Audit the Pipeline So It Survives Staff Turnover

The eight-test bequest pipeline audit

Run this audit quarterly for a growing program and at least twice a year for a smaller program. Run it immediately after staff turnover, CRM migration, a campaign import, a board-reporting change, or any estate notification that exposes confusion between the living pipeline and Course 3.

Score each test as Green, Amber or Red.

Green means the control is working and can be relied on.

Amber means the control is present but incomplete; fix it before the next report, mailing or stage update.

Red means the control is unsafe; stop using the affected data until it is repaired.

A pipeline with a Red result in Test 2, Test 5 or Test 7 is not board-report ready.

1. 1 Source-evidence test What it tests: Whether each bequest record shows the source of the signal rather than relying on an old label. How to audit: Take a sample of at least 25 live records, or all records if the program is small. For each record, find the source evidence: email, phone note, webform, reply card, signed form, event note, solicitor enquiry, donor letter or imported spreadsheet source. Green: The record contains date, channel, source, staff owner and the donor’s actual words or the intermediary’s exact request. Amber: The record has a useful signal but the wording is summarised too loosely. Example: “Asked about wills at event” is amber if no one recorded what was asked. Red: The record says “legacy prospect,” “likely bequest,” “confirmed,” “hot,” “good candidate” or “board connection” with no source evidence. What to fix: Replace opinion labels with evidence. If evidence cannot be found, downgrade or close the record rather than preserving an unsupported stage. What a repair note looks like: “Source evidence not located during audit, 4 March 2027. Previous label ‘likely legacy prospect’ unsupported. Record removed from active bequest pipeline pending new donor signal. No forecast value. No follow-up task based on old label.”
2. 2 Stage-accuracy test What it tests: Whether the CRM stage matches the evidence rules from Lesson 3. How to audit: For each sampled record, ask: What is the strongest evidence we actually have? Then compare it with the current stage. Green: The stage is supported by the donor’s words or action. Example: A donor says, “My current will includes your organisation,” so Stage 5 is supported. Amber: The record probably belongs in the pipeline, but the stage is too broad or missing detail. Example: A donor requested legal name and ABN for a solicitor, but the CRM only says “legacy interest.” That may be Stage 1 or Stage 3 depending on the source note. Red: The stage is upgraded beyond the evidence. Example: A donor attended a gifts-in-wills webinar and was marked “confirmed bequest.” What to fix: Move the record to the highest stage the evidence supports. Do not preserve a higher stage because the donor is wealthy, old, loyal, prominent or close to a board member. What a repair note looks like: “Stage corrected during audit, 4 March 2027. Previous stage: Stage 5 — Disclosed current inclusion. Evidence supports Stage 2 — Values interest only. Donor requested future updates but did not disclose will action. Forecast exclusion retained.”
3. 3 Permission and privacy test What it tests: Whether contact, recognition, family/adviser contact and internal visibility are controlled. How to audit: Review all Stage 4 and Stage 5 records, plus any Stage 1–3 record containing sensitive personal information. Check whether permission fields are structured, visible and current. Green: The record clearly states permitted channel, prohibited channel, recognition status, internal visibility, family/adviser permission and any anonymity preference. Amber: Permission exists but is buried in a note or incomplete. Example: The donor wrote “please keep this private,” but there is no visibility flag. Red: The organisation is using the disclosure in a way the donor did not permit. Example: The donor is on a legacy-society invitation list with no recognition permission. What to fix: Suppress first, then repair. Remove the donor from recognition, event, phone, volunteer or campaign lists until permission is clear. What a repair note looks like: “Permission repair completed, 4 March 2027. Donor removed from legacy-society invitation export because no recognition permission exists. Bequest detail restricted to Gifts-in-Wills Lead and Supporter Services Manager. No public listing.”
4. 4 Cadence-health test What it tests: Whether every live record has an appropriate next action, owner, backup owner and trigger rule. How to audit: Pull four lists: tasks due in the next 14 days, tasks overdue by more than 14 days, live records with no next action, and paused records with no review date. Green: Every live record has a stage-appropriate task or a documented pause/close reason. Tasks state purpose, channel and boundary. Amber: Tasks exist but are vague. Example: “Follow up” appears without saying whether the contact is an email, a call, an information check or a permission review. Red: Tasks are firing against donor boundaries, or no one owns overdue tasks. Example: A donor asked for no phone contact, but the next task is “call to discuss bequest.” What to fix: Rewrite vague tasks before they fire. Route overdue tasks to the backup owner. Close records that have no evidence and no appropriate next action. What a repair note looks like: “Cadence repair, 4 March 2027. Old task ‘call donor’ deleted because donor requested email only. New task: email annual private update on 10 June 2027; no ask for amount, confirmation or family details. Owner: Gifts-in-Wills Lead. Backup: Supporter Services Manager.”
5. 5 Forecast and reporting test What it tests: Whether living-pipeline records are excluded from income forecasts and whether board reports separate activity, health and finance treatment. How to audit: Compare the CRM pipeline export with the most recent board report, finance forecast and fundraising dashboard. Look for unsupported values, probability scores, “expected income,” “confirmed bequest value,” or living Stage 1–5 records in budget-year revenue. Green: Stages 1–5 are reported as living-pipeline evidence only. No unapproved forecast values or probability scores appear. Realised income is separated through Course 3 and finance procedures. Amber: The board report has good caveats but the CRM still contains old value fields that could be exported later. Red: Living intentions have been converted into forecast income, campaign totals or deficit-relief figures. What to fix: Remove unsupported values from the pipeline export. Correct the board dashboard. Explain the change as risk reduction, not lost income. What a repair note looks like: “Reporting repair, 4 March 2027. Removed unsupported $1.2m total from living-pipeline dashboard. Stages 1–5 now reported as evidence counts only. Finance treatment line added: ‘Living-pipeline records are excluded from budget-year income forecasts.’”
6. 6 Organisational-information control test What it tests: Whether the charity is providing consistent Australian organisational information without drifting into legal or tax advice. How to audit: Review the information pack, email templates, CRM snippets, website copy, adviser-response text and staff-used wording. Check full legal name, ABN, DGR status, approved wording, version date and independent-legal-advice boundary. Green: One approved source of truth exists, with current full legal name, ABN, DGR status if relevant, and a clear statement that donors should seek independent legal advice. Amber: The right information exists, but old versions are still in circulation. Red: Staff are giving personal estate, family provision or tax advice, or using imported UK/US tax-incentive logic. Example of a red phrase: “Leaving a gift in your will may reduce inheritance tax.” That is wrong for Australia. Australia has no inheritance tax, estate tax or death duties. What to fix: Withdraw old templates. Version-control the approved information. Train staff to provide organisational details only. What a safe template note looks like: “Please provide this information to your solicitor or adviser. We can confirm our full legal name, ABN and DGR status, but we cannot advise on your estate plan, tax position, family provision matters or whether this wording is suitable for your circumstances.”
7. 7 Course 3 boundary test What it tests: Whether estate notifications, realised gifts and post-death risks are being handled by Course 3 rather than the living pipeline. How to audit: Review all Stage 6 records, estate-notification records, deceased donor records, and any CRM note mentioning executor, probate, distribution, restriction, disputed estate, old charity name, merger, family claim or solicitor correspondence after death. Green: Estate matters have a Course 3 workflow reference. The living-pipeline record is closed or awaiting approved closeout. Estate administration is not being run from ordinary CRM tasks. Amber: The matter was sent to the right person, but the CRM has not recorded the Course 3 reference or closeout status. Red: The living-pipeline team is managing estate administration, restriction interpretation, family provision risk, charity-identity checks or gift-acceptance judgment from the donor record. What to fix: Stop the living-pipeline task. Hand the matter to Course 3. Add the Course 3 reference once available. Close the living pipeline only after the approved handover. What a repair note looks like: “Course 3 boundary repair, 4 March 2027. Estate notification was incorrectly sitting as active Stage 5 task. Living-pipeline task closed. Matter handed to Course 3 estate workflow. Await Course 3 reference before Stage 6 closeout.”
8. 8 Resilience test What it tests: Whether the pipeline can function when the primary bequest staff member is absent or leaves. How to audit: Ask three people to locate and explain the same five records: the Gifts-in-Wills Lead, Supporter Services Manager and CRM owner. They should be able to identify the stage, evidence, permission, next action, reporting status and Course 3 boundary without asking the former staff member. Green: The system has documented stage rules, task rules, report definitions, owner/backup routing, template control and Course 3 handover steps. Amber: The process works, but only because the current staff member knows the unwritten exceptions. Red: The pipeline depends on one person’s memory, spreadsheet, inbox folders, personal task list or private interpretation of donor relationships. What to fix: Document the rules. Assign backup owners. Move private notes into controlled CRM fields. Create a monthly pipeline hygiene report. What a repair note looks like: “Resilience repair, 4 March 2027. Personal spreadsheet retired. All active bequest records now require CRM stage, source evidence, permission status, next action, owner, backup owner and forecast treatment. Monthly hygiene report assigned to CRM owner.”