This working paper describes the latest updates to the Workforce Almanac—a first-of-its-kind effort to understand workforce training at a system-wide level—following its launch in November 2023.

The Workforce Almanac open-source directory (available at http://www.workforcealmanac.com) now includes more than 20,000 short-term workforce training providers across the U.S., up from nearly 17,000 in 2023. It continues to offer the most comprehensive view to date of U.S. workforce training providers, capturing more recent publicly available data about federal Registered Apprenticeship providers, nonprofit providers, Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)-eligible training providers, and higher education providers.

In addition to providers’ names, locations, and types, the Workforce Almanac has been expanded to include Employer Identification Numbers (EINs) for about 60% of the providers, and revenue and expense information for about 20% of the providers. For nonprofit providers, new methods were applied to examine text-rich fields of IRS data sources and surface training providers not classified originally by the IRS as workforce training providers.

For the first time, we have made the Workforce Almanac codebook available (https://github.com/ProjectOnWorkforce/workforce-almanac). With those improvements, we have strengthened users' ability to integrate the Workforce Almanac data with other data.

This working paper uses the updated and expanded version of the Workforce Almanac to analyze the presence of different types of short-term, post-high school workforce training providers across the U.S., demonstrating that:

More than two-thirds of training organizations represented in the Almanac are not eligible for federal funding under WIOA;
The Midwest is the region most served by workforce training providers, with the largest overall share of providers when adjusted for labor force and unemployed populations and the highest ratios of WIOA-eligible providers, job training nonprofits, and Registered Apprenticeships sponsors for every 100k workers and 100k unemployed people;
The number and makeup of workforce training providers serving communities in different states and territories vary widely:
- Puerto Rico (6.1), West Virginia (5.6), and Arkansas (4.2) have the highest ratios of institutions of higher education that primarily provide short-term workforce training per 100k workers—more than the national and regional averages;
- Wyoming has over 15.2 WIOA-eligible providers per 100k workers—more than 12 times the number of WIOA-eligible providers per 100k workers in Hawaii, the state with the smallest ratio;
- Washington DC has over 24 job training nonprofits per 100k workers—more than three times the state with the second highest ratio, Delaware;
- California has over 300 Registered Apprenticeship sponsors, the highest total number of any other state or territory, followed by Texas (181), New York (166), Illinois (161), and Florida (154).

Introduction

Since the launch of the Workforce Almanac (http://www.workforcealmanac.com) in November 2023, short-term workforce training has only grown in importance. New federal legislation extending Pell Grants to low-income students enrolled in eligible short-term programs is expected to take effect in July 2026. As of November 2024, states have invested over $5.6 billion in total in initiatives aimed at supporting short-term credential programs [1]. In a labor market that is less constrained than in 2023, short-term workforce training can expand opportunities for learners and workers and provide the skills required by increasingly selective employers.

At the same time, new initiatives have been helping us understand the value proposition of the short-term training system in the U.S. [2]. Recent research has shown that the cost of attending short-term programs varies significantly across providers and may be creating disparities in access [3]. Recent analysis of career histories and credentials' characteristics shed light on the modest number of short-term programs associated with significant wage gains for learners, while calling out for the need to tie empirical evidence of labor market value to funding models [4].

The real-world uses of the first version of the Workforce Almanac corroborated some of the core hypotheses we had about its particular value, especially as a resource that can be easily paired with other data—such as labor market demand trends, data on local employers, information about workforce development funding opportunities and priorities, and more. As we report in three use cases published alongside this working paper, we learned that:

St. Louis City Hall used the Workforce Almanac as the foundation for a database it created to map the St. Louis metro region's workforce development landscape as a resource for internal strategic planning and public access. The City Hall team paired the Workforce Almanac with Department of Labor data on Registered Apprenticeship programs, lists of city-approved training courses, St. Louis Public Schools' college and career readiness data, and other small datasets;
Year Up United has used the Workforce Almanac in each of the nine market studies it has completed since the Almanac’s launch in November 2023 in cities ranging from New York City to Pittsburgh and Dallas. Year Up United combined the Workforce Almanac with other data about local job markets, opportunity talent, and training providers in devising community-focused geographic expansion plans and innovative workforce development solutions; and
Willow Education, a career exploration curriculum and platform designed to guide young people toward purposeful postsecondary pathways, combined the Workforce Almanac with its platform data to help Persist Nashville map out non-college postsecondary training providers in their community and give students access to both college and high-quality professional training options.

To increase the capacity of the Workforce Almanac to be combined with other datasets and better serve practitioners and researchers alike, we have updated its underlying data and introduced a series of data enrichments, including adding Employer Identification Numbers (EINs) and financial information for as many training providers as possible, based on the publicly available data.

Section I outlines the process to build the second version of the Workforce Almanac, and Section II provides a descriptive overview of the U.S. workforce training providers represented within it.

I. Building the second version of the Workforce Almanac

I.1. Parts of the methodology that didn’t change

To build the second version of the Almanac dataset, we followed the central methodological steps we used in the original version [5], while introducing several innovations. We aimed to add a broader range of nonprofit workforce training providers to the dataset and to enrich the information about training providers, when possible.

We continued to focus on building a dataset of workforce training providers, defined as entities that offer short-term (i.e., less than two years) post-high school opportunities (i.e., the maximum enrollment requirement is a high school diploma) where learners gain work-relevant skills in service of job attainment.

We also built this second version of the dataset based on the four primary publicly available data sources that we used previously: The Integrated Postsecondary Database System (IPEDS) [6], TrainingProviderResults.gov (TPR) [7], Internal Revenue Service (IRS) [8], and Registered Apprenticeship Partners Information Database System (RAPIDS) [9]. We used the most up-to-date available versions of IPEDS, RAPIDS, and TPR by June 2024. In the case of IRS, we used 2022-2024 data. Some workforce training providers that were not included in the first version of the Almanac dataset submitted information about their organization in the interim through the Workforce Almanac data portal. We analyzed and vetted those submissions based on our working definition, and an additional 56 training providers are represented in the map and table visualizations of the portal as a result [10].

The process to aggregate those four data sources, identify duplicate records of a provider, and keep the record with the most detailed and accurate information largely followed the same procedure we developed and tested while building the first version. As a result, the current version of the Almanac contains the same four emerging main types of workforce training providers and the common taxonomy mapping 14 subtypes (or categories) of workforce training providers.

Table 1: Workforce training provider types and data sources

Institutions of higher education	WIOA-eligible training providers	Job training nonprofit organizations	Registered Apprenticeships
These include public, private nonprofit, and for-profit postsecondary institutions that are primarily non-degree-granting or confer a majority of their degrees as sub-baccalaureate credentials (i.e., certificates and/or associate’s degrees). These training providers are found in the Integrated Postsecondary Database System (IPEDS), Survey Year 2022.	These providers include workforce development training providers eligible to receive federal dollars for training services under WIOA. These training providers are found inTrainingProviderResults.gov (TPR), reflecting training programs approved to be on States’ Eligible Training Providers lists as of June 30, 2023, covering the period from July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2023.	These are tax-exempt organizations that provide job training. These training providers are found in the following Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data sources: (1) Exempt Organizations Business Master File (EO BMF), updated data posting year 2024 and (2) Form 990 series (e-file) XML format, covering 2022 and 2023 files.	These include federally Registered Apprenticeships. These training providers are found in the Registered Apprenticeship Partners Information Database System (RAPIDS), Fiscal Year 2024 Q2. The DOL Office of Apprenticeship shared the Public Use File used in the Workforce Almanac upon our request.

Source: Project on Workforce analysis of IPEDS', RAPIDS', IRS', and TRP's data.

The methodological steps we explain here and in our first working paper are reflected in our coding book (available at https://github.com/ProjectOnWorkforce/workforce-almanac), which we are making available for the first time.

I.2. Methodological innovations

A. Adding Employer Identification Numbers (EINs) for as many training providers as possible

Employer Identification Numbers (EINs) are federal tax IDs issued by the IRS and required for businesses, tax-exempt organizations, and other entities [11]. While primarily used to establish and operate a business, EINs can be powerful identifiers for practitioners and researchers seeking to link data about training providers across various platforms, like local and state data systems, grant databases, and performance reports. EINs can help in verifying training providers' status, in tracking how different sources of funds flow through them, and in assessing their performance.

In the second version of the Almanac dataset, we searched for training providers' EINs in the four primary publicly available data sources we use. IPEDS, IRS, and RAPIDS contained this datapoint for all or a portion of the workforce training providers we mapped in the Almanac dataset. TPR did not contain EIN information. Because the IRS had the most complete coverage of EINs, after bringing in this data point from original data sources as a first step, we also took an additional step to supplement EINs from IRS data sources whenever possible. By using the same name similarity algorithms we used to deduplicate entries in the Almanac dataset, we tried to match any training provider that did not have an EIN to the IRS data sources. That helped us add the EINs of some additional training providers represented in the Almanac.

We managed to link EINs for 12,189 out of the 20,211 organizations represented in the dataset.

Table 2: Training providers with EINs per data source

Data Source	Percentage with EIN in the Almanac Dataset	Total Number of Providers in the Almanac Dataset	Number of Providers with EIN in the Almanac Dataset
IPEDS	100%	3,648	3,648
IRS	100%	7,408	7,408
RAPIDS	37%	3,347	1,239
TPR	1.5%	6,011	90

Source: Project on Workforce at Harvard University. (2025). Workforce Almanac (Version 2.0). Retrieved from https://workforcealmanac.com/.

B. Adding a broader range of job training nonprofit organizations and more information about them

One critical piece of feedback we received on the first version of the Almanac dataset was that we were missing some important nonprofits that played an essential role in offering short-term workforce training in diverse communities across the U.S. For instance, these include faith-based or tribal organizations that were not assigned a classification code related to workforce training by the IRS because training was not their primary exempt activity. Nonprofit organizations span several fields and are classified by the IRS using the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) [12], which identifies the organization's primary exempt activity.

To address this, we introduced a couple of important innovations in how we incorporated IRS organizations into the second version of the Almanac dataset. We began by using two different sources of IRS data: the Exempt Organizations Business Master File (EO BMF) and the Form 990 series (e-file) in XML format. From the EO BMF data source, we retrieved organizations based on the same NTEE codes used in the first version of the Almanac dataset, with one significant difference. In the first version of the Almanac dataset, we used precise matching logic to pull in organizations based on our list of NTEE codes. In this second version, we brought in nonprofit organizations from the EO BMF data source whose NTEE codes were variations from that initial core list (e.g., J200 or J22I). For more details on this process, see Table 4.

The Form 990 data source includes text-rich fields where organizations describe their mission and primary programs. Upon further review, we found that while some nonprofit organizations lacked an NTEE code specifically related to workforce training, they explicitly referenced workforce training as a core aspect of their mission or programming. Therefore, we systematically inspected those text-rich fields of Form 990 data to identify nonprofits that matched our working definition.

This process enabled us to augment the nonprofit training providers with organizations like those listed in Table 3.

Table 3: Mission and Primary Program Descriptions of a subsample of nonprofit training providers

Organization	Mission (Form 990 Filing)	Primary Program Description (Form 990 Filing)
Mary Hill Family Service Center, Alabama NTEE CODE: P30 - Children & Youth Services	To coordinate and develop programs and services that promote healthy and successful children and families.	To coordinate and develop programs and services that promote healthy and successful children and families. Offers family resilience classes and transportation services to support workforce development.
Mosaic Christian Community Development Association, Michigan NTEE CODE: P99 - Human Services N.E.C.	The corporation is dedicated to charitable purposes, including: a) Providing services to residents of Benton Harbor, St. Joseph, and surrounding communities within a 50-mile radius; b) Creating a sustainable and livable community in Benton Harbor by encouraging economic development through partnerships with existing organizations; c) Addressing the human and social needs of neighborhood residents through collaboration with existing human service programs; and d) Promoting racial justice and working to heal racial division within the community.	Jobs for Life: This 4-week program aims to help participants overcome employment barriers and access sustainable wage employment through the association's network. It includes job training as part of the curriculum and serves over 50 students annually.
Elderberry Wisdom Farm, Oregon NTEE CODE: S32 - Rural Economic Development	Elderberry Wisdom Farm provides opportunities for Native Americans, communities of color, and public audiences to raise their awareness of the rich cultural heritage and traditional ecological knowledge of America's First Peoples. We are committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion for all. We strive to strengthen awareness and understanding, as well as appreciation and respect for the Wisdom and knowledge of Native American elders, cultural leaders, and indigenous scientists.	Traditional Ecological Workforce Development Project will prepare Native Americans and other students of color to pursue agricultural and horticultural career pathways by integrating academic science with indigenous principles.
Alex House Project, New York NTEE CODE: P40 - Family Services	The Alex House Project (AHP) is a 501c3 nonprofit, peer-led social service and leadership development organization. We support pregnant and parenting mothers and young fathers living in NYC, particularly Brooklyn where we are based. Our mission is to increase long-term family-sufficiency by providing a safe and nurturing environment for parent education and leadership development with support to access higher education and the workforce.	The Alex House Project (TAHP) is a Brooklyn-based, peer-led 501c3 social service support and leadership development organization for young expecting and parenting mothers, ages 25 and under, who reside in economically depressed, New York City neighborhoods. Our Community We support high-need, underserved homeless youth, LGBTQ youth, young women in new immigrant communities, and parenting youth in foster care throughout the five boroughs of NYC. Our community is directly affected by poverty, homophobia, and racism. We draw from mother-and-child group homes, family foster care, and domestic violence shelters, as well as referrals from community-based organizations, city, and state-funded institutions. Our base in Red Hook, Brooklyn, is home to New Yorks largest NYCHA development, housing over 11,000 people in nearly 3,000 apartments. Ninety percent of the tenants are people of color, as are most AHP participants. Nurturing Parenting: The Alex House Project parenting course increases the ability of young mothers to become family-sufficient. Participants walk away feeling more empowered in their parenting and with a stronger relationship with their co-parents and children. In addition, they gain educational access and workforce development throughout the year of enrollment and support with a specific individual or family needs. Peer Leadership: Interested graduates then have the opportunity to deepen their learning through advanced leadership training. We train them to lead Alex House outreach, intake, and parenting training and provide emotional support to their peers. Nobody is better positioned for this work than young parents who themselves have known early parentification, external judgment, racial discrimination, economic hardship, gender bias, and personal isolation. Combining the wisdom of harsh life experience with the Alex House approach to parenting training and leadership development awakens participants potential to thrive and serve as role models and community leaders. Throughout 2022, the Alex House Project continued to adapt and respond to shifting external conditions so that our families and surrounding community would still have the support they needed during the pandemic. The Alex House Project envisions a world in which low-income families benefit from comprehensive support. In particular, young women transition successfully into parenthood with peer-led parenting training, encouragement, and assistance to access higher education and employment. TAHP has served 394 community members in 2022
Reimagine Reentry, Pennsylvania NTEE CODE: P80 - Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations	Reimagine Reentry aims to reduce recidivism in Allegheny County by providing opportunities, reducing barriers, and supporting returning citizens in a holistic way. Our work relies heavily on a strengths-based approach for those formerly incarcerated through reentry coaching, support, and job skill training to address the unique needs of returning citizens after they leave the corrections system.	Our Reentry Coaching Program provided holistic mentoring services to over 34 clients along with access to Barriers Resource Funds, which provides each client with $750 to help meet basic needs. These funds were typically spent on license restitution fees, union dues, and work-related items such as work boots. For our workforce development program, the Multi-Craft Core Curriculum (MC3), we had 22 graduates over three cohorts who received stipends of $40/day for each day of attendance for the six-week program. MC3 students also had access to the Barriers Fund.

Source: Project on Workforce's analysis of IRS Form 990 series data.

Based on publicly available data provided to the IRS about those organizations, we learned that they offer meaningful workforce development training, despite operating in very different contexts. Reimagine Reentry in Pennsylvania, for instance, operates a pre-apprenticeship program that offers hands-on technical training, stipends, and employment coaching to returning citizens. Similarly, the Alex House Project in Brooklyn prepares young mothers for the workforce through a peer-led "Train-the-Trainer" program focused on job readiness and leadership.

While their programmatic focus is clear, none of these organizations were assigned IRS NTEE codes directly related to workforce training. Their actual codes, such as P30 (Children & Youth Services), P99 (Human Services N.E.C.), S32 (Rural Economic Development), P40 (Family Services), and P80 (Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations), excluded them from the original Almanac dataset.

To address this limitation, we developed a simple text classification approach that scanned the mission statements and program descriptions in the IRS Form 990 filings. That allowed us to flag nonprofits for inclusion if they mentioned key training-related terms, either by combining words from predefined lists or using specific workforce training phrases. The rules and word lists (Bag of Words) we used can be found in the Appendix.

Each of the five organizations shown above contains clear matches to terms in the Bag of Words, triggering inclusion under our rules. For instance, Reimagine Reentry includes terms like "apprenticeship," "job skill training," and "certifications"; Elderberry Wisdom Farm references "career pathways" and "training"; while the Alex House Project emphasizes "workforce development training" and "leadership training."

While this method has surfaced strong training providers, it has also captured a small number of nonprofits that offer wraparound workforce support services or act as intermediaries rather than direct training providers. The small risk of inclusion error was worth the trade-off to ensure a more comprehensive and representative view of the workforce development landscape, as explained in the section about data limitations below.

The most common organizations identified through this approach were classified under NTEE categories such as Education Services, Human Services, Youth Development, and centers supporting specific populations. Each of these categories shares goals with standard workforce development training providers.

However, we also saw meaningful inclusions from less expected categories like Community Improvement & Capacity Building, as well as Environment & Animals, and Arts & Humanities. While those organizations might seem removed from traditional workforce training, their programming often includes job pathways, technical skills development, or transitional employment, reinforcing their relevance to the broader workforce development ecosystem.

Table 4: IRS data sources

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

Exempt Organizations Business Master File (EO BMF)

Form 990 series (e-file) XML format

Organizations classified with any of the NTEE Codes below, either exactly matching them or containing any characters after them:

"Vocational, Technical Schools" (B30), "Community or Junior Colleges" (B41), “Adult Education" (B60), Employment Procurement Assistance, Job Training" (J20), "Vocational Counseling, Guidance and Testing" (J21), "Vocational Training" (J22), "Vocational Rehabilitation" (J30), "Goodwill Industries"(J32), and "Sheltered Remunerative Employment, Work Activity Center Not Elsewhere Classified (N.E.C.)" (J33)

Organizations whose mission description or primary program description uses a set of keywords that demonstrate a focus on workforce development consistent with our definition.

See Appendix 1: Rules and Bag of Words.

Source: Project on Workforce's analysis of IRS data.

We also extracted additional data fields about nonprofit organizations from IRS data sources whenever those were available. This additional information can support more in-depth analysis about those organizations without the need to go through fragmented public XML files. For the organizations that had this information available in their public 990 forms, the Almanac dataset now includes their formation years, websites, total number of employees, mission descriptions, primary program descriptions, list of states where they filed their 990 forms, and the number of states where they filed their 990 forms.

C. Adding revenue and expenses information for job training nonprofit organizations and institutions of higher education

While building this second version of the Almanac dataset, we searched data sources for information they could offer on workforce training providers' finances, particularly revenue and expenses. Only two out of our four original data sources contained those data points—IRS and IPEDS—but not for all the organizations they covered.

Despite the data gaps, revenue and expenses add a helpful layer of information about training providers, supporting the assessment of their financial health and sustainability, and potentially helping to inform policy and funding decisions.

In the case of nonprofit organizations extracted from the IRS, we added variables that represent total revenue and expenses in 2022 or 2023, whichever year had the most recently available data (total_revenue_current_year, total_expenses_current_year).

Similarly, for institutions of higher education from IPEDS, we extracted revenue and expenses data for the same years (2022 and 2023).

To provide a standardized financial view, the following inflation adjustment was used to convert 2022 values into 2023 values.

2023 Value = 2022 Value ✕ (1 + Inflation Rate)

Where Inflation Rate = 4.1%

Table 5: Training providers with revenue and expenses information per data source

Data Source	Percentage of Providers with Revenue and Expenses Information in the Almanac Dataset	Total Number of Providers in the Almanac Dataset	Number of Providers with Revenue and Expenses Information in the Almanac Dataset
IRS	43%	7,408	3,167
IPEDS	39%	3,648	1,406

Source: Project on Workforce at Harvard University. (2025). Workforce Almanac (Version 2.0). Retrieved from https://workforcealmanac.com/.

I.3. Data limitations

The Workforce Almanac is an aggregation of multiple publicly available data sources, each with its own data-gathering practices and governance principles. As a result, the limitations present in any of these sources are also reflected in the Almanac. Some examples of such limitations include the lack of comprehensive coverage of EIN values and revenue and expense information.

Consistent with the first release of the Almanac, some provider types are better represented than others. Providers that receive federal funding still account for the largest share of organizations identified. The Higher Education Act of 1965 requires that higher education institutions receiving or applying for Title IV funding submit data to IPEDS. Since nearly all nonprofit institutions rely on Title IV funding to operate, such institutions are also well-represented in the Almanac. Some for-profit institutions operate without Title IV funding and may elect not to submit data to IPEDS. That suggests that the for-profit, two-year institution sector may be underrepresented relative to nonprofits. Additionally, because of our definition of a workforce training provider and the IPEDS classification system, we only include institutions that confer a majority of their credentials and degrees at the sub-baccalaureate level. Therefore, we exclude some four-year institutions that also confer sub-baccalaureate degrees.

The use of natural language processing to augment the set of nonprofit workforce training providers resulted in the identification of several organizations we would have otherwise missed. However, the method is not without limitations. Foremost among those limitations is the risk that an organization uses one of the keywords in its descriptions, but does not actually engage in workforce training. Despite efforts to improve the method, there are likely a few organizations included in this version of the Almanac that constitute a “false positive”. However, random sampling tests demonstrate that the false positive rate is comparable to the organizations identified using the NTEE logic. Due to that result and the number of organizations that were identified using this method, the decision was made to incorporate them in the new release of the Almanac.

Taken together, these limitations inform how we should interpret results using the Almanac. One of the primary goals of the Almanac is to approximate the population of workforce training providers in the United States. However, data gaps remain that prevent us from capturing every provider. We are confident that the providers included in the dataset are training providers (with the caveats already cited). But we acknowledge that the Almanac continues to underestimate the number of workforce training providers in the U.S.

II. Findings from the second version of the Workforce Almanac

II.1. National findings

Key takeaway: The second release of the Workforce Almanac added 3,430 new training providers compared to the first one. More than two-thirds of organizations represented in the Almanac are not eligible for federal funding under WIOA.

The second version of the Workforce Almanac consists of 20,211 workforce training providers. The updated distribution pattern of the four major provider types is provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Breakdown of the types of U.S. workforce training providers

Source: Project on Workforce at Harvard University. (2025). Workforce Almanac (Version 2.0). Retrieved from https://workforcealmanac.com/.

WIOA-eligible training providers account for 29% of total providers. The remaining providers are non-WIOA eligible, comprising higher education institutions (18%), job training nonprofits (37%), and Registered Apprenticeships (16%).

Nationally, there are 3.49 WIOA-eligible providers, 4.36 job training nonprofits, 2.16 institutions of higher education, and 1.94 Registered Apprenticeships for every 100k people in the labor force. An alternative view of the distribution of providers by type is to contextualize them per 100k unemployed people. That could be a helpful metric, since a primary purpose of workforce training is to equip individuals with the skills necessary to secure quality employment. There are 95.39 WIOA-eligible providers, 119.35 job training nonprofits, 59.01 institutions of higher education, and 52.97 Registered Apprenticeships for every 100k unemployed people.

Nearly all workforce training providers represent only one type out of the four major types listed in the Workforce Almanac. The largest share of multi-source providers belongs to IPEDS and TPR, suggesting that there are institutions of higher education that are also WIOA eligible.

Figure 2: Workforce training providers in the United States

Source: Project on Workforce at Harvard University. (2025). Workforce Almanac (Version 2.0). Retrieved from https://workforcealmanac.com/.

II.2 Regional findings

Key takeaway: The Midwest has the largest share of workforce training providers when compared to labor force and unemployed populations.

Table 6: Regional-level Analysis for Total Providers

Region	Total Providers	Ratio of providers to 100k in labor force	Ratio of providers to 100k unemployed
Midwest	4,724	13.4	385.6
Northeast	3,232	11.0	294.2
South	7,143	11.3	339
West	4,932	12.4	295.3

Source: Project on Workforce at Harvard University. (2025). Workforce Almanac (Version 2.0). Retrieved from https://workforcealmanac.com/.

The South has the largest regional share of workforce training providers in the dataset. The Northeast trails the other three regions.

II.3. State findings

Key takeaway: This new version of the Workforce Almanac sustains the finding of the first edition that the number and types of workforce training providers vary widely by U.S. state and territory.

The availability of workforce training providers differs significantly between states and territories (Appendix 2). The District of Columbia has 35.2 providers per 100k labor force members. In contrast, Nebraska and Texas have the lowest ratios. The small absolute number of workers in certain states and territories, such as Washington DC, Wyoming, and Alaska, yields higher provider-to-worker ratios. Large states like Texas and New Jersey maintain more providers in absolute numbers, but their provider-to-worker ratios remain lower because of their extensive labor forces.

Figure 3: Providers per 100k labor force

Source: Project on Workforce at Harvard University. (2025). Workforce Almanac (Version 2.0). Retrieved from https://workforcealmanac.com/.

The composition of workforce training providers differs substantially between states and territories; no provider type dominates the landscape. Most states maintain a balanced distribution of institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, Registered Apprenticeships, and WIOA-eligible providers. The majority of states contain similar proportions of each provider type, but, in a few states, one provider type dominates (e.g., Indiana, Mississippi, and Washington). Higher education institutions, along with nonprofit organizations, form significant parts of the provider landscape throughout the country. Every state includes Registered Apprenticeships and WIOA-eligible providers, which enhance the diverse range of providers.

Figure 4: Types of workforce training providers in each U.S. state and territory

Source: Project on Workforce at Harvard University. (2025). Workforce Almanac (Version 2.0). Retrieved from https://workforcealmanac.com/.

II.4. Institutions of higher education findings

Key takeaway: U.S. regions have relatively equal ratios of institutions of higher education—that primarily provide short-term workforce training—to 100k in the labor force, while individual states and territories exhibit greater variation.

Institutions of higher education have consistent patterns across regions, with each region displaying a provider-to-labor-force ratio of approximately 2.1. The South demonstrates the highest provider-to-labor-force ratio at 2.15 and the highest provider-to-unemployed ratio at 64.50, while the West shows the lowest provider-to-unemployed ratio at 50.47.

Table 7: Number of institutions of higher education by region

Region	Ratio of providers to 100k in labor force	Ratio of providers to 100k unemployed
Midwest	2.11	60.8
Northeast	2.12	56.6
South	2.15	64.5
West	2.11	50.5

Source: Project on Workforce at Harvard University. (2025). Workforce Almanac (Version 2.0). Retrieved from https://workforcealmanac.com/.

Figure 5: Institutions of higher education per 100k labor force

Source: Project on Workforce at Harvard University. (2025). Workforce Almanac (Version 2.0). Retrieved from https://workforcealmanac.com/.

The state-level distribution of institutions of higher education providing workforce training per worker exhibits greater variation than the regional-level distribution (Appendix 2). The provider-to-labor-force ratios of Puerto Rico (6.1), West Virginia (5.6), and Arkansas (4.2) exceed the national and regional averages.

II.5. WIOA-eligible training provider findings

Key Takeaway: The Midwest and West are most served by WIOA-eligible providers, and Wyoming has more WIOA-eligible training providers available per 100k in the labor force than any other state or territory.

WIOA-eligible training providers demonstrate distinct regional patterns throughout the United States. The Midwest and West regions have the highest number of providers per 100k labor force members and unemployed individuals, with ratios of 4.2 and 4.1, respectively. The South comes next for both metrics, and the Northeast shows the lowest access, with 2.6 providers per 100k labor force members and 70.3 providers per 100k unemployed individuals.

Table 8: Number of WIOA-eligible training providers by region

Region	Ratio of providers to 100k in labor force	Ratio of providers to 100k unemployed
Midwest	4.2	120
Northeast	2.6	70.3
South	3.1	93.2
West	4.1	97.8

Source: Project on Workforce at Harvard University. (2025). Workforce Almanac (Version 2.0). Retrieved from https://workforcealmanac.com/.

At the state level, the number of WIOA-eligible training providers available per 100k labor force members varies greatly (Appendix 2). The nation's highest provider ratios are found in Wyoming (15.2), Washington (11.7), and Alaska (10.6), which exceed the provider ratios in the lowest states by a factor of eight. WIOA-eligible provider access per capita remains low in Hawaii (1.2), Colorado (1.5), and Iowa (1.6).

Figure 6: WIOA-eligible training providers per 100k in labor force

Source: Project on Workforce at Harvard University. (2025). Workforce Almanac (Version 2.0). Retrieved from https://workforcealmanac.com/.

WIOA-eligible providers demonstrate diversity through their multiple distinct subtypes (Figure 7). Out of providers in the United States with sufficient data for categorization, private for-profit entities lead the WIOA-eligible training sector, followed by higher education institutions and national apprenticeships.

Figure 7: Breakdown of WIOA-eligible provider categories

Source: Project on Workforce at Harvard University. (2025). Workforce Almanac (Version 2.0). Retrieved from https://workforcealmanac.com/.

II.6. Job training nonprofits findings

Key Takeaway: The Midwest is most served by job training nonprofit organizations, and the District of Columbia has the highest ratio of job training nonprofits per 100k in the labor force among U.S. states and territories.

The distribution of nonprofit workforce training providers is consistent across the four U.S. regions. The Midwest leads the other regions, with 4.6 providers per 100k labor force members and 132.9 providers per 100k unemployed individuals. The Northeast and South regions maintain similar ratios at 4.4 per 100k labor force members and more than 117 providers per 100k unemployed individuals. Lastly, the West shows the lowest ratios, although the differences are minimal, as it reports 4.2 providers per 100k labor force members and 100.2 providers per 100k unemployed individuals.

Table 9: Number of job training nonprofits by region

Region	Ratio of providers to 100k in labor force	Ratio of providers to 100k unemployed
Midwest	4.6	132.9
Northeast	4.4	117.7
South	4.4	131.2
West	4.2	100.2

Source: Project on Workforce at Harvard University. (2025). Workforce Almanac (Version 2.0). Retrieved from https://workforcealmanac.com/.

Washington, DC, stands out with 24.4 nonprofit providers for every 100k people in the labor force, which exceeds all other states and territories (Appendix 2). The remaining top states for providers per 100k labor force members include Delaware (7.7), Maryland (7.4), Vermont (7.1), and Alaska (6.4), each of which is more than double the national average.

The bottom five states and territories are Puerto Rico (0.6), Kansas (2.3), Utah (2.3), Nebraska (2.5), and North Dakota (2.6).

Figure 8: Job training nonprofits per 100k in labor force

Source: Project on Workforce at Harvard University. (2025). Workforce Almanac (Version 2.0). Retrieved from https://workforcealmanac.com/.

II.7. Registered apprenticeship program sponsor findings

Key takeaway: The Midwest is most served by Registered Apprenticeships, while California has the highest total number of Registered Apprenticeships.

A regional analysis of Registered Apprenticeship providers demonstrates differences across the United States. The Midwest reports the highest availability of Registered Apprenticeships, at 2.5 providers per 100k workers and 71.9 providers per 100k unemployed individuals. The West and Northeast regions rank after the Midwest in the provider-to-labor-force ratios.

The South demonstrates the lowest Registered Apprenticeship provider-to-labor-force ratio, with 1.7 providers per 100k labor force members, but has the second largest provider-to-unemployed ratio at 50.2 providers per 100k unemployed individuals.

Table 10: Breakdown of Registered Apprenticeships by region

Region	Ratio of Providers to 100k in labor force	Ratio of providers to 100k unemployed
Midwest	2.5	71.9
Northeast	1.9	49.6
South	1.7	50.2
West	2	46.8

Source: Project on Workforce at Harvard University. (2025). Workforce Almanac (Version 2.0). Retrieved from https://workforcealmanac.com/.

The number of Registered Apprenticeship sponsors varies widely at the state and territory levels (Appendix 2). California leads the way with 342 sponsors, followed by Texas with 181, New York with 166, Illinois with 161, and Florida with 154.

The states and territories with the smallest number of sponsors are Connecticut, with two sponsors; Rhode Island, with four sponsors; Montana, with seven sponsors; North Dakota, with nine sponsors; and Wyoming, with nine sponsors.

Figure 9: Distribution of Registered Apprenticeships by state

Source: Project on Workforce at Harvard University. (2025). Workforce Almanac (Version 2.0). Retrieved from https://workforcealmanac.com/.

Union/labor organizations sponsor the most Registered Apprenticeships (Figure 10). Employers are the second-largest group, demonstrating their active participation in workforce development and skill-building initiatives.

Several sponsors are business associations and higher education institutions, and a few are federal agencies, intermediaries, or job training nonprofits, among other smaller categories.

Figure 10: Breakdown of Registered Apprenticeship categories

Source: Project on Workforce at Harvard University. (2025). Workforce Almanac (Version 2.0). Retrieved from https://workforcealmanac.com/.

Conclusion

The second version of the Workforce Almanac demonstrates how access to workforce development resources varies across different communities of the U.S. The openness and flexibility of the Workforce Almanac data allow for systemic explorations of the landscape of short-term workforce training providers.

Since its first release, the Workforce Almanac has served as an open and accessible tool to support strategic analysis and collaboration for stronger, more prosperous workforce systems across different geographical areas. The findings in this paper and accompanying use cases demonstrate that this second updated and expanded version of the Workforce Almanac advances the promise to serve policymakers, training providers, philanthropies, and researchers in their efforts to make the workforce development sector a driving force for shared economic progress.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to the Project on Workforce's co-founder and former director, Rachel Lipson, for continuously dedicating her experience and time to help us shape this work, to Research Assistant Sean Sellers for helping us document real-world use cases of the Workforce Almanac, to Isaiah Baldissera for his design and communications expertise, and to the Infogr8 team for helping us designing and developing the Workforce Almanac data portal. We are also deeply thankful to Krizia Lopez from the St. Louis City Hall, Kate Naranjo and Jessica Marcus from Year Up United, and James Cryan from Willow Education, for sharing their impactful journeys using the Workforce Almanac. We received critical suggestions from several practitioners and researchers who joined us in feedback sessions and workshops in different events since the launch of the Workforce Almanac—including the Workforce Matters' Further Together Conference and the National Association of Workforce Development Professionals Annual Conference— and are grateful to each of them for helping us to continue improving our work.

Strada Education Foundation and the WorkRise Network have helped fund the Project on Workforce to research the U.S. workforce development sector since the early stages of this work—we are deeply grateful for their critical and continued support of the Workforce Almanac.

Please direct inquiries to Nathalie Gazzaneo (ngazzaneo@hks.harvard.edu).

Suggested citation: Joseph Fuller, Alexis Gable, Tessa Forshaw, Jacob Hale, Nathalie Gazzaneo, and Gani Simsek (August 2025). “Updating and Expanding the Workforce Almanac: A System-Level View of U.S. Workforce Training Providers.” Published by Harvard Kennedy School.

About the Project on Workforce at Harvard

The Project on Workforce is an interdisciplinary, collaborative project between the Harvard Kennedy School’s Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy, the Harvard Business School’s Managing the Future of Work Project, and the Harvard Graduate School of Education. The Project produces and catalyzes basic and applied research at the intersection of education and labor markets for leaders in business, education, and policy. The Project’s research aims to help shape a postsecondary system of the future that creates more and better pathways to economic mobility and forges smoother transitions between education and careers.

About the Workforce Almanac

The Project on Workforce’s Workforce Almanac is a multiyear research effort to build a comprehensive new national data source and evidence base about the workforce development sector, including job training organizations and programs.

The views expressed in this report are the sole responsibility of the authors and are not meant to represent the views of Harvard University, the Harvard Kennedy School, or the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Endnotes

[1] Stephanie M. Murphy. “A 2024 Update of State Investments in Short-term Credential Pathways,” 2024. https://hcmstrategists.com/resources/a-2024-update-of-state-investments-in-short-term-credential-pathways

[2] CredLens. https://www.credlens.org/.

[3] Jinann Bitar, Sandra Perez, Sabreyna Reese, and Mia Elliott. “Understanding the Full Cost of Short-Term Credentials,” 2024. https://edtrust.org/rti/understanding-the-full-cost-of-short-term-credentials/.

[4] Mark Schneider, Matt Sigelman, Shrinidhi Rao, Scott Spitze, and Debbie Wasden. “Holding New Credentials Accountable for Outcomes: We Need EvidenceBased Funding Models,” 2025. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/holding-new-credentials-accountable-for-outcomes-we-need-evidence-based-funding-models/#scrollSection4.

[5] Alexis Gable, Tessa Forshaw, Rachel Lipson, and Nathalie Gazzaneo (October 2023). “The Workforce Almanac: A System-Level View of U.S. Workforce Training Providers.” Published by Harvard Kennedy School. https://www.pw.hks.harvard.edu/post/workforce-almanac-2023.

[6] Survey year 2022.

[7] Reflecting training programs approved to be on States’ Eligible Training Providers lists as of June 30, 2023, covering the period from July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2023. https://www.trainingproviderresults.gov./#!/.

[8] Exempt Organizations Business Master File (EO BMF), posting year 2024. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-business-master-file-extract-eo-bmf. Form 990 series (e-file) XML format, 2022 and 2023 files. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/form-990-series-downloads.

[9] Public use file shared by the DOL Office of Apprenticeship over email upon request, Fiscal Year 2024 Q2.

[10] Project on Workforce at Harvard University. (2025). Workforce Almanac (Version 2.0). http://www.workforcealmanac.com/explore.

[11] Internal Revenue Service. “Employer identification number.” https://www.irs.gov/businesses/employer-identification-number

[12] For a full list of NTEE core codes, see the "National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities ENTITIES - Core Codes" in this IRS documentation: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/p4838.pdf.

Appendix

Rules and Bag of Words

Rule 1: Select organizations with at least one word in Bag A AND Bag B in either their mission or primary program description

Rule 2: Select organizations with at least one word from Bag C in either their mission or primary program description

Word	Bag
Workforce Development	A
Workforce Training	A
Workforce Learning	A
Job Training	A
Apprentice	A
Certification	B
Certificate	B
Class	B
Pathway	B
Course	B
Learning Experience	B
Bootcamp	B
Preparation	B
Readiness	B
Instruction	B
Curriculum	B
Reskill	C
Upskill	C
Occupational License	C
Work-based Learning	C
Bootcamp	C
Technical Skills Training	C
Job Skills Training	C
Occupational Training	C

State-level Provider Analysis Tables

Total Providers

Top 5 states and territories	Ratio of providers to 100k in labor force	Bottom five states and territories	Ratio of providers to 100k in labor force
DC	35.2	NE	8.6
WY	26.0	TX	9.1
AK	24.7	SC	9.1
MT	21.8	CT	9.1
WV	21.0	NJ	9.5

Institutions of Higher Education

Top 5 states and territories	Ratio of providers to 100k in labor force	Bottom five states and territories	Ratio of providers to 100k in labor force
PR	6.1	MD	1.3
WV	5.6	WI	1.4
AR	4.2	IN	1.4
LA	3.9	AK	1.4
ND	3.8	MN	1.4

WIOA-eligible Training Providers

Top 5 states and territories	Ratio of providers to 100k in labor force	Bottom five states and territories	Ratio of providers to 100k in labor force
WY	15.2	HI	1.2
WA	11.7	CO	1.5
AK	10.6	IA	1.6
MS	10.2	NE	1.8
ME	9.8	SC	1.8

Job Training Nonprofits

Top 5 states and territories	Ratio of providers to 100k in labor force	Bottom five states and territories	Ratio of providers to 100k in labor force
DC	24.4	PR	0.6
DE	7.7	KS	2.3
MD	7.4	UT	2.3
VT	7.1	NE	2.5
AK	6.4	ND	2.6

Registered Apprenticeships

Top 5 states and territories	# of Registered Apprenticeship sponsors	Bottom five states and territories	# of Registered Apprenticeship sponsors
CA	342	CT	2
TX	181	PR	4
NY	166	VT	7
IL	161	SD	9
FL	154	WY	9

Updating and Expanding the Workforce Almanac: A System-Level View of U.S. Workforce Training Providers

Executive Summary

Introduction

I. Building the second version of the Workforce Almanac

I.1. Parts of the methodology that didn’t change

I.2. Methodological innovations

I.3. Data limitations

II. Findings from the second version of the Workforce Almanac

II.1. National findings

II.2 Regional findings

II.3. State findings

II.4. Institutions of higher education findings

II.5. WIOA-eligible training provider findings

II.6. Job training nonprofits findings

II.7. Registered apprenticeship program sponsor findings

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Endnotes

Appendix

Rules and Bag of Words

State-level Provider Analysis Tables