Excerpted from: 

When they sang their blockbuster hit “We Are Family” in 1979, Sister Sledge was not talking about the world of advancement. Nonetheless, their refrain is apropos when it comes to discerning how to best operate a development and engagement program at any level.

There was a time when the world of alumni relations was all about traditions and doing the same things over and over again until alumni and the institution came to both expect and respect them. Programs such as homecoming, reunions, Founders Day, and many others became the traditions used by alumni leaders to engage alumni and, to a great extent, justify their existence and importance in the growing world of development.

Today there’s a new norm in alumni relations, just as there’s a new norm in society. Actually, there was a new norm in alumni relations and society before the world was enveloped by a pandemic. But the new norm in alumni relations is that there is no norm. 

I was the executive director of the University of Connecticut’s Alumni Association when Facebook was created, and I remember hearing our students talking about the site as if it was the greatest invention ever. I figured that I shouldn’t bother getting an account because by the time I learned how to use it, it would likely be extinct. How did that prediction work out for me?

Fortunately, I not only got on Facebook, but I’m also now on Twitter (@johnfeudo), Instagram, and LinkedIn, and I even have a Snapchat account (which I only check every holiday when I get a nice greeting from Team Snapchat). And just yesterday I watched a dog jump over several rolls of toilet paper on TikTok. I may have “arrived” (or maybe not), but the point is that we all need to adapt to the changing world around us.

In 2001, on a sad September day, the world around us changed forever. I sat in the UConn Alumni Center watching in disbelief with my staff as a second plane hit the World Trade Center in Manhattan. Not only did the world change that day, but many industries changed with it. 

Alumni relations was one of those professions that saw great change after the terrorist attack. Alumni stopped traveling, so alumni tours ceased. People started staying home more to be with their families, realizing how precious life truly is, and volunteerism for one’s alma mater decreased in the subsequent months.

Then we found our country in a recession in 2008, and income became an issue. People didn’t have as much disposable income to use on events, merchandise, athletic tickets, or even philanthropy. Many people lost their jobs, had to change jobs, or were forced to get second jobs to make ends meet, so event attendance and volunteerism suffered accordingly. I distinctly remember a number of donors asking to rewrite their pledge agreements to backload payments and give them time to rebuild their investments.

But we found a new normal, and then 2020 hit. And it hit hard. 
 

A History Lesson 

Aficionados of higher education advancement history know that the first “fundraisers” in education, dating back more than a century, were alumni and staff emboldened with an alumni relations title such as alumni director or alumni secretary. Their duties included inviting alumni back to campus for social events, but they later expanded to include asking graduates for a few dollars to help with the costs of these events or with other operational needs at the institution. 

Records were handwritten and kept on index cards stored in a file drawer, and when someone made a donation, the amount was noted on the index card next to the person’s name. If they gave a second time, that amount got printed right next to the previous amount. Thus began “loyal donors” and the initial thrill of “retention.”

Fast-forward decades later. Once those schools saw the growth in private giving and realized the incredible potential of dollars in the door, fundraising responsibilities were handed over to staff and volunteers charged primarily with building philanthropic giving. The engagement work remained with the alumni director, at least in some cases. 

In full disclosure, I began typing “those fundraising responsibilities were handed over to professional fundraisers charged primarily with building philanthropic giving,” but I quickly realized what an insult that was to those of us in the industry whose titles may say “alumni relations” but whose roles have always included fundraising. And that means most of us.

The schism between the two departments began in earnest in the 1970s as fundraising became a larger part of each institution’s strategic plan. At the same time, there was a proliferation of self-governing, independent alumni associations forming. 

Today’s development offices have only grown bigger and bigger, while the number of truly independent alumni organizations continues to dwindle. Spending on development staff and operating budgets has historically outpaced the alumni relations side—there is no argument there. It’s only been in the past few years that a growing number of advancement divisions have turned their focus to intertwining alumni relations and development to a greater extent. 

As I predicted in earlier publications I’ve written and presentations I’ve made, we’re now starting to see staff titles such as advancement officer as opposed to assistant director of alumni relations or associate director of development. This is one way advancement leaders are exhibiting their commitment to creating more synergy within their unit.

So, is it the chicken or the egg? These time-honored questions don’t have a right answer, just your answer. And that begs the question: Is there a right or wrong answer in determining the relationship between alumni relations and development? Is there a chicken-or-egg scenario? Or can these two critical functions work hand in glove? 

I know what you’re thinking: Which is the hand and which is the glove? But the better question is: Does it matter which is which? Having spent more than three decades in advancement work, I’ve seen it from all angles. For many of those years, my title had the words alumni relations in it. But for the past decade, my titles have said Development or now Vice Chancellor for Advancement. And yet, for nearly my entire career, I have felt like a development officer in one form or another. Why? I’ve always subscribed to the idea that there is a fundraising cycle that truly incorporates all of advancement into the process.

The Fundraising Cycle

Slice or dice it any way you want. Make it more complex if necessary. But the reality is that there is a basic fundraising cycle, no matter what kind of institution (or organization) you work for. Here it is. 

You’d be hard-pressed to find many development officers who disagree that these are the four simple steps (OK, maybe not everyone would agree they’re simple) to engaging a donor to the point of a successful philanthropic relationship.

The first phase is identification. How do you know that a graduate, parent, or friend has the desire, inclination, or capacity to give at a major gift level? Sure, we have prospect research teams that do excellent work in uncovering details about the prospect’s background, which then leads to determinations around the ability and interest a possible donor might have. 

But we do not and cannot rely solely on research to find potential donors. We also source through other donors and friends. We look at prior giving history, we draw conclusions based on their social media posts and preferences, and we talk to them at events or meetings to learn more about them. Those are among the many ways we identify possible donors.

Who does this kind of prospecting? In many instances, it’s the alumni relations team that finds itself interacting with alumni through social media or at events. Not that development officers don’t also engage in this way, but some of these opportunities more likely fall into an alumni relations category. 

In the ideal world, these alumni officers would then file contact reports that detail the conversations or interactions—which most don’t do nearly enough— while informing the appropriate research or development staff members about the potential prospect. It’s safe to say that an alumni relations team can play a major role in the identification process, just as their counterparts in development do.

Once these individuals are identified and qualified, they then become part of the cultivation component of the cycle. They’re invited to more events and meetings, perhaps even asked to become active as volunteers. They may be asked for a personal visit—either by a development officer or alumni staff member—to learn about their interests in becoming more involved. They’re included in additional communications about the institution or the alumni program. I’ll say it again: Alumni relations teams play a major role in the cultivation process, a role they share with the fundraisers.

The solicitation phase clearly belongs to the development officer. Or does it? There have been times in my alumni relations career when I either made an ask or found myself as the beneficiary of an alum approaching me and self-soliciting, depending on the comfort level we had. And here at UMass Lowell, my alumni director has her own portfolio of approximately two dozen major gift prospects that she manages on top of her alumni and donor relations responsibilities. Although development officers are evaluated based on fundraising performance—and especially dollars raised—look around the education environment and you’ll find many more alumni staff members globally who have specific fundraising goals and responsibilities.

The final stop on the fundraising cycle is stewardship, a practice that works best when shared equally between alumni relations and development staffers. Development officers have regular check-ins with their donors to help keep them happy, while alumni staff might be reaching out to these donors to gauge their interest in possible volunteer opportunities, speaking engagements on campus, or attendance at events. Although the development office may technically “own” the relationship (which, by the way, isn’t always the case), both departments play a major role in stewarding the donor for the future.
 

Closing the Loop, Widening the Circle

As you can see, the fundraising cycle works best when it’s a shared responsibility, when both alumni relations and development staffs work together to ensure the greatest potential for success. So why does it sound so easy in theory, when we all know how difficult it has been historically in practice? 

I think part of it is because that same history continues to manifest itself year after year, generation after generation, in schools and organizations all over the world. But fear not, because there are numerous examples of the positive, successful integration of alumni relations and development. There’s no right or wrong way. Not every idea or plan will work for you. Brainstorm with your colleagues the ways in which there can be more coordination and symmetry to the work you do.

We’re all in this together, and we care about each other’s success. One of the best parts about this business is that although we may compete with other schools through sports on the playing surface, it’s rare when we’re competing directly with another school for advancement success. Regardless of how devastating the pandemic was—and continues to be—to our business, the reality for advancement offices left in its wake has to be addressed. Many of us have already made operational changes because of COVID-19 that we anticipate becoming part of our new standard procedures. Think about how a more integrated approach can be increasingly efficient and effective. A successful advancement team means more resources for faculty, students, and the institution. And, after all, isn’t that why we do this?