Measuring a referral program that may not pay off for years
This lesson defines a sensible measurement system for professional-referral work, separating activity, adviser engagement, consented donor enquiries, disclosed intentions and realised estate income.
Listen to the lesson
The dashboard can damage the program
Referral programs fail when they are measured too loosely or too impatiently.
Too loosely means counting every professional conversation as pipeline. A solicitor attends a breakfast, a financial adviser asks for your ABN, a will-writing provider lists your charity in a directory, and suddenly the board report says the charity has “opened a major bequest channel.”
Too impatiently means expecting estate income to prove the program quickly. That is not how bequest fundraising works. The facts pack warns that bequest intentions are volatile, that wills can change, that realised income may arrive years or decades later, and that estate values fluctuate. A disclosed intention is not the same as a realised gift.
Professional-referral work needs a measurement system that respects that uncertainty.
The opportunity is large enough to justify the work. Research for the JBWere Bequest Report estimates that about $150 billion passes through inheritances in Australia each year, with about $1.3 billion — roughly 1% — going to charity. Australian sources cluster around 6.5–8% of wills containing a charitable gift, while roughly a third of Australians say they would consider one. Include a Charity also cites a long-run sector figure of about $28 returned for every $1 invested in gifts-in-wills fundraising, but that figure must be treated carefully: it is long-horizon, varies by organisation, and is not a budget-year cash metric.
That is the measurement discipline: take the opportunity seriously without pretending it is predictable.
A good referral dashboard should answer five different questions:
Are we building the right professional relationships?
Are those professionals engaging in useful, boundary-safe ways?
Are donor enquiries arriving with consent?
Are any intentions being disclosed, and with what level of uncertainty?
What income has actually been realised?
Those are not one pipeline. They are five ledgers.
Framework
The five-ledger referral measurement system
Use five separate ledgers. Do not collapse them into one “expected income” number.
-
1
Relationship activity — what the charity has done
What it measures: The work the charity controls: identifying suitable professionals, making first approaches, holding meetings, providing role-shaped materials, delivering briefings, maintaining details and following up at the agreed rhythm.
Track: Number of suitable professionals identified by role. Number of first approaches sent. Number of introductory meetings held. Number of solicitor, adviser and will-writer resources created or updated. Number of briefings delivered. Number of annual detail updates sent. Number of relationship records with contact preference documented.
How to read it: This ledger shows whether the program is being built. It does not show whether gifts are likely.
Good interpretation: “We completed six solicitor meetings and two adviser briefings this quarter. The next test is whether the contacts remain permissioned, useful and active.”
Bad interpretation: “We met eight professionals, so we have eight referral sources.”
Why the distinction matters: Activity is necessary, but it is not proof of influence. A professional who politely takes a meeting may never raise charitable giving with a client. -
2
Adviser engagement — whether professionals are using the charity appropriately
What it measures: Whether intermediaries find the charity useful enough to keep engaging without being pushed.
Track: Professionals who opt in to annual details updates. Professionals who request a concise information sheet. Professionals who ask for a briefing on neutral charitable-giving prompts. Professionals who give feedback on unclear or risky material. Professionals who ask organisational questions with no client details attached. Professionals who confirm they understand the charity’s boundary.
How to read it: This ledger shows relationship quality. It should be interpreted through usefulness and safety, not volume.
Good interpretation: “Three firms asked us to simplify our organisational-details sheet. That is useful engagement because it improves the material advisers may use when clients ask.”
Bad interpretation: “Three firms asked questions, so they probably have donors in mind.”
Why the distinction matters: The professional may be improving a file note, updating a directory, training staff or checking boundaries. Do not turn every contact into hidden pipeline. -
3
Consented donor enquiries — when a person has entered the charity relationship
What it measures: Named enquiries where the donor or their authorised professional has consented to contact or information sharing.
Track: Date of enquiry. Source channel: solicitor, financial adviser, will-writer, online will partner, donor direct, family or other. Whether consent to contact is documented. What the person asked for: legal details, organisational information, impact information, meeting, recognition, or something else. Whether the enquiry involved risk factors: family sensitivity, capacity concern, bereavement, large proposed share, restricted gift, wording question, tax question or estate-structure question. What response was provided. Whether the matter remains active, paused, closed or referred back to qualified advice.
How to read it: This ledger shows real donor-facing activity, but still not income.
Good interpretation: “We received four consented enquiries through professional channels. Two were simple organisational-detail requests, one was referred back to a solicitor due to family complexity, and one became an ongoing donor conversation.”
Bad interpretation: “We received four professional referrals this quarter.”
Why the distinction matters: A person asking for the charity’s ABN is not necessarily leaving a gift. A person asking about a gift may later change their will. A sensitive enquiry may be better handled by slowing down than by moving toward a pledge. -
4
Disclosed intentions — what the donor has chosen to tell the charity
What it measures: Voluntary donor disclosures that they have included, intend to include, or are considering including the charity in their will.
Track: Disclosure type: considering, intending, says already included, confirmed with adviser, or unknown. Gift form if voluntarily disclosed: fixed amount, percentage, residue, specific asset, conditional or restricted gift. Estimated value only if volunteered and clearly marked as unverified. Whether professional advice is involved. Whether the donor wants recognition, anonymity or no further contact. Review date for stewardship, not for pressure. Risk level: ordinary, sensitive, high-risk or realised estate notification.
How to read it: This ledger shows relationship significance and future potential. It should not be counted as secured income.
Good interpretation: “Seven supporters have disclosed some level of intention. We will steward them appropriately and report the number separately from realised income.”
Bad interpretation: “Seven confirmed bequests should be added to future revenue.”
Why the distinction matters: Wishart and James’s work on the final outcome of charitable bequest intentions shows that intentions can change before death. The facts pack also warns that bequests are delayed, lumpy and uncertain. A disclosed intention deserves stewardship, but it is not cash. -
5
Realised estate income — what has actually arrived
What it measures: Estate gifts that have been notified, administered and received.
Track: Estate notification date. Source, if known and consented: donor direct, solicitor, adviser, will-writing partner, unknown. Gift type and restrictions. Gross amount notified. Amount received. Time from notification to receipt. Any dispute, family provision issue, delay, abatement or failed gift. Whether the charity’s legal name, ABN or merger history created issues. Learning for future materials or professional relationships.
How to read it: This is the only ledger that records income. Even then, it should be interpreted over multiple years.
Good interpretation: “This year’s realised estate income included one gift connected to a professional enquiry three years ago. We should record the pathway, but not assume the same pattern will repeat annually.”
Bad interpretation: “One large estate proves the referral program is now self-funding.”
Why the distinction matters: Bequest income is inherently lumpy. One estate can distort the picture. A mature program looks at realised income, relationship quality, enquiry flow and stewardship discipline together.
Scenario
The board report that turns uncertainty into false confidence
A children’s hearing charity has run a professional-referral program for eighteen months. The gifts-in-wills lead, Alana, prepares a report for the finance and fundraising committee.
The raw activity looks promising.
Twelve solicitors have received the charity’s organisational-details sheet.
Four financial advisers have attended a short briefing.
One online will-writing provider has added the charity to a neutral directory.
Three donor enquiries have arrived through professional contacts.
Two supporters have voluntarily disclosed that they are considering gifts in their wills.
One supporter, Neville, has told his solicitor he may include the charity for 25% of his residual estate, but has not asked the charity for recognition or further contact.
The first dashboard draft says:
“Professional referral pipeline: $1.2 million estimated future income.
Activity this year:
12 solicitor contacts
4 adviser briefings
1 will-writing directory listing
3 referred donor enquiries
2 disclosed bequest intentions
1 major residual gift prospect
Recommendation:
Continue investment and forecast future income from professional referrals.”
The finance chair likes the clarity. The CEO likes the $1.2 million. Alana is uneasy.
The dashboard has mixed five different things: activity, adviser engagement, donor enquiries, disclosed intentions and a possible gift that may never be made or realised. It also turns Neville into a “major residual gift prospect” even though he has not consented to charity stewardship and may still be deciding.
Alana rewrites the report:
“Professional-referral program: eighteen-month progress report.
1. Relationship activity
12 solicitor contacts received current organisational details.
4 financial advisers attended a neutral charitable-giving briefing.
1 will-writing provider added the charity to a neutral directory after approval against partnership conditions.
2. Adviser engagement
5 professionals opted in to annual details updates.
2 requested a shorter client-file information sheet.
1 adviser asked for a boundary clarification, leading us to revise the tax paragraph in adviser-background material.
3. Consented donor enquiries
3 donor enquiries arrived through professional channels.
2 requested legal identity and organisational information only.
1 involved family complexity and was referred back to the solicitor before any charity meeting.
4. Disclosed intentions
2 supporters have voluntarily disclosed that they are considering a gift in their will.
1 additional supporter has told a solicitor he may include the charity, but the charity does not have consent for stewardship contact. This is recorded as a sensitive professional notification, not as pledged income.
5. Realised income
No estate income has yet been realised through this program.
Management interpretation
The program is building appropriate professional engagement and has generated a small number of consented enquiries. It is too early, and too uncertain, to forecast income from disclosed or possible intentions. The next-year goal is to improve relationship quality, maintain consent discipline, and track realised estate income separately if it occurs.”
That report is less exciting. It is also more honest. It gives the board enough evidence to govern the program without encouraging the team to chase professionals, pressure donors or book future income that does not exist.
Next step
Build the referral dashboard
Create a dashboard with five sections. Use the headings below exactly so activity does not get confused with income.
Section 1: Relationship activity
Include:
Professional contacts identified.
Approaches made.
Meetings held.
Briefings delivered.
Role-shaped resources created.
Annual detail updates sent.
Do not include:
Estimated client wealth.
Assumed bequest potential.
Number of “professional referrers” unless the professional has agreed to an ongoing relationship.
Section 2: Adviser engagement
Include:
Opt-ins to future contact.
Requests for updated organisational details.
Requests for neutral briefing.
Feedback on material.
Boundary questions.
Anonymised process friction.
Do not include:
Pressure rankings.
Expected referrals by professional.
Firm-by-firm gift targets.
Section 3: Consented donor enquiries
Include:
Number of enquiries.
Source channel.
Consent status.
Question asked.
Response given.
Risk flags.
Current status.
Use these status labels:
Information supplied.
Referred back to adviser.
Donor conversation active.
Paused due to risk or donor preference.
Closed.
Unknown.
Do not include:
Named donor details in general board papers.
Estate estimates unless volunteered and approved for internal recording.
Any information received without clear consent.
Section 4: Disclosed intentions
Include:
Considering.
Intends to include.
Says already included.
Confirmed through donor or authorised adviser.
Anonymous or no-contact intention.
Sensitive professional notification.
Add this note:
“Disclosed intentions are not confirmed income. Wills can change, estate values can change, and gifts may be delayed, disputed, reduced or never realised.”
Do not include:
One total future-income figure unless your organisation has an approved, conservative forecasting policy that clearly separates assumptions from realised income.
Section 5: Realised estate income
Include:
Estate notifications.
Amounts received.
Restrictions.
Disputes or delays.
Time from notification to receipt.
Source pathway if known.
Learning for future professional materials.
Do not include:
Unrealised intentions.
Verbal possibilities.
Unconsented professional comments.
Pipeline estimates.
Then add one interpretation paragraph using this structure:
“This period shows [activity level], [engagement quality], [number and type of consented enquiries], [number and status of disclosed intentions], and [realised estate income if any]. The main management action is [one next step]. We are not treating disclosed or possible intentions as confirmed income.”
Example:
“This period shows steady relationship activity, modest but useful adviser engagement, three consented donor enquiries, two disclosed intentions and no realised estate income. The main management action is to improve the solicitor information sheet and maintain annual contact with opted-in firms. We are not treating disclosed or possible intentions as confirmed income.”
The dashboard should help leaders fund patient work without demanding false certainty from it.
Key idea
A referral program should track activity, engagement, consented enquiries, disclosed intentions and realised income separately. The moment those categories collapse, the program starts rewarding exaggeration.
What this changes
You now have the measurement discipline for a professional-referral program.
The charity should be able to show serious work before estate income appears: suitable professionals identified, useful relationships maintained, materials improved, advisers briefed, enquiries handled well and sensitive matters slowed down when needed.
But it must not turn that work into false revenue. A meeting is not a referral. A referral is not a gift. A disclosed intention is not cash. A large possible estate is not money the charity owns.
This course began with the argument that professional referral relationships can help make charitable giving a normal, safe planning option. The final discipline is to measure that work in a way that protects the same trust the relationships depend on.