Written by: Ken Poole
This excerpt is part of a full paper available exclusively to registrants of the 2026 UEDA Washington Conference, April 15-16. Anyone interested in contributing to this revised vision is encouraged to join us for a collaborative roundtable session that will dive deeper into this framework and invite direct input from institutional leaders. Register here!
The federal–university economic development partnership has reached an inflection point. The U.S. economy is asking more of regions. Regions are asking more of institutions. And the federal government is asking tougher questions about results. UEDA is leading a discussion about how universities should respond to this moment.
The decision by the U.S. Economic Development Administration to end funding for the University Center program in 2025 was disruptive. But, it also created space. Space to rethink how higher education engages in economic development. Space to move from diffuse activity to disciplined execution. Space to build a model that matches today’s economic reality. Universities matter to regional competitiveness. That is not in dispute. The real issue is how they engage, at what scale, and with what level of accountability.
Across the federal landscape, expectations are converging. The National Science Foundation is pushing harder to translate research into real economic impact. The Departments of Education and Labor are sharpening their focus on industry-aligned talent pipelines. HUD, USDA, and other agencies are elevating the role of universities as anchors of place-based outcomes. EDA has decided that small attempts to create capacity are insufficient to have impact. These signals are consistent. Federal investment must lead to measurable results.
At the same time, regions are under pressure. Growth is concentrating in a small number of metros. Many places struggle to turn assets into durable advantage. Advanced manufacturing, supply-chain resilience, technology adoption, and workforce availability now drive competitiveness. Fragmented, project-by-project engagement cannot keep up.
Universities are everywhere. Their assets are significant. Too often, they are underleveraged.
The problem is not effort. It is execution. Economic development work inside universities is often fragmented, lightly resourced, and disconnected from regional strategy. Leadership engagement is uneven. Incentives are misaligned. Employers struggle to see value or justify sustained co-investment.
That has to change.
We have outlined a framework for a proposed reset. It builds on what works. It fixes what does not. It centers on a simple idea. Universities deliver the greatest value when they commit institution-wide to executing state and regional economic priorities that matter to markets. We’d like your input on this idea.
The mechanism for doing this is an Institutional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, or I-CEDS. An I-CEDS does not replace a regional CEDS. It complements it. Regional partners convene. They set shared priorities. Universities translate those priorities into institutional action.
An I-CEDS forces clarity within the institution. It documents how a university deploys its talent, research, innovation, and place-based assets in service of documented regional goals. It elevates economic development to the executive level. It aligns internal resources. It creates accountability. Most importantly, it shifts universities from being peripheral contributors in economic development to being execution partners.
This approach aligns closely with the Talent–Innovation–Place framework developed by University Economic Development Association and APLU in 2015. Talent pipelines matter. Innovation systems matter. Place matters. What has been missing is a way to operate those elements at institutional scale with discipline and speed.
The replacement proposed for the University Center program — a modernized University Economic Competitiveness Partnership model — does exactly that. It recognizes that not all institutions play the same role. Research universities often lead in applied R&D and technology transfer. Regional and community-focused institutions often excel at workforce alignment and employer engagement. The model encourages institutions to focus on what they do best, rather than forcing a one-size-fits-all approach.
It also recognizes that durable impact depends on private investment. Firms make the decisions that drive jobs, productivity, and adoption. Universities reduce risk. They convene talent. They provide applied capability. But employers must be co-investors and co-designers. Letters of support are not enough.
This is why the model we’re proposing emphasizes fewer, larger, longer-term awards. Thin funding spread across dozens of institutions does not change behavior. It does not attract senior leadership attention. It does not support real staffing. It does not align with employer timelines. We have learned this lesson over two decades.
A tiered approach focused on anchor institutions, satellite execution partners, and scale-ready pilots creates a national system rather than a collection of grants. It strengthens readiness for programs like Build to Scale and Tech Hubs. It reduces duplication. It increases return on public dollars.
Equally important are shared metrics that matter to employers. Speed matters. Responsiveness matters. Partnership quality matters. Workforce outcomes matter. Metrics should reinforce execution, not compliance.
This moment calls for clear roles. Do you want to have a say in helping to shape this response?
Congress sets direction and expectations. EDA and other federal agencies align incentives and guards against dilution. Regional partners convene and coordinate through CEDS. Universities execute at scale. Employers co-invest and validate demand. The goal is not more activity. It is better execution.
If universities want to be seen as essential economic partners, they must operate like it. That means executive accountability. Market relevance. Institutional focus. And a willingness to be judged on results.
The opportunity is real. The need is urgent. The path forward is practical.
The question is whether we are ready to act.