Bill Overview
Title: University Centers for Growth, Development, Prosperity (GDP) Act
Description: This bill requires the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to establish in each state a university center at an institution of higher education that must, to the extent possible, collaborate with economic development districts, provide technical assistance and business development services to area businesses, and conduct research and analysis relating to economic development. In selecting such centers, the EDA must prioritize Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and other minority-serving institutions.
Sponsors: Rep. Aguilar, Pete [D-CA-31]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals associated with or impacted by universities, economic development districts, and businesses served by new university centers worldwide
Estimated Size: 100000000
- The bill mandates creating university centers in each state, affecting educational institutions across the country.
- It emphasizes support for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCU), Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI), and other minority-serving institutions, meaning these groups will be prioritized.
- The bill impacts students, faculty, and staff at these institutions as they will likely benefit from increased funding and resources.
- Local businesses will benefit from technical assistance and development services, potentially improving their prosperity and sustainability.
- The broader community in the vicinity of these institutions may also benefit from economic growth spurred by the research and analysis conducted at these centers.
Reasoning
- The University Centers for Growth, Development, Prosperity (GDP) Act will primarily impact students at minority-serving institutions, faculty and staff at these institutions, and businesses near these centers.
- By prioritizing Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, the policy focuses on communities that have been traditionally underfunded.
- The economic and educational enhancements should increase the Cantril self-reported wellbeing score for people directly involved, while indirect benefits might also touch nearby communities.
- The policy's budget implies it can impact millions, but possibly not to the extent of affecting those only remotely related or those in more affluent areas not near targeted institutions.
- Given the connection with economic development and business services, communities with higher unemployment or struggling businesses could see a significant positive impact.
Simulated Interviews
Student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 20 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy will help our university a lot. More research and resources mean better opportunities for us students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Professor (Albuquerque, NM)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative will finally give us the tools and resources we've been lacking for our students and community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any help I can get to improve and expand my business is great news. I'm hopeful about this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Graduate Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited about the potential research opportunities this policy could bring to my field.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Teacher (Rural Kansas)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hoping these new centers will stimulate the local economy. Our community could use a boost.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Economic Development Officer (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy aligns well with our goals. It's a chance to boost collaborations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
University Administrator (Houston, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We are thrilled to get more support and improve our outreach with businesses and the community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Regional Economic Planner (Seattle, WA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Such a policy has the potential to significantly improve urban economic conditions, especially with university collaboration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Community Organizer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautiously optimistic. We need to see results, but the focus on minority institutions is promising.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Research Fellow (Charlotte, NC)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The grant will allow us to do impactful work and extend our reach beyond traditional academic circles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 3: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 5: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 10: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Key Considerations
- Building capacity at minority-serving institutions will be crucial to meet the policy's goals.
- There may be challenges in ensuring equitable distribution of resources and effective implementation across states.
- Technical assistance and research priorities must be aligned with local economic development needs.
- Monitoring and evaluating the impact of these centers will be essential to justify continued investment.