General Observations Regarding Alumni Engagement at the University

In addition to its findings in the specific areas noted above, the Task Force made the following general observations regarding alumni relations at the University:

1. There are many touch points at which U.Va. alumni can engage with the University, but they are not well organized or promoted. The Alumni Association, the schools, various centers and programs, the President's Office, the Office of University Development, and individual faculty and administrators all have regular contact with alumni. However, these programs are disconnected and not well understood by most alumni.
2. There is no coherent, orchestrated strategy for alumni engagement across the University. The decentralized structure of institutional advancement at the University (alumni affairs, communications, fund raising, etc.) limits the possibilities for improving alumni engagement. Many units operate alumni programs, but they are not directed or even coordinated by any central agency. As a result, the smallest and largest schools are underserved, and the University and it schools fail to take advantage of potential synergies.
3. There is little shared implementation of "best practices" in alumni affairs across schools, programs, and foundations. Duplication of effort across Grounds generates additional costs to the institution and provides few economies of scale.
4. Alumni programs are poorly marketed. Because there is no orchestrated strategy for alumni engagement, there is also no coordinated marketing effort for the variety of programs and activities available.
5. Many worthy programs are under-funded after initially being developed. A number of programs, especially those in the Alumni Association, have established a good foundation but have been unable to grow with the times. These include the regional clubs, Reunions, and HoosOnline.
6. Conflicting development objectives undermine collaboration in alumni engagement. In the schools and in the Alumni Association, alumni relations programs are often intertwined with fund-raising activities. The dual objectives of alumni engagement and fund raising create a level of competition that prevents coordination and partnership among units.
7. The role of the Alumni Association in alumni engagement is unclear. Though its alumni programs receive support from the University, the Alumni Association's structure as a separate, membership-based entity limits its financial and staff capacity for meeting the alumni relations needs of the University and its schools and programs. Also, the alumni relations mission tends to take a back seat to the Alumni Association's extensive foundation responsibilities, such as management of the UVA Fund and stewardship of the Jefferson Scholars Foundation, among other programs.

Alumni Engagement Costs Grounds-wide
For most schools and programs at the University, the alumni relations operations are intertwined with the development function. Because of this overlap, it can be difficult to determine the true aggregate cost of alumni engagement at the University separate from the overall advancement effort. Schools and selected units were asked to report their alumni relations spending and their development spending, as well as the number of staff devoted to each.

The resulting self-reported information shows that the schools and other units spend no less than $34.2 million on institutional advancement, including $19.5 million on development, $8.7 million on alumni relations and $6 million on related areas. All told, more than 320 staff members are devoted to advancement, of which 213 are in development, 81 are in alumni relations, and 26 are in other related duties. By comparison, Stanford University, a useful benchmark against which to compare our programs, spends at least $46 million on advancement, of which $33 million is for development and $13 million is for alumni relations. These figures understate Stanford's spending since they encompass only Stanford's central advancement operations and not various school and unit development and alumni relations programs. Put a different way, Stanford spends $87 per alumnus/alumna on alumni relations, while U.Va. spends $54. Stanford spends approximately $307 per alumnus/alumna for its overall advancement program (alumni relations, communications, and development), while U.Va. spends $214.

"Best in Class": The Stanford Model
Even with its challenges and idiosyncrasies, the alumni engagement program at the University compares well with those of public institutions in its peer group. As it looked for "best in class" examples of alumni programs, the Task Force focused on the top private institutions, which the University wishes to emulate in both the academic and advancement arenas. It soon became clear to the Task Force that Stanford University has the most to teach us about alumni relations. As the University adopts the advancement practices of its private peers, Stanford provides a useful model for several reasons.

• The two schools have alumni populations of similar size.
• Both have a history of independent, membership-based alumni associations.
• Both have a similar tradition of alumni engagement activities dispersed among the alumni association and schools and units, although Stanford's development program is less decentralized than the University's, which will be a factor in U.Va.'s ability to implement change.
• In recent years, Stanford has gone through a similar self-study process to improve its alumni engagement activities, and the results have been tangible and impressive.

It should be noted that Stanford differs in significant ways. For example,

• Stanford is a private institution.
• Its advancement programs are somewhat more centralized.
• It has a longer tradition of cultivating alumni support as a core funding resource.

Because Stanford provides such a compelling example of how a major university can improve alumni relations, the Task Force engaged William E. Stone, president emeritus of the Stanford Alumni Association, to serve as an adviser. Mr. Stone played a central role in elevating Stanford's alumni engagement program to what is arguably the best of its kind. (A fuller discussion of the Stanford program can be found in Appendix E.).