The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) serves as the nation’s primary federal workforce development framework, providing job seekers with access to training, employment services, and supportive resources while also facilitating career navigation and regional workforce planning. Though funding for the WIOA is limited relative to the nation’s workforce challenges, it plays an important role in meeting the talent needs of local industries.
The law’s impact is strongest when integrated with broader economic and infrastructure investments, such as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), CHIPS and Science Act, and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), so its resources can be focused on preparing workers for high-quality, long-term employment in emerging industries. Additionally, WIOA can play a strong role in supporting the expansion of pre-apprenticeship programs and registered apprenticeship programs (RAPs), creating earn-and-learn pathways for underrepresented workers to enter the skilled trades and other professions by funding technical training and industry certifications.
At the same time, WIOA could perform more effectively if it were equipped to promote development and placement programs of higher quality. In this commentary, we’ll discuss those market realities, and outline how the WIOA could be modified to encourage higher standards.
Recalibrating WIOA for the Realities of the Market
The new leadership in the House Committee on Education and Workforce has signaled their continued interest in reauthorizing WIOA. Central to this effort will likely be the revival of the A Stronger Workforce for America Act (ASWA), a bipartisan bill introduced in the previous session by Representatives Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and Bobby Scott (D-VA). ASWA successfully cleared the House with broad support, after which the Senate introduced its own draft bill that failed to advance. In late November, House and Senate negotiators reached a compromise framework, eventually positioning ASWA for inclusion in a year-end omnibus appropriations package. However, in the final hours of negotiations, the bill was stripped out when then-President-Elect Trump demanded a pared-down continuing resolution (CR), which prioritized short-term government funding over broader legislative measures.
Reauthorizing WIOA is also an opportunity to modify the framework, and WIOA has room for improvement. Studies, including those conducted by the Department of Labor (DOL) itself, have consistently demonstrated that many workforce training interventions funded by WIOA produce outcomes that are statistically indistinguishable from those of a control group. Repeated efforts to reform workforce policy in response to these findings have yet to yield meaningful change.
Why has this been the case? The problem lies deeper than flaws in policy design or ineffective program implementation. The root cause is revealed through a closer examination of the labor market for workforce credentials. This market is made up of those jobs that require more than a high school diploma but less than a bachelor’s degree, and is where workforce training initiatives are focused. Analysis demonstrates that the vast majority of low- and middle-skill jobs are concentrated in sectors largely defined by low and stagnant wages, limited benefits, and structural challenges that make it difficult for workers to balance employment with other priorities like caregiving.
Without liveable wages and flexible schedules to pursue additional education and training, many workers find themselves trapped in low-wage jobs with no viable pathway to career advancement.
Two prime examples of this are Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) and Certified Nursing Aid (CNA) training programs, which boast the trifecta of attributes that tend to attract workforce training programs: low-cost, short, and leading to jobs in high demand. That demand, however, is driven by both industries’ high turnover rate (CNAs have turnover of around 40 percent per year, and trucking comes in at 90 percent). While some might argue that the point of publicly subsidized training is to put workers on a path to a family-sustaining career (as opposed to directly into a family-sustaining career), research shows that it’s very difficult for low-wage workers to escape poverty over time through upward mobility. In other words, without liveable wages and flexible schedules to pursue additional education and training, many workers find themselves trapped in low-wage jobs with no viable pathway to career advancement. Indeed, WIOA providers largely meet the expectations set for them, with roughly seven out of ten participants employed four quarters after exiting programs—but the problem is that the jobs it places participants in don’t do enough to move these families from unemployment to self-sufficiency.
Setting a Higher Bar for WIOA Programs
These market conditions complicate WIOA’s effectiveness as an instrument of economic mobility. WIOA must connect workers to the existing jobs in the labor market, meaning its effectiveness is inherently constrained by the quality and availability of those jobs. Without broader labor market reforms that address job quality, wage stagnation, and employer accountability, WIOA is limited in its ability to address these obstacles. If policymakers are serious about economic mobility, they need to better position WIOA to shape the labor market rather than only funnel people into existing low-wage jobs.
Can WIOA do this when it was not designed to reshape labor standards? Perhaps not, but given the realities of the current labor market, it’s clear that the law cannot drive meaningful progress unless it is updated to address a labor market that creates and perpetuates low-paying, low-quality jobs. One approach is to embed stronger job quality criteria in the framework. This could include measures such as requiring employer partners to meet minimum compensation and benefits thresholds; prioritizing training pathways that lead to higher-wage, higher-mobility roles like apprenticeship pathways; and leveraging public workforce investments to incentivize firm-level human capital development.
WIOA reforms should ensure that the limited public funding available leads to careers with rungs on the ladder of economic mobility.
Thus equipped, WIOA would exert greater pressure on employers to improve job quality, strengthen accountability measures for firms that benefit from publicly funded workforce programs, and help mitigate the negative effects of employer-driven job quality erosion. Such reforms would need to be executed thoughtfully and in tandem with changes that ensure WIOA continues to serve people with high barriers to employment. But these adjustments would help ensure that employers are not able to use public training dollars to sustain low-road employment strategies, where high turnover is built into the business model rather than addressed through improved wages and working conditions. Rather, WIOA reforms should ensure that the limited public funding available leads to careers with rungs on the ladder of economic mobility.
The WIOA Can’t Do It All, but It Can Do More
A meaningful WIOA reauthorization must acknowledge the fundamental link between sustainable workforce development, socioeconomic mobility, and job quality. While WIOA cannot replace broader labor protections or wage policies, aligning workforce investments with high-quality employment practices would ensure that public funds contribute to long-term economic mobility rather than perpetuating cycles of low-wage, unstable work. Without these structural reforms, WIOA squanders its full potential to drive talent development, opportunity, and economic growth.
Tags: economic growth, workforce, WIOA, workforce training
Why Job Quality Is Critical to Successful Workforce Training
The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) serves as the nation’s primary federal workforce development framework, providing job seekers with access to training, employment services, and supportive resources while also facilitating career navigation and regional workforce planning. Though funding for the WIOA is limited relative to the nation’s workforce challenges, it plays an important role in meeting the talent needs of local industries.
The law’s impact is strongest when integrated with broader economic and infrastructure investments, such as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), CHIPS and Science Act, and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), so its resources can be focused on preparing workers for high-quality, long-term employment in emerging industries. Additionally, WIOA can play a strong role in supporting the expansion of pre-apprenticeship programs and registered apprenticeship programs (RAPs), creating earn-and-learn pathways for underrepresented workers to enter the skilled trades and other professions by funding technical training and industry certifications.
At the same time, WIOA could perform more effectively if it were equipped to promote development and placement programs of higher quality. In this commentary, we’ll discuss those market realities, and outline how the WIOA could be modified to encourage higher standards.
Recalibrating WIOA for the Realities of the Market
The new leadership in the House Committee on Education and Workforce has signaled their continued interest in reauthorizing WIOA. Central to this effort will likely be the revival of the A Stronger Workforce for America Act (ASWA), a bipartisan bill introduced in the previous session by Representatives Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and Bobby Scott (D-VA). ASWA successfully cleared the House with broad support, after which the Senate introduced its own draft bill that failed to advance. In late November, House and Senate negotiators reached a compromise framework, eventually positioning ASWA for inclusion in a year-end omnibus appropriations package. However, in the final hours of negotiations, the bill was stripped out when then-President-Elect Trump demanded a pared-down continuing resolution (CR), which prioritized short-term government funding over broader legislative measures.
Reauthorizing WIOA is also an opportunity to modify the framework, and WIOA has room for improvement. Studies, including those conducted by the Department of Labor (DOL) itself, have consistently demonstrated that many workforce training interventions funded by WIOA produce outcomes that are statistically indistinguishable from those of a control group. Repeated efforts to reform workforce policy in response to these findings have yet to yield meaningful change.
Why has this been the case? The problem lies deeper than flaws in policy design or ineffective program implementation. The root cause is revealed through a closer examination of the labor market for workforce credentials. This market is made up of those jobs that require more than a high school diploma but less than a bachelor’s degree, and is where workforce training initiatives are focused. Analysis demonstrates that the vast majority of low- and middle-skill jobs are concentrated in sectors largely defined by low and stagnant wages, limited benefits, and structural challenges that make it difficult for workers to balance employment with other priorities like caregiving.
Two prime examples of this are Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) and Certified Nursing Aid (CNA) training programs, which boast the trifecta of attributes that tend to attract workforce training programs: low-cost, short, and leading to jobs in high demand. That demand, however, is driven by both industries’ high turnover rate (CNAs have turnover of around 40 percent per year, and trucking comes in at 90 percent). While some might argue that the point of publicly subsidized training is to put workers on a path to a family-sustaining career (as opposed to directly into a family-sustaining career), research shows that it’s very difficult for low-wage workers to escape poverty over time through upward mobility. In other words, without liveable wages and flexible schedules to pursue additional education and training, many workers find themselves trapped in low-wage jobs with no viable pathway to career advancement. Indeed, WIOA providers largely meet the expectations set for them, with roughly seven out of ten participants employed four quarters after exiting programs—but the problem is that the jobs it places participants in don’t do enough to move these families from unemployment to self-sufficiency.
Setting a Higher Bar for WIOA Programs
These market conditions complicate WIOA’s effectiveness as an instrument of economic mobility. WIOA must connect workers to the existing jobs in the labor market, meaning its effectiveness is inherently constrained by the quality and availability of those jobs. Without broader labor market reforms that address job quality, wage stagnation, and employer accountability, WIOA is limited in its ability to address these obstacles. If policymakers are serious about economic mobility, they need to better position WIOA to shape the labor market rather than only funnel people into existing low-wage jobs.
Can WIOA do this when it was not designed to reshape labor standards? Perhaps not, but given the realities of the current labor market, it’s clear that the law cannot drive meaningful progress unless it is updated to address a labor market that creates and perpetuates low-paying, low-quality jobs. One approach is to embed stronger job quality criteria in the framework. This could include measures such as requiring employer partners to meet minimum compensation and benefits thresholds; prioritizing training pathways that lead to higher-wage, higher-mobility roles like apprenticeship pathways; and leveraging public workforce investments to incentivize firm-level human capital development.
Thus equipped, WIOA would exert greater pressure on employers to improve job quality, strengthen accountability measures for firms that benefit from publicly funded workforce programs, and help mitigate the negative effects of employer-driven job quality erosion. Such reforms would need to be executed thoughtfully and in tandem with changes that ensure WIOA continues to serve people with high barriers to employment. But these adjustments would help ensure that employers are not able to use public training dollars to sustain low-road employment strategies, where high turnover is built into the business model rather than addressed through improved wages and working conditions. Rather, WIOA reforms should ensure that the limited public funding available leads to careers with rungs on the ladder of economic mobility.
The WIOA Can’t Do It All, but It Can Do More
A meaningful WIOA reauthorization must acknowledge the fundamental link between sustainable workforce development, socioeconomic mobility, and job quality. While WIOA cannot replace broader labor protections or wage policies, aligning workforce investments with high-quality employment practices would ensure that public funds contribute to long-term economic mobility rather than perpetuating cycles of low-wage, unstable work. Without these structural reforms, WIOA squanders its full potential to drive talent development, opportunity, and economic growth.
Tags: economic growth, workforce, WIOA, workforce training