Introduction to Bequest Fundraising Lesson 3 9 min read

Readiness Is Not Wealth

This lesson teaches staff how to find the right supporters for early bequest attention without confusing wealth, age or major-gift capacity with genuine readiness.

Listen to the lesson

The wrong prospect list starts with wealth

Small charities often assume bequest fundraising begins with wealthy people.

That mistake is understandable. Bequests can be large, and a will deals with accumulated assets rather than annual disposable income. But wealth is a poor first lens for a small charity with limited data, limited staff and a warm supporter base it already knows.

Dr Russell James III’s work notes that estate gifts are often 10× to 100× a donor’s typical annual gift. That is one of the most important facts for small charities to absorb. A person who gives $35 every Christmas is not automatically a “small” bequest prospect. Their annual gift reflects current giving capacity, habit and cash flow. A bequest may come from assets built over a lifetime.

Australian realised-bequest data points in the same direction. Include a Charity’s 2023 analysis of reported data from participating Australian charities found that about 61% of bequestors were already known to the charity before death. About 70% had no children. About 64% were women, and about 81% came from urban or semi-urban areas. This is not a complete national census, but it gives a useful pattern: many bequestors are not strangers. They are people with a prior relationship to the charity.

The lesson is not “target childless older women in cities.” That would be crude, intrusive and professionally weak.

The lesson is sharper: begin with connection. Use what the supporter has freely shown through giving, language and engagement. Do not build a bequest program around guessing private family circumstances or ranking people by apparent wealth.

For a small-to-medium charity, the best first list is usually not “richest supporters.” It is “supporters whose behaviour suggests the charity is part of their story.”

The Warm-Base Readiness Scan

Use this scan to identify supporters who may deserve thoughtful bequest attention. It is not a scoring model that tells you who will leave a gift. It is a professional judgment tool for deciding who should receive warmer stewardship, values-led content or a carefully timed invitation to receive gifts-in-wills information.

The Warm-Base Readiness Scan

1 Long loyalty What it is: The supporter has stayed with the charity over time, even if their gifts are modest.

What it looks like: “$25–$50 most years since 2011,” “regular giver for nine years,” or “appeal donor who reappears every December without prompting.”

How to read it: Loyalty is stronger than gift size. A long pattern of modest giving may show that the cause is woven into the supporter’s life. Because estate gifts can be 10× to 100× a donor’s annual gift, do not dismiss a consistent modest donor as too small for bequest attention.

What to do: Move the supporter into a stewardship group for warmer, future-focused communication. Do not jump straight to a personal bequest ask unless there are additional readiness signals.

Actual language the learner could use: “Judith, I noticed you’ve been supporting this work for more than a decade. I’m not calling to ask for another gift today — I wanted to say thank you and ask what has kept you connected for so long.”

Judgement note: This works because it honours loyalty without treating it as a transaction. It opens a values conversation, not a will conversation. The donor remains free to explain the connection in their own terms.
2 Personal connection to the cause What it is: The supporter links the charity to lived experience, family experience, memory, place or identity.

What it looks like: A note saying, “Your nurses cared for my husband,” “I grew up near this refuge,” “My daughter used your service,” or “I was one of those kids once.”

How to read it: Personal connection often matters more than capacity. It tells you the charity is not just one of many causes; it has a place in the supporter’s story.

What to do: Record the connection respectfully if the donor has shared it with the charity. Use it to steward with relevance. Do not embellish it, overuse it or assume it gives permission to raise bequests immediately.

Actual language the learner could use: “You’ve mentioned before that your husband received care from the team. We’re grateful you’ve chosen to stay connected. Would it be alright if I asked what part of the work feels most important to you now?”

Judgement note: This works because it asks about meaning before moving to any fundraising option. It does not exploit bereavement or turn a family story into a bequest prompt.
3 Future-facing language What it is: The supporter talks about what should continue, who will need the service next, or whether the organisation will be there in future.

What it looks like: “I hope this place is still around for the next family,” “Please keep this work going,” or “I worry about what happens to young people who need help later.”

How to read it: Future-facing language can be a natural bridge to gifts in wills, but it is not automatic permission. The same words may reflect anxiety, grief, anger about funding cuts, or a general wish to help.

What to do: Acknowledge the future concern first. Then, if the relationship and timing are appropriate, offer information rather than press for a decision.

Actual language the learner could use: “You’re thinking about the people who will need this service in years to come. That matters. Some supporters ask us for information about ways to keep helping beyond their lifetime, including gifts in wills. There’s no expectation, but I can send plain information if that would ever be useful.”

Judgement note: This works because it names the future-facing motive, introduces the bequest option plainly and keeps control with the donor. It does not treat one sentence as a commitment.
4 Deep engagement beyond giving What it is: The supporter does more than donate. They attend events, reply to updates, volunteer, advocate, complete surveys, introduce others or ask serious questions about the work.

What it looks like: A donor who attends the annual community briefing each year, forwards campaign updates to friends, sends thoughtful questions about service quality, or volunteers after making small donations.

How to read it: Engagement shows attention. The supporter may see themselves as part of the organisation’s community, not simply as a payer of appeals.

What to do: Invite conversation about the mission’s future before mentioning any gift structure. If they respond with values or continuity language, a later bequest information offer may be appropriate.

Actual language the learner could use: “You’ve taken a close interest in how the service is changing. I’d value your perspective: when you think about the next ten years of this work, what do you most hope we protect?”

Judgement note: This works because it treats the supporter as someone with judgment, not as a wallet. It may reveal whether their connection is strategic, personal, emotional or passing.
5 Giving that persists through change What it is: The supporter keeps giving through ordinary changes: smaller gifts after retirement, a resumed gift after a pause, donations across multiple appeals, or continued support after moving away.

What it looks like: “Reduced regular gift from $40 to $20 after retirement but stayed active,” “lapsed for two years and returned after a service update,” or “moved interstate but still donates to the local branch.”

How to read it: Persistence through change can signal durable commitment. The amount may fall, but the relationship remains.

What to do: Thank the persistence. Do not interpret a reduced gift as reduced care.

Actual language the learner could use: “I noticed you adjusted your regular gift last year and still chose to keep supporting the work. Thank you. That kind of steady connection means a great deal to a small organisation like ours.”

Judgement note: This works because it recognises commitment without shaming the donor about capacity. It keeps the relationship warm and protects dignity.
6 Self-identified life-stage cues What it is: The supporter voluntarily mentions retirement, downsizing, updating personal papers, making decisions for later life, or wanting to simplify commitments.

What it looks like: “I’m sorting things out now I’ve retired,” “I’m updating my paperwork,” or “I’ve moved into a smaller place and want to be more organised.”

How to read it: These cues may make gifts-in-wills information relevant, but they are sensitive. The fundraiser must not pry into family, assets, health, capacity or estate plans.

What to do: Offer factual information only if the cue is clear and the donor appears comfortable. Keep the wording light, optional and bounded.

Actual language the learner could use: “As you’re reviewing things, some supporters find it useful to have our correct legal name and ABN for their records. I can send that through with general information about gifts in wills, and you can decide whether it is relevant.”

Judgement note: This works because it provides practical charity information without advising on the donor’s estate. It does not ask what they own, who is in the will, or whether family members are included.
7 Absence of wealth signals What it is: The supporter does not look like a major donor. Their annual giving is modest, their contact is quiet, and there is no obvious sign of high net worth.

What it looks like: A pensioner who gives $20 twice a year, a long-term raffle buyer, or a supporter who only sends handwritten notes with small gifts.

How to read it: Lack of visible wealth is not lack of bequest potential. Estate gifts can come from accumulated assets, including a home, superannuation-related wealth or savings. The fundraiser’s job is not to estimate the estate. It is to notice connection.

What to do: Keep modest loyal donors inside the bequest communication universe. They should receive respectful, accessible gifts-in-wills information over time, not be excluded because they are not major donors.

Actual language the learner could use: “You’ve been part of this community for a long time. From time to time we share information about ways people choose to support the work into the future. I can include you when we send that information, or leave it aside if you’d prefer.”

Judgement note: This works because it does not imply wealth, age or obligation. It gives the donor a simple choice and respects that a modest supporter may still care deeply about the charity’s future.

The supporter who looks too small on paper

A community legal centre has a supporter named Elsie Tran.

Elsie gives $30 twice a year, usually in response to the winter and Christmas appeals. She has done this for 14 years. She is not a major donor. She has never attended a gala, never asked to meet the CEO and never appeared on any wealth-screening list.

Her records show three useful details: she sent a handwritten note five years ago saying, “Your advice helped my brother keep his flat.” She reduced her gifts from $50 to $30 after retiring, but she did not stop giving. Last Christmas she wrote, “I hope you’re still here for people who don’t have anyone else to ask.”

A weak reading of the file says: low value, low priority.

A better reading says: long loyalty, personal connection, persistence through life-stage change and future-facing language. Elsie is not someone to push. She is someone to steward more deliberately.

A suitable next step would be a thank-you call or note that opens the story, not the will: “Elsie, you’ve stood with this service for many years, and your notes have always shown how much the work matters to you. I’m not calling to ask for another donation. I wanted to thank you properly and ask what has kept you connected to the centre.”

Judgement note: this is not a bequest ask. That restraint is the point. Elsie has enough readiness signals for warmer attention, not enough for assumption. If she speaks about the centre’s future, later information about gifts in wills may be appropriate. If she simply wants to be thanked, the call has still done useful stewardship work.

Build your first readiness list without wealth screening

Create a list of 25 to 50 existing supporters for gentle bequest-aware stewardship. Do not start by ranking people by total giving.

Use this order

Pull supporters with seven or more years of giving history, including modest donors.
Add supporters who have shared a personal connection to the cause in notes, calls, surveys, event conversations or supporter-care records.
Add supporters who use future-facing language about the organisation, service, community or cause.
Add supporters who remain engaged after a life change they have voluntarily disclosed, such as retirement, moving, bereavement or reduced giving.
Remove anyone whose recent contact suggests poor timing: complaint, distress, confusion, acute grief, pressure from family, vulnerability, or a request not to receive fundraising contact.
For each person kept on the list, write one reason they are included, using evidence from the relationship rather than assumptions about age, family, property or wealth.

Good vs poor note: A good note looks like “Long-loyal donor since 2012; reduced gift after retirement but continued; wrote in 2024 that she wants the service available for future families. Suitable for thank-you call and future-focused stewardship.” A poor note looks like “Older woman, probably no children, may have house.” The first note is professional. The second is guesswork.

Connection outranks capacity.

For first-year bequest work, the strongest starting point is not visible wealth. It is demonstrated connection: loyalty, personal meaning, future concern, persistence and engagement. A modest annual donor may still be a serious bequest prospect because estate giving comes from accumulated assets, not this year’s disposable income.

What this changes

Readiness is not the same as wealth.

A small charity can start bequest work without a planned-giving database, wealth screening or specialist segmentation. It can begin by reading its own supporter relationships more carefully.

The evidence supports that approach. Realised Australian bequests often come from people already known to the charity, and estate gifts can be much larger than annual giving would suggest. That means the warm base deserves attention.

But attention is not intrusion. Do not infer private family circumstances. Do not target people crudely by age, gender, suburb or assumed childlessness. Do not treat modest donors as small people. Look for connection, listen for meaning, and use stewardship before asking.