In 2019, Apra experimented with a new format for the popular Apra Talks PD conference session. Lovingly referred to as Apra Debates, the main stage session focused on friendly debates for three different issues in prospect development. Six years later, Apra Debates returned at the 2025 Apra PD conference in Baltimore. The energy in the room was electric as six prospect development professionals debated three key topics and explored two sides of common issues in the industry:

• Should front-line fundraisers and non-research colleagues have direct access to prospect development tools and platforms?
• Is there such a thing as too much data in prospect development?
• Is prospect development ready for AI and is AI ready for prospect development?

Couldn’t make the conference or listen to the recording? No need for FOMO! This article brings the conference experience to you!

Topic 1: Should front-line fundraisers and non-research colleagues have direct access to prospect development tools and platforms?

The first round of debates kicked off with Rachael Dietrich Walker from St. Luke’s Health System and Shad Hanselman from Florida State University. The competitors shook hands before kicking off their topic, lovingly called “Access Mania XL: Who Gets the Chair… And Who Gets the Data”.

Shad argued in favor of democratic access to data. He pointed out that more access to data allows fundraisers to self-service, decreasing the load on prospect development professionals and increasing efficiency. Allowing fundraisers to manage their own data requests also increases collaboration and strategic partnership through transparency - they get to see the same information used by professional development, which helps them trust in ratings and portfolio decisions. Finally, he pointed out that well-informed fundraisers contribute to the donor experience, which is key to all fundraising.

After Shad articulated his points, Rachael’s argument focused on one theme: “gatekeeping is good, actually.” She focused on the fact that fundraisers are not prospect development professionals and don’t have the level of expertise it takes to understand the nuances of the data. There can be misunderstandings, and with the amount of time it takes to train and subsequently remind fundraisers, you might as well do the work yourself. Sometimes, it’s more efficient to simply communicate the “need to know” than to expect fundraisers to navigate a sea of data on their own.

When this topic was posed to the audience, the poll tipped in favor of “gatekeeping.” But the combatants agreed that there were fair points made on both sides, and ultimately advocated a compromise approach: dashboards to give digestible data, while working closely with fundraisers to give them the information they need when they need it.

Topic 2: Is there such a thing as too much data?

Next up was Brittani Williams from the Houston Zoo and Jen Nettles from OhioHealth. Friendly smiles were shared before the duo got going.

Jen kicked off the topic by suggesting there is such a thing as too much data and it can often be overwhelming for development staff to synthesize the amount of information. Organizations collect everything “just in case,” but much of it isn’t relevant to strategic decisions. Teams spend more time sorting data than acting on it. Fundraisers don’t know which data points truly predict giving behavior or donor loyalty.

Jen also revisited concepts from the first topic, specifically that it all comes back to access. By giving officers access to database systems that contain a lot of information, it will become a situation of “analysis paralysis”. In the rush to be “data-driven,” organizations often end up hoarding information. There needs to be a clear plan for how any of it will inform strategy or improve fundraising outcomes.

Brittani countered Jen's points, arguing that in today's data-driven world, we cannot ignore data. Our roles in Prospect Development have always centered around synthesizing data, from the early days when we spent much of our time in libraries, to now, when we have nearly real-time access to donor behavior data at the tips of our fingertips. All of that is integral to developing thoughtful and strategic cultivation plans for our donors and being a true asset in our roles supporting the mission and fundraising goals of our organizations.

Brittani argued that this work has always been the competitive advantage of our roles, and because of this, we need to continue to be well-versed in the multitude of data sources that continue to grow. Finally, Brittani highlighted that ignoring data would be contradictory to the for-profit world, which uses data to target, acquire, and provide customized opportunities for their clients and consumers. Doing this puts our roles in the socially responsible space at a disadvantage.

The audience poll was nearly 50/50, siding with Jen's arguments that there is such a thing as too much data. But the combatants agreed that as prospect development continues to evolve, we need to continue to be data savvy, despite the time it takes to continue to learn about new resources and tools.

Topic 3: Is prospect development ready for AI and is AI ready for prospect development?

Last but not least, Jill Meister from Yale University squared off with Rachel Hammond from Moody Bible Institute to tackle the hot topic of AI.

Rachel opened by arguing that AI isn’t ready for prime time. She emphasized that while it can process vast amounts of information, it often produces inaccurate or fabricated results. Generative AI, she noted, tends to be shallow—it doesn’t incorporate enough contextual knowledge to replace human reasoning and can “hallucinate” facts. Rachel also pointed out that AI systems can be slow, rigid, and literal, seeing the world in black-and-white terms rather than the nuanced shades of judgment that prospect development requires.

Jill countered with optimism, arguing that by 2030, there will be full adoption of AI across the business world—and that development shops, including prospect development, must have a clear strategy to stay current. She emphasized that AI will not take jobs away; rather, it will transform roles, positioning prospect development professionals as strategic partners to frontline fundraisers. Jill highlighted that the need to verify information remains constant—no matter the source—but AI dramatically speeds up data gathering, saving valuable time and allowing professionals to focus on higher-level analysis.

Rachel acknowledged that AI’s capabilities have already improved and will likely continue to do so. Jill agreed but noted that uncertainty persists. Everyone is still learning how to use AI effectively, she said, and that discomfort is natural. She added that AI models must be “taught” through thoughtful input and that ethical and ecological considerations should guide how tools are used—AI should enhance our work, not be applied frivolously.

The audience poll leaned toward AI adoption as the winner of the debate, reflecting the crowd’s growing comfort and curiosity with the technology. Still, the conversation underscored that while we may be ready for AI, it’s not yet clear whether AI is fully ready for us! Both debaters agreed that continuous learning, skill development, and rigorous vetting of information are essential as prospect development evolves. The key takeaway: staying innovative, adaptable, and intentional will ensure AI becomes an ally rather than a disruption.

When the debates concluded, the session became an interactive Q&A for conference attendees (virtual and in-person) for open discussion. It was clear, the audience was jazzed. Sessions like Apra Debates are such critical opportunities for our profession to share the knowledge and challenge each other to think more critically about important issues as the industry evolves and grows. This year’s Apra Debates showed how valuable open dialogue can be. The energy and insights sparked reinforce the need to exchange ideas openly. The most memorable moments came from honest, passionate conversations. If you attended this session at Apra PD, share your experience on social media! The Apra Debates team would love to hear from you! Until next year… 🙂