State Legislatures Weighing in on Workforce Pell

With legislative sessions in full swing, 14 state legislatures have introduced bills that affect Workforce Pell implementation. Workforce Pell represents the largest expansion of the Pell Grant for low-income students in more than 50 years, extending eligibility to very short-term and noncredit programs. But unlike traditional Pell programs, states play a central role in approving these programs before they can access federal funding.

The legislation Congress passed gives governors the authority to approve Workforce Pell programs, typically in consultation with state workforce boards. But state legislatures are beginning to weigh in on how that authority should be exercised. Some bills simply allow the governor to establish an approval process that complies with federal rules. Others focus on building the data infrastructure needed to comply with federal reporting requirements. Still others set additional criteria for Workforce Pell-eligible programs or limit what governors and state agencies can do through the approval process.

Taken together, the bills illustrate how states are beginning to grapple with their new role in Workforce Pell implementation.

Many of the bills introduced so far could be described as enabling legislation. These bills largely mirror the federal law and simply authorize the governor to create a process for approving Workforce Pell programs. Typically, these bills state that the governor will establish a process for consulting with the state workforce development board when approving programs to receive Workforce Pell funds. The workforce board’s role is usually to help determine whether programs lead to employment in high-wage or high-demand occupations.

One bill in Georgia, and others in Oregon and Kansas, follow this approach, essentially allowing the governor to set up a process that aligns with federal Workforce Pell rules. In these cases, legislatures appear primarily interested in clarifying state authority rather than shaping the approval process itself.

Some states are also addressing the data requirements embedded in the federal Workforce Pell law. The federal program requires states to report program outcomes—including completion and placement—to the U.S. Department of Education. Iowa has introduced legislation that allows the state workforce agency to collect and share the data needed to comply with those reporting requirements, particularly wage and employment data.

Although these enabling bills are relatively simple, some include provisions that could have significant policy implications.

Missouri, New Hampshire, and West Virginia, for example, define “high-wage” occupations as those with earnings above 150 percent of the federal poverty level. While this threshold aligns with language used in the Value Added Earnings Measure for Workforce Pell, it is a relatively low bar for defining high-wage employment. In some cases, that is actually lower than the Value Added Earnings measure.

Other bills include provisions that limit state agencies’ ability to regulate Workforce Pell programs beyond federal requirements. Bills in Georgia and Tennessee include language stating that: “A department, agency, or board of state government does not have authority to promulgate a rule to implement this section.” Similarly, legislation in Kentucky and Indiana specifies that the state’s implementation process cannot impose requirements more restrictive than federal rules governing Workforce Pell.

These provisions appear designed to ensure that state approval processes remain closely aligned with federal law and do not impose additional requirements on Workforce Pell programs. They limit states’ ability to add safeguards or additional quality criteria to Workforce Pell programs.

Another set of bills focuses on which state agency should be responsible for approving Workforce Pell programs.

Several states designate their workforce departments as the lead agency for administering the program approval process. Indiana, New Hampshire, and Virginia all assign the Workforce Pell approval process to their workforce departments. Indiana’s legislation also explicitly requires consultation with the Commission for Higher Education, recognizing the role that community colleges and other higher education institutions will play in offering eligible programs.

Utah takes a slightly different approach. Its legislation assigns responsibility to the Utah Board of Higher Education, making it the only bill in the group that clearly places Workforce Pell implementation primarily within the state’s higher education governance structure.

These governance choices matter because Workforce Pell sits at the intersection of higher education and workforce policy. The agency responsible for approving programs will shape how states balance those two priorities, including how they evaluate program quality, labor market alignment, and student outcomes.

A final group of bills takes a much more prescriptive approach to Workforce Pell implementation by adding consumer protections to the program approval process.

Legislation in California, Hawaii, and Maryland includes provisions designed to protect students enrolling in short-term training programs. Based on model legislation developed by The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS), these bills incorporate a range of safeguards. Among other things, they:

• Require state authorization before programs can market or enroll students
• Require clear tuition and refund policies
• Restrict the use of private loans or alternative financing products

Some of these requirements already exist in federal law or regulation, but the legislation makes them explicit parts of the state approval process.

These bills reflect a broader concern that expanding Pell eligibility to short-term programs could expose students to low-quality or predatory training programs if appropriate consumer protections are not in place.

Some states appear content to mirror the federal statute and allow governors to establish approval processes with minimal additional rules. Others are focusing on governance and data infrastructure, ensuring that the state agencies responsible for implementation have the authority and information needed to administer the program. And a smaller group of states is attempting to add consumer protections and quality safeguards to the approval process.

As Workforce Pell moves closer to implementation, these legislative choices will likely play a major role in determining which programs are approved, how they are evaluated, and ultimately whether the program delivers on its promise to expand opportunity for low-income students.