H.R. 4771 establishes a federal grant-and-technical‑assistance program to help employers who hold special wage certificates under section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act transform to business models that provide competitive integrated employment and HCBS‑compliant supports. It funds state-level transformation grants ($2M–$10M over 5 years) and smaller grants for individual certificate holders ($100K–$500K over 3 years), plus a nonprofit technical assistance award and a multi‑year independent evaluation.
The bill phases workers off subminimum wages through a scheduled wage ramp (60% of the FLSA minimum at the effective date, rising to 100% after four years), bans issuance of new certificates to employers not already holding them, and sunsets the authority for all certificates four years after the wage ramp effective date. It layers reporting, data collection, Olmstead/HCBS compliance requirements, and cross‑agency coordination into the transformation process.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill funds and conditions state and provider grants to convert programs that pay subminimum wages under 14(c) into models that pay at least the applicable minimum wage over a four‑year phased schedule, and it prohibits new 14(c) certificates while phasing out existing ones. It also creates a federal technical assistance grant and requires an independent multi‑year impact evaluation.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are employers holding 14(c) certificates, state developmental‑disability and workforce systems, Medicaid and service providers, and individuals with disabilities currently employed under 14(c). Federal agencies (DOL, HHS, DOE, DOJ) and nonprofit TA providers are operational partners.
Why It Matters
This is a statutory pathway to end long‑standing subminimum‑wage employment models by coupling financial and TA incentives with regulatory change. For compliance officers and program managers it creates new grant eligibility rules, data collection duties, HCBS alignment obligations, and a defined transition timetable that affects contracts, procurement, and personnel costs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates two competitive grant tracks. One track funds States (5‑year awards, $2M–$10M each) to coordinate cross‑agency transformations: identify employers using 14(c), set timelines to phase out certificate‑based employment (not extending past the statutory sunset), build integrated services, and form multi‑stakeholder advisory councils.
State applications must include a baseline inventory of employers and employees working under certificates, a plan to prioritize people with the most significant disabilities for supports, an Olmstead/HCBS compliance strategy, and an evaluation plan measuring employment outcomes and provider capacity.
The second track is for eligible certificate‑holding entities located in states that do not receive a state grant. Those applicants must partner with at least two experienced supporting organizations (examples include vocational rehab, developmental‑disability agencies, independent living centers, university centers, or nonprofit employment providers).
Certificate‑holder grants are smaller (3‑year awards of $100K–$500K), require a business model transformation plan (contracts, funding changes, staffing and referral pathways), and mandate quarterly goals and cooperation with the federal evaluation.On wages and regulatory phaseout, the bill amends section 14(c) of FLSA to require that subminimum wages paid under a certificate step up from 60% of the federal minimum at the effective date to 70% after one year, 80% after two, 90% after three, and the full federal minimum after four years; the wage ramp starts three months after enactment. The Secretary of Labor may not issue new certificates to employers who did not hold them on enactment, and the authority to issue certificates expires the day after the four‑year completion of the wage ramp, after which existing certificates “have no legal effect.”To support the transitions, DOL (Office of Disability Employment Policy together with ETA), in coordination with ACL and the Department of Education, awards a single nonprofit technical assistance grant (6‑year, nonrenewable) to collect and disseminate evidence‑based models, provide TA to transforming employers, and link training resources.
The Secretary must contract within six months for an independent multi‑year evaluation and submit an interim report three years into the evaluation and a final report 18 months after certificates lose legal effect. Annual wage and hour reporting obligations to Congress accompany these evaluations.
The bill also amends the Rehabilitation Act to create a later stream of additional supported‑employment funding (section 611) for States that successfully complete the state grant requirements.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill phases certificate wages on a fixed schedule: 60% of the FLSA minimum at the effective date, then 70% (1 year), 80% (2 years), 90% (3 years), and 100% (4 years); the wage ramp begins three months after enactment.
The Secretary may not issue 14(c) certificates to employers who did not hold them on enactment, and the authority to issue certificates expires the day after the four‑year wage ramp completes—after which issued certificates have no legal effect.
State grants (Sec. 102) are 5‑year awards between $2,000,000 and $10,000,000 and require baseline employer/employee inventories, Olmstead/HCBS compliance plans, a stakeholder advisory council (at least 25% of members must be people who are or were employed under certificates), and a state evaluation plan.
Certificate‑holder grants (Sec. 103) are single, 3‑year awards sized $100,000–$500,000, limited to entities in States that did not receive a state grant, and require partnerships with at least two experienced disability/employment organizations and a quarterly implementation timeline.
The bill funds one nonprofit technical assistance award and mandates a DOL‑contracted independent multi‑year evaluation (contract within six months); DOL must also deliver annual Wage and Hour reports and two evaluation reports to congressional committees.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Grant program authorization and goals
This provision authorizes competitive grants to States and eligible entities and defines the core transformation objectives: pay competitive integrated wages, assist workers into competitive jobs, provide HCBS‑compliant integrated services, and disseminate models. Practically, it ties grant awards to concrete labor standards (both federal and applicable state/local minimums) and to parity with customary rates for non‑disabled workers performing similar work, creating both programmatic and wage compliance hooks for future monitoring.
State grant application and requirements
State applicants must submit a data‑rich application with a detailed census of certificate‑holding employers and employees (including wage and hours distributions and demographic breakdowns where not PII), a timeline to eliminate certificate‑based employment (no later than the statutory sunset), cross‑agency commitments (developmental‑disability, Medicaid, VR, education, workforce boards) and an advisory council. The advisory council composition is prescriptive and requires not less than 25% of seats held by individuals who are or were employed under certificates; this creates a mandatory governance role for service recipients and families and establishes reporting and HCBS/ADA/Olmstead compliance as grant conditions.
Certificate‑holder grant mechanics and eligibility
Eligible entities are certificate holders in States that did not receive a state grant and must partner with two or more experienced providers or agencies. The application must include a business‑model transformation plan (contracts, funding, staffing), historical wage and transition data, and a quarterly timeline across a 3‑year grant period. Each entity may receive only one grant; the statute also instructs DOL to try to distribute awards across program sizes and geography, which affects competitive dynamics among applicants.
Wage ramp amendment to section 14(c)
This amendment prescribes the precise phased increases to subminimum wages paid under certificates, anchored to the FLSA minimum and triggered three months after enactment. The stepwise percentages are statutory—there is no regulatory discretion to alter the schedule—so employers and payroll systems must be prepared to implement five discrete rate changes over four years. That schedule is central to budgeting and collective bargaining considerations for employers and agencies that rely on certificate labor.
Prohibition on new certificates and sunset
Beyond the wage ramp, the Secretary is barred from issuing new certificates to employers who did not hold them on enactment, and the authority to issue certificates expires the day after the four‑year wage‑ramp period ends; existing certificates are stripped of legal effect at sunset. The provision creates a hard statutory cutover rather than a case‑by‑case phaseout, which simplifies the end date but raises implementation pressure on procurement, contract performance clauses, and continuity-of-service planning.
Technical assistance and TA grant selection criteria
DOL (ODEP with ETA) in partnership with ACL and ED must award one nonprofit TA grant to collect and disseminate models, provide TA to transitioning employers, and link providers to existing training resources. The statute specifies applicant expertise (program transformation, communications, serving individuals and families, accessible products) and makes the award a single, 6‑year, nonrenewable grant—placing a premium on scalability and national dissemination capacity in selecting the grantee.
Evaluation, reporting and Wage and Hour data duties
DOL must contract within six months for a nonprofit to conduct a multi‑year impact evaluation and produce an interim report (3 years after evaluation starts) and a final report (18 months after certificates lose effect). Concurrently, Wage and Hour (with DOJ coordination) must deliver annual reports during the 5‑year wage ramp documenting wages, hours, employment settings, demographic aggregates, and transitions by employer and State. The combination creates both quantitative operational reporting and qualitative impact assessment obligations that will inform oversight and future policy.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Individuals with disabilities employed under 14(c): The bill mandates phased wages to minimum wage and funds supports and job development to move many workers into competitive integrated jobs, plus priority access to supports for those with the most significant disabilities.
- State workforce and developmental‑disability systems: Grant funding and TA incentivize cross‑agency coordination, build capacity to implement Olmstead obligations, and provide resources to expand supported employment and HCBS‑compliant services.
- Employers that successfully transform: Those that convert to competitive integrated models gain grant support, TA, and access to partnerships that can help redesign contracts and diversify funding streams; successful transformation can reduce legal and reputational risk tied to long‑term subminimum wage practices.
- Nonprofit employment providers and VR vendors: Increased demand for integrated supports, TA, and training materials expands business and program opportunities for providers skilled at competitive employment services.
- Families and advocates: The statute embeds beneficiary and family representation in state advisory councils and requires dissemination of benefits counseling resources (ABLE, Ticket to Work), increasing access to information and voice in transition planning.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers currently using 14(c): They face rising payroll costs on a fixed statutory schedule, must redesign business and contract models, invest in staff training and service integration, and meet new data collection and reporting requirements.
- State and local agencies: Although grants provide resources, agencies must reallocate staff time to implement cross‑system plans, run advisory councils, comply with HCBS and Olmstead commitments, and support higher service capacity—costs that may exceed grant funding.
- Medicaid programs and HCBS providers: Scaling integrated community supports to meet prioritized needs could require increased Medicaid expenditures or service redesign, with timing mismatches between federal grants and long‑term service funding.
- Taxpayers and appropriations managers: The bill authorizes $50M per year (2026–2031) and a separate section 611 funding stream beginning later; observers should scrutinize whether authorized levels match the transition scale needed nationwide, especially for rural and high‑need states.
- Employers that lose low‑cost labor models: Community providers that relied on contract margins generated by 14(c) work may face closure or financial stress during the transition if alternative contracts or revenue sources materialize slowly.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill forces a classic policy trade‑off: accelerate the civil‑rights objective of full wage parity and community inclusion for people with disabilities, versus allowing more time for smaller providers and public systems to finance, redesign, and deliver the intensive supports some individuals need. Speed favors rights and clarity; time favors continuity and padding for financially fragile providers—there is no frictionless path that simultaneously maximizes both.
The bill imposes a firm wage ramp and a definitive sunset on 14(c) authority while offering grants and TA to ease the transition, but it does not fully guarantee that grant amounts or timing line up with the universe of employers and workers affected. $50M per year is meaningful but small relative to the national footprint of certificate holders and the one‑time and ongoing service costs required to move people with complex needs into integrated employment. That raises a practical risk that some providers will be unable to adapt before certificate authority lapses, with consequences for service continuity.
Operationally, the statute requires substantial new data collection (baseline employer/employee inventories, disaggregated wages/hours/demographics) while also instructing States and employers to protect personally identifiable information; implementing clear data‑governance rules and minimizing reporting burdens will be essential. The HCBS/Olmstead alignment requirements create necessary quality safeguards but introduce additional Medicaid and procurement complexity—States will need to reconcile grant timelines with existing waiver architectures, provider rate setting, and procurement rules.
Finally, the hard statutory sunset reduces regulatory discretion but concentrates risk: if capacity to place people in competitive jobs lags, individuals could face forced transitions or service gaps rather than supported moves to sustainable employment.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.