SB3846 rewrites how the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act treats employer‑driven training. It replaces the term “customized training” with “employer‑directed skills development,” defines that term, and requires employers to pay a minimum share of program costs (tiered by employer size) and to commit to employ successful program completers.
The bill also creates an expedited employer referral path that allows employers to certify candidates and bypass certain one‑stop assessments, adjusts the WIOA primary performance indicator to count completions of on‑the‑job training and employer‑directed programs, and prescribes specific application elements for local contracts with employers. For workforce boards, training providers, employers, and program participants, these changes reallocate funding incentives and operational responsibilities within the WIOA system.
At a Glance
What It Does
Amends multiple WIOA sections to define 'employer‑directed skills development' and replace prior references to 'customized training'; mandates employer cost‑sharing minimums (10%, 25%, 50% tiers by employer size) while allowing local boards to set higher shares; requires employer hiring commitment in contracts; permits employer‑certified referrals to bypass certain one‑stop assessments; and revises a primary performance metric to report completion of OJT or employer‑directed programs.
Who It Affects
Local workforce boards and one‑stop operators (new verification and contract duties), employers of all sizes (new minimum financial obligations and hiring commitments), training providers and employers that act as providers, and program participants whose access and referral path may change.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts more up‑front cost onto employers and formalizes employer control over program design and candidate selection, which can accelerate placement into specific jobs but may narrow training portability and change what activities WIOA funds prioritize.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB3846 systematically replaces the existing WIOA concept of 'customized training' with a new, more prescriptive category called 'employer‑directed skills development.' That definition requires three elements: the program is selected or designed to meet an employer’s specific skill needs; it is governed by an employer‑directed skills contract that includes the employer’s commitment to hire successful participants; and the employer pays a portion of program costs meeting minimum percentages tied to employer size. The bill leaves discretion to local workforce boards to set the employer's share above those minimums.
Operationally, the bill adds a streamlined referral channel for employers: if an employer refers an individual for OJT or an employer‑directed program and certifies both the need for training and the candidate’s qualifications, the one‑stop operator is not required to perform the usual interview, evaluation, or assessment. One‑stop operators must still apply statutorily required priority rules in determining eligibility for training services.The bill also prescribes what an employer must include when seeking a contract from a local board to provide employer‑directed skills development: the provider identity (which can be the employer), program length, credential or occupational skills to be earned, total program cost, the employer’s share of that cost (at or above the statutory minimum), and a hiring commitment.
That creates a standardized application packet and converts employer hiring promises into a contractual term.At the system level, SB3846 requires one‑stop operators to collect a minimum set of information from providers of OJT, employer‑directed programs, incumbent worker training, internships, and other work experiences, sufficient for state administrative data and performance reporting. The bill also amends the primary indicators of performance to report the ratio of participants who completed OJT or employer‑directed skills development to the total number of training participants who exited during the program year—placing explicit reporting weight on employer‑linked training completions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates the term 'employer‑directed skills development' and makes it the replacement for 'customized training' across WIOA.
Employers must pay a minimum portion of program costs that varies by size: at least 10% for firms with 50 or fewer employees, 25% for firms with more than 50 but fewer than 100, and 50% for firms with 100 or more employees.
An employer must commit in the contract to employ a participant who successfully completes the program; the employer may also be the training provider.
If an employer refers and certifies a candidate for OJT or employer‑directed training, the one‑stop operator may skip the usual interview/evaluation/assessment steps (but must still apply priority rules).
The bill changes a primary performance metric to measure the ratio of participants who completed OJT or employer‑directed programs to the total training participants who exited in the program year.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s citation: 'Employer‑Directed Skills Act.' This is a formal heading with no operational effect but signals the legislation’s focus on employer‑led training.
New definition and employer cost‑sharing tiers
Adds a new paragraph defining 'employer‑directed skills development' and replaces prior references to 'customized training.' The definition requires (1) employer selection or design to meet specific skill needs; (2) operation under an employer‑directed contract that includes an employer hiring commitment; and (3) employer payment of a share of program cost that the local board determines but that cannot be below statutory minimums (10%, 25%, 50% depending on employer size). Practically, this anchors employer financial participation and hiring promises into the statutory definition, while preserving local board discretion to set higher employer shares.
Replace 'customized training' references across WIOA
Makes targeted swaps of the phrase 'customized training' for 'employer‑directed skills development' (for example, in section 108(b)(4)(B) and other provisions). These conforming edits align statutory language to the new definition so that existing authorities that referenced customized training will now operate on the employer‑directed model.
Measure employer‑linked training completions
Alters the primary indicators of performance by inserting a specific subclause that requires reporting the ratio of program participants who completed on‑the‑job training or employer‑directed skills development to the total number of training participants who exited in the program year. The bill also removes an existing clause (clause (iv)), tightening the statutory performance framework to highlight employer‑sponsored pathways.
Data collection for employer‑linked activities
Revises the heading and text to require one‑stop operators to collect the minimum information necessary from providers of OJT, employer‑directed programs, incumbent worker training, internships, work experiences, and transitional employment to enable state administrative data to generate performance information. This centralizes data reporting expectations for employer‑linked activities and signals to states the kinds of fields they should capture in administrative systems.
Streamlined employer referrals and application content for employer contracts
Adds an employer referral exception: a one‑stop operator need not perform an interview/evaluation/assessment if an employer refers an individual for OJT or employer‑directed training and certifies that the individual needs training and has the requisite skills. The provision keeps statutory priority rules in play. The section also sets out required elements for an employer’s application for a local contract (provider identity, program length, credential or skills, total cost, employer share, and hiring commitment), formalizing the paperwork and verifications that local boards must review before contracting.
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
- Employers seeking tailored hires — The statute gives employers formal leverage to design training and obtain a direct pipeline of candidates, with the ability to require hiring commitments and, if they act as providers, to shape curriculum to specific roles.
- Training providers that deliver employer‑specific programs — Providers that align programs to employer needs can capture local board contracts and stable employer funding streams.
- Local workforce boards that prioritize placement metrics — The revised performance metric rewards placements tied to OJT and employer‑directed programs, enabling boards to demonstrate short‑term training completion linked to employment.
- Jobseekers with employer referrals — Individuals certified by employers can move more quickly into training and placement without undergoing the full one‑stop assessment process, potentially shortening time to employment.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers — Must pay statutory minimum shares of program costs (10%/25%/50% tiers), and those who contract with boards take on hiring commitments; smaller employers may face cash‑flow burdens and compliance steps.
- Local workforce boards and one‑stop operators — Face increased administrative responsibilities to verify employer certifications, review employer applications, collect minimum provider data, and enforce contract terms, with no funding formula change in the bill to cover those tasks.
- Training participants in employer‑specific programs — May receive credentials or skills narrowly tailored to a single employer, reducing portability and future labor market flexibility if the credential lacks broader recognition.
- Public funding streams for broader access — Federal WIOA funds may shift toward employer‑sponsored, hire‑linked programs, potentially reducing availability for training aimed at long‑term career pathways or populations without employer partners.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between aligning federally funded training tightly with employer demand—using employer cost‑sharing and hiring commitments to reduce mismatch—and protecting access, credential portability, and long‑term worker outcomes; the bill strengthens employer incentives to invest in training but risks narrowing who benefits and what types of skills are funded.
The bill creates several operational tensions that implementation will need to resolve. First, converting employer hiring promises into contract terms raises verification and enforcement questions: the text requires a hiring commitment but does not specify remedies if an employer fails to hire, how long the commitment lasts, or whether placement counts only if employment meets wage or duration thresholds.
That gap leaves local boards to craft enforcement mechanisms or risk inconsistent application.
Second, the employer referral exception streamlines access but risks selection bias and exclusion. Allowing employers to certify candidates as qualified to bypass assessments could let employers prioritize already‑qualified or preselected workers, reducing opportunities for traditionally disadvantaged applicants who may need assessment‑driven supports.
The bill tries to mitigate this by preserving priority rules, but it does not clarify how boards should reconcile employer certifications with statutory priority populations.
Third, the mandatory employer cost shares reallocate fiscal burden toward firms, which can improve employer buy‑in but also disadvantage mid‑sized employers and shift program design toward narrowly scoped training that meets immediate employer needs rather than longer, portable credentials. The measurement change—focusing reporting on OJT and employer‑directed completions—may further incentivize short, employer‑sponsored programs that boost reported outcomes without guaranteeing wage gains or career mobility.
Finally, the bill increases data and contract review duties for local boards without specifying additional funding or federal guidance, raising implementation and equity concerns across states and localities.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.