Youth Out-of-School Workforce Grants

Summary#

This bill creates a new, competitive grant program at the Department of Labor to fund out-of-school-time youth workforce readiness programs. Grants go to large national youth-serving organizations that work with local community-based partners to deliver career exposure, work-based learning, mentoring, and related services. It also re-establishes youth councils as subgroups of local workforce boards and adds reporting and evaluation requirements.

• Main change: Establishes competitive grants for nationwide out-of-school-time workforce readiness programs, administered by the Secretary of Labor.
• Who can get grants: National youth-serving organizations with community-based affiliates in at least 35 states.
• Program focus: Career pathways, paid and unpaid work experiences (summer jobs, apprenticeships, internships, on-the-job training), employability skills, mentoring (at least 12 months), and supports like counseling and financial literacy.
• Age range: “Eligible youth” are age 6 through 18 (or 19 if enrolled in secondary school); many workforce services are targeted to youth age 15 and older.
• Money: Authorizes $100 million per year for fiscal years 2026–2030 (appropriation required).
• Governance changes: Requires local youth councils within local workforce boards and adds youth-council reporting to State and local plans and annual reports.

What it means for you#

• Eligible youth (age 6–18/19):

  • Younger children (6 and up) may access supervised out-of-school programs that include career awareness and developmentally appropriate activities.
  • Youth age 15 and older could gain paid and unpaid work experiences, internships, pre-apprenticeship or registered apprenticeship opportunities, on-the-job training, and occupational skill training tied to local in-demand jobs.
  • Participants may get mentoring for their time in the program and for at least 12 months after participation, plus supports such as counseling, financial literacy, and help transitioning to further education or training.

• Community-based organizations and national youth organizations:

  • National groups with affiliates in 35+ states can apply for multi-year grants (3–5 years).
  • These grantees may award subgrants to local organizations, subject to Secretary of Labor approval.
  • Applicants must show plans for equitable geographic distribution and describe how they will coordinate with federal, state, and local programs.

• Local schools, local workforce boards, and employers:

  • Local educational agencies and employers are expected partners for work-based learning and career exposure.
  • Local workforce boards must create youth councils to advise on youth workforce needs and include youth-council recommendations in plans and reports.

• Local governments and taxpayers:

  • The federal government may fund programs in local communities through these grants if Congress appropriates the authorized money.
  • Local boards will have new reporting duties and a formal youth council subgroup.

• What is unclear:

  • The bill does not set grant award sizes, selection criteria beyond eligibility, or required match from grantees.
  • It does not specify how the program will coordinate in detail with existing federal youth programs to avoid overlap.

Expenses#

Estimated public cost: the bill authorizes up to $100 million per year for FY2026–2030; actual spending depends on future appropriations.

• Authorization: $100,000,000 per year for each of fiscal years 2026–2030.
• Administrative costs: the Department of Labor would need funds and staff to run the competitive grant process, monitor grantees, conduct periodic evaluations, and prepare reports to Congress.
• Local costs: creating and operating youth councils and meeting new reporting requirements could raise administrative costs for local workforce boards.
• Grantee costs: applicants must budget program and administrative costs and meet the “supplement not supplant” rule (funds must add to, not replace, existing public funds), which may require accounting changes.
• No detailed fiscal note or cost breakdown is provided in the bill text beyond the authorization amount.

Proponents' View#

The bill appears intended to address gaps in youth workforce preparation and to expand out-of-school-time opportunities. Possible arguments in favor include:

• It could increase access to career exploration and hands-on work experiences for youth, helping them develop job skills before entering the labor market.
• It promotes partnerships between national organizations, community groups, schools, and employers to coordinate services and align training with local labor market needs.
• It emphasizes equity and geographic distribution, aiming to reach underserved communities and both urban and rural areas.
• It builds in mentoring, supportive services, and education supports that can help youth stay engaged and transition to postsecondary education or employment.
• The required evaluations and reporting are intended to measure outcomes and improve program quality over time.

Opponents' View#

The bill’s design raises several reasonable concerns based on the text:

• One concern is that limiting grants to national organizations with affiliates in at least 35 states may favor large national groups and exclude smaller local or regional organizations that serve specific communities.
• The authorization ($100 million per year) may be viewed as small relative to national need; the bill does not specify how funds will be divided among grantees or regions.
• The bill does not give detailed selection criteria, grant sizes, or matching requirements, leaving uncertainty about who will get funding and how equitable distribution will be enforced.
• Adding youth councils and new reporting could increase administrative work for local boards without dedicated funding for those tasks.
• It is not clear how this program will coordinate with existing federal youth programs (for example, WIOA youth funds or after-school grants) to avoid duplication of services.
• The requirement that funds “supplement and not supplant” other public funds could complicate budgeting and create compliance burdens for grantees and local governments.