A question about Legacy prospect when using NXT prospect module

@Claudia Wellwood
We do have a “planned gift” (PG) prospect type, a MG type, as well as a PG+MG type. We have different staff for planned gifts vs major gifts, so separating them – and identifying overlap – is important for our workflow mostly in assigning portfolios.

As Lucy says, we also have Constituent codes for society memberships, and so planned givers have a different code than regular major donors. (Some people may be in multiple societies.) We also have attributes to delineate the type of planned giver: IRA beneficiary, trusts, annuities, regular wills, and so forth. Each of these codes assists us in segmenting our targeted mailings and event invitations and crafting custom asks.

@Claudia Wellwood
In my mind, the question needs stepping back and boils down to two fundamentals: what is the vision of your legacy program, and how does your moves management recycle?

Having a legacy constituent code is fine for people who are already legacy donors. You are seeking to use the Prospect tab to track your legacy donors and prospects. If you only have a few big-dollar legacy prospects, using the Prospect tab is sufficient and recommended - you would cultivate them the same way as a major donor. They would remain in the pipeline until they commit a planned gift (or are disqualified), and then they would pass into stewardship or be removed from the portfolio. If, however, you have dreams of expanding your planned gift work to include IRA beneficiary mailings and email newsletters to a broader select, then your universe of prospects has widened past the functionality of the Prospect tab, and you need to track them in some other location such as Solicit Codes or Attributes. At that point, do you need them in Prospect too? Database policies should be crafted for the long-term vision rather than the immediate need.

The second element is your moves management cycle. You mention having term dates for your pipeline stages. But in a healthy cycle, the Stewardship stage will also have a term date. After about 6 months to 2 years of stewarding, some form of qualification and then cultivation should begin for a successive gift. Even if the donor says they've made their legacy gift and has no plans to donate otherwise, they should still be reassessed periodically, and that means pushing them back into the qualification stage for a time.

As to what we do: we use Prospect for big-dollar donors with set ask types/amounts. If there is no direct ask, they are not entered in Prospect. Legacy donors remain in the pipeline like any MD until they commit an intention, then they become stewarded, until the time comes to re-qualify them. We also maintain an Attribute for various Prospect types because we do send out periodic mailings/emails to a broader select of about 2000 identified prospects, and there are several legacy prospects with “soft" cultivations, eg awareness campaigns but no specific ask.

@Claudia Wellwood In your current process what does “Stewardship” prospect status mean? What does it entail? The goal is not too lose sight of those committed donors who have made a Planned Gift.

Leaving them in stewardship may be correct; but may not. Until we understand the process its difficult to say.

Of course having said that, once someone gives a PG, ideally they are handled differently. If you are referring to the prospect status field on the opportunity record. Yes, it may get lost. Whether you code it as a cons code or a planned gift record or opportunity/proposal status or cons attribute the key is your organization cannot lose sight of these donors. I believe building a process around when and where these PG donors are to be communicated with, segmented, etc. is the key to your question. Work with your organization to build that communication strategy for these donors. Without that, regardless of where and how you code these donors the information could be be overlooked.