```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5111 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5111

  To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to prioritize 
             programs that provide evidence of performance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2023

 Mrs. Houchin (for herself, Mrs. McClain, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. 
Bucshon, Mr. James, Mr. Bean of Florida, and Mr. Lawler) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 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 Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Prioritizing Evidence for Workforce 
Development Act''.

SEC. 2. PRIORITIZING PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF PERFORMANCE.

    Section 102 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 
U.S.C. 3112) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1)--
                            (i) in subparagraph (D), by striking 
                        ``and'' after the semicolon;
                            (ii) in subparagraph (E), by striking the 
                        period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
                            (iii) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(F) a description of how the State plans to 
                prioritize the funding of evidence-based programs for 
                which evidence from a rigorous evaluation of the 
                programs shows a positive effect on the target 
                population for the programs, with highest priority 
                given to programs that are high-evidence interventions, 
                next priority given to programs that are moderate-
                evidence interventions, and next priority given to 
                programs that are low-evidence interventions.''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (2)(C)--
                            (i) in clause (vii), by striking ``and'' 
                        after the semicolon;
                            (ii) in clause (viii), by striking the 
                        period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
                            (iii) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(ix) how the State will prioritize the 
                        funding of evidence-based programs for which 
                        evidence from a rigorous evaluation of the 
                        programs shows a positive effect on the target 
                        population for the programs.''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) Definitions.--In subsection (b):
            ``(1) Evidence-based.--The term `evidence-based', used with 
        respect to an activity, strategy, or other intervention, means 
        a high-evidence, moderate-evidence, or low-evidence 
        intervention.
            ``(2) High-evidence.--The term `high-evidence', used with 
        respect to an intervention, means an intervention that is shown 
        to produce a sizable, sustained effect on important outcomes, 
        in--
                    ``(A) two or more well-conducted experimental 
                studies carried out in typical community settings and 
                conducted at different implementation sites; or
                    ``(B) one large multisite well-conducted 
                experimental study carried out in such a setting.
            ``(3) Low-evidence.--The term `low-evidence', used with 
        respect to an intervention, means an intervention that is shown 
        to produce or have the potential to produce a positive effect 
        on important outcomes, in a study based on a reasonable 
        hypothesis and with credible research findings, such as a 
        correlational study with statistical controls for selection 
        bias or descriptive research such as a case study.
            ``(4) Moderate-evidence.--The term `moderate-evidence', 
        used with respect to an intervention, means an intervention 
        that is shown to produce a positive effect, that is sizable but 
        not yet conclusive, on important outcomes, in at least one 
        well-conducted experimental study, or in a rigorous quasi-
        experimental study from which a researcher can draw a causal 
        conclusion regarding the intervention's effectiveness.
            ``(5) Well-conducted experimental study.--The term `well-
        conducted experimental study' means an experimental study such 
        as a study with randomized controlled trials.''.
                                 <all>
```