The bill amends the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to create a new "Digital Skills at Work" grant program administered by the Department of Labor. It funds formula grants to states and competitive grants to eligible entities to expand digital workplace and information literacy skills and to build digitally resilient individuals and systems.
This addition integrates digital and information literacy into WIOA training services, directs coordination with existing Digital Equity and broadband plans, and prioritizes assistance to individuals with barriers to employment—aiming to supply employers with workers who can use and adapt to current and emerging technologies.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Department of Labor awards formula grants to states and competitive grants to eligible entities to expand digital workplace skills. States must subgrant funds to eligible entities, prioritize individuals with barriers to employment, and report outcomes to DOL for public posting.
Who It Affects
State workforce agencies, community colleges and adult education providers, industry/sector partnerships, local workforce boards, and small- and medium-sized employers engaged in work-based learning or hiring. Working-age individuals with low digital literacy are the primary target population.
Why It Matters
It embeds digital skills into the federal workforce funding stream and ties programs to state Digital Equity and BEAD plans, potentially redirecting training dollars toward upskilling and employer-aligned credentials while imposing privacy and reporting rules that will shape program design and vendor relationships.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act inserts a new section into WIOA that defines key terms—digital equity, digital and information literacy skills, digital workplace skills, digitally resilient individuals and systems—and expands the definition of eligible entities to include organizations listed in the Digital Equity Act and industry/sector partnerships. Those definitions set the boundaries for what training counts and who can receive and deliver it, emphasizing both foundational digital literacy and industry-specific applied skills.
On the funding side, the Secretary of Labor must award formula grants to every State that applies. Each State’s award is a sum composed of three proportional pieces: 50% based on total population, 25% based on working-age population, and 25% based on the population with indicators of low digital/information literacy.
States submit applications describing planned activities, budgets, timelines, and how they will build digitally resilient systems. If a State fails to apply or submits an incomplete application, the Secretary can solicit statewide applications from eligible entities and use the State’s share to fund those entities or make subgrants directly.States must use formula grants to make subgrants to eligible local entities (community colleges, adult ed providers, industry partnerships, etc.), giving priority to programs that serve individuals with barriers to employment and ensuring geographically diverse distribution.
Local subgrantees must report to their State within one year on program activities; States must compile those local reports and submit a public report to the Secretary between 18 and 24 months after the grant award. The Secretary must publish State reports.Separately, the Secretary runs a competitive grant program for eligible entities to pilot and scale curricula, instructor professional development, accelerated learning models, apprenticeships, and employer engagement strategies that build digital resilience.
Competitive applicants must describe curricula, connections to in-demand occupations, instructor PD, alignment with State Digital Equity and BEAD plans, and plans for sharing materials to a Federal clearinghouse or repository. The bill also builds in privacy restrictions: programs cannot withhold earned learning records or credentials from participants (for example, over unpaid tuition) and may only collect personally identifiable information (PII) as necessary for evaluation and reporting.Administrative details include authority for the Secretary to reserve up to 5% of appropriated funds for technical assistance/administration and 2–4% for program evaluation.
The bill explicitly adds "digital and information literacy skills" to the list of allowable WIOA training services and authorizes unspecified appropriations for fiscal year 2026 and the four succeeding fiscal years to carry out the new program.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Grant distribution uses a three-part formula: 50% of funds allocated by total population, 25% by working‑age population, and 25% by the population with indicators of low digital and information literacy.
States must award subgrants to eligible entities, give priority to programs serving individuals with barriers to employment, and ensure geographically diverse distribution of funds.
Competitive grants require applicants to submit curricula tied to in‑demand occupations, instructor professional development plans, alignment with State Digital Equity and BEAD plans, and a commitment to share materials via a Federal clearinghouse or repository.
Privacy rules ban programs from withholding earned learning records or credentials from participants (for reasons such as unpaid program fees) and limit collection/dissemination of personally identifiable information to purposes of evaluation and reporting.
The Secretary may reserve up to 5% of appropriated funds for technical assistance and administration and must reserve 2–4% for evaluation; local subgrantees must report within one year and States must submit consolidated reports to DOL 18–24 months after award.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Sets the Act’s short title as the "Digital Skills for Today's Workforce Act." This is a formal naming provision with no programmatic effect.
Purpose statement
States the dual goals: (1) build digital skills for current and incoming workers by creating capacity across postsecondary, adult education, and workforce systems; and (2) foster digitally resilient individuals and systems. The purpose frames subsequent provisions and signals emphasis on both immediate job-readiness and longer-term system adaptability.
Definitions and scope of covered skills and entities
Creates definitions for accelerated learning program models, digital equity, digital and information literacy skills, digitally resilient, digital workplace skills, eligible entity, and the population focus. Importantly, the statute ties who can receive and administer funds to entities enumerated in the Digital Equity Act and industry or sector partnerships, widening the usual WIOA roster of providers and encouraging cross-program coordination.
Formula grants, application requirements, and fallback authority
Directs the Secretary to award formula grants to States that apply; the award calculation combines three proportional components (50/25/25) tied to population measures. The State application must describe use of funds, timelines, budgets, capacity to administer, and how the State will support digital resilience. If a State does not apply or submits an incomplete application, DOL may solicit statewide applications from eligible entities and use the State’s allocated share to award grants to those entities or subgrant funds—creating a federal backstop for nonparticipating States.
State subgrants, priorities, and performance reporting
Requires States to pass funds to local eligible entities and to prioritize programs that focus on individuals with barriers to employment while ensuring geographic diversity. Local entities must report within one year on activities and performance; States must aggregate and submit reports to the Secretary 18–24 months after award. The Secretary must publish State reports, creating transparency and an evidence base for program outcomes.
Competitive grants, curriculum requirements, and participant privacy
Authorizes DOL to award competitive grants to entities to develop curricula, instructor PD, accelerated learning models, apprenticeships, and employer engagement. Applications must explain the curriculum, delivery methods, link to in‑demand occupations, and plans to share materials. The bill bars programs from withholding earned credentials for nonpayment and limits collection/dissemination of PII to what is necessary for evaluation and reporting—explicitly shaping vendor and program practices around records and data.
Reservations, evaluation, and WIOA conformity
Permits the Secretary to reserve up to 5% for administration/technical assistance and 2–4% for evaluation. The bill also amends WIOA training services to explicitly include digital and information literacy skills and makes conforming edits to the Act’s table of contents and related cross-references.
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
- Working‑age individuals with low digital literacy (limited formal education, low earnings, or limited English proficiency): the program prioritizes services to this group and funds local providers that focus on removing barriers to employment.
- Community colleges and adult education providers: eligible to receive subgrants and competitive grants, access funds for instructor professional development, updated curricula, and accelerated learning models.
- Industry and sector partnerships and employers: gain a pipeline of workers with employer‑aligned digital workplace skills and can influence curricula through grant-supported employer engagement and work‑based learning.
- State workforce agencies and local workforce boards: receive formula resources and technical assistance to expand program capacity and to incorporate digital training into one-stop and WIOA service offerings.
- Small and medium-sized employers: specifically targeted for engagement under competitive grants, benefiting from tailored work-based learning and upskilling tied to local labor market needs.
Who Bears the Cost
- State workforce agencies: responsible for administering subgrant competitions, compliance, and reporting requirements—creating administrative load and potential need for new staff or contracting.
- Local eligible entities and training providers: must meet reporting, privacy, and curriculum‑sharing obligations and may face revenue impacts from the prohibition on withholding credentials for unpaid fees.
- Department of Labor (federal administrators): must run competitive processes, oversee fallback awards in nonparticipating States, and manage technical assistance and evaluations with allocated reserves.
- Training vendors and credential providers: may need to change business practices (e.g., record access policies, PII handling) and invest in systems to comply with privacy and data‑sharing rules.
- Employers engaged in work‑based learning: will need to invest time and possibly funds into partnerships, apprenticeships, or on‑the‑job training as a condition of many grant activities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between accelerating publicly funded digital upskilling with strict accountability and privacy guardrails, and preserving the operational flexibility and revenue mechanisms providers use to stay financially viable; rigorous reporting, document‑sharing, and credential access requirements protect learners and public transparency but may strain small providers and disrupt existing business models without additional, reliable funding.
The bill aims to be comprehensive but leaves several operational questions unresolved. The formula’s "population with indicators of low digital and information literacy skills" is defined by proxies (education level, earnings quintiles, limited English proficiency), which may not align neatly with a State’s actual distribution of digital need.
That creates potential variation in how effectively funds target areas of greatest digital skill gaps and creates opportunities for gaming or contested data judgments during allocation and application review.
Another tension arises from the mix of State-driven subgrants and competitive national grants. The statutory fallback—allowing the Secretary to solicit statewide applicants from eligible entities when a State fails to apply—solves the problem of nonparticipating States but may produce fragmented service delivery or duplicate funding streams without clear mechanisms for coordination.
Similarly, the privacy provisions are strong in intent (ban on withholding credentials, limits on PII sharing) but delegate technical definitions (what counts as PII, what uses qualify as "evaluation and reporting") to the Secretary, which could create uncertainty for providers until DOL issues guidance.
Finally, the bill authorizes funds for five years but uses the vague phrase "such sums as may be necessary," leaving actual funding to future appropriations. Training providers face a practical dilemma: they must adapt curricula and operational practices immediately to be competitive for grants, yet long‑term sustainability depends on uncertain appropriations and whether the prohibition on withholding credentials affects revenue sources like payment plans or employer reimbursement models.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.