Planned Giving as a Growth Strategy

Building durable philanthropic capacity through donor relationships, organizational discipline, and responsible measurement

Executive summary

Planned giving belongs in an organization's growth strategy because it creates a way for people to support a mission across the whole span of their lives and beyond. It connects a donor's values, family priorities, and long-term financial plans with work that the organization intends to sustain. When handled well, it can broaden participation, deepen relationships, strengthen future revenue, and protect institutional continuity. It is not simply a search for large estates, a legal specialty, or a campaign to place the organization's name in more wills.

The opportunity is substantial, but the numbers demand care. Giving USA estimates that charitable bequests to U.S. organizations totaled $62.19 billion in 2025, up 19.7% in current dollars from 2024. Bequests were approximately one-tenth of the year's $617.20 billion in estimated charitable giving. Giving USA also cautions that bequests fluctuate considerably from year to year. A national increase therefore provides context for strategy, not a reliable forecast for any one charity [1]. Meanwhile, the Fundraising Effectiveness Project estimated that overall giving rose 5.0% in 2025 while donor counts declined 3.6%; overall retention was 43.3% [2]. A growing total can coexist with a narrowing base.

This paper advances a practical thesis: planned giving becomes a growth strategy when an organization integrates it into donor stewardship, offers accessible entry points, backs promises with sound governance, and measures progress over the appropriate time horizon. A bequest intention may be revoked or changed. It should not be treated as cash in the bank. The early returns are better relationships, documented preferences, continuity of contact, and a growing pool of supporters who understand how to provide for the mission in their plans. Realized revenue may follow years later.

The recommended model has five elements: a credible case for the mission's future; broad, respectful donor education; personal conversations at appropriate moments; reliable gift administration and stewardship; and a dashboard that distinguishes engagement, documented intentions, and realized gifts. None requires a large team at the start. All require ownership and consistent execution.

1. What growth means in planned giving

Most nonprofit growth conversations begin with next year's revenue target. That is necessary: services, payroll, and commitments must be funded now. It is also incomplete. A development program can meet its annual target while becoming more dependent on a handful of supporters, losing repeat donors, and failing to create meaningful paths for people whose largest contribution may come from assets rather than annual income.

Planned giving addresses a different part of this problem. A supporter who cannot increase an annual contribution may be able to include a modest percentage of an estate in a will or name a charity as a beneficiary of an account. Another may wish to give an appreciated asset during life. A donor who cares deeply about a local institution may want to ensure it serves the next generation, but no one has ever shown them a practical path. In each case, the starting point is the person's purpose. The structure follows that purpose and the advice of qualified professionals.

For this paper, planned giving means charitable gifts that donors arrange with attention to timing, assets, beneficiaries, and personal or family planning. It includes future gifts such as bequests and beneficiary designations, as well as some current or deferred arrangements involving noncash assets or income interests. Not every arrangement belongs in every organization's program. A small charity can start with clear bequest and beneficiary designation information, a qualified referral process, and competent estate administration before considering more complex vehicles.

Growth has at least four dimensions here. The first is relationship depth: donors are invited to explain what matters to them and how they want their values carried forward. The second is participation: supporters at many giving levels can see a meaningful role for themselves. The third is resilience: over time, realized gifts may diversify sources of support and reduce dependence on a single campaign, contract, or group of donors. The fourth is institutional capacity: a good program forces an organization to clarify its long-term priorities, preserve donor intent, and coordinate development, finance, legal counsel, leadership, and the board.

None of these outcomes is automatic. A glossy brochure cannot compensate for poor stewardship. A large list of unverified bequest estimates cannot fund this year's budget. And the desire for future support must never override a donor's obligations to family, independence, or freedom to change a plan. The strongest growth comes from being a dependable partner in a decision the donor controls.

2. Why the moment warrants attention

Giving USA's 2025 bequest figure is a signal that estate philanthropy already represents significant realized support. The $62.19 billion estimate is national, retrospective, and variable; it is not an instruction to multiply an organization's current revenue by a national percentage [1]. Its strategic implication is simpler: future gifts are a meaningful source of charitable funding, and organizations should be able to discuss them competently.

The Fundraising Effectiveness Project adds an important second signal. Its 2025 figures show that total dollars rose while fewer people gave [2]. A nonprofit may be tempted to focus only on the largest current gifts. Those gifts matter, but the donor base also contains longstanding volunteers, consistent annual donors, alumni, clients, members, and community advocates who may see the organization's future as part of their own story. A thoughtful legacy invitation gives these people a way to participate without requiring a major gift today. It does not repair donor attrition by itself; it works best alongside strong first-gift conversion and retention.

Estate planning itself remains unfinished for many adults. In a nationally representative September 2025 survey, Pew Research Center found that 32% of U.S. adults reported having a will. The share was 46% among adults in their 60s and 66% among those in their 70s [3]. These figures describe planning behavior, not charitable intent. They suggest that an organization's message should educate patiently and avoid assuming that everyone already has documents ready to amend.

The wider discussion of intergenerational wealth transfer can be useful, but it easily produces inflated expectations. Wealth does not move on a uniform schedule. Asset values, longevity, caregiving costs, family decisions, law, taxes, and donors' changing priorities all matter. A nonprofit has no claim on a projected transfer simply because the money exists somewhere in the economy. It earns consideration through mission relevance, trust, clarity, and years of competent stewardship.

The practical opportunity, then, is not a race to claim an abstract share of future wealth. It is a chance to become the kind of institution a supporter can confidently include in a serious personal plan.

3. Start with the donor's idea of the future

Planned giving conversations are often framed around the organization's need for permanence. The donor may begin somewhere else: gratitude for a teacher, a concern that a local service might disappear, a family tradition, a wish to honor someone, or a belief that the next generation deserves a particular opportunity. A compelling program translates between those perspectives without pretending they are identical.

Consider a supporter who gives $100 each month to a community food program. Staff might classify the person as a recurring donor and never discuss longer-term goals because the gift is too small for a major gift portfolio. Yet the supporter may have volunteered for 20 years, know the people served, and care intensely about preserving the program. The proper next step is not to assume capacity or ask for an estate amount. It is to ask what they hope the community will look like in 20 years and whether they would welcome information about ways to sustain the work.

This approach is not merely softer language for a predetermined solicitation. Donor agency changes the process. Some people will decline. Some will want information but no meeting. Others will ask for sample language to take to an attorney. Some will say they have already made a provision but do not want to disclose an amount, or even be publicly recognized. All of those responses are valid. A program that counts only disclosed dollar values will miss much of the relationship and may pressure donors to share more than they wish.

Donors can also change their minds. A family health event, the birth of a child, a new marriage, a sale of property, or a loss of confidence in an organization may alter an estate plan. The nonprofit should neither demand permanence nor make a donor feel guilty for revising a revocable intention. The relationship must be worthy of trust even if no gift ultimately arrives.

An inclusive invitation asks whether a supporter would like to explore a legacy, not whether they are wealthy enough to qualify. Affinity, tenure, consistency, and engagement can be useful signals for deciding whom to invite to a conversation. They are not reliable proof of assets, capacity, or intent. Avoid age as the sole filter. Younger adults also create plans, and people at every life stage may want to provide for causes they value. Message design should make room for varied families, beneficiaries, cultural approaches to inheritance, and ways of describing a legacy.

4. Make the institutional case before making the ask

A planned gift expresses confidence in an organization's future. The case for support must therefore answer a harder question than an annual appeal: Why should someone trust this institution to act on their wishes years from now?

An answer begins with a mission that is both durable and adaptable. An organization should explain what essential work is likely to remain necessary, what capabilities will help it respond to change, and how donor intent will be honored if a program evolves. It should be able to describe governance, financial oversight, and decision authority in terms an ordinary supporter can understand. This does not require a promise that every program and staff role will remain unchanged forever. In fact, an impossible promise weakens credibility.

A mature case for planned giving typically offers a choice between flexible support and clearly described purposes. Unrestricted gifts can allow future leaders to respond to needs that cannot be predicted today. Restricted or endowed gifts may align with a donor's particular commitment, but they require careful review of amount, feasibility, administration, and language. A nonprofit should never promise perpetual support for an activity that it may not be able to administer. An endowment policy, spending policy, and gift acceptance policy should be available to guide conversations where relevant.

The case must also be specific enough to be emotionally intelligible. “Ensure our future” tells a donor little. “Help future students access the same education that changed your life” gives a more concrete reason to care, provided the organization actually intends to deliver that outcome. Strong stories show what the institution does, whom it serves, and why consistent capacity matters. They leave room for the donor's own interpretation instead of manufacturing urgency around death or mortality.

Internal coordination matters just as much as outward language. If development invites a donor to designate a gift to a program and finance has no mechanism to track restricted funds, the institution has made a promise it may struggle to keep. If legal counsel cannot review proposed language promptly, a donor may lose the chance to include the gift when planning documents are prepared. If staff members leave and no one owns the relationship, a documented intention may become an orphaned record. Planned giving exposes these gaps; resolving them is part of the strategy.

5. Build a right-sized program

A credible starting program needs fewer products than many leaders imagine. It needs a person accountable for the work, written procedures, coordinated records, and a simple path from donor interest to appropriate follow-up. The initial focus for many nonprofits can be a clear bequest invitation and guidance on discussing beneficiary designations with a donor's own advisors. The organization should supply accurate legal identity and contact information, not personalized legal or tax advice.

The program owner may be a dedicated gift planning officer, a major gift leader, or a development director in a smaller shop. Whoever holds the role should know when to involve finance, counsel, senior leadership, and the donor's professional advisors. Frontline colleagues need enough training to recognize a cue, thank the donor, ask permission to follow up, document the conversation carefully, and hand off complexity. They do not need to become estate attorneys.

A basic gift acceptance policy should specify which gifts the organization can accept, who has authority to review restrictions and unusual assets, how proposed arrangements move through approval, and when outside advice is required. Estate administration procedures should assign responsibility for notices, documentation, deadlines, communication with executors or trustees, restrictions, and reconciliation of receipts. The details vary with organizational size and jurisdiction; counsel and finance should help tailor them.

The donor-facing experience can be straightforward. A web page explains the mission's long-term need, common ways to give, who to contact, and why donors should consult their advisors. A concise brochure or email offers the same information without becoming a substitute for conversation. Sample bequest language, if offered, should be reviewed by counsel, clearly labeled as general information, and checked when the organization's legal name or structure changes. Staff should respond to inquiries quickly and consistently, with a named person accountable for the next step.

The most overlooked element is a durable handoff. A planned giving inquiry might arrive through a website form, board member, event, gift officer, program leader, or mailed letter. Each route should lead to a clear record and a human response. The system should capture a donor's communication preference, the nature of their interest, agreed follow-up, relevant restrictions, and any documentation they voluntarily provide. Sensitive family or health details should be recorded only when necessary and handled with appropriate access controls.

This is not a reason to purchase the most elaborate software on the market. A reliable CRM, a small set of well-defined fields, a secure document process, and a disciplined owner can accomplish a great deal. If the organization's current database cannot distinguish a revocable intention from a realized gift, fix that data model before building a dashboard around it.

6. Connect planned giving with the rest of development

Many nonprofits isolate planned giving in a corner of the development office. Annual giving communicates with one donor population; major gifts manage another; the planned giving officer works a third. The resulting fragmentation can confuse supporters and obscure opportunities. A donor may receive three unrelated messages in one week or hear from no one after asking a serious question about a bequest.

Integration does not mean every staff member makes every kind of ask. It means people share enough context to serve donors well. A major gift officer who knows a donor is planning for family security may avoid an inappropriate pressure campaign and make a respectful referral. An annual giving team can include a general legacy invitation in stewardship materials without implying that every reader is ready to discuss an estate. A planned giving colleague can recognize that a legacy donor may also want to support a project during life, while keeping the donor's wishes in charge of timing.

A coordinated donor journey could begin with years of modest annual gifts and volunteering. A staff member learns what drew the supporter to the mission. After the supporter reads an educational article about giving in a will, they ask for general information. The planned giving lead responds, listens, and offers the organization's legal information for the donor's attorney. The donor later confirms a revocable intention and chooses whether to join a legacy society. The organization thanks them in the way they prefer, reports on mission progress over many years, and maintains current contact and organizational records. At no stage should the donor be treated as a dollar figure awaiting realization.

The same coordination applies to executive and board leadership. Leaders should understand why planned giving requires patient investment, how it interacts with current fundraising, and what information belongs in reports. Board members can help articulate the organization's long-term purpose and introduce interested supporters to appropriate staff. A board member should not independently interpret a donor's legal documents, promise a restriction, or push for disclosure to improve a campaign total.

The operating question is: If a donor mentions a future gift tomorrow, can the whole organization respond accurately, promptly, and graciously? If the answer is no, growth begins by fixing that pathway.

7. Use education before complexity

People often know that charities can be included in wills but lack a clear picture of what the process involves. An accessible program provides a few practical entry points: a will or trust provision discussed with an attorney; a beneficiary designation reviewed with the appropriate account provider and advisor; and, for donors with more specific circumstances, a conversation about current or deferred gifts that may require specialized counsel. The organization should describe possibilities, not recommend an arrangement for a particular donor.

Education should be understandable to someone who has never attended a wealth planning seminar. Explain what a revocable intention means. Clarify that loved ones can be provided for first. Make clear that donors choose whether to tell the organization about an intention and how much to disclose. State what happens if they ask for a gift to serve a particular purpose. Provide a contact person who can answer organizational questions and coordinate with the donor's advisors.

A useful message might say: “After you have considered the people and commitments closest to you, you may wish to include our mission in your plans. If you would like information about how a future gift could support this work, we would be glad to help you explore the possibilities with your advisors.” It makes an invitation without claiming that the organization knows the donor's priorities better than the donor does.

Do not assume tax advantages are the core motivation. Tax considerations can be consequential and sometimes decisive, but rules change and individual circumstances vary. The most persuasive case for many supporters is the future they want to help create. Staff should describe the mission accurately and refer personal legal and tax questions to qualified advisors.

Nor should the program use fear as its principal driver. Crisis messages about an organization's imminent closure can undermine the confidence needed for a future commitment. Urgency may be appropriate when truthful, but a legacy program needs an enduring case for why a mission merits trust. Donors are considering an institution that may receive and use a gift after today's leaders are gone.

8. Steward intentions as relationships

A bequest intention is meaningful even when the donor cannot or does not want to specify an amount. The person has trusted the organization with a glimpse of a private decision. An acknowledgment should recognize that confidence, confirm only what is known, and ask how the donor wishes to stay connected. If the donor provides documentation, clarify what has been received and what it does or does not establish. Do not imply that a letter of intent creates a binding pledge when it does not.

Legacy societies can provide community and recognition, but they should be designed around choice. Some donors enjoy events and public acknowledgment; others prefer privacy. Admission should not depend on disclosing an estimated gift value. A donor should be able to join, decline, or remain anonymous without receiving a different level of respect. Whenever practical, stewardship should reflect the mission and the person's interests, rather than relying solely on plaques or receptions.

Continuity is critical because the stewardship horizon can span decades. Record the donor's preferences. Make a succession plan for staff transitions. Review outstanding intentions periodically without treating the donor as an account to be verified. Keep contact information current through ordinary relationship management. If leadership, programs, or legal names change, communicate relevant changes clearly. A relationship built on a promise of future impact requires the institution to stay recognizable and accountable.

Stewardship also extends to the gift when it is realized. Families, executors, trustees, and advisors may interact with the nonprofit under difficult circumstances. Respond with sensitivity, maintain accurate records, apply restrictions as agreed, and coordinate receipts and acknowledgments. Avoid assuming that surviving family members knew about or endorsed the gift. Respect their role while honoring the donor's valid instructions and the organization's obligations.

A realized gift is not the end of stewardship. It is the moment an earlier promise becomes institutional responsibility. A nonprofit should be able to show how funds were assigned, used, or invested according to its policies, with appropriate privacy and reporting to those entitled to receive information.

9. Measure progress without manufacturing certainty

Planned giving needs measurement, but the wrong metric can distort behavior. If the only goal is the face value of new intentions, staff may chase estimates, overstate documentation, and neglect donors who prefer not to disclose amounts. If the only goal is realized revenue this year, leadership may cut the program before it has time to mature. A sensible dashboard separates what the organization can control from what it can only observe.

Engagement measures can include qualified educational inquiries, donor conversations, advisor referrals with permission, response times, and completed stewardship actions. Intention measures can include new confirmed expectancies, current confirmations of existing intentions, the share with usable documentation, donor communication preferences, and restricted-purpose reviews. Realization measures can include estate notices received, gifts realized, time from notice to receipt, amounts received, compliance with restrictions, and estate administration issues resolved. System health measures can include data completeness, staff handoffs, web page accuracy, policy reviews, and donor complaints or requests for correction.

For board reporting, classify intentions by evidence and status. An oral statement, a completed donor notification form, a copy of relevant language, and an irrevocable arrangement are not equivalent. Assign dates and a named staff owner. Where possible, note whether an amount is known, estimated by the donor, estimated internally, or undisclosed. Use a separate designation for restrictions that have been approved. Leadership should be able to see how many relationships are stewarded without interpreting every field as an enforceable receivable.

A simple illustration shows why this matters. Suppose an organization records 20 newly disclosed revocable bequest intentions. Eight donors share estimates averaging $75,000; the other 12 choose not to state values. The disclosed estimates total $600,000. This is an illustrative engagement and planning indicator, not $600,000 of available revenue. Those wills can change, amounts can vary, other claims may affect estates, and realization dates are unknown. The 12 undisclosed intentions may eventually prove larger or smaller. The board should see “20 documented intentions, eight with donor-provided estimates totaling $600,000” and a separate line for actual estate receipts. If finance determines that an item meets accounting recognition requirements, that decision belongs to the relevant accounting framework and qualified finance professionals, not a development forecast.

Forecasting can still be useful for long-range scenarios. A mature organization may analyze its own historical realization rates, timing, attrition, and gift sizes across cohorts. Present ranges and assumptions, and revisit them as evidence changes. A small or new program should not borrow another organization's average gift or apply a national multiplier to its donor file. Financial planning should remain robust even if realizations are delayed or lower than hoped.

The quality of management decisions is the test of the dashboard. It should tell leaders whether donors receive timely attention, whether documentation is sound, whether future gifts are administered properly, and whether the organization is building a broader base of trust. A large prospective total alone answers none of those questions.

10. A 90-day launch plan

A nonprofit can begin with a disciplined 90-day sequence. The aim is an operating program, not a premature revenue promise.

Days 1–30: establish readiness. Name an accountable lead and an executive sponsor. Review current estate gifts, outstanding intentions, existing donor materials, CRM fields, gift acceptance policies, endowment and restriction practices, and estate administration. Identify delays or ambiguous authority. Ask finance and counsel to identify the minimum safeguards before public outreach. Draft a concise mission case that explains future impact and the types of support the organization can administer.

Days 31–60: build the pathway. Approve a donor inquiry and referral workflow. Create or correct the planned giving page and contact route. Prepare a short, counsel-reviewed information sheet where sample language is appropriate. Configure fields that distinguish inquiry, documented revocable intention, irrevocable arrangement, notice of an estate gift, and realized revenue. Define response ownership, privacy controls, document storage, and a small set of stewardship actions. Train annual, major gift, program, and executive colleagues on cues and handoffs.

Days 61–90: start learning with donors. Begin with a modest, respectful educational invitation to supporters with demonstrable affinity and appropriate contact permissions. Include a broadly accessible route so the opportunity is not limited to wealth-screened names. Have real conversations, record what donors choose to share, answer organizational questions, and refer legal or tax matters to advisors. Test the response process. Review inquiries weekly and report to leadership on learning, response times, relationships, and barriers rather than announcing a speculative pipeline windfall.

At day 90, leadership should be able to answer practical questions. Who owns each inquiry? Can a donor reach a knowledgeable person? Are restrictions reviewed before commitments are made? Does finance know what development is counting? Have supporters been thanked according to their wishes? What questions do donors ask repeatedly? The answers tell the organization what to improve in the next two quarters.

Over the next year, add consistent education across existing channels, thoughtful stewardship of confirmed donors, periodic policy review, and better estate administration. Consider sophisticated vehicles only when donor demand, organizational capacity, and qualified expertise justify them. Growing the product menu faster than the service capacity usually creates risk rather than advantage.

11. Common failure points and how to avoid them

Treating planned giving as an end-of-year tactic. A year-end message can raise awareness, but donors make estate decisions on personal schedules. Maintain useful information and responsive relationships year-round.

Counting every conversation as a commitment. Interest is valuable, yet it should be recorded as interest. Use precise stages and let donors decide what documentation they are comfortable sharing.

Pressuring donors for an amount. An amount can help internal planning, but it is not the price of gratitude. Recognize a disclosed intention without conditioning stewardship on a number.

Assuming only older or wealthy people belong. These filters can miss loyalty and purpose. Give all supporters an accessible educational route while using staff time thoughtfully for deeper conversations.

Promising more than the organization can administer. A compelling restriction may be infeasible or too narrow over time. Review language and authority before acceptance, and explain alternatives candidly.

Leaving follow-up to chance. If donor inquiries, estate notices, and staff transitions have no owner, the program loses both trust and revenue. Assign an accountable person and a documented handoff.

Confusing marketing with stewardship. Repeated legacy emails do not compensate for ignored calls or unfulfilled promises. The experience after a response is part of the message.

Using future gifts to excuse weak current fundraising. Annual, recurring, major, and planned giving reinforce one another when properly coordinated. A revocable expectancy cannot close a current operating deficit.

Each failure point is operational. Addressing them requires policy, training, and management attention more than a clever campaign slogan.

Conclusion

Planned giving is a growth strategy when it changes how a nonprofit relates to people and prepares for the future. It invites supporters to consider what should endure, gives them an appropriate way to act, and obliges the organization to remain trustworthy over a long horizon. Its strongest early indicators are not inflated dollar totals. They are informed donors, responsive staff, sound records, clear promises, and relationships that last through changes in leadership and circumstance.

The organizations that will benefit most are those willing to invest before a return appears on the income statement. They will make future giving accessible without making assumptions about wealth. They will integrate planned giving with annual and major gifts while keeping the donor's choices central. They will protect donor intent, administer gifts competently, and report with enough precision that boards can distinguish hope from revenue.

A future gift may begin with a simple question: “What do you hope this mission will accomplish long after today?” If the organization is prepared to listen and to act responsibly on the answer, planned giving becomes more than an eventual source of funding. It becomes a disciplined way to build lasting philanthropic capacity.

Sources and scope

[1] Giving USA Foundation, Giving USA 2026: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2025, researched and written by Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, 2026. Public findings: https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-charitable-giving-rose-to-617-20-billion-in-2025-surpassing-the-600-billion-mark-for-the-first-time/

[2] Fundraising Effectiveness Project, Q4 2025 findings, published by the Association of Fundraising Professionals, April 2026: https://afpglobal.org/news/fundraising-effectiveness-project-reports-strongest-revenue-growth-five-years-even-fewer

[3] Pew Research Center, “Experiences with estate planning and discussing end-of-life preferences,” November 2025: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2025/11/06/experiences-with-estate-planning-and-discussing-end-of-life-preferences/

The figures above are U.S. national estimates or survey results, not a forecast for an individual nonprofit. The sample dashboard and 20-intention example are illustrative. This paper offers fundraising and organizational guidance, not legal, tax, or accounting advice. Donors should consult their own advisors, and organizations should review gift arrangements with qualified counsel and finance professionals.