Ohio Third Frontier Commission

Ohio Third Frontier Commission
Name	Ohio Third Frontier Commission
Type	State agency
Formed	2002
Jurisdiction	Ohio
Headquarters	Columbus, Ohio
Parent agency	Ohio Development Services Agency

Ohio Third Frontier Commission

The Ohio Third Frontier Commission is a statewide technology and innovation initiative created to expand high-tech research and commercialization in Ohio, coordinating investments among universities, private firms, and state agencies. It partners with entities such as The Ohio State University, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland Clinic, Procter & Gamble, and regional economic development organizations to accelerate startups, leverage federal programs like the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, and align with statewide strategies including the JobsOhio model and the Ohio Department of Development prior efforts.

Overview

The Commission functions as an investment and programmatic body linking higher education research institutions—University of Cincinnati, Ohio University, Kent State University, Bowling Green State University—with industry partners such as Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Cardinal Health, and General Electric to commercialize technologies. It interfaces with funding sources including the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, philanthropic organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and venture networks such as JumpStart Inc. and Rev1 Ventures. The initiative emphasizes sectors represented by anchors like NASA Glenn Research Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and health systems including University Hospitals and MetroHealth.

History and Establishment

Created by the Ohio General Assembly in 2002 as part of legislative efforts following reports by policy groups and collaborations among figures from Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, and corporate leaders of Sherwin-Williams and FirstEnergy Corporation, the Commission built on prior state activity including the Adjutant General of Ohio-era regional planning and the legacy of Akron's rubber industry realignment. Early milestones included coordinated investments with federal initiatives such as Small Business Innovation Research Program awards and partnerships with National Institutes of Health translational programs. Subsequent legislative actions by the Ohio General Assembly and governors from administrations including Bob Taft and Ted Strickland modified scope, resources, and sunset clauses, while later governors such as John Kasich oversaw program continuity and integration into newer entities like the Ohio Development Services Agency.

Programs and Initiatives

Core programs included capital grant allocations to research centers at Ohio State University Research Foundation, commercialization grants to firms aided by TechColumbus and Cleveland Innovation Project, and workforce initiatives aligning with OhioMeansJobs and apprenticeship programs tied to employers like Siemens USA and Raytheon Technologies. Initiatives funded incubators and accelerators such as BioEnterprise, Launch Dayton, and Great Lakes Innovation and Development Enterprise to foster companies in sectors connected to Cleveland Clinic Innovations, ProMedica, and automotive suppliers working with Honda of America Mfg.. The Commission supported technology transfer offices, intellectual property strategies tied to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office filings, and collaborations with federal labs including Argonne National Laboratory and university consortia funded through mechanisms similar to the Economic Development Administration grants.

Governance and Organization

Governance comprised an appointed board with representatives from academia, industry, and regional development bodies nominated by the Governor of Ohio and confirmed by the Ohio Senate. Members frequently originated from institutions like Cleveland State University, Xavier University, and corporations including Marathon Petroleum and AK Steel. Administrative oversight interfaced with statewide entities including the Ohio Board of Regents (now Ohio Department of Higher Education), the Ohio Treasurer for fund management, and auditors such as the Ohio Auditor of State for compliance reviews. Advisory councils engaged stakeholders from National Association of Manufacturers, Biotechnology Innovation Organization, and regional chambers of commerce including the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce.

Funding and Budget

Initial funding derived from state bond issuances authorized by the Ohio General Assembly and administered via appropriations tied to capital budgets overseen by the Ohio Office of Budget and Management. Subsequent capital infusions included reauthorizations and reallocations debated in budget bills sponsored by members of the Ohio House of Representatives and Ohio Senate, with matching support leveraged from federal sources like the U.S. Economic Development Administration and private co-investments from venture firms such as Kleiner Perkins-style investors and local angel networks. Financial oversight involved periodic audits by the Legislative Service Commission staff and performance reviews requested by governors and legislative committees.

Impact and Economic Outcomes

Evaluations pointed to job creation in technology clusters around Columbus, Ohio, Cleveland, Ohio, Cincinnati, Dayton, Ohio, and Akron, Ohio, increased commercialization of university research at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and Ohio State University, and attraction of follow-on capital from venture funds and corporate R&D centers including Amazon and Google regional investments. Metrics reported included startup formation rates similar to initiatives in North Carolina Research Triangle Park and cluster development reminiscent of Pittsburgh's transition in advanced manufacturing and healthcare technology. Independent analyses by consulting firms and university researchers compared return-on-investment to models used by Massachusetts Institute of Technology spinout programs and innovation ecosystems like Silicon Valley.

Criticism and Controversies

Critiques arose from legislators and think tanks such as The Buckeye Institute and auditors pointing to administrative overhead, regional allocation disputes between metropolitan and rural areas, and questions about measuring long-term returns compared with direct incentives used by states including Texas and North Carolina. High-profile controversies involved debates over grant recipients tied to major employers like Procter & Gamble and concerns echoed by economic commentators in outlets covering Cleveland and Columbus about transparency, potential crowding-out of private investment, and alignment with academic priorities at institutions like University of Toledo and Wright State University. Legislative reviews and audit reports by the Ohio Auditor of State and hearings in the Ohio House of Representatives informed reforms and program sunsets debated in subsequent budget cycles.

Category:Economy of Ohio Category:Organizations based in Columbus, Ohio Category:Science and technology in the United States