A Democratic bill with 4 Democratic cosponsors · See all 4 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill directs the Secretary of Labor to award grants for recruiting, retaining, and advancing direct care workers. Eligible entities include states, labor organizations, and various nonprofit and tribal groups that submit an application detailing their strategies. The funded strategies can include education and training programs, career pathways, and providing supportive services or better wages. Grant recipients must provide reports on their progress, and the Secretary of Labor must submit a final report to Congress. Additionally, the bill provides funding for a national technical assistance center to support these efforts.
Yes· 3 of 22
- Scored +7
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Older adults needing direct care services benefit from expanded workforce capacity, reduced unmet care needs, and better-trained care personnel.
- Scored +7
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
The bill enhances home and community-based services and promotes independence and self-determination for individuals with significant disabilities.
- Scored +7
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
By expanding and supporting the direct care workforce, the bill improves access to home and community-based health services for older adults and individuals with disabilities.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 3(a) and Section 5(a)(2)(D) allow grant funds to be used to provide wages, compensation, benefits, and supportive services to direct care workers or individuals training to be direct care workers, which can help recruit and retain workers and financially support individuals entering the field.
-
Section 4(a)(2)(E) includes an assurance that eligible entities will not charge program participants who are direct care workers or trainees for any education, training, supportive services, or other benefits provided under the activity, removing financial barriers for workers.
-
Section 4(a)(2)(G) ensures that eligible entities provide safe work and training environments, including personal protective equipment and an environment free from discrimination, retaliation, and violence, which protects the health and safety of workers.
-
Section 5(a)(2)(A) requires education and training programs to instruct participants on the rights of care recipients to receive services in integrated settings, exercise self-determination, and remain free from abuse and discrimination, which benefits individuals receiving direct care.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 5(b) limits the administrative costs that eligible entities can use from the grant to no more than 7 percent, which could potentially place a tight administrative burden on organizations trying to manage and evaluate complex programs.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The bill enhances home and community-based services and promotes independence and self-determination for individuals with significant disabilities. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Older adults needing direct care services benefit from expanded workforce capacity, reduced unmet care needs, and better-trained care personnel. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income individuals facing employment barriers receive targeted outreach, free training, and supportive services such as child care and transportation. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees and older individuals needing aging support services benefit from increased recruitment and retention of qualified direct care workers. Would women be better off under this? — Direct care is a female-dominated workforce, and women stand to benefit significantly from increased wages, benefits, and career advancement opportunities. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The legislation explicitly ensures equitable geographic diversity, including provisions for rural areas facing direct care shortages. Would students be better off under this? — Students in care-related training programs benefit from free education, training, and supportive services without financial barriers. Would union members be better off under this? — Labor organizations and joint labor-management organizations are explicitly recognized as eligible entities to receive grants and develop workforce strategies. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Disaggregation of data by race and ethnicity helps ensure equitable participation and outcomes for minority direct care workers and recipients. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Targeted outreach and culturally competent training components help support Hispanic individuals participating in the direct care workforce. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Indian tribes and tribal organizations are eligible entities that can receive grants to address direct care workforce needs in their communities. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — The legislation explicitly considers demand for long-term care provided through the Department of Veterans Affairs and supports veterans working as direct care providers. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults entering the workforce can benefit from education, training programs, and career pathways supported by the grants.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — The bill emphasizes training care workers on recipients' rights to receive services in integrated settings and exercise self-determination. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Providing wages, compensation, benefits, and supportive services helps lift low-income individuals training for or working in direct care roles out of poverty. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Targeting outreach toward individuals with barriers to employment and disaggregating demographic data helps ensure equitable benefits across diverse racial and ethnic groups. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Housing is included as a supportive service enabled by grant funds to help individuals participate in training and employment.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — By expanding and supporting the direct care workforce, the bill improves access to home and community-based health services for older adults and individuals with disabilities. Does this help veterans get medical care? — The legislation addresses unmet care needs and labor shortages that impact long-term care provided through the Department of Veterans Affairs.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill awards grants to recruit, retain, and advance direct care workers, which will increase job opportunities in this sector. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Investing in workforce training and supportive services for direct care workers helps build a more robust and stable care economy.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill mandates regular progress reports from eligible entities and requires the Secretary of Labor to submit a comprehensive final report to Congress.
- 11/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/1/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Gabe AmoDemocrat · Rhode Island
Adelita GrijalvaDemocrat · Arizona
Susie LeeDemocrat · Nevada
John MannionDemocrat · New York