One of the best public-private partnerships ever to come along is Florida's program for matching gifts to state universities. It is easy to understand the appeal. Universities have an easier time attracting donors when they can sweeten the pot with public funds. Donors get more bang for their buck, and they find the schools more responsible because they have a financial stake in these programs.
But a matching program that has brought the universities $365-million for scholarships and other support since its creation in 1979 is struggling, thanks to lawmakers who have allowed the state's contributions to lag. A St. Petersburg Times report shows that the state owes its 11 public universities $105-million in matching grants for academic programs, and another $35-million for construction projects. The backlog affects 500 donations and has held up scholarships, research programs and construction projects.
This penury is worse than bad financial planning. It amounts to a perverse breach of faith. It cheats universities and taxpayers, and it tells the small circle of six- and seven-figure donors to take their philanthropy elsewhere. This is indefensible policy even in good economic times. It's reckless in these tough economic times.
"It's a real positive to say I'm going to leverage my gift. That's why I don't understand what the state is doing," said Allen Lastinger, a University of Florida donor and former president of Barnett Banks. One South Florida real estate executive withdrew a $750,000 gift and other donors are threatening to do the same.
Universities already were grappling with tight budgets, skyrocketing enrollment and a downturn in the economy that depressed the environment for donations and grants. The University of South Florida expects donations this year to be one-third lower than last year's $43.3-million.
Providing additional seed money to lure donations should have been an easy call, but the Legislature instead appropriated $41.6-million, less than one-third the amount needed to cover the $140-million awaiting matching grants. The money would pay for medical research, new science and engineering facilities, studies in health care and urban living and grants to lure exceptional professors and students.
More difficult to measure is the long-term damage to the program's reputation. Advertising a matching grant on the false pretense that the state will fund its share of the cost is a good way to alienate the few people in the best position to help our schools. These donors are bombarded with requests to help communities and institutions in need, and they certainly don't need to be jerked around by a state that fails to honor its commitments. Lawmakers should fund matching grants before a program that's based on the concept of trust loses its appeal to philanthropists.
