Search

This past summer Ohio joined a growing number of states that allow community colleges to offer four-year degrees when it enacted legislation allowing community colleges, state community colleges, and technical colleges to apply to offer applied bachelor’s degrees. If approved, the programs will join a growing number of applied baccalaureate degree programs being offered by community colleges across the country. The trend has met with resistance from some higher education institutions, while students and employers voice their support.

Due to their positive impact on entrepreneurship (31 percent of VC-backed founders are immigrants) and innovation (76 percent of patents from top 10 U.S. patent-producing universities had at least one foreign-born author) in the United States, many institutions of higher education are working to understand the opportunities, challenges, and gaps that exist in supporting international students from their first year of study through graduation, the job search process, and entry into the labor force. Institutions of higher education are seen as uniquely positioned to enhance international students’ employability as they provide access to work experience as well as cultural acclimation to increase the likelihood those individuals will remain in their host country after graduation.

The final part of this series explores the tactics and strategies associated with increasing exposure to innovation and broadening economic opportunity.

Last week, The Digest explored recent research examining the role that exposure to innovation plays in determining future inventiveness. The study’s authors, led by Stanford’s Raj Chetty, find that a child’s characteristics at birth – their neighborhood, socioeconomic class, race, and gender – are highly predictive of their propensity to file a patent later on in life. Based on their results, the authors recommend strategies that focus on increasing exposure to innovation and broadening intergenerational economic mobility. This article explores these types of policies in depth, as well as additional tactics that may help reconnect America’s communities with greater economic opportunity.

Last week, The Digest covered newly released data from the National Science Foundation’s National Center for Science Education Statistics, which found that for the first time in five years, federal funding for higher education research and development increased in both current and constant dollars. For the country as a whole, higher education R&D expenditures increased by roughly 10 percent from FY 2011 to FY 2016, while gross domestic product increased by nearly twice as much. This article examines state-by-state trends in R&D activity at colleges at universities.

Asserting that the country’s future competitiveness is linked to a quality education, a recent report from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences Commission on the Future of Undergraduate Education argues that the completion rate of students pursuing post-secondary education must be increased. The report, The Future of Undergraduate Education, The Future of America, found that while nearly 90 percent of high school graduates expect to enroll in an undergraduate institution at some point, completion rates at those institutions average about 60 percent for students pursuing a bachelor's degree and 30 percent for students pursuing associate's degrees and certificates, with significant disparities within those categories by gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. To address the problem, three national priorities are outlined: improving students' educational experience; boosting completion rates and reducing inequities; and controlling costs and ensuring affordability.

For the first time in five years, federal funding for higher education research and development increased in both current and constant dollars, according to recently released data from the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics within the National Science Foundation. In FY 2016, universities reported $72.0 billion in total R&D expenditures, a 4.8 percent increase from FY 2015. Of this amount, more than half (54 percent) came from the federal government. Institutionally financed research represented 16 percent, the second largest source of R&D funds at universities in FY 2016.

The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) is exploring options for its future as funding provided through its bond issue dwindles. In a meeting earlier this week, two governing board committees of the agency focused on short and long term finances including a proposal to cut clinical awards by $68 million over the next two years, an effort to raise $222 million in private funding, and the possibility of a $5 billion ballot initiative in November 2020, according to the California Stem Cell Report.

Senate Appropriations subcommittees have advanced the remaining FY 2018 departmental budgets: Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, and Financial Services. Unlike the House’s proposal, the Senate would largely maintain FY 2017’s innovation funding. Highlights include level funding for SBA’s entrepreneurial programs — with $6 million for clusters initiatives and $2 million for accelerators — and level funding for the CDFI Fund. Science and Technology funding, while above the administration's request, would decrease by about 8.6 percent for Homeland Security while Defense would see a small increase for applied research but an overall 0.5 percent decrease, according to the American Institute of Physics.

Venture-backed startups generate nine times the knowledge spillovers (e.g., patenting activity and citations) when compared to that produced by R&D investment of established companies, according to recent research. In Measuring the Spillovers of Venture Capital, researchers from the University of Munich found that, on average, two-thirds of this increase can be traced to more patenting by other companies within the VC-backed company’s spillover pool (e.g., companies with geographic or industry proximity). The companies that most benefited from the knowledge spillover were large, established companies.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) released a new federal funding opportunity (FFO) for the Innovation Corps-National Innovation Network Teams program (I-Corps Teams). I-Corps team awards provide mentoring and additional funding to promising, NSF-funded researchers at institutions of higher education to accelerate innovation, attract subsequent third-party funding, and increase the commercialization of scientific discoveries. NSF intends to commit $12.75 million to support up to 255 I-Corps teams and proposals are accepted on a continuing basis.

NSF intends to hold a webinar to answer questions about the I-Corps Teams program. Details will be posted on the I-Corps website as they become available.

Two recent reports examining the state of the states’ budgets and resources have some warnings for those involved in the budgeting process. A study by Moody’s Analytics reveals that many states are not prepared for the next recession while a study from the Volcker Alliance examines how states are making their spending decisions, with the hope that clear budgets will help inform the public.

Grant programs administered by the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) under the Public Works and Economic Development Act (PWEDA) increasingly support projects to help distressed regions across the country to become more competitive in a science and technology-intensive global economy. The examples below of projects receiving federal PWEDA funds in just the past two months may help inspire similar innovation initiatives in other parts of the country.

This article is part one of a two part series focused on the intersection between economic opportunity and the economic development practice.  

A lack of economic opportunity could threaten American innovation, according to new research from Stanford economist Raj Chetty and other members of the Equality of Opportunity Project. The authors advocate that in light of empirical research showing the worsening effects of economic segregation and inequality, the economic development community needs to support new strategies and tactics that can deliver “realistic economic opportunity” to more communities across the country. If the future of American inventiveness depends on place-based economic opportunity and exposure to innovation as the study suggests, troubling times may lie ahead.

This week we continue our series on state legislation pertaining to the innovation economy that has been enacted this year around the country. This third installment of the States of Innovation 2017 series deals with innovation and entrepreneurship-focused tax credits.

Over the past year, state lawmakers in approximately have looked to grow innovation and entrepreneurship in their respective states by introducing and expanding tax credit efforts intended to increase the availability of startup capital, support R&D activities, facilitate business growth, and spur job creation. The two most common types of tax credits proposed to support innovation at the state level are angel tax credit programs and R&D tax credit programs. In addition to these two areas, states also proposed other tax credits intended to support job creation and business growth.

Connecticut and Wisconsin both ended their protracted budget negotiations with the governors signing budgets in late September and late October. Faced with budget constraints and uncertainty about the spending plan, Connecticut’s funding for economic and community development is decreasing along with funding for the state’s MEP center and Manufacturing Supply Chain program, with no general funds provided for them in the second year of the biennium. Wisconsin appears to be maintaining its status quo on TBED-related initiatives and has increased funding to universities that increase enrollments for “high-demand” degree programs, making $5 million available on a competitive basis.