SkillUp & Barclays Together Fund Report

The SkillUp Together Fund sought to provide grant funding to help lower the barriers to enrollment in high-quality career pathway programs. This analysis compares outcomes for learners who were fund recipients to outcomes for non-recipients across two providers. Multivariate regressions (binary logistic and linear) were performed separately for each provider per outcome, including graduation rate, certification rate, employment in tech rate, time to obtain an initial job, as well as 3- and 6-month post program employment rates. Results patterns indicate a generally positive, if somewhat modest, impact of the SUTF on outcomes such as graduation, certification, and post-program employment rates. While not all differences between fund recipients and non-recipients were statistically significant, the descriptive patterns indicate more favorable outcomes for fund recipients. Overall, these results indicate that there is promise in providing stipends to learners that include financial support payments.

One of the most significant and clear learnings from SkillUp’s first two years is the financial burden faced by workers looking to upskill. Those who recognize upskilling as a critical next step in their career are often deterred by program costs or the need to cover living expenses while training for a new career. For this exact reason, in partnership with Social Finance, SkillUp launched the SkillUp Together Fund in February 2021. The fund was launched with the goal of connecting low-income individuals to $1,000 in grant funding to help lower the barrier to enrollment in high-quality programs in promising career pathways. To qualify for the grant, the recipient had to be over 18 years of age, not have a bachelor’s degree, and have earned less than $40,000 in the prior year. At the time of launch, the SkillUp Together Fund partnered with training providers that were vetted for alignment with the target population, outcomes, and data sharing standards. The funds were provided directly to the training providers to administer to qualified students, and the use of the grant included direct cash stipends to students, tuition reduction, and other wrap-around services.

Although many studies have evaluated the overall impact of workforce development programs that include stipends, few have studied the isolated impact of financial support payments. Of these analyses, many have found that stipends allow those most at risk of financial difficulties to stay enrolled in and benefit from training. For example, MDRC’s 2012 summary of the outcomes of the Employment Retention and Advancement project found that “\\[e\\]arnings supplements, tied to job retention and that help to make low wage work pay, ideally coupled with job coaching, can promote sustained employment and advancement” while “\\[b\\]y themselves, counseling and referrals to services to help people stay employed do not appear to increase employment retention and advancement.” A 2015 review of research in workforce development found that stipends were particularly important for “low-income parents—especially single parents—...to make it possible to enter and remain in training programs.”

That said, the evidence base is limited - and in fact, we think it might be non-existent - on the impact of cash supplements used for social support services (e.g., childcare or transportation) and other non-cash items (e.g., equipment and supplies). This research seeks to address these knowledge gaps by analyzing outcomes for learners who were fund recipients compared to non-recipients.