Creating a Bequest Strategy for an NFP

Lesson 1
8 minutes

The Executive Case for Bequest Investment

This lesson turns the opportunity case already established in Introduction to Bequests into the leadership decision: what an NFP must fund, authorise and measure if bequests are going to become a durable income stream rather than a campaign experiment.

Listen to the lesson

The board is not deciding whether bequests matter

Introduction to Bequests already owns the general case for bequests. Use that course for the headline data: Australian inheritance flows are large, charitable conversion is low, and the gap between intention and action is real.

This course starts at the next level. The executive question is not, “Are bequests a good idea?” The question is, “What organisational capability are we prepared to build?”

A bequest program needs more than a brochure, a web page or a sentence in the newsletter. It needs leadership patience, staff time, donor data, approved language, stewardship ownership, legal identity checks, CRM fields, risk boundaries, and board reporting that does not confuse future possibility with current income.

Research for the JBWere Bequest Report estimates that about $150 billion passes through inheritances in Australia each year, with only about $1.3 billion — roughly 1% — going to charity. That is not money waiting for any one organisation. It is evidence of a market that is structurally under-developed.

Include a Charity and Fundraising Institute Australia consumer research points to the same leadership issue from another angle: roughly a third of Australians say they would consider leaving a gift to charity in their will, while only around 6.5–8% of wills actually contain one. The leadership implication is not “send more people a bequest flyer.” It is that silence, inconsistency and lack of infrastructure have a measurable cost.

A board-ready investment case must therefore argue for capacity, not enthusiasm. It should make clear what the organisation will build, what it will stop pretending, and how the board will judge progress before realised income arrives.

The five decisions in a board-ready bequest investment case

1
The horizon decision
What it is: Leadership accepts that bequest strategy operates on a longer time horizon than annual appeals, regular giving upgrades or most major gift asks. Realisation may take years or decades, and some disclosed intentions will never become income because wills change, family circumstances shift, estates vary and donors may revise their plans.
What the board must decide: Whether it is prepared to fund work whose early evidence is activity, engagement, permission, enquiry, disclosure and stewardship quality — not immediate cash.
Shown in use: A weak board paper says: “Bequests are high ROI, so this should generate new revenue quickly.” A stronger board paper says: “The first phase of this strategy should be judged by whether we build the operating conditions for future realised gifts: correct legal wording, approved staff language, a segmented audience plan, stewardship ownership and reliable pipeline records. Realised income will be reported separately from activity and intention.”
2
The resourcing decision
What it is: Bequest fundraising uses staff capacity even when no one is making a direct ask. Supporter care may need to handle enquiries. Relationship managers need approved language. Database staff need fields and reporting rules. Marketing needs channel decisions. Senior leaders need to defend the work when short-term revenue pressure rises.
What the board must decide: Whether the organisation will resource bequests as a program, not treat them as spare-time work for whichever fundraiser cares most.
Shown in use: A weak budget line says: “Bequest brochure and web page.” A stronger budget line says: “Bequest program capacity: legal identity and wording review, CRM setup, staff training, audience segmentation, donor information pack, stewardship cadence and board reporting.”
3
The integration decision
What it is: Bequest strategy should not sit off to the side as a legacy project. It must connect with regular giving, appeals, major gifts, supporter care, events, digital journeys and donor communications. A modest annual donor may be strategically important. A major donor may not be ready. A supporter who asks about the organisation’s future may need a different response from someone responding to a tax-time campaign.
What the board must decide: Where bequests belong inside the income system, and which teams are expected to carry which part of the work.
Shown in use: A weak operating model says: “The fundraising team will promote bequests.” A stronger operating model says: “Regular giving will surface long-loyal supporters. Major gifts will identify values-led future conversations. Supporter care will capture enquiries and send approved information. Marketing will carry continuity-led messages in agreed channels. The bequest lead will own stewardship and reporting.”
4
The authority and risk decision
What it is: Bequest work touches legal identity, family expectations, vulnerability, donor autonomy, DGR status, tax misunderstanding and estate administration. In Australia, the organisation can provide its full legal name, ABN, DGR status and general gift information, but it must not advise a donor on estate structure, personal tax outcomes, who to include or exclude, or whether wording is legally valid. Introduction to Bequests owns the donor-facing boundary map of what staff can and cannot say. This lesson turns those boundaries into organisational authority.
What the board must decide: What must be approved before launch, who may speak on behalf of the organisation, what must be escalated, and what staff are not authorised to do.
Shown in use: A weak risk position says: “Fundraisers should be careful.” A stronger risk position says: “No public bequest promotion will launch until the organisation has confirmed its legal name, ABN, DGR status, approved wording, advice boundary, enquiry handling process and escalation pathway for family, vulnerability or pressure concerns.”
5
The measurement decision
What it is: Bequest measurement must protect the organisation from two errors: dismissing the work because it does not pay back immediately, or inflating the pipeline because a supporter expressed an intention. Introduction to Bequests owns the Four-Stage Bequest Record and the first-year reporting framework. Here, the board’s job is to decide how progress will be interpreted.
What the board must decide: Which indicators count as early progress, which indicators remain only pipeline signals, and which figures are allowed into income forecasts.
Shown in use: A weak dashboard says: “Expected bequest income: $X.” A stronger dashboard says: “Board reporting will separate program readiness, audience reach, staff activity, enquiries, disclosed intentions, stewardship status and realised estate income. Disclosed intentions will not be treated as budget-year income.”

The board wants a campaign before it has a program

Riverbend Wildlife Trust has received a major residual gift from a long-loyal supporter. The board is excited. One director says, “We should put $20,000 into a bequest campaign and get this moving while everyone is energised.”

The CEO likes the idea because unrestricted revenue is under pressure. The fundraising manager is more cautious. The charity has no approved bequest wording, no confirmed gift-over clause, no CRM stage for disclosed intentions, no staff training, and no named owner for ongoing stewardship. Supporter care has already received two calls from older donors asking what wording to use, and different staff have answered in different ways.

The board paper currently asks for campaign funds. It does not ask for policy approval, staff capacity, reporting rules or risk boundaries.

The strategic decision is not whether Riverbend should promote gifts in wills. The strategic decision is whether the board will fund a bequest program before it funds a bequest campaign.

A stronger recommendation would say:

“Approve a staged bequest strategy, beginning with the operating conditions required for safe public promotion: legal identity confirmation, approved donor information, CRM readiness, staff training, stewardship ownership and board reporting rules. Public campaign activity should begin only after those launch conditions are met.”

That recommendation protects the opportunity from being reduced to a one-off marketing spend. It also protects the organisation from asking staff to raise a sensitive giving option without the authority, tools or systems to handle the response well.

Draft the leadership investment recommendation

Before asking the board to approve a bequest strategy, draft the recommendation in a form that makes the real decision visible.

Use this structure:

1. Name the strategic decision.

Write:

“The decision before the Board is whether to establish bequests as a multi-year income capability, not whether to run a one-off promotional campaign.”

2. State the evidence without re-teaching the opportunity case.

Write:

“Australian charitable bequests sit inside a large, under-converted inheritance market: research for the JBWere Bequest Report estimates that about $150 billion passes through inheritances each year, while only about $1.3 billion — roughly 1% — goes to charity. The investment case is therefore about building the organisational conditions that make appropriate gifts in wills more likely over time.”

3. Define the funded capability.

Write:

“The proposed investment funds the minimum infrastructure for a responsible bequest program: legal identity confirmation, approved donor information, audience strategy, staff training, enquiry handling, stewardship cadence, CRM recording and board reporting.”

4. Separate early progress from realised income.

Write:

“Year-one reporting should focus on readiness, reach, staff activity, enquiries, disclosed intentions and stewardship quality. Realised estate income will be reported when received and will not be used as the primary measure of early program performance.”

5. Name the board’s protection role.

Write:

“The Board’s role is to protect the long horizon of the strategy, ensure ethical and legal boundaries are built into the operating model, and prevent future intentions from being treated as guaranteed income.”

6. Put the recommendation in board-paper form.

Use this exact recommendation as the starting point:

“That the Board approve the establishment of a multi-year bequest strategy as an organisational income capability, beginning with the launch pre-conditions of confirmed legal identity, approved donor-facing information, staff training, audience segmentation, enquiry handling, stewardship ownership, CRM recording and board reporting rules; and that disclosed bequest intentions be reported as pipeline indicators only, not as confirmed income.”

A bequest strategy earns board support when it asks for the capacity to build trust over time, not permission to chase future income with campaign tactics.

What this lesson establishes

The executive case for bequests is not a larger version of the donor case. Donors need meaning, continuity and permission. Boards need a different argument: why this work deserves multi-year investment, what capability must exist before promotion begins, how risk will be governed, and how progress will be measured before income arrives.

Introduction to Bequests provides the opportunity data. This lesson turns that data into a leadership decision. The organisation is not buying a brochure, a landing page or a short burst of donor messaging. It is choosing whether to build the systems, permissions and patience required for bequests to become part of the income architecture.