Bill Overview
Title: Prioritizing Evidence for Workforce Development Act
Description: This bill requires state workforce development plans to describe how the state will prioritize funding evidence-based programs that demonstrate positive outcomes for their target populations.
Sponsors: Sen. Braun, Mike [R-IN]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals participating in workforce development programs
Estimated Size: 15000000
- Workforce development programs are designed to improve the skills of workers, making them more employable.
- The bill impacts the states' workforce strategies by prioritizing evidence-based programs, which could alter funding distributions and program focuses.
- The main population directly impacted includes individuals who participate in state-run workforce development programs.
- Indirectly, this may affect employers seeking skilled labor, as it could enhance the quality of the workforce.”
- These programs can include job training, skill development, and education initiatives aimed at unemployed individuals or those seeking career advancement.
Reasoning
- The policy impacts will primarily be felt by individuals who are currently or may potentially be involved in workforce development programs. These programs are generally aimed at improving employment prospects through training and education.
- The distribution spreads across different demographic segments including ages, genders, and regions, with varying levels of initial well-being and benefit from policy.
- Budgetary limits imply that not all individuals in such programs may see immediate improvements. Instead, prioritization will lead to staggered impacts with potentially more effective interventions due to evidence-based focus.
- The potential uplift in well-being through improved employment outcomes is contrasted with a steady decline if no changes are made in current program structures.
Simulated Interviews
Unemployed (Rural Ohio)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hoping this program can improve my job prospects, but I am skeptical given past experiences with similar programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Retail Worker (Urban California)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could be a great opportunity to get some support in shifting careers. I hope it's not just another box-checking exercise.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Manufacturing Technician (Suburban Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'd like to see these changes make a difference in my career. Programs have been hit or miss in the past.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Entry-level IT Support (New York City)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I need real, tangible results from these programs, not just 'fluff' support. It could help a lot if done right.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Construction Laborer (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to these programs could potentially change things for me, but I've been let down before.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Administrative Assistant (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These updates might help diversify my skills. I hope they offer real support and guidance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Truck Driver (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I would like these programs to offer more specific, practical training. It must connect directly with job opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Part-time Retail Associate (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I need these programs to actually connect me with jobs, not just prepare me theoretically.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Warehouse Supervisor (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The updates might help me maintain employability, but I'm not the main target.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Homemaker (Rural West Virginia)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to reliable job programs could help me find a stable job. It’s crucial to have support in rural areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 5: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Key Considerations
- The cost-benefit balance of implementing and maintaining rigorous evaluation mechanisms for programs.
- Potential need for federal support to ensure states have the necessary tools and resources to comply with the bill.
- The dependency on states to accurately report data and outcomes to ensure effective prioritization of funding.