.svg)
Christina Balotescu
January 26, 2026
(And Why Alumni Engagement Is Under the Microscope)
Advancement leaders entering 2026 are facing a different kind of scrutiny than they did even a few years ago.
Presidents, boards, and CFOs are no longer satisfied with anecdotes about alumni loyalty or stories of “strong relationships.” They want evidence. They want clarity. And increasingly, they want to understand how alumni engagement contributes to institutional priorities like revenue, enrollment, career outcomes, and reputation.
As a result, alumni engagement is moving from a largely trust-based function to one that must be defensible, measurable, and strategic, especially during spring budget planning.
The question advancement leaders are being asked, implicitly or explicitly, is simple: What are we actually getting from our alumni engagement investment?
For a long time, alumni engagement was measured by visible effort. How many emails went out. How many events were held. How many people logged in. How much was raised. Those numbers created a sense of momentum, and in many institutions they were enough to demonstrate progress.
That standard is changing.
Leadership teams are no longer satisfied with proof of activity. They want proof of movement. They are looking for year-over-year growth in contactable alumni. They want to understand what percentage of graduates engage at least once annually, and whether that engagement is expanding or quietly flattening. They are asking which types of participation actually influence long-term giving, advocacy, or mentorship. Increasingly, they are connecting alumni engagement to broader institutional goals such as career outcomes, enrollment strength, and reputation.
This shift is subtle but significant. It moves the conversation away from “What did we do?” toward “What changed because we did it?”
That difference exposes gaps. A system that can send emails and host events may not be able to show whether engagement is compounding. A dashboard that reports attendance may not reveal whether alumni are moving from one-time participants to long-term contributors. Spreadsheets can document effort. They rarely illuminate trajectory.
The institutions that are adapting well are not necessarily working harder. They are working with clearer visibility. Their systems are designed to surface patterns over time, not just transactions in isolation. They can see which segments are growing, which are drifting, and where intervention will matter most.
The new expectation is not more activity. It is evidence that alumni engagement is strengthening the institution in measurable ways.
Alumni engagement is being scrutinized for three reasons:
Every discretionary investment is being evaluated more closely. Alumni relations is no longer exempt from ROI conversations simply because it has always existed.
Alumni engagement is now expected to support:
Many institutions have alumni database software, online alumni directories, and engagement tools. What they lack is cohesive insight across those systems.
This gap makes it difficult for advancement leaders to confidently explain impact.
Most advancement leaders can describe what they are doing. Fewer can clearly articulate what it’s producing.
This is often not a leadership failure, it’s a systems failure.
Fragmented alumni management systems make it difficult to:
When alumni engagement data lives across spreadsheets, email tools, event platforms, and donation systems, reporting becomes manual, incomplete, and reactive.
That’s not a position any advancement leader wants to be in during budget season.
Institutions that are ahead of the curve are aligning alumni engagement reporting with leadership’s expectations.
That typically includes visibility into:
Providing this level of insight requires an alumni engagement platform built for measurement, not just communication.
Related reading:
Measuring and Improving Alumni Engagement
One of the biggest shifts happening now is how alumni engagement technology is perceived.
Institutions that struggle to demonstrate impact often treat alumni platforms as optional or peripheral. Institutions that succeed treat alumni engagement software as strategic infrastructure, on par with CRM systems, enrollment tools, or learning platforms.
That means expecting the alumni community platform to:
When alumni engagement platforms are evaluated this way, budget conversations change. The focus shifts from cost to capability.
Many institutions respond to scrutiny by saying, “We already have an alumni platform.”
That may be true, but it’s not the right question.
The right question is:
Is our platform helping us prove value, or making it harder?
An online alumni community that exists but isn’t actively used does not protect a budget. A platform that cannot show engagement trends does not support leadership confidence.
Executives are increasingly willing to reconsider tools if current systems are not delivering insight or adoption.
Spring planning cycles are not just financial exercises. They are moments of institutional alignment.
Advancement leaders will enter those conversations from a position of strength if they can clearly articulate:
Those who rely on tradition or anecdote are increasingly at risk, no matter how committed they are to their work.
As institutions look ahead, advancement leaders should be prepared to answer one core question:
Can we clearly demonstrate the value of alumni engagement, using data our leadership trusts?
If the answer is yes, alumni engagement becomes a strategic investment worth protecting.
If the answer is unclear, spring budget season will only intensify that pressure.
If you liked this article, you may also like:
For more information on related topics, be sure to connect with us!
.webp){kind=small}
