The current state of higher ed has made it clear that institutions' inherited assumptions no longer hold. Financial models built on predictable enrollment are increasingly fragile, and learning formats long housed in continuing education are now being pulled into the center of institutional strategy, often without the structures required to support them at scale. At the same time, institutions are being pressed to identify new learner populations and delivery models, even as workforce demand remains largely local and policy conditions continue to shift. Together, these pressures raise a more difficult question than how quickly institutions can respond: Are they structurally prepared to do so? That question reframes what institutional leadership must prioritize.
In this context, the most consequential work is not always program launch. It is institutional readiness—how leaders evaluate tradeoffs, redesign support structures and test new models while remaining accountable to learners and partners. For continuing education units, this work often entails working across initiatives at very different stages—some proven and evolving, others emerging and still others shaped primarily by external policy signals.
Building readiness in advance of dedicated resources is not without cost. For continuing education units, this work often requires reallocating limited staff time, sustaining partnerships without guaranteed funding and managing expectations among internal and external stakeholders when timelines remain uncertain. Leaders must make difficult choices about where to invest attention, knowing that some initiatives may advance slowly or stall altogether. There is also institutional risk in designing systems that may not be fully realized if policy or funding environments shift. However, these tensions are unavoidable. In practice, readiness work asks units to absorb short-term strain to reduce long-term fragility.
Against this backdrop, this article reflects on how one continuing education unit is responding to these conditions across initiatives at different stages of maturity. It draws on experience delivering degree completion and a resulting shift toward workforce-aligned credential completion, alongside planning shaped by Workforce Pell and the launch of a global internship program, to consider how institutions can design responsibly amid uncertainty without overcommitting to outcomes they do not yet control.
Degree Completion Reimagined: Evaluating Credential Completion as a Workforce-Aligned Alternative
Our experience delivering a grant-supported degree completion program has provided valuable insight into both the strengths and limitations of traditional completion models for adult learners. Over three years, we have learned that while many stop-outs initially seek to finish a degree, their educational trajectories are often shaped by competing responsibilities, financial constraints and geographic limitations that make degree completion difficult to sustain.
These realities have prompted a reassessment of what completion should mean for adult learners today. In practice, degree completion has long been privileged as the only acceptable outcome (often driven by funding structures rather than learner realities), while certificates were de-emphasized despite their workforce relevance. We are now evaluating a credential completion model that preserves intensive advising while recognizing certificates as valid, standalone outcomes for learners for whom degree completion is not feasible or necessary.
Within this model under consideration, advising is structured as a tiered system rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. The first tier relies on AI-enabled tools to perform the primary analytical work of advising by evaluating prior academic records alongside documented work history and skills assessments. These tools generate pathway recommendations, flag potential credential and completion options mapped directly to UCR Extension’s curriculum, and they identify risk indicators, allowing advisors to move beyond manual credit audits and basic navigation. Human advising will then be focused on interpreting these recommendations, validating fit and supporting decisions that require judgment intervention and career-level context.
While additional funding would allow this model to be implemented more quickly, it is intentionally designed to scale without significant new capital investment. By shifting analytical work upstream to AI-enabled systems and reserving human advising for high-value engagement, the approach reduces marginal advising costs while preserving intensity where it matters most. This design allows continuing education units to expand access responsibly, even in uncertain funding environments, while remaining accountable for learner outcomes.
Workforce Pell as a Catalyst for Partnership and Institutional Alignment
Workforce Pell is often framed as a question of eligibility or funding mechanics. In practice, its most immediate impact has been the way it forces institutions to confront a deeper issue: whether they are prepared to operate within regional workforce ecosystems rather than alongside them. Serving Pell-eligible workforce learners requires more than curriculum alignment; it demands operational coordination with organizations that already recruit, support and remain accountable for these populations.
Much of the preparatory work around Workforce Pell has therefore centered on partnership rather than program design. Conversations with county workforce agencies have focused on aligning assumptions about learner intake, screening, support services, outcome definitions and shared financial responsibility. For continuing education units, this reframes the role of workforce agencies. Their value extends well beyond funding to include real-time labor market intelligence, access to wraparound supports and accountability frameworks centered on placement and economic mobility. Workforce Pell, even in the absence of guaranteed funding, has served as a forcing function that brings these relationships into sharper operational focus.
This partnership logic is not hypothetical. UCR Extension’s recently launched farmworker education initiative in early childhood education, supported by dedicated external funding, demonstrates how readiness built through longstanding community relationships enables rapid and responsible implementation. The program draws on established partnerships with childcare providers, Head Start centers and farm-working communities to ground curriculum design, recruitment and learner support in working adults’ lived realities.
In this context, credentials function as meaningful endpoints that support workforce participation and advancement in early childhood education. The program’s successful launch reflects not only funding availability but the presence of durable, community-embedded partnerships that distribute responsibility for learner success across institutions with a shared stake in workforce stability and economic mobility. Workforce Pell planning reinforces this same lesson: Readiness is built through relationships long before resources arrive.
Global Workforce Internships: Designing for Readiness Through International Partnerships
As institutions confront constrained domestic enrollment and shifting learner expectations, they are increasingly exploring forms of experiential learning that extend beyond traditional local recruitment patterns. On-the-job experience, alongside classroom-based instruction, has emerged as a critical differentiator in employability for international students, but traditional study abroad models are often poorly aligned with this demand, emphasizing cultural exposure without sufficiently integrating structured workplace learning.
Our J-1 Global Workforce Internship Program, launching in summer 2026, reflects an effort to respond to this gap through intentional design rather than rapid expansion. Recently approved by the U.S. Department of State to issue J-1 visas, the program was developed in direct response to sustained interest from international partners including universities and recruitment organizations that identified a growing gap between academic preparation and practical workforce experience in the U.S. context.
As with other initiatives described here, the emphasis has been on readiness rather than scale. Program design has focused on aligning academic preparation, internship placement and regulatory compliance in a way that protects learners, host organizations and the institution alike. Participants complete structured coursework focused on the American workplace including professional norms, regulatory context and sector-specific expectations alongside supervised internships, ensuring work placements function as intentional learning environments rather than informal arrangements.
Partnerships are central to this model. International collaborators play a critical role in recruitment, preparation and expectation setting prior to arrival, while U.S.-based host organizations provide supervised, time-limited placements aligned with students’ academic and professional backgrounds. This distributed partnership structure reduces risk while allowing oversight to remain focused on academic quality, compliance and learner support.
From a sustainability perspective, the J-1 program is intentionally structured as a hybrid model that combines tuition revenue for the academic coursework with fee-for-service revenue tied to internship placement, compliance and program oversight. This structure aligns revenue with the actual costs of delivery and administration, rather than relying on speculative enrollment growth or exchange-based funding. The goal is not rapid scaling, but responsible implementation grounded in clear roles, shared accountability and long-term viability.
Viewed alongside other initiatives at UCR Extension, the J-1 Global Workforce Internship Program reflects a consistent institutional response to change. When new forms of demand emerge, whether from adult learners, community partners or international collaborators, the most consequential work lies in building the structures and relationships that make responsible delivery possible. In a shifting higher education landscape, readiness is defined not by how quickly programs launch but by how deliberately they are designed to endure.
Conclusion
Across continuing education, workforce alignment is increasingly less about launching new programs and more about institutional readiness. In a shifting higher education landscape marked by funding uncertainty, evolving learner needs and policy change, the most durable responses are those grounded in partnership, disciplined design and realistic assessments of capacity.
The initiatives described here, including reassessing completion through credentials, preparing for Workforce Pell through collaboration with workforce and community partners and launching a globally oriented internship model, reflect different stages of response to these pressures. Taken together, they point to a common lesson: Sustainable workforce education depends less on speed or scale than on the ability to align learner realities, partner expectations and institutional responsibility.
For continuing education units, this moment calls for thoughtful preparation rather than overcommitment. By investing in readiness through partnerships, support structures and governance, even when resources are constrained, institutions can remain responsive to change while preserving the trust of learners and collaborators alike.
You Might Also Like
