Direct CARE Opportunity Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [D-VA-3]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 1, 2026
Bottom line
The Direct CARE Opportunity Act of 2026 aims to address shortages and improve conditions for direct care workers by funding state and local initiatives through federal grants, emphasizing training, career advancement, and fair compensation.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to establish a grant program to support the recruitment, retention, and advancement of direct care workers. It authorizes $300 million annually for six fiscal years (FY2027-2032) for these grants and an additional $6 million annually for technical assistance. Eligible entities, including states, labor organizations, and non-profits, can use these funds for education and training programs, career pathways, career planning, and direct worker supports, with requirements for fair wages, safe work environments, and data reporting.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is crucial for addressing the growing national shortage of direct care workers, who provide essential services to older individuals and people with disabilities. They contend that by investing in recruitment, retention, and career advancement, the bill will improve the quality of care, support family caregivers, and create stable, well-paying jobs in a critical sector. Supporters highlight the bill's focus on fair wages, safe working conditions, and comprehensive training as key to professionalizing the direct care workforce and ensuring individuals can live independently in their communities.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that the bill represents an overreach of federal authority into state and local workforce development, or that the proposed funding levels are excessive given other national priorities. Concerns could also be raised about the administrative burden of the grant program, the potential for inefficient use of funds, or that the wage requirements could lead to increased costs for care recipients or providers without sufficient federal offset. Some might also argue that market forces, rather than federal grants, should primarily drive improvements in the direct care sector.
The bill is moderately detailed but clearly structured, allowing an informed reader to understand its core provisions within the time typically allotted for legislative review.
Section 3(a)
Authority to Award Grants
This provision directs the Secretary of Labor to establish a grant program within 12 months of enactment. These grants will be awarded to eligible entities to help them create and carry out strategies for recruiting, keeping, and promoting direct care workers. The program requires an interagency agreement with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure coordinated administration and technical assistance.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that establishing a direct grant program is the most effective way to incentivize and support localized efforts to strengthen the direct care workforce, allowing for tailored solutions to regional needs.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that a new federal grant program adds administrative overhead and could duplicate existing state or private initiatives, suggesting that existing funding streams could be better utilized.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for federal intervention to address a national workforce crisis with concerns about federal overreach and administrative complexity.
Section 2(2)
Definition of Direct Care Worker
This section broadly defines "direct care worker" to include direct support professionals, workers providing home or community-based direct care services (including palliative care), respite care providers, and other related positions as determined by the Secretary of Labor. This comprehensive definition ensures a wide range of care providers are eligible for the bill's benefits.
Section 4(a)(2)
Application Content Requirements
This provision outlines detailed information that eligible entities must include in their grant applications. This includes demographic data of the service area, projections of unmet care needs, current and projected job openings for direct care workers, and a description of proposed strategies to reduce recruitment, retention, or advancement barriers. Applicants must also assure fair wages, safe work environments, and non-charging of participants for services.
Section 4(a)(2)(C), (G)
Fair Wage and Safe Work Environment Assurances
Grant applicants must assure that any wages provided to direct care workers or trainees will be no less than the greater of the federal minimum wage or applicable state/collective bargaining wages. Furthermore, entities must assure the provision of adequate and safe equipment/facilities, a work environment free from discrimination, retaliation, and violence, and necessary training for mentors and instructors, including for infectious disease prevention.
Section 5(a)(2)
Permitted Grant Activities
This section specifies how grant funds can be used, requiring entities to implement at least one of several strategies. These include developing education and training programs (e.g., apprenticeships, work-based learning, culturally competent services, recipient rights training), career pathway programs (e.g., dual-enrollment, stackable credentials, supportive services), providing career planning, or offering direct financial and supportive services to workers.
Section 6(a)
Grantee Evaluation and Reporting Requirements
Grantees are required to submit annual and final reports to the Secretaries of Labor and HHS, detailing the progress and outcomes of their strategies. These reports must include the number of participants, activities carried out, outcomes for direct care workers (e.g., employment, credential attainment, median earnings), and satisfaction evaluations from participants, recipients, and employers. All data must be disaggregated by various demographic categories, with exceptions for privacy and statistical reliability.
This section mandates an interagency agreement between the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health and Human Services for assistance in administering grants or providing technical assistance. It specifies that the agreement must define whose criteria/procedures will be used or if a single set will be developed, and whether a single application will be required. It also allows for the transfer of appropriated funds between the two Secretaries for these purposes.
Section 3(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for outlining administrative coordination between federal agencies, ensuring smooth program operation. It's not intentionally evasive.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this detailed interagency agreement ensures seamless coordination between the Department of Labor (workforce development expertise) and the Department of Health and Human Services (care services expertise), leading to a more effective and holistic approach to supporting direct care workers.
Case against: Critics might suggest that requiring such a detailed agreement could introduce bureaucratic delays in program implementation, especially if the agencies struggle to align their procedures and criteria.
Estimated impact: Facilitates the efficient allocation and management of up to $300 million annually in grants and $6 million in technical assistance, impacting the overall effectiveness of the program.
This provision mandates that any education and training program funded by the grants must provide participants with relevant training regarding the rights of direct care service recipients. These rights include receiving services in the most integrated setting, exercising self-determination, and being free from abuse and discrimination.
Section 5(a)(2)(A)(i)
Why it matters:This is a substantive programmatic requirement placed within the operational details of grant usage. While important, it's a specific component of a broader section on training.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this training is essential to ensure that direct care workers are not only skilled in their tasks but also deeply understand and uphold the fundamental rights and dignity of the individuals they serve, promoting person-centered care.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against provisions that protect recipient rights, as they are widely supported. Some might argue about the specific curriculum or duration of such training, but not the principle.
Estimated impact: Ensures that potentially thousands of direct care workers receiving training through this program are educated on recipient rights, enhancing the quality and ethical delivery of care nationwide.