������Ƶ

Without knowing many rural community colleges, you could be forgiven for worrying about their capacity to adapt to a significant policy shift or introduce new programs quickly.  But the secret is out: rural colleges have real strengths, particularly when it comes to Workforce Pell. These institutions are deeply rooted in their communities and well-positioned to meet local workforce training needs. Other institutions serving rural communities–and their suburban and urban counterparts–can learn from some of these powerhouse colleges as they consider how to implement Workforce Pell.  

Take Northeast Community College in Nebraska. ������Ƶ 150 miles north of Lincoln, the college serves more than 14,000 students across a 14,400-square-mile service area. Northeast has strong outcomes for a student body facing significant challenges: 44 percent of Northeast students are considered low-income based on median household income. Yet, after five years in the workforce, graduates are earning 17 percent above the living wage, an artifact of the college’s deep integration with the local workforce.

That integration shows up in nearly universal applied or work-based learning experiences in industries like rural power and diesel, as well as the opportunity to literally dig into the college’s 650-acre working farm. “It’s the norm to have an internship, for it to be paid, and related to the academic experience,” shared Leah Barrett, president of the college. Northeast reinforces this by paying faculty to serve as internship supervisors, resulting in a robust, high-quality set of experiences for students.

President Barrett serves on the Workforce Pell Task Force convened by the Nebraska Department of Labor, and her college is well-positioned to offer eligible programs. Still, state Workforce Pell policies must reflect the realities of rural workforce programs to ensure these colleges can succeed. 

First, definitions of “high-wage” and “high-demand”, as well as the value-added earnings metric, should reflect local economic conditions. Many rural areas have a lower cost of living than their urban counterparts. And low population density means employers may need only a few workers each year, so only a small number of students enroll in community college workforce training programs. With such small cohorts, the college may not be able to offer such a program every year. As Barrett put it, “Can you justify offering a program when your class size is eight every other year? We’re not able to offer the class every six weeks… because there’s not enough humans to enroll.” At the same time, producing just those eight graduates may be enough to meet local demand. 

States already have workforce boards that understand regional variation, and while the earnings measure adjusts for cost of living, state policymakers should ensure that data, metrics, and processes capture these local differences. More granular data on employer demand and graduate wages would also help colleges plan effectively and ensure that students and employers are well served.

Next, financial sustainability is a long-term planning challenge. With small program sizes and unpredictable demand, it is difficult to plan staffing and investments. Hiring a faculty member to run a program is a significant bet on future demand and, like any forecast, it does not always pan out. Meanwhile, the additional funding from Workforce Pell is relatively modest, making it risky to launch new programs with startup costs for instructors and equipment. 

Aligning state financial aid programs with Workforce Pell can increase support for both students and institutions, helping alleviate this pressure. Many states already fund short-term workforce programs. In Nebraska, for example, the Community College Gap Assistance Program covers similar programs, and policymakers are exploring how to better align it with Workforce Pell. Managing the risk of program startup and instruction costs is a challenge everywhere, but rural colleges with small overall enrollment can face greater risk when those bets do not pay off. 

Finally, state policymakers should count continued education as a successful outcome. Workforce Pell programs must stack and, if offered as noncredit, must articulate into credit-bearing pathways so students can continue seamlessly toward a degree. But proposed regulations do not count continued enrollment as a positive outcome in job placement rates. This creates a real challenge. Rural colleges often know that additional education is necessary for students to succeed locally. For example, electrical linemen are among the highest-paid certificate-level occupations, but in rural Nebraska, employers prefer workers with an associate of applied science degree so they can operate independently. In smaller labor markets, that level of preparation matters. 

If accountability rules make it harder for colleges to meet benchmarks when students continue their education, institutions may be discouraged from helping students reach the level they actually need. Adjusting Workforce Pell incentives so colleges are not penalized when students pursue further education would better align policy with practice. To reduce the risk of misuse, this could be limited to enrollment in credit-bearing programs that Workforce Pell programs are designed to stack with or articulate into.

Rural community colleges are the workforce engines of their communities. They are well-positioned to help people access good jobs, meet local hiring needs, and to make Workforce Pell effective. Now, federal and state policy needs to account for rural contexts to ensure these colleges are set up for success with Workforce Pell.