FundSvcs Community

 View Only
Expand all | Collapse all

Best practices for recording and reporting on 'new' planned gift value in this campaign

  • 1.  Best practices for recording and reporting on 'new' planned gift value in this campaign

    Posted 12 days ago
    Looking for best practices for recording and reporting on 'new' planned gift value in this campaign from 7/1/18 to the present.  

    How do we record an increase in a planned gift that was previously documented or stated amount and recorded in the last campaign (2014) in this campaign (2018)?

    Example: Donor increased the value of their RLT from $3mm to $4.5mm - the $1.5 mm is new to our pipeline for this campaign. We have the Planned Giving module in Raiser's Edge/NXT along with PG Calc and Gift Wrap.   

    Question:
    If the $1.5 is new…do we add this as a new gift in the system dated after 7/1/18 when we were notified of the increase? So it would have 2 entries that include the original dated prior to 7/1/18 and the new entry dated after 7/1/18 totaling the new commitment. 

    OR do we update the previous amount and utilize other fields to pull in as 'new' value for this campaign?  

    Thanks,
    Kelly



    ------------------------------
    Kelly Hatton
    Director of Advancement Services
    Hanover College
    hattonk@hanover.edu
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Best practices for recording and reporting on 'new' planned gift value in this campaign

    Posted 12 days ago
    The first question is whether you should count anything.  As the trust is revocable (I assume that is the R in RLT), many organizations would not count this in their campaign totals.

    But, assuming this counts I think it is cleaner to add a new gift.  However, I would add a comment to this gift and the first one indicating the two are related.

    John

    John H. Taylor 
    919.816.5903 (Cell/Text)

    Big Ideas; Small Keyboard





  • 3.  RE: Best practices for recording and reporting on 'new' planned gift value in this campaign

    Posted 12 days ago
    Thank you for the quick reply.  I'll review this with my leadership team.

    Kelly

    ------------------------------
    Kelly Hatton
    Director of Advancement Services
    Hanover College
    hattonk@hanover.edu
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: Best practices for recording and reporting on 'new' planned gift value in this campaign

    Posted 12 days ago

    Hi John, 

    Why wouldn't an organization count a revocable trust gift in its campaign totals?  This is widespread practice and supported by CASE counting standards, assuming that donor is age 65 or older.  I understand that CASE recommends a separate campaign reporting line for bequest expectancies, but the expectancies are still rolled up into the campaign totals. 

    Thanks, 

    Tom



    ------------------------------
    Tom Yates
    Temple University
    Executive Director of Gift Planning
    215-926-2545
    tyates@temple.edu
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: Best practices for recording and reporting on 'new' planned gift value in this campaign

    Posted 12 days ago
    First, to be clear, there is a difference between a revocable lead trust (where a donor can change beneficiaries, but the trust must ultimately benefit a charity) and a revocable bequest, which can be eliminated in its entirety.  With an RLT, most organizations do not count anything other than the annual payments actually received.

    Interestingly, CASE disallows the counting of revocable life insurance policies and retirement plan assets - which I do not see as being much different from revocable bequests (see page 32 & 36).

    I have encountered many organizations that choose not to count anything that is revocable.  When I ask, it is often due to optics and issues from previous campaigns where announced totals did not always materialize.

    But, yes, CASE does permit counting these but does not require that you do.  To your point, if you decide to count them, CASE urges establishing individual goals, reporting separately, and "periodic verification of the commitment."

    John

    John H. Taylor
    Principal
    John H. Taylor Consulting, LLC
    2604 Sevier St.
    Durham, NC   27705
    919.816.5903 (cell/text)

    Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987







  • 6.  RE: Best practices for recording and reporting on 'new' planned gift value in this campaign

    Posted 11 days ago
    That guidance on p. 36 is not all that clear.  I know it's not an easy task for the CASE committees to draft this language; but still, not that clear.   

    My read is that on p. 36 CASE is referring to VSE reporting when it comes to reporting revocable life insurance policies and retirement plan assets, which are lumped into the larger category of "bequest/legacy intention."  But for other counting purposes, is CASE stating on the bottom of p. 35 that "These standards do not suggest value an institution may assign for donor recognition purposes or in fundraising reports to their constituencies." ??  If so, that is consistent with my experience -- VSE reporting is not going to necessarily line up with "fundraising reports to constituencies"... however vague that latter terminology may be.  

    Does CASE offers guidance on expected distributions from a revocable lead trust over a period of years?  I'm not finding it, but that seems to get at a level of granularity that maybe CASE wouldn't try to focus in on.  All the same, I don't see such arrangements as being different from other revocable intentions that are routinely counted in campaign totals by organizations.  I'm not sure how the funding source (lead trust, estate, retirement account, LI policy, etc.), or the expected arrival of the gift (relatively soon, or in 25+ years) should affect whether or not it's counted, if an org is otherwise following guidelines of separate reporting of revocable intentions.  If anything, the RLT gift intentions may be most likely to be fulfilled (as compared to bequest intentions from donors age 65-70) if the RLT distributions are to arrive in the near term.  In some ways RLT intentions are very similar to counting revocable DAF intentions.

    ------------------------------
    Tom Yates
    Temple University
    Executive Director of Gift Planning
    215-926-2545
    tyates@temple.edu
    ------------------------------



  • 7.  RE: Best practices for recording and reporting on 'new' planned gift value in this campaign

    Posted 11 days ago
    I think that when CASE shifted to a "global" set of standards, granularity became more difficult.

    Tom, CASE has always indicated that when it comes to campaign counting and reporting, institutions can make their own rules.  CASE only offers suggested guidance.  And with the latest edition there seem to be more instances of flexibility.  That said, and as I mentioned in the first reply, what is important is that whatever standards you set internally that you follow those consistently.  And, so, if at the beginning of a campaign you decided to not count revocable gifts/bequests, that should not change three years later.  CASE does assume that your campaign goals were based on knowing what you would count, by category.

    And, no, CASE does not advise us on how to count anticipated payouts.  Some institutions will record a pledge.  But that cannot be a binding pledge as the donor has not legally committed to that.  This then takes you back to what did you agree to count at the outset.

    As an aside, this is the first edition of the CASE Standards that address nonbinding pledges.  So, if your campaign began before March of last year there wasn't any CASE language to refer to at all!

    John

    John H. Taylor
    Principal
    John H. Taylor Consulting, LLC
    2604 Sevier St.
    Durham, NC   27705
    919.816.5903 (cell/text)

    Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987







  • 8.  RE: Best practices for recording and reporting on 'new' planned gift value in this campaign

    Posted 11 days ago
    Thanks for the added context John, that is helpful.   I do hope that CASE takes a crack at another revision and expansion of their suggested standards relatively soon, maybe before 2025.  While higher edu. institutions can choose their own campaign counting rules, in reality many are relying heavily on CASE for validation.  My experience is that those leaders at an organization who work outside of the fundraising office (presidents, gift acceptance committees, trustees, counsel, etc.) are looking for guidance from a standards body like CASE in order to judge whether the fundraising office's campaign counting rules are legitimate.  Another, less desirable, method is "How does [fill in the blank with another college in your athletic conference... or, the bigger/older university down the street] count these things?"   CASE addressing the void on revocable intentions and campaign counting rules has definitely been helpful, but I think further expansion and detail would help a great number of institutions even more.

    ------------------------------
    Tom Yates
    Temple University
    Executive Director of Gift Planning
    215-926-2545
    tyates@temple.edu
    ------------------------------