Who should lead the future of higher education? The state or the colleges/universities themselves? This tug-of-war has shaped higher education for decades, but since the Trump administration took office in 2025, the tension for control has reached new heights. A growing number of states, particularly Florida, have created their own entities named after the federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to tighten political control over colleges and universities, claiming to promote efficiency and accountability.

Most people assume the state has always held the reins in governing higher education. Yet Florida’s history challenges this assumption, as the pendulum has swung from near-total autonomy (before 1905; a decentralized model where universities governed themselves through institutional boards), to heavy-handed state control (1905-2002; a centralized model where all universities were governed under a single state board), and eventually settled into a middle ground between the two (2003 to the present; a hybrid model where both state and institutional boards share governing power).

Florida has tried three different governance models in its ongoing search for the right balance between state oversight and academic independence, setting itself apart from other states that have largely maintained stable governance models that are either centralized or decentralized.

Since the adoption of Amendment 11 in 2003, reflected in Article IX, Section 7 of the Florida Constitution, Florida has shifted from a centralized model where a single state-level Board of Regents oversight all public universities, to a hybrid model where the state’s Board of Governors and each university’s Board of Trustees share governing authority. This dramatic shift has now lasted for more than two decades, yet little empirical evidence exists to answer a key question: Has the hybrid model actually worked better than the previous centralized model?

In our recent study, we examined how universities perform in research and finances under both centralized and hybrid governance models to see whether Florida’s hybrid system has met state leaders’ original expectation: delivering better results than the old centralized control. Our analysis of performance data from 2000 to 2013 found little evidence that the hybrid model significantly boosts research or financial performance. Yet universities under the hybrid model bounced back faster after crises like the 2008 recession and the COVID-19 pandemic, showing stronger resilience when it mattered most.

The findings from our study matter far beyond Florida, as scholars and policymakers across the states still disagree on which model best serves higher education. Meanwhile, an increasing number of state leaders are grappling with the same question as they consider whether to adopt dramatic structural reforms to make their higher education systems more effective. Florida’s experience offers practical guidance for others seeking to balance state oversight with institutional autonomy.

In conclusion, our findings are clear: hybrid models may not make universities perform better, but they can make them stronger when crises hit. As new economic and political pressures continue to test higher education, leaders should move beyond the tired debate over centralization versus decentralization. The real challenge now is to design the governance systems that are both flexible and resilient. Florida’s hybrid model may not be perfect, but it offers a practical middle ground worth serious consideration.