Foundation leaders tell regents donors remain committed but cautious amid economic uncertainty

Greg Willems, representing the Kansas State Foundation, and Jason Willoughby of the Fort Hays State Foundation told the Kansas Board of Regents Fiscal Affairs and Standing Committee on March 12 that donors remain committed to Kansas higher education but are increasingly nervous about the economy and federal policy uncertainty.

Willems said, "People are still making gifts. People are still working on their estate plans. They're still proud of their institutions, but I think we could see a dip in philanthropy as a kind of a bellwether to what I think everyone could agree is uncertainty in the country right now." Willoughby added that donors increasingly expect to see measurable impact from gifts: "Show me. And they wanna see an ROI and so we have to be more strategic...we spend a lot of extra time earning that philanthropy."

The foundation directors described how restricted giving and donor expectations shape campus projects. Willems said most gifts carry restrictions and that institutions typically coordinate philanthropy with state or federal funding sources and university reserves. Willoughby noted variation among foundations' capacities, citing the University of Kansas foundation's unrestricted assets as an example that not every foundation shares: "When you've seen one foundation, you've seen one foundation. All of them...their constitution is different in terms of what assets they have that might be restricted or unrestricted."

Both leaders said foundations are wary of using endowments or unrestricted funds to backfill large, recurring cuts. Willoughby said carving funds off foundations for short-term fixes would weaken long-term capacity: "The worst thing you could do would be to take a foundation and find a way to carve money off of it, treating it like a donor parts car to fix a crisis." Willems and Willoughby said foundations prefer to work with donors to sustain priorities rather than raid existing philanthropic capital.

On recent policy developments, both directors said the donor-intent protection legislation has not yet produced legal tests affecting their operations. Willoughby said he "was very nervous when it came out" but that the statute had not been tested in their work to date. Both directors praised the Kansas Comprehensive Grant match as especially effective in generating scholarship dollars; Willoughby called it "really successful" and supported the regents' advocacy to keep the program growing.

Regents asked about potential federal policy changes, including proposals to tax endowment income or corpus at wealthy institutions. Willems said those ideas, if applied broadly, would be harmful to regional public institutions and warned of negative impacts: "It would be wholly inappropriate for smaller schools and it would simply take away from our mission of helping Kansas students today and in the future." Willoughby said the proposals appeared politically targeted at elite institutions and urged broader scrutiny if policymakers move forward.

The directors flagged longer-term risks to higher education that intersect with philanthropy. Both singled out enrollment trends and institutions’ ability to adapt to changing student expectations. Willoughby said enrollment drives the future donor base: "If we don't enroll Kansas students today, we won't have alumni tomorrow. If we don't have alumni tomorrow, we won't have donors tomorrow." Willems emphasized the need for institutions to adapt more quickly to changing consumer expectations about cost, delivery and outcomes.

The regents thanked the foundation directors for the briefing and encouraged continued coordination between foundations, presidents and legislative advocates on programs such as the Kansas Comprehensive Grant.