The final outcome of charitable bequest gift intentions: Findings and implications for legacy fundraising

Abstract

Charitable bequest gifts are important to charities but evaluating legacy fundraising activities is problematic. These activities may not generate bequest income until many years later. Thus, many charities focus on generating reports of current plans or intentions for bequest gifts. Such approaches depend on the link between these reports and ultimate bequest transfers. However, this link is not well documented. This study presents the first multi‐organisational results linking ultimate estate distributions with lifetime legacy giving plans or intentions reported to charities. Ten Australian charities provided data from those dying in 2014–2017. Among 700 decedents who had confirmed the presence of a planned bequest gift to the charity, 35% generated no estate gift. This lost gift rate varied from 17 to 60% across different organisations. The average loss rate was 24% when the charity had at least one communication with the decedent within 2 years of death, and 48% otherwise. Among 264 people reporting to the charity that they were “intending” or “considering” an estate gift but not confirming it, 89% left no gift at death. Among 507 people only requesting information about making a bequest gift, 95% left no gift at death. These results suggest the importance of moving donors to the point of planned gift confirmation and then maintaining relationships until the end of life. However, marketing remains challenging given that 58% of the 2,682 total bequest gifts received by these organisations came from decedents who were not donors during life.

The state‐of‐the‐art and future research directions in bequest fundraising by nonprofit organizations: A systematic literature review

“…Bequest leaflets should be produced primarily for current donors, then for supporters such as volunteers, and finally, for potential supporters. Wishart and James (2021) had recently addressed the challenges inherent in measuring bequest income. They state that the link between bequest fundraising activity and income is problematic, as income typically comes in many years or even decades after a bequest fundraising activity.…”

“…• Empathy (Schuyt et al, 2017;Sikkel & Schoenmakers, 2012) • Religion (Havens et al, 2006;Sargeant & Shang, 2011;Schuyt et al, 2017;Wiepking et al, 2010) • Trust (Sargeant and Jay, 2004;Abdy & Farmelo, 2005;Brown, 2004) • Reciprocation Turner, 2013) • Warm glow/Negative relief ) • Bequest process (Ford, 1996;Radcliffe, 1998;Wishart & James, 2021) • Cost (Wiepking et al, 2012;Schervish and Havens, 2003;Wiepking et al, 2010).…”

“…External key activites w/ Donors • Move donors to the point of gift confirmation and maintain the relationship until the end of life (Wishart & James, 2021) • Encourage people to let the charity know when they have included a charitable bequest in their wills (Wise, 2005) • Use legacy leaflet with additional will-making advice to monitor campaigns and response rate (Wise, 2005) w/ Solicitors Internal key activites Data management…”

“…• Bequest fundraising must be integrated into all other fundraising activities (Radcliffe, 1998) • Counting confirmed bequest gift during life does have predictive value (Wishart & James, 2021) • Have everyone involved and properly briefed on bequest fundraising from the top to the bottom (Ford, 1996) Long-term view Source: Authors' compilation.…”

“When I go my family will see my life in programmes”: Legacy giving and identity at the Royal Opera House

“…Both James III and Baker (2015) and Wishart and James III (2021) highlight the importance of the ongoing stewardship of legacy pledgers and, the continued interaction that these pledgers have as audience members continues the connection and reinforces the performance of the charity (both in terms of the performance of the charity's mission [in this case creating ballet and opera to the highest standard] and the performances of ballet and opera that are on the stage), and is part of their identity and life story as discussed above. This suggests that the “frequency of contact, but also the quality of interaction” (Sargeant & Shang, 2011, p. 982) are factors that influence the bequest decision for these pledgers.…”