| School / College | Campaign | Annual | Other | Donors |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Business | $22.0M | $3.1M | $1.4M | 4,200 |
| Engineering | $18.0M | $2.4M | $1.1M | 3,100 |
| Medicine | $15.0M | $2.0M | $1.6M | 2,050 |
| Arts & Sciences | $11.0M | $1.8M | $0.6M | 5,400 |
| Law | $9.0M | $1.1M | $0.4M | 1,400 |
| University-wide | $17.4M | $2.6M | $1.1M | 3,210 |
| University TOTAL | $92.4M | $13.0M | $6.2M | 19,360 |
Leadership sees the full roll-up. Each dean's office sees only its own school (permissioned) — same tool, scoped view.
| Events held (YTD) | 38 |
| Attendees | 6,200 |
| Attendees who gave within 90 days | 1,180 · 19% |
| Post-event giving (90-day window) | $9.6M |
| Gift lift vs. non-attendees | 2.4× |
| Engagement spend (cost) | $740K |
| Return on engagement | $13 : $1 |
Every attendee is tagged and their giving tracked after the event — so you see which events actually produce gifts, not just attendance.
| Time after event | Annual | Campaign | Other | Cumulative total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 1 | $0.4M | $0.6M | $0.1M | $1.1M |
| Day 5 | $0.9M | $1.8M | $0.2M | $2.9M |
| Day 10 | $1.4M | $3.0M | $0.4M | $4.8M |
| Day 30 | $2.1M | $4.6M | $0.6M | $7.3M |
| Day 90 | $2.8M | $5.9M | $0.9M | $9.6M |
Giving is tracked at Day 1, 5, 10, 30, and 90 after each event — split across annual fund, campaign, and other — so you see how fast a gift follows an event and exactly where it lands.
| Gift Level | Needed | Secured | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Principal $10M+ | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Lead $5M–$9.9M | 5 | 3 | 2 |
| Major $1M–$4.9M | 18 | 11 | 7 |
| Core $100K–$999K | 60 | 41 | 19 |
| Broad under $100K | — | public phase | on track |
| Officer | Portfolio | Asks Out | Closed YTD |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Reyes · Principal/Lead | $41M | 4 | $18.2M |
| J. Okafor · Major | $23M | 6 | $9.4M |
| M. Chen · Major/Core | $16M | 3 | $6.1M |
| Open req. · Core/Regional | — | 1 | hire by Q3 |
Every prospect, donor, and alum scored and grouped on the dimensions that actually predict giving — reconciled from all of your systems.
| Years out | Donors | Participation | $ Raised |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 year | 410 | 9% | $0.18M |
| 2–5 | 1,240 | 11% | $0.9M |
| 6–10 | 1,510 | 14% | $2.4M |
| 11–15 | 1,180 | 16% | $4.1M |
| 16–20 | 980 | 19% | $6.7M |
| 21–25 | 870 | 22% | $9.3M |
| 26–30 | 760 | 26% | $12.8M |
| 31–35 | 640 | 29% | $15.2M |
| 36–40 | 520 | 33% | $14.6M |
| 41–45 | 410 | 37% | $11.9M |
| 46–49 | 300 | 39% | $7.8M |
| 50 or more | 540 | 44% | $6.5M |
The agent reads and reconciles your existing platforms into one constituent view — deduped, household-linked, current — without a rip-and-replace.
One reconciled record. No new system to learn.
The institution holds its compliance obligations; the agent is configured to operate within them — and to make compliance easier to evidence, not harder.
| Requirement | How the agent operates within it |
|---|---|
| FERPA · student records | Honors directory-information rules, consent, and suppression/opt-out flags; strict need-to-know (row-level) access. |
| GLBA Safeguards · data security | Runs inside your environment, read-only; encrypted; every access written to an audit trail. |
| Title VI / Title IX · nondiscrimination | Segmentation reviewed for disparate impact; no protected-class targeting; equity-by-design. |
| ADA / Section 504 · accessibility | Dashboards and deliverables built to WCAG-aligned accessibility standards. |
| State privacy · e.g., NY SHIELD | Data never leaves your systems; role-based access; breach-ready controls. |
Backed by the firm's AI Risk & Compliance Architect (AI 04) and senior review on every deliverable. This describes configuration and governance — it is not legal advice or a guarantee of compliance.