The CRSMG Working Group will:

1. Review and update the current reporting standards and guidelines (4th edition), to ensure the publication by 2020 (both print and digital) of a new and more current set of guidelines for use by our members and professionals in advancement. The new edition will allow members to access current standards and guidelines for reporting to VSE and other tools and for campaign reports.

2. Endeavor to follow fundraising best practice and to develop a set of guidelines for our work and the profession which help to ensure the consistent and transparent reporting of institutional progress in fundraising. The data and reports will afford members access to peer analysis.

3. Create a set of methods, standards and guidelines which allow all schools to adhere to those guidelines and which represent the work of all institutions in honest and clear ways.

4. Design a set of guidelines which CASE can use as the underpinning of its ongoing work to guide the profession, ensure integrity and consistency in educational advancement work and to support CASE’s own work in data collection and reporting.

5. Develop approaches to the guidelines which are applicable to our global membership and which address the needs of institutions and members around the globe. The working group seeks to develop standards in key markets first, and expand from there, ultimately providing a platform for all global members of CASE to report on and compare their work.

6. Ensure the outcome of the CRSMG Working Group efforts result in the creation of new standards and guidelines for the profession which represent the working group, CASE and our profession in the best ways.

Below is an adaptation of the introduction to the CASE Reporting Standards & Management Guidelines for Educational Fundraising, 4th edition.

As the leading source for best practice in educational fundraising, the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) offers these reporting standards and management guidelines for annual fundraising and campaigns. This book provides institutional leaders and fundraising officials at schools, colleges, and universities with two important kinds of information:

• Section I includes the prescribed standards for institutions to use in reporting their fundraising results to CASE for its annual Survey of Educational Fundraising Campaigns and to the Council for Aid to Education (CAE) for its annual Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) survey, and
• Section II includes selected guidelines for educational institutions to consider in the management of their annual fundraising programs and fundraising campaigns.

Now in its fourth edition, this book is the result of 30 years of review and development by leading fundraising practitioners and researchers in North America. Seven volunteer committees contributed to these standards and guidelines, based on widespread input from CASE members. (A brief history of the book's evolution, along with the names of those who served on the committees that contributed to its development, can be found in the appendix.)

The fourth edition also contains important revisions to the reporting standards as they apply specifically to campaigns. (The standards for reporting annual fundraising results remain unchanged from the third edition.) The campaign-related revisions provide institutions with the opportunity to report gifts in additional ways that recognize the importance of all donors, the value of all gifts, as well as the efforts of all members of the fundraising staff.

Endorsed by the CASE Commission on Philanthropy, Oct. 17, 2011

Periodically, CASE and the Council for Aid to Education (CAE) respond to questions about whether and how certain peculiar or rare sorts of donations should be counted in fundraising totals reported.

This document addresses three of these categories of donations:

• Intellectual Property and Patents
• Conservation Easements
• Corporate Partnerships

While each of these is addressed directly or indirectly in the CASE Reporting Standards and Management Guidelines for Educational Fundraising, 4th edition, CASE provides the additional guidance below to respond to requests for clarification. Future editions of the standards will reflect these comments. Respondents to the CASE Survey of Educational Fundraising Campaigns and CAE's Voluntary Support of Education survey should follow—or continue to follow—the counting methods below, effective immediately, when reporting campaign and annual fundraising totals:

• Intellectual Property (IP) & Patents: Book only the revenue stream, if any, the IP or patent generates as it is received over time. While permanent donations of intellectual property and patents can be tax-deductible, their value to the qualified recipient organization might be impossible to predict and will rarely equal the deduction a donor might be able to claim. Neither, in fact, may result in any actual or realized value to the organization. A donor's appraised value should never be used when determining the value an institution uses for counting purposes.
• Conservation Easements: Usually, do not count easements in annual or campaign surveys. Only if revenue is realized should that amount be recognized as a gift. Conservation easements can be accepted as tax-deductible contributions to those institutions having land conservation as a related mission. However, only in rare circumstances does the recipient organization realize revenue from accepting an easement. While conservation of land is a noble endeavor, counting of the appraised value of these easements in fundraising totals artificially inflates those totals. Because an easement cannot be monetized, except in very rare circumstances, it is improper to add its value to fundraising totals even if some programmatic use for it can be found.
• Corporate Partnerships: None of the income or cost-savings resulting from corporate partnerships should be included in fundraising totals. Common examples of these partnerships are the donations of software systems to an institution for specific use in training students in the use of that particular software, wherein the institution is exempted from paying annual license or maintenance fees. Similarly a software company may offer the use of its product in order to showcase the product to other organizations. While the recipient organization may be able to use the software, ownership of the software is rarely conveyed and the free use of the software programs is generally reviewed for continued use annually. Therefore, these fall under the IRS definition of "partial interest" (see IRS Publication 526) where there is no tax-deductible gift and, therefore, no countable gift. Other examples of corporate partnerships include exclusive pouring rights, food service contracts, and credit card affinity programs in which selection of a specific vendor is made with the understanding that the vendor will pay the institution fees in exchange for its selection.

July 2018 Update to CASE Reporting Standards and Management Guidelines

On Dec. 22, 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1), legislation that repealed the deduction for charitable gifts made for the right to purchase preferred seating at college and university athletic events. Donors are now no longer able to deduct 80 percent of such contributions.

After the tax law passed, CASE issued guidance that disallowed the counting of these gifts on the CASE Voluntary Support of Education and Campaign Surveys.1 This decision was based on CASE's existing Reporting Standards and Management Guidelines (4th Edition), which specifically state that "if the IRS and the Canada Revenue Agency do not recognize a transaction as a charitable donation, then it is inappropriate to recognize the transaction as a gift for CASE and CAE reporting."

After further discussion and feedback from CASE members, the CASE Board of Trustees has voted to approve an exception to the existing standards that allows institutions to continue counting 80 percent of athletic seating contributions on the CASE VSE and Campaign surveys until new Reporting Standards and Management Guidelines are approved and in place (likely July 1, 2020). While these contributions can be counted for CASE survey purposes, institutions should communicate to donors that these gifts are no longer deductible for tax purposes.

CASE is beginning the process of updating its Reporting Standards and Management Guidelines and the task force charged with updating the standards will consider many issues, including the treatment of athletic seating gifts. CASE encourages members with athletic programs to consider how athletics fits into the institution's overall philanthropic vision.

For specific tax advice, please reach out to your institution's tax and/or legal counsel. For more information on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and its implications for educational advancement, review our bill summary. If you have questions specific to the VSE Survey, contact vse@case.org. If you have other questions, please contact the CASE Library at library@case.org.

1 As of July 1, 2018, CASE has acquired the Voluntary Support of Education Survey from the Council for Aid to Education. Press release

The following FAQ on counting gifts from alumni, developed by the CASE Commission on Alumni Relations in consultation with the CASE Commission on Philanthropy, relates specifically to reporting figures to CASE and Council for Aid to Education surveys for national comparisons. For other purposes, transparency, consistency and accountability in reporting are encouraged and in the best interests of an institution and its various constituents.

Q: Should graduating seniors be included in alumni giving data?

A: Graduating seniors present an interesting dilemma. Often seniors make a gift in the latter part of their senior year but by the time the data is reported, they are alumni. Therefore, counting philanthropic gifts from seniors is acceptable as long as all seniors are counted among alumni of record. In other words, if gifts from graduating seniors are included in alumni giving data, then the complete cohort—all graduating seniors—must be included in the total alumni census. It is not acceptable to include seniors who donate but to exclude seniors who do not donate when calculating overall alumni giving. To report fair and accurate data, any donors reported in the numerator must have their entire cohort in the denominator.

Q: Is it appropriate to ask alumni for a minuscule amount of money ($1, for example) just to boost the percentage of alumni giving?

A: No. Our mission to build support for our institutions is not properly served by attempting to manipulate reporting data. Energies are best spent on sound practices to increase institutional support from alumni. Whether initiated by advancement staff or volunteers, it does not build greater support for the institution to ask alumni for “an extra dollar” to boost the class participation percentage. On the other hand, asking seniors in the Class of 2008 to give $20.08 as a means to capture their interest and encourage a habit of giving would be acceptable.

Q: Is it acceptable to count other income from alumni (such as magazine subscriptions, reunion fees, membership dues) toward alumni giving?

A: No. A good rule of thumb is to consider the donor’s intention in giving this money. If the donor intended to make a philanthropic gift to the institution, then it is a gift and should be reported. If the donor wrote a check to receive something in return—a magazine, admission to an event or membership in an organization—then the amount should not be considered in alumni giving totals, even if the donor receives a receipt from the institution.

Q: Is it appropriate to count a single donation over multiple years to boost the percentage of alumni giving?

A: When a donor makes a single gift with the expectation that the gift is a one-time gift, it is not appropriate to count the donor in more than one reporting year. Multi-year gifts and pledges are acceptable as long as the donor made the intention of a multiple-year commitment. Taking a single gift and counting it over multiple years without the donor's knowledge or intention is not appropriate.

Q: Is it appropriate to avoid keeping track of alumni or avoid taking steps to find “lost” alumni as a means to boost alumni giving participation?

A: No. Advancement professionals have an obligation to update alumni data whenever feasibly possible. Many best practices are available to advancement professionals on keeping alumni data current. In addition, several commercial vendors provide services to assist institutions in finding and tracking alumni. Not tracking or finding alumni is not in the long term best interests of the institution nor is it ethical.

Q: Is it appropriate to solicit fewer alumni to drive up giving percentages?

A: No. Again, our goal should not be merely to drive up the percentage of alumni who give. Our goal should be to work toward getting more alumni to support the institution.

In summary, advancement professionals should be actively working to increase philanthropic support from alumni for the long-term benefit of our institutions, and should not merely manipulate the reporting data.

The standards are now available as the CASE Reporting Standards & Management Guidelines, 4th edition, published in 2009.

1. What are the CASE Reporting Standards & Management Guidelines?

The CASE Reporting Standards & Management Guidelines are a common set of definitions and procedures for reporting the results of fundraising activities at educational institutions. They were created to help schools, colleges, and universities benchmark their fundraising efforts against those of their peers.

2. Where can I find the CASE Reporting Standards & Management Guidelines?

The current edition of the CASE Reporting Standards & Management Guidelines was published in 2009.

The CASE Reporting Standards and Management Guidelines Working Group are currently working towards a next edition with a expected publication date of late 2020. 

3. Who developed the standards?

Since 1979, a number of respected educational fundraising professionals from a broad range of organizations and institutions have been involved in the development and evolution of the standards. In addition, the standards have benefited from the input of the CASE membership as well as the CASE Commission on Philanthropy and the CASE Board of Trustees, both of which are made up of advancement professionals from a range of institutions. See an excerpt from the introduction to the fourth edition for additional background about their history and purpose.

4. Are institutions required to follow the standards?

Institutions must follow the standards when they report their fundraising results to two annual benchmarking surveys: Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) Survey and the CASE Survey of Educational Fundraising Campaigns. Use of the standards to report fundraising results for other purposes, such as internal and external reports to an institution's constituents, is voluntary.

5. Has CASE offered clarification on the standards since the fourth edition was published in 2009?

In October 2011, CASE provided clarification to the standards as endorsed by the CASE Commission on Philanthropy. Clarification was provided regarding counting donations in three categories: intellectual property and patents, conservation easements and corporate partnerships.

In addition, in October 2007, the CASE Commission on Alumni Relations in consultation with the CASE Commission on Philanthropy approved several alumni giving FAQs that address ethical counting and reporting of alumni gifts.