Your gift acceptance policy applied to every large gift and naming, with donor due diligence cited, the agreement read clause by clause and every committee vote recorded with its reason
Every large gift and naming decided on a cited file, with returnable gifts flagged early.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Gift Acceptance & Donor Due Diligence is a solution that applies a university's gift acceptance policy to every large gift and naming. Agents set the tier the policy names, screen every donor, company and payer against sanctions lists, news and court records with each finding cited, trace foreign money to the entity that pays it, and read the draft agreement clause by clause against the policy. The gift acceptance committee votes in it with a recorded reason, and the Associate General Counsel signs last.
AI in education: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for colleges, universities and school districts →
Updated
A gift acceptance policy decides which gifts a university takes and on what terms, and the gift acceptance committee applies it to the largest and riskiest: building namings, land, closely held stock, art and money that arrives from abroad. Policies revised in 2025 tier the due diligence by gift size and make the board's control over naming explicit. Section 117 of the Higher Education Act counts foreign gifts of $250,000 or more in a calendar year, and a donor who is clean at acceptance can be added to a sanctions list during a five-year pledge.
Today Advancement Services builds each case by hand. A prospect researcher runs a watchlist tool, a news database and county court portals and pastes the results into a memo, a point in time that nobody repeats while the pledge is paid. Counsel redlines the draft agreement apart from the screen, so a donor's veto over renaming or a five-year holding period on stock can reach signature. The committee reads the binder and the minutes say "approved", not who weighed what, and a payment from a newly sanctioned company is found when a reporter calls.
Estimated split of the working days spent assembling one Tier 3 committee case, by hand and with the agents. These are our estimates, not measurements; the agents' share is the screening, reading and drafting, and people still decide every finding.
Eight agents screen every party, read the agreement against policy and argue the case against; members vote with reasons and counsel signs last.
Halden State University's Gift Acceptance Committee meets on Wednesday, October 21, 2026 at 2:00 PM. On its agenda is a $12,000,000 pledge to name the new Student Center. Here is how that gift reaches a decision in the working solution.
Evelyn Strand, Vice President for Finance and chair of the Gift Acceptance Committee, starts with what needs her: 27 gift cases need a person, and the committee meets at 2:00 PM on three cases, plus one on the consent agenda. Overnight the agents re-screened 1,140 donors with namings or open pledges and found one sanctions listing. Each case shows its amount, tier, what the agents found and its clock: the Calloway naming is on day 19 of 30.
One county court portal did not answer at 1:12 AM. The agent marked those litigation searches incomplete, never clear, and retried at 6:00 AM.
Case GA-2027-0114 opens on the entrance plate: "The Calloway Family Student Center", $12,000,000 from Robert and Diane Calloway over five years toward Halden State's $96 million Student Center. The intake coordinator set Tier 3 under policy 2.1, because the gift names a building, includes closely held shares and has a payer abroad. Under the plate sit the terms the policy allows, each cited: the life of the building, at most 50 years; removable under clause 9.3; the Board of Trustees decides on December 4, 2026; and $12 million is 12.5% of the project, the minimum for naming a building.
2 votes outstanding: Carlos Mendez and Evelyn Strand. Then counsel signs last.
The donors, their company, the Canadian company that pays one installment and the family foundation were checked against the OFAC SDN and consolidated lists and the UN, UK, EU and Canadian lists: 30 checks, no match on politically exposed persons. One name matched at 0.86 on the UK list: Robert J. Calloway, born February 14, 1961, a citizen of another country, beside the donor, born July 3, 1954, a US citizen. Lena Hoffmann in Prospect Research dismissed it as a different person, and Dr. Fiona Brannigan, Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer, confirmed it the next morning.
Never clears a match alone: two people dismiss it.
The agent read 1,912 articles from 2006 to 2026 and kept 14 about these parties: one finding, two allegations nobody has supported, and eleven items of context. The finding rests on a court record, and clicking its citation opens the passage: in 2019 Calloway Industrial Coatings paid a $1.8 million civil penalty for wastewater permit exceedances, and the state certified the cleanup complete in March 2022. Opening a source is written to the audit trail.
"This decree is not an admission of liability by Defendant."
The policy and agreement agent read draft v3 of the gift agreement, 16 clauses on 8 pages: 11 align with the policy and 5 conflict, two seriously. Clause 7.2 says "Donor approves any future renaming or change of use of the Student Center", and policy 4.3 reserves that to the Board of Trustees. The agent also found what is missing, a right to remove the name, and drafted clause 9.3 under policy 4.6. Marcus uses the wording, edits it, or keeps the draft with a reason.
"Any renaming or change of use of the Student Center is reserved to the Board of Trustees. Before the Board acts, the University will consult the Donors, or their designee, in good faith."
The foreign-source agent followed every installment to the entity that pays it. The 2027 installment of $1,500,000, due January 15, 2027, is paid by Calloway Coatings Canada Ltd., so the agent drafted a line for the July 31, 2027 report for Thomas to confirm. On the same screen it added up a UK trust's two gifts this year, $95,000 and $180,000, to $275,000: reportable.
"The pledge is from the Calloways, but this installment is paid by their Canadian company. Section 117 counts the source that pays."
From the cited file alone, the agent wrote five points with 11 citations: a fifty-year name on the building students use most, tied to an environmental penalty; as drafted, the donors could block a renaming and the university could not remove the name; a fifth of the gift is shares in a private company valued by its own figures; the gift will be public as foreign money; and students pay for 40% of the building through $38.4 million in fee bonds and have not been asked. Then the case for: the 2019 matter is closed, the gift closes the last $12 million without raising student fees, and the Calloways have given for 22 years, $3.4 million of it to scholarships.
Never recommends a vote. Each member's vote opens only after they have read the case against.
Five members had voted in the app before the meeting; Carlos Mendez, Vice President for Student Affairs, and Evelyn vote in the room. The tally shows quorum 5 and majority 4, and the committee accepts the gift 6–1 with the revised clauses. Dr. Anita Kessler of the Faculty Senate votes to decline, and her reason is on the record. Rachel Dunmore, Vice President for Advancement, attends ex officio and does not vote, because her office solicited the gift.
"The 2019 environmental record weighs against a 50-year name on a student building. I would support a 25-year term."
The acceptance carries eight conditions, each tied to its policy section: clause 7.2 replaced, clause 9.3 added, the naming term set to the life of the building at most 50 years, sale of the shares at the university's discretion with a family right of first refusal, confidentiality limited by the public records act, a qualified appraisal and Form 8283 before the shares transfer, the Section 117 line, and the naming to the Board on December 4, 2026. Marcus signs last, with reason code AC-2. The letter to the donors, the CRM update, the Board resolution and the minutes are drafted behind his signature.
"Gift accepted with conditions."
The case exports as one decision file: every finding with its source passage, the draft agreement v3 and revised v4 redlined, the screening results and how each was settled, the case against and the case for, each member's vote and reason with the time they read the case against, counsel's signature and conditions, and the agent versions, thresholds and overrides used. Student identifiers are redacted and deliberations marked privileged.
The same case, seen by the people who chair the committee, sign the agreement, prepare the file, settle the screening and report the foreign money: what their work looked like, and what it looks like now.
Eight agents screen every party, read the agreement against policy and argue the case against; members vote with reasons and counsel signs last.
Reads each new gift from the advancement CRM, sets the tier from policy 2.1, runs the agents the tier needs and keeps the clock.
Screens every party, from donors and companies to payers and foundations, against six sanctions lists and politically exposed persons, and proposes how to settle each match.
Reads news archives and state and federal court records, and separates findings, allegations and context, each cited.
Follows each installment to the entity that pays it, adds up gifts and contracts by source per calendar year, and drafts the Section 117 line.
Reads each draft gift agreement clause by clause against the gift acceptance and naming policy, drafts substitute wording, and finds protections that are missing.
Checks appraisals, environmental and title reports, provenance and a way to sell, with the IRS forms each gift needs.
Writes the strongest case against accepting each committee gift, then the case for, every point cited.
Re-screens donors with namings or open pledges every night; assembles the decision file, minutes, letters and the Board resolution; redacts.
Signs last; no gift is accepted without it. The agents propose; a named person decides.
The assistant answers from the case file, cites each fact, and opens the screen where the work is done.
Why does clause 7.2 conflict with our policy?
Clause 7.2 of the Calloway draft says the "Donor approves any future renaming or change of use of the Student Center". Policy 4.3 reserves every naming decision, including a renaming or change of use, to the Board of Trustees, so the clause would give the donors a veto over the Board. The drafted wording keeps the decision with the Board and promises to consult the family first.
What did the court records show on the Calloways?
One matter. In 2019 Calloway Industrial Coatings entered a consent decree and paid a $1.8 million civil penalty for wastewater permit exceedances from 2015 to 2017, without admitting liability. The state certified the cleanup complete in March 2022. A 2021 contract suit was dismissed.
Is the Canadian installment reportable under Section 117?
Yes. The pledge is the Calloways', but the 2027 installment of $1,500,000 is paid by Calloway Coatings Canada Ltd., a foreign source at or above $250,000 in a calendar year. It belongs in the July 31, 2027 report. The line is drafted; Thomas Whitfield confirms it.
What should we do about the Harmon Maritime payment?
Hold it and report it. Harmon Maritime Holdings was added to the OFAC sanctions list on October 14, and its $250,000 installment arrived on October 19. The wire is held in the suspense account; the blocked-property report is due within 10 business days, by November 2. Counsel and the Vice President for Finance approve.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The tiers, clocks, naming rules and privacy rules every case runs on are settings. A change is saved as a new version, the previous one is kept, and only the chair and the systems administrator can change them.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 2 | $100,000 to $999,999: full screen and two signatures | Decided in 10 business days; overdue cases escalate to the chair |
| Tier 3 | $1,000,000 or more: the committee, then counsel signs last | Decided in 30 calendar days |
| Always Tier 3 | Building namings; land, private stock or art over $25,000; foreign source of $250,000 or more; any finding | Required by the policy; cannot be turned off |
| Naming a building | At least 12.5% of the project cost | Naming term at most 50 years |
| Re-screen donors with namings or open pledges | Every night | Full refresh every five years; cannot be turned off |
| Members read the case against before voting | On | Required; cannot be turned off |
| Deliberations | Privileged: committee and counsel only | The gift officer sees status only |
| Retention | Decision files for namings kept permanently | Declined cases and screening results: 7 or 10 years |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
Sources: Giving USA 2025 (giving to education in 2024) · 20 U.S.C. 1011f (Higher Education Act, section 117) · 31 CFR 501.603 (reports of blocked property within 10 business days) · IRS Forms 8283 and 8282 · "target" = design goal, measured in the live solution · "demo" = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · "typical" = published figures · "estimated" = our arithmetic. Halden State University and the people, companies and organizations named on this page are fictional: characters and sample data in the working solution.
Gift Acceptance & Donor Due Diligence is a solution that applies a university's gift acceptance policy to every large gift and naming. Agents set the tier the policy names, screen every donor, company and payer against sanctions lists, news and court records with each finding cited, trace foreign money to the entity that pays it, and read the draft agreement clause by clause against the policy. The gift acceptance committee votes in it with a recorded reason, and the Associate General Counsel signs last.
The intake coordinator reads each gift's size, type, naming and payer and sets the tier your policy names, with the section cited. In the working solution, Tier 2 covers $100,000 to $999,999 with a full screen and two signatures in 10 business days; Tier 3 covers $1,000,000 or more, any building naming, land, private stock or art over $25,000, foreign money of $250,000 or more and any gift with a finding, and is decided by the committee within 30 days. The tiers are settings, saved as versions.
Each committee case carries six checks: sanctions and watchlists (six lists and politically exposed persons), adverse media, court records, foreign source, the draft gift agreement and non-cash gifts. Non-cash gifts follow the policy's own rules: a Phase I environmental assessment and title review for land, a qualified appraisal and a plan for sale for closely held stock, and provenance back to 1933 and the curator's acceptance for art. Every finding opens its source passage.
Yes. Each naming is shown as it would look on the building, with the terms the policy allows: in the working solution, at least 12.5% of the project cost, a term of the facility's useful life, at most 50 years, the Board's control over any renaming, and a right to remove the name. The register of named spaces lists 214 spaces and flags the 31 whose agreements have no removal clause.
Every donor with a naming or an open pledge is re-screened each night. When Harmon Maritime Holdings was added to the OFAC sanctions list on October 14, its $250,000 installment arrived on October 19 and the agent held it in the suspense account, drafted the blocked-property report due within 10 business days, stopped pledge reminders and put the name on the committee's agenda. Counsel and the Vice President for Finance approve the hold; the agent never returns a payment.
It traces each installment to the entity that pays it, adds up gifts and contracts by foreign source for each calendar year against $250,000, and drafts the line for the January 31 or July 31 report. The Section 117 Compliance Officer confirms every line, and the agent never files. Conditions that touch appointments or research, such as a foundation's say in a chair appointment, are flagged against the policy.
Yes. Agents screen, read, cite and draft; they never decide a gift, never clear a name match and never recommend a vote. Committee members vote with a reason after reading the case against, counsel signs last, and nobody votes on or signs a case they prepared. Every override carries a reason code.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents, such as your gift acceptance and naming policy, your agreement templates and exports from your advancement CRM, and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own gifts first.
Every charge checked against the donor's own words, and idle payout put to work.
1-min demoProspect ResearchA cited brief before every visit in minutes, not days, each wealth figure confirmed twice.
1-min demoGift Processing & Donor AcknowledgmentGifts booked and receipted within 48 hours, each coded to the fund the donor named.
1-min demoWe'll run Gift Acceptance & Donor Due Diligence on your gift acceptance policy and a sample of your own gift agreements.