Evidence of their impacts are limited, but some patterns can be observed, it\u2019s believed. These include that \u201ctargeted and short-term credentials have labour market value, but this depends on the program and learner profiles, and on how labour market impact is defined and measured.\u201d<\/p>\n

So, what appears to be the case? First, \u201cthe longer the program, the better the outcomes.\u201d Second, \u201cprograms that are specifically linked to in-demand or growing industries show better outcomes.\u201d Third, \u201ctargeted and short-term credentials appear to work well when \u2018topping-up\u2019 existing \u2026 education.\u201d However, \u201cthose with no previous work experience or a long history of unemployment are less likely to earn targeted, short-time credentials and appear to benefit less from them.\u201d They also need additional support.<\/p>\n

In relation to likely impacts the paper suggests that \u201cworkers over 45 might experience comparatively weaker outcomes\u201d and \u201cthe evidence regarding the link between gender and labour market outcomes is contradictory.\u201d<\/p>\n

It also identifies a series of features that \u201cenhance employability, labour market participation and outcomes among completers.\u201d These include \u201ccloser involvement of employers\/industry actors, accessible information on labour market outcomes, tailored program design\u201d and support measures including social and financial support.<\/p>\n

In short, and as the paper notes:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe labour market value of micro-credentials depends on offering the right, targeted programs for specific learner groups.\u201d<\/p>\n

Other issues are canvassed in the paper including their value, or not, to disadvantaged learners.<\/p>\n

Finally, the paper raises 5 key issues for policy discussion. These are summarized in the figure below and explained in greater detail in the paper itself:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n