PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10156 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10156 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10156 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10156 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-27 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Better Jobs through Evidence and Innovation Act would authorize competitive grants to develop, test, and expand employment and training programs intended to improve participants’ earnings and employment. Workforce agencies, educational institutions, eligible Native organizations, and certain nonprofit and community organizations could apply. Grants would support programs at different stages of development, with stronger evidence required for expansion grants. The bill sets evaluation requirements, allowing preliminary studies for early-phase grants and possible waivers for expansion grants supported by multiple compelling examples of high-level evidence. The bill would authorize funding for fiscal years 2027–2031, without itself providing that money.
This Act may be cited as the Better Jobs through Evidence and Innovation Act.
The Secretary may, on a competitive basis and in accordance with subparagraph (B), award workforce development innovation grants
establish, implement, replicate, or take to scale evidence-based, field-initiated innovation programs or services for improving the design and delivery of employment and training services— (I) that generate demonstrated sustained improvements in earnings and employment outcomes for participants (including participants who are individuals with barriers to employment)
expansion grants for an innovation program or service supported by a high level of evidence
a well-designed, well-implemented, and rigorous impact evaluation, through a partnership with a third-party research organization or a third-party researcher
in the case of an early-phase grant described in subparagraph (C)(i), an early-stage evaluation (such as a feasibility study, pilot, or rapid-cycle evaluation) that prepares the innovation program or service for an evaluation described in subclause (I) for a potential subsequent grant.
except with respect to an expansion grant described in subparagraph (C)(iii) for which the Secretary waives an evaluation because the Secretary determines there are multiple compelling examples of high-level evidence
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2027 through 2031.
(i) A State workforce development board established under section 101 (29 U.S.C. 3111). (ii) A local workforce development board established under section 107 (29 U.S.C. 3122). (iii) An Indian tribe, tribal organization, Alaska Native entity, Indian-controlled organization serving Indians, or Native Hawaiian organization that is eligible to receive an award under section 166 (29 U.S.C. 3221). (iv) An institution of higher education (as defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)). (v) A State workforce agency. (vi) An organization— (I) that— (aa) is a community-based organization, a nonprofit organization, or a nongovernment organization, including a labor organization (as defined in section 2 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152)); and (bb) serves an underserved population
Section 2 would add a workforce development innovation fund to the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. The Secretary could award competitive grants for employment and training innovations intended to produce sustained improvements in earnings and employment, including for people facing barriers to employment. Additional objectives include meeting employer needs, improving access to services, and improving cost-effectiveness for underserved participants and communities.
Section 169 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3224) is amended— (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following: (c) Workforce development innovation fund
The Secretary may, on a competitive basis and in accordance with subparagraph (B), award workforce development innovation grants
(I) that generate demonstrated sustained improvements in earnings and employment outcomes for participants (including participants who are individuals with barriers to employment); and (II) that may demonstrate improvements in— (aa) the performance or impact of the workforce development system with respect to the purposes of this Act described in section 2 (29 U.S.C. 3101), such as increasing access to and opportunities for employment, education, training, and support services for individuals with barriers to employment; (bb) addressing employer and labor market needs; or (cc) the cost-effectiveness of such innovation programs or services, particularly for participants and communities not sufficiently served by existing models such as participants and communities in rural areas
Eligible applicants would include state and local workforce boards, state workforce agencies, higher education institutions, and specified Native entities eligible under an existing workforce program. Community, nonprofit, nongovernmental, and labor organizations would qualify if they serve an underserved population. National or regional organizations planning direct grants to those organizations, and groups of eligible entities applying together, could also qualify.
(i) A State workforce development board established under section 101 (29 U.S.C. 3111). (ii) A local workforce development board established under section 107 (29 U.S.C. 3122). (iii) An Indian tribe, tribal organization, Alaska Native entity, Indian-controlled organization serving Indians, or Native Hawaiian organization that is eligible to receive an award under section 166 (29 U.S.C. 3221). (iv) An institution of higher education (as defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)). (v) A State workforce agency. (vi) An organization— (I) that— (aa) is a community-based organization, a nonprofit organization, or a nongovernment organization, including a labor organization (as defined in section 2 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152)); and (bb) serves an underserved population; or (II) that is a national or regional organization that intends to use funds awarded under this Act to make direct grants to an organization described in subclause (I). (vii) A consortium of any entities described in clause (i) through (vi).
Funded innovations would need to be developed by practitioners or researchers in the relevant policy area. Examples include registered apprenticeships, re-entry initiatives, career pathways, and training on the job or for current workers. The bill defines an innovation program or service as one designed to demonstrate innovative, cost-effective ways to improve employment, licensing, or training services.
The term field-initiated, with respect to a program or service, means a program or service in which the elements of the program or service have been developed by practitioners or researchers in the policy area
(iii) a registered apprenticeship; (iv) a re-entry initiative; (v) a career pathway model; (vi) an industry and sector partnership; or (vii) on-the-job or incumbent worker training.
The term innovation program or service means a program or service designed to demonstrate innovative and cost-effective ways to augment and improve employment, licensure, or training services.
Grant selection would primarily consider reliable evidence of potential long-term improvements, anticipated costs compared with earnings and employment outcomes, the evaluation’s contribution to existing knowledge, and supporting projects in geographically diverse locations or serving people with diverse needs. These are selection criteria, not guarantees of results. One applicant could receive different grant types for separate qualifying programs.
shall award grants under subparagraph (A) on the primary basis of— (aa) reliable evidence presented with respect to potential achievements of the innovation program or service proposed by the eligible entity with respect to demonstrated, long-term improvements in an outcome described in subclause (I) or (II) of subparagraph (A)(i); (bb) the anticipated cost of the program or service relative to anticipated earnings and employment outcomes for participants; (cc) the anticipated contribution of the evaluation of the program or service to the overall evidence base, including evidence on cost-effectiveness; and (dd) the existence of supporting projects in geographically diverse sites, including rural areas, or that serve populations with diverse needs
may award, under subparagraph (A), different types of grants described under subparagraph (C) to an eligible entity for separate innovation programs or services that meet the relevant criteria for such different types of grants.
The Secretary would determine each grant’s duration and would have to ensure that its funding covers both implementation and evaluation costs. Recipients would have to spend at least 60 percent of their award on direct program implementation.
(ii) Duration of award A grant awarded under subparagraph (A) shall be awarded for a period determined appropriate by the Secretary. (iii) Amount of award The Secretary shall ensure that any grants awarded under subparagraph (A) shall include sufficient funding for the cost of the evaluation and program implementation. (iv) Use of award An eligible entity that receives a grant awarded under subparagraph (A) shall use not less than 60 percent of such award for direct program implementation.
To the extent feasible, the program would offer early-phase grants for programs supported by any of the bill’s three evidence levels. These grants would fund development, implementation, and evaluation. Mid-phase grants would require moderate or high evidence and would support operation, refinement, expansion, and continued evaluation at one site, preparing successful programs for a possible expansion grant.
The grants described in subparagraph (A) shall, to the extent feasible, include— (i) early-phase grants for an innovation program or service supported by any level of evidence described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (D), for the purposes of funding the development, implementation, and evaluation of such program or service; (ii) mid-phase grants for an innovation program or service supported by a moderate level of evidence or a high level of evidence (as described in clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (D), respectively) for the purposes of funding the operation, refinement, expansion, and continued evaluation (as described in subparagraph (A)(ii)(I)) of such innovation program or service at a single site that would, if successful, prepare the program or service for a subsequent expansion grant
Expansion grants would require high-level evidence. Their purposes would include operating an existing site, expanding to another site, conducting an experimental evaluation across multiple sites, and, if necessary, adapting the program to new circumstances or needs.
(iii) expansion grants for an innovation program or service supported by a high level of evidence, as described in subparagraph (D)(iii), for the purposes of— (I) funding the operation of such innovation program or service at an existing site; (II) expansion or such innovation program or service to another site; (III) implementation of a multi-site experimental rigorous impact evaluation of such innovation program or service; and (IV) if necessary, continued refinement and adaption of the program or service model to address new contexts or needs.
The general evaluation requirement would involve an outside researcher or research organization assessing long-term earnings and employment improvements and other relevant outcomes. An accompanying process or implementation evaluation would support improvements and expansion. Early-phase grants could instead use preliminary studies, pilots, or rapid-cycle evaluations to prepare for a rigorous evaluation under a possible later grant.
(I) a well-designed, well-implemented, and rigorous impact evaluation, through a partnership with a third-party research organization or a third-party researcher, of such innovation programs or services that— (aa) assesses for effectiveness in achieving any demonstrated long-term improvements in earnings and employment outcomes for participants and for improvements in other relevant outcomes, such as the outcomes described in item (aa), (bb), and (cc) of clause (i)(II); and (bb) is accompanied by a process or implementation evaluation for the purpose of programmatic improvement and supporting scale-up; or (II) in the case of an early-phase grant described in subparagraph (C)(i), an early-stage evaluation (such as a feasibility study, pilot, or rapid-cycle evaluation) that prepares the innovation program or service for an evaluation described in subclause (I) for a potential subsequent grant.
The Secretary could waive the evaluation requirement for an expansion grant after determining that multiple compelling examples of high-level evidence already exist.
except with respect to an expansion grant described in subparagraph (C)(iii) for which the Secretary waives an evaluation because the Secretary determines there are multiple compelling examples of high-level evidence
The lowest evidence standard would allow support from a reasonable hypothesis and credible research, a descriptive study such as a case study, or an evidence review and needs assessment. This evidence would need to show either an ability or potential to improve participants’ earnings and employment and employers’ earnings.
An innovation program or service is supported by a low level of evidence if such program or service has demonstrated, through a reasonable hypothesis and credible research findings (such as a correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias), a descriptive study (such as a case study), or evidence review and needs assessment, the— (I) ability to achieve positive effects on earnings and employment outcomes for participants (including participants who are individuals with barriers to employment) and earnings for employers; or (II) potential to achieve such effect on such outcomes.
Moderate evidence would require sizable but not yet conclusive positive effects on participants’ earnings and employment and employers’ earnings. Support could come from a well-designed and well-implemented experimental study, such as a randomized trial, or a rigorous quasi-experimental study capable of drawing causal conclusions.
An innovation program or service is supported by a moderate level of evidence if such program or service has demonstrated the ability to achieve sizable, but not yet conclusive, positive effects on earnings and employment outcomes for participants (including participants who are individuals with barriers to employment) and earnings for employers, through— (I) a well-designed and well-implemented experimental study of such program or service, such as a randomized controlled trial; or (II) a rigorous quasi-experimental study of such program or service capable of drawing causal conclusions about the effectiveness of such program or service.
High evidence would require substantial, statistically significant positive effects on participants’ earnings and employment and employers’ earnings. Evidence would need to come from at least two well-designed and well-implemented experimental studies at different sites, or one large, well-designed and well-implemented experimental study across multiple sites.
An innovation program or service is supported by a high level of evidence if such program or service has demonstrated, through replication of studies, the ability to achieve a substantial and statistically significant, positive impact on earnings and employment outcomes for participants (including participants who are individuals with barriers to employment) and earnings for employers, through— (I) 2 or more well-designed and well-implemented experimental studies of such program or service conducted at different implementation sites; or (II) through a well-designed and well-implemented large, multi-site, experimental study.
Qualifying experimental studies would need to be repeatable, use representative program and control groups, avoid disproportionately selecting already highly skilled participants for the program group, account for broad changes affecting baseline measures, and avoid problems from participants dropping out. They would also need to follow applicable evaluation, data, and privacy standards and practices described in the referenced evidence policymaking law and its amendments and, where feasible, align with the referenced education research standards.
The term well-designed and well-implemented experimental study means a study that— (i) is replicable; (ii) uses programmatic and control groups that are representative of the type of population served by the program or service that is subject to the study, including by avoiding over-selection of participants who are highly skilled prior to participation for such programmatic group; (iii) uses controls for aggregate shifts that might affect baseline numbers; (iv) does not have problems with attrition of participants from the study; (v) is conducted in a manner that is consistent with applicable evaluation, data, and privacy standards and practices described in the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–435; 132 Stat. 5529) and the amendments made by that Act; and (vi) to the extent feasible, is aligned with the standards for experimental studies conducted pursuant to the education innovation and research program under section 4611 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7261).
At least 50 percent of annual funds would go to expansion grants, and no more than 25 percent would go to early-phase grants. These allocation requirements would have an exception when there are too few qualifying applications.
Of the funds made available to carry out this subsection for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall, except when determined that there is not a sufficient number of qualifying applications to do so, use— (i) not less than 50 percent of such funds to award expansion grants described in subparagraph (C)(iii); and (ii) not more than 25 percent of such funds to award early-phase grants described in subparagraph (C)(i).
The Secretary would reserve no more than 10 percent of annual funds for applicant and recipient assistance, sharing evidence-based practices, related staffing and costs, and evaluation research. Assistance could include application workshops, feasibility studies, evaluation methods, and help improving program delivery and use of administrative data.
Of the funds made available to carry out this subsection for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve not more than 10 percent of the funds to— (A) provide technical assistance to eligible entities, which may include preapplication workshops, web-based seminars, support for conducting feasibility studies and other planning activities, assistance with methods and requirements for purposes of evaluation research under subparagraph (D), and support for improving grant implementation and the quality and effectiveness of activities and services funded by grants awarded under paragraph (1)(A), including the use of administrative data and information to improve outcomes for participants; (B) disseminate information on low-, moderate-, and high-evidence-based practices; (C) fund staffing and other costs related to such activities; and (D) conduct evaluation research regarding activities or services funded by grants awarded under subparagraph (A).
The bill would authorize appropriations of whatever sums are necessary for fiscal years 2027 through 2031. It would not itself appropriate money or specify a funding total.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2027 through 2031.
The bill would renumber existing subsection 169(c) as 169(d) and update a reference in section 132(a)(2)(A) to match. The supplied text does not reproduce those existing provisions, so their substantive content and any broader effects cannot be established from this source alone.
Section 169 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3224) is amended— (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d)
Section 132(a)(2)(A) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3172(a)(2)(A)) is amended by striking 169(c) and inserting 169(d).
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 8, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Education and Workforce on August 27, 2026. It does not establish any later action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-08T17:29:30Z. 2026-08-27: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. 2026-08-27: Introduced in House 2026-08-27: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-27. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion applies only to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials. Amendment attachment history is not supplied.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion applies only to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials. Formal earmark status cannot be established without the absent disclosures and related materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit warranting a separate finding was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. Ordinary program eligibility and evidence-based administration do not alone warrant findings. This conclusion applies only to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 8, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI