Webinar Replay

Click Here to Download Summary Below

Wills That Won’t: A 25-Year National Study of Charitable Planning Additions, Deletions, and Ultimate Estate Transfers

Presenter: Russell James, J.D., Ph.D., CFP®
Host: Missy Davis, Financial Experts Network
Original Air Date: September 24, 2026
Run Time: Approximately 70 Minutes
Topic Area: Estate Planning, Charitable Planning, Philanthropy, Wealth Transfer

Key Takeaways

• Longitudinal research following individuals from age 50 through death provides a unique view of not only what people say they plan to do with their estates, but what ultimately happens to their assets.
• After individuals added a charitable component to their estate plans, their annual charitable giving increased by approximately 77%, with the increase persisting for years.
• A signed and witnessed will actually controlled assets in only 38% of the studied cases, compared with 76% for funded trusts.
• Beneficiary designations, transfer-on-death arrangements, payable-on-death designations, joint ownership and asset titling can determine where property goes regardless of what a will says.
• Charitable estate plans are highly fluid. Health declines, approaching death, divorce, widowhood and other changes in family structure frequently trigger new planning—and charitable provisions may be either added or removed.
• Only about 55% to 60% of individuals who reported a charitable component still reported having one 10 years later.
• Much charitable estate planning happens relatively late in life. A majority of charitable estates in the research involved charitable provisions added within approximately five years of death.
• Earlier charitable plans can be especially valuable when they remain in place: longer-term charitable plans were associated with substantially larger eventual charitable transfers.
• Consistent lifetime giving, childlessness, greater and growing wealth, continued giving near the end of life and consistent use of a funded trust were among the strongest predictors of charitable estate transfers.
• The often-discussed “great wealth transfer” may occur considerably later than popular narratives suggest because significant wealth frequently transfers only after the death of a surviving spouse—often when that spouse is in their 90s or even 100s.
• For advisors, one of the simplest planning opportunities may be simply asking clients whether charitable giving should be part of the estate-planning conversation.

A Different Way to Study Estate Planning

Most estate-planning research provides a snapshot.

A survey might ask whether someone currently has a will, trust or charitable beneficiary. Estate-tax records can provide information about some larger estates. But those approaches don't necessarily reveal how plans change over time—or what ultimately happens when someone dies.

Russell James presented research based on a national longitudinal data set that follows the same individuals beginning around age 50, continues surveying them throughout their lives and then examines the ultimate disposition of their assets after death.

James described it as seeing the “entire lifetime movie” rather than a single snapshot.

That distinction allows researchers to explore questions particularly relevant to financial advisors and estate-planning professionals:

• When do people create charitable estate plans?
• When do they remove them?
• What life events trigger changes?
• Which estate documents actually control assets?
• Who ultimately leaves money to charity?
• When does that money actually transfer?

The answers challenge several common assumptions about estate planning.

Adding Charity to an Estate Plan May Change Lifetime Giving

One of the first findings James presented involved what happens after someone adds charity to an estate plan.

A concern sometimes expressed by charitable organizations is that encouraging a donor to make an estate gift could somehow reduce the person's current giving.

The research James presented found the opposite.

Among individuals who previously didn't have a charitable component in their estate plans and later added one, annual charitable giving increased by approximately 77%.

Even more notable, the increase persisted for years afterward.

James offered a behavioral explanation.

Many people think about charitable giving primarily as an income decision—how much can they give from this year's available cash?

Estate planning can change the frame. For perhaps the first time, an individual begins thinking about philanthropy as a wealth decision rather than simply an income decision.

Once wealth becomes part of the charitable conversation, James explained, it can expand how donors think about what's possible.

More People With Estate Documents Are Including Charity

The research revealed two seemingly contradictory trends.

Among people age 55 and older who have wills or trusts, the percentage including a charitable beneficiary has been increasing.

At the same time, the overall percentage of Americans with wills or trusts has been declining within age groups.

The result?

The overall percentage of the population with a charitable beneficiary in a will or trust has remained relatively flat.

In other words, the apparent stability masks two significant trends moving in opposite directions:

Fewer people have traditional estate-planning documents, while those who do have them are increasingly likely to include charity.

Why Are Wills Becoming Less Common?

James identified several possible explanations.

One is what he described as the non-probate transfer revolution.

Over time, it has become increasingly common for assets to pass through mechanisms such as:

• Transfer-on-death designations.
• Payable-on-death designations.
• Retirement-account beneficiaries.
• Brokerage-account beneficiaries.
• Joint ownership with rights of survivorship.
• Transfer-on-death deeds for real estate in jurisdictions where available.

As more assets transfer outside probate, the will may control a smaller portion of an individual's property.

James also pointed to changing family structures.

Research he presented found that among married people with children age 50 and older, approximately 35% of traditional nuclear families had no will or trust documents, compared with approximately 56% of blended families with stepchildren.

Although blended families may have a greater need for careful estate planning, their additional complexity may also make planning more difficult and easier to postpone.

The Will May Not Control What Advisors Think It Controls

One of the webinar's most striking findings concerned what actually happened to wills after death.

Researchers examined 7,150 individuals who had affirmatively reported within two years before death that they had a signed and witnessed will.

After death, researchers followed up regarding how those estates were handled.

In only 38% of the cases did the reported will control any assets at all.

By comparison, funded trusts were reported as controlling assets in approximately 76% of cases.

Why such a large difference?

Because a will generally controls only assets that actually pass through the probate estate.

An IRA with a beneficiary designation follows the beneficiary designation.

A jointly owned account may pass to the surviving owner.

A payable-on-death bank account follows the POD instructions.

A transfer-on-death brokerage account follows its designation.

And assets properly titled in a funded trust are governed by the trust.

This leads to an important planning lesson:

Estate planning isn't simply about what the documents say. It's also about how the assets are owned and titled and what beneficiary designations are actually in place.

Why Funded Trusts Matter

The research went beyond simply showing that funded trusts were more likely to control assets.

James also examined individuals who reported having charitable components in their estate plans shortly before death and asked what predicted whether money actually reached charity.

Having a funded trust was an important predictor.

Researchers examined whether that result could simply be explained by wealth or education—perhaps people with funded trusts were simply wealthier or more sophisticated.

According to James, those factors didn't fully explain the result.

The funded trust itself remained important.

His practical takeaway was straightforward: a trust document sitting in a file isn't enough. The effectiveness comes from actually retitling assets into the trust.

Beneficiary Designations Can Be Particularly Important for Charitable Gifts

James also highlighted a form of charitable estate transfer that wasn't fully visible in the data being presented: beneficiary designations involving qualified retirement accounts.

For charitably inclined clients, retirement assets such as IRAs and 401(k)s may warrant special consideration because distributions to individual beneficiaries and distributions to qualified charitable organizations can have different income-tax consequences.

That reinforces the larger theme of the webinar:

Advisors shouldn't review an estate plan solely by reading the will.

The review may also need to include trusts, account ownership, retirement-plan beneficiaries, insurance beneficiaries, TOD/POD designations and other non-probate transfer arrangements.

Who Actually Leaves Money to Charity?

The longitudinal data allowed James to examine the characteristics most associated with an actual charitable transfer at death—not merely an expressed intention during life.

Among the strongest lifetime predictors he discussed were:

• Consistency in charitable giving.
• Having no children or grandchildren.
• The size of the individual's largest lifetime charitable gift.
• Consistent use of a funded trust.
• Gender, with women showing a greater likelihood in the analysis.
• Greater wealth.
• Growing wealth over time.

When researchers looked specifically at the amount ultimately transferred to charity, several factors stood out again.

Annual charitable giving was important.

Unsurprisingly, wealth at death mattered substantially.

Childlessness remained an important predictor, as did continuing to give near the end of life and consistently maintaining a funded trust.

Charitable Estate Plans Are More Fluid Than Many People Realize

A charitable provision in an estate plan isn't necessarily permanent.

James examined the life events associated with both adding and removing charitable provisions.

Interestingly, many of the same events predicted both.

They generally fell into two broad categories:

Death becomes more real, or family circumstances change.

Examples included:

• Declining self-reported health.
• Approaching the end of life.
• Cancer diagnoses.
• Heart problems.
• Stroke.
• Divorce.
• Widowhood.
• The birth of a child.
• The arrival of a first grandchild.

Why would the same events cause some people to add charity and others to remove it?

Because these events trigger new planning.

And when people revisit their estate plans, everything can potentially change—including charitable provisions.

Many Charitable Plans Are Created Near the End of Life

The timing of charitable estate planning was another major theme.

Among decedents who ultimately transferred money to charity, a substantial share had added the charitable component during the final five years of life.

James noted that roughly half of charitable dollars and a majority of charitable estates in the analysis were associated with provisions added within five years of death.

But there's an important counterpoint.

Although many plans are created late, earlier plans that remain in place tend to produce larger gifts.

James reported that a longer-term charitable plan that survived until death generated an eventual charitable transfer approximately three times as large as one added during the final two years of life.

So there are really two lessons:

Many charitable plans are created late—but establishing the charitable intention earlier can still matter significantly.

Only About Half of Charitable Plans Survive 10 Years

James's longitudinal data also allowed him to examine charitable-plan retention.

Among individuals who reported having a charitable component and were still participating in the study 10 years later, only about 55% to 60% continued to report having a charitable component.

And even that doesn't necessarily mean the same charity remained in the plan.

The research simply measured whether some charitable component was still present.

For charities, advisors and planned-giving professionals, this reinforces an important point:

A charitable estate commitment shouldn't necessarily be viewed as permanent simply because it exists today.

Relationships Near the End of Life May Matter

James presented another study involving people who had told a charity that the organization was included in their estate plans.

At least 35% ultimately generated no estate gift for that organization.

The results also showed an association between recent communication and retention.

Where the charity had at least one communication with the individual during the final two years of life, James reported an average loss rate of approximately 24%. Without that recent communication, the loss rate approximately doubled.

This becomes particularly important because lifetime charitable giving itself may decline near the end of life.

An older donor who stops making regular gifts may not have lost interest in the organization. Health issues, cognitive changes, caregiving, mobility limitations or other end-of-life circumstances may simply have changed the person's giving behavior.

At the same time, this may be precisely when final estate-planning decisions are being made.

One Question Can Make a Remarkable Difference

One of the most actionable studies James presented involved approximately 3,000 people going through the normal will-planning process.

Participants were randomly assigned to different approaches.

In the group receiving standard estate-planning questions with no mention of charity, approximately 5% included charity in their estate documents.

Another group was asked one additional question:

Would you like to leave any money to charity in your will?

Simply asking the question more than doubled charitable participation.

A third group heard the charitable question accompanied by a social-norm statement indicating that many other people choose to leave money to charity.

In that group, charitable participation increased to more than three times the baseline level.

James also reported that the average charitable gift was approximately twice as large in the social-norm group as in the first two groups.

For advisors, the lesson isn't necessarily to push clients toward philanthropy.

It's to make sure philanthropy isn't accidentally excluded from the conversation.

Clients may be thinking about beneficiaries, taxes, businesses, real estate and family conflicts during estate planning. If no one asks about charitable goals, those goals may simply never become part of the discussion.

The “Great Wealth Transfer” May Happen Much Later Than Expected

James also challenged some popular assumptions surrounding the so-called great wealth transfer.

His central point was simple:

Wealth doesn't transfer when the average person dies. Wealth transfers when people with wealth die.

Wealthier individuals tend to live longer.

In married households, substantial generational wealth frequently doesn't transfer until the second spouse dies.

That can push major inheritances much later than popular discussions suggest.

James cited IRS data showing that approximately 61% of estate dollars transferred by widows and widowers came from decedents who died in their 90s or 100s.

He also cited Federal Reserve data indicating that while the probability of receiving an inheritance of any size may peak around age 60, the largest inheritances can arrive later.

Will the Great Wealth Transfer Make Younger Generations Wealthy?

James was particularly skeptical of the popular narrative that a massive wealth transfer will suddenly create a large new population of young wealthy heirs.

The data he presented suggested otherwise.

Only about 8% of inherited dollars went to people who were in the bottom half of the wealth distribution before receiving their inheritance.

Most inherited dollars went to people who were already comparatively wealthy.

His conclusion wasn't that a significant transfer won't occur.

Rather, he argued that the transfer is likely to be larger but later, concentrated among older recipients and disproportionately received by people who already possess substantial financial resources.

Charitable Estate Transfers Also Happen Very Late

The same timing issue applies to charitable transfers.

James reported that approximately 70% to 90% of charitable bequest dollars come from decedents age 80 or older, depending on how the data is measured.

He estimated that the age by which half of eventual charitable estate dollars have transferred is now approximately 90.

Different charitable-planning strategies also tend to emerge at different ages.

According to the patterns he presented:

• Charitable remainder trust creation tends to peak in the early 70s.
• Charitable gift annuities tend to peak in the later 70s.
• Actual charitable estate transfers tend to peak around ages 88 to 90.

For advisors and charitable organizations, longevity therefore matters tremendously when estimating when planned gifts may actually become realized gifts.

Childlessness Is an Important Charitable-Planning Indicator

Family structure emerged repeatedly in the research.

Among people age 55 and older with estate-planning documents, charitable provisions were much more common among people without descendants.

James presented figures showing charitable components in approximately:

• 7% to 9% of plans among people with grandchildren.
• Roughly 13% to 14% among those with children but no grandchildren.
• Approximately 35% among those without children.

That demographic difference may become increasingly significant because baby boomers are more likely to be childless than earlier generations.

Education, Giving and Volunteering Matter Too

Education was also strongly associated with charitable estate planning.

The likelihood of including charity generally increased as education increased, reaching approximately 15% among those with graduate education in the data James presented.

Current philanthropic involvement also mattered.

People who both gave money and volunteered were substantially more likely to include charity in their estate plans than those who did neither.

These patterns help explain why James expects charitable estate transfers to grow as the baby-boom generation moves through older ages.

A Documentation Gap—Not Necessarily a Charitable-Intent Gap

One of the webinar's more nuanced findings involved race and ethnicity.

At first glance, charitable estate-planning rates vary substantially among racial and ethnic groups.

But James emphasized that much of the difference appears to originate earlier in the planning process.

The research showed a substantial difference in the likelihood of having any will or trust document.

Once researchers focused on individuals who already had estate-planning documents—and accounted for factors such as wealth—the racial and ethnic differences in charitable planning narrowed considerably.

Other research on stated charitable intentions showed strong philanthropic interest across groups.

James therefore characterized the issue primarily as a documentation gap rather than a philanthropic-intention gap.

For advisors, this creates another potential planning opportunity: expanding access to estate-planning conversations and helping more families convert their intentions into effective documents and beneficiary arrangements.

Donor-Advised Funds Are Changing the Landscape

Several attendee questions focused on donor-advised funds (DAFs).

James explained an important measurement issue.

When someone contributes assets to a DAF during life, the charitable transfer has already occurred because the DAF's sponsoring organization is a charitable entity. Later distributions from that DAF to operating charities therefore aren't treated as estate transfers in the same way as a charitable bequest at death.

This can make it more difficult to measure how DAFs fit into traditional estate-transfer statistics.

James also noted that DAFs have expanded dramatically since the longitudinal study began in the early 1990s.

More recently, he has observed advisors increasingly using DAFs as long-term estate-planning vehicles, including detailed succession provisions that can resemble some of the planning traditionally associated with private foundations.

DAFs, Private Foundations and Charitable Legacy

The Q&A also explored how clients can attempt to preserve their charitable intentions after death.

A private foundation can provide formal legal structures for controlling assets and distributions, while a DAF generally involves advisory privileges rather than legal ownership by the donor.

But James argued that the practical question is more complicated.

After the original donor dies, either structure ultimately depends on other people implementing the donor's intentions.

He discussed field-of-interest funds and specialized DAF arrangements as potential ways to preserve a donor's desired charitable focus.

James also cited research suggesting that after a private-foundation founder dies, administrative costs may increase, distributions may decline toward required minimums and the types of organizations supported can change as future decision-makers assume control.

The discussion reinforced the importance of considering governance and succession, not simply which charitable vehicle is selected.

Why Permanence Matters in Charitable Estate Planning

Another fascinating theme emerged during the discussion of foundations and endowments.

James explained that mortality can influence the way people think about philanthropy.

When people are reminded of their own mortality—as naturally happens during estate planning—they may become more interested in permanence and legacy.

That can make structures such as:

• Endowed funds.
• Scholarships.
• Professorships.
• Private foundations.
• Long-term charitable funds.

particularly appealing.

The charitable decision isn't always simply, “Where can this money do the most good today?”

For some donors, it becomes:

“How can something I care about continue after I'm gone?”

Practical Application for Financial Advisors

The research presented during this webinar suggests several practical considerations for advisors working with clients on estate and charitable planning.

Review more than the will.
Beneficiary designations, asset titling, POD/TOD arrangements, jointly owned property, retirement accounts and funded trusts may ultimately control more assets than the will itself.

Ask about charitable intent.
Don't assume a client without an existing charitable provision isn't interested in philanthropy. Simply including charitable goals in the planning conversation can help reveal intentions that otherwise might never surface.

Pay attention to life transitions.
Divorce, widowhood, declining health, new grandchildren and other family changes frequently trigger estate-plan revisions.

Revisit charitable plans periodically.
A charitable provision made 10 years ago may no longer exist—or the client's charitable priorities may have changed.

Don't assume a decline in annual giving means the charitable relationship has ended.
Lifetime giving may decline near the end of life even while an individual is making important final estate-planning decisions.

Look for philanthropic patterns, not just wealth.
Consistent giving, volunteering, family structure, funded trusts and changes in wealth can all provide useful context for charitable-planning conversations.

Plan for longevity.
Large estate transfers—both to heirs and charities—may occur substantially later than clients, beneficiaries and organizations expect.

Coordinate the entire estate plan.
Estate documents, trusts, retirement accounts, insurance policies and beneficiary designations should work together rather than being reviewed independently.

Questions Advisors Can Ask Clients

The webinar suggests several simple questions advisors can incorporate into estate-planning conversations:

• Are there charitable organizations or causes you would like to support after your lifetime?
• Do your current beneficiary designations match what your estate documents say?
• When was the last time you reviewed your will or trust?
• Have there been family changes since your estate plan was completed?
• Are all assets intended for your trust actually titled in the trust?
• Have your charitable interests changed over time?
• Would you like any portion of your retirement accounts to eventually benefit charity?
• If you have a donor-advised fund or private foundation, what should happen to it after your death?
• Who should carry out your charitable intentions when you're no longer here?
• Does your current estate plan still reflect the legacy you want to leave?

The Bottom Line

Perhaps the biggest lesson from Russell James's research is that an estate plan is not a static document.

Assets change.

Families change.

Health changes.

Charitable priorities change.

Beneficiary designations change.

And the documents themselves change—often during the final years of life.

The research also challenges the assumption that a signed will necessarily determines where someone's wealth will ultimately go. In the cases studied, wills controlled assets far less frequently than funded trusts, while non-probate transfers and beneficiary designations increasingly shape estate distributions.

For advisors, that creates an important role.

Effective estate planning isn't simply about asking whether a client has a will.

It's about understanding what the client wants to accomplish, which assets are actually controlled by which arrangements, how those intentions may evolve over time, and whether the entire plan is structured to produce the result the client intends.

And when charitable giving matters to the client, sometimes the most important first step is also the simplest:

Ask the question.

Continuing Education

This session was eligible for 1.0 continuing education credit for Financial Experts Network members holding the CFP®, CDFA® or eligible American College designations. The session was also available for 1.0 CPE credit through NASBA and IRS continuing education for eligible CPAs and enrolled agents, subject to applicable attendance, membership and reporting requirements.

Additional Resources

Russell James noted during the presentation that he makes many of his charitable-planning resources—including books, presentation materials, research articles and other educational resources—available through EncourageGenerosity.com and through his professional LinkedIn network.

Compliance Note

This summary is intended for educational purposes and reflects research, findings, examples and opinions presented during the webinar. Estate-planning, tax and charitable-planning strategies can vary based on client circumstances and applicable federal and state law. Financial professionals should coordinate with qualified estate-planning attorneys, tax professionals and other appropriate specialists when advising clients.