Category: Federal Programs

SSBCI as a Blueprint: Building More Adaptive State Economic Development Systems
With nearly $10 billion allocated to states, territories, and Tribal Nations (“states”), the State Small Business Credit Initiative (SSBCI) is a unique federal funding program that fueled the development of innovative loan and venture capital programs. Together, these programs help expand access to capital for entrepreneurs and small businesses through the states as policy and program laboratories.

As the program moves towards its sunset, the next test for states is to learn key lessons from SSBCI to improve their entire economic development ecosystem. Here are a few highlights:
- Design for the market, not the program. SSBCI gives states flexibility to use different financing approaches (whether they are loan participation, collateral support, loan guarantee, capital access, direct equity, or equity fund investments) that are tailored to local needs. The broader lesson is important: economic development programs should begin with a clearly identified market failure or opportunity rather than with a predetermined program or incentive. Economic developers should use this lens to continually assess where private markets are failing and adjust products accordingly. There is no need to stay with a legacy program if it is not showing results. Flexibility and program modification should be viewed as management tools, not signs of failure.
- Build delivery systems, not stand-alone programs. SSBCI largely depends on networks of banks, CDFIs, investors, technical assistance providers, universities, and other intermediaries to reach businesses. The same principle applies to workforce, entrepreneurship, innovation, cluster development, and business retention programs. States can achieve greater impact when programs operate through connected networks rather than institutional silos. Partner recruitment, training, communication, and relationship management therefore become core economic development functions. A strong product has limited impact if users and stakeholders do not know how to use or leverage it.
- Connect services to program outcomes. SSBCI’s integration of technical assistance (TA) and capital illustrates another transferable lesson. TA is most valuable when it helps businesses reach a tangible next step whether it is financing, investment, contracting opportunities, expansion, or another measurable outcome. Treasury’s SSBCI TA Program explicitly connects technical assistance with capital and opportunities created by other major federal investments. Economic developers have long worked across agencies and building on those relationships to develop interconnected services can push projects to the finish line and improve the competitiveness of a region.
- Use data for management and adaptation. States should move beyond simple reporting activity like businesses served, dollars awarded, or projects completed. Data should instead focus on trying to understand at a more detailed level who is benefiting, what interventions work, where gaps persist, and when programs need adjustment. Treasury’s annual and quarterly SSBCI datasets provide an example of the evidence states can use for this type of management approach.
- Plan for sustainability from the beginning. Treasury describes sustainability as a key feature of SSBCI, with recycled capital potentially supporting state financing programs for years. Economic developers can apply the same thinking across their portfolios: when temporary federal funding arrives, ask not simply how to spend it, but what capabilities, institutions, partnerships, and financing mechanisms should those resources help create that will remain afterward. That means treating today’s investments as durable infrastructure. Experienced program staff, relationships, networks, technical assistance, and improved data systems can become the foundation for permanent economic development durability strategies.
Although SSBCI 2.0 was passed to help the nation recover from the COVID pandemic, the ultimate measure of SSBCI may be what remains after Treasury sunsets their program support in 2028. States that use these programs to institutionalize successful financing tools and partnerships can emerge with stronger capital ecosystems, and a more permanent capacity to respond to the next financing gap or economic disruption.

But the post-SSBCI question therefore extends well beyond capital access. States can apply what they have learned to workforce development, innovation, entrepreneurship, infrastructure, industry strategies, business assistance, and future federal initiatives. The goal should be to move from administering individual programs to building adaptive economic development systems. These systems that identify market needs, engage the right partners, connect services, measure results, adjust based on evidence, and preserve successful capacity after individual funding streams end.

If that happens, one of SSBCI’s most important legacies will not be a particular loan or investment. It will provide the broader foundation and lasting lessons for how states practice economic development.
September 10, 2026
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act: What State Leaders Should Know
What the New Federal Housing Law Means for State Economic Development

Housing has evolved from a quality-of-life issue to a core economic development challenge. State leaders underscored this reality at SEDE’s fall meeting in New York, noting that companies are increasingly unwilling to commit to locations where their workforce cannot afford to live nearby.

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act may offer part of the solution. This legislation passed both chambers with bipartisan support, has recently become law, and represents the most significant federal housing package since 1990.

This law contains many provisions, some (like a five-year ban on digital currency issuance at the Fed) are altogether unrelated to housing. Below is a summary of the relevant provisions for state economic development agencies.
- Housing Support for Middle-income Workers
Most federal housing assistance stops at incomes well below an area’s median income level, leaving a swath of middle-class workers without access to housing assistance. The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act raises the income ceiling on HOME homeownership assistance (a major federal grant for building and repairing affordable homes) from 80 percent to 100 percent of area median income and orders a federal study to define “workforce housing” for households earning 80–120 percent of area median income.
- New Grant Funding for Successful Housing Models
A new $200 million annual grant fund will provide funds to communities that show measurable increases in housing supply. These grants will fund CDBG-eligible activities plus local initiatives that expand housing supply — zoning reform, permitting capacity, and infrastructure tied to housing. Separately, HUD’s Community Development Block Grant allocations to cities will be adjusted based on housing growth. This incentivizes local governments to approve additional housing. ED leaders can help communities compete for these dollars to benefit site development and workforce strategies.
- A Streamlined Approval Process
On the regulatory side, many small infill projects, developments of 15 homes or fewer, and office-to-apartment conversions are now exempt from lengthy federal environmental reviews. These changes take effect on their own with no new funding required.
- Support for Manufactured Housing
Manufactured homes are among the least expensive forms of new housing. The new law removes an outdated requirement to build manufactured homes on a permanent steel frame, something which should reduce the cost and time to deployment of new manufactured housing. New grants will also fund infrastructure in manufactured housing communities.
- Newly Rationalized Disaster Recovery Grants
The block grant program that funds long-term disaster recovery has run on improvised rules since Katrina. The operating rules are now written into law with set timelines, and states can pre-certify their financial controls before a disaster strikes. In practice, these changes will mean faster deployment of funding after a disaster and the ability for states to set up and certify their recovery systems ahead of time, rather than building them after a disaster has already hit. This is a meaningful planning tool for any state with storm, flood, or wildfire exposure.
- Institutional Investors
Restricts large institutional investors from buying additional single-family homes once they have acquired 350 or more. The threshold counts homes acquired after the law takes effect, and investors are not required to sell homes they already own. Several exemptions apply, including for investors purchasing or building single-family homes specifically for the rental market.
- Programs Authorized but Not Funded
The law will create many new programs but does not include new appropriations to fund them. Therefore, the grant programs will only exist if Congress funds them in future spending bills. For state leaders, authorized but not appropriated programs may be a worthwhile advocacy target.

What Does This Mean for Leaders?

Taken together, these provisions reframe housing as workforce infrastructure — the same connection state leaders drew in New York, where the availability of housing near job sites emerged as a direct constraint on project wins and talent attraction. Much of the law’s potential impact now depends on implementation: which programs get funded, how federal agencies write the rules, and how effectively states position their communities to compete. SEDE will continue tracking that process and will keep members informed as guidance is issued and appropriations decisions take shape in the months ahead.
July 13, 2026
Urban Institute: How Has Federal Spending on Place-Based Programs Changed Over Time?

Between 2010 and 2024, federal spending on the country’s largest recurring place-based programs climbed from roughly $44.1 billion to $60.7 billion in inflation-adjusted terms—yet direct program spending fell over that same span.

Urban Institute’s report traces this shift across 13 programs and finds that tax expenditures like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and Opportunity Zones now account for 84 percent of tracked spending, up from 66 percent in 2010, handing the private sector a larger say in where federal dollars land.

If you are deciding whether current funding matches the needs of your community, or you are interested in who now directs these investments, tyou should read this report.

Explore the full breakdown here.

June 4, 2026
10 Ways States Can Respond to Uncertain Federal Tariff Policies
Written for the Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness, in association with the SEDE Network

Abstract: Federal tariff volatility is increasing uncertainty in investment decisions, supply chains, and workforce demand. Firms are delaying or even halting projects, restructuring sourcing, and requiring higher returns to justify increased risk. While States cannot control federal policy, they can control how they respond. Those that build analytical capacity, strengthen execution, and provide direct support to companies will gain a competitive advantage in attracting and retaining investment.

A few key state takeaways:
- Treat tariff exposure as a core analytical function and use it to guide retention, incentives, and project strategy.
- Strengthen supply chain resilience by localizing suppliers and supporting cluster development.
- Move faster to compress the timeline from project announcement to operations. That will reduce exposure to cost volatility.
- Recalibrate incentives toward long-term commitment and measurable outcomes.
- Compete on reliability by emphasizing workforce readiness, energy stability, logistics, and execution capacity over cost alone.
- Prioritize existing firms by supporting trade navigation, workforce alignment, and supply chain solutions.
Background

Federal tariff levels are front of mind among many firms, and these government decisions represent cost variables in your prospects’ capital models. Tariffs affect input pricing, export access, supply chain risk, and country-of-investment decisions. Companies in your project pipeline are making investment decisions in the most volatile trade environment in decades. Your ability to understand the mechanics of tariffs and respond with discipline should become a core competency so that it represents a potential competitive advantage.

Even though states have little control, States should treat tariffs as a core strategic consideration. Tariffs directly shape how companies make investment and expansion decisions. States that understand these forces can better align their strategies to meet company needs and compete for investment.

Four Forces Shaping the Investment Environment

1. Volatility Matters More Than the Actual Tariff Rate

The specific tariff rate is generally less important than the unpredictability surrounding it. Tariffs were not a consideration for many years because they remained low and stable as part of efforts to create a more globally connected trade and investment environment. Low-cost markets benefitted from access to markets and higher cost countries like the US benefitted from access to low-cost labor.

Since early 2025, federal tariff policy has shifted repeatedly. The US imposed new duties. And adjusted the duties. The courts reversed those duties. Others challenged decisions on both sides in court. The Administration paused several. The Supreme Court ruled on how tariffs can be used. Companies sued for refunds. In this environment, firms face a moving and seemingly unpredictable target.

As a result, companies are hesitating to invest in expansions or new locations, cancelling some projects, and taking much longer to make final decisions on others. In a April 2025 Richmond Fed survey, 25 percent of CFOs, including 29 percent of manufacturers, planned to cut capital spending. The result for those that opt to move forward is extended deal cycles, more corporate board-level scenario modeling, additional sensitivity testing, and delays in final project approvals. This is especially true for projects that depend on imported inputs or export markets.

2. Foreign Direct Investment Faces Structural Headwinds

Multinational firms deploy capital cautiously, but even more so when trade conditions are unstable. When capital decisions are difficult to reverse, then decision makers require a higher internal rate of return to make what companies deem are riskier investments. As a result, announcements of US inbound greenfield FDI in 2025 declined by 3 percent relative to 2024 (Moder and Spital, CEPR Vox EU 2026).

Tariffs may attract market-seeking FDI, as firms invest to take advantage of tariff differences. At the same time, those tariffs raise input costs and disrupt upstream supply chains. While FDI does not stop, these disruptions slow decisions as investors become more cautious. Companies extend timelines, raise internal approval thresholds, and in some cases shift projects to markets viewed as more stable.

State economic development pitches must now address trade exposure and tariff mitigation directly. Talent and tax incentives are no longer sufficient for projects that are highly exposed to potential tariff impacts.

3. Tariffs Restructure Input Costs Across Your Manufacturer Base

While politicians argue about who pays for increased tariffs, economist widely agree that tariffs act as a tax on imported intermediate goods that US firms and consumers pay. Over time, tariffs affect business margins and product prices. Research from Cavallo and Wen at the Harvard Business School shows tariffs raised imported goods prices by about 6.6 percent and domestic goods by 3.8 percent, with most tariff costs borne by U.S. importers and consumers and increasingly passed through to retail prices over time.

These cost pressures compress margins. In some cases, they may reduce planned investment. In others, companies respond by relocating production inside the U.S. to avoid duties on finished goods. This “tariff-jumping” investment activity creates opportunities for states. But don’t confuse defensive tariff-jumping investment with long-term commitment. A key question for state economic developers when looking at a potential FDI opportunity is determining if tariff policies shift again, whether firms may reverse current decisions.

4. Macroeconomic Forces Filter to State-Level Conditions

Different economic and fiscal modeling experts agree: Tariffs slow growth. Not only did the Tax Foundation make this finding in a March 2026 article, but Peterson Institute modeling calibrated to third quarter 2025 tariff levels projected reduced U.S. growth in both 2025 and 2026, with inflation running approximately one percentage point above baseline. Longer term projections indicate lower real GDP, lower employment in durable manufacturing and agriculture, and reduced real wages relative to a no-tariff baseline.

Even firms with no direct tariff exposure feel this through weaker demand and softer confidence. State revenue forecasts, labor demand projections, and business expansion project pipelines could also reflect these national macro conditions.

A State Economic Development Strategy in Response

First, let’s acknowledge that states cannot control federal tariff policy. Even so, state leaders can control how they respond to national policies. The following recommendations line up with many of the challenges tariff volatility has created for state economic development practitioners.
1. Analyze Your State’s Sector Exposure to Tariffs
Not all employers in your portfolio face equivalent tariff risk. States should move quickly to institutionalize tariff exposure analysis as a core economic development function and use it to drive action across business retention, technical assistance, and investment decisions.

Start by segmenting your existing firms and active prospects based on tariff sensitivity. Focus on three factors:
1. Dependence on imported intermediate goods.
2. Reliance on export markets.
3. Position in global supply chains.
This allows you to identify which firms face immediate cost pressure, which face demand uncertainty, and which are exposed through supplier networks. In most states, the highest-risk sectors will cluster in autos, advanced manufacturing, chemicals, life sciences, or capital equipment. But other sectors may be exposed. Treat this as a dynamic dataset that updates as trade policy shifts.

Next, embed this analysis into your operating model. Use it to prioritize business retention outreach. Firms with high exposure should receive proactive engagement, not reactive support. Pair this with targeted technical assistance. Help companies navigate tariff classifications, identify alternative sourcing strategies, and assess eligibility for federal exclusions or relief mechanisms. At the same time, integrate tariff exposure into project underwriting. Incentives and co-investments should reflect risk. Projects highly exposed to tariff volatility may require different structuring, pacing, or performance conditions.

Colorado offers one example of how to operationalize this approach. Under the authority of Executive Order D 2025-008, in September 2025, the Office of State Planning and Budgeting produced a detailed, region-by-sector tariff impact analysis. The state divided Colorado into nine regions and assessed exposure across key industries including aerospace, advanced manufacturing, bioscience, energy, agriculture, and retail. The findings showed broad cost increases and meaningful risks to state revenues that support core public services. The Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade extended this work with firm-level interviews, translating macro analysis into actionable insights about business needs.

The Washington State Office of Financial Management used economic modeling as a mechanism for assessing tariff impacts. The state’s input-output analysis and trade elasticity modeling estimated impacts on industries, household prices, economic growth, and state revenues. This approach strengthens the analytical foundation and helps policymakers understand second-order effects across the economy.
- Build Supply Chain Resilience into Your Cluster Strategy
States should make supply chain resilience a central element of their cluster strategy. Focus on reducing dependence on distant and tariff-exposed inputs by mapping supplier networks, identifying sourcing gaps, and recruiting or developing domestic suppliers within key industries. Use available data sources, including U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis input-output data where possible, and pair that with ground-level intelligence from Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers and industry associations. This combination helps pinpoint where major employers lack viable domestic sourcing options and where targeted intervention can have the greatest impact.

The goal is practical and durable. When a major employer faces tariff-driven cost pressure, the most effective response is to help them localize suppliers within the state or region. This strengthens cluster cohesion, reduces exposure to global volatility, and creates lasting economic value that persists regardless of federal policy shifts. It also positions states to compete for reshoring and supplier expansion opportunities tied to national security and advanced manufacturing priorities.

Michigan’s Supply Chain Resiliency team, for instance, actively connects manufacturers to domestic sourcing alternatives in sectors like mobility, clean energy, and aerospace. The state complements this with Project DIAMOnD (Distributed, Independent, Agile Manufacturing On Demand), a distributed 3D printing network that expands production flexibility for small and midsize firms. Together, these efforts function as a coordinated supplier development system that reduces reliance on imported inputs while strengthening in-state industrial capacity.
- Accelerate the Path from Project Announcement to Operations
States should prioritize reducing the time from project announcement to full operations as a core competitive strategy. Measure how well the economic development team is doing. In a volatile tariff environment, speed offsets cost uncertainty. The focus should extend beyond deal closure to execution. Pre-certified sites, streamlined permitting, coordinated infrastructure delivery, clear and reliable incentive timelines, and early workforce recruitment all help compress the timeline from commitment to production. The shorter this window, the lower the exposure that decision makers have to shifts in equipment and materials costs.

This requires tight coordination across agencies and partners. States should treat project delivery as an integrated process, aligning economic development, permitting authorities, utilities, and workforce systems around a shared timeline. Pre-development work is critical. Sites should be fully vetted in advance with clear documentation on environmental conditions, geotechnical readiness, utilities, and developable acreage so firms can move immediately once a decision is made.

For instance, states commonly run certified site program, but Tennessee offers a model through a set of rigorous, pre-cleared standards that comprise the Select Tennessee Certified Sites program. These standards reduce uncertainty and accelerate execution. Tennessee and other top-performing states such as South Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, and Ohio demonstrate how disciplined site readiness and cross-agency collaboration can compress timelines. In a tariff-uncertain environment, this speed directly reduces financial risk and strengthens a state’s ability to win and retain projects.
- Recalibrate Incentives to Reward Long-Term Commitment
States should prioritize long-term economic value over short-term, tariff-driven investment decisions. As tariff-jumping FDI increases, some firms may pursue defensive, reversible location choices that do not build durable local capacity. States should structure incentive packages that reward sustained capital investment, domestic supplier integration, workforce development, job quality, and the retention of existing jobs. The goal is to anchor firms more deeply in the regional economy rather than support one-time location decisions tied to temporary policy conditions.

This shift requires tying incentives to measurable, post-performance outcomes. Many states already include clawback provisions and performance thresholds in their incentive agreements, but leading practice moves further by linking benefits directly to verified results over time. This reduces public risk and ensures that incentives are earned through demonstrated impact. Metrics should reflect long-term contributions such as capital deployment milestones, supply chain localization, wage levels, and workforce training outcomes.

More than two-thirds of the states have adopted laws for regular evaluations of their programs, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts. States with the most promising practices structure their incentives around sustained investment and job quality rather than simple project announcements, with benefits aligned to long-term performance. The broader lesson is clear. States that reward durability and accountability will be better positioned to capture investments that strengthen their economic base, even as trade policy conditions shift.
- Deepen Your Value Proposition Beyond Cost Considerations
States should expand their value proposition beyond cost and incentives to address the operational risks companies now prioritize. Site selectors are placing greater weight on geopolitical exposure, trade volatility, and supply chain uncertainty. That shifts the conversation. Instead of leading with cost per square foot or tax abatements, states should emphasize logistics performance, energy reliability, proximity to customers, depth of domestic suppliers, and the strength of workforce pipelines. The competitive edge comes from helping firms operate with greater certainty, not just lower cost.

This requires a more integrated and evidence-based pitch. States must now demonstrate how infrastructure, energy systems, workforce development, and supplier networks work together to reduce disruption risk. Data and documentation matter. Firms want proof that production can continue without interruption and that key inputs, talent, and customers are accessible under changing conditions.

New York provides a clear example of this shift. Its 2025 Energy Plan reframes economic development around energy reliability and operational stability, linking clean energy deployment with industrial demand, workforce readiness, and grid resilience. This creates a concrete, verifiable story for site selectors. The broader lesson for States in a business environment defined by uncertainty is to position themselves as reliable places to operate, not just as affordable locations.
- Align Workforce Systems to Shifting Demand Signals
States should align workforce systems to rapidly changing industry demand, particularly as reshoring and advanced manufacturing investments shift occupational needs. Growth in sectors like semiconductors, equipment, and advanced manufacturing is increasing demand for skilled trades, precision technicians, and automation workers. Workforce systems must respond with speed and precision. This means working closely with workforce boards, community colleges, and universities to deploy short-cycle, industry-aligned credential programs that can scale quickly as demand emerges.

The priority is responsiveness. States that can demonstrate a clear, near-term pipeline of trained workers have a decisive advantage in converting site inspection visits into investment decisions. This requires tighter coordination between employers and training providers, real-time labor market intelligence, and flexible program design that allows curriculum updates as technologies and production needs evolve. Rapid credentialing, modular training, and employer co-design should become standard practice.

Arizona sets the benchmark because its workforce system aligns community colleges, universities, and state leadership around semiconductor and advanced manufacturing demand. Programs like Maricopa Community Colleges’ short-term technician training and the Future48 Workforce Accelerator show how states can stand up customized, hands-on training capacity in direct partnership with industry leaders like Intel and TSMC. Workforce Pell represents a new opportunity for States that directly align their college and university offerings to investment opportunities. In short, workforce readiness is an immediate, operational capability that determines whether projects land or go elsewhere.
- Deepen Incumbent FDI Retention
States should place greater emphasis on retaining and expanding existing foreign-owned firms as a primary growth strategy. Expansion from incumbent FDI is typically faster, lower risk, and more cost-effective than attracting new firms with no local presence. Economic developers should conduct structured retention visits with these firms, focusing specifically on tariff exposure, supply chain adjustments, and operational pressures. This creates an opportunity to provide targeted support, including guidance on trade adjustment resources and customs compliance, while reinforcing the state’s commitment to firms that have already chosen to invest.

A systematic and data driven approach would allow States to track their foreign-owned company base by sector, origin, and regional distribution, and monitor expansion activity over time. This intelligence allows for proactive engagement before tariff pressures or supply chain disruptions lead firms to scale back or relocate. Just as important, retention strategies should connect firms to workforce solutions, supplier networks, and infrastructure support that strengthen their long-term viability.

Minnesota combines consistent FDI attraction with disciplined tracking of incumbent firm performance through its business retention and expansion efforts. By maintaining visibility into where foreign-owned firms are growing and what challenges they face, Minnesota engages early to address risks and support expansion. This illustrates that States treating incumbent FDI as a strategic asset position themselves to convert existing relationships into sustained investment and job growth.
- Advocate With Data
States should build a disciplined, data-driven approach to documenting how tariff volatility affects firm behavior and economic outcomes. This means capturing project-level evidence on how tariffs influence investment timing, supplier decisions, cost structures, and workforce demand. The objective here is not to advocate for a specific tariff level, but to demonstrate that policy stability matters. When firms delay or restructure investments due to uncertainty, states should be able to quantify those effects and translate them into clear economic implications.

Aggregated, this evidence can help States engage with federal partners more strategically. Well-informed States are better positioned to provide grounded, real-world insights that complement national models. By presenting consistent, well-documented data to congressional delegations and federal agencies, states can help shape more informed and predictable policy environments. Evidence carries more weight than anecdote, especially when it reflects patterns across multiple firms and sectors.

The Washington State Office of Financial Management produced a comprehensive analysis of tariff impacts across households, industries, employment, and state revenues, and used that analysis directly in federal advocacy. The lesson is straightforward. States that invest in rigorous, transparent analysis can elevate their voice in national policy discussions and make a stronger case for stability and clarity in trade policy.
- Communicate Stability and Execution Capacity
States should position themselves as stable, execution-focused partners to private sector decisionmakers that can offset federal policy volatility. Investors can navigate changing tariff environments, but they place a premium on locations where projects move predictably from commitment to operation. That requires visible alignment across the governor’s office, economic development, workforce systems, infrastructure providers, and higher education. The signal to investors is that even if federal policy shifts, local execution does not.

To reinforce this principle, states should offer proactive engagement, transparent permitting, coordinated infrastructure delivery, and consistent follow-through all contribute to a reputation for reliability. Economic development teams should act as strategic partners, not just transaction managers, helping firms navigate complexity and maintain momentum. Over time, this builds a brand grounded in disciplined execution rather than incentives alone.

Many of the Southeast peer states demonstrate the value of this approach. States like Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia consistently rank highly for coordinated, “white glove” execution, with strong collaboration across agencies and utilities. For instance, Georgia’s combination of aligned interagency execution, permitting speed, and proactive investor communication is the brand that helps the state stand out. Their success reflects a broader shift in site selection. Investors increasingly seek locations that can deliver certainty in uncertain conditions. States that align internally and execute consistently will stand out.
1. Strengthen Trade Navigation and Tariff Mitigation Services
Tariff volatility affects the daily operations of many companies already located in your state, not just the decisions of potential future investors. Economic development agencies can help firms manage the pressures by strengthening state trade support services and offering practical tools that reduce tariff exposure and supply chain disruption. At a minimum, this includes strengthening export promotion and international market development programs so that firms can diversify export markets when tariff barriers change or when other countries adjust their own trade responses to U.S. policy.

Several states have already launched targeted initiatives designed to help companies absorb short-term tariff shocks. Massachusetts introduced the Tariff Response and Business Operations (TRBO) Initiative in 2025 to support firms directly affected by shifting tariff policies and supply chain disruptions. Virginia expanded its international trade services and introduced a supply chain optimization program that helps companies redesign sourcing strategies when imported inputs become more expensive. Oregon (HB 4061) and Kansas (through GrowKS SSBCI technical assistance grants) are both exploring ways to offer short-term mitigation grants for small manufacturers facing tariff-related cost spikes for equipment and materials during transition periods. Policy proposals in several states also include eliminating business personal property taxes on manufacturing equipment to reduce capital cost exposure tied to tariff-driven price increases.

States can also expand technical advisory services that help firms manage tariffs more strategically. California’s State Trade Expansion Program and similar initiatives in Texas and Florida provide export assistance while advising companies on duty drawback programs that allow firms to reclaim tariffs paid on imported goods that are later exported.

Some states are also expanding services that help companies redesign supply chains or identify alternative sourcing strategies when tariffs raise the cost of imported inputs. For instance, state trade offices are providing technical assistance to companies by helping to design tariff engineering strategies that adjust product design or classification to reduce duty exposure. Agencies in states such as South Carolina and Georgia actively promote the use of Foreign Trade Zones, which allow manufacturers to defer or reduce tariff payments on imported inputs used in domestic production.

States are also strengthening their internal supply chain intelligence capacity. Michigan and Indiana have invested in supplier mapping tools that help major manufacturers identify domestic sourcing alternatives within their regional manufacturing ecosystems. Some states are developing online supplier directories to connect large manufacturers with smaller local producers capable of filling supply chain gaps. Others are producing state-level tariff impact briefings that translate federal trade policy changes into practical guidance for local firms. The Georgia Chamber of Commerce, for example, published detailed analyses explaining how recent tariff measures affect specific industry clusters across the state.

Finally, states are increasingly using policy advocacy and legal channels to address tariff impacts on their business communities. Beyond litigation and refund legislation, state leaders can work with companies to help identify waiver and exclusion opportunities under IEEPA Section 232 (national security) and Section 301 (unfair trade practices). By helping manufacturers determine whether imports qualify for exclusions, understand evolving tariff frameworks, and file protective actions to preserve refund rights, state economic development agencies can provide practical support that helps firms manage immediate cost pressures regardless of how federal policy evolves.

Together, these services position state economic development agencies not only as recruiters of new investment but also as practical partners helping existing firms navigate an increasingly complex global trade environment.

The Bottom Line

Federal tariff policy is introducing measurable friction into globally integrated industries. Designed to reduce trade inequities with other countries, this friction also slows investment timelines and reshapes foreign direct investment patterns by raising the cost of trade and increasing uncertainty about future policy direction. Companies are showing interest in reshoring and identifying domestic suppliers, but they are also adopting technologies that reduce labor intensity in production. As a result, when production moves back onshore it often does not replace labor on a one-to-one basis, and the workforce needed for these facilities is increasingly skilled in advanced manufacturing technologies.

For states, the response cannot focus solely on attracting new investment. Tariff volatility is also affecting companies already operating within state economies. Firms are adjusting sourcing strategies, rethinking export markets, and navigating complex customs and tariff rules that affect margins and cash flow. States that provide practical support through trade advisory services, supply chain optimization assistance, export promotion, and tariff mitigation tools can help existing companies remain competitive while strengthening relationships that often lead to expansion investment.

Every state has identified investment targets among key industries. Tariff policy volatility affects those firms differently. Those firms are making decisions today about capital investment, supplier networks, and production locations. The best positioned States build sector intelligence, provide direct operational support to companies, strengthen domestic supply chains, and demonstrate disciplined execution to capture the investment that proceeds in the months and years ahead. States that wait for a clear federal policy environment may find that companies have already made their decisions.

References

Automation Alley / Project DIAMOnD. (2025). Project DIAMOnD: Distributed, independent, agile manufacturing on demand [Program overview]. https://projectdiamond.org/

Azzimonti, M., Edwards, Z., Waddell, S. R., & Wyckoff, A. (2025, April). Tariffs: Estimating the economic impact of the 2025 measures and proposals (Economic Brief No. 25-12). Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2025/eb_25-12

Arizona Commerce Authority. (2025). Future48 workforce accelerators. https://www.azcommerce.com/future48-workforce-accelerators/

Arizona Office of Strategic Infrastructure. (2025). Talent ready AZ: Advanced manufacturing and semiconductor workforce. https://osi.az.gov/priorities/talent-ready-az/advanced-manufacturing-and-semiconductor-workforce

California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development. (2025). State Trade Expansion Program (STEP). https://export.business.ca.gov/

Cavallo, A., Llamas, P., & Vazquez, F. (2025, October). Tracking the short-run price impact of U.S. tariffs (NBER Working Paper No. 34496). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w34496

Colorado Governor’s Office. (2025, September 4). Executive Order D 2025-008: Tariff impact analysis. https://spl.cde.state.co.us/artemis/goserials/go4312internet/go43122025008internet.pdf

Colorado Office of State Planning and Budgeting. (2025, September). Estimating the impacts of changing U.S. tariff policy [Report pursuant to Executive Order D 2025-008]. State of Colorado. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y_-7D3w5gVwRvnCiWEUK_jDkAMTQVxLz/view

Duke University–Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond CFO Survey. (2025, Q1). First quarter 2025 CFO survey results. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. https://www.richmondfed.org/research/national_economy/cfo_survey

Georgia Economic Development / Georgia.org. (2025). GRAD certified sites. https://georgia.org/grad-certified-sites

Georgia Chamber of Commerce. (2025). Tariffs briefing: Industry cluster impacts. https://www.gachamber.com/data/tariffs-briefing/

Good Jobs First. (n.d.). Key reforms: Accountable development. https://goodjobsfirst.org/accountable-development/key-reforms/

Harvard Business School Institute for Business in Global Society. (2025, October 24). U.S. trade tariffs are increasing prices [Research feature on Cavallo & Wen]. https://www.hbs.edu/bigs/us-trade-tariffs-increasing-prices

Indiana Office of Community and Rural Affairs. (2025). Indiana site certified. https://www.in.gov/ocra/indiana-site-certified/

JobsOhio. (2025). Site selection. https://www.jobsohio.com/site-selection

Kansas Network Kansas / GrowKS. (2025). GrowKS SSBCI technical assistance grants. https://networkkansas.com/services/growks

Maricopa County Community Colleges. (2025). Semiconductor technician training. https://info.maricopacorporate.com/semiconductor

MassTech Collaborative. (2025). Tariff response and business operations (TRBO) initiative. https://cam.masstech.org/TRBO

McKibbin, W. J., Noland, M., & Shuetrim, G. (2025). The global trade war: An update [Blog post]. Peterson Institute for International Economics. https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2025/global-trade-war-update

Michigan Economic Development Corporation. (2025). Supply chain resiliency. https://www.michiganbusiness.org/services/supply-chain-resiliency/

Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center. (2025). CONNEX Michigan: Supply chain networking tool. https://www.the-center.org/CONNEX

Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. (2025). 2025 state business retention and expansion: Minnesota. https://mnchamber.com/2025-state-business-retention-and-expansion-minnesota

Moder, I., & Spital, T. (2025, November). The protectionist gamble: How tariffs shape greenfield foreign direct investment (ECB Working Paper No. 3144). European Central Bank. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp3144~ab18c3e205.en.pdf

Moder, I., & Spital, T. (2026, January). The risk of tariffs as a tool to attract manufacturing investment [VoxEU column]. Centre for Economic Policy Research. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/risk-tariffs-tool-attract-manufacturing-investment

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. (2025). 2025 New York State energy plan. https://energyplan.ny.gov/

Oregon Legislative Assembly. (2026). House Bill 4061: Relating to a unified trade strategy for Oregon. Oregon Legislative Information System. https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2026R1/Measures/Overview/HB4061

Pew Charitable Trusts. (2024, May). Economic development incentives evaluation toolkit. https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/data-visualizations/2024/economic-development-incentives-evaluation-toolkit

Purdue University Dauch Center for the Management of Manufacturing Enterprises. (2025). Indiana supply chain marketplace tool. https://www.sctool-gscmi.org

South Carolina Department of Commerce. (2025). LocateSC site selection. https://locatesc.sccommerce.com/

Tax Foundation. (2026, March). Tariff tracker: 2026 Trump tariffs and trade war by the numbers. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/

Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development. (2025). Select Tennessee certified sites. https://tnecd.com/sites/certified-sites/

University Economic Development Association. (2026). Workforce Pell: Proposed regulations and implications for university economic development leaders. https://www.universityeda.org/workforce-pell-proposed-regulations-implications-for-university-economic-development-leaders

Virginia Economic Development Partnership. (2025). Supply chain optimization program. https://exportvirginia.org/supply-chain-optimization-program

Washington State Office of Financial Management. (2025, August). Crosswinds ahead: Full tariff impact analysis report [PDF]. https://ofm.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/Tariff_Impact_Analysis_Report.pdf

Further Reading

Tariff Economics and Macroeconomic Impacts

Amiti, M., Redding, S. J., & Weinstein, D. E. (2019). The impact of the 2018 tariffs on prices and welfare. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(4), 187–210.

Azzimonti, M. (2025, August). Why predicted and actual tariff rates diverged in May 2025 (Economic Brief No. 25-29). Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2025/eb_25-29

Budget Lab, The. (2026, March 2) Tracking the Economic Effects of Tariffs. https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/tracking-economic-effects-tariffs

Cavallo, A. (2025). HBS Pricing Lab tariff tracker [Live data tool]. Harvard Business School. https://www.pricinglab.org/tariff-tracker/

Clausing, K. (2025, August). The aftermath of tariffs [VoxEU column]. Centre for Economic Policy Research. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/aftermath-tariffs

Fajgelbaum, P. D., Goldberg, P. K., Kennedy, P. J., & Khandelwal, A. K. (2020). The return to protectionism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135(1), 1–55.

Peterson Institute for International Economics. (2025, October). Global growth holds up despite policy headwinds and rising risks [Fall 2025 Global Economic Prospects]. https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2025/global-growth-holds-despite-policy-headwinds-and-rising-risks

Tax Foundation. (2026, February). Trump tariffs threaten to offset much of the “Big Beautiful Bill” tax cuts. https://taxfoundation.org/blog/trump-tariffs-tax-cuts/

State Foreign Direct Investment and Site Selection Practice

Area Development. (2025, Q3). 2025’s top states for business. https://www.areadevelopment.com/Top-States-for-Doing-Business/q3-2025/2025s-top-states-for-business.shtml

Boeckelmann, L., Moder, I., & Spital, T. (2024, November). A new index to measure geopolitical fragmentation in global greenfield foreign direct investment [VoxEU column]. Centre for Economic Policy Research. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/new-index-measure-geopolitical-fragmentation-global-greenfield-foreign-direct

Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Colorado Department of Agriculture, & Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. (2025, November). Follow-on tariff impact report [Pursuant to Executive Order D 2025-008]. State of Colorado. https://www.colorado.gov/governor/news/governor-polis-releases-new-report-detailing-how-trumps-tariff-taxes-are-squeezing-colorado

Pew Charitable Trusts. (2024, October). Four things to know about tax incentive evaluations. https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/10/01/four-things-to-know-about-tax-incentive-evaluations

Site Selection Magazine. (2025). Global groundwork index: Looking for stability. https://siteselection.com/global-groundwork-index-looking-for-stability/

Washington State Office of Financial Management. (2025, September 4). Tariffs could cost Washington $2.2 billion over the next four years [Press release]. https://ofm.wa.gov/about/news/2025/09/tariffs-could-cost-washington-22-billion-over-next-four-years
April 1, 2026
States Take Center Stage: Economic Development Under the One Big Beautiful Act

Congress enacted the One Big Beautiful Act (OBBA) in July 2025 with clear implications for how states drive growth, competitiveness, and return on public investment. The law amends education and tax policy, but its effects extend well beyond those domains. OBBA tightens the connection between federal resources and state-defined economic outcomes. It places states at the center of validating demand, measuring results, and coordinating systems that shape regional growth.

At its core, the Act reflects a shift in federal expectations. Federal benefits for credentials and training increasingly depend on earnings, employment, and demonstrated market relevance. For state economic development leaders, this creates an opening to rethink how workforce systems, higher education institutions, and federal place-based tools support broader state growth strategies.

For states, the most consequential change is the elevation of the state’s role in directing investments in talent pipelines. The new Workforce Pell framework allows federal aid to support short-term, industry-driven training when states certify that the training program meets labor market demand and deliver earnings above what typical workers with the previous level of education make in that state and thus justifying the investment.. Economic development executives now have a stronger basis to engage governors and state workforce boards, which hold decisive authority over which credentials align with the state’s economic priorities.

This structure reinforces demand-driven talent development. It encourages tighter alignment among employers, training providers, workforce agencies, and economic development organizations. It also increases the strategic value of state labor market information and longitudinal earnings data. Regions that already integrate these functions gain an advantage. Fragmented systems face growing exposure.

The Act also reshapes higher education’s role in state economies. OBBA imposes stronger performance expectations across both short-term credentials and degree programs. Programs that consistently produce low earnings outcomes face new disclosure requirements and the risk of losing eligibility. At the same time, new limits on graduate and parent borrowing and the elimination of Grad PLUS are likely to affect enrollment patterns and institutional finance models across state higher education systems.

For states, these changes matter not only as education policy but also as economic strategy. Institutions will face pressure to reassess their program mix, pricing, and alignment with industry demand. States that treat higher education as a coordinated economic asset, rather than a stand-alone sector, will be better positioned to manage these shifts.

On the place-based side, the Act raises expectations for existing investment tools without expanding them. Qualified Opportunity Zones remain in place, but outcome requirements increase. Federal oversight now places greater emphasis on whether Zones generate jobs, support business formation, and improve economic conditions in designated communities. Investment volume alone is no longer sufficient.

This matters for state economic development agencies because in many areas, Opportunity Zones can influence where private capital flows. The new reporting framework increases scrutiny of designation decisions and long-term results. States must now demonstrate that Zones advance broader development objectives rather than operate as passive tax preferences.

Taken together, these provisions send a clear federal signal. Talent development and place-based investment are being treated as interdependent components of economic development. Both are expected to deliver measurable economic returns. Both rely on state leadership to define priorities and validate outcomes. And both reward regions that align people, institutions, capital, and data around shared growth goals.

For state economic development executives, the Act brings both opportunity and responsibility. It expands state influence over key levers of growth while raising expectations for performance. States that coordinate workforce, higher education, and investment strategies stand to capture greater value from federal policy. States that cannot demonstrate results face increasing risk as federal support becomes more conditional.

The One Big Beautiful Act reforms education finance and federal tax incentives. More importantly, it signals that federal economic development policy will increasingly run through the states, with accountability as the price of authority.

February 3, 2026
Podcast: Data Under Pressure: What’s Breaking (and What Still Works) in Economic Intelligence
From The Ribbon Cut Podcast:

Public economic data systems are being stretched thinner at the same time local decision-making depends on them more than ever. In this episode of The Ribbon Cut, Susan and Charles are joined by Ken Poole to explain what’s happening behind the scenes at federal data agencies, and why staffing cuts, privacy constraints, and rising demand for localized detail are changing how workforce and economic data should be interpreted.

In this episode:
- Why public data systems are struggling to keep up with local demand.
- How staffing losses at agencies like BLS impact continuity and reliability.
- Where privacy constraints limit the granularity communities need.
- Why private data sources are filling gaps—and where caution is required.
- What this shift means for defensible, data-backed decision-making.
For economic developers, analysts, and consultants who rely on workforce and employment data, this episode provides essential context for navigating today’s increasingly fragile data environment.

Listen here.
January 27, 2026
10 Big Wins from the EDA Reauthorization – #10 Could Change Everything

By now, you probably have heard the good news – EDA reauthorization made it through both houses of Congress as part of the Water Resources Development Act! This reauthorization was 20 years in the making and will help transform EDA into a more modern-day economic development. As we look to the future, state leaders, economic development district leaders, and university economic development professionals have much to gain from the act’s provisions.

Below are the 10 biggest wins which, from our perspective, will have a significant long-term impact on regional economic growth.

1. Increased Coordination: Enhancing Federal, State, and Regional Collaboration

A key theme of this reauthorization is increased coordination (Sec. 2212) among federal, state, and regional economic development entities. The Secretary of Commerce is now obligated to convene regular meetings with these stakeholders to align strategies and reduce duplication of efforts. This collaborative approach will help streamline resources and ensure that economic development efforts are both strategic and effective.

2. Workforce Training Grants: Addressing Industry Staffing Shortages

The bill allows EDA to support workforce development in new ways (Sec. 2221) to address talent shortages in key industries. States and higher education institutions can leverage EDA as a partner in training for sectors with high demand for skilled workers. These grants will support the development of new training facilities and the purchase of equipment, ultimately creating pathways to high-quality jobs and helping to bridge skills gaps.

3. State Capacity Building: Empowering States and Universities to Support Distressed Communities

Another powerful feature of the bill is the emphasis on state capacity building (Sec. 2248). States and universities can be key partners in this initiative, especially in distressed counties where project management, financial planning, and workforce development expertise may be lacking. By leveraging their resources along with EDA, states and universities can help elevate locally driven economic strategies, create job opportunities, and foster long-term sustainability in the most economically challenged regions.

4. University Centers: A Vital Resource for Local Innovation and Workforce Development

One of the most exciting developments for universities in this reauthorization is the formal recognition of university centers (Sec. 2217). 72 of these centers already exist, and under the reauthorized act they provide strategic planning support, capacity building, and support for research and technical assistance in innovation, entrepreneurship, and workforce development. By partnering with local governments and businesses, universities play a pivotal role in helping distressed communities revitalize their economies and promoting innovation-based economic development, and this bill will boost their impact on communities and regions.

5. Broadband Infrastructure: A Game-Changer for Underserved Areas

The bill’s focus on expanding broadband infrastructure (Sec. 2233) through targeted grants for rural and underserved areas is a major win for states and regions looking to close the digital divide. This initiative will unlock new opportunities for remote work, education, and access to essential services in these areas.

6. Critical Supply Chain Site Development: Preparing for the Future of Manufacturing

The creation of a new Critical Supply Chain Site Development Grant Program (Sec. 2244) could be a game-changer for states that are preparing for expected re-shoring of manufacturing activity. This program will support the EDA’s role as an active player in developing manufacturing-ready sites, particularly in rural and disadvantaged areas. By preparing sites for critical industries, including those tied to national security, this program offers a forward-looking solution for states seeking to boost their manufacturing capabilities and create new jobs in the process.

7. Disaster Recovery and Resilience: Strengthening Communities in the Face of Adversity

EDA remains a leader in responding to natural disasters. The establishment of an Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience (Sec. 2228) ensures that communities affected by natural disasters will receive the long-term support needed for economic recovery. For states that have suffered from hurricanes, floods, or wildfires, this office will provide vital resources and technical assistance. With this support, universities can partner with local governments to help affected communities rebuild smarter, stronger, and more resilient.

8. Renewable Energy: Revitalizing Brownfield Sites

The bill’s emphasis on renewable energy technologies (Sec. 2220) offers a significant opportunity for states committed to sustainable development. By focusing on redeveloping brownfield sites, this provision supports green infrastructure projects that create jobs and promote environmental resilience using technologies like solar, wind, and geothermal. States and universities can leverage these resources to drive sustainable economic growth.

9. Authorization of Several Regional Commissions – including two new ones

The new law also includes authorization for several regional commissions—Northern Border, Southwest Border, Great Lakes Authority, Delta Regional Authority, Denali Regional and the Denali Housing Fund — and the establishment of two new ones —the Mid-Atlantic and the Southern New England Regional Commissions. A much larger swath of the U.S. is covered by the 10 state-federal Regional Commissions as Congress continues to highlight the importance of targeting investments to rural and distressed communities.

10. Greater Flexibility on Cost Share, especially in collaboration with the Regional Commissions

EDA can now cover up to 60% of the costs for most projects and has greater flexibility to help small or under-resourced communities meet their requirements. For instance, funds contributed by Regional Commissions can now count toward the non-federal share of project costs. For communities with 10,000 or fewer people and meeting other criteria, EDA may be able to fund up to 100% of a project.

In sum, the Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 2024 provides economic development leaders with an array of new tools to support innovation, workforce development, infrastructure improvements, and economic resilience. With a focus on strategic collaboration, financial flexibility, and targeted investments in underserved communities, this legislation offers a roadmap for Federal involvement in supporting state and regional efforts to address current and future economic challenges. We look forward to working with Federal leaders as they translate this important new authorization into policy over the next several years.

Click on this link for our longer, more in-depth analysis.

December 19, 2024
Webinar: Update on the NSF Regional Innovation Engines
NSF will host a webinar to present the NSF Regional Innovation Engines initiative. The NSF Engines program will provide up to $160 million to each Regional Engine for up to 10 years to support the development of diverse regional coalitions to engage in use-inspired research and development, translation of innovation to society, and workforce development — with the goal of growing and sustaining regional innovation ecosystems throughout the U.S. State and local governments, non-profit organizations, higher education institutions, for-profit organizations are eligible to apply, meaning your organization may be able to apply as a lead and/or partner with an eligible applicant.

VIDEO: Learn more about the NSF Engines Funding Opportunity

OVERVIEW: NSF Engines Fact Sheet for State and Local Governments and Tribal Nations

You can access the recording here.

For more information on the NSF Engines program, its funding model, and the NSF process for selecting awards (“merit review”), view NSF Engines recordings on NSF’s YouTube channel or download the overview presentation slide deck.

What’s Next?
- Letters of Intent (LOI) are due on June 18, 2024. The one-page letter must be submitted in research.gov. Lead organizations must be registered in sam.gov. To lead an NSF Engines proposal, you need to submit a LOI but you can join an existing team as a core partner after the LOI deadline. NSF will publish the LOI data.
- We encourage you to learn more about the program and its competitive process for making awards by reading the NSF Engines program solicitation.
- Review the NSF Engines Fact Sheet.
- Check out previous NSF awards that have been made to organizations in your state or region using the NSF Engine’s data visualization tool.
- If you are interested in serving as a reviewer, please complete the Reviewer Interest Form. Members of teams submitting proposals are eligible to be reviewers and encouraged to volunteer.
- For anything else, email us at engines@nsf.gov.
May 29, 2024

CHIPS Hub

On August 9th, 2022, the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act was signed into law to support American manufacturing, supply chains, and technological development. Users can access resources and reports below to better understand CHIPS and access opportunities to impact transformative manufacturing offered by the act and other programs.

Resources

NIST MEP CHIPS Home

Senate CHIPS Explainer

Department of Commerce CHIPS Press Release

Department of State CHIPS Update

CHIPS Frequently Asked Questions

Webinars and Reports

States and the CHIPS Act: Preliminary Findings

CHIPS: One Page Summary

CHIPS: The Intersection with States (SEDE)

What are the CHIPS Act incentives? (SMART Incentives)

How states can help the CHIPS Act succeed (SMART Incentives)

Federal Innovation Awards

Check out the map below for federal awards, both those under the CHIPS and Science Act and other innovation-related awards!

Where is CHIPS Funding Going?

Source: Mckinsey & Company

January 7, 2024

SSBCI – Rebuilding Manufacturing Through Access to Capital
| May 5, 2023 |

Manufacturing has long been a staple of America’s economic engine even with recent employment declines. Today, the sector is seeing a strong resurgence due to private investment in new industries and products, public investment in R&D and business development assistance, and credit support through such programs as the State Small Business Credit Initiative (SSBCI). A new report, The State Small Business Credit Initiative and Rebuilding the U.S. Manufacturing Base, discusses the sector’s revival and the importance of SSBCI in supporting its growth. CREC contributed to this report and this blog highlights some of the report’s key findings.

The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) reauthorized and expanded the State Small Business Credit Initiative (SSBCI) which was originally passed as part of The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. Through SSBCI, state and territories provide credit enhancements to small businesses through equity/venture capital programs, loan participation programs, loan guarantee programs, collateral support programs, and capital access programs tailored to local market conditions, and all designed to support private financing. The new SSBCI provides $10 billion to support small businesses and empower them to access the capital needed to invest in job-creating opportunities.

SSBCI has proven to be a powerful supporter of manufacturing growth. The first SSBCI supported more than 21,000 loan or investment transactions and nearly $11 billion in private investment for manufacturers. These deals ultimately created or retained 240,000 manufacturing jobs.

States are using the new SSBCI funds to support manufacturers and have designed loan participation, collateral support, loan guarantees, capital access and equity investment programs to provide the credit and investment enhancement needed to facilitate private financing. The report highlights some uses of SSBCI by selected states:
- Reducing Lender Risk for Smart Technology – Fixed Asset Lending. Iowa, Minnesota, and West Virginia are among the states that create programs that focus on helping manufacturers modernize their operations with cutting edge technology.
- Expanding Access to Working Capital. Traditional financial institutions often have a difficult time providing working capital to small manufacturers. Many states including North Carolina, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington are using SSBCI to support working capital financing.
- Expanding Opportunity for Underserved Groups. The report notes how Washington, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Hawaii have created programs that focus on increasing access to capital for traditionally underserved small businesses and entrepreneurs. Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) are often key partners in this financing space.
- Improving Flexibility Regarding Allowable Uses of Loan Proceeds. With a rapidly changing manufacturing sector, flexible programs are key to success. Arizona, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and California are five states that have incorporated flexibility in their program designs to better meet borrower needs.
- Investing in Innovation/Start-Up Funding – Equity/Venture Capital Programs. Several states recognize the importance of equity/venture capital programs in the funding of early-stage manufacturers. Michigan, New York, and Hawaii are among the states that have developed venture capital programs geared toward the needs of manufacturers.
Manufacturing remains an essential component of the American economy. Do yourself a favor and check out this important report that underscores the importance of manufacturing and how SSBCI is playing a critical role in supporting the sector’s growth in urban, suburban, and rural locations for all Americans.
May 5, 2023

Category: Federal Programs

Background

Four Forces Shaping the Investment Environment

A State Economic Development Strategy in Response

The Bottom Line

References

Further Reading

Tariff Economics and Macroeconomic Impacts

State Foreign Direct Investment and Site Selection Practice

Where is CHIPS Funding Going?