New study finds 35% of credential programs track learner outcomes

JANSON Research & Strategy says its new report exposes a gap between how strongly credential providers believe employers value their programs and the limited evidence they collect after learners finish. The study also flags weak outcome tracking, uneven assessment practices, and limited AI and equity governance across participating programs.

Why it matters: - The study says credential providers are making strong claims about value, but many are not collecting the evidence needed to prove what happens after someone earns a credential. - That gap affects learners, employers, policymakers, and providers in a credential marketplace that included 1.85 million unique credentials from more than 134,000 U.S. providers in 2025. - The total credential ecosystem represented about $2.34 trillion in annual expenditures, including degrees, certificates, certifications, licenses, badges, microcredentials, and other documented achievements.

What happened: - JANSON Research & Strategy released a new study on quality, relevance, assessment, artificial intelligence practices, and value across professional credential and certification programs. - The report, titled The Currency of Credentials, analyzes provider responses and compares confidence in program value with evidence of post-completion outcomes. - Only 35% of participating programs systematically track outcomes for credential or certification holders. - 91% of participating programs say employers recognize and value the credentials or certifications they award. - Dr. Elisa Janson Jones, research lead at JANSON Research & Strategy, said providers may have reason to believe their programs create value, but belief and evidence are not the same. - Jones said a value claim becomes harder to defend when an organization cannot show post-credential outcomes.

The details: - 71% of programs with formal assessment rely exclusively on multiple-choice or other selected-response formats. - 88% say their competencies reflect current professional work. - 52% systematically monitor labor-market change. - Among programs using AI, 100% reported human review of final credential decisions. - Only 40% of AI-using programs had a formal AI governance framework. - 83% say flexible delivery increases equitable access. - 46% monitor participation and completion by group. - 70% of substantive responses about barriers cited staffing, time, funding, or related resource limits. - Workcred has separately documented a persistent shortage of systematic outcomes information for certifications and other credentials. - Workcred says outcomes data have often been fragmented and incomplete even as employers and policymakers seek evidence on employment, wages, career mobility, and education. - The report says the full PDF includes the methodology, item-level denominators, limitations, 12 exhibits, and a technical appendix, and is available as a free download from JANSON Research & Strategy.

Between the lines: - The report argues that quality intent is outpacing quality infrastructure. - Providers appear to understand what stronger practice looks like, but many lack the staffing, time, funding, or systems to sustain it. - The finding is not that selected-response tests are inherently weak, but that assessment methods must match the claims a program makes. - The same logic applies to competency claims: confidence that content reflects current work is not the same as maintaining a process that detects shifts in occupations, tasks, technologies, or expectations. - The study is exploratory and uses purposive outreach and chain-referral sampling, so the percentages describe participating programs rather than the whole credentialing field. - JANSON says the observed pattern amounts to a value-evidence gap: employers may recognize a credential, but providers often lack systematic proof of learner outcomes.

What's next: - Dr. Jones expanded the research into a companion Strategic Brief with recommendations for certification providers. - The brief lays out five value mechanisms, two main improvement levers, six strategic priorities, 18 practical moves, four diagnostic tests, and a 90-day sequence for deciding where to start. - JANSON says the recommendations emphasize proportionality, not wholesale redesign. - Program leaders are urged to define exactly what a credential promises, test whether current evidence supports that promise, and target improvements based on purpose, sector, accreditation obligations, and capacity. - Later this month, JANSON Research & Strategy plans to launch a separate study on AI training methods called Ready or Not: A national study of how organizations across sectors are preparing their people to work with artificial intelligence.

The bottom line: - The report’s central message is simple: confidence in a credential’s value is not enough without outcome data to back it up.