One of the most interesting parts of my conversation with Patrick Auerbach was hearing him describe the shift from institution-centered fundraising to cause-centered philanthropy. After spending more than two decades in alumni engagement and advancement leadership at USC, Patrick now works at the Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles helping donors align their philanthropic values with organizations and causes that matter to them. The result is a fun conversation about what affinity really means and how donor behavior is changing.
Patrick makes an important distinction between affiliation and affinity. Affiliation can be transactional or circumstantial. Affinity is values-driven and deeply personal. That distinction has major implications for higher education institutions at a moment when many younger donors increasingly choose to support causes over alma maters. Throughout the episode, we discuss whether colleges and universities need to reposition themselves not simply as institutions, but as vehicles for social impact and community change.
Watch the full-length version on YouTube (54-mins)
We also spend significant time discussing identity-based engagement, political polarization, donor expectations, and the complexities of leading within diverse communities. Patrick brings a uniquely thoughtful perspective shaped by his experience in higher education, consulting, and now philanthropy advising. For anyone working in advancement, alumni engagement, annual giving, or nonprofit leadership, this conversation offers an important look at how engagement strategies may need to evolve in the years ahead.
Key Themes & Topics
Affinity is fundamentally different from affiliation. Affiliation is circumstantial, while affinity is rooted in values, identity, and emotional connection.
Younger donors increasingly prioritize giving to causes and impact-driven organizations rather than institutions they perceive as large financial entities.
Advancement storytelling often focuses too heavily on institutional prestige, scale, and administrative priorities instead of clearly showing human impact and societal value.
Institutions struggle to position themselves as “causes” because donors increasingly measure gifts against institutional wealth rather than against the specific change their philanthropy can create.
Effective engagement strategies require organizations to align individual passions, identities, and values with a larger institutional mission without reducing people to demographic categories or transactional data points.
Questions to Consider
Why are younger donors increasingly drawn toward cause-based organizations instead of colleges and universities?
Does our institution currently feel like a “cause” worth supporting?
How often do we center the actual people and communities affected by philanthropy?
What is the difference between affiliation and affinity in our engagement strategy?
Are our affinity groups functioning as meaningful communities or simply organizational categories?
How can institutions align identity-based engagement with broader institutional mission and belonging?
Are we making assumptions about people’s identities and interests instead of listening first?
What can higher education learn from organizations built around causes and community impact?
What role do values play in our institution’s engagement work?
How can institutions better position themselves as vehicles for social impact and public good?
