What This Bill Does
This bill changes the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to require states to prioritize funding for job training programs that have evidence proving they work. States must rank programs based on how strong the research evidence is showing the programs help people.
Who It Affects
States that manage workforce development programs. Job training program providers and participants in those programs.
Key Provisions
• States must describe how they plan to prioritize funding for evidence-based programs, giving highest priority to programs with the strongest research evidence (Sec. 2)
• States must explain in their plans how they will rank programs into three categories: high-evidence interventions, moderate-evidence interventions, and low-evidence interventions (Sec. 2)
• States must describe how they will prioritize funding for evidence-based programs that show positive effects on the people the programs serve (Sec. 2)
What Changes
States must add new requirements to their workforce development plans. Instead of funding programs however they choose, states now must prioritize programs based on research evidence levels. Programs must have proof from rigorous research that they produce positive results.
Important Definitions
• Evidence-based: A program, activity or strategy that falls into one of three categories: high-evidence, moderate-evidence, or low-evidence intervention
• High-evidence: Programs proven to produce large, lasting effects shown in two or more well-conducted experimental studies in different community locations, or one large study across multiple sites
• Moderate-evidence: Programs showing positive but not yet conclusive effects in at least one well-conducted experimental study or a rigorous quasi-experimental study
• Low-evidence: Programs showing or potentially showing positive effects based on reasonable research assumptions and credible findings, such as correlation studies or case studies
• Well-conducted experimental study: A study using randomized controlled trials
Effective Date
Not specified in bill text
II
118TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
S. 550
To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to prioritize
programs that provide evidence of performance.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
FEBRUARY 28, 2023
Mr. BRAUN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
A BILL
To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
to prioritize programs that provide evidence of performance.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
1
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
3
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prioritizing Evidence
4
for Workforce Development Act’’.
5
SEC. 2. PRIORITIZING PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE EVI-
6
DENCE OF PERFORMANCE.
7
Section 102 of the Workforce Innovation and Oppor-
8
tunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3112) is amended—
9
(1) in subsection (b)—
10
VerDate Sep 11 2014
22:28 Mar 07, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\S550.IS
S550
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2
•S 550 IS
(A) in paragraph (1)—
1
(i) in subparagraph (D), by striking
2
‘‘and’’ after the semicolon;
3
(ii) in subparagraph (E), by striking
4
the period at the end and inserting ‘‘;
5
and’’; and
6
(iii) by adding at the end the fol-
7
lowing:
8
‘‘(F) a description of how the State plans
9
to prioritize the funding of evidence-based pro-
10
grams for which evidence from a rigorous eval-
11
uation of the programs shows a positive effect
12
on the target population for the programs, with
13
highest priority given to programs that are
14
high-evidence interventions, next priority given
15
to programs that are moderate-evidence inter-
16
ventions, and next priority given to programs
17
that are low-evidence interventions.’’; and
18
(B) in paragraph (2)(C)—
19
(i) in clause (vii), by striking ‘‘and’’
20
after the semicolon;
21
(ii) in clause (viii), by striking the pe-
22
riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
23
(iii) by adding at the end the fol-
24
lowing:
25
VerDate Sep 11 2014
22:28 Mar 07, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\S550.IS
S550
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3
•S 550 IS
‘‘(ix) how the State will prioritize the
1
funding of evidence-based programs for
2
which evidence from a rigorous evaluation
3
of the programs shows a positive effect on
4
the target population for the programs.’’;
5
and
6
(2) by adding at the end the following:
7
‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—In subsection (b):
8
‘‘(1) EVIDENCE-BASED.—The term ‘evidence-
9
based’, used with respect to an activity, strategy, or
10
other intervention, means a high-evidence, moderate-
11
evidence, or low-evidence intervention.
12
‘‘(2) HIGH-EVIDENCE.—The term ‘high-evi-
13
dence’, used with respect to an intervention, means
14
an intervention that is shown to produce a sizable,
15
sustained effect on important outcomes, in—
16
‘‘(A) two or more well-conducted experi-
17
mental studies carried out in typical community
18
settings and conducted at different implementa-
19
tion sites; or
20
‘‘(B) one large multisite well-conducted ex-
21
perimental study carried out in such a setting.
22
‘‘(3) LOW-EVIDENCE.—The term ‘low-evidence’,
23
used with respect to an intervention, means an inter-
24
vention that is shown to produce or have the poten-
25
VerDate Sep 11 2014
22:28 Mar 07, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\S550.IS
S550
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
4
•S 550 IS
tial to produce a positive effect on important out-
1
comes, in a study based on a reasonable hypothesis
2
and with credible research findings, such as a cor-
3
relational study with statistical controls for selection
4
bias or descriptive research such as a case study.
5
‘‘(4) MODERATE-EVIDENCE.—The term ‘mod-
6
erate-evidence’, used with respect to an intervention,
7
means an intervention that is shown to produce a
8
positive effect, that is sizable but not yet conclusive,
9
on important outcomes, in at least one well-con-
10
ducted experimental study, or in a rigorous quasi-ex-
11
perimental study from which a researcher can draw
12
a causal conclusion regarding the intervention’s ef-
13
fectiveness.
14
‘‘(5)
WELL-CONDUCTED
EXPERIMENTAL
15
STUDY.—The term ‘well-conducted experimental
16
study’ means an experimental study such as a study
17
with randomized controlled trials.’’.
18
Æ
VerDate Sep 11 2014
22:28 Mar 07, 2023
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\S550.IS
S550
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS