Prioritizing Evidence for Workforce Development Act

Bill: 118-hr-5111
Sponsor: full_name: Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9]
Introduced: 2023-08-01
Policy area: Labor and Employment
Latest action: action_date: 2023-08-01
text: Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Summaries:
action_date: 2023-08-01
action_desc: Introduced in House
text: <p><b>Prioritizing Evidence for Workforce Development Act</b></p> <p>This bill requires state workforce development plans to describe how the state will prioritize funding evidence-based programs that demonstrate positive outcomes for their target populations.</p>

tv_txt: I 118th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 5111 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.

1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Prioritizing Evidence for Workforce Development Act . 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. .