The BUILD Act requires the Secretary of Commerce (through the Assistant Secretary for Economic Development) to create a grant program that awards planning grants and large implementation grants to institutions of higher education that are located in economically distressed ZIP Codes or counties. The bill defines distressed institutions by a test that compares ZIP‑ or county‑level median family income to state or national medians, establishes a capped planning grant (up to $100,000 per year for up to two years) and a 5‑year implementation grant ranging from $25 million to $50 million, and limits eligible activities to projects that spur local economic development.
This matters to university compliance officers, economic development directors, and institutional finance teams because the bill channels substantial federal capital to campus‑anchored projects—renovations, housing, broadband, clinics, apprenticeships, seed funding and certain research—while imposing few statutory performance metrics beyond annual reports. The program’s eligibility, notably the bill’s peculiar definition of “institution of higher education,” and the broad allowable uses raise targeting, accountability, and implementation questions that recipients and grant administrators will need to resolve in rulemaking and program guidance.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the Secretary of Commerce to list institutions located in ‘distressed’ ZIP Codes or counties (25% lower median family income relative to a state or national benchmark), notify those institutions, and allow them to opt in for planning grants and later implementation grants. Planning grants are capped at $100,000 per year for up to two years; implementation grants run five years and must be between $25 million and $50 million per recipient.
Who It Affects
Eligible recipients are institutions that meet the distressed‑community income thresholds and a statutory institutional definition in the bill (which narrows eligibility to institutions that offer and enroll a majority of courses 'by correspondence'), excluding 1862 Morrill institutions, Carnegie R1 universities, and service academies. Affected stakeholders also include local governments, community health providers, small businesses, and industry partners involved in proposed projects.
Why It Matters
The bill would create a new EDA‑style vehicle to deploy multi‑million dollar campus‑anchored investments directly to selected institutions, potentially reshaping how universities engage in local economic development. Because awards are large and allowable uses broad, institutions and municipal partners will want clarity on selection formulas, accountability, and how projects will be measured to ensure community benefit.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The BUILD Act sets up a two‑stage grant pathway administered by the Department of Commerce (Assistant Secretary for Economic Development). First, the department must compile a list of institutions it determines are located in a ‘‘distressed community’’ using ZIP‑ or county‑level comparisons of median family income to state or national benchmarks.
Once the list is compiled the Secretary notifies included institutions; a notified institution must submit an opt‑in notification to be designated eligible for grants.
Designated institutions become eligible for planning grants to produce an implementation plan that identifies the projects they will pursue. Planning grants can run up to two years, are limited to $100,000 per year, and permit an institution to request additional planning funds within one year of initial award; the Secretary must decide on that request within 90 days.
After the Secretary approves an implementation plan, the institution may receive a five‑year implementation grant to carry out the listed eligible projects.Implementation grants are large: the statute requires a per‑recipient award of not less than $25 million and not more than $50 million, disbursed at least once each year during the five‑year term. The bill enumerates broad eligible project categories—campus and community renovations including commercial buildings and housing, seed funding for startups, apprenticeships, municipal broadband, public health clinics and training, K–12 partnerships, and applied research tied to local economic needs.
Recipients must submit an annual report on grant expenditures and activities.The bill narrows which institutions count as ‘‘institutions of higher education’’ in a way that may be surprising: it builds on the HEA definition but adds a requirement that an institution offer more than 50 percent of its courses by correspondence and enroll at least 50 percent of students in correspondence courses, while excluding 1862 land‑grant institutions, Carnegie R1 institutions, and service academies. That drafting choice will materially shape who can receive the large implementation awards.
Finally, the statute requires the Secretary to establish distribution formulas for both planning and implementation awards but leaves the formulas and other operational details to the administering agency.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary must identify institutions in ‘distressed’ ZIP Codes or counties where median family income is at least 25% below the applicable state or national benchmark, then notify those institutions and require an opt‑in to be eligible.
Planning grants run up to two years and are capped at $100,000 per year, with a one‑year window to apply for additional planning funds and a 90‑day decision deadline for the Secretary.
Implementation grants run five years and must be at least $25 million and at most $50 million per recipient, with funds distributed at least annually during the grant term.
Eligible projects are broad and include campus‑accessible commercial space, housing, municipal broadband, public health clinics and workforce training, seed capital for startups, apprenticeships, K–12 partnerships, and locally relevant research.
The statutory definition of eligible institutions adds an unusual correspondence‑course test (more than 50% of courses and enrollments by correspondence) while excluding Morrill 1862 institutions, Carnegie R1s, and service academies—significantly narrowing the universe of likely recipients.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
States the Act’s name: the 'Boosting University Investments in Low‑Income Districts Act' or 'BUILD Act.' This is a one‑line convention but anchors the statute to economic and community development objectives.
Program establishment and distressed‑community designation
Directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish the grant program and to prepare a list of institutions that are located in distressed communities. The distress test is formulaic: depending on whether a State’s median family income sits above or below the national median, the test compares ZIP Code or county medians to the State or national medians and flags areas that are at least 25% below the applicable benchmark. After compiling the list, the Secretary must notify institutions and require an opt‑in notification for eligibility, which turns the list into a pool of applicants rather than an automatic award roster.
Planning grants and implementation plans
Authorizes planning grants to designated institutions to craft implementation plans that describe the projects they intend to pursue and how those projects will support local revitalization. Planning grants can be dispersed for up to two years at up to $100,000 per year; recipients must complete their plan within two years and submit it for Secretary approval. The statute permits an application for additional planning funds within one year and requires the Secretary to decide on that request within 90 days—an operational deadline that will shape agency resourcing.
Implementation grants: scale, term, and reporting
Upon approval of an implementation plan, the Secretary must provide implementation grants for five‑year terms. Each award must fall between $25 million and $50 million and be disbursed at least once per year. Grant funds are restricted to activities in the distressed community where the institution is located, and recipients must submit annual reports describing how funds were used. The statute instructs the Secretary to establish distribution formulas but leaves substantive selection and oversight mechanisms to the administering agency.
Definitions and eligibility exclusions
Defines 'eligible project' with a long, illustrative list (buildings, housing, cultural institutions, labs, seed funding, apprenticeships, municipal broadband, clinics, K–12 partnerships, and campus research tied to local economic needs). It also redefines 'institution of higher education' in a narrowing way—requiring a correspondence‑course majority and explicitly excluding 1862 Morrill institutions, Carnegie R1 institutions, and service academies. It names the Secretary of Commerce (Assistant Secretary for Economic Development) as the administering official.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Institutions designated and opting in (primarily those meeting the bill’s correspondence‑course test): they gain access to planning funds and potential multi‑year awards of $25M–$50M to build campus‑anchored projects and programs.
- Local small businesses and startups: projects may include seed funding and facilities that lower barriers to commercialization and create tenant opportunities in renovated campus‑adjacent commercial space.
- Local workforce and students: apprenticeships, healthcare training programs, and K–12 partnerships funded by awards can expand job pipelines and upskill residents in distressed communities.
- Municipalities and broadband‑hungry communities: the statute explicitly allows municipal broadband and related infrastructure projects that can improve digital access for residents and institutions.
- Community health providers and patients: funding for public‑accessible clinics and training can expand local capacity for primary care and workforce development.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal budget (Department of Commerce/EDA): the program requires multi‑million dollar awards and administrative resources to create lists, review plans, and establish formulas; Congress or appropriators must fund these sizable grants.
- Institutions selected for implementation: while grants are large, institutions will incur project management, matching, ongoing operating, and maintenance costs that may not be fully funded by the award.
- EDA/Secretary staff and grant administrators: the statute imposes decision deadlines (e.g., 90 days on additional planning fund requests) and formula design obligations that increase administrative workload.
- Local governments and partners: coordinating projects (permitting, zoning, public services, co‑investments) will demand municipal staff time and potentially local spending without statutory federal matching requirements.
- Other place‑based grant programs: large awards concentrated on select institutions could shift political and budgetary support away from other federal community development or EDA programs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to concentrate very large federal grants in a small set of institutional anchors to catalyze local revitalization (accepting speed and scale) or to spread smaller, more conditional funding across more recipients with stronger statutory accountability (accepting smaller per‑project impact). The bill opts for scale and administrative discretion, which expedites funding but raises legitimate concerns about targeting, oversight, and whether the community—not the campus—will be the principal beneficiary.
Two design choices in the bill create the biggest implementation headaches. First, the statutory definition of 'institution of higher education' requires a majority of courses and enrollments to be 'by correspondence,' which materially narrows the recipient pool to distance‑education‑heavy institutions.
That choice is at odds with the bill’s stated purpose of leveraging campus‑anchored investments for local districts, since many campus anchors in distressed places are traditional, in‑person institutions that would be excluded. Second, the bill leaves critical program mechanics—distribution formulas, selection criteria beyond opt‑in, performance metrics, and any matching or clawback provisions—wholly to the Secretary.
With awards that can exceed $25 million per recipient and allowable uses ranging from housing to seed capital, the absence of statutory accountability markers (benchmarks, metrics, recapture conditions) raises the risk of funds being used in ways that favor institutional objectives over community benefit.
Operationally, the income‑comparison method (ZIP/county medians compared to state or national medians with a 25% cutoff) will produce odd edge cases: ZIPs in generally low‑income states may fail to qualify even if locally distressed pockets exist, while wealthy states with poor ZIPs will capture institutions in isolated low‑income pockets. The statute’s opt‑in model shifts the burden to institutions to self‑identify interest, which could advantage better‑resourced schools that can rapidly prepare implementation plans.
Finally, annual reporting is the only explicit oversight mechanism; agencies will have to design monitoring, evaluation, and enforcement regimes in guidance or regulation to translate large dollar awards into measurable community outcomes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.