Written from 7 named sources To: Rutgers University Advancement Leadership, Deans, and Institutional Stakeholders From: Senior Advancement Strategy Consultant Date: March 26, 2026 Subject: Strategic Alumni Culture Transformation Report Consolidated note This is the canonical 2026 version of the report. The competing 2025 draft logic has been removed, the peer benchmarks have been normalized to CASE/VSE language where possible, and any public figures that are not perfectly apples-to-apples are labeled as estimated benchmarks rather than exact comparables. The report is organized around a single thesis: Rutgers does not have a fundraising problem alone; it has an identity, governance, and sequencing problem. CASE’s engagement framework makes the sequence clear: communication and experiential engagement precede volunteerism, which precedes philanthropy [1], [3], [7], [9], [10], [14]. 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 [3], [7], [9], [10], [14]. 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. In other words: centralize the infrastructure, decentralize the experience. Measurable outcomes: Michigan is commonly benchmarked at roughly 17.2% alumni giving participation in public reporting, far above the public-university norm; it also sustained a record-setting multibillion-dollar campaign, underscoring the scale that a coherent alumni culture can support [13]. Most transferable insight for Rutgers: Rutgers should not centralize everything—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. The key move was to treat volunteering as an engagement architecture, not an afterthought [3]. Measurable outcomes: Public reporting describes Ohio State as producing very high annual giving volume and a large experiential/touchpoint footprint; the institution 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.” Rutgers should 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 [13]. Most transferable insight for Rutgers: Build the identity before graduation. If Rutgers wants long-term giving, it must 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 Big Ten transition pressures. 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: Public campaign and annual-report materials indicate a strong growth trajectory, with annual giving moving into the $200M+ range and participation improving materially over the decade. Because public comparability is imperfect, treat this as an 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 still 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: Public benchmarks place MSU around 11.4% alumni giving participation, with sustained growth despite leadership changes [13]. Most transferable insight for Rutgers: Alumni engagement should not be restricted to New Brunswick weekends and flagship events. Rutgers needs mission-aligned regional activation in New York, Philadelphia, DC, and North Jersey. Bottom-line pattern across peers The successful peers all did the same four things: Centralized the data and rules Decentralized relationship ownership Built volunteer pathways before philanthropic asks Created a single institutional story that alumni can belong to That is the operating logic Rutgers needs. 2) Institutional Lever Matrix Benchmarking note: Alumni giving participation below is expressed in CASE/VSE terms where possible: donors divided by contactable alumni of record. Public figures are shown as benchmarks, not perfect apples-to-apples comparisons, because institutions report on different schedules and with different denominator definitions [1], [9], [10], [13]. Institution Baseline Giving Participation Current Giving Participation Key Structural Change Faculty Integration Model Volunteer Infrastructure Primary Engagement Hook Years to Measurable Shift U. Michigan ~11% (circa 2001; estimated public benchmark) 17.2% (CASE VSE / U.S. News benchmark) [13] Hub-and-spoke advancement infrastructure Dean-led committees; faculty as relationship stewards Central campaign council; school-based leadership “The Michigan Difference” ~10 Ohio State ~8% (circa 2005; estimated public benchmark) 13.5% (public benchmark) Integrated alumni association inside Advancement Faculty expert model; speakers/mentors Tiered volunteer pathway; digital ambassadors to leadership roles “But for Ohio State” ~8 Penn State ~14% (circa 2000; estimated public benchmark) 18.1% (CASE VSE / U.S. News benchmark) [13] Student-to-alumni pipeline; scalable affinity model Faculty-alumni mentorship Class agent system; large alumni association “We Are” ~7 U. Maryland ~5% (circa 2010; estimated public benchmark) ~9.2% (public annual-report estimate) Brand-to-belonging pivot; lifelong learning emphasis Faculty as experts, not askers Regional boards / metro-area engagement “Fearless Ideas” ~7 Michigan State ~7% (circa 2008; estimated public benchmark) 11.4% (CASE VSE / U.S. News benchmark) [13] Regional hub activation Research salons; faculty hosts Service-based clubs and regional groups “Spartans Will” ~12 Rutgers (FY25) — 4.1% (internal/VSE baseline per briefing) Fragmented / decentralized Transactional / episodic Ad hoc / legacy-based Athletics / legacy-college identity Year 0 3) Alumni Engagement Lifecycle Model This lifecycle is designed to mirror CASE’s engagement logic: value-add communication first, then reconnection, then volunteerism, then philanthropy, then leadership [3], [7], [14], [10]. Interpretation: Rutgers alumni are most likely stuck at the Identity/Affinity → Participation transition. The fix is not another mass ask. The fix is a New Brunswick-centered experience architecture that rebuilds trust, creates low-stakes participation, and only then invites philanthropy [3], [7], [14]. 4) Stakeholder Roadmap 36-Month Action Plan by Stakeholder Group Stakeholder Group 90-Day Quick Win 12–24 Month Structural Change Centralization Dependency Year 1 / Year 3 Target Rutgers Advancement Staff Launch a CASE-style baseline for alumni engagement; define contactable-alumni rules; suppress premature recent-grad asks; start a single data dictionary. Stand up a central hub in Salesforce for Higher Ed or Blackbaud, with one constituent ID, solicitation clearance, and a CASE benchmarking dashboard. Requires the central hub first for full scale and auditability. 5.5% by Year 1; 7%+ by Year 3 Faculty and Deans Pilot 2–3 “Alumni-in-Classroom” or research-salon programs in highly engaged units; position alumni as experts, not donors. Embed alumni stewardship into department reviews and faculty role expectations; build a mentorship-to-donor pipeline. Pilots can start now; scaling requires the hub so alumni can be tracked and nurtured consistently. Higher event-to-reconnection, stronger volunteer conversion Volunteers Appoint class agents for the most recent graduating cohorts; launch lightweight digital ambassador roles. Formalize tiered volunteer pathways and legacy affinity chapters tied to Rutgers College, Cook, and Douglass identities. Can begin as pilots, but measurement and suppression rules require centralization. Increased volunteer opt-in and peer-to-peer reconnection Senior Institutional Leadership President and Provost issue a “State of the Alumni” address and define alumni engagement as a university mission, not an Advancement project. Create a Data Governance Council with authority over data standards, solicitation clearance, and cross-unit SLAs; fund the minimum viable hub staffing. Must resolve the centralization gap first to be credible. Policy compliance, brand consistency, participation lift Participation lift logic A credible path from 4.1% → 5.5% → 7%+ is a combination of denominator cleanup and behavioral lift: Year Main driver What changes Expected effect Year 0 Baseline Fragmented data, siloed solicitation, weak identity 4.1% Year 1 Data hygiene + suppression rules Deduplication, contactability cleanup, fewer conflicting asks, clearer list governance Moves to 5.5% Year 2 Engagement conversion Alumni-in-classroom, regional events, class agents, volunteer pathways Creates numerator growth Year 3 Full lifecycle effect Hub-and-spoke model, consistent stewardship, lower opt-outs, stronger volunteer funnel Reaches 7%+ Cross-cutting operating controls To make the roadmap executable, Rutgers should adopt the following controls: Governance cadence: bi-weekly Data Governance Council meetings; monthly operating dashboard; quarterly executive review. Solicitation clearance rule: no mass ask without central review; exceptions only for time-sensitive major-gift stewardship or contractual deadlines. KPI ownership: Advancement Ops produces; Institutional Analytics validates; Deans review; President receives a quarterly summary. Anti-gaming constraints: measure clicks/reconnections, not opens alone; exclude pledge payments from retention unless a new gift commitment is made; track opt-outs and suppression compliance. Minimum hub staffing: 2 data analysts, 1 identity-resolution specialist, and 1 marketing-ops liaison are the minimum viable team for a credible central model. Closing recommendation Rutgers should treat alumni engagement as an institutional operating model, not a campaign. The path forward is straightforward: centralize the infrastructure, professionalize the rules, give faculty a real relational role, and build alumni belonging before asking for money. If Rutgers does that consistently for 36 months, the university can move from a fragmented, solicitation-heavy model to a durable culture of philanthropy. Sources [1] Voluntary Support of Education: Trends in Alumni Giving — https://www.case.org/resources/voluntary-support-education-trends-alumni-giving [3] Alumni engagement metrics that matter CASE — https://www.case.org/resources/alumni-engagement-metrics-matter [7] CASE Insights on Alumni Engagement — https://www.case.org/research/surveys/case-insights-alumni-engagement [9] CASE Insights on Voluntary Support of Education — https://www.case.org/research/surveys/case-insights-voluntary-support-education [10] Voluntary Support of Education — https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED611088.pdf [13] 20 Colleges Where the Most Alumni Donate U.S. News — https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/colleges-where-the-most-alumni-donate [14] Takeaways from the CASE Insights on Alumni Engagement — https://www.case.org/resources/takeaways-case-insights-alumni-engagement