Overview
Title
To authorize workforce development innovation grants for the implementation, expansion, and evaluation of evidence-based workforce programs, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 10312 helps create special money prizes to help schools, organizations, and other groups make better job training programs that really work, especially for people who need it the most. The goal is to find new and smart ways to help people find and keep good jobs.
Summary AI
H.R. 10312, known as the "Better Jobs through Evidence and Innovation Act," aims to enhance workforce development programs in the U.S. by creating a fund for innovation grants. These grants will be awarded to eligible entities like workforce development boards, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations to implement, scale, and evaluate programs that improve employment and training services. Grants focus on evidence-based practices to achieve long-term improvements in job outcomes and cost-effectiveness, particularly benefiting underserved communities. The bill also includes provisions for technical assistance and evaluation support to ensure effective implementation of these innovative programs.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "Better Jobs through Evidence and Innovation Act," seeks to enhance workforce development programs across the United States. Introduced in the House of Representatives, this bill aims to authorize the provision of innovation grants for workforce development. These grants are designed to support the implementation, expansion, and evaluation of innovative, evidence-based employment and training services. The initiative intends to improve the performance of workforce systems, elevate earnings and employment outcomes for job seekers, and provide cost-effective solutions tailored to underserved communities.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several critical issues emerge from the provisions of the bill:
Grant Award Criteria: The process for awarding grants is competitive, with selections based on the Secretary’s judgment regarding potential achievements. This introduces the risk of subjective decision-making, which could foster bias or favoritism.
Grant Duration: The duration of the grant awards is determined by the Secretary, potentially leading to inconsistencies in grant periods and further raising concerns about favoritism.
Broad Definitions: The bill provides definitions for terms like "eligible entity" and "innovation program or service," which are somewhat broad. This lack of specificity might result in different interpretations, complicating implementation.
Complexity of Evidence Standards: The standards for different levels of evidence (low, moderate, high) required for grant eligibility are detailed but may be challenging for eligible entities to understand, potentially creating barriers to participation.
Use of Technical Assistance Funds: While 10% of the funds are reserved for technical assistance and related activities, the lack of specific guidelines may result in inefficient use of resources.
Extensive Cross-referencing: The bill heavily references other legislative sections and acts without adequate cross-referencing or footnotes, which could lead to confusion and misinterpretation.
Potential Impact on the Public
If effectively implemented, this bill could have a significant positive impact on improving workforce development programs nationwide. By supporting innovative and evidence-based approaches, the bill promises enhanced training and employment services that can lead to better job placement and higher earnings for participants. This is particularly beneficial for job seekers in underserved or rural areas, who might otherwise have limited access to high-quality workforce programs.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Job Seekers and Employers: The primary beneficiaries of the bill are job seekers—especially those facing employment barriers—and employers. The funding and support for innovative programs could improve employment outcomes and lead to more sustainable job opportunities.
Workforce Development Entities: Entities such as local and state workforce boards, higher education institutions, and community-based organizations stand to benefit from additional funding. However, the complexity and potential biases in grant allocation might hinder their accessibility to these resources.
Research and Evaluation Organizations: There is an opportunity for third-party research organizations, which are critical in evaluating program effectiveness, to play an essential role in this initiative. However, the subjective nature of evidence standards might pose challenges.
Underserved Communities: The bill's focus on underserved populations is a positive step towards inclusivity and could contribute to reducing employment disparities. Proper implementation of the bill’s initiatives could provide these communities with much-needed support and resources, although the broad definitions might lead to challenges in targeting these groups effectively.
In summary, while the "Better Jobs through Evidence and Innovation Act" presents promising opportunities for advancing workforce development, addressing the identified issues could greatly enhance its effectiveness and equitable implementation.
Issues
The criteria for awarding grants on a competitive basis may be subjective and lead to potential bias or favoritism. This issue is related to Section 2, Subsection (c)(1)(A) and (B).
The duration of grant awards is determined solely by the Secretary, which may result in inconsistent grant periods and potential favoritism. This issue is found in Section 2, Subsection (c)(1)(B)(ii).
Definitions provided for terms such as 'eligible entity', 'field-initiated', 'innovation program or service', and 'well-designed and well-implemented experimental study' may be too broad, leading to differing interpretations and implementation issues. Refer to Section 2, Subsection (c)(3).
The complexity of the language regarding different levels of evidence (low, moderate, high) may be difficult for eligible entities to understand without further guidance, creating barriers to participation. This is detailed in Section 2, Subsection (c)(1)(D).
Technical assistance funds are capped at 10%, but there are no specific guidelines on how these funds should be prioritized or used effectively, which could lead to inefficient use of resources. This issue is noted in Section 2, Subsection (c)(2).
Extensive referencing of other sections and acts may lead to confusion or misinterpretation without adequate cross-referencing or footnotes, potentially impacting the effective implementation of the bill. This issue spans throughout Section 2.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states its short title: it can be called the "Better Jobs through Evidence and Innovation Act."
2. Evaluations and research Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to create a "Workforce Development Innovation Fund," which allows the Secretary to award competitive grants for innovative employment and training services aimed at improving the workforce system, enhancing jobseeker and employer outcomes, and serving underserved communities. These grants are categorized based on the level of evidence supporting them and can support the development, expansion, and evaluation of such programs, with a portion of funds reserved for technical assistance and evaluation research.