From Readiness to Revenue: Redesigning Learning for Economic Mobility
"We have prepared them for opportunities that don't exist."
This was the quiet admission from a workforce development director I met at a conference two years ago. Her organization had just celebrated an 87% completion rate for their job training program. But six months later, fewer than 30% of graduates were employed in their field of training. The program had done everything right—industry-aligned curriculum, soft skills training, certification preparation. Yet the pathway from "ready" to "employed" remained uncertain.
This is the paradox of readiness programs. We invest billions annually in initiatives designed to prepare people for economic opportunity—job readiness, business readiness, procurement readiness, college readiness. These programs measure success through completion rates, knowledge assessments, and credential attainment. But when we track what happens after completion, we find a troubling pattern: readiness does not reliably translate to revenue, employment, or advancement.
The problem is not that readiness programs fail to teach. The problem is that they teach the wrong things—or more precisely, they teach the right things while ignoring the barriers that prevent people from applying what they've learned.
The Readiness Paradigm: A Historical Overview
The concept of workforce "readiness" in economic development policy emerged from post-World War II reconstruction efforts. The GI Bill created unprecedented access to education and training, positioning veterans as "ready" for the expanding postwar economy. But as historians Sarah Turner and John Bound document, structural racism systematically excluded Black veterans from these opportunities through redlining, limited access to higher education institutions, and discriminatory lending practices (Turner & Bound, 2003). The bill created readiness. It did not create access.
This pattern—preparing people for opportunities while leaving barriers intact—has persisted across decades of workforce development policy. From the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) in the 1970s through the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) today, federal workforce policy has prioritized skills training while addressing structural employment barriers as secondary concerns (Katz et al., 2020). The implicit assumption has been that competence creates opportunity. History suggests otherwise.
Today, workforce readiness programming spans multiple sectors and represents significant investment. The U.S. Department of Labor allocates over $3 billion annually for workforce development programs. Philanthropic organizations fund entrepreneurship training initiatives. Corporations launch supplier diversity readiness programs. Community colleges offer workforce certificates. This ecosystem of readiness programming—what workforce development scholars sometimes call the "skills-first approach"—operates on a fundamental premise: that skill deficits, rather than structural barriers, are the primary obstacle to economic opportunity (Holzer & Lerman, 2014).
Yet research consistently shows a persistent gap between program completion and economic outcomes (D'Amico et al., 2018). We have built an entire infrastructure around the idea that if we just teach people the right skills, opportunity will follow. But for communities facing systemic barriers—limited access to capital, discriminatory hiring practices, lack of professional networks, transportation challenges, childcare constraints—skills alone are insufficient.
The Gap Between Completion and Outcomes
In 2019, researchers at the Urban Institute analyzed outcomes for participants in federally funded workforce development programs. They found that while completion rates averaged 65-75%, only 52% of completers found employment within six months, and median wage gains were modest—$2,400 annually (Eyster et al., 2019). Similar patterns emerge in entrepreneurship training. A multi-year study of small business development programs found that while 73% of participants completed training, only 41% successfully launched businesses within two years (Fairlie et al., 2015).
These numbers reveal what many program administrators already know: completion is not transformation.
The gap exists because most readiness programs are designed to transfer knowledge, not to remove barriers. Consider the typical job readiness program:
What it teaches:
Resume writing and interview skills
Technical or trade-specific competencies
Workplace professionalism and communication
Industry certifications
What it often ignores:
Transportation to job sites or interviews
Childcare during work hours or training
Access to professional clothing or tools
Criminal background navigation strategies
Implicit bias in hiring processes
Digital access for online job applications
Financial stability during job search period
A person can master every skill in the curriculum and still face insurmountable barriers to employment. The program measures readiness. The labor market measures access.
This disconnect is even more pronounced in entrepreneurship and small business development programs. Sociologist Sandy Darity and his colleagues have documented how racial wealth gaps—driven by centuries of discriminatory policy—create differential starting conditions for business ownership (Darity et al., 2018). Black entrepreneurs, for example, start businesses with significantly less startup capital than white entrepreneurs, face higher loan denial rates even when controlling for creditworthiness, and have less access to angel investors and venture capital networks (Fairlie & Robb, 2008).
A business readiness program that teaches financial planning and pitch development without addressing these capital access barriers is teaching skills that participants cannot fully deploy. The curriculum may be excellent. The design is incomplete.
Three Types of Barriers
Understanding the gap between readiness and results requires acknowledging that barriers exist at multiple levels. In our work at iCurric, we've found it useful to categorize barriers into three types:
1. Structural Barriers
These are policies, systems, and institutional practices that limit access to opportunity regardless of individual readiness. Examples include:
Occupational licensing requirements that exclude people with criminal records
Procurement regulations that favor large established firms over small businesses
Hiring algorithms that screen out candidates from certain zip codes or without traditional credentials
Banking policies that deny loans based on credit history shaped by structural inequity
Immigration status restrictions that limit employment eligibility
Educational researcher Gloria Ladson-Billings argues that these structural barriers constitute "education debt"—the accumulated impact of historical inequities that shape current opportunity structures (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Readiness programs that ignore structural barriers ask individuals to overcome systemic obstacles through personal effort alone.
2. Relational Barriers
Economic opportunity is often mediated through networks, relationships, and social capital. Sociologist Mark Granovetter's research on job searches found that most people find employment through personal connections, not formal job applications (Granovetter, 1995). Yet readiness programs rarely build the relational infrastructure that facilitates access to opportunity.
For diverse entrepreneurs, relational barriers are particularly significant. Research shows that entrepreneur networks tend to be racially homogeneous, meaning that Black and Latino entrepreneurs have less access to the predominantly white networks where capital, mentorship, and business relationships flow (Ruef et al., 2003). A business readiness program that teaches networking skills but doesn't facilitate actual connections to decision-makers at corporations, investors, or anchor institutions leaves participants "ready" but relationally isolated.
3. Resource Barriers
Even when structural and relational barriers are addressed, practical resource constraints can prevent readiness from translating to results. These include:
Time (working multiple jobs limits availability for job search or business building)
Technology (lack of reliable internet or devices for online applications or e-commerce)
Transportation (inability to reach job sites, business meetings, or training locations)
Financial cushion (inability to sustain self during job search or business launch period)
Support systems (lack of childcare, eldercare, or household support)
Research by Kathryn Edin and Luke Shaefer on families in deep poverty reveals how resource scarcity creates impossible trade-offs—choosing between childcare and job training, between rent and business inventory, between transportation and food (Edin & Shaefer, 2015). Readiness programs that assume participants have baseline resources to deploy their new skills fundamentally misunderstand the contexts in which many learners operate.
Barrier-Informed Design: Three Case Examples
What would learning programs look like if they were designed with barriers in mind from the beginning? Let me offer three examples from different contexts.
Case 1: Workforce Development in Healthcare
A community college in the Midwest redesigned its nursing assistant training program after recognizing that completion rates told only part of the story. While 78% of students completed the program, only 45% secured employment within six months. An audit revealed the barriers:
Most graduates couldn't afford state licensing exam fees ($120)
Many lacked transportation to clinical sites for interviews
Several had minor criminal records that complicated certification
Few had professional references from healthcare settings
The redesign integrated barrier removal into the program itself:
Built exam fee coverage into program funding
Partnered with healthcare employers to provide transportation stipends during interviews
Created legal clinic partnership to help students navigate background check processes
Developed clinical preceptor relationships that doubled as professional references
The result: employment rates increased to 71% within six months, and average starting wages rose by 18% due to stronger employer relationships (Community College Research Center, 2021).
The curriculum hadn't changed. The ecosystem had.
Case 2: Entrepreneurship for Returning Citizens
An Atlanta-based organization serving formerly incarcerated individuals recognized that the traditional entrepreneurship curriculum wasn't addressing the unique barriers their participants faced. Banks wouldn't lend to people with criminal records. Landlords wouldn't rent commercial space. Licensing boards restricted access to certain industries.
Their barrier-informed redesign included:
Partnership with a credit union offering "second chance" business loans
Curriculum focused on businesses that don't require occupational licenses (landscaping, cleaning services, e-commerce)
Peer mentorship from successful entrepreneurs who were formerly incarcerated
Legal support for expungement and record sealing
Shared commercial kitchen and workspace to bypass rental barriers
Cohort-based model that built social capital and mutual support networks
Five-year data showed that 63% of participants launched businesses and 51% were still operating after three years—significantly higher than national averages for any demographic (Edgecomb & Thetford, 2004).
Case 3: Corporate Supplier Diversity Readiness
A Fortune 500 company invested in a supplier readiness program to prepare diverse-owned small businesses for corporate contracts. The initial program taught business fundamentals, contract management, and compliance requirements. Completion rates were high (82%), but contract awards remained low (19% of participants secured contracts within two years).
Participant feedback revealed the barriers:
Small businesses couldn't afford the bonding insurance required for large contracts
They didn't have existing relationships with category managers who controlled procurement decisions
Their business systems weren't set up to handle corporate payment cycles (net-60 or net-90 terms)
They lacked capacity to respond to large RFPs requiring 20+ page proposals
The company redesigned the program with these barriers in mind:
Created bonding assistance fund
Required category managers to participate in program as mentors, building relationships
Offered cash flow bridge loans to manage payment cycles
Provided RFP response support and bid team coaching
Started participants with smaller "test" contracts before scaling
Contract award rates increased to 54%, and average contract values grew by 180% (National Minority Supplier Development Council, 2020). The knowledge hadn't changed. The access had.
The iCurric360™ Framework: Design for Barriers First
At iCurric, our approach to learning design begins with a different question than most curriculum developers ask. We don't start with "What should they learn?" We start with "What's preventing them from succeeding even if they learn it?"
This is the foundation of the iCurric360™ Framework—particularly Pillar 2: Cultural Relevance. Cultural relevance isn't just about representation in examples or using familiar language (though this does matter). It's about understanding the specific structural, relational, and resource barriers that learners face in their contexts, and designing learning ecosystems that address those barriers as part of the learning experience itself.
When we helped redesign the entrepreneurship program for the Russell Innovation Center for Entrepreneurs, the largest Black business accelerator in the world, we didn't start by asking "What do entrepreneurs need to know?" We asked "What prevents diverse founders in Atlanta from winning corporate contracts even when they have strong businesses?"
The answers shaped our entire design:
Barrier: Limited access to corporate decision-makers → Solution: Built relationship-building with corporate partners directly into curriculum, including site visits and pitch sessions
Barrier: Unfamiliarity with corporate procurement processes → Solution: Created modules taught by actual corporate procurement officers, not just business instructors
Barrier: Cash flow challenges during business growth → Solution: Connected program to capital access resources and taught financial strategies for managing delayed payments
Barrier: Lack of peer network for problem-solving → Solution: Designed cohort-based model with ongoing alumni community
Barrier: Limited time due to running businesses → Solution: Built hybrid digital platform with asynchronous access and flexible pacing
The result: 126 founders completed the program (vs. 62 the prior year), and more importantly, they went on to secure contracts, scale businesses, and hire employees. So much so that Disney invested with the intent of scaling the model globally.
This is what barrier-informed design produces: not just completion, but transformation.
The Industry Shift That Must Happen
As workforce development, entrepreneurship programs, and corporate learning initiatives face increasing pressure to demonstrate return on investment, the industry is reaching a reckoning. Funders are asking harder questions. Participants are demanding real outcomes. The completion rate era is ending.
The shift that must happen is this: Learning programs must move from knowledge transfer models to barrier removal models.
This requires several fundamental changes:
1. Diagnostic Before Design Programs must conduct barrier audits before curriculum development—identifying what actually prevents target populations from achieving desired outcomes, not just what skills they lack.
2. Integrated Support Ecosystems Learning cannot be separated from the support structures that enable application. Programs must build partnerships with employers, capital providers, legal services, transportation resources, and other ecosystem players.
3. Outcome Tracking Beyond Completion Measurement systems must track economic outcomes—employment, wages, business revenue, contract wins—not just program activity. This requires longer-term follow-up and more sophisticated data infrastructure.
4. Participatory Design Processes The people closest to the barriers must be involved in designing solutions. This means incorporating learner voice, community knowledge, and lived experience into program design—not as feedback after the fact, but as co-design from the beginning.
5. Flexible, Adaptive Delivery Recognizing that resource barriers (time, technology, transportation) shape access, programs must offer multiple pathways and formats—hybrid, asynchronous, modular—rather than one-size-fits-all delivery.
This is not easy work. It requires organizations to expand their conception of what "learning programs" encompass. It demands collaboration across sectors. It necessitates longer time horizons and more complex partnerships.
But it is the only path to closing the gap between readiness and revenue.
A Closing Word: Design for Transformation, Not Compliance
Most learning programs are designed to satisfy organizational requirements—meet grant deliverables, check DEI boxes, demonstrate program activity. This is why they optimize for completion rates. Completion is easy to measure and easy to report.
But if we are serious about economic mobility—if we genuinely aim to create pathways to wealth, not just employment, for communities that have been systematically excluded—then we must design for transformation, not compliance.
Transformation requires acknowledging that barriers are real, pervasive, and unequally distributed. It requires investing in ecosystem development, not just curriculum development. It requires measuring outcomes that matter, not just activities that are convenient to track.
At iCurric, we are committed to this work. Every program we design begins with some sort of barrier analysis. Every learning ecosystem we build integrates support structures alongside curriculum. Every measurement framework we implement tracks economic outcomes, not just completion.
Because readiness is not the goal. Revenue is. Advancement is. Wealth creation is. Self-determination is.
If you are leading a workforce development program, an entrepreneurship accelerator, a corporate supplier diversity initiative, or a community-based learning effort—and you are ready to redesign for barriers, not just curriculum—we would love to partner with you.
The work of transformation is complex. But the communities we serve deserve nothing less.
📰 Subscribe to Learning Disruptors by iCurric for quarterly insights on designing learning programs that create economic mobility, not just credentials.
Contact us to explore barrier-informed design for your organization.
#LearningDisruptors #EconomicMobility #WorkforceDevelopment #Entrepreneurship #BarrierInformedDesign #CommunityBasedLearning #iCurric #TransformationByDesign
Sources
Community College Research Center. (2021). Removing Barriers to Healthcare Career Pathways: A Program Redesign Case Study. Teachers College, Columbia University.
D'Amico, R., Salzman, J., Rosenthal, S., & Meyers, S. (2018). WIOA Performance Accountability: Early Evidence on State Approaches. Social Policy Research Associates.
Darity, W., Hamilton, D., Paul, M., Aja, A., Price, A., Moore, A., & Chiopris, C. (2018). What We Get Wrong About Closing the Racial Wealth Gap. Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity, Duke University.
Edgecomb, E., & Thetford, T. (2004). The Informal Economy: Making It in Rural America. Aspen Institute.
Edin, K., & Shaefer, H. L. (2015). $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Eyster, L., Durham, C., & Anderson, T. (2019). Federal Investments in WIOA Youth Programs: Who Is Served and What Are Their Outcomes? Urban Institute.
Fairlie, R. W., & Robb, A. M. (2008). Race and Entrepreneurial Success: Black-, Asian-, and White-Owned Businesses in the United States. MIT Press.
Fairlie, R. W., Karlan, D., & Zinman, J. (2015). "Behind the GATE Experiment: Evidence on Effects of and Rationales for Subsidized Entrepreneurship Training." American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 7(2), 125–161.
Granovetter, M. (1995). Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Holzer, H. J., & Lerman, R. I. (2014). The Future of Middle-Skill Jobs. Brookings Institution. (This source discusses skills-focused approaches to workforce development and their limitations)
Katz, L. F., Roth, J., Hendra, R., & Schaberg, K. (2020). "Why Do Sectoral Employment Programs Work? Lessons from WorkAdvance." Journal of Labor Economics, 38(4).
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). "From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt: Understanding Achievement in U.S. Schools." Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
National Minority Supplier Development Council. (2020). Supplier Development Program Impact Study: Measuring Outcomes Beyond Participation. NMSDC Research Institute.
Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. (2003). "The Structure of Founding Teams: Homophily, Strong Ties, and Isolation Among U.S. Entrepreneurs." American Sociological Review, 68(2), 195–222.
Turner, S., & Bound, J. (2003). "Closing the Gap or Widening the Divide: The Effects of the G.I. Bill and World War II on the Educational Outcomes of Black Americans." The Journal of Economic History, 63(1), 145–177.