HB 26-17: The Youth Preparedness Act of 2020 (Passed)

[Joseph Cao]

AN ACT

To establish after-school youth development programs across the nation by strengthening employment preparation skills, career exploration, career development, and workforce opportunities

Be it ordained by the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

Section 1. Title
a. The title of this legislation shall be the Youth Preparedness Act of 2020

Section 2. Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to establish or expand activities to—

a. Increase access and opportunities for youth to obtain the education and training that youth need to succeed in the labor market;
b. Support engagement in and the integration of programs and activities offered during out-of-school-time hours through the workforce investment, education, and economic development systems;
c. Improve the quality of the workforce and meet the skill requirements of employers;
d. Engage employers in addressing the training, skill, and employment needs of youth and youth jobseekers, and fostering opportunities for connection and economic mobility; and
e. Include younger youth in the education and workforce investment activities in an age and developmentally appropriate manner.

Section 3. Definitions
As defined in this Act:

a. Community-based organization
    i. The term community-based organization means a youth-serving private nonprofit organization (which may include a faith-based organization) that—
    ii. is representative of a community or a significant segment of a community;
    iii. has demonstrated expertise and effectiveness in workforce development; and
    iv. has demonstrated expertise—
    v. in the planning and delivery of education, training, and related activities that are included in a career pathway;
    vi. in forging coordination and cooperation between educators and other members of the community; and
    vii. in development and implementation of data systems that measure the progress of students and outcomes of career pathways.

Section 4. Establishment
a. This act shall hereby establish a Workforce readiness program.
The term workforce readiness program means an out-of-school-time program that—
    i. Meets the requirements of section 7;
    ii. is offered by a community-based organization of an eligible entity or a related covered partnership; and
    iii. is intended to help prepare eligible youth for the workforce.

Section 5. Grant program establishment

a. Grants
Using the amounts made available under section 9, the Secretary shall award grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities.
b. General use of funds
Grants shall be awarded on a competitive basis, to assist eligible entities in planning, developing, and implementing nationwide, comprehensive workforce readiness programs, that are—
    i. in out-of-school-time programs;
    ii. carried out by community-based organizations of the eligible entity or related covered partnerships; and
    iii. for eligible youth.
c. Periods of grants
Grants will be awarded for periods of not less than 3 years and not more than 5 years.

Sponsor:
House Designation: HB 26-17

72 hours to debate.

[Joseph Cao]

Very well. A sponsor is needed for this bill.

[Joseph Cao]

Representatives have 24 hours to object to FalterinArc assuming sponsorship.

[Joseph Cao]

FalterinArc is recognized as sponsor.

[Joseph Cao]

There is a bit of an open-endedness to the age and eligibility parameters in the bill, particularly for the definition of "youth." I will offer an amendment to try and clarify these if it comes to that, but I'd also like to see how FalterinArc plans to proceed with his amendment first.

[Joseph Cao]

Bumping this.

Not sure if the honorable gentleman from Washington is offering an amendment, but I do have some concerns with this bill - I'm not sure if funding private organizations is the equitable way to encourage kids to learn the skills they need to enter the workforce.

Opinions may differ on that, I suppose, but the bill as written would specifically give an assist to organizations that know what they're doing and have proper roots in the community they serve. The skill set required to enter the workforce does vary from area to area, and if we want to add a requirement that eligible organizations prioritize these I wouldn't be opposed to that (though I do think it shouldn't be a dealbreaker if they don't prepare our youth for specifically mandated parts of the workforce).

[Joseph Cao]

Ah whoops, overlooked this. I don't see anything wrong with this amendment, so 24 hours to object to its adoption.

[Joseph Cao]

Given Westy's objection, a vote is open on adoption of the amendment above.

72 hours to vote. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[Joseph Cao]

Nay. I'm not fully sure how this amendment would combat religious discrimination from faith-based organizations since, as Poirot pointed out, it merely deemphasizes but otherwise preserves their status as community-based organizations.

[Joseph Cao]

And since everyone has voted, I’ll close the vote.

By a vote of 5-4-0-0, this amendment is adopted. Debate resumes.

[Joseph Cao]

If my reading is correct, that "section 7" business in Section 4 refers to the definitions portion of Section 3 and an (admittedly minor) amendment is needed on that. Anyone with another interpretation?

I do still think the parameters for eligibility need a bit of clarification, and beyond that I'm not sure what extra plans the sponsor has aside from the amendment made thus far.

[Joseph Cao]

Not to rush the sponsor or anything but how's the amendment coming along?

[Joseph Cao]

The status of the amendment is unclear and I believe Poirot has raised a concern about it.

[Joseph Cao]

I'm with Poirot on this. To be clear, I fully support the bill's aims and much of the programs it establishes, and when it inevitably passes the House I will be the first to cheer the benefits it brings to our nation's youth. But placing a blanket exclusion on faith-based organizations is counterproductive to what the bill aims to do when our goal is to help our youth succeed, regardless of the type of nonprofit organization that does a good enough job at that to receive government assistance. The bill could have been made better and more effective were it not for this particular exclusion.

Nay.