46 %
operate on one FTE or less
Finding 01
The capacity gap
Most stewardship programs run on a sliver of a full-time role, so the work competes with everything else on one person's plate.
2026
Stewardship Benchmark Survey
We surveyed 125 institutions about how scholarship donor stewardship actually gets done. This is what the data shows, and why AI changes everything.
At a glance
79%
still mail donor reports
71%
had a fund go unawarded last year
46%
run on one FTE or less
50%
are experimenting with AI
About the study
The first benchmark of scholarship donor stewardship
In early 2026 we ran the first comprehensive benchmark of scholarship donor stewardship, surveying 125 institutions across U.S. higher education on how the work actually gets done: staffing, reporting cadence, quality, and where AI fits in.
- Sample
- 125 institutions
- Fieldwork
- February–April 2026
Who responded
Pillar 01
The capacity-quality trap
Lean teams, and no reliable read on whether the work is any good.
2.7 /5
average self-rated quality
Finding 02
Flying blind on quality
Asked to grade their own stewardship, institutions land below the midpoint, and few have a reliable way to check whether that read is right.
29 %
send low-quality thank-you letters anyway
Finding 03
Thank-you letters: high compliance, low quality
Nearly every program sends the letter. Far fewer are confident it says anything a donor will remember.
Pillar 02
The measurement blind spot
Reports go out. Almost no one can tell what actually lands.
79 %
still deliver donor reports by U.S. mail
Finding 04
Reporting stuck in the past
Annual reports still go out on paper, and once they are mailed most teams have no signal about what donors actually saw.
45% cannot track whether reports are opened
71 %
had a fund go unawarded last year
Finding 05
Unawarded funds
Most institutions left at least one fund unspent, and over a third have no plan for the conversation that follows.
37% have no protocol for telling the donor
Pillar 03
The AI inflection point
Interest is nearly universal. Disciplined use is rare.
50 %
are experimenting with AI
Finding 06
AI adoption: intent outpaces execution
Half the field is trying AI for stewardship work. Only a fraction has folded it into how the work actually gets done.
15% use it consistently
19 %
have zero coordination between financial aid and advancement
Finding 07
The aid and advancement alignment gap
In nearly one in five shops, the offices that share the same donors and students barely talk to each other.
Key findings
Seven findings from 125 higher education foundations surveyed February to April 2026, in three pillars. Numbers are as the report states them.
1. The capacity gap
Pillar 01, Capacity-Quality Trap. 46% operate on one FTE or less dedicated to donor stewardship.
Staff time is the barrier programs name first, well ahead of technology and budget.
- 22% operate with less than half an FTE
- 53% cite staff time as their #1 barrier, 21% cite technology, 2% cite budget
- More than 40% administer 150 or more active scholarship funds
2. Quality self-rating
Pillar 01, Capacity-Quality Trap. 2.66 out of 5 average self-rated report quality.
Programs suspect their work falls short, and almost none can check.
- 11% rate their work well above average, 26% rate it below average
- Dissatisfied with student storytelling quality 31%, timeliness of delivery 29%, personalization depth 26%
- 5% regularly collect donor feedback, 38% have never explored it
3. Thank-you letters
Pillar 01, Capacity-Quality Trap. 29% send low-quality thank-you letters to donors anyway.
Collection is handled. The break is at review and rewrite.
- 52% require thank-you letters as a firm award condition
- 56% report submission rates above 90%
- 34% coach students and request a resubmission, 14% substitute a staff-written narrative
- 21% run the workflow entirely manually
4. Reporting channels and tracking
Pillar 02, Measurement Blind Spot. 79% still deliver donor reports by U.S. mail.
Most send reports and never learn whether they were read.
- 45% have no way to track if a report was read, 8% track engagement systematically
- 46% produce reports for all scholarship donors, 24% produce none
- 61% take one to six months from disbursement to delivery, 18% have no consistent timeline
5. Unawarded funds
Pillar 02, Measurement Blind Spot. 71% had at least one fund go unawarded last year.
Unawarded funds are common, and often no one tells the donor.
- 37% have no protocol for telling the donor
- 12% wait until the fund is awarded again to reach out
6. AI adoption
Pillar 03, AI Inflection Point. 50% are experimenting with AI for stewardship.
Half are experimenting, few have made it routine.
- 15% use AI regularly, 35% have tried it inconsistently, 31% are interested but haven't started, 19% have no interest
- Among the 50% experimenting: personalized donor cover letters 67%, fund impact summaries 48%, editing student thank-you letters 41%, drafting student bio narratives 37%
7. Financial Aid and Advancement alignment
Pillar 03, AI Inflection Point. 19% operate with zero coordination between Financial Aid and Advancement.
Most describe the handoff as workable, with one real exception.
- 53% report no meaningful friction between offices
- 48% say Advancement handles donor stewardship
- Average alignment score: 3.73 out of 5
- Directional finding: FA-pathway sub-sample n=30 to 33
Methodology
AwardSpring surveyed 125 foundations across higher education between February and April 2026. Responses were collected via SurveyMonkey from AwardSpring customers, and 125 usable responses form the basis of the benchmark, published June 2026. By institution type, respondents were 52% community college foundations, 29% four-year colleges or universities, 15% private or community foundations and 4% other. By role, 36% work in Financial Aid or Scholarships, 19% in Donor Relations or Stewardship, 18% in Administration or Leadership, 17% in Advancement or Development and 10% in other roles.
Because respondents are AwardSpring customers rather than a random sample of the broader field, the findings describe foundations that use dedicated scholarship management software. Where the report says "the field," it means that population. Statistics drawn from sub-samples under 50 respondents are directional, including the Financial Aid and Advancement alignment finding (n=30 to 33). The report cites one external figure: CUPA-HR (2024) reports that 56% of financial aid staff are likely to leave within a year. Every other number is from this survey.
Cite this research
Suggested citation: AwardSpring, The 2026 Donor Stewardship Benchmark (June 2026), n=125, awardspring.com/stewardship-benchmark
Canonical URL: https://www.awardspring.com/stewardship-benchmark
Reuse: you are welcome to quote and reuse the findings on this page with attribution to AwardSpring and a link to this page.
Score your stewardship
See how your stewardship stacks up.
- 01
Take our 2 minute survey
Share a bit about how your stewardship programs operate.
- 02
Upload an artifact (optional)
Share a thank-you letter or donor report and a team member + AI reviewer will score its quality.
- 03
See where you stand
Your benchmark against the 125-institution field, plus the fixes that move it most.
Watch the webinar
AwardSpring CEO Alex Stepien walks through the survey's highlights and what it means for your program.
Get the full report
The complete 2026 Donor Stewardship Benchmark is here. Leave your email and we'll send you the PDF.
More from the study