Background
Tufts Annual Giving partnered with BWF, a nonprofit fundraising
consultation firm, to better understand perspectives of constituents
through the development of a survey administered across three waves from
2022-2024. Questions asked about multiple dimensions of engagement,
philanthropic priorities, and connection to the university. The
following analysis combines responses from select questions on the
survey during the third wave and constituent data from our CRM database
of over 2600 alumni. Please refer to the Appendix for the selected
survey questions and definitions of variables.
Capacity and Annual
Giving Trends
Tables
Philanthropic Support Rank and Self-Reported Future Engagement
|
Philanthropic Ranking
|
Total Constituents
|
Less Engaged Rate
|
More Engaged Rate
|
Same Engagement Rate
|
No response
|
|
Top 1
|
106
|
5.66%
|
26.42%
|
66.98%
|
0.94%
|
|
Top 3
|
553
|
4.34%
|
19.53%
|
75.77%
|
0.36%
|
|
Support - not top 3
|
991
|
5.45%
|
17.76%
|
76.79%
|
0%
|
|
No plan to support
|
942
|
24.73%
|
5.94%
|
69.21%
|
0.11%
|
|
No response
|
24
|
8.33%
|
12.5%
|
62.5%
|
16.67%
|
Overall, the majority of respondents across all philanthropic support
ranking categories reported on the survey they expected to have the same
level of engagement rank when looking ahead to coming years. As
expected, a higher rate of those who had no plans to support Tufts also
reported they would have less engagement. The “Top 1” ranking had the
highest rate of respondents expecting to be more engaged.
Philanthropic Support Rank by Wealth Screening Categories
|
Phil_Support
|
None
|
Rated Low / Unable to Rate
|
$10k - 99.9k
|
$100k - 249.9k
|
$250k - 499.9k
|
$500k - 999.9k
|
$1M - 2.49M
|
|
Top 1
|
11
|
9
|
52
|
10
|
0
|
20
|
4
|
|
Top 3
|
54
|
43
|
260
|
104
|
0
|
82
|
10
|
|
Support - not top 3
|
87
|
120
|
492
|
157
|
1
|
114
|
20
|
|
No plan to support
|
176
|
126
|
429
|
136
|
0
|
71
|
4
|
|
No response
|
5
|
4
|
7
|
3
|
0
|
5
|
0
|
Wealth screening can help understand people’s capacity to give, so
having a sense of this capacity when examining where people rank Tufts
in their philanthropic priorities can be a jumping off point. The
majority of the people who fell into the two highest wealth screening
categories did indicate on the survey that Tufts is a place they plan to
support to some degree.
Average ASE Annual Giving FY24-FY26 by Self-Reported Future Engagement
|
Future Engagement
|
Average Amount
|
Number of Donors
|
|
Did not respond
|
$6690
|
8
|
|
Less engaged
|
$588
|
319
|
|
More engaged
|
$763
|
371
|
|
Same level of engagement
|
$1399
|
1918
|
Average total ASE annual giving across FY24 through the end of
January FY26 is lowest for respondents who reported they would expect to
be less engaged, which would be expected. Those reporting they would
expect to be more engaged on average gave about half the amount those
reporting same levels of engagement, which could be something to note.
However, there are over 5x the amount of people in the same engagement
group, so there could be more of a chance of having some extreme
outliers that skew the average.
FY26 Giving Compared to FY25 Giving by Self-Reported Future Engagement
|
Future Engagement
|
Did not give either FY
|
Gave same both FY
|
Gave more in FY26
|
Gave more in FY25
|
|
Did not respond
|
5
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
|
Less engaged
|
270
|
11
|
19
|
19
|
|
More engaged
|
265
|
21
|
31
|
54
|
|
Same level of engagement
|
1284
|
151
|
191
|
292
|
When comparing the annual giving amounts people gave to ASE in FY25
and through January of FY26, there are equal numbers of people in the
less engaged group who gave more in FY26 and gave more in FY25. The more
engaged and same engaged groups have higher counts of people who gave
more in FY25, which could be attributed to FY26 only being a little over
half way complete at the time of analyzing the data.
Average ASE Annual Giving FY24-FY26 by Philanthropic Ranking Category
|
Philanthropic Rank
|
Average Amount
|
Number of Donors
|
|
Top 1
|
$4133
|
106
|
|
Top 3
|
$3815
|
553
|
|
Support - not top 3
|
$603
|
991
|
|
No plan to support
|
$25
|
942
|
|
No response
|
$1649
|
24
|
Average total ASE annual giving across FY24 through the end of
January FY26 is lowest for respondents who reported no plans to support
Tufts philanthropically, and those in the “Top 1” and “Top 3” groups
have the highest averages, which all aligns with how people ranked their
philanthropic support.
Graphs
The three graphs above all display the total sum of ASE annual giving
for the three most recent FYs by philanthropic support rank, expected
future engagement, and level of pride in Tufts. Since the sum is being
used, rather than averages, the number of people in each category is
listed under each graph, as that will heavily influence the giving
amounts. These graphs can be helpful to examine within group patterns or
trends. Similar to previous tables, FY26 giving is only through January,
whereas the others are the full FY, so lower FY26 bars could potentially
be explained by that.
Similar to the first set of graphs, these also display FY24-FY26
giving patterns across future engagement, philanthropic support rank,
and pride level. Each color bar represents a different category of total
ASE annual giving amounts across the three FYs, and the graphs display
the counts of people in each amount category. In the original data
analysis in Excel, there was an additional total amount category that
was $999 or less, but it was removed from the graph due to the counts of
people across all categories being so much higher than any other giving
amount category. As seen in a previous table, there were high counts of
people who did not give in either FY26 or FY25, so there were a lot of
people in the $999 or less category who gave zero dollars across all
three FYs. If I were to create the column again when originally working
with the data, I would have created a separate category for did not give
at all, and then $1-$999.
Primary
Segmentation
Self-Reported Future Engagement Level Counts by Primary Segment
|
Future Engagement
|
Current Year
|
LYBUNT
|
SYBUNT
|
Lapsed
|
Never
|
|
Less engaged
|
11.6%
|
5.02%
|
24.14%
|
36.68%
|
22.57%
|
|
More engaged
|
19.68%
|
9.97%
|
24.53%
|
25.88%
|
19.95%
|
|
Same level of engagement
|
24.45%
|
10.64%
|
20.39%
|
28.83%
|
15.69%
|
|
Did not respond
|
37.5%
|
0%
|
12.5%
|
50%
|
0%
|
Donor Segmentation by Pride Level
|
Pride Level
|
Current Year
|
LYBUNT
|
SYBUNT
|
Lapsed
|
Never
|
|
1
|
2.7%
|
1.35%
|
22.3%
|
45.27%
|
28.38%
|
|
2
|
6.88%
|
5.5%
|
22.02%
|
36.24%
|
29.36%
|
|
3
|
12.5%
|
5.45%
|
18.86%
|
40.45%
|
22.73%
|
|
4
|
23.19%
|
10.56%
|
23.33%
|
28.06%
|
14.86%
|
|
5
|
31.51%
|
13.16%
|
20.95%
|
22.15%
|
12.23%
|
|
Did not respond
|
9.09%
|
9.09%
|
18.18%
|
45.45%
|
18.18%
|
|
Note:
|
Survey question: I am proud to be affiliated with Tufts
University
Scale: 1 (strongly disagree) - 5 (strongly agree)
|
The two tables above show the rates of primary segmentation by
expected future engagement and pride level. The distribution of rates in
both tables align with what would be expected based on survey
response.
Allocation
Priorities
Top Allocation Priorities by Self-Reported Future Engagement
|
Future Engagement
|
Financial Aid
|
Greatest Need
|
Hardship
|
Athletics
|
Career
|
Faculty Research
|
Facilities
|
No response
|
|
Did not respond
|
3
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
4
|
|
Less engaged
|
113
|
36
|
53
|
24
|
19
|
25
|
30
|
95
|
|
More engaged
|
181
|
89
|
68
|
31
|
30
|
38
|
30
|
38
|
|
Same level of engagement
|
926
|
500
|
330
|
118
|
111
|
174
|
151
|
252
|
Top Allocation Priorities by Philanthropic Ranking Category
|
Philanthropic Ranking
|
Financial Aid
|
Greatest Need
|
Hardship
|
Athletics
|
Career
|
Faculty Research
|
Facilities
|
No response
|
|
Top 1
|
55
|
22
|
9
|
15
|
7
|
12
|
15
|
7
|
|
Top 3
|
269
|
198
|
74
|
51
|
37
|
59
|
53
|
39
|
|
Support - not top 3
|
482
|
276
|
189
|
68
|
47
|
79
|
77
|
111
|
|
No plan to support
|
413
|
128
|
178
|
40
|
68
|
86
|
66
|
216
|
|
No response
|
4
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
16
|
The original question on the survey had each person designate
percentages to 7 possible allocation areas based on where they would
give a $1M dollar gift to Tufts, and a new column was created in Excel
that took the area with the highest percentage for each constituent. If
there was a tie between more than one area, all were listed. From there,
columns were created for each area (plus one for no response) and were
coded 0/1 for each allocation, with 1 indicating it was in the
constituent’s top priority list. For context, 583 out of over 2600
respondents had a tie between at least two allocation areas. Across all
groups in both tables, Financial Aid was the most commonly chosen area
as a top priority, with Area of Greatest Need and Student Hardship Fund
being the next most common areas.
First Alum Year
Pride Level by First Alum Year Decade
|
First Alum Year Decade
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
Before 1960s
|
0%
|
4.17%
|
20.83%
|
20.83%
|
54.17%
|
|
1960s
|
3.38%
|
4.14%
|
19.92%
|
27.82%
|
44.74%
|
|
1970s
|
2.3%
|
6.39%
|
14.32%
|
26.09%
|
50.9%
|
|
1980s
|
7.04%
|
7.51%
|
13.15%
|
25.59%
|
46.71%
|
|
1990s
|
7.02%
|
7.02%
|
14.47%
|
23.9%
|
47.59%
|
|
2000s
|
3.38%
|
5.71%
|
18.96%
|
31.17%
|
40.78%
|
|
2010s
|
6.85%
|
11.49%
|
21.52%
|
33.99%
|
26.16%
|
|
2020s
|
12.05%
|
20.98%
|
16.96%
|
25.45%
|
24.55%
|
|
Note:
|
Survey question: I am proud to be affiliated with Tufts
University
Scale: 1 (strongly disagree) - 5 (strongly agree)
|
Across all decades except for the 2010s and 2020s, at least 70% of
people who agreed or strongly agreed they were proud to be affiliated
with Tufts. The more recent decades both had a sizable decrease in
percentage of people who strongly agreed, and the 2020s had exactly 50%
of people who agreed or strongly agreed. Those who graduated in the
2010s had the highest rates of neither agree nor disagree, but those who
graduated in the 2020s had both the highest rates of strongly disagree
and disagree on the question. It would be worth exploring why this may
be the case because if people are not feeling proud to be affiliated
with Tufts, they could be less likely to give or engage in other ways.
Knowledge of Involvement Resources by First Alum Year Decade
|
First Alum Year Decade
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
Before 1960s
|
14.71%
|
17.65%
|
38.24%
|
17.65%
|
11.76%
|
|
1960s
|
8.7%
|
18.36%
|
32.85%
|
24.15%
|
15.94%
|
|
1970s
|
10.2%
|
14.47%
|
31.58%
|
24.34%
|
19.41%
|
|
1980s
|
8.05%
|
15.52%
|
27.59%
|
26.72%
|
22.13%
|
|
1990s
|
6.58%
|
16.46%
|
31.39%
|
22.53%
|
23.04%
|
|
2000s
|
8.73%
|
22.89%
|
28.01%
|
24.7%
|
15.66%
|
|
2010s
|
8.66%
|
21.79%
|
35.22%
|
24.18%
|
10.15%
|
|
2020s
|
12.5%
|
22.62%
|
30.36%
|
20.83%
|
13.69%
|
|
Note:
|
Survey question: I know where to go to become more involved
at Tufts
Scale: 1 (strongly disagree) - 5 (strongly agree)
|
The most common response to knowing where to become more involved at
Tufts was a 3, across all decades, and the 1980s and 1990s had the
highest rates of people answering a 4 or 5. There was not one particular
number on the scale that was dominant, with pretty wide spreads between
2 and 5, as 1 was the least common response for all decades. This
finding can be helpful when thinking about promoting ways to become more
involved, and how to do it in a way where people will know where to go
to find the information. This question isn’t focusing on whether they
will get more involved, but rather they know what resources exist if
they want to be more involved.
Each decade had a similar distribution of philanthropic support rank,
except for 2010s and 2020s, where the majority of people responded they
would support Tufts, but it’s not in their top 3, followed by no plan to
support being the next most common for most decades, and top 3 was the
third most common. The 2010s and 2020s had a different pattern where the
most common response was no plan to support followed by support, but not
in the top 3. The differing patterns of responses between the more
recent decades and older decades could be related to the responses about
pride level. This graph shows there could be a correlation between how
proud people are to be affiliated with Tufts and how high of a
philanthropic priority it is to them, but more would need to be explored
before making that conclusion.
Appendix
Survey Questions Used
for Analysis
Question: Looking ahead, how engaged do you
expect to be with Tufts University?
Response Scale: Less engaged, More engaged,
Same Level of Engagement, No response
Question: I am proud to be affiliated with
Tufts University.
Response Scale: 1 (strongly disagree) - 5
(strongly agree)
Question: Where does Tufts University rank
among your choices for philanthropic support?
Response Scale: Top 1, Top 3, Support - not
top 3, No plan to support, No response
Question: If you were making a $1M
charitable donation to Tufts University, how would you allocate your
gift among these Tufts University priorities?
Please indicate the percentages towards the following priorities. -
Financial aid, Career center, Athletics, Faculty Research, Facilities,
Student Hardship Fund, Area of greatest need
Response Scale: The original question on the
survey had each person designate percentages to the possible allocations
above, and a new column was created that took the area with the highest
percentage. If there was a tie between more than one area, all were
listed in the new column. From there, columns were created for each
allocation (plus one for no response) and were coded 0/1, with 1
indicating it was a top priority.
Question: I feel well informed about what
is going on at Tufts University.
Response Scale: 1 (strongly disagree) - 5
(strongly agree)
Question: I know where to go to become more
involved in Tufts University.
Response Scale: 1 (strongly disagree) - 5
(strongly agree)