Overview

Title

To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to define the term evidence-based.

ELI5 AI

S. 922 wants to change a big work law to make sure that when people say something helps, they really mean it because there's proof and studies to back it up. It also asks for good plans to keep checking if these helpful things actually work.

Summary AI

S. 922 aims to amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act by providing a clear definition for the term "evidence-based." The bill specifies that an "evidence-based" activity or service must show a statistically significant effect on improving outcomes based on strong, moderate, or promising evidence from various types of studies. It also requires a rationale based on high-quality research and continuous evaluation efforts. Additionally, the bill directs states to describe how they will prioritize funding for programs that are identified as evidence-based.

Published

2025-03-10
Congress: 119
Session: 1
Chamber: SENATE
Status: Introduced in Senate
Date: 2025-03-10
Package ID: BILLS-119s922is

Keywords AI

evidence-based definition workforce innovation and opportunity act statistically significant effect research studies state funding priorities program evaluation strong, moderate, promising evidence accountability high-quality research reporting and compliance

Sources

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
1
Words:
521
Pages:
3
Sentences:
5

Language

Nouns: 139
Verbs: 45
Adjectives: 30
Adverbs: 14
Numbers: 17
Entities: 27

Complexity

Average Token Length:
4.12
Average Sentence Length:
104.20
Token Entropy:
4.68
Readability (ARI):
53.03

AnalysisAI

Summary of the Bill

The bill, S. 922, seeks to amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act by introducing a definition for the term "evidence-based." This amendment specifies that an activity, service, strategy, or intervention is considered evidence-based if it demonstrates a statistically significant effect through different levels of research—strong, moderate, or promising. Additionally, the bill requires states to describe how they will prioritize funding for programs that meet this evidence-based criterion.

Significant Issues

A notable issue with the bill is the ambiguity in defining what constitutes "strong," "moderate," and "promising" evidence, potentially leading to inconsistent interpretations by states and organizations. Another concern is the lack of guidance on how "ongoing efforts to examine the effects" should be implemented, which might result in ineffective assessment processes. The bill does not establish any oversight mechanisms to ensure compliance by states, which could weaken accountability in prioritizing evidence-based programs. In addition, the phrase "high-quality research findings" is not clearly defined, raising the possibility of varied interpretations. Furthermore, detailed reporting standards for states on how they use evidence-based programs are not included, potentially leading to inconsistent data on program effectiveness.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, the impact of this bill largely depends on how effectively states implement and prioritize evidence-based programs. If states adhere to a rigorous standard for what is considered evidence-based, the public could benefit from more effective workforce development programs that genuinely improve participant outcomes. However, if definitions remain vague and enforcement lax, there could be little to no improvement in program efficacy, meaning public funds might not be optimally used.

Stakeholder Impact

Policy Makers and Program Administrators: For these stakeholders, the bill provides a framework but lacks detailed guidance. This could result in challenges when determining program priorities, as they must interpret broad criteria without much direction.

Educational Institutions and Training Providers: These groups might face challenges adjusting their existing programs to align with the new evidence-based requirements, especially if the criteria remain vague. However, once programs are aligned, they could potentially access more funding.

Researchers and Evaluators: The bill opens opportunities for these individuals to conduct studies and evaluations that could qualify activities as evidence-based. Still, the unclear standards for evidence levels could complicate their work.

Workers and Job Seekers: This group stands to benefit from improved workforce programs that effectively support skill development and employment opportunities. However, without clear definitions and strict enforcement of evidence-based criteria, they might see little change in the quality and effectiveness of available programs.

Overall, while the bill aims to enhance the quality of workforce programs through evidence-based practices, its impact will heavily depend on the clarity, oversight, and thoroughness of implementation by states and institutions.

Issues

  • The definition of 'evidence-based' includes multiple levels of evidence (strong, moderate, promising) which might cause ambiguity and does not provide clear guidelines on what qualifies as each level. This could lead to inconsistency in the application of the term by states and organizations (Section 1, Paragraph 72).

  • The requirement for 'ongoing efforts to examine the effects' of activities or interventions is vague because it does not specify how these efforts should be conducted or assessed, which may result in ineffective implementations (Section 1, Paragraph 72, (B)(ii)).

  • The amendment does not specify any oversight or evaluation mechanism to ensure that states comply with prioritizing evidence-based programs, potentially weakening state accountability (Section 102(b)(1), new subparagraph F).

  • The description of evidence-based programs lacks specificity on how states should report on their use, which could result in inconsistent data and challenges in assessing program effectiveness (Section 102(b)(1), new subparagraph F).

  • The concept of 'high-quality research findings' remains undefined, which could lead to varying interpretations and inconsistent applications of what is considered evidence-based (Section 1, Paragraph 72, (B)(i)).

  • The use of 'statistically significant effect' might be unclear without specifying the confidence level or statistical metric to be used, which can result in inconsistent standards for evidence-based claims (Section 1, Paragraph 72, (A)).

  • The language used in the bill to describe the amendments is formal and complex, which might make it difficult for laypersons to understand the changes and their implications, potentially limiting public engagement and scrutiny.

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. Evidence-based definition Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

In this section, Congress amends the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to define "evidence-based" activities as those that show a positive impact through strong, moderate, or promising research studies, or have a rationale backed by quality research and ongoing evaluation. It also requires states to describe how they will prioritize funding for these evidence-based programs.