To amend section 122.1710 and to enact sections 122.1712 and 122.1713 of the Revised Code to modify the Individual Microcredential Assistance Program(IMAP), to create platinum provider programs for certain IMAP participants, and to name this act the Platinum Providers Act.
HB107 would revise Ohio’s Individual Microcredential Assistance Program (IMAP), which reimburses training providers for the cost of helping individuals earn microcredentials. The bill keeps the core reimbursement structure but adds new administrative requirements, including provider applications, annual reimbursement limits, demographic reporting options, a survey on participant wages and occupations, and public posting of program materials on state workforce websites. It also renames the act the “Platinum Providers Act.”
The bill creates two new “platinum provider” pathways. One applies to eligible non-college training providers, such as Ohio technical centers and private training businesses, and the other applies specifically to state institutions of higher education. Platinum providers may receive advance payments to cover training costs before reimbursement is finalized, subject to caps, completion-rate thresholds, and surety-bond requirements. The bill also sets rules for refunds if actual costs are lower than advance payments or if completion rates fall below required levels, and it authorizes the Department of Development to adopt rules to implement the program.
HB107 would amend Revised Code section 122.1710 and add new sections 122.1712 and 122.1713, expanding state law governing workforce training reimbursements. It would give the Department of Development, in consultation with the Governor’s Office of Workforce Transformation, broader authority to administer IMAP, approve providers, collect participant data, and manage advance payments. The bill would also impose new eligibility standards on providers, including limits tied to approved microcredentials, prior wage-law compliance, completion rates, and bonding requirements, while creating separate treatment for state colleges and universities.
Because the bill was only introduced and has no recorded committee votes or transcripts in the provided material, there is no formal legislative vote history to gauge support or opposition. The bill’s structure suggests a generally pro-workforce-training and pro-provider sentiment, with an emphasis on expanding access to microcredential training and improving provider participation through advance funding. At the same time, the inclusion of performance thresholds, refund obligations, and bonding requirements indicates an effort to balance support for providers with accountability for public funds.
The main points of potential contention are the advance-payment feature, the administrative burden on providers, and the differing standards for private providers versus state institutions. Private training providers must meet an 80% completion threshold, maintain a surety bond, and comply with refund rules, while state institutions face a lower 50% threshold and no bond requirement in the bill text, which could raise fairness or favoritism concerns. Another possible issue is the collection of demographic information, including race and gender, even though participation is voluntary, as well as the bill’s restriction on providers with recent wage-law violations from participating.