<p class=ldtitle>A BILL to amend and reenact § 23.1-627.1 of the Code of Virginia, relating to New Economy Workforce Credential Grant Program; eligible institutions.</p>
Summary
HB1085 amends the definition of “eligible institution” in the New Economy Workforce Credential Grant Program. Under current law, the program is limited to certain public higher-education and workforce institutions and, in some cases, private technical schools working with a comprehensive community college. The bill would revise § 23.1-627.1 of the Code of Virginia to update the program’s definitional section, which governs who may participate in and administer grants for noncredit workforce credentials in high-demand fields.
The bill also restates and clarifies several core program terms, including “competency-based,” “high-demand field,” “industry-recognized,” “noncredit workforce credential,” “noncredit workforce training program,” “portable,” and “third-party-validated.” These definitions frame the grant program’s focus on short-term, skills-based training tied to employer demand and recognized occupational credentials. The text indicates that programs may include those funded under the federal Perkins career and technical education law, while excluding certificates of completion from the definition of a qualifying training program.
Impact
If enacted, HB1085 would change the statutory eligibility rules for institutions that can participate in the New Economy Workforce Credential Grant Program, potentially expanding or refining access for certain workforce-training providers. It would affect the administration of grant funding under Title 23.1 by adjusting which institutions may offer qualifying noncredit workforce training and credentials, and it would continue to shape how the Commonwealth defines eligible training tied to high-demand occupations. The bill primarily impacts community colleges, specified higher-education centers, private technical schools partnering with community colleges, students seeking workforce credentials, and the agencies overseeing the grant program.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill did not face recorded opposition in committee, but it also did not advance: a subcommittee recommended striking it from the docket unanimously, and the full Appropriations Committee later struck it from the docket by a 22-0 vote. That pattern indicates procedural or fiscal reluctance rather than partisan division. Because there are no committee transcripts provided, there is no recorded floor or committee debate to show affirmative support or criticism beyond the votes.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to have been whether and how to alter the list of eligible institutions for a workforce grant program that is tied to state funding. Even though the votes were unanimous, the decision to strike the bill from the docket suggests concerns may have existed about program scope, administrative complexity, duplication with existing workforce providers, or budget implications. The absence of recorded testimony makes it impossible to attribute specific objections to any individual member or stakeholder group, but the Appropriations Committee’s action indicates the bill was not considered ready to move forward.