Well-designed job training programs help people land higher-paying jobs.
In the United States, policymakers should expand the job training programs that we know work. Well-designed, evidence-informed programs are already helping workers move from lower-paying jobs to higher-paying ones. More funding for these evidence-based sectoral employment programs will expand their reach and impact, helping more people find good jobs.
Practitioners and researchers should test sectoral training models in other places. Job training programs around the world on average increase people’s earnings modestly, but results vary a lot by program. Governments and NGOs should build off the promising program features backed by existing evidence, and explore more ways to design these programs for impact.
Around the world, many people struggle to find work or do not make enough income to get by even when employed. While global unemployment rates reached record lows in 2024, women and youth continued to face high unemployment, and many workers are stuck in low-paying or low-quality jobs. In the United States, workers without college degrees often struggle to secure jobs that pay well. Yet many businesses report the opposite problem: 74 percent of employers in a global survey said they can’t find skilled candidates. With the right skills, job seekers are in a better position to find and keep a rewarding job, while businesses can gain the workforce they need to grow.
In the United States, sector-specific job training programs with core features help people land higher-paying jobs and earn more. Designed to train job seekers for employment in specific industries with strong hiring demand and opportunities for career growth, these industry-tailored programs often deliver lasting increases in incomes. The most successful programs combine effective features: (1) an eligibility screening for traits like basic skills and motivation, (2) skills training that leads to certification or credentials and is targeted to a specific in-demand high-paying industry such as health care or IT, (3) soft skills training in areas like time management, (4) additional services such as counseling or job placement support, (5) strong connections to employers, and sometimes (6) additional financial support.
Job training programs designed to help job seekers in low- and middle-income countries have had mixed success at raising incomes. Some of the promising features of these programs include incorporating practical work experience, teaching a mix of soft skills and hard skills, and providing an industry-recognized certificate that serves as a useful signal to employers about a job seeker’s qualifications. Yet these results reflect not only differences in program design and implementation quality, but also very different job markets that people face when they finish these programs.
Practitioners and researchers should test sectoral training models in other places, including in low- and middle-income countries. They should learn if the sectoral employment model from the United States that focuses on high-paying and in-demand sectors can work in settings with different (and often less well-paying) job opportunities. In low- and middle-income countries, workers are often self-employed, many jobs are informal, and businesses tend to be small. If organizations can adapt sectoral training models to identify the right sectors to focus on and help people transition into better paying work, it has the potential to open doors for job seekers in these places.
“[Advancing evidence-informed job training programs in the United States] is a model of pushing for evidence and finding the mechanisms [behind program success]—and a lot of cooperation from a tremendous group of NGOs and local governments."
—Lawrence Katz, Harvard professor and J-PAL affiliate
Cost and design considerations
In the United States, the long-term impacts of sector-specific job training programs can outweigh their costs. The most effective job training programs include design features that can be expensive to implement. But the long-term impact of increasing participants’ incomes can outweigh the initial costs of high-quality training programs. In the United States, sectoral employment programs have often delivered lasting income gains outweighing the program cost.
For example, YearUp job training participants earned $38,484 more in the first five years after the program, which cost $23,135 per participant—a difference of $15,349. In other words, there was a net gain of $1.66 for every $1 spent on the program. To make the most of job training investments, it’s important to improve programs using evidence-informed designs and measure long-term impacts on employment and earnings.
When designing job training programs, it’s important to pick the right sectors and the right skills. In the United States, for example, targeted sectors have typically included health care, information technology, and manufacturing because these types of jobs tend to come with relatively high starting wages and opportunities for career advancement. Programs that focus on employment generally, rather than sectors with high wages or high demand for workers, will likely not have the same lasting impact. In addition, programs should teach skills that will set program participants up for success in the wider job market—those that are job-specific, but not specific only to a single employer.
Policymakers who are designing training programs should tackle the key barriers trainees actually face to getting a job. These barriers can be more than just technical skills. For example, in rural Bangladesh, many young people could not afford to complete a one-month garment-sector training or move for jobs, so offering training alone did not improve employment or earnings. Cash for living and moving costs, alone or with a short paid internship, increased both in this case. Women often face unique barriers like more family responsibilities. In Colombia, women with young children who got a higher stipend to participate in training, meant to offset childcare costs, had higher incomes shortly after the program. Soft skills training also shows promise by complementing technical training.
When designing job training programs, it’s important to pick the right sectors and the right skills.
Implementing partners
Implementers bring deep local knowledge, technical expertise, and a commitment to evaluation and learning as they bring these programs to life. Many organizations run evidence-informed programs, including the following (listed in alphabetical order); this list is not exhaustive.
- BRAC (Uganda)
- MDRC (United States)
- Per Scholas (United States)
- Project Quest, Inc. (United States)
- Sama (Kenya)
- Year Up United (United States)
The role of government
Governments have collaborated with researchers, the private sector, and civil society to design and fund successful targeted job training programs. In Colombia, the government partnered with private companies to run Jóvenes en Acción (Youth in Action), a free job training program for young people aged 18 to 25 that reached 80,000 people.
In the United States, many successful programs have received state or federal funding or have partnered with local government agencies to deliver training. As just two examples of many, a program called WorkAdvance was developed in part by the New York City Mayor’s office and received federal funding, and Massachusetts Governor’s office also funded free targeted job training programs.
The role of foreign assistance and philanthropy
In the United States, philanthropy has played a major role in funding research to help understand the impact of targeted job training programs, often matching federal funds. The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Robin Hood Foundation, and the Open Society Foundations have each funded key research, often matching or expanding the reach of federal funding, including from the Social Innovation Fund and the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Internationally, multilateral and bilateral donors have funded research that has informed the design and impact of vocational training and apprenticeships. Major donors include the World Bank’s Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund (SIEF), Canada’s International Development Research Centre, and the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office.
Discover more from J-PAL
Discover more from other sources
Photos:
(1) Credit: Shutterstock.com
(2) Credit: Sunshine Seeds, Shutterstock.com



