Staff shortages, consistent turnover, the great resignation. These concerns are affecting nonprofit employers like never before.
To address staffing issues, nonprofits need to approach job requirements with an intentionality not necessarily experienced before. Yet, I continue to see the requirement of a post secondary degree for front line fundraisers, executive assistants, event officers, and others. In 50% of cases, it is the very first requirement listed. It is formulaic.
Furthermore, many job postings seem to equate post-secondary education to work experience. Often, I see the requirement: A post-secondary degree or the equivalent combination of education and work experience.
If I only have a post secondary degree and no experience, does means I have met this requirement? Because that is what the statement is communicating. It also implies that post secondary education is of equal value to work experience.
Are we unintentionally eliminating potential candidates based on an educational requirement? Is it necessary? Or merely an asset? What do you as an employer really need from a candidate?
Education is a wonderful pursuit. It is also an expensive one. Why are we forcing folks to pursue university education to accept a job where the salary will barely cover their minimum student loan payments or meet their cost-of-living needs. If charities are interested in eliminating poverty, supporting access, and assisting in overcoming barriers to success; wouldn't they consider the same for the very staff who serve the mission?
I have a degree in anthropology. I have yet to use the theory of relativism or structuralism in my day job. The study of Marcel Mauss' theory on gift giving may be the closest relevance to fundraising. (And I admit to referencing the odd Greek mythology in describing some of my tasks.)
What is it about my education that makes it a necessary requirement to hosting a gala, answering the phone, or engaging with donors?
Have hiring managers stopped to ask why a university degree is a requirement? Can they articulate that why? What is it about a university degree that makes you more qualified to work in fundraising?
I am not advocating for the wholesale removal of education requirements. Nor would I ever discourage pursuing higher education. But if we want to tackle vacant roles, we need to approach job requirements with intentionality. We need to question the relevance of a requirement like post-secondary education. Is it creating a barrier to someone applying? Would removing it reduce friction, thus generating a larger pool of candidates? Given the salary, is it a reasonable requirement?
Recently, 581 US tech leaders were surveyed, 80% noted they were willing to hire someone without a college degree for any role if the person had the right skills and experience. Maybe it's time fundraising organizations considered a similar approach.
Liz Rejman (she/her) has spent 25 years working in the fundraising profession. Liz is a former President of the prospect development association (Apra) and served as a member of the Board of Trustees for the Apra Foundation. She has instructed at Western University on technology in the not-for-profit sector and Georgian College on prospect research. She is the co-editor and contributor to the book "Prospect Research in Canada: An Essential Guide for Researchers and Fundraisers" and contributor to the book “The Vigilant Fundraiser.”
Home page Photo byTim Mossholder on Unsplash.
