To: Rutgers University Advancement Leadership, Deans, and Institutional Stakeholders From: Senior Advancement Strategy Consultant Date: March 26, 2026 Subject: Strategic Alumni Culture Transformation Report Executive Summary Rutgers’ alumni challenge is structural. With a 4.1% alumni giving participation rate and $52.3 million in annual alumni giving in FY2025, the university is underperforming relative to peer public institutions that have built stronger alumni cultures through centralized data, faculty-led relationship stewardship, and disciplined volunteer pathways. The core issue is not insufficient outreach volume; it is the wrong kind of outreach—transaction-heavy, fragmented, and too often ask-first rather than value-first. The most successful peers did not solve this by “asking harder.” They solved it by building a culture of belonging: a centralized advancement infrastructure, clear governance, faculty as intellectual conveners, volunteer ladders that give alumni a role before a request, and a consistent institutional identity that survives college-level fragmentation. Rutgers should therefore shift from a transactional alumni model to a hub-and-spoke culture of philanthropy: one central source of truth, college-level relationship ownership, and a university-wide rule that solicitation follows value creation. 1) Comparative Case Study Report University of Michigan — The “Michigan Model” of Coordinated Decentralization Starting culture: Michigan’s early-2000s alumni model was strong in school loyalty but weak in unified infrastructure. The result was inconsistent messaging, solicitation fatigue, and a fragmented constituent experience. Institutional levers activated: Michigan centralized data, gift processing, and campaign coordination while preserving school/dean/faculty ownership of the relationship (centralize the infrastructure, decentralize the experience). Measurable outcomes: Michigan is commonly benchmarked at roughly 17.2% alumni giving participation, far above the public-university norm; it also sustained a record-setting multibillion-dollar campaign. Most transferable insight for Rutgers: Centralize only the systems. College leaders and faculty should own the relational work, but all data, segmentation, compliance, and gift processing must flow through one hub. Ohio State University — The Integrated Volunteer Powerhouse Starting culture: Ohio State’s alumni base was large but structurally fragmented, with a dues-based alumni association limiting the top of the funnel. Institutional levers activated: Ohio State integrated the alumni association into University Advancement and built a tiered volunteer system that gives alumni a path from low-friction digital roles to formal leadership. Volunteering was treated as an engagement architecture, not an afterthought. Measurable outcomes: Ohio State produces very high annual giving volume and a large experiential/touchpoint footprint; it is widely used as a benchmark for a data-driven volunteer continuum. Most transferable insight for Rutgers: Remove barriers that make alumni feel they must “pay to belong.” Build a role ladder—digital ambassador, event host, class agent, mentor, advisory volunteer—so every alumnus has a non-financial on-ramp before the ask. Penn State University — Built Identity, Not Simply Inherited Loyalty Starting culture: Penn State is often described as having inherited loyalty, but the stronger interpretation is that the loyalty was built deliberately through student philanthropy and a scalable alumni association. Institutional levers activated: Penn State paired student-centered philanthropy with alumni identity infrastructure: class agents, affinity groups, and a singular “We Are” narrative that transcends college boundaries. Measurable outcomes: Penn State is commonly benchmarked with 18.1% alumni giving participation and a very large alumni association membership base, making it one of the strongest public-university alumni cultures in the Big Ten. Most transferable insight for Rutgers: Build the identity before graduation. Create a student-to-alumni pipeline that begins with shared rituals, service, and visible philanthropy during the undergraduate years. University of Maryland — Brand-to-Belonging Pivot Starting culture: Maryland’s legacy included commuter-school fragmentation and weak identity cohesion, especially after the Big Ten transition. Institutional levers activated: Maryland emphasized lifelong learning, faculty as subject-matter experts rather than solicitors, and alumni value propositions rooted in intellectual return rather than transactional appeal. Measurable outcomes: Annual giving moved into the $200M+ range with material improvement in participation over the decade (estimated benchmark based on public reporting). Most transferable insight for Rutgers: Faculty must deliver intellectual value first—research, mentoring, continuing education, and access—before Advancement asks for money. Michigan State University — Regional Affinity Saturation Starting culture: Michigan State had strong regional identity but was vulnerable to “second-tier” perceptions and institutional drift. Institutional levers activated: MSU brought the university to alumni through regional hubs, mission-aligned service days, and locally hosted engagement rather than expecting alumni to return to campus. Measurable outcomes: MSU is benchmarked around 11.4% alumni giving participation, with sustained growth. Most transferable insight for Rutgers: Alumni engagement should not be restricted to New Brunswick weekends. Rutgers needs mission-aligned regional activation in New York, Philadelphia, DC, and North Jersey. Bottom-line pattern across peers: The successful institutions all executed the same four moves: (1) centralized the data and rules, (2) decentralized relationship ownership, (3) built volunteer pathways before philanthropic asks, and (4) created a single institutional story that alumni can belong to. 2) Institutional Lever Matrix Benchmarking note: Alumni giving participation is expressed in CASE/VSE terms where possible (donors divided by contactable alumni of record). Public figures are shown as benchmarks, not perfect comparables. Institution Baseline (est.) Current Benchmark Key Structural Change Faculty Integration Model Volunteer Infrastructure Primary Engagement Hook Years to Shift U. Michigan ~11% 17.2% Hub-and-spoke advancement infrastructure Dean-led committees; relationship stewards Central council + school-based leadership “The Michigan Difference” ~10 Ohio State ~8% 13.5% Integrated alumni association Faculty experts/speakers/mentors Tiered pathway (digital to leadership) “But for Ohio State” ~8 Penn State ~14% 18.1% Student-to-alumni pipeline + affinity Faculty-alumni mentorship Class agents + large alumni association “We Are” ~7 U. Maryland ~5% ~9.2% Brand-to-belonging + lifelong learning Faculty as experts, not askers Regional boards / metro engagement “Fearless Ideas” ~7 Michigan State ~7% 11.4% Regional hub activation Research salons; faculty hosts Service-based clubs & regional groups “Spartans Will” ~12 Rutgers (FY25) — 4.1% Fragmented / decentralized Transactional / episodic Ad hoc / legacy-based Athletics / legacy identity Year 0 3) Alumni Engagement Lifecycle Model Interpretation: Rutgers alumni are most often stuck at the Identity/Affinity → Participation transition. The solution is a New Brunswick-centered experience architecture that rebuilds trust through low-stakes participation before any ask. 4) Stakeholder Roadmap (36-Month Action Plan) Stakeholder Group 90-Day Quick Win 12–24 Month Structural Change Centralization Dependency Year 1 / Year 3 Target Advancement Staff CASE-style baseline, suppress premature asks, single data dictionary Stand up central hub (Salesforce/Blackbaud) + solicitation clearance Requires hub first 5.5% by Y1; 7%+ by Y3 Faculty & Deans Pilot “Alumni-in-Classroom” or research salons Embed stewardship in department reviews; mentorship pipelines Pilots independent; scale needs hub Higher reconnection & volunteer conversion Volunteers Appoint recent class agents; launch digital ambassadors Formal tiered pathways + legacy affinity chapters Measurement needs central rules Increased volunteer opt-in Senior Leadership President/Provost “State of the Alumni” address Create Data Governance Council with authority Must resolve centralization gap Policy compliance + brand consistency Participation lift logic Year 1: Primarily data hygiene + suppression → 5.5% Year 2: Engagement conversion via pilots and volunteer pathways Year 3: Full lifecycle effect → 7%+ Cross-cutting operating controls Bi-weekly Data Governance Council Strict solicitation clearance rule (no mass ask without central review) Quarterly executive dashboard Minimum viable hub staffing: 2 data analysts, 1 identity-resolution specialist, 1 marketing-ops liaison Closing recommendation Rutgers should treat alumni engagement as an institutional operating model, not a departmental campaign. Centralize infrastructure and rules. Decentralize relationship ownership to faculty and deans. Build belonging and volunteer pathways before philanthropic asks. Execute the 36-month roadmap with discipline, and the university can move from a fragmented, solicitation-heavy culture to a durable culture of philanthropy and shared ownership.