evidence Clearinghouse included a systematic review of 24 studies evaluating 23 interventions that employed occupational and sectoral training strategies. This review found that sectoral training can have positive impacts on education and training attainment, short- and long-term employment and short- and long-term earnings.
In 2023, quasi-experimental research from Mathematica found America’s Promise programs, a group of DOL-funded regional sectoral programs, had strong positive impacts on earnings in the two years following enrollment and strong positive impacts on employment.
A 2022 RCT of one of the most rigorously evaluated sectoral job training programs, Year Up, showed large positive earnings impacts and net societal benefits that persisted through a seven-year follow-up period.
A 2022 RCT of the WorkAdvance model, which rigorously evaluated four sectoral job training programs, found that one of these programs -- Per Scholas -- increased long-term earnings (by 14 percent) and accelerated career advancement into jobs with higher earnings at a higher rate than the control group seven years after study enrollment.
A 2024 RCT of sectoral training program Project QUEST found significant earnings impacts were sustained over a fourteen-year follow-up period. In this study QUEST participants earned an average of $54,280 more than control group members––a statistically significant 13.5 percent increase.
Before making investments in sector-specific job training, city and county leaders should ensure this strategy addresses local needs.
The Urban Institute and Mathematica have developed indicator frameworks to help local leaders assess conditions related to upward mobility, identify barriers, and guide investments to address these challenges. These indicator frameworks can serve as a starting point for self-assessment, not as a comprehensive evaluation, and should be complemented by other forms of local knowledge.
The Urban Institute's Upward Mobility Framework identifies a set of key local conditions that shape communities’ ability to advance upward mobility and racial equity. Local leaders can use the Upward Mobility Framework to better understand the factors that improve upward mobility and prioritize areas of focus. Data reports for cities and counties can be created here.
Several indicators in the Upward Mobility Framework may be improved with investments in high-quality programs. To measure these indicators and determine if investments in this strategy could help, examine the following:
- Employment opportunities: Ratio of pay on an average job to the cost of living. These data are available from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics’ Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.
- Access to jobs paying a living wage: Employment-to-population ratio for adults ages 25 to 54. These data are available from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and the Bureau of Labor and Statistics’ Local Area Unemployment Statistics.
- Opportunities for income: Household income at 20th, 50th, and 80th percentiles. These data are available from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
- Financial security: Share of households with debt in collections. These data are available from the Urban Institute’s Debt in America website.
Mathematica's Education-to-Workforce (E-W) Indicator Framework helps local leaders identify the data that matter most in helping students and young adults succeed. Local leaders can use the E-W framework to better understand education and workforce conditions in their communities and to identify strategies that can improve outcomes in these areas.
Several indicators in the E-W Framework may be improved with investments in high-quality programs. To measure these indicators and determine if investments in this strategy could help, examine the following:
- Access to in-demand CTE pathways: Number and percentage of CTE program offerings considered “in demand”.
- CTE pathway concentration: Percentage of CTE students who earn at least 12 credits within a CTE program, or complete such a program if it encompasses fewer than 12 credits in total.
- Expenditures on workforce development programming: The amount of funding dedicated to workforce development programs as a percentage of total educational funding in a state.
- Industry-recognized credential: Percentage of program participants who have completed at least one industry-recognized credential.
- Participation in work-based learning: Percentage of workforce training program participants who participate in a work-based learning opportunity before program completion.
Designing a responsive, comprehensive curriculum: Successful sectoral programs align training tracks with labor market data to ensure participants develop skills for in-demand jobs. Collaborating with employers to inform curriculum design helps keep training both comprehensive and current. Experts emphasize that a balanced approach—integrating both technical training and professional skills (see next bullet)—maximizes participants’ long-term employment prospects. Given ever-evolving labor market conditions, programs that build adaptability into their training can better prepare participants for sustained career success.
Developing participants’ career readiness through “durable skills:” Many evidence-based programs incorporate training in non-technical professional skills, sometimes called durable skills, which are essential for long-term employment success. Skills such as conflict resolution, time management, and critical thinking are widely recognized as particularly valuable. Experts also emphasize the importance of self-regulation, interpersonal communication, and professional workplace behavior, including appropriate dress and conduct. These skills not only enhance participants' performance during training but also improve their employment prospects and equip them to adapt to changes in the workplace and labor market over time.
Comprehensive supports to address barriers: Evidence shows that successful sectoral program models include services and supports that help participants overcome structural barriers to full participation in the program and social barriers to employment. These supports can range from job placement and retention services to counseling, mentorship and transportation assistance.
Earning industry-recognized credentials: Upon completion of sector-skill training programs (like registered apprenticeships), participants often receive specialized credentials. In some cases, this may include a certification or license to operate within a certain field; in less regulated fields like data analytics or project management, the credential may serve as an industry-recognized symbol of competency.
Providing work-based learning opportunities: Many high-quality sectoral training programs provide opportunities for participants to apply their training in the targeted sector through employer-hosted internships or other work-based learning experiences. These opportunities not only allow learners to earn as they learn but also provide valuable supervisor feedback that helps program administrators accurately measure skill. Additionally, these placements cultivate employers’ understanding of the participant population, build employer trust in the program, and increase the likelihood that employers will hire program graduates.
Utilizing a screening process to ensure the program reaches those who will benefit most: Screening processes vary by program but generally assess applicants for motivation, basic math and literacy skills, and the ability to commit to program requirements. They evaluate an applicant's dedication to completing the program and pursuing a career in the targeted sector. They assess foundational skills, particularly in mathematics and literacy, to ensure participants can engage effectively with the training material. In addition, they determine whether applicants can adhere to the program's schedule, attendance policies, and other commitments. Screens are not only meant to screen out candidates who do not meet the criteria but also applicants whose outcomes would be similar without the program. This helps programs allocate resources efficiently and enhance participant success rates.
Strategic and efficient performance measurement: Programs should define and track performance measures that provide real-time insights for administrators, rather than burdening staff with excessive data collection. Participant outcomes should be measured within clear, pre-defined timelines rather than relying on broad, generic "before and after" comparisons. Instead of solely depending on self-reported participant outcomes, programs should collaborate with local governments to access administrative data for tracking long-term impact more reliably.
|
Potential or past program participants: Members of the target population or program alumni can provide insights on program design and implementation, strengthening outcomes for the program’s intended audience.
Employers: Employers in target industry sectors need to be heavily involved to provide input on their labor needs and inform training curriculum for specific roles. Employers also provide crucial access to work-based learning experiences for program participants. Ideally, employers make a firm commitment to utilize the program as a hiring pipeline. Within these employers there should be buy-in at multiple levels, including executive leadership, human resources and management of the relevant business units.
Community-based organizations and leaders: Local activists, organizers, and leaders of community-based organizations can help program leaders connect to different local populations and learn valuable insights to inform program design. These partners may bring expertise and capacity to the implementation effort and can help reach those in the community who would benefit most from the program.
Social service providers: Social service providers can provide valuable wraparound services to program participants. This can increase training providers' ability to support participants in overcoming challenges that may otherwise prevent them from fully accessing the program.
Local government leaders: Jurisdictional leaders can play a critical role in convening stakeholders, setting priorities, and ensuring accountability. Elected or appointed officials can elevate the programs as a policy priority, champion the value of proven sectoral models over other workforce development programs, and advocate for public funding for evidence-based interventions. Their existing relationships with local organizations, institutions (such as community colleges) and employers uniquely position them to incentivize workforce system alignment and foster collaboration across the ecosystem.
State legislators and other government officials: Local policymakers, program designers, and sectoral training advocates should develop partnerships with state and federal decision-makers to advocate for funding. State-held administrative data can also help workforce leaders and evaluators to better measure program outcomes over time.
|
Recruitment, retention and completion: Track both recruitment and retention rates to ensure they are attracting, enrolling and supporting the population they are designed to serve. Strategically disaggregate the data to identify any sub-group trends or differentiation in completion.
Skill acquisition: Programs should implement regular assessments to monitor technical and durable skill competency, including performance feedback from employers hosting the work-based learning components of the program. The format of these assessments should follow instructional and learning best practices.
Earnings Increase: While increased earnings is a main objective of sectoral training programs, there isn't a standardized benchmark universally accepted by researchers to define a program's significant impact on post-program earnings. It is important to monitor earnings and other target outcomes to get a general indication that the program is on track (more rigorous research is needed to establish impact). Since populations and goals vary, each program should establish its own standards for gauging whether it is on track.
Job placement and quality: To understand if the sectoral program is providing access into the intended fields and roles, track both job placement rates and qualitative information about the roles attained. Quality is usually defined as full-time, paying a living wage and directly related to the training provided. Programs should strive to measure this at both short- and long-term intervals that are consistent with their theory of change.
Career mobility and growth trends: Whenever possible, look at longer-term outcomes like retention and mobility to gain valuable insights into whether the training is leading to durable, family-sustaining careers.
Resources
Evidence-based sector-specific job training models
|
|
Outcome Area |
This ranking reflects how these approaches are scored in one of the major government- or philanthropy-led clearinghouse resources. For more: https://catalog.results4americ... |
|---|---|---|
|
Connects adults to demand-driven, job-specific training and career and technical education
|
Stable and healthy families High-quality employment |
Evidence varies across specific models |
|
Feature small learning communities in low-income high schools, combining academic and technical or career curricula
|
High school graduation Post-secondary enrollment and graduation High-quality employment |
|
|
Career and academic support service programs that recruit and train students who are typically underrepresented in health careers
|
Post-secondary enrollment and graduation High-quality employment |
Evidence varies across specific models |
|
Community and technical college–based program providing demand-driven occupational training
|
High-quality employment |
|
|
A workforce-oriented high school model that aims to reduce barriers to entering STEM fields.
|
Post-secondary enrollment and graduation High-quality employment |
|
|
Employer-informed, tuition-free technology job training, mentoring, and job matching
|
High-quality employment |
|
|
Sector-based education and training for high-demand jobs in health services, business systems and IT, and maintenance and repair professions
|
High-quality employment |
|
|
Industry-specific on-the-job training, technical instruction, and industry-recognized certification for high-demand jobs
|
High-quality employment |
|
|
Prepares young adults for careers in information technology and financial operations
|
High-quality employment |
|
|
Provides job training in construction and other high-demand employment sectors
|
High school graduation High-quality employment |
|
Contributors
Dr. David Fein
Dr. David Fein is an independent consultant who has led evaluations of anti-poverty programs focused on welfare reform, family stability, and career pathways for low-income adults. He co-developed the first rigorous evaluation of career pathways through the nine-site PACE project and has extensively studied Year Up, a leading young adult workforce program. His evaluation of Year Up has shown the largest earnings gains measured in tests of training for low-income adults in the U.S. to date. Dr. Fein’s research has informed program design, employer engagement, and long-term outcomes, contributing significantly to evidence-based workforce training policy.
Harry Holzer
Harry Holzer is a nonresident senior fellow in Economic Studies at Brookings and the LaFarge SJ Professor at Georgetown’s McCourt School of Public Policy. A former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, he has also taught at Michigan State and held leadership roles at Georgetown’s Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy. He is affiliated with the American Institutes for Research, Institute for Research on Poverty, IZA, and Stanford’s Center on Poverty and Inequality. Holzer has authored extensive research on labor markets and poverty. He holds a B.A. and Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University.
Garrett Warfield
Garrett Warfield is Chief Research and Impact Officer at the National Recreation and Park Association. Previously, he served as Chief Research Officer at Year Up, where he built its research and evaluation department and led studies demonstrating the largest earnings gains for young adults without college degrees. He has partnered with top research institutions to promote skills-first hiring and continues to advise leading workforce training programs. Warfield holds degrees in psychology, criminology, and justice policy from Boston University, Middlesex University (UK), and Northeastern University.
Max Milder
Max Milder is a director in the Insights practice at JFFLabs. He oversees the research and design of JFF’s market scans and supports research efforts across the organization. Before joining JFF, Milder was head of market research at Coursera, where his research supported the development of new accessible, low-cost online degrees. Previously, he spent eight years at EAB, leading a research practice serving higher education leaders in adult and online education.
Richard Hendra
Richard Hendra is a national leader in applying data analytics to strengthen social programs and boost economic mobility. As founding director of the Center for Data Insights at MDRC, he develops innovative strategies to help government agencies and nonprofits use data to better serve communities. His work spans education, workforce development, housing, and emergency preparedness. With a Ph.D. in public and urban policy, Hendra also advises major foundations, policy organizations, and academic institutions on using evidence to design more effective, equitable programs nationwide.