In the 24 years since my first exposure to gift planning, the discipline has dramatically changed but management, metrics and systems have not kept pace. Unlike our U.S. cousins, there are still no Canadian standards for counting, recognizing, and valuing planned gifts. Accounting standards do not permit recording future revenue and deferred assets in financial reports, therefore most charities do not report revocable and even irrevocable expectancies to their boards which short-sells the importance of committing resources to the stewardship of bequests over the long-term.
Where to start
The profile of today’s planned gift donors is rapidly changing as wealth shifts from the WWII generation to boomers. Concurrently, the methods by which planned gifts arise for charities have also changed. Planned giving metrics no longer mirror the major gift cycle which guides the principles of moves management and is the basis of metrics used to set and measure performance for major gift officers (MGO). Major gifts metrics and moves management are less and less applicable to performance metrics for planned gift officers (PGO). I believe there are now two distinct donor cycles:
New planned giving relationships most often begin with direct response marketing initiatives designed to uncover donative intent and new leads i.e. “responses.” Responses are then confirmed and leads followed up in the most appropriate manner. If you work in a truly collaborative environment the follow-up assignment could be given to a “friendraiser” or an annual gift officer. Medium and large shops most often assign the follow-up to a PGO or an MGO who has been trained in planned giving. Smaller shops have an obviously simpler methodology, one person does it all.
As Director of Planned Giving at Carleton University, my primary goal must be to generate responses/leads that will be followed up by trained staff. My second goal, then, is to teach/train the team. As prospects respond, my PGO follows up personally or assigns a follow-up to a team member which could include me. Her metrics are interdependent with mine.
At my first "all staff" meeting, I told everyone how fortunate I am to have them all on my team: annual giving, alumni relations, marketing & communications, major gift development and gift administrators. Without all their efforts and leadership, planned gifts would be serendipitous. Each unit director has given thought to and/or applied planned giving metrics that make sense for their teams and I have trained those who are keen to learn.
No fundraising units of a charity should be in competition with any other unit. This requires strong leadership and creative goal setting. However, the cycle of planned gift development, as we have seen, has diverged from the textbook standards and the metrics for gift planners should reflect how most planned gifts arise and the general order in which they happen.
Stewardship
Stewardship is one of the terms in the philanthropic cycle that I'd like to redefine. Stewardship of planned gift donors means doing what it takes to minimize the chance of being disinherited; stewardship of a current gift donor usually means earning the right to ask for another gift. Not at all the same thing. But good stewardship of current gifts can lead to planned gifts and vice versa. Add your comments below.
Preview: Building a collaborative environment
In a couple of weeks I’m going to suggest a few ideas that may work for you as well as they have worked for me in engendering a positive, collaborative environment without dampening the competitive spirit we need to be good fundraisers. I will also let you know why “solicitation” is missing from the PG cycle and where it has gone. I’ll leave you with one last question to answer below: What do planned gift counting policies have to do with collaboration, blended gifts and performance metrics?
Doug Puffer is a gift planning specialist with 32 years experience in the sector. He is currently Director of Personal and Planned Giving at Carleton University and is a Senior Consultant with PGgrowth.
