What Senior Fund Raisers Need to Know

May 28, 2008

What Senior Fund Raisers Need to Know

The Association of Fundraising Professionals this month announced that it is revising the certification examination for its highest credential, known as the Advanced Certified Fundraising Executive designation.

No longer will fund raisers seeking advanced certification be expected to answer questions on the exam about federal tax laws or bequests and other types of planned gifts.

Michael Nilsen, the association’s senior director of public affairs, said in an e-mail message that the goal of the changes is to prevent bias against test takers from outside the United States.

But some fund raisers wonder whether taking those questions away makes sense, given the importance of tax laws and planned gifts to fund raising — and the potential for scams to erupt when fund raisers don’t have the skills they need.

If the association is worried about bias against fund raisers from outside the United States, some experts say, why not develop different versions of the exam? Or the association could find another way for test takers to demonstrate knowledge of planned giving and tax law in their own countries.

Other fund raisers support the revisions. “If AFP is going to continue its global leadership, they need to develop a culturally sensitive exam and think how it can be made more accessible for people who don’t practice in the U.S.,” said Marianne Briscoe, who holds the advanced credential and is president of Brakeley Briscoe, a San Mateo, Calif., fund-raising consulting company.

What do you think: Is it a good idea to remove questions on tax law and gift planning from the exam for senior fund raisers?

(For more about the certification system, see this article from The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s archive.)

— Holly Hall

Comments

I’ve worked in the US and in the UK and there is no ability in the UK to take deductions on your taxes. It’s basically a flat percentage lopped off the top. So US IRS laws and gift planning guidelines are not applicable there or most of the rest of the world.

— Fairfax May 29, 04:30 PM #
After going through the CFRE program a long time ago, I soon let it lapse. It is like so many certification programs. Like board certified physicians, certified financial planners, professional accountants, etc., it identifies those who have mastered a set of concepts and the test taking process, not those who are really the best in their field. The changes in the ACFRE test only make it less relevant than it already was.

— Philanthro Joe May 29, 04:47 PM #
In an era when accountability and transparency are prized by donors and regulators, AFP actually seeks to dumb-down its top credential? Sorry, the demands of our industry are for higher standards not lowered ones, particularly among those who may be the most accomplished in the field. To be credible, the test needs to be normed to the country(ies) in which the fundraiser practices.

— Tom Cullinan May 29, 05:13 PM #
I hope the people who thought this up aren’t the same ones who hold the top credential! What’s the point of having a top credential if it doesn’t indicate a superior knowledge and experience — a certain extra “smartness” in our field? Why not customize for the UK and elsewhere, rather than lower the bar for excellence.

— Lorri Greif May 29, 05:20 PM #
Having once foolishly held the “credential,” I can attest that Lorri, Tom and PhilanthroJoe are all right. AFP created a meaningless credential to bring in a new revenue stream, virtually doled out the designation to anyone with a pulse, and is now dumbing it down even further. AFP has never been committed to true professionalism, having built an empire on the dissemination and perpetuation of mediocrity, and it’s not about to change now.

— Jeff Steele May 29, 07:00 PM #
I have been in fund raising for 34 years and have been somewhat successful at it. Never once has a gift been contingent on certification! CFRE and ACFRE matter little in the honorable profession of fund raising.

— John Warren May 30, 08:14 AM #
Certification can be highly beneficial to promoting the kind of professionalism required in our industry. (The same can be said for AFP’s Code of Ethics even though it has its detractors as well.) Such a move as proposed would be a HUGE step backward to the integrity and credibility of ACFRE certification (and, indirectly, to that of the CFRE). Common sense would suggest that if there are substantial differences in philanthropic issues in certain nations, then exams should be modified specific to the country/ies in question. To attempt to develop one universally acceptable exam makes no sense.

— Paul Netzel May 30, 08:37 AM #
Dumbing down the credentials doesn’t make any sense. After buying the CFRE prep course, I was surprised at how basic the content is. I agree with Joe: the test identifies those who have nailed the test taking process, not the best fundraisers. It’s already a pretty meaningless credential, and now the standards are being lowered. Lorri is right, customize the test, don’t lower the bar.

— Maria Puente-Duany May 30, 08:42 AM #
Fundraisers ask for money.Development Officers educate potential donors to support their specific causes. Gift planners help potential donors find ways for them to make gifts either during or after life. If AFP chooses to restrict its Certification standards for fund-raisers only, that is their business, but it tells me more than I really want to know, and I am disappointed.

— J. Richard Murray, FAHP May 30, 10:06 AM #
While we all know that there are certificate holders that do not seem qualified—whether it is from good test taking or perseverance, the majority are genuinely deserving. Please do not, modify the test to accommodate foreign professionals. With 90% of the AFP membership in the US (my guess) it is not fair to America’s public who might rightfully assume the certification means something on US soil. I would suggest the CFRE board ask representatives of other countries to submit relevant substitute questions germane to their location. There are many examples of other professions that employ such procedures.

Richard A. Murray, Paschal Murray, Inc.

— Richard Murray May 30, 10:09 AM #
Call me silly, but while it’s good to have a rudimentary knowledge of these laws, I would think that the legal details would be left to tax lawyers, no? I’d have to side with John Warren and submit that the whole credentialing thing is more industry than necessity. Classes are all well and good, but much of this biz has to do with instinct and being possessed of an innate ability to make that all so important connection with a prospective donor.

— Baffled in Beantown May 30, 03:19 PM #
Perhaps those who have allowed their certifications to lapse — or haven’t sought certification at all — are not fully informed on the difference between the CFRE and ACFRE certification process. Unlike the two-step (application and exam) CFRE, passing the ACFRE exam does not automatically make one “certified.” The ACFRE process includes four distinct phases: 1) submission and acceptance of an application noting the requisite number of nonprofit management, leadership, and ethics CEUs; 2) the ACFRE exam; 3) submission and review of a portfolio of professional “writing in the field” examples; and 4) an oral review of select knowledge areas by the ACFRE Board. While I agree with “Baffled” that much of the heavy lifting in gift planning falls to professionals advisors and not to the fundraising practitioner, the main point of ACFRE certification is to demonstrate some degree of knowledge and experience in the field of philanthropic fundraising that far transcends “instinct” and “innate ability.”

— Aspiring ACFRE May 30, 03:59 PM #
After 20 years in fund-raising, I took the CFRE exam this winter and passed it. And I complained — the word ‘internet’ did not appear on the test!! I subsequently learned that test revision cycles every five years, so the test I took this winter has been under consideration for five years and still no social networking, click-through rates, unsubscribe legislation, or even internet giving safety, made it on the test. The world’s moving too fast — I wonder if the proposed change to the ACRFE reflects a concern that the test-builders can’t keep up with new concepts in the US, let alone globally.

— CFREE2BU&Me May 30, 05:21 PM #
The exam is just one of four steps in the rigorous ACFRE process, including the application, exam, portfolio and oral review. Each step provides an opportunity for the candidate to demonstrate leadership and advanced knowledge of the field.

Specific knowledge of tax laws and planned giving vehicles for a given country can be ascertained in the portfolio stage where candidates provide examples of documents that demonstrate competency in writing, creativity, management, and teaching/ training, and in the oral review stage where candidates are expected to demonstrate to the review panel mastery of an advanced knowledge and understanding, both theoretical and practical, in the broad field of fundraising and in two of the candidate’s specialty areas.

In addition, developing different versions of the exam is not a simple process. However, we are developing a Canadian version of the exam and as there is greater demand in other countries, AFP will create separate versions of the exam.

The update of the written exam will in no way diminish the rigor of the ACFRE process. It will help make the certification more accessible to a wider range of deserving candidates.

— Paulette Maehara May 30, 06:11 PM #
I also recently took the CFRE exam this winter and passed. I think before AFP and others change or “dumb” down the exam they need to do a better job in their preparation materials. I ordered the AFP study material and it was completly useless to when I got into the test. The sample questions in CFRE’s materials weren’t even close to the questions on the exam. Having a certification process is important (at least for some people and some individuals), but you need to have a test that includes a comprehensive knowledge-base as well as one with different versions based the rules of an individual country.

— JR May 31, 08:38 AM #
Wow, it’s been interesting to read all of the comments. What is especially interesting is that many of the comments seem to refer to the CFRE and not the ACFRE. If AFP is dolling out the credential as a revenue stream they seem to be doing a pretty poor job given that out of 30,000 members there are fewer than 85 ACFREs.

I’ve held the CFRE since 1995 and am currently an ACFRE candidate. Has a credential secured the gift…no. What it has done however, in many cases, is allowed me to engage the prospect in conversation when they ask about it (yes, I use it on my business cards purposely). The discussion has led to a greater sense of confidence on their part when we discuss what the designation represents and how it demonstrates the increasing professionalism within the field.

As a Canadian, I am pleased that this one component will be removed from the exam. Despite having a Master’s degree in the field from a US University it’s been 12 years and my US tax law is a little rusty.

The point is well made that the exam is one step in the ACFRE Certification process. Tax and planned giving issues can readily be addressed in the portfolio review and oral examination sections. For the purpose of the exam it makes sense to test those things that are truly first principles of the field and not things more ephemeral and geographically limited such as tax law.

— R. Scott Fortnum, CFRE Jun 2, 05:08 PM #
Fundraising and Fundraisers is one word.

— Kate Jun 4, 04:02 PM #

Commenting is closed for this article.

Previous: Oxford U. Announces $2.5-Billion Campaign
Next: Technology Company Merger: What Does It Mean for Fund Raisers?

Related Articles

Blogroll

What Senior Fund Raisers Need to Know

Comments