Direct answer: A permission-first donor introduction queue that gives board members accurate context, an easy way to decline, and a clear close-the-loop process.
Who this workflow is for
Nonprofit development teams, Major-gifts teams, Board engagement leaders. 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
Permission-gated development recipe. Finta can help organize relationship evidence and prepare a request, but it does not infer donor capacity, consent, or willingness from a connection.
- An approved campaign or donor-engagement objective
- Permissioned donor and board relationship records
- Board-member consent and donor privacy policies
- Approved case-for-support and forwardable materials
Inputs, review boundary, and outcome
| Input | What a person verifies | Reviewed output |
|---|---|---|
| Campaign objective | Approved need, audience, ask, and supporting material | Introduction brief |
| Board and donor records | Relationship evidence, privacy, conflicts, and owner | Plausible paths |
| Stewardship history | Recent contact, preferences, open commitments, and exclusions | Responsible request timing |
Run the workflow
- Create a concise, approved introduction brief with the reason for the request and easy decline language.
- Identify plausible board-to-donor paths using only permissioned relationship evidence.
- Review donor privacy, fit, stewardship history, conflicts, and current relationship ownership.
- Ask the board member whether the relationship and timing make a request appropriate.
- Prepare a forwardable note for development and board-member review.
- Track consent, introduction outcome, stewardship follow-up, and a close-the-loop update.
Human approval boundary
Development staff confirm donor privacy, fit, conflicts, and approved messaging. The board member decides whether to make the request, and the prospective donor controls whether to engage.
Worked example
A board member knows a local foundation officer and says they may be open to learning about a workforce program. Development staff confirm the relationship directly with the board member, review the foundation's stated focus, and prepare a short, non-transactional request using approved program facts. The board member edits and chooses whether to send it, then the team records the response and stewardship owner.
Expected review receipt
- The approved case, fit rationale, and source are visible
- Privacy, conflict, and communication checks are recorded
- The board member's permission and final decision are explicit
- The response and stewardship owner are tracked
Decision checklist
- The campaign brief and materials are approved
- Donor privacy and communication preferences are respected
- The board member confirms relationship and permission
- Capacity or interest is not inferred from wealth or connection alone
- Stewardship responsibility continues after the introduction
Failure states and safe stops
- The donor relationship or board-member permission is assumed
- The source relies on unapproved wealth or sensitive personal data
- A conflict, prior decline, or communication preference is missed
- The request uses an outdated or unapproved case for support
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: Networks, CRM, Aurora, Documents. Relevant integrations: Gmail, Outlook, Google Calendar.
What this workflow does not do
- Finta does not perform wealth screening or determine donor capacity.
- A board connection is not consent, endorsement, or a promise of support.
- Organizations remain responsible for charitable-solicitation, privacy, ethics, and gift-acceptance requirements.
Sources and review notes
The Association of Fundraising Professionals' ethical standards include donor privacy and responsible handling of donor information. Those principles inform the permission and stewardship checks in this workflow.
Research reviewed: September 1, 2026. Recheck product behavior, permissions, professional standards, and the human approval boundary before publication and after any material workflow change.