Noncredit Certificates in Nonprofit Management: An Exploratory Study
Mordecai Lee
Department of Governmental Affairs
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
In
US colleges and universities that provide education in nonprofit management,
the central focus is invariably on credit-based degrees, certificates and
courses. Less frequently, some institutions also offer nonprofit management
education in a noncredit context. The latter is often offered through a
separate campus entity dedicated to continuing education, outreach, extension
and professional development that tends to exist in the shadow of credit-based
education. While credits measure educational attainment, continuing education
units (CEUs) are used to measure professional development. However, little
comprehensive information is known about this parallel universe of CEU-based
certificates in nonprofit management.
This
article provides the results of an exploratory survey of noncredit certificates
in nonprofit management at US colleges and universities. It identified 33
colleges and universities offering 36 certificates. The survey found a wide
disparity in the nomenclature, curriculum, requirements, finances, duration and
management of these programs. The results of the survey indicate the absence of
a pedagogic consensus regarding what a noncredit certificate in nonprofit
management should be. The survey data suggest a need for development of basic
professional standards and curriculum to enhance the value and credibility of
noncredit certificates nonprofit management that are issued by colleges and
universities.
Generally,
noncredit and continuing education exists in a separate and parallel world at
US institutions of higher education. One reason for this distinction is that most
university education is performance based, measured through grades assigned by
faculty to students in credit-based courses. Grades are based on performance in
tests, term papers and other gradable assignments. On the other hand,
continuing education generally lacks any performance-based measures. Rather, it
is attendance-based. The Continuing Education Unit (CEU) is a professional
development measure that reflects the number of hours a student is in a
classroom (1 CEU = 10 classroom hours) (IACET, 2002). Due to this
distinction, noncredit training is usually offered through a separate campus
entity that is dedicated to continuing education, outreach, extension and
professional development.
Little
is known about continuing education in nonprofit management. There is a
substantial body of research-based literature on nonprofit management education
(Dolan, 2002; Mirabella and Wish, 2001a; Young, 1999; O’Neill and Fletcher,
1998; Milofsky, 1996; Heimovics and Herman, 1989; O’Neill and Young, 1988).
However, most of the research has focused on degrees, majors and credit-based
certificates (Mirabella and Wish, 1999a; Stevenson and Mirabella, 1999; Haas
and Robinson, 1998; Wish and Mirabella, 1998). An issue of high interest to
researchers is the ‘best place’ for nonprofit studies in a university (Mirabella
and Wish, 2000; Smith, 2000; Lee and Percy, 2000). Even though "there
has been tremendous growth in the number of universities with noncredit
outreach programs since 1996" (Mirabella and Wish, 2001b, p.36), researchers
have not demonstrated an equal interest in noncredit education in nonprofit
management (Ashcraft, 1999, 5, 8-9; Lewis and Burnham, 1999; Burnham, Dolch
and Gibson, 1998). For example, the O’Neill and Fletcher (1998)
index does not contain any entries for ‘continuing education,’ ‘professional
development’ or ‘noncredit education.’ Similarly, the contributors to O’Neill
and Fletcher (1998) refer to certificates in nonprofit management 27
times, always to credit-based ones.
The
lack of research-based information about noncredit education in nonprofit
management is contrasted by a modicum of research in continuing public
administration education. Public administration has often been the spawning
ground for nonprofit management education and continues to be closely linked to
it (Mirabella and Wish, 2000, 221; Young, 1988, 36). The National
Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration, which accredits
master degree programs in public administration, public affairs and public
policy, has also issued curriculum guidelines for nonprofit management
education (NASPAA, 1998). Many graduating MPAs accept positions in
nonprofit education, either immediately upon graduation or later in their
careers (Light, 1999).
Regarding
noncredit public administration education, Van Wart, Holzer and Kovacova (1999)
provided a comprehensive quantitative summary of continuing education in public
administration at US colleges and universities. The nationally accredited
Certified Public Manager program has been surveyed, analyzed and contrasted to
the MPA degree (Vogelsang-Coombs, 1999; Hays and Duke, 1996; Conant, 1995;
Conant and Housel, 1995). LeSage reviewed continuing public administration
education in Canada (1989). Vogelsang-Coombs has written about noncredit
training programs for local elected officials whose decisions involve
managerial impacts (1997; Vogelsang-Coombs and Miller, 1999). Other
writers have focused on state and local government training (Paddock, 1996;
Hayes, 1989; Fisher, 1971; Graves, 1957), federal training (Werth, 1999;
Butterworth and Metzger, 1998; Sims, 1996), public administration
continuing education in Eastern Europe (Nolan, 1997), certification
issues (Golembiewski, 1983), practitioner perspectives (Conant, 1996),
executive education (Fry and Carter, 1999) and benchmarks (Paddock,
1997). Similarly, the proceedings of two conferences about continuing
education for public administrators in state and local government have been
published (Preston, 1980; Institute of Governmental Studies, 1965).
Nonetheless,
this body of literature does not necessarily indicate that public
administration has devoted adequate attention to continuing education. In the
1970's, the National Academy of Public Administration had identified continuing
education as one of the five most glaring deficiencies in public administration
education (Chapman and Cleaveland, 1973, pp. 53-4). Yet, nearly two
decades later, a practitioner still identified continuing education as one of
the six most critical areas for management development (Hedrick, 1990).
The
purpose of this research project is to explore basic information about
noncredit certificates in nonprofit management offered at US colleges and
universities.
In
mid-2000, the author conducted a mailed survey of all US institutions of higher
education that offer noncredit and/or continuing education programs in
nonprofit management. The inquiry asked if they currently offered a noncredit
certificate and, if so, requested additional information about their
certificate programs. The mailing list for the survey was based on the
comprehensive database on nonprofit management education maintained by
Mirabella and Wish (1999b; 1999c). At that time, the database had been
updated through July 14, 1999.
The survey was sent to all institutions listed on their
database as offering programming in the categories of noncredit or continuing
education. In some cases, a college or university appeared on both lists. The
final tally of institutions appearing on at least one of the two lists was 62.
Of the 62 surveys mailed out, 24 institutions responded. Of those responses, 12
institutions confirmed that they currently offer one or more noncredit
certificates in nonprofit management and enclosed written materials and brochures
about their program.
The other 12 respondents did not qualify for several
reasons. In some cases, they offered a certificate in nonprofit management that
was credit based, at the graduate level and/or for undergraduate students.
These certificates appear to be quite widespread and common. In other cases, a
college or university offered a wide variety and extensive continuing education
programs in various topics related to nonprofit management, but did not offer a
certificate.
The
low response rate to the original mail survey called for additional
horizon-scanning methodologies. First, Donna Pope, Director of the Nonprofit
Management Institute at Arizona State University, maintained a separate
database of counterpart programs (Pope, 2000 and 2001). From her list,
five more universities were identified. Second, from web searches, colleagues
and other information sources, the author located several other higher
education institutions offering noncredit certificates in nonprofit management.
Third, Mirabella and Wish updated their listing of institutions of higher
education offering noncredit and continuing education in nonprofit management
through February 15, 2001 (2001c; 2001d). The author examined the
websites of all colleges and universities that either had not been on the 2000
version of the lists or were among the 38 that hadn’t responded to the 2000
survey. In some cases, the author then contacted the institution to obtain
additional information about its certificate program. Finally, following a conference
presentation in late 2001, several other locations were brought to the
attention of the author.
In
some cases, institutions of higher education had just recently cancelled or
suspended their noncredit certificate. Notwithstanding the availability of
information about those certificates, they were excluded from the aggregate
information emerging from this research since they were not operating during
the time of the study. In another case, a university announced that it would be
discontinuing its certificate as of winter, 2002. Since it was still in
operation at the time of this survey, it was included in the survey results. In
other cases, institutions offered noncredit certificates in sub-fields of
nonprofit management, but did not provide noncredit certificates in general
nonprofit management. In these cases, the specialized certificates were not
included in the aggregate results.
A
few other judgments were required. To avoid duplicate counting of the same
program, a distance education certificate that was offered at several colleges
and universities was counted as one program. In another case, a university
offered a certificate titled “Administration.” This certificate would
presumably be for generic administration and not oriented for managers in a
specific sector. However, a review of the curriculum indicated that
notwithstanding its generic title, the certificate was nonprofit oriented, with
such traditional nonprofit class topics as gifts and endowments, grant writing
and board development. Therefore, that certificate was included.
As
needed, the author followed-up with phone calls or emails requesting additional
specific information or seeking clarification of unclear details. Nonetheless,
some of the information obtained from individual institutions was still
difficult to categorize into comparative data. The author attempted to maximize
the application of the information obtained from the available material.
However, in some cases, information for some of the specific categories of
information could not be identified. Therefore, the total number of
institutions included in each category varies slightly.
The
results of the research identified a total of 33 institutions of higher
education in the United States that offered noncredit certificates in nonprofit
management. One of those institutions offered two certificates in general
management and another offered three certificates at different managerial
levels, for a total of 36 certificates.
Table 1
Titles of
Certificates (N=36)
|
Administration Advanced
Nonprofit Management Effective
Management of Nonprofit Organizations Excellence
in Nonprofit Leadership and Management Executive
Level Program Leadership
Development Program Management
of Nonprofit Organizations Middle
Management Program Mini-MBA
® for Nonprofit Organizations Nonprofit
Leadership and Management Nonprofit
Management and Leadership Nonprofit
Management Excellence Nonprofit
Management Executive Nonprofit
Organization Management Nonprofit
Studies |
There
was also a great variation in the number of classroom hours required to earn
the certificate, from a low of 10 to a high of about 240 (see Table 2).
Table 2
Classroom Hours to Obtain Certificate (N = 31)
Classroom Hours
|
Institutions
|
|
1-50
hours |
11 |
|
51-100
hours |
11 |
|
101-150
hours |
5 |
|
151-200
hours |
4 |
|
201-250
hours |
1 |
Regarding the
ratio of required core classes and elective classes, the range was as broad as
mathematically possible, with some certificates requiring no core classes and
others consisting of core classes only. However, almost half the certificates
did not permit any electives (see Table 3).
Figure 3
Ratio of Required to Elective Classes (N=35)
|
Required
Classes |
Elective
Classes |
Institutions |
|
100% |
0% |
16 |
|
75-99% |
1-25% |
9 |
|
50-740% |
26-50% |
5 |
|
50% |
50% |
1 |
|
25-49% |
51-75% |
2 |
|
1-25% |
76-99% |
0 |
|
0% |
100% |
2 |
For
the certificates that required core classes, there was – again – great
variation in the subject matter of the required classes. (In some cases, the
title of a required class included more than one distinct subject matter. In
those cases, it is listed below in all the relevant topics.) However, for about
half the programs, there were some basic and common curricular topics. They
were (from most frequent to less frequent) financial management, fundraising,
strategic planning, boards of directors, marketing and communications,
personnel and human resources, and program evaluation (see Table 4).
Table 4
Topics
of Required Classes (N=29)
Note: Topics are listed in alphabetical order
in case of a tie.
|
Institutions
Requiring This Topic |
|
|
24 |
|
|
2. Fundraising |
22 |
|
3. Strategic Planning |
17 |
|
4. Board of Directors |
16 |
|
5. Marketing and Communications |
14 |
|
-. Personnel and Human Resources |
14 |
|
-. Program Evaluation |
14 |
|
8. Leadership |
10 |
|
9. Volunteer Management |
8 |
|
10. Legal Issues |
7 |
|
-. Nonprofit Management |
7 |
|
-. Public Relations |
7 |
|
13. Introduction to the Nonprofit
Sector |
6 |
|
14. Proposal Writing |
4 |
|
15. Advocacy |
3 |
|
-. Ethics |
3 |
|
-. Technology |
3 |
|
18. Annual Giving |
2 |
|
-. Advanced Financial Management |
2 |
|
-. Social Entrepreneurship |
2 |
|
21. Building Effective Organizations,
Capital Campaign, Diversity, Effective Meetings, Financial Planning, Advanced
Fundraising, High Performing Nonprofits, Interpersonal Communication,
Mission-based Management, Operations Management, Partnering for Results,
Planned Giving, Presentation Skills, Program Development, Risk Management,
Social Marketing, Strategic Alliances, Strategic Communications, Supervision,
Values-based Management |
1 |
Regarding
the process for obtaining the certificate, about 2/3’s of the programs (21)
permitted individual progress through the program, while about 1/3 were
organized in cohorts (11). One program offered both options.
Tuition
costs, reflecting the previous broad range of variation, were consistent with
previous results. As would be expected, the programs requiring fewer hours to
earn a certificate were generally the less expensive ones. About 2/3's of all
certificates cost up to $2,000. The most popular price range, covering a
quarter of all certificates, was between $500 and $999 (see Table 5). (In some
cases, it was difficult to calculate the total tuition, due to varying fees for
different workshops within the same certificate program. Therefore, results may
reflect approximate, rather than precise, costs. Some institutions offered
discounts for group enrollments. The calculations below are based on the cost
to an individual, whether registering singly or in the smallest size group
permitted.)
Table 5
Cost of
Certificate (N=35)
Note: Categories up to $3,000 are in $500
increments; above $3,000 are in $1,000 increments
Cost of Certificate
|
Institutions
|
|
5 |
|
|
$500-999 |
8 |
|
$1,000-1,499 |
6 |
|
$1,500-1,999 |
4 |
|
$2,000-2,499 |
2 |
|
$2,500-2,999 |
2 |
|
$3,000-3,999 |
4 |
|
$4,000-4,999 |
1 |
|
$5,000-5,999 |
1 |
|
$6,000-6,999 |
1 |
|
$7,000-7,999 |
1 |
Given
the significant amount of attention that researchers have dedicated to the
‘best place’ question, it is important to categorize certificates according to
their academic ‘home’ (Mirabella and Renz, 2001, pp. 24-5). About 2/3's
of all programs (23) were based in continuing education, outreach and extension
units. Eight programs were in discipline-based administrative units, including
schools of business (3), public affairs (4) and education amalgamated with
other disciplines (2). One program did not appear to be affiliated with any
other campus administrative unit.
To
strengthen their connection with the ‘real world,’ eight programs listed having
advisory committees. As would be expected, practitioners were the predominant
membership category in these committees. Faculty were the second most prominent
group. Other categories included university staff and faculty not affiliated
with the institution offering the certificate.
The
field of noncredit education in nonprofit management consists of more than the
certificates in general management reviewed here. For example, some
universities did not offer a general noncredit certificate in nonprofit
management and, therefore, are not included in this survey, but did offer
specialized ones, such as in fundraising. Conversely, 16 of the institutions
offering general management certificates also offered specialized certificates,
such as fundraising, executive director, grantsmanship and volunteer management.
Again, such specialized certificates were not included in this exploratory
study of noncredit certificates in nonprofit management generally.
This
survey identified 33 institutions of higher education offering noncredit certificates
in nonprofit management. The results showed a very large range and variation of
titles, duration, costs, ratio of core to elective classes and contents of the
required curriculum. Certificates varied from 10 to 175 hours, from all core
classes to all electives and from $339 to $7,500.
About
2/3’s of the certificates were based on individualized progress through the
program, with about 1/3 based on a cohort approach. The same approximate ratio
was reflected in the academic home of the certificate, with about 2/3’s in
continuing education units and about 1/3 in discipline-based units. Of the
eight programs not associated with continuing education schools or colleges,
three were in business schools, two in schools of public affairs and the rest in
either schools covering multiple categories or were non-categorizeable.
There
was no significant pattern regarding the nature of the institutions offering
certificates, with 19 of them public and 14 private.
About
a quarter of the programs had advisory committees, all of which were dominated
by nonprofit practitioners. The advice of practitioners is vital in assuring
the relevance of professional development programs. However, the predominance
of practitioners on advisory committees raises the issue of the faculty’s role
in educational decisions about these certificates. Traditionally, it is the
role of the faculty to make academic decisions. This usually means that faculty
members have sole purview over curriculum and other related educational issues.
The dominance of practitioners on advisory committees raises the question, or
at least creates a perception, that noncredit certificates are designed to be
relevant to practitioners, but may lack traditional academically oriented
structure and content. The instructor cadre at one institution further
highlighted the role of the resident and permanent faculty. Besides having an
advisory committee with no members from the school's faculty, a listing of the
‘faculty’ of the certificate program consisted of 41 practitioners who served
as ad hoc instructors. No faculty members were listed as teaching any of the
classes for the certificate.
A
few certificates had unusual features, given continuing education's traditional
template of no grading, no papers and use of CEUs. Regarding grading, at three
schools the instructors assigned grades (A, B, C, or D) to noncredit
participants. A student had to achieve at least a 2.0 overall cumulative grade
average (equivalent to a C) in order to earn the certificate. Three other colleges
required a written term paper for successful completion of the certificate
program. An institution offering three noncredit certificates in general
management of nonprofit agencies awarded them based solely on attendance, but
no CEUs were issued.
One
certificate program permitted the student to designate a specialization, akin
to a major in an undergraduate degree. The participant could receive the
general certificate in nonprofit management with a specialization in one of
four areas, fundraising, public relations, historic preservation or meeting
planning. Another unusual feature for continuing education programs was that
three institutions charged an application fee, ranging between $25 and $50. One
school had a requirement that the certificate must be earned in four years, a
deadline not found at any other institutions. Another school had a prerequisite
of a bachelor's degree and work experience in the nonprofit sector for
admission to the certificate program.
These
results highlight a seemingly laissez faire approach to noncredit certificates
in nonprofit administration at American institutions of higher education. It is
highly decentralized and autonomous. Nonetheless, credulity is strained by the
broad variances in measures such as number of hours required for a certificate.
Surely, a certificate requiring 10 hours of training is not comparable, in
substance, to one requiring 175. While accrediting agencies have slowly
accomplished some accepted ranges in many academic programs and degrees, it is
clear that this is largely absent in continuing education.
Nonprofit
continuing education can be an attractive and important product to offer
current and potential practitioners. However, one central tenet of continuing
education embodies both its strength and weakness. Continuing education does
not award credits. Rather, it awards Continuing Education Units that are based
exclusively on attendance. Therefore, the context of the continuing education
pedagogy is significantly different from for-credit higher education.
Continuing education has no admission requirements, lower costs compared to
credit courses, no homework, no grading and no prerequisites of previous
educational attainment.
This
survey identified a few examples of the financial precariousness of some
noncredit certificate programs caused by lower levels of non-tuition funding.
The program at one college was cancelled “due to a lack of institutional
support” from the parent institution (Marabella, 2000). Another was
suspended “until we receive the results on a marketing research study done by
the Pittsburgh Foundation – our largest funder of the program” (Trapani,
2001). One certificate director suggested that any institution considering
starting a new certificate should not begin offering classes before a permanent
funding to subsidize the program is in place (Wilder, 2000).
This
difference between credit-based and CEU-based higher education can prompt
several major concerns by traditional faculty about the value of continuing
education offered by institutions of higher education.
First,
faculty sometimes views negatively on noncredit teaching since it lacks the
academic rigor and traditional features of higher education, such as
accreditation, grading, testing and written assignments. The very factors that
can make continuing education attractive to nontraditional students are those
that diminish the value of the program in the eyes of faculty.
Second,
continuing education has lower prestige in university culture than for-credit
education, sometimes viewed as akin to vocational education, seemingly not
quite appropriate for in an institution of higher education. While credit-based
education is measured by performance, this key factor is missing from
continuing education.
Third, the
financial paradigm of higher education at public institutions can work against
continuing education. It is usually not assigned the same level of financial
support as is budgeted for degree-based education. For-credit education is
normally subsidized by tax revenues at a higher rate than noncredit education.
The premise regarding the financing of continuing education is sometimes that
it should be self-supporting or nearly so. For example, the
California-Riverside unit that offers the nonprofit management certificate
(along with many other certificates) describes itself on its website as the
campus’s “nonprofit division.” The brochure for the certificate program
includes the statement, “Not printed at state expense.” It has to be totally
self-supporting financially. While the rest of the campus benefits from funding
from state tax dollars, it does not share in that public subsidy.
Fourth,
nonprofit continuing education is affected by the internal structure of most
universities and colleges. Typically, a school, college, or department --
usually under the rubric of public administration, business administration or
management -- offers for-credit education in nonprofit management. Their
offerings might include an undergraduate major, an undergraduate certificate
(e.g. American Humanics), a graduate certificate and a graduate degree.
Graduate certificates can usually be applied towards a degree. In addition,
elements of nonprofit management education can often be found simultaneously at
some of the professional schools and colleges, such as social work, criminal
justice, arts, etc.
Yet, based
on this study, the majority of noncredit training programs in nonprofit
management were not in these campus units. Rather, 2/3’s are housed in the
campus unit that provides all noncredit training, usually with titles such as
continuing education, extension or outreach. This has the effect of isolating
noncredit education from its academic roots, since the primary affiliation is
with generic professional development programs rather than with a discipline
based one.
The seeming minor status of
noncredit certificates is partly demonstrated by the paucity of published
research about it. Should an effort be initiated to strengthen noncredit
education in nonprofit management, then several criteria would need to be
attained:
·
Curriculum
is academically sound and research-based
·
Faculty
view it as an academically valid product of higher education
·
The program
is financially sustainable
·
Instructors
are a mix of faculty and practitioners
·
Instruction
is based on the adult education model
·
Participants
feel the product is relevant in their daily work
·
Senior
practitioners are aware of the program, recognize its value and recommend it to
lower- and middle-level managers.
Noncredit
certificates in general management of nonprofit agencies are a discernable and
discreet activity in American institutions of higher education. An exploratory
survey identified 33 colleges and universities offering 36 certificates.
However, more needs to be learned about noncredit and certificate-based
nonprofit higher education. A parallel study could compile aggregate
information about credit-based certificates offered at US colleges and
universities. That would permit comparisons between noncredit and credit
certificates. Extended investigation of noncredit education could look more
deeply at two areas glancingly mentioned here. First, additional information
could be compiled and analyzed about specialized noncredit certificates in such
fields as development and fundraising. Second, little is known about noncredit
nonprofit management education that is not structured to culminate in a
certificate. As mentioned in the methodology section, the research for this
survey identified several such programs.
By
bringing noncredit education in nonprofit management out of the educational
shadows, its value can be analyzed. The field may need take steps to enhance
its educational worth, promote curriculum guidelines and other educational
standards, acknowledge the beneficial role of continuing education as a
component of our educational offerings and strengthen the importance of
professional development in nonprofit management.
Research
for this survey was funded in part by a Faculty/Staff Development Program Award
from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in 2000. This article is a revised
version of a paper presented at the 30th annual conference of the
Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action
(ARNOVA), November 29 – December 1, 2001, Miami, FL.
Ashcraft,
Robert F. (1999). Nonprofit Management Education: An Analysis of Three
Intra-Institutional Views. Paper presented at the 28th annual
conference of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and
Voluntary Action. Arlington, VA, November 4-6.
Burnham,
Katie, Norm Dolch and Terry Gibson (1998). Building Collaboration Between the
Sectors: The Learning Institute for Nonprofit Organizations. Paper presented at
the 27th annual conference of the Association for Research on
Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action. Seattle, WA, November 5-7.
Butterworth,
Gary and Carl J. Metzger (1998). Training: The Critical Success Factor for the
Results Act. The Public Manager 27 (Spring): 35-38.