Direct answer: A human-reviewed lapsed-donor queue that distinguishes eligible reconnection, continued stewardship, respectful pause, and suppression, with an unsent draft only where current evidence supports contact.
Who this workflow is for
Nonprofit development teams, Annual giving teams, Major gift officers, Donor stewardship teams. Use it when relationship context is spread across approved records, communication, meetings, and documents, but the final judgment still belongs to a person.
Execution mode and prerequisites
Preference-first relationship review. Finta can assemble permitted history and Aurora can prepare a recommendation or draft, but a person owns eligibility, relevance, tone, timing, channel, and every send decision.
- A defined lapsed or paused relationship cohort and review window
- Current donor identity, communication preferences, prior decline, and suppression status
- Verified stewardship history and open organizational commitments
- A current program update or other relationship-relevant reason to reconnect
Inputs, review boundary, and outcome
| Input | What a person verifies | Reviewed output |
|---|---|---|
| Lapsed relationship set | Identity, source, last verified interaction, owner, and reason for review | Bounded review cohort |
| Preference and stewardship evidence | Consent, suppression, prior decline, anonymity, open promises, and unresolved issues | Contact boundary |
| Current relevance | Program update, event, milestone, question, or relationship-specific context | Reviewed reconnection rationale |
Run the workflow
- Define what lapsed means for this program, the review period, included records, excluded records, and responsible owner.
- Resolve identity and inspect the latest donor-system, relationship, communication, and stewardship evidence.
- Remove records with suppression, an unresolved complaint, a prior explicit decline, uncertain identity, or an unfulfilled stewardship obligation that must be handled first.
- For the remaining records, require a current relationship-relevant reason to reconnect rather than a generic inactivity trigger.
- Prepare a concise unsent draft that reflects the verified history, present reason, donor choices, and an easy way to decline further contact.
- Have the relationship owner approve, revise, defer, suppress, or discard each item, then record the decision and next review date.
Human approval boundary
The relationship owner decides whether there is a legitimate and respectful reason to reconnect, confirms preferences and prior decisions, and approves any donor-facing message. Finta does not treat inactivity as consent, predict renewed giving, or override a decline or suppression instruction.
Worked example
A former annual donor has not engaged for two years, but previously supported a neighborhood food program. The review finds no suppression request, confirms that a promised impact report was delivered, and identifies a current program update directly related to that prior interest. Aurora prepares a brief reconnection draft with no ask and an easy preference update. The gift officer removes an unsupported personal reference, approves the factual program language, and decides whether to send it.
Expected review receipt
- The cohort definition and each relationship's source record are visible
- Preference, decline, suppression, stewardship, and complaint checks are recorded
- The current reason for contact is explicit and evidence based
- The unsent draft, reviewer, decision, and next review date are attributable
- Paused and suppressed records remain outside later automation unless deliberately reconsidered
Decision checklist
- The correct person or organization and authoritative donor record are identified
- Suppression, consent, channel, anonymity, and prior-decline evidence are current
- Open stewardship promises or complaints are handled before a new ask
- The reconnection reason is timely, specific, and relevant to the relationship
- The draft does not imply remembered details that should not be used
- A person approves the decision and the message remains unsent until then
Failure states and safe stops
- Identity, consent, suppression, or prior-contact evidence is missing
- An open complaint, unfulfilled promise, or sensitive event requires human handling first
- The only rationale is inactivity, perceived capacity, or a generic campaign calendar
- The draft uses inferred interests, private details, or an inappropriate level of familiarity
- A sequence or send would begin before the relationship owner approves it
Where Finta helps
In a supported, permissioned setup, Finta can organize the relevant CRM record, relationship history, connected or user-provided evidence, documents, and next-action workspace. Aurora can prepare a recommendation, summary, or draft. A person remains responsible for checking the evidence and approving consequential changes or communication.
Relevant Finta products: CRM, Aurora, Tasks, Automations. Relevant integrations: Gmail, Outlook, Google Calendar.
What this workflow does not do
- A lapsed label does not explain why a person stopped engaging or authorize renewed contact.
- Finta does not predict giving, determine donor value, or override consent and communication preferences.
- Historical notes can be stale, incomplete, biased, or inappropriate for reuse.
- The nonprofit remains responsible for privacy, charitable-solicitation rules, channel requirements, and donor trust.
Sources and review notes
The AFP Code of Ethical Standards emphasizes donor privacy, accurate communications, and honoring donor choices. AFP's current AI guidance also recommends examining source data, surprise, reviewability, bias, and accountability before scaling AI-assisted fundraising work.
- AFP Code of Ethical Standards
- AFP guidance on AI and fundraising responsibility
- Finta CRM
- Aurora
- Finta Automations
Research reviewed: September 5, 2026. Recheck product behavior, permissions, professional standards, and the human approval boundary before publication and after any material workflow change.