Colleges and universities are navigating one of the most complex operating environments in recent history. Demographic shifts, financial pressures, and heightened scrutiny around institutional value are forcing boards and leadership teams to reexamine how they define sustainability and accountability.

At the same time, philanthropic support has never been more critical.¹

Gifts from donors, often restricted, purpose-driven, and tied to long-term impact, represent both an opportunity and an institutional responsibility. Yet across higher education, one area remains underdeveloped at the governance level: fund stewardship.

While institutions have made significant investments in fundraising, far less attention has been paid to what happens after the gift is received. The result is a growing disconnect between donor intent, institutional priorities, and financial oversight, with significant governance implications.

From Fundraising Success to Stewardship Risk

For decades, advancement strategies have focused on securing new gifts. Campaigns, pipelines, and donor engagement have rightly been prioritized. But as institutions accumulate thousands (or tens of thousands) of individual funds, managing those commitments has become increasingly complex.

Each fund represents a promise:

• A defined purpose
• A set of criteria or restrictions
• An expectation of impact

Collectively, they form a significant portion of an institution’s financial ecosystem. Yet many institutions lack a centralized, transparent way to answer fundamental questions:

• Are funds being used in accordance with donor intent?
• How much funding remains unspent? And why?
• Do spending patterns align with institutional priorities?
• Can the institution clearly demonstrate impact to donors and stakeholders?

In the absence of clear visibility, fund stewardship becomes fragmented across advancement, finance, and academic units. Data are often siloed, processes are inconsistent, and reporting is reactive rather than strategic.

From a governance perspective, this is more than an operational challenge. It is a fiduciary risk.²

Unspent Funds and Misalignment: An Emerging Governance Concern

Across the sector, institutions are grappling with growing balances of unspent restricted funds. In many cases, these balances represent well-intentioned delays: projects that have not yet launched, positions that remain unfilled, or spending plans that are unclear.

However, without active oversight, these balances can accumulate to significant levels.

Industry research and benchmarking efforts suggest that many institutions have millions of dollars in restricted funds that remain unspent or underutilized. While not inherently problematic, these balances raise important governance questions:

• Is the college or university deploying resources effectively to support institutional priorities?
• Are there structural barriers that are preventing the institution from using the funds?
• Is the institution honoring the intent behind each gift?

For boards, this is not simply a financial reporting issue. It is a question of accountability and alignment.

In an era where stakeholders increasingly expect transparency, the inability to demonstrate how an institution is using philanthropic funds, and what impact they are having, can erode confidence over time.

Donor Intent and Institutional Trust

Philanthropy is built on trust.

Donors give with the expectation that the institution will use their contributions as intended and that their impact will be visible. When institutions are unable to clearly communicate how they are deploying funds, that trust can weaken.

Increasingly, donors are asking more sophisticated questions:

• What has my gift accomplished?
• How is the institution managing the funds over time?
• How does my support align with institutional priorities?

These expectations are not limited to major donors. They reflect a broader shift toward transparency and accountability in philanthropy.

For boards, this has direct implications for institutional reputation. Stewardship is no longer just a function of advancement; it reflects how effectively the institution manages its commitments.

A Data and Visibility Gap at the Board Level

Despite the importance of fund stewardship, many boards lack the visibility needed to provide meaningful oversight.

Traditional reporting structures focus on high-level financial performance:

• Total funds raised
• Endowment growth
• Campaign progress

While these metrics are essential, they do not provide insight into the donor lifecycle (from gift receipt to impact) that is essential to the long-term health of the program.

As a result, boards are often unable to answer key questions:

• How is the college or university utilizing restricted funds across the institution?
• Where are there delays or bottlenecks?
• What outcomes are donor dollars achieving?

Without this visibility, stewardship remains an operational issue rather than a strategic priority.

Elevating Fund Stewardship as a Governance Priority

Addressing this gap requires a shift in perspective.

Institutions should not view fund stewardship solely as an advancement or finance function. It is a cross-functional responsibility that sits at the intersection of governance, finance, and institutional strategy.

Boards and leadership teams can begin by asking a new set of questions:

1. Visibility: Do we have a clear, consolidated view of all restricted funds and their status?
2. Alignment: How do spending patterns align with institutional priorities?
3. Accountability: Are we consistently honoring donor intent?
4. Impact: Can we demonstrate the outcomes of philanthropic support?

These questions move stewardship from a reactive reporting exercise to a proactive governance discipline.

The Role of Technology in Modern Stewardship

As the scale and complexity of fund management increase, many institutions are recognizing that manual processes and fragmented systems are no longer sufficient.

Data related to funds, donors, and financial activity are often spread across multiple platforms, making it difficult to create a unified view. This fragmentation limits both operational efficiency and strategic insight.

Modern approaches to stewardship focus on:

• Integrating fund, donor, and financial data.
• Standardizing processes across units.
• Providing real-time visibility into fund activity.
• Enabling clear, consistent reporting.

These capabilities not only support day-to-day operations but also enable leadership and boards to make more informed decisions.

Looking Ahead: Stewardship as a Measure of Institutional Effectiveness

As higher education continues to evolve, the institutions that succeed will be those that can demonstrate financial discipline and mission-driven impact.

Fund stewardship sits at the intersection of these priorities. It reflects how effectively an institution:

• Manages its resources.
• Honors its commitments.
• Communicates its impact.

As leaders gather at the 2026 AGB National Conference on Trusteeship in Denver, Colorado, conversations around governance, sustainability, and accountability will take center stage. Fund stewardship should be part of that conversation because ultimately, the question is not just how much institutions raise but how effectively they use those resources to advance their mission.

A Quiet Shift Across the Sector

Across higher education, a quiet shift is already underway. Institutions are beginning to rethink how they manage and report on philanthropic funds—moving toward more integrated, transparent, and data-driven approaches.

Platforms like FundMiner are leading this shift, helping institutions bring together fund, donor, and financial data into a single, fund-centric view. More importantly, they are enabling institutions to move beyond reporting and toward a clearer understanding of impact.

For boards and leadership teams, this evolution presents an opportunity: to elevate fund stewardship from an operational afterthought to a core component of governance—and in doing so, to strengthen both institutional performance and public trust.

Haider Ali is the head of strategic partnerships and marketing at FundMiner.

1. Laura Yonish, “Why Supporting Charities Matters More Than Ever,” Charities Aid Foundation, December 12, 2025, https://www.cafonline.org/personal-giving/resources/why-supporting-charities-matters-more-than-ever#:~:text=In%20Camden%2C%20Somers%20Town%20Community,simple:%20yes%2C%20it%20does/.

2. Greg McRay, “Are You Misappropriating Your Nonprofit’s Funds? A Look at Restricted Donations,” CEO’s Blog, Foundation Group, July 22, 2024, https://www.501c3.org/misappropriating-nonprofit-funds/.

What should boards know about fostering an inclusive environment while supporting free speech on campus?

This is a hard balance to strike. People on your board, in the president’s cabinet, and across campus will disagree (often vehemently) about how expression-related conflicts should be resolved. It will be challenging and frustrating and oftentimes it will feel like no one is happy. That is likely evidence you are doing it well.

Go back to basics and start with your board. Board members should receive regular education about the First Amendment and how its principles apply to public and private institutions of higher learning. They should (1) understand that virulently bigoted and mean-spirited speech is protected by our Constitution, (2) be able to explain why protecting ugly speech is valuable at a college or university, (3) be prepared to articulate what campus community members can expect from the institution if they encounter hateful speech, and (4) be able both to distinguish between free expression and academic freedom and to explain why each are vital to the ongoing survival of higher education.

Don’t wait for controversy to find you. Create and regularly review speech-related policies before you are in the news. Prepare by practicing how your campus leadership will gather and synthesize information and make tough but thoughtful decisions under intense time pressure.

Make concerted effort to include and listen to representatives of all campus constituencies when policymaking. Invest in dissemination and training of policies.

Be transparent whenever possible.

Hold fast to your mission and values in the face of political pressure. Succumbing to such pressure can lead to the suppression (unintended or otherwise) of voices on campus. Finding the courage to stand up for expression, even when it is objectionable, is not only the principled choice, but it may also be the strategy that wins the day.

How has the UC National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement helped to support free speech on UC campuses and across the country?

Education is at the core of everything we do. Individuals cannot protect and defend what they do not understand. Studies show that most American adults cannot name the five freedoms covered by the First Amendment nor do they realize that the Constitution is about protecting individuals from the government (not from other individuals or from private companies). Without a fundamental understanding of what our constitutional rights entitle us to and how we can use them to further dialogue, dissent, and the continued creation of new knowledge, we will be unable to maintain our enviable system of higher education, a cornerstone of our democracy.

Through workshops, presentations, webinars, podcasts, annual conferences, research and fellowship opportunities, the Center has created numerous entry points for exploration and discovery about campus expression. In 2025, more than 2,000 people attended Center workshops, more than 4,000 listened to our SpeechMatters podcast, and more than 140 colleges and universities and 37 civil society organizations were represented at our annual conference.

Relying on nuance, integrity, and the power of community, our programs and research create connections between people who are courageously using the power of expression to respond to the gravest threats American institutions of higher learning have faced in the past century.

What is your top piece of advice for institutions looking to safeguard free speech while also maintaining a safe and inclusive campus climate?

There is no singular formula for “how to” safeguard expression while also maintaining a safe and inclusive campus climate. So, rather than search for a silver bullet, commit to incorporating the question of “how to” at every step: when you discuss your college or university’s mission, your values, your initiatives, your recruiting, your messaging. Consistently ask: How do the institution’s decisions continue to reflect your commitment to dissent and discussion, as well as to the promise of inclusivity and belonging? How do you show the diverse members of your community that you are meaningfully investing in this endeavor?

–Interview by Justine Ballard, assistant editor of Trusteeship