Why does wealth screening show more capacity than our alumni actually give?

Because capacity measures what a person could give and giving history measures what someone has asked them for. In education campaigns the gap is usually large, and it almost always points to a development office that has never been staffed for major gift work rather than to disinterested alumni. Closing that gap is normally the first recommendation in the study.

How should we filter our alumni file for a campaign?

By age at graduation rather than graduation year alone, combined with geography and a wealth screen against explicit capacity thresholds. Filtering for alumni who graduated at thirty or older removes recent graduates still listed at a parent's address, which otherwise returns the parents' wealth and sends the campaign after the wrong person with the wrong number.

Do we need to clean our alumni data before a feasibility study?

Yes, and it usually takes longer than institutions expect. Large alumni files need deduplication against the donor file, geographic filtering, and phone and email append before wealth screening produces anything useful. In one Catapult engagement, append raised phone coverage from roughly 55 percent to 74 percent, and records older than about fifteen years were not usable at all.

Should our board set one campaign goal or several?

Model at least two. In a recent Catapult study for a university preparing a nine-figure campaign, full gift charts were built at both $225 million and $250 million so the board could compare them side by side. Two charts move the decision away from an argument about ambition and toward a question you can answer with your file: which one can we populate with named prospects at every tier.

How much does a feasibility study cost for a school or university?

Feasibility study cost varies with the size of the prospect universe, the number of interviews, travel, and how many regions have to be covered. As a working range, a well-run feasibility study runs between $50,000 and $75,000. Studies retained alongside campaign planning and the quiet phase are priced more favorably than the same phases purchased separately.

Capital Campaigns by Sector

Schools and universities.

Alumni are not simply giving to an institution. They are often giving to a part of their own story. That connection matters. It affects what they care about, how they respond to a campaign, and sometimes how quickly they are willing to make a gift.

Students walking a tree-lined university campus avenue

Capacity in an Alumni File Usually Exceeds What Alumni Are Actually Giving

This is the most common finding in education feasibility studies, and it is good news. In a study Catapult conducted for a law school preparing a nine-figure campaign, wealth screening showed capacity substantially greater than the amounts that same group was donating. That gap is not a donor problem. It is an asking problem, and it usually traces back to a development office that was never staffed to do major gift work.

Screen for capacity before you set a goal, then compare capacity against actual giving history
A large gap means the goal can be more ambitious than the giving record suggests
It also means the campaign has to fund the fundraising, because nobody is currently doing that work
Capacity without contact history is a list, not a pipeline

Bring the Board Two Goals, Not One

In that same law school study, Catapult modeled the campaign at two levels and built a full gift chart for each, at $225 million and at $250 million. We do that deliberately. A single number invites a yes or no argument about ambition. Two charts turn the board conversation into a question of evidence: which chart can we actually populate with named prospects at every tier, and what would have to be true to reach the higher one.

Build a complete gift chart for each scenario rather than scaling one proportionally
Test the top of each chart against real names before the board votes
The gap between the two scenarios is almost always concentrated in the lead gifts
A goal you can populate beats a goal you can defend rhetorically

Your Alumni Data Will Change Once You Start Looking Closely

Education files are large, old, and dirty. In one Catapult campaign engagement a 57,400-name alumni list covering fifteen years had to be filtered by proximity to the campaign's geography, filtered again by zip code affluence, and deduplicated against the donor file before wealth screening was worth running. Data append raised phone coverage from about 55 percent to 74 percent and email from 46 percent to 55 percent. Records older than roughly fifteen years were judged too outdated to be actionable at all.

Budget time and money for data work before the study, not during the campaign
Deduplicate against the donor file first, or you pay to screen the same people twice
Expect to discard a meaningful share of the file and plan around what is left
Append phone and email before any outreach, or your contact rate will decide your campaign for you

Filter by Age at Graduation, Not by Graduation Year

This one small decision changes prospect quality more than any other filter in an education file. Alumni who graduated at thirty or older are more likely to be career-motivated and, critically, more likely to have their own address on file rather than a parent's. Screening a young graduate still listed at the family home returns the parents' wealth, which sends the campaign after the wrong person with the wrong number. In the engagement above, that filter plus geography and affluence screens narrowed 57,400 names to roughly 6,562 worth appending, and the wealth screen that followed targeted the $500,000 and $1 million capacity thresholds and projected 300 to 400 qualified prospects.

Age at graduation is a proxy for both capacity and address reliability
Screen against explicit capacity thresholds rather than pulling everyone with a rating
Prioritize within the results by degree or program, because affinity is not evenly distributed
Newly identified alumni prospects need roughly 12 to 18 months of cultivation before a campaign ask

Your Reputation Matters More Than Your Database

Education donors track their school's standing closely, and their giving follows it. In one feasibility study, interviewees praised the quality of the education and the faculty while raising real concerns about a recent name change, a decline in bar passage rates, and limited recognition outside the immediate region. Those concerns did not stop the campaign. They shaped the case for support, and they had to be surfaced in confidential interviews rather than discovered after a public announcement.

Alumni will tell a third-party interviewer things they will not tell the advancement office
Ranking movement, leadership changes, and naming decisions all show up in interview transcripts
The case for support has to answer the objection, not avoid it

Leadership Has a Lot to Do With Timing

In education, donors give while a president, dean, or head of school they trust is still in place. In one study the most common comment about timing was a version of the same thought: do it while the current dean is here. That comment reflects a real scheduling constraint on the campaign timetable. It also means a leadership transition mid-campaign is a bigger risk in education than in almost any other sector.

Confirm the tenure horizon of your leader before setting a five-year campaign timetable
Trustee and alumni confidence attaches to individuals, not to the org chart
If a transition is coming, front-load the quiet phase

What Donors Tend to Support in Education Campaigns

Across education studies, the parts of the menu that draw the strongest donor support are consistent: scholarships and financial aid, faculty recruitment and retention, and endowment. Facilities projects test well when donors can see that the building matches the institution the school is trying to become. Interviewees are also generous with suggestions, and their additions are worth listening to, because they reveal what they are willing to fund.

Scholarships have the broadest appeal across every alumni generation
Endowment resonates most with older alumni who think in terms of permanence
Facilities need a story about trajectory, not just square footage
Ask interviewees what is missing from the menu, then read the pattern in the answers

Common Questions

Why does wealth screening show more capacity than our alumni actually give?: Because capacity measures what a person could give and giving history measures what someone has asked them for. In education campaigns the gap is usually large, and it almost always points to a development office that has never been staffed for major gift work rather than to disinterested alumni. Closing that gap is normally the first recommendation in the study.
How should we filter our alumni file for a campaign?: By age at graduation rather than graduation year alone, combined with geography and a wealth screen against explicit capacity thresholds. Filtering for alumni who graduated at thirty or older removes recent graduates still listed at a parent's address, which otherwise returns the parents' wealth and sends the campaign after the wrong person with the wrong number.
Do we need to clean our alumni data before a feasibility study?: Yes, and it usually takes longer than institutions expect. Large alumni files need deduplication against the donor file, geographic filtering, and phone and email append before wealth screening produces anything useful. In one Catapult engagement, append raised phone coverage from roughly 55 percent to 74 percent, and records older than about fifteen years were not usable at all.
Should our board set one campaign goal or several?: Model at least two. In a recent Catapult study for a university preparing a nine-figure campaign, full gift charts were built at both $225 million and $250 million so the board could compare them side by side. Two charts move the decision away from an argument about ambition and toward a question you can answer with your file: which one can we populate with named prospects at every tier.
How much does a feasibility study cost for a school or university?: Feasibility study cost varies with the size of the prospect universe, the number of interviews, travel, and how many regions have to be covered. As a working range, a well-run feasibility study runs between $50,000 and $75,000. Studies retained alongside campaign planning and the quiet phase are priced more favorably than the same phases purchased separately.

Education is one of four sectors where Catapult runs campaigns with materially different playbooks. See also Churches & Faith Communities, Social Service Organizations, and Healthcare Organizations. The phases themselves are the same everywhere: see Capital Campaign Counsel and Feasibility Studies.

Figures on this page come from Catapult feasibility studies and calling programs. Client organizations are described by type rather than by name to protect confidentiality.

Ready to catapult your next campaign?

Tell us about your goal, timeline, and donor base. We’ll respond within one business day.

Start the Conversation

Schools and universities.

Capacity in an Alumni File Usually Exceeds What Alumni Are Actually Giving

Bring the Board Two Goals, Not One

Your Alumni Data Will Change Once You Start Looking Closely

Filter by Age at Graduation, Not by Graduation Year

Your Reputation Matters More Than Your Database

Leadership Has a Lot to Do With Timing

What Donors Tend to Support in Education Campaigns

Related reading.

Why a Feasibility Study Matters Before a Capital Campaign

Planning a Capital Campaign: The Gift Chart and Quiet Phase

How Much Does a Capital Campaign Cost?

Questions we answer in full

Ready to catapult your next campaign?