This bill funds a multi‑pronged federal effort to convert businesses and programs that pay people with disabilities under special certificates issued under FLSA section 14(c) into providers of competitive integrated employment (CIE) and related community services. It authorizes competitive grants to States and to individual certificate‑holding employers, technical assistance via a long‑term nonprofit grantee, mandatory data collection and audits by Wage and Hour, and a legislated five‑year wage ramp that ends the legal effect of existing special certificates.
Why it matters: S.2438 changes the federal implementation architecture around subminimum wages for people with disabilities. It ties direct federal funding and TA to transformation, imposes specific wage milestones (60% → 100% of the federal minimum over five years), prohibits new 14(c) certificates, and sunsets the authority to rely on existing certificates.
That creates near‑term compliance obligations for employers, new coordination duties for State agencies (Medicaid, vocational rehabilitation, DD agencies, workforce boards), and new evaluation and reporting responsibilities for Labor and Justice.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill establishes two competitive grant streams (one for States, one for certificate‑holding entities) to support transformations to CIE; requires wage increases for workers paid under 14(c) on a staged schedule that reaches the federal minimum wage in five years; bars issuance of new 14(c) certificates and terminates their legal effect after five years; and funds a national technical assistance grant plus multi‑year program evaluation and annual Wage and Hour reporting.
Who It Affects
Directly affects employers that currently employ people under 14(c) certificates, State developmental disability, Medicaid, vocational rehabilitation and workforce agencies, nonprofit supported‑employment providers, and the workers and families served by these systems. It also mobilizes the Department of Labor, DOJ Civil Rights Division, and HHS/ACL around compliance, TA, and evaluation roles.
Why It Matters
This is a federal policy lever to move jurisdictions away from segregated, low‑wage sheltered employment toward integrated paid work. It conditions funding and support on concrete transformations and state buy‑in (advisory councils, data collection, Olmstead/HCBS alignment), so it can change service models where grants and TA reach—but it also imposes operational, fiscal, and reporting demands on governments and employers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
S.2438 wires federal money and technical help to the practical task of shifting employment models that use FLSA §14(c) certificates into competitive integrated employment and community‑based supports. It does this through two parallel grant streams: a State grant program (five‑year awards, $3M–$15M) that requires an inventory of certificate use, a transformation plan aligned with Olmstead and HCBS requirements, an advisory council with strong representation of people with disabilities and families, and commitments from core State agencies; and a certificate‑holder grant program (three‑year awards, $200k–$750k) for employers in States without a State grant to redesign contracts, funding, staffing and supports to sustain CIE.
The bill imposes a statutory wage transition for employees currently covered by special certificates: beginning after a 90‑day effective delay it requires payment of 60% of the federal minimum for the first step, then 70%, 80%, 90%, and finally 100% of the federal minimum wage at years 0, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. It also bans issuance of new 14(c) certificates to employers that did not already hold one at enactment and makes all existing certificates lose legal effect once the five‑year ramp completes.To help the field, the Department of Labor must award a six‑year grant to a nonprofit to deliver national technical assistance, gather and publicize replicable transformation models, and coordinate training resources from DOL, HHS/ACL and ED.
The bill also requires the Wage and Hour Division, in coordination with DOJ, to produce annual reports during the five‑year ramp and to audit at least 10% of existing certificate employers within one year of enactment. Finally, an external evaluation contractor will conduct a multi‑year impact evaluation and deliver an interim report at year three and a final report after the certificates lose legal effect.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires a statutory wage ramp for 14(c) workers: 60% of the federal minimum (effective 90 days after enactment), then 70% at year 2, 80% at year 3, 90% at year 4, and 100% at year 5.
State grants: awards run 5 years, $3,000,000–$15,000,000 per State, require an employer inventory, advisory council (≥25% people with disabilities), Olmstead/HCBS alignment, and data/reporting commitments. , Certificate‑holder grants: for employers in States without State grants, single 3‑year awards of $200,000–$750,000 to redesign business models, retrain staff, and fund supports for transitioning workers.
Program controls: the Secretary must not issue new 14(c) certificates to firms that lacked one at enactment; 14(c) authority expires and all certificates lose legal effect the day after the five‑year ramp completes. , Oversight and evaluation: DOL must audit at least 10% of existing certificate employers within 1 year, submit annual Wage and Hour reports during the ramp, and fund a multi‑year external impact evaluation with an interim (3‑year) and final report.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Authorization of competitive grant streams and program goals
This section directs the Secretary of Labor to award the grants described in Secs. 102 and 103. It lists the program objectives: move certificate employers to CIE, ensure people with disabilities and families participate, and require transformed employers to pay at least the federal or applicable state/local minimum and at least the customary rate paid to non‑disabled peers. Practically, the section ties grant eligibility and allowable activities to converting employment models, providing integrated services compliant with HCBS rules, and measuring outcomes.
State grant program—eligibility, application and requirements
States apply for a single 5‑year grant (one award per State) in the $3M–$15M range. Applications must inventory certificate use (employers and worker demographics, hours and wages), present a timeline to phase out certificate‑based employment (not beyond the statutory sunset), describe service infrastructure for people with significant disabilities, and secure cross‑agency participation (Medicaid, DD, VR, education, workforce, transportation). States must create advisory councils with prescribed stakeholder composition, commit to data collection/cooperation with the national evaluation, and ensure HCBS/Olmstead/ADA compliance for integrated services. The Secretary is instructed to distribute funds geographically and consider rural/urban balance.
Certificate‑holder grants—direct support for employers
Where a State does not hold a State grant, individual certificate‑holding entities may apply for a single 3‑year grant ($200k–$750k). Applications must document recent wage and demographic patterns, historical transitions to CIE, current funding and contracts, and a transformation plan (contract redesign, funding changes, staff training, stakeholder engagement). Grantees must partner with at least two organizations experienced in CIE (for example a VR agency, DD agency, protection & advocacy or nonprofit employment specialist) and agree to data reporting and participation in the national TA and evaluation efforts.
Wage ramp, prohibition on new certificates, and sunset of 14(c) authority
Section 201 amends FLSA §14(c) to impose a phased wage schedule for certificate‑paid workers, setting specific percentage milestones linked to years after enactment and a 90‑day effective delay. Section 202 bars issuance of new certificates to employers that did not already hold one at enactment and adds a clear statutory sunset: authority to issue certificates expires and all certificates lose legal effect the day after the five‑year ramp completes. For compliance teams, this creates a known deadline for transformation and a legal end to the 14(c) pathway.
Technical assistance, dissemination and coordination
DOL (through ODEP and ETA), in partnership with HHS/ACL and ED/OSEP/OSERS, must fund a single nonprofit grantee for six years to provide national technical assistance, compile replicable models, and disseminate accessible materials. The TA grantee must also surface evidence‑based practices that align with Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act investments and coordinate ABLE account/asset development messaging with Treasury and the ABLE National Resource Center. This is the federal hub to translate grant lessons into fieldwide practice.
Evaluation, audits and reporting
The bill requires the Secretary to contract with an evaluation nonprofit within 180 days; that entity conducts a multi‑year impact evaluation and produces an interim report at year three and a final report after certificates lose legal effect. Separately, Wage and Hour (with DOJ Civil Rights) must file annual reports during the five‑year ramp covering wages, employment settings, hours, demographics, and transitions, and must audit at least 10% of certificate employers within one year of enactment—creating enforcement and transparency signals intended to monitor both compliance and outcomes.
Definitions and funding
Defines core terms (CIE, integrated services, Olmstead plan, ABLE account, State, etc.) and authorizes $200 million annually for FY2026–2030 to carry out the Act, with 1% of annual funds earmarked for technical assistance under Title III. The definitions tie program requirements to HCBS rules and the Olmstead holding, shaping how integrated services and settings get interpreted in grant performance.
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
- People with disabilities (especially those employed under 14(c)): gain a statutory pathway to higher wages and access to funded transition supports, training, and integrated community services intended to increase CIE opportunities.
- States that secure grants and build capacity: receive multi‑million dollar funding and TA to build cross‑agency systems (Medicaid, DD, VR, workforce) that can increase CIE outcomes and align Olmstead plans with workforce goals.
- Employers that proactively transform: eligible for direct grants, TA, and dissemination of replicable business models—reducing the financial and operational friction of redesigning contracts, retraining staff, and implementing supports.
- Nonprofit supported‑employment providers and VR organizations: receive contracting and collaboration opportunities, and a national TA infrastructure will lift evidence‑based practices for wider use.
- Families and caregivers: get more information and resources (benefits counseling, ABLE accounts, Ticket to Work referrals) to support employment transitions and preserve public benefits while increasing income.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers that rely on subminimum wage labor: face higher payroll costs as wages move to the federal minimum and must invest in business redesign, training, or lose the legal pathway to pay subminimum wages.
- States without pre‑existing capacity: even if awarded grants, they must commit agency staff time, data systems, and cross‑program coordination—costs that may exceed grant coverage and require reallocation of state resources.
- Federal agencies (DOL, HHS, DOJ): take on expanded monitoring, audit, coordination and evaluation duties that will require administrative capacity to execute the audits, reports, TA contracting, and grant oversight.
- Small sheltered workshops and subcontracting entities: may lose contracts or market share if they cannot convert to competitive models, creating local service disruption and potential transitional job losses for some workers.
- Employers and providers who fail to meet data/reporting requirements: face potential funding clawbacks (per the Rehab Act amendment and fund mechanics) and reputational risk from public reporting.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward but stubborn: raise wages and legally end the subminimum‑wage pathway to promote equity and CIE, while ensuring those same workers do not lose jobs because employers, States, and support systems lack the capacity or funding to create genuine integrated opportunities. The bill solves the policy problem by pairing mandates with grants and TA, but success depends on whether the investments and implementation timeline match the scale of transformation required.
Implementation will hinge on three practical constraints: funding adequacy, service capacity, and coordination across systems. The bill authorizes $200M/year for five years; that money will be split between State grants, employer grants, TA, and evaluation—raising an immediate question whether the authorized level will cover the scale of transformation needed in States with large certificate populations.
Workforce shortages in job coaching, supported employment, transportation, and HCBS providers are not solved simply by grants; delivering meaningful CIE at scale requires time and recurrent investment beyond one‑time transformation grants.
Operationally the bill leaves important definitional and measurement choices to agency rulemaking and guidance: what counts as the employer’s ‘‘customary rate’’ for parity comparisons, how to measure ‘‘competitive integrated employment’’ across mixed‑model employers, and how States should reconcile procurement rules and existing CBA/contract obligations when redesigning contracts. The data and privacy burden from the required inventorying of employers and worker demographics also raises practical implementation costs for State agencies and employers, and the statute’s reliance on HCBS regulatory alignment creates a dependency on Medicaid policy levers that vary across States.
Finally, the timetable creates an acute policy tradeoff. A five‑year statutory sunset with a front‑loaded 90‑day effective date for the first wage step pressures rapid conversions, which risks displacing workers if adequate supports, alternative placements, or employer transformations lag.
Enforcement (audits and reporting) and the national evaluation are important safeguards, but results will depend on timely execution and whether the TA grantee and DOL can translate lessons into operational fixes before certificates lose legal effect.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.