S.3328 (Digital Skills for Today’s Workforce Act) amends the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to create a new “Digital Skills at Work” grant program. The bill authorizes recurring federal funding (‘‘such sums as may be necessary’’) to support two tracks: formula grants to States to subgrant locally, and competitive grants directly to eligible entities, with an express focus on workplace-ready digital and information literacy skills.
This bill matters because it embeds digital skills into the WIOA statutory framework, ties grant allocation to measures of population, working‑age residents, and low-digital-skill populations, and conditions funding on curriculum development, instructor professional development, public reporting, and privacy protections for learners and credentials. For compliance officers and program leads, the statute creates new application, subgranting, and reporting mechanics states and providers must follow—and it sets evaluative and data-protection expectations that will shape program design and vendor relationships.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new Section 172 into WIOA establishing (1) formula grants to every State allocated by a 50/25/25 ratio (population/working‑age population/low‑digital‑skill population) and (2) competitive grants to eligible entities to build digital workplace skills and digitally resilient systems. It prescribes application contents, allowable uses (including accelerated learning models), public reporting, and limited Secretary reserves for administration and evaluation.
Who It Affects
States (workforce agencies and governors), local eligible entities (community colleges, adult ed providers, workforce boards, industry/sector partnerships), employers (especially small and medium businesses that will be engaged), and workers with barriers to employment—particularly adults lacking foundational digital skills or with limited English proficiency.
Why It Matters
The bill operationalizes digital equity inside the federal workforce system and links activities to State Digital Equity Plans and BEAD action plans. It requires curriculum, instructor development, and data/reporting practices that could standardize workplace digital training nationally while directing resources toward areas with concentrated digital skill deficits.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
S.3328 adds a new grant program to WIOA called Digital Skills at Work and builds a compact between federal funding, State workforce systems, and local training providers. The statute begins by defining key terms—digital and information literacy, digital workplace skills, digitally resilient systems, and eligible entities (which mirror categories from the Digital Equity Act plus industry/sector partnerships).
Those definitions frame the program’s scope: workplace-oriented digital skills across basic, applied, and industry-specific competencies.
The State track delivers formula grants to every State. The formula divides available funds into three buckets (50% by total population, 25% by working‑age population, 25% by the State’s share of individuals with low digital skills).
States must apply, showing capacity, budgets, timelines, and plans to build system resilience; they then must subgrant to eligible entities with a priority for individuals with barriers to employment and geographic distribution requirements. If a State does not apply or submit a complete application, the Secretary may solicit statewide applications from eligible entities and use the State’s share to fund them directly.Separately, the Secretary runs a competitive grant track that funds eligible entities to build curricula, professional development for instructors, accelerated learning models, and employer engagement strategies.
Applications to this track must detail curriculum content and delivery, program alignment with State Digital Equity Plans and BEAD action plans, data privacy protections, target populations (including historically underrepresented groups), and how the grantee will scale or share materials through a Federal repository.Accountability requirements include local reports from subgrantees within one year and consolidated State reports between 18 and 24 months after award, with the Secretary making State reports public. The statute also limits certain data practices—prohibiting programs funded by the competitive grants from withholding earned learning or credential information for reasons like nonpayment and restricting unnecessary collection or dissemination of personally identifiable information (with definitional authority left to the Secretary).
The Secretary may reserve up to 5 percent of program funds for technical assistance/administration and 2–4 percent for program evaluation, and the bill authorizes “such sums as may be necessary” for FY2026–FY2030.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The grant formula splits available state funding into three allocations: 50% by total population, 25% by working‑age population, and 25% by the State’s share of individuals with indicators of low digital and information literacy skills.
States must collect local subgrantee reports within 1 year of subgrant award; consolidated State reports that include those local reports must be sent to the Secretary no earlier than 18 months and no later than 24 months after the State grant award, and those State reports will be publicly posted.
If a State fails to apply or provides an incomplete application, the Secretary can solicit statewide applications from eligible entities and reallocate that State’s share to them, effectively allowing non‑State entities to operate a State‑level program.
Competitive-grant applications must include curriculum content, delivery mechanisms, links to in‑demand occupations, instructor professional development plans, alignment with State digital equity and BEAD action plans, and a plan to submit materials to a Federal clearinghouse.
The bill forbids competitive-grant-funded programs from withholding earned learning or credentialing information from participants (for reasons such as unpaid fees) and restricts collection/dissemination of personally identifiable information except for evaluation and reporting; the Secretary defines PII thresholds.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Key terms shaping scope and eligibility
This section supplies working definitions for ‘digital and information literacy skills,’ ‘digital workplace skills,’ ‘digitally resilient,’ ‘eligible entity,’ and the population measures used in the grant formula. The definitions are broad: they cover foundational through industry-specific competencies, accelerated learning models, and treat both individuals and systems as objects of resilience-building. Practically, these definitions set where program money can land (workplace training, curriculum, PD, accelerated models) and which organizations qualify for funding under both State subgrants and competitive awards.
Every State gets a grant; formula ties funds to need and workforce size
The Secretary awards a grant to each State, with amounts derived from the three-part 50/25/25 allocation. Applications must demonstrate capacity, include a budget and timeline, and describe steps to build digitally resilient systems. States that receive funds must use them to produce subgrants to eligible entities; the statute requires a demonstrated ability to manage Federal grant funds and additional procedural assurances the Secretary may impose—meaning some States will need to adjust existing WIOA administrative systems to accommodate new reporting and oversight flows.
What happens if a State doesn’t participate, and how States distribute funds locally
If a State does not submit a complete application, the Secretary can solicit applications from eligible entities capable of operating statewide and use the State’s share to fund those entities or issue multiple competitive subgrants in that State. For participating States, subgrants must be awarded with priority for programs serving individuals with barriers to employment and distributed across geography. Subgrantees must report to the State within one year; the State packages those local reports into a public-facing report to the Secretary, creating layered accountability and a likely need for standard data templates.
Direct funding for curriculum, employer engagement, and scaling
The competitive track targets eligible entities (the Digital Equity Act list plus industry/sector partnerships). Applications must provide detailed curriculum outlines, delivery mechanisms, alignment to in‑demand occupations, plans for instructor hiring and professional development, use of accelerated learning models, privacy protections, and plans to share materials via a Federal clearinghouse. The requirement to articulate curriculum-to-occupation connections and PD strategies pushes grantees toward employer-facing, measurable training and raises the bar for documentation and deliverables in grant proposals.
Limits on withholding credentials and PII collection
Competitive grantees must include assurances that they will not withhold earned learning records or credentials from participants for reasons like nonpayment, and they must limit the collection and dissemination of personally identifiable information except where necessary for evaluation and reporting. The Secretary retains authority to define PII and methods for privacy compliance; this creates binding program-level obligations for vendors and training providers that could affect contracts, data systems, and billing practices.
Appropriations and training-service recognition
The redesignated Section 173 authorizes ‘‘such sums as may be necessary’’ for FY2026 and the following four years to carry out Section 172. The bill also amends WIOA’s training-services list to explicitly include digital and information literacy skills, and makes a technical conforming edit to a SUPPORT Act cross-reference. These changes integrate digital skills more concretely into WIOA program lines and eligibility for Title I training funds.
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
- Adults with low digital skills (including low educational attainment, low earnings, or limited English proficiency): the statute prioritizes them for State subgrants and targets 25% of formula funds to States by low‑digital‑skill population share, increasing resources for basic digital literacy tied to jobs.
- Community colleges, adult education providers, and workforce training organizations: they become primary subgrant recipients and competitive-grant applicants for curriculum development, PD, and accelerated models, expanding programmatic funding opportunities.
- Small and medium‑sized employers and industry partnerships: the bill requires employer engagement and explicit links between curriculum and in‑demand occupations, strengthening employer access to a trained pipeline and incentives to participate in work-based learning or apprenticeship models.
- State workforce agencies and governors: receive a new federal funding stream and guidance to coordinate statewide digital skills activities, enabling system-level strategy formation and data consolidation.
- Industry/sector partnerships and providers serving underrepresented populations: competitive grants reward proposals that serve historically underrepresented groups and scale promising curricula through a Federal clearinghouse.
Who Bears the Cost
- State workforce agencies and State administrative offices: they must develop applications, manage subgrant competitions, collect and consolidate local reports, and comply with new accountability and public‑reporting requirements, which creates administrative burdens and potential need for new staff or systems.
- Local eligible entities and training providers: must invest time and resources to meet competitive- and subgrant-application requirements, curriculum development, instructor PD, data collection, and privacy safeguards—smaller providers may struggle to meet those requirements.
- Federal Department of Labor (and interagency partners): DOL must run the grant competitions, administer the non‑applying‑State backfill process, produce technical assistance, and manage evaluations within the 2–4% evaluation reserve — all of which require staffing and rulemaking capacity.
- Program vendors and credential issuers: the prohibition against withholding earned learning records for nonpayment may change vendor billing and credential-access practices and expose providers to unrecovered costs absent alternative payment policies.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central dilemma is between rapid, federally supported scale-up of workplace digital skills (which favors standardized curricula, measurable employer-aligned outcomes, and broad public reporting) and the need for local flexibility, provider sustainability, and robust privacy protections. Pushing for national consistency and measurable workforce returns risks imposing burdens that exclude smaller or community-rooted providers; insisting on strong learner privacy and protections (including the ban on withholding credentials) creates fiscal and administrative tradeoffs that providers and States must resolve.
The bill sets a policy direction—scale digital skills training through WIOA—but leaves several operationally significant gaps that will drive rulemaking and implementation choices. First, funding is authorized as ‘‘such sums as may be necessary’’ for a five‑year window rather than a fixed appropriation, so the program’s scale, footprint, and sustainability will depend entirely on future appropriations.
That ambiguity affects planning for States and providers and could produce uneven rollouts if appropriations lag or vary year to year.
Second, the statute demands curriculum-to-occupation alignment, instructor professional development, and reporting but does not prescribe standardized measures or a common digital‑skills taxonomy. States and the Secretary will need to choose performance metrics and reporting templates; variations across jurisdictions will complicate cross‑State comparisons and the Federal clearinghouse’s utility.
The bill’s privacy protections—while salutary—leave definitional authority to the Secretary, which creates short-term uncertainty for providers about what PII may be collected and how evaluation data requirements will be balanced against learner confidentiality.
Finally, the prohibition on withholding earned credentials for nonpayment resolves an important access barrier but creates a fiscal risk for providers who rely on tuition or fee recovery. Without guidance on allowable recourse or alternative payment structures, some providers may be deterred from participating or will shift costs to other revenue lines.
The backfill mechanism allowing non‑State entities to use a State’s allocation is practical for coverage but raises accountability questions about statewide coordination and long‑term system coherence.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.