The Capacity Rating That Does Not Match the Giving History
A regional food bank has 4,200 active donors and a $2.1 million annual fund. Its new board chair, a retired banker, offers a $25,000 challenge grant if the development office moves fast to solicit the 50 names on a wealth-screening list. The list flags 18 donors with estimated capacity of $100,000+ but includes no giving history, no relationship owner, and several people who have never given. The database shows 11 of the 18 have given less than $500 total, and two have asked not to be contacted. The annual fund manager wants to mail all 50 a $10,000 ask. A major gifts officer argues for research first. The board chair wants solicitations out in three weeks.
1. What research and segmentation steps should the team complete before any $10,000 ask, and what should happen within the board chair's three-week deadline?
Read the worked answer
Start with data integrity and relationship mapping, not capacity ratings alone. Verify each name against the database for giving history, volunteer roles, event attendance, board or staff connections, contact preferences, and any do-not-contact flags. Treat wealth screening as one input, not a verdict.
Then segment into three practical groups: A, verified capacity plus affinity plus a relationship owner; B, capacity but little or no demonstrated affinity; C, no capacity or no relationship. Within three weeks, suppress the do-not-contact records, assign owners to the top A and B names, and conduct 10 to 15 qualification conversations. Do not mail a $10,000 ask to all 50. Use the board chair's challenge to underwrite research and qualification, and to open doors with peers, not to justify a mass solicitation. Set ask amounts only after visits and document the rationale.
2. How should the team handle the two do-not-contact donors and the board chair's pressure to include all 50 names?
Read the worked answer
The do-not-contact flags are an ethical and accountability boundary. Exclude those two people from solicitation and from volunteer call lists. Check whether the preference applies to all contact or only certain channels, and if it is ambiguous, ask the donor or the appropriate compliance lead rather than guessing. Do not let the challenge deadline override a recorded preference.
Explain to the board chair that including known do-not-contact names creates complaints, damages trust, and can jeopardize the challenge grant's purpose. Offer the chair a constructive role: calling peers they personally know, hosting a small briefing, or signing letters to qualified A-tier prospects. If the chair insists on contacting the two names, escalate to the executive director or board governance. Track the decision and outcomes so the chair can see progress without relying on volume.