This section presents insights from several higher education practitioners who are actively engaged in credential-focused partnerships based on interviews. These professionals shared their experiences and lessons learned through collaborations with government, corporate, and nonprofit organizations. The following summarizes their insights regarding the principles and practices that contribute to effective partnerships.
Credential Development
Credentials are developed in ways that are meaningful to the learners they aim to serve. Often employers and sometimes learners were consulted during the credential development process ensuring the credentials were relevant and practical. Based on this input, credentials were developed to be stand alone, incremental, and stackable. For those that were stackable, they applied toward multiple degree paths to offer maximum flexibility to the learner. One interviewee stated, “So now here’s a pathway for anybody to maintain employment, maintain benefits, and stack their way to a profession that’s a great profession and it has a living wage.”
The credentials were built with a consideration for the flow of education and work, and intentional on- and off-ramps linked to employment and workforce development needs. Additionally, shorter investments of time (e.g., 8 weeks for a credential) were often cited as a key credential attribute so that learners could be quickly upskilled, reskilled or newly skilled for employment. These credentials were developed as both non-credit and credit programs.
Marketing Credentials
Credentials were marketed in ways that resonated with learners. For example, descriptions included information about job opportunities, career progression, and potential salaries. Promotional messaging highlighted the benefits of pursuing credentials while addressing commitments like time investment and balancing family, work, and school. Initial marketing focused on the first credential in a sequence, with later messaging emphasizing stackability and subsequent credentials relevant to the learner's journey. The promotional language was developed to appeal to both learners and employers.
For example, one institution targeted learners transitioning from high school. They stated, “A lot of people in our program are 19 or 20 because they didn’t know [about the credential]. If we can make them aware earlier, it gives them a kick start out of high school to say, ‘Here you go.”
Reducing/Removing Barriers
Institutions have found that established systems and processes can complicate learner success by creating unnecessary barriers. Areas such as application procedures, registration, billing processes, and awards need to be re-evaluated in the context of incremental credentials. Most of these processes were originally designed for full degree programs, which do not always accommodate smaller credentials effectively. For instance, the application for graduation is structured around an academic calendar, making sense for degree programs but often confusing and irrelevant for microcredentials or other smaller offerings.
An important aspect of removing barriers involves prioritizing student needs. One practitioner noted, “[We’re asking] how do you, student, want to meet the end goal?” Another added, “We've done all of that stuff for them behind the scenes, so all they have to do is show up to class and get trained. They don't have to monkey around with the processes.” This dedication to student support underscores a commitment to customer service, as one interviewee remarked, “Our customers are students that are taking the programs, and we talk about customer service proudly.”
Access to financial aid also poses a challenge for learners pursuing incremental credentials. To address this, institutions have identified and combined a variety of funding sources—including public workforce funding, state aid, and employer tuition assistance—to help cover the costs of tuition and fees.
Partnership Goals
Degree attainment and enrollment revenue were not typically seen as primary partnership objectives. Instead, the focus was on ensuring access to education through enrollment in both credit and non-credit courses and credentials. One practitioner stated, “[Degree completion] is not a requirement. I would call it an opportunity.” Another expressed, “(After the initial noncredit course), I am truly agnostic about whether they continue in higher education or if they take an offramp and get a job.”
The partnerships were designed to align with the institution’s mission and values. While enrollment may provide additional benefits, it was not the core focus. Instead, learner employability and stackability of courses and credentials were emphasized as essential to a learner-centered approach. These courses and credentials are aligned with national and local industry standards to enhance employability.
One practitioner remarked, “We want to be able to stack you to a living wage career, but we're not afraid to start you off in an entry-level low-paid career as long as that pathway is cohesive.”
Measures of Success
Partnerships typically prioritized student-focused metrics rather than institutional outcomes. Key indicators of student-focused ROI include course enrollment, job placement, and salary progression. Course completion was considered successful if it enabled learners to demonstrate workplace competencies or secure a job. ROI represented the potential earnings for the learner against the investment they made in the credential.
In some cases, there was also a measure of the impact the credential had on the community being served by the partnership. Institutional ROI is often not a primary goal, and therefore was not measured. The practitioners indicated that the evaluation of the partnerships is approached with a long-term perspective. Breakeven is not anticipated in the short term.
A notable perspective shared by one practitioner was, “One class, one certificate that is meaningful and has market value, even without earning a degree, is seen as a measure of success.”
Considerations for Development and Growth
Pilot programs are beneficial for initiating credential development, allowing projects to commence quickly. Key strategies for success included collaborating with interested colleagues, both internal and external. Successful practitioners identified opportunities within existing systems for faster implementation, such as non-matriculated offerings that don’t require state approval. Practitioners expanded programs once proof of concept was established through the pilot, thereby attracting additional internal and external collaborators. They also leveraged institutional reputation to catalyze partnership formation and maintain momentum.
Sharing learners' stories effectively promotes and supports partnership growth and were used by external partners who often assist in marketing efforts through community-based recruiting and word-of-mouth referrals.
With a successful partnership, managing expectations for revenue generation becomes crucial. Effective communication with leadership is vital, even if targets are not met. One practitioner emphasized, “You can’t get discouraged in those lulls of time; you have to be vocal and communicate with leadership… here’s what we have, this many people, our goal, here’s where we are marketing.”
Although the primary partnership program might focus on enrollment, there are often adjacent revenue-generating possibilities and parallel partnership spin-offs. These initiatives can attract a demographically diverse population, including variations in age, race, and first-generation status.
Workplace Connections Are Critical
The development of credentials was driven by the need to address industry demands effectively. There was a pressing need for the rapid development and marketing of short-term credentials to meet workforce demands. As one practitioner noted, “Who is the person I can bring in with the least amount of effort to get them where they need to be [to be hired]?”
Academic offerings must align with industry standards while maintaining academic integrity. This can occur through collaborating with industry partners during credential development to create seamless pathways from credentialing to employment and tailoring courses and credentials for diverse partners within the same industry. One partner emphasized, “If I don’t meet [individual partner needs], I’m not going to get any microcredential completion at all.”
Enhancing learner-industry interaction was essential. Employers attended events, served as guest lecturers, offered presentations and engaged with learners at career fairs.
It is vital that both academic institutions and industry partners maintain flexibility and acknowledge their differing work cultures. This flexibility has implications for meeting locations, project timelines and/or processes. As one practitioner put it, “A lot of times it is easier to go and develop that relationship by meeting them at their place and having that conversation there, seeing how they work and what their needs are.” Another emphasized the divergence in focus, “Educators look at things in terms of process. The industry partners want outcomes and could care less about how you get there.” The urgency of industry operations poses challenges, as noted by one expert, “Industry doesn’t wait for [our long timelines]; they are not educators.”
Acknowledging these challenges, one institution revised job postings to attract more applicants by using broad job category titles rather than specific functional titles. Matches to specific jobs were determined during the interview process. As one practitioner observed, “Our students are also very intentional about what they apply for and don’t because if they see a position and believe they don’t qualify, they won’t apply.”
