Section 1 Short title
This Act may be cited as the “Prioritizing Evidence for Workforce Development Act”.
Prioritizing Evidence for Workforce Development Act
A BILL
To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to prioritize programs that provide evidence of performance.
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—
in subsection (b)—
in paragraph (1)—
in subparagraph (D), by striking “and” after the semicolon;
in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and
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.”
in paragraph (2)(C)—
in clause (vii), by striking “and” after the semicolon;
in clause (viii), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and
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.”
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.”