When Wealth Screening Gets It Wrong: Why Capacity Alone is a Risky Way to Assign Donors
In a recent webinar, we were asked a great question:
“Do you believe donors should be assigned based on capacity alone?”
We’ve seen this happen and been asked this before. Our answer is immediate, and unanimous: No!
Not a nuanced no. Not a “well, it depends.” A hard, clear no.
We realize that this response deserves some explanation, because many organizations are still making fundraiser assignment decisions almost entirely on what a wealth screen suggests a donor could give.
Here’s why that’s risky.
A Familiar Profile
Consider a donor who looks strong on paper:
High household income
Ownership in a growing business
Appreciating real estate
Depending on the screening tool, this donor is flagged as a solid prospect. Their giving may even be hovering just below or within a major gift threshold.
From a capacity standpoint, the logic is simple: assign the donor to a major gift officer.
But capacity is only one piece of the story.
Capacity is Not the Same Thing as Readiness
Wealth screening tools are built to estimate capacity, not:
Liquidity
Giving confidence
Seasonality of income
Trust in the organization
Emotional readiness to stretch
In profiles like this, income may be high but variable. For example, business ownership often means reinvestment, not free cash. Or, home equity looks impressive but isn’t usable for philanthropy.
None of that nuance shows up in a rating, yet it heavily influences where some organizations will place the donor. Subsequently, it impacts how a donor experiences an ask.
The Hidden Risk of Assigning Too Quickly
When donors are assigned based on capacity alone, we often see the same pattern:
A donor is moved out of a strong midlevel experience
They’re assigned to a major gift portfolio without meaningful discovery
The first interaction is based solely on a capacity or gift amount, not a relationship
What Capacity Screens Miss, and Relationships Reveal
When you slow down and look beyond capacity, a different picture often emerges.
Donors tend to value:
Thoughtful communication
Clear impact tied to realistic giving levels
Optionality instead of pressure
A sense that their pace is respected
Those traits aren’t weaknesses. They’re signals that relationship matters.
Why Midlevel is the Right Place for Discernment
This is exactly why we push back so strongly on capacity-only major gift caseload assignments. Specifically, if moving from mid to major. It’s important to remember that midlevel is not a holding pen. It’s where organizations:
Learn how donors think about money
Observe giving behavior over time
Build trust before stretching expectations
Invite, rather than assume, readiness
For many donors, midlevel is the place where confidence (and more importantly, relationship) is built.
Better Assignment Starts with Better Questions
Instead of asking:
“What is their wealth capacity?”
Try asking:
“What has this donor actually done?”
“How have they responded to past engagement?”
“What would feel like a meaningful next step for the donor (not just a bigger one)?”
When teams combine capacity, behavior, and context, assignment decisions become smarter, and donor experiences improve.
The Takeaway
Wealth screening is a helpful tool. But it’s incomplete by design.
When donors are assigned based on what a model says they could give, without considering trust, history, and readiness, organizations move faster than relationships allow.
And that’s why, when asked if we believe in assigning donors based on capacity alone, our answer was an easy no.