[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 550 Introduced in Senate (IS)]
<DOC>
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 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>