Higher education institutions, like many parts of the nonprofit sector, face a range of challenges in these turbulent times. In higher ed, these include rising costs, rising tuition, declining public trust, declining corporate and government support, and forecasts of declining enrollments. These are in addition to broad philanthropic challenges like increasing wealth concentration, demographic shifts, the rise of activist donors, and a tight talent market.
A successful future for higher ed philanthropy will require addressing this diverse set of challenges, many of which we have no control over. Based on all the great contributions over the course of the Future of Philanthropy series—from our roundtable panelists and ALG authors—here are my six key takeaways about what that success might look like.
1) Recognize and build on our strengths.
While FY2025 was a bit of a roller coaster in fundraising, many colleges and universities anecdotally are reporting positive preliminary results through June 30. You may recall that we celebrated good news when higher education saw an increase in overall giving in FY2024—up 3% from FY2023—with increases in alumni and foundation giving more than making up for the decline in corporate giving. And we have some strong built-in advantages when it comes to fundraising.
For example, colleges and universities have access to a ready-made donor pool, typically with a strong desire to see their institution succeed and prosper. This pool is constantly being replenished with new alumni, their extended families, and parents of current students. There are a number of potential donor constituencies built into the DNA of higher ed philanthropy, and that is not necessarily true of other areas of the nonprofit sector.
Many higher education fundraising shops also have the benefit of specialization within the team—major gift officers, gift processing staff, prospect researchers, annual giving officers, etc.—allowing them to be highly donor-centric. Donors want their institutions to communicate with them in ways that demonstrate the institution knows and cares about them individually. This trend is extremely pronounced in the principal gifts area, with high-net-worth donors expecting ever-higher levels of access and attention. High-touch stewardship is a hallmark of many successful development teams.
In a world where commercial products and services offer more and more “mass customization,” our proven ability to deliver a high-touch donor experience can be another built-in fundraising advantage for higher education. But even given our strong, loyal constituencies, a successful philanthropic future will require upping the ante in terms of the quality of personal and unique connections we can make with an increasingly diverse and mobile group of stakeholders.
Creating highly personal, donor-centric connections is a core function in higher education advancement, and we will be challenged to do more of it, and better, to meet the current moment.
2) Rebuild trust and confidence.
It’s no secret that the public has expressed declining trust in institutions—from government, to the media, to the medical system, to business, to higher education. And among G7 countries, the U.S. scores lowest on the institutional trust index. That’s a big problem with deep systemic causes that we have very limited power to solve.
But it affects us and our fundraising ability. We must tackle it head-on and do our best to shore up trust and confidence among our own constituencies in support of our philanthropic and alumni engagement efforts. That means leaning into the affection and gratitude that often inspire giving in the first place.
Former Davidson College president, John Kuykendall, once wrote that higher education philanthropy was built upon three pillars—Gratitude, Confidence, and Hope. Donors feel a sense of gratitude for the life-changing experiences the college provided them as students, or for their children. Donors have confidence in the current administration’s leadership, integrity, and decisions for the future, and trust that donors’ gifts will be used by the institution for the agreed-upon purposes. And, donors believe and hope that their gifts will have a positive impact on the lives of future generations of students and perhaps the broader society.
At an institutional level, that means working hand in hand with leadership (the Office of the President, as well as finance, communications, and faculty departments) to hone a message and outreach platform that emphasizes trust. In that regard, advancement may be in the best position of any higher ed department to be leadership’s eyes and ears, to be a real-time barometer of how institutional trust may be impacting the school’s many stakeholders, and key communicators of the university’s mission and priorities.
3) Recommit to inclusion in its broadest possible terms.
Large schools can have hundreds of thousands of living alumni that span different occupations, ages, life experiences, geographies, avocations, and reasons for affinity with the institution. Even smaller schools can have tens of thousands of alumni. Given the diversity of a school’s potential audience, it’s important to see the word “inclusion” in the broadest possible light.
America is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse all the time, and its higher education population is too. Advancement can, and should, find ways to include diverse demographic groups in the fundraising effort. The framework of “inclusion” can go far beyond gender and race, for example:
• First-generation college students: A college degree can change the economic circumstances not just of the graduate but also of his or her entire family. Today, 54% of undergrads are first-generation college students, and first-gen students are applying to college at twice the rate of continuing-generation students. That is a huge population with a potentially tight emotional bond with their institution.
• Affinity and fields of interest: U.S. higher-ed institutions offer an average of 40-60 majors. Each of those is a potential point of connection with alumni. Co-curricular activities like marching band, choral groups, student publications, student government, athletic teams, Greek letter organizations, racial and ethnicity-based student groups, and residence hall advisors can all be points of connection with alumni. Additionally, connections within geographic locations, professional interests, personal pastimes, and travel programs provide an almost limitless number of potential connection points. Every non-academic program that needs support likely has an extensive network of potential donors with a reason to give.
• Family connections: As wealth concentration grows, and big gifts become a staple of the advancement agenda, one has to think more in terms of family giving than individual giving—because that’s often how wealthy individuals and families view their wealth. In this regard, “inclusion” can mean including the entire family of a donor, as well as their network of advisors and agents. Some family members might not have graduated from your institution, but they might be natural partners for philanthropy.
• Community connections: Smaller and less-resourced institutions still may find a wealth of fundraising opportunities by including the community in their programs. Residents and businesses in the local community often want to see the school succeed, and many hold an emotional investment and pride in the school—and its athletic teams and performing arts offerings—as a hometown institution that helps drive economic growth.
• Collective philanthropy: According to the Dorothy Johnson Center for Philanthropy, “Between 2017 and 2023, nearly 4,000 collective giving groups mobilized approximately 370,000 philanthropists to donate more than $3.1 billion — indicating more than 140% growth in both participation and total monetary donations across the movement.” And that giving is expected to double in the next five years. Giving circles and other forms of co-operative giving (e.g., former faculty of a particular program or school) can make a meaningful contribution to the advancement effort.
These are just a few examples of what “inclusion” can mean when interpreted in its broadest possible terms. With a built-in audience of tens of thousands, or potentially hundreds of thousands of stakeholders, there is plenty of room to develop tailored outreach programs and bring a wide range of alumni into the philanthropic family. The main question for advancement is how to identify and allocate resources to the most promising opportunities.
4) Harness your data and be strategically data-driven.
In our higher ed Q&A panel, Amy Yancey, President and CEO of the UConn Foundation, said that the advancement shop of the future would be “a pretty efficient and lean operation,” with a heavy emphasis on technology. Sergio Gonzalez, VP for Advancement at Brown University, said, “Today we’re much more data-driven, process-oriented, and business-oriented. And we still have a lot of room to grow in those areas. That’s a permanent change that’s not going away.”
But a big part of the challenge will actually be listening to, and following, the data. That will require more investment in data collection and analysis, potentially using external resources and services (e.g., data mining). The institutions that can take advantage of it and actually apply it will be most successful.
Too often, advancement work can get bogged down in well-worn processes and approaches that we follow just because that’s the way things have always been done. As the landscape changes, and our audiences’ preferences change, leadership needs to be open to adjusting their strategies and tactics according to what the data tell us is working, and what isn’t.
5) Retention, retention, retention.
We work in a relationship business where staff turnover is a financial liability. It takes time (sometimes years) to build authentic, trust-based donor relationships, especially at the higher end of the giving spectrum. The longer staff remain with an institution, the more effective they become, and the more successful they’ll be. It’s almost exclusively a leadership challenge to create the right mix of incentives for staff to stay and feel valued. Those who do their best in this area will have a significant advantage over their peers.
Many institutions already are investing in internal talent management staff, structured career pathways, incentive pay programs, and enhanced professional development opportunities to help retain talented staff. Others are investing in search firms to recruit talent nationally and engaging external strategic thought partners to help retain staff.
6) Leadership field of vision.
Last year, my ALG colleague Claire McCully wrote a terrific piece on the demands of leadership in this new era of advancement, and she highlighted five qualities that leaders need to cultivate. That article is worth a bookmark, as it’s a blueprint that one can keep coming back to, for both inspiration and practical guidance.
Two key qualities stuck out to me. The first is “connectedness,” which demands that advancement leaders be team players across nearly every part of the institution—academic and non-academic departments alike. Collaboration with the Office of the President, to the Office of Finance, to all academic departments, to all aspects of student life, these internal connections are critically important. Unlike leaders in most other departments, advancement leaders must be able to present and advocate for every part of the institution in their efforts to identify connection points and forge deep bonds with donors of all ages and affiliations.
The second quality, which to me is even more important, is what Claire called vision, with an ability to “see around corners.” I’d expand that notion and call it “field of vision,” which in a sports analogy might mean anticipating where the ball is headed, and where your teammates are going to be, and playing the ball into a scoring position. It’s a combination of vision and foresight—a talent that will play an ever more important role in a fast-changing philanthropic landscape.
Playing the Long Game
In closing, I’d ask your indulgence by offering another sports analogy, which comes from Roger Federer’s 2024 commencement address at Dartmouth College–another great piece worth a bookmark.
In his speech, he talked about attacking his opponents’ strengths because it helped him learn to do many things well: “You need a whole arsenal of strengths… so if one of them breaks down, you’ve got something left.” In advancement, we would do well to heed that advice. We have a lot of opportunity, and the more strengths we develop, the more tools we will have to execute on our mission.
In that speech, he also offered a sobering statistic from his own career. He pointed out that while he won 80% of his 1,500+ career tennis matches, he won only 54% of the individual points. A tennis legend, #1 in the world for many years, and one of the greatest of all time, Federer worked his entire career, set records, and won untold accolades by winning barely more than half of the points he played. Every point he lost was “just a point.” Similarly, every point he won was “just a point.” By letting past points go, he was able to focus solely on each point in that moment.
Like tennis, advancement work is a marathon, not a sprint. We might have to hear a lot of “no” before we get a “yes.” Higher education and philanthropy face many headwinds and crosswinds right now, but champions like Federer will tell you that the way to win is to expand your toolkit, work really hard, and focus on the next point in the match.
We have much to be proud of in higher education advancement, and I am proud of what you are accomplishing for your colleges and universities. Let’s pace ourselves, build our resilience, and play the long game—for the win.
Contributing author:
Tom Jennings, Managing Director and Senior Consultant | Aspen Leadership Group, A ZRG Company
VIEW BIO | CONNECT ON LINKEDIN
NEXT UP: Ron Schiller has a wide-ranging conversation with a pair of non-profit leaders about the future of the CEO/CDO relationship. As philanthropy becomes an ever-more important strategic source of revenue, a close and effective working relationship between the CEO and CDO is essential to organizational success. Ron talks to two CEO/CDO teams about what makes their relationship tick and what they need from each other to be successful.
Our newsletter subscribers receive additional content each month, in the form of job postings, industry insights, and firm news. To sign up, fill out the form at the bottom of this page.