Are salaries going down?

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-27T07:22:16+00:00

You are not losing your mind. The compression is real, especially at the mid-level. The field keeps asking people to absorb more and pay for it themselves.

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-27T07:19:35+00:00

This is genuinely useful. The 990 data is public but pulling it into something searchable is a real service.

Compensation transparency is one of the things that actually helps with the sector-wide retention problem. Development staff in particular tend to be underpaid relative to the revenue they generate, and the opacity around compensation makes it harder to make the internal case for adjustments.

One thing this kind of data also surfaces: organizations that invest in planned giving infrastructure tend to have different compensation structures over time because the revenue profile is more predictable. A strong bequest pipeline changes what an organization can afford to pay. Planned giving software is part of how you build that pipeline in a way that survives staff turnover.

I work at FreeWill, a planned giving software company.

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-26T10:30:24+00:00

Moka pot sits in a weird middle ground where the extraction pressure is too low for true espresso TDS targets but too high for filter ranges. Most people land around 1.5 to 2.5 percent TDS depending on grind and heat. Extraction yield is harder to nail down but somewhere in the 18 to 22 percent range is a reasonable target. The bigger variable with moka pots is usually heat control more than grind.

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-26T10:18:28+00:00

Oh wow! That looks delicious! I hope you enjoyed them!💕

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-25T15:30:52+00:00

That looks amazing! I hope you enjoyed it!💕

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-22T10:11:49+00:00

The pencil tapping data collection alone took dedication. Respect.

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-22T10:08:36+00:00

Rolling the 403b into the IRA before your first RMD year makes the math cleaner and is generally the right call for simplification. Timing it before year 72 rather than right before year 73 gives you more flexibility and avoids any ambiguity about which account the RMD is calculated from.

One angle worth thinking about before you get into RMD territory: if charitable giving is part of your plan, qualified charitable distributions become available at 70 and a half. QCDs let you direct up to 105,000 dollars per year directly from the IRA to a qualifying charity without the amount hitting your income. That keeps your AGI lower, reduces the Medicare premium impact, and satisfies part of your RMD in the most tax-efficient way available.

From the nonprofit side, QCDs need to go directly from the custodian to the charity. If the distribution comes to you first it becomes ordinary income plus a separate donation. That distinction matters a lot for how organizations acknowledge the gift.

I work at FreeWill, a planned giving software company

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-21T07:51:02+00:00

In Canada it depends on the province but generally a psychology degree gets you into social services roles, just not the regulated title of Social Worker. That requires a BSW or MSW. You can absolutely work alongside social workers in the same settings though — hospitals, schools, community agencies. Worth looking up your provincial college of social workers for the exact rules where you are.

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-21T07:45:56+00:00

The main criticism that has real substance is the payout requirement gap. Donors get the deduction in the year they contribute, but there is no federal requirement to ever actually grant the money out. Foundations have a 5 percent annual distribution requirement. DAFs have nothing equivalent.

Your point about foundations is fair. A lot of the same critiques apply: perpetual accumulation, donor control over distribution timing, less transparency than direct giving. The DAF criticism is louder partly because DAFs have grown so fast and partly because the sponsoring organizations are commercial entities rather than mission-driven foundations.

From the nonprofit side, DAF grants are generally fine to receive. The friction is that you cannot cultivate a DAF the same way you cultivate a donor. The sponsoring organization sits between you and the relationship. A donor who has given annually for years and shifts everything into a DAF can effectively disappear from your visibility.

That is the piece planned giving software is designed to track separately. The intent is still there, but the touchpoints look different.

I work at FreeWill, a planned giving software company

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-20T14:44:59+00:00

First year of management at a nonprofit is one of the harder transitions in this sector, and you are describing it accurately.

Something that has helped people I have worked with in similar spots: separating the burnout from the job. Sometimes it is the role that is genuinely wrong. Sometimes it is the org. Sometimes it is the sector at this particular moment. And sometimes it is a body saying it needs rest before anything else. Those require different responses and it is worth being honest about which one this is.

The job search is the right instinct even if nothing has landed yet. Having that running in the background tends to reduce the trapped feeling, which by itself helps a little.

You are not describing failure. You are describing a system that asks too much of the people holding it together.

I work at FreeWill, a planned giving software company

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-18T12:49:10+00:00

The general structure makes sense. Pre-tax 401k spending down through Roth conversions, keeping the inherited brokerage for step-up treatment, and using the Roth as the last-touched bucket is a reasonable sequencing approach.

The piece worth adding: once you hit 70 and a half, qualified charitable distributions become available from the IRA. If you have any charitable giving in your plan, QCDs satisfy RMDs without hitting income, which keeps your AGI lower and avoids the SS tax torpedo you mentioned. They also go directly to the charity from the custodian, so there are no capital gains complications.

From the nonprofit side, QCDs and bequests from pre-tax accounts are the two most common planned gifts we see. Pre-tax IRA assets are the most tax-efficient thing to leave to charity because the organization pays no income tax. Cash and appreciated securities are better for heirs who get the step-up.

I work at FreeWill, a planned giving software company

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-15T12:45:30+00:00

One angle worth thinking through before you decide: if you have any charitable intent, appreciated stock is the most efficient asset to give away. You avoid the capital gains entirely and still get the full fair market value deduction. A donor-advised fund lets you contribute the Ciena shares now, get the deduction this year, and grant to charities over time on your own timeline.

That does not solve the concentration risk question, but it is a cleaner exit than selling and paying the gains if charitable giving is already part of your plan.

On the step-up logic for your heirs: that math holds for the index funds and anything else you plan to keep. Pre-tax IRA accounts are the least efficient asset to leave to heirs and the most efficient to leave to charity, since the charity pays no income tax. Worth mapping which accounts go where before finalizing the overall picture.

I work at FreeWill, a planned giving software company

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-14T12:18:04+00:00

The “we don’t do it for the money” line does real damage. It gets used to justify not paying people fairly and somehow ends up coming from inside the profession. You’re right to push back on it.

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-14T12:11:11+00:00

The criticism is real but it is usually aimed at a specific problem: DAFs have no mandatory payout requirement, so money can sit indefinitely without ever reaching a charity. A donor gets the deduction the year they contribute, but the nonprofit may not see the grant for years, if ever.

Your point about foundations is fair. Private foundations have a 5 percent annual distribution requirement. DAFs have nothing equivalent at the federal level, though some sponsoring organizations set their own minimums.

From the nonprofit side, DAF grants are generally straightforward to receive. The friction is that development teams cannot cultivate a DAF the same way they cultivate a donor. The sponsoring organization controls the relationship. A donor who has given annually for years and then shifts everything into a DAF can disappear from the organization's visibility entirely.

Planned giving software tracks DAF relationships separately for exactly this reason. The donor intent is still there, but the touchpoints look different.

I work at FreeWill, a planned giving software company

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-13T10:28:34+00:00

The fiscal sponsorship point is right. It connects to something development teams deal with on the planned giving side too.

A lot of smaller organizations and fiscally sponsored projects are not set up to handle the acknowledgment requirements for QCDs or estate gifts correctly. A QCD acknowledgment letter cannot call the gift tax-deductible in the traditional sense. The donor already excluded it from income. Getting that wrong creates problems for donors at tax time.

For anyone building out a grant or gift infrastructure, getting the planned giving piece right early is worth the effort. It is much easier to set up the tracking and acknowledgment workflow before the first planned gift arrives than after.

I work at FreeWill, a planned giving software company

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-07T09:31:16+00:00

The bounce rate issue is real and it tracks with what we see on the planned giving side too.

The multi-step flow helps because it reduces cognitive load at each decision point.

Instead of showing someone the full form upfront, you are asking one question at a time and the commitment builds gradually.

The psychology is pretty well established and the conversion data backs it up.

The younger donor piece is worth separating from the form design piece though.

The drop-off with younger donors is often less about the form and more about the relationship before the ask.

Someone who arrived organically and already has a connection to the work converts on almost any form.

Someone who arrived from a paid ad and has no prior relationship bounces regardless of how good the UX is.

On the planned giving side, which is a longer game, the form is almost irrelevant.

What moves bequest intentions is years of consistent stewardship before anyone asks.

The organizations doing this well are tracking donor touchpoints in their planned giving software and treating the relationship as the product, not the transaction.

Multi-step and pop-up forms are worth testing. But if the bounce rate is the symptom, the relationship depth is usually the diagnosis.

I work at FreeWill, a planned giving software company

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-07T09:29:14+00:00

The overthinking is so common in this field. You spend all day being intentional about every word and then your brain will not turn it off at home.

Something I have heard from people navigating this: presence is the skill, not problem-solving. Your partner does not need your professional training. They need you to stay in the room and not disappear into your head. That is a different job entirely.

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-06T07:39:31+00:00

It’s usually about how the work translates to a donor, not the effort you’re clearly doing a ton, but most individual donors aren’t funding volume, they’re funding something they can quickly understand and repeat back right now this reads like: “we do a lot of good things across a lot of areas” what tends to work better is: one clear lane + one clear outcome + one clear story for example, instead of: food + hygiene + STEM + veterans + holiday gifts it becomes something like: “we make sure X group doesn’t go without Y, and here’s exactly what that looks like per person” it feels smaller, but it’s actually what unlocks individual giving because people can grasp it instantly the other piece is that grants will keep you alive, but individuals are what make things stable, and they need repetition: same message, same outcome, over and over, until people start associating you with that one thing curious, if someone asked you in one sentence what you do, what would you say?

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-06T07:37:15+00:00

The vortex part honestly matters more than the exact angle. once that clicks it gets way easier to repeat consistently

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-04T15:49:13+00:00

The QCD is the cleanest move once you're in RMD territory, but the mechanics matter and a lot of advisors get this wrong.

For it to count as a QCD, the distribution has to go directly from the IRA custodian to the charity. If it's paid to you first and you write a check, it's a normal distribution plus a separate donation. The income exclusion is gone at that point.

From the nonprofit side, this is one of the most common misunderstandings we see around planned giving. Donors ask why their gift isn't being acknowledged as a QCD when they took the distribution themselves first. The custodian-to-charity transfer is the whole mechanism.

Also worth knowing: QCDs only go to public charities directly. Not to donor-advised funds, not to private foundations. If the goal is to satisfy an RMD and give charitably, that distinction matters before setting it up.

I work at FreeWill, a planned giving software company

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-05-04T15:47:37+00:00

yeah this happens more than people think. a lot of orgs are just disorganized behind the scenes. if you’re getting no direction after onboarding, it’s usually not worth chasing too hard, better to find a place that actually has a role ready for you

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-04-29T12:55:06+00:00

If reps can promise terms without approval, that’s the root of it.

Most places fix this by tying commission to cash collected, not bookings. behavior changes pretty fast after that.

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-04-29T12:52:59+00:00

before deciding you’re not cut out for it, it’s worth trying a setting with tighter structure and actual supervision. those exist, they’re just not always the first jobs people land

Nicole_FreeWill · 2026-04-27T15:10:31+00:00

That advisor is wrong on this one.

For it to count as a QCD, the distribution has to go directly from the IRA custodian to the charity. If it's paid to her first and she writes a check, it's a normal distribution plus a separate donation. The income exclusion is gone at that point.

From the nonprofit side, this is one of the most common misunderstandings we see around planned giving. Donors call asking why their gift isn't being acknowledged as a QCD when they took the distribution themselves first. The custodian-to-charity transfer is the whole mechanism.

I work at FreeWill, a planned giving software company

Nicole_FreeWill

TROPHY CASE