What advancement teams are deprioritizing—and why it matters

Operating with fewer resources, tighter budgets, and leaner teams is the new norm for advancement.

EAB’s latest survey of advancement leaders shows just how widespread this reality is. 65% of leaders report that their teams are doing more with less, with 77% navigating open positions. In response, leaders are having to make necessary tradeoffs. This year, 60% say they are deprioritizing less urgent work, up from 42% just a year ago.

Expectations from leadership, budget constraints, and institutional priorities all play a role in shaping these decisions. Leaders are making necessary tradeoffs to keep up with demand while also trying to protect the morale, capacity, and sustainability of their teams. Those decisions are necessary, but they can also pose a risk to the long-term health and growth of your programs. When everything cannot get done, what you choose to take off the list becomes one of the most important strategic decisions you make.

Below, I’ll explore what the data suggests advancement teams are deprioritizing, what those decisions mean for growth, and how leaders can navigate tradeoffs more effectively.

What’s getting deprioritized

Looking at the survey results, there are a few common areas where advancement teams are pulling back or underinvesting:

1. Using data to inform and optimize strategy

Only 47% of advancement leaders say they are adjusting strategy based on data. Most describe their data as “adequate” or “limited,” and 73% rely on it for basic reporting or segmentation.

When teams are understaffed or under pressure, the work of digging into data, testing new approaches, and refining strategy is often one of the first things to go. In theory, you can still run campaigns without it. So, it gets treated as a “nice to have” rather than something essential. Teams fall back on familiar approaches instead of stepping back to understand what is actually working and where performance can improve.

The challenge is that this is the work that allows teams to refine targeting, test new strategies, and improve performance over time. Without it, outreach remains broad and decisions are driven more by habit than results. That shows up in slower growth and weaker engagement, not because teams are not working hard, but because they are not getting the full value out of the effort they are already putting in.

2. Acquiring and engaging donors through digital channels

32% of advancement teams are not using paid digital advertising at all, and only 15% rank expanding digital as a top priority. At the same time, focus on engaging young alumni has dropped from 72% to 55% year over year.

Digital marketing has become one of the most effective ways to reach and engage prospective donors, especially those who are not already in your database. But it is often underdeveloped rather than intentionally prioritized. It can feel complex, resource-intensive, or outside the expertise of the team. In many cases, institutions rely on organic social or email and assume they are “doing digital,” without fully leveraging its ability to reach new audiences at scale.

This is the work that ultimately fuels the pipeline. Bringing in new donors takes time. From EAB research, we know it can take years of consistent engagement before a donor makes a meaningful gift. That engagement is increasingly happening on digital channels, particularly for younger alumni who expect to interact with institutions in the same ways they engage with everything else in their lives.

When this work is deprioritized, the impact is not immediate, but it is significant. Fewer new donors enter the pipeline, and programs become more reliant on a limited pool of existing supporters. 

3. Stewarding donor gifts and donor relationships consistently

Only 28% of advancement leaders say they engage donors “very consistently” across segments through stewardship. At the same time, 84% say stewardship is critical to building a donor pipeline, yet most describe their approach as inconsistent and difficult to scale.

When teams are stretched, it is easy to move on after a gift is made. The focus shifts to the next campaign, the next deadline, or the next opportunity to bring in revenue. But this is the work that sustains momentum, reinforcing impact, building trust, and keeping donors connected to your institution over time.

When stewardship and donor relations are inconsistent, donors are less likely to stay engaged, give again, or increase their support. At a time when acquiring new donors is becoming more difficult, that creates additional pressure on the pipeline.

Deprioritizing this work shows up in lower retention rates and reduced upgrade potential. Not because donors are unwilling to give, but because the relationship is not being consistently reinforced.

How to decide what should (and shouldn’t) be deprioritized

In advancement, everything can feel important. But when capacity is limited, what you choose to deprioritize becomes a strategic decision. There is no perfect answer, but a more deliberate approach can help ensure the right work continues to move forward.

1. Assess the short- and long-term impact before cutting

Before deprioritizing any work, take a step back and consider both the immediate and downstream effects. Some decisions may relieve pressure in the short term but create gaps in pipeline, engagement, or revenue later.

2. Anchor decisions to your strategic plan

Every tradeoff should tie back to your advancement goals and institutional strategic plan. If an initiative is not clearly aligned to either, it becomes easier to deprioritize.

3. Find a different way to get critical work done

Work across digital, data, and stewardship requires capacity and expertise many teams do not have. When that work is at risk of being cut, the better move is often to find a different way to deliver it. Strategic partnerships can help maintain momentum without adding internal strain.

At the end of the day, the pressure on advancement teams to deliver results with limited resources isn’t going anywhere. Learning how to and what to cut from our workloads, and understanding the implications down the road, are critical leadership functions today. The decisions you make about what to deprioritize will shape your results, not just this year, but for years to come. 

Jenny Jones

Principal, Advancement Marketing Services

Read Bio

• Jenny Jones's LinkedIn page