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. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7] · D–WA
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: Oct 14, 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.10561 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.10561 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.10561 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.10561 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 · 2026-09-24 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 Workforce Opportunities for Communities in Recovery Act would create competitive, two-year grants to address job and workforce problems associated with widespread substance use disorder. Partnerships would serve workers affected directly or indirectly, or workers seeking skills for jobs that support people with substance use disorder. Activities could include employer engagement, treatment-related support and job training. The bill would authorize funding for fiscal years 2027–2032; authorization does not itself provide the money.
This Act may be cited as the Workforce Opportunities for Communities in Recovery Act.
The Secretary shall carry out a pilot program to make grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities (on behalf of participating partnerships) to address economic and workforce impacts associated with widespread occurrence of a substance use disorder.
A grant made under this subsection shall be for a 2-year period.
Workers, including dislocated workers, individuals with barriers to employment, new entrants in the workforce, or incumbent workers (employed or underemployed), each of whom is directly or indirectly affected by widespread occurrence of a substance use disorder.
seek to transition to occupations that support individuals struggling with a substance use disorder or who are at risk for developing such disorder
Each participating partnership shall use funds available through a grant under this subsection to carry out activities described in 1 or more of the following clauses:
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 170(e)— (1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2027; (2) $27,500,000 for fiscal year 2028; (3) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2029; (4) $32,500,000 for fiscal year 2030; (5) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2031; and (6) $37,500,000 for fiscal year 2032.
Section 2 would add the pilot program to the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. State or local boards could apply on behalf of partnerships established by written agreement with one or more treatment providers, employers, education providers, community organizations, public agencies, Tribal entities or other approved organizations.
Section 170 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3225) is amended by adding at the end the following:
The term eligible entity means a State board or local board.
The term participating partnership means a partnership evidenced by a written contract or agreement between— (i) an eligible entity; and (ii) one or more of the following: (I) A treatment provider. (II) An employer or industry organization. (III) An education provider. (IV) A legal services or law enforcement organization. (V) A community-based organization. (VI) A State or local agency, including a county or local government. (VII) An Indian Tribe or tribal organization, as such terms are defined in section 166(b). (VIII) Another organization, as determined appropriate by the eligible entity.
Grants would serve counties, communities, regions or local areas significantly affected by widespread substance use disorder. To the extent practicable, the Secretary would distribute awards equitably by geography and relative negative impact. The impact comparison specifically points to the application provision concerning an economic downturn.
The term service area means a county, community, region, or local area, that has been significantly impacted by widespread occurrence of a substance use disorder and will be served through a grant under this subsection.
the Secretary shall ensure, to the extent practicable, the equitable distribution of grant awards, based on— (i) geography (such as urban and rural distribution); and (ii) the relative degree of the negative impact due to substance use disorder demonstrated under paragraph (3)(B)(i)(I) for a service area as compared with such negative impact for other service areas, as determined by the Secretary.
(I) an economic downturn in the service area;
An education partner would have to be a higher education institution or postsecondary vocational institution under the referenced federal definitions. A treatment provider would have to offer substance use disorder treatment, hold the required state license and accept health insurance, including Medicaid coverage. The definition also lists several types of providers that may qualify.
The term education provider means— (i) an institution of higher education, as defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001); or (ii) a postsecondary vocational institution, as defined in section 102(c) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1002(c)).
The term treatment provider— (i) means a health care provider that— (I) offers services for treating substance use disorders and is licensed in accordance with applicable State law to provide such services; and (II) accepts health insurance for such services, including coverage under a State plan (or a waiver of such plan) under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.); and (ii) may include— (I) a nonprofit provider of peer recovery support services; (II) a community health care provider; (III) a Federally qualified health center (as defined in section 1861(aa)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(4))); (IV) an Indian health program (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1603)), including an Indian health program that serves an Urban center (as defined in such section); and (V) a Native Hawaiian health center (as defined in section 12 of the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act (42 U.S.C. 11711)).
Applicants would have to demonstrate negative economic and workforce impacts associated with widespread substance use disorder. They could show that it caused, or coincided with, an economic downturn, persistent depressed economic conditions, or high unemployment or low workforce participation compared with the state. The application standard would not always require proof of causation.
information that demonstrates negative economic and workforce impacts associated with widespread occurrence of a substance use disorder in the service area, including information that demonstrates that such widespread occurrence has caused, or is coincident to— (I) an economic downturn in the service area; (II) persistent economically depressed conditions in such service area; or (III) a high unemployment rate or low labor force participation rate in the service area compared to the State in which the service area is located;
Applicants proposing to train workers for occupations supporting people with substance use disorder would also have to demonstrate a workforce shortage. Evidence could include travel distances to treatment or the capacity of treatment facilities and relevant occupations.
in the case of an eligible entity proposing to serve a population described in paragraph (4)(B)(ii), a demonstration of a workforce shortage in occupations that support individuals with a substance use disorder, including information demonstrating such shortage, such as— (I) the distance between— (aa) communities affected by substance use disorder in the service area; and (bb) facilities or individuals offering services for treating substance use disorders; or (II) the maximum capacity of facilities of treatment providers, or occupations, to serve individuals in the service area;
Applications would have to describe proposed partners and estimate performance using prior results, the estimated number of people with substance use disorder to be served, experience serving people facing employment barriers and the ability to form a partnership. Applicants would also have to promise to pay at least part of the independent evaluation's costs.
an analysis of the estimated performance of the eligible entity (through the participating partnership) in carrying out the proposed services and activities under the grant, based on— (I) the levels of performance for other services and activities carried out by the eligible entity on the primary indicators of performance under section 116(b)(2)(A)(i); (II) the estimated number of individuals with a substance use disorder who may be served by the proposed services and activities; (III) the record of the eligible entity in serving individuals with a barrier to employment; and (IV) the ability of the eligible entity to establish a participating partnership; and (iv) a description of any entity described in paragraph (1)(C)(ii) with whom the eligible entity will partner.
an assurance that such eligible entity will pay at least a portion of the costs of the independent evaluation required under paragraph (5)(B).
Applicants could use substance use disorder rates, overdose death rates and related hospitalizations as evidence. They could also submit documentation of layoffs, industry decline or employment and economic changes, even when those particular changes were unrelated to widespread substance use disorder.
the eligible entity may use information including data on— (i) the incidence or prevalence of substance use disorder; (ii) the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths, as determined by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; (iii) the rate of nonfatal hospitalizations related to substance use disorder;
documentation of any layoff or announced future layoff, a notification provided in accordance with section 3(a) of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2102(a)), or documentation of legacy industry decline, decrease in an employment or labor market participation rate, or economic impact, whether or not the result described in this clause is related to, caused by, or contributing to widespread occurrence of a substance use disorder;
Partnerships could serve one or both of two worker populations. The first would include workers directly or indirectly affected by widespread substance use disorder, including people entering the workforce, people facing employment barriers, displaced workers and people already employed or underemployed. This category would not require every worker to have a substance use disorder.
A participating partnership shall provide services and activities under the grant to one or both of the following populations of workers:
Workers, including dislocated workers, individuals with barriers to employment, new entrants in the workforce, or incumbent workers (employed or underemployed), each of whom is directly or indirectly affected by widespread occurrence of a substance use disorder.
The second population would be workers seeking to move into jobs supporting people with substance use disorder or at risk of developing it, who need new or improved skills. Examples include treatment, peer recovery support, nonaddictive pain care, emergency response and mental health care.
Workers, including dislocated workers, individuals with barriers to employment, new entrants in the workforce, or incumbent workers (employed or underemployed), who— (I) seek to transition to occupations that support individuals struggling with a substance use disorder or who are at risk for developing such disorder, such as professions that provide— (aa) substance use disorder treatment and related services; (bb) services offered through providers of peer recovery support services; (cc) nonaddictive pain therapy and pain management services; (dd) emergency response services; or (ee) mental health care; and (II) need new or upgraded skills to better serve such a population of struggling or at-risk individuals.
A program participant would have to belong to a worker population served by the partnership and enroll for its services. Grant recipients would deliver services through the partnership to the population proposed in their application, choosing activities from one or more of the bill's permitted categories.
The term program participant means an individual who— (i) is a member of a population of workers described in paragraph (4)(B) that is served by a participating partnership through the pilot program under this subsection; and (ii) enrolls with the applicable participating partnership to receive any of the services described in paragraph (4)(C).
Each eligible entity that receives a grant under this subsection shall carry out the services and activities described in this paragraph through the participating partnership to the population proposed in the application.
Each participating partnership shall use funds available through a grant under this subsection to carry out activities described in 1 or more of the following clauses:
Employer activities could identify hiring needs and the support employers need to hire and retain participants and other people with substance use disorder. Partnerships could connect employers and workers with training, help develop classroom instruction and training curricula, and connect employers with participants receiving outpatient treatment alongside job training.
Engaging with employers to— (I) learn about the skill and hiring requirements of employers; (II) learn about the support needed by employers to hire and retain program participants, and other individuals with a substance use disorder, and the support needed by such employers to obtain their commitment to testing creative solutions to employing program participants and such individuals;
(III) connect employers and workers to on-the-job training, incumbent worker training, or customized training programs before or after layoff to help facilitate reemployment; (IV) connect employers with an education or training provider to develop classroom instruction to complement on-the-job learning for program participants and such individuals; (V) help employers develop the curriculum design of an on-the-job training, incumbent worker training, or customized training program for program participants and such individuals;
(VII) connect employers to program participants receiving concurrent outpatient treatment and job training services.
Partnerships could help employers provide a transitional period of employment during on-the-job or customized training before hiring participants or other people with substance use disorder for full-time work of at least 30 hours a week.
help employers employ program participants or such individuals engaging in an on-the-job training or customized training program for a transitional period before hiring such a program participant or individual for full-time employment of not less than 30 hours a week;
Supportive services would have to be coordinated with career-service providers to help participants maintain employment and recovery for at least 12 months, as appropriate. They could include help qualifying for public programs, evidence-based outpatient and community treatment, peer recovery support, networking and mentorship.
Providing supportive services, which shall be coordinated with providers of career services to provide maximum support for program participants to assist such participants in maintaining employment and recovery for not less than 12 months, as appropriate, and may include additional services such as— (I) assistance in establishing eligibility for assistance under Federal, State, Tribal, and local programs providing health services, mental health services, vocational services, social services, or services through early childhood education programs (as defined in section 103 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1003)); (II) evidence-based outpatient and community-based substance use disorder treatment services; (III) services offered through providers of peer recovery support services; or (IV) networking and mentorship opportunities.
Partnerships could offer the career and training services referenced in existing workforce law alongside or in sequence with employer and supportive services. Optional additional services could cover workplace skills, application and certification fees, mentorship and help maintaining employment for at least 12 months, as appropriate.
Offering career services described in section 134(c)(2) and training services described in section 134(c)(3), and related services, concurrently or sequentially with the services provided under subparagraphs (i) and (ii) and, at the election of the participating partnership, providing other related services, which may include 1 or more of the following: (I) Services to promote employability skills such as punctuality, personal maintenance skills, and professional conduct. (II) Provision of payments and fees for employment and training-related applications, tests, and certifications. (III) Mentorship services and job retention support for program participants. (IV) Services to assist program participants in maintaining employment for not less than 12 months, as appropriate.
Another permitted activity would be identifying and promoting proven and promising local strategies for meeting employer and participant needs. This describes an authorized activity, not evidence that the pilot would succeed.
Leading efforts in the service area to identify and promote proven and promising strategies and initiatives for meeting the needs of employers and program participants.
The Secretary could use up to 5 percent of program funds for administration. Each partnership could use no more than 10 percent of its grant for its own administrative costs.
The Secretary may use not more than 5 percent of the funds made available under section 172(e) for the administrative costs of carrying out the pilot program.
A participating partnership may not use— (i) more than 10 percent of the funds received under a grant under this subsection for the administrative costs of the partnership in carrying out this subsection;
The bill would also impose a 10 percent cap on spending described as supportive services, but its cross-reference points to clause (C)(iii), titled career and job training services. The separate supportive-services clause is (C)(ii), making the intended scope of this cap unclear.
(ii) more than 10 percent of the funds received under such grant for the provision of supportive services described in subparagraph (C)(iii) to program participants.
(ii) Supportive services Providing supportive services
(iii) Career and job training services Offering career services described in section 134(c)(2) and training services described in section 134(c)(3)
The Secretary would establish quarterly reporting requirements for grant recipients, using existing workforce-law performance accountability provisions to the extent practicable.
The Secretary shall establish quarterly reporting requirements for eligible entities who are recipients of grants under this subsection that, to the extent practicable, are based on the performance accountability provisions described in section 116.
An independent evaluation would have to assess the pilot's effect on employment among people with substance use disorders. It would use experiments assigning people randomly to comparison groups, or, when random assignment is infeasible, other reliable research methods designed to provide the strongest possible evidence of cause and effect.
The Secretary shall ensure that an independent evaluation is conducted on the pilot program carried out under this subsection to determine the impact of the program on the employment of individuals with substance use disorders.
The independent evaluation required under this subparagraph shall use experimental designs using random assignment or, when random assignment is not feasible, other reliable, evidence-based research methodologies that allow for the strongest possible causal inferences.
Section 3 would authorize $25 million for fiscal year 2027, $27.5 million for 2028, $30 million for 2029, $32.5 million for 2030, $35 million for 2031 and $37.5 million for 2032. These are proposed permissions for future appropriations, not money supplied by this bill.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 170(e)— (1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2027; (2) $27,500,000 for fiscal year 2028; (3) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2029; (4) $32,500,000 for fiscal year 2030; (5) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2031; and (6) $37,500,000 for fiscal year 2032.
The bill would renumber existing funding subsections and change two references in existing workforce law. Section 4 would replace “this section” with “this paragraph” in section 170(b)(1)(C), and with “subsection (b)(1)(B)” in section 170(d)(4). The surrounding existing provisions are not supplied, so their practical effects cannot be determined from this bundle.
by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (f) and (g), respectively;
Section 170 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3225) is amended— (1) in subsection (b)(1)(C), by striking this section and inserting this paragraph; and (2) in subsection (d)(4), by striking this section and inserting subsection (b)(1)(B).
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 14, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Education and Workforce on September 24, 2026. That snapshot does not establish subsequent advancement or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-14T04:55:47Z. 2026-09-24: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. 2026-09-24: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-24. 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 in the complete supplied introduced-text version. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No earmark was identified in the complete supplied introduced-text version. This text-level conclusion does not establish formal earmark status or absence in other versions, disclosures or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced-text version. Ordinary program eligibility was not classified as a special benefit. This conclusion is limited to this version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 14, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI