Better Jobs through Evidence and Innovation Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 27, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to improve the effectiveness and evidence base of federal workforce development programs by funding innovative, proven approaches and requiring rigorous evaluation.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a "Workforce Development Innovation Fund" within the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). It authorizes the Secretary of Labor to award competitive grants to eligible entities for establishing, implementing, replicating, or scaling evidence-based workforce development programs. The grants are categorized into early-phase, mid-phase, and expansion grants, each requiring different levels of evidence and evaluation rigor, with a focus on improving employment and earnings outcomes, especially for individuals with barriers to employment.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill will ensure federal workforce development funds are invested in programs that have demonstrated effectiveness, leading to better outcomes for workers and more efficient use of taxpayer money. They contend that by prioritizing evidence-based approaches and requiring rigorous evaluation, the bill will foster innovation, identify best practices, and allow successful programs to scale, ultimately enhancing employment and earnings for underserved populations and strengthening the overall workforce system.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill's emphasis on "evidence-based" programs and rigorous evaluation could stifle new, unproven but potentially transformative innovations, as early-stage programs may struggle to meet initial evidence thresholds. Some may also contend that the administrative burden and cost of rigorous evaluations could divert resources from direct service delivery, particularly for smaller community-based organizations, or that the definitions of "evidence" might be too narrow, favoring certain types of research over others.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a)(2), inserting new subsection (c)(1)(A) into 29 U.S.C. 3224.
Authorizing Workforce Development Innovation Grants
This provision authorizes the Secretary of Labor to award competitive grants to various organizations to fund innovative programs that improve employment and training services. The goal is to achieve sustained improvements in participants' earnings and employment, particularly for those facing barriers to employment, and to enhance the overall workforce development system's performance and cost-effectiveness.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this fund will direct resources towards programs that genuinely help people find and keep good jobs, focusing on measurable outcomes and addressing the specific needs of underserved populations. It provides a mechanism to test and scale successful models.
Critics contend
Some might argue that creating a new grant program adds another layer of bureaucracy to existing workforce development efforts, potentially duplicating services or creating competition among entities that could otherwise collaborate.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between providing flexible funding for innovation and ensuring accountability for results. The bill attempts to balance this by requiring evidence and evaluation.
Section 2(a)(2), inserting new subsection (c)(1)(C) and (D) into 29 U.S.C. 3224.
Differentiated Grants and Evidence Standards
The bill establishes three types of grants: early-phase, mid-phase, and expansion grants, each tied to a specific "level of evidence" (low, moderate, or high) supporting the program's effectiveness. Early-phase grants support new ideas with less evidence, while expansion grants are for programs with a high level of proven impact, allowing them to scale up. Detailed definitions for each evidence level are provided, ranging from reasonable hypotheses to multiple experimental studies.
Section 2(a)(2), inserting new subsection (c)(1)(A)(ii) and (c)(2) into 29 U.S.C. 3224.
Mandating Rigorous Evaluation and Providing Support
Most grants awarded under this fund will require a rigorous impact evaluation, often in partnership with a third-party research organization, to assess long-term improvements in earnings and employment. Early-phase grants require early-stage evaluations to prepare for future rigorous studies. Additionally, up to 10% of the fund's appropriations are reserved for technical assistance to help eligible entities with evaluation methods, grant implementation, and disseminating information on evidence-based practices.
The definition of a "well-designed and well-implemented experimental study" requires that such studies be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable evaluation, data, and privacy standards and practices described in the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018.
Section 2(a)(2), inserting new subsection (c)(3)(D)(v) into 29 U.S.C. 3224.
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure consistency with broader federal data and evidence policies without re-stating all the details. It's a technical reference rather than an evasive tactic.
Case for: Supporters would argue that aligning with the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act ensures that evaluations under this bill adhere to best practices for data governance, privacy, and evidence generation across the federal government, enhancing the credibility and utility of the research.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this type of technical alignment, as it promotes good governance. However, some might argue that it adds another layer of compliance complexity for grantees.
Estimated impact: Ensures federal standards for data and privacy are upheld in all evaluations, potentially improving data quality and protecting participant information.
The bill mandates that, of the funds available, not less than 50% must be used for expansion grants (high evidence) and not more than 25% for early-phase grants (low evidence), unless there are insufficient qualifying applications.
Section 2(a)(2), inserting new subsection (c)(1)(E) into 29 U.S.C. 3224.
Why it matters:This is a common way to specify funding priorities within a grant program. It's a programmatic detail rather than an attempt to hide a controversial policy.
Case for: Proponents would argue this allocation ensures that the majority of funds are directed towards programs with a proven track record of success, maximizing the impact of federal investment. It prioritizes scaling what works while still allowing for some early-stage innovation.
Case against: Critics might contend that capping early-phase grants at 25% could limit the pipeline of new, innovative programs, especially if many promising ideas emerge that initially lack high levels of evidence. They might argue for more flexibility or a higher allocation for early-phase grants to foster broader experimentation.
Estimated impact: Directs the majority of the authorized appropriations towards scaling proven workforce development models, potentially leading to widespread positive outcomes from established programs.