Back in June, we invited you to continue a conversation that started last December – one born out of uncertainty, a flood of questions and a shared recognition that our field continues to get more and more serious about due diligence and gift acceptance policy.  

You showed up. Hundreds of prospect development professionals registered for the June 17 webinar to hear real stories from practitioners who've navigated these decisions firsthand. We broke into small groups to work through the practical realities of building - or strengthening - due diligence programs at our various institutions.  

The first scenario in the presentation examined the reputational and organizational impact when a volunteer publicly questioned an internal policy on pronoun usage. The situation highlighted how decisions with broad cultural and community implications can quickly become public issues when stakeholders feel their perspectives have not been adequately considered. A key takeaway was that final decisions were made without meaningful consultation with the groups most directly affected by the policy. This serves as an important reminder that inclusive decision-making is critical not only for building trust and gaining stakeholder buy-in, but also for identifying potential reputational risks before they escalate. Organizations should carefully consider who is represented, and who may be missing, at the decision-making table when evaluating policies and their potential impact. 

The second scenario focused on a university with a well-established due diligence and gift review process. This example demonstrated how a structured, cross-functional approach can help organizations navigate complex philanthropic opportunities. Rather than leaving gift acceptance decisions to an individual, the process engages multiple departments to assess potential reputational, ethical, legal and mission-related risks. A key lesson was that due diligence is most effective when it incorporates diverse perspectives and provides a clear framework for evaluating challenging situations, ensuring that decisions are informed, transparent and aligned with organizational values. 

The final scenario highlighted the complexities of conducting international due diligence, particularly when researching individuals with common names and a very limited online footprint. In this case, a researcher used the Hong Kong business registry and found the prospect’s national identification number, allowing for more accurate verification. Initial findings suggested a low-risk prospect, with little public presence and no adverse media coverage. However, a final review revealed that the individual appeared on the List of Dishonest Judgment Debtors, raising important questions about the source of funds and the donor's motivations. This example underscored the importance of accurate identification, thorough research and multiple layers of review. It also reinforced that the role of the researcher is to surface relevant information and potential risks so that organizational stakeholders can make informed decisions through established gift acceptance and due diligence processes. 

What follows are the key takeaways from the breakout conversations: the questions practitioners are wrestling with, the frameworks that are working and the advice that came up again and again. 

Governance and Policy Frameworks 

The conversation kept circling back to one foundational point: due diligence can't run on instinct alone. Institutions need formal, written Gift Acceptance and Due Diligence Policies – not just for the sake of having a document, but because it creates transparency, reduces the influence of bias and keeps decision-making tethered to the organization's mission rather than to who happens to be in the room. 

Just as important is who makes the final call. Prospect Development should lead and facilitate the research, but participants were clear that decisions on high-risk prospects shouldn't rest with any single office. That responsibility belongs to a cross-functional committee, which may include the General Counsel, C-suite leadership, Public Relations and Development leadership, so that no one person carries the weight (or the blind spots) of a major decision alone. 

For institutions building this infrastructure from scratch, participants pointed to existing frameworks like the Apra Due Diligence Toolkit as a starting point that can be adapted to fit an organization's own risk tolerance and level of maturity. 

Operational Workflow and Resource Management 

A recurring theme was that resources must be deployed strategically. That includes our time, our funds for additional tools and software, etc. Groups discussed adopting a tiered assessment model, a lightweight "red flag" check as the first line of defense for every prospect, with deeper, more resource-intensive research reserved for high-risk situations (like incoming trustees), naming opportunities or principal-level solicitations. 

Making that tiering work in practice requires clear escalation triggers. Participants recommended building out a checklist that automatically signals when a formal due diligence review is required. This removes guesswork for gift officers and keeps the policy applied consistently, regardless of who's managing the relationship. 

Finally, findings shouldn't live in someone's personal files. Documenting due diligence outcomes directly in the CRM ensures the information is discoverable across the institution and maintains accountability. 

Research Standards and Objectivity 

Several breakout rooms focused on the research itself, not just the policy that governs it. The guidance was consistent: due diligence deliverables need to stay strictly fact-based. That means presenting verified data and direct quotes and leaving out editorializing, personal opinion or speculative framing. The job of the researcher is to inform the decision, not to make it. 

Participants also expressed concern about framing due diligence purely as a gatekeeping exercise. The goal is informed engagement, and that can mean clearing a prospect for solicitation just as often as it means recommending caution. Both outcomes reflect rigorous, responsible work. 

And when public information is thin? Say so. Groups agreed that a lack of data is itself worth flagging as a potential risk factor, while being careful not to imply that an information gap is evidence of wrongdoing. 

Advocacy and Buy-In 

Policy only works if leadership is bought in, and getting there takes more than a memo. Participants talked about using real case studies to make the reputational and financial stakes concrete for executives who may not see due diligence work day-to-day. 

Building relationships with internal partners early was another recurring recommendation. Legal, Marketing and Communications each bring expertise – social media monitoring, adverse media screening, organizational risk assessment – that strengthens the process long before a decision point is reached. 

Finally, a topic that doesn't come up often enough: what happens when things go wrong after a relationship has already begun? Groups discussed the value of having a thought-out disengagement or "exit" strategy for existing donors or board members if concerns surface post-vetting. It's rarely needed, but having a plan in place beforehand makes all the difference. 

Keep the Conversation Going 

If your institution is building, refining or defending its due diligence program, we want you in the conversation: 

• Join the PRSPCT-L discussion group and connect with peers who are working through the same questions in real time. 
• Keep an eye out in the fall for another webinar in the due diligence series, this time exploring how prospect development professionals collaborate with other roles across the due diligence process. 

The world isn't getting simpler, and neither are our donors. But we as a field are getting stronger together as we proactively identify and push for process change and collaboration.