Budgeting for Bequests

One thing about shelter-in-place; I’ve been going through notes and files and finding half-written ideas for blog posts that never made it here.

One such germ of a post began with a question from another website (I’ve lost the link, not sure where the conversation started), “Do Bequest gifts to your organization at least total seven to nine percent of all charitable gift dollars each year? That’s the national average.”

My response (now edited for posting):

Bequests may be 7-9% of overall charitable giving, but it’s wrong to assume that it’s an “average” that organizations should shoot for. That’s an overall figure for the sector, including organizations large and small. And including religious orders and nonprofit universities, which are “typical” (as dangerous a word as “average”) bequest recipients.

This made me wonder if there’s a better way to come up with a nonprofits' target bequest expectations. Rather than bequests’ overall ranking, maybe it would be more appropriate to look at it in relation to individual giving? After all, bequests are simply the final gift of the individual donors who we've properly stewarded for many years.

So, if individuals are about 74% of overall national giving, compared to bequests being about 8% (changes slightly year-to-year, but roughly the about that), then we’d say bequests, overall, are about 11% of individual giving.

Then, an organization could see if they’re doing well on bequests using that 11% of individuals figure.

IE: If individuals are 50% of your income, bequests “should be” 5.5%. If individuals are 25% of your income, bequests “should be” 2.75%. If individuals are 85% of your income, bequests “should be” 9%. IF that were a good benchmark.

Reality, however, includes many other factors. Do your donors skew older or younger? It seems likely that if you have older donors, you may be expecting more bequests. What is your average donor turn-over? Do you retain a high percentage of donors each year? Organizations that retain more donors, rather than churn them over, may be more likely to have higher bequests.

In the end, even when donors notify us that they’ve included us in their wills, bequests are never a “pledge” that you can count on. They will nearly always be unexpected, and are not something you can put in your budget. And, as they are frequently larger amounts, it may be that your board will designate them for an endowment.

Bottom line: Encourage planned giving. Be grateful for the bequests that do come in (and make it through probate). But don’t plan for them, and don’t fall into a trap of trying to benchmark where you “should be” in bequests.

Aligning Nonprofit Strategy with Donor Preferences

Last week I attended the "What Really Matters" webinar from Abila to discuss the findings in their latest Donor Engagement Study. There were a few surprises in their latest findings, and several confirmations of what we've always known, or at least should have sensed.

On of the key points that should be obvious, but bears repeating, is that Content is King. What you say is more important than the frequency with which you communicate, or even what medium or channel you are using.

And, when it comes to that content, what donors are most interested in is stories. Again, many of us have been harping on this for years, but too many nonprofits have still not heard the message: Your data may help get a signature on a large check, but to get to that point you need to share just one personal story of how your nonprofit has helped one individual.

When it comes to Abila's findings that should come as a wake-up call, the most startling is the how misaligned most organizations are with the preferences of their donors.

For example, while many nonprofits are dividing their donor lists by gift range, and are differentiating their strategies for large versus small donors, only 3% of groups are always dividing and strategizing differently by age group.

Age of donors matters! Each generation has different communications preferences, from what channel (mail, email, social media...), to the frequency, to the message. If you have the same strategy for reaching millennials as you do for their grandparents, one of them (at least) isn't going to be impressed.

As presenters Tad Druart and Rich Dietz pointed out, our donors are consumers as well, and they are used to communications from companies like Amazon or eBay that are highly differentiated and targeted based on dozens of factors. When we, as nonprofits, treat all donors like just another member of the herd, donors are noticing and turning away from us.

There's a lot more in the report, but I'll leave it up to you to discover. You can visit the Abila.com website to download the full report (it's free).

Every Donor a Major Donor

One question that's always likely to come up when I teach a workshop on fund development is, "How do you define a major donor?" People ask this to determine some sort of line in how to thank and care for their donors; where to set the bar in setting aside one group of donors for "special treatment."

If that's their goal, then the answer really depends on the size of the organization, and how well-developed and successful their individual giving program is. For some organizations "major" may be those who give gifts over $25,000 or even $50,000, while for others it may be any donor who gives more than $500 or $1,000.

But one thing I try to explain to those I teach, coach, or advise, is that it is important to personally thank every donor, and that every gift - no matter how large or small - has the potential to be major to that donor. The person who is struggling themselves, but makes a personal sacrifice to send you $25 deserves at least as much thanks as the rich person who writes a much larger check to lower their tax liability.

I was reminded of this recently when my wife and I were invited to a special donor reception at our alma mater. When we opened the invitation, we looked at each other to ask, "How much did you send them!?" My wife is a public school teacher and I am a consultant to small, local nonprofits. We are not rich by any stretch, and our donations are not at all what a large university would ordinarily consider "major." We thought a mistake may have been made, but we RSVP'd anyway and went to the reception.

It was no mistake that we were on the list. There was no dollar cut-off for this thank you event. What had happened was that we had designated our gift this year to a new endowed chair in honor of one my wife's favorite professors. All early supporters at the fund's launch were invited, regardless of the size of the gift.

We attended with no more than 50 other local alumni, professors, and university staff at the Chancellor's house for a lovely afternoon with delicious snacks, wine, and a few short speeches, thank yous, and a performance from a current student. At no point during the event was there any hint of an ask. There was no fundraising that day, only thanking those who had already given.

As one who is more used to (and comfortable) doing the thanking, it was a pleasant change to be on the other side, and inspirational to see how well a large organization like a major university could do in creating an intimate and personal thank you event for donors at all levels.

How personal are your organization's thank yous? Do you have a cut-off for those who get a personal response versus those who get a form letter? When was the last time you reviewed your major gift and thank you policies?

I can pretty much guarantee that following that reception all of our annual alumni gifts will be going to this particular fund. The gifts may be small, but as long as they are appreciated, they will continue.