Don't get burned by a bad donor.
Returning a major gift under press scrutiny, finding out a board candidate is in active litigation, or watching a grant recipient unravel after the disbursement — these are the failures that small nonprofits never recover from. Sentinel is the diligence layer they couldn't otherwise afford.
No card. No signup. About 90 seconds per Quick Vet.
The cost of returning a gift is never just the gift.
Most nonprofits don't have a structured donor-vetting process. They have a gift acceptance policy buried in a binder, a development director who runs a quick Google search, and a quiet agreement not to look too hard at money that's already on its way in. That works right up until it doesn't.
The nonprofits that get burned aren't naive. They're busy. They have small staffs and no formal process, so individual judgment fills the gap. Individual judgment is not reproducible, not defensible to your board, and not documented anywhere. When a problem surfaces — a donor indicted, a board member's prior litigation discovered, a grantee in receivership — the question that arrives is: "What did we know, and when?"
Sentinel exists so the answer can be: "We checked, here is what we found, here is the documentation." $49 a month covers five Quick Vets — enough for most small organizations. Standard DD ($399/mo) covers the larger gifts and board-level workups. The cost of one returned gift covers the subscription for a decade.
Four moments
it pays for itself.
Major donor vetting before acceptance
Before accepting a six-figure gift, run a structured check on the donor: sanctions, PEP, adverse media, source-of-funds context. Document the clean ones too — that's the audit trail your board needs.
Board candidate background workup
Before extending a board invitation, run an Institutional report on the candidate. Litigation, regulatory exposure, conflict-of-interest patterns, public statements — surfaced before the announcement.
Grant recipient verification
Foundation due diligence on grantees: legitimacy of the org, principals' track record, financial status, mission alignment with public record.
Partnership DD before MOU
Before signing a partnership MOU with another nonprofit, foundation, or corporate sponsor, run a structured check. Reputation matters, and it's harder to undo than to verify.
Quick Vet · $49 / month
Five Quick Vets per month for routine donor and grantee checks. Step up to Standard ($399/mo, 25 reports) for board candidates, major partnership DD, and quarterly portfolio reviews of larger grant programs.
Not a chatbot.
An analyst with a method.
The moat isn’t the data sources — those are public records anyone can pay for. It’s the discipline the agent applies to them. Four habits that separate Sentinel from a search wrapper.
What it actually looks like.
A redacted excerpt from a Standard DD on a prospective acquisition target.
Executive Summary
VERDICT — Proceed with Conditions. Subject entity is operational, properly formed, and revenue-generating. Two material red flags warrant indemnification carve-outs in the SPA before close.Top Red Flags
▸ [VERIFIED] Pending Delaware Chancery suit (C.A. No. 2025-████) — fiduciary duty claim filed Jan 2026 by minority LP. Material to deal value.▸ [REPORTED] Founding partner referenced in 2023 FT investigation re: undisclosed related-party transaction at prior firm. Not independently confirmed.▸ [REPORTED] Two senior departures in last 6 months — pattern, not single event.Positive Signals
▸ [VERIFIED] Clean across OFAC, UK HMT, EU consolidated, UN sanctions.▸ [VERIFIED] No PEP exposure on principals (3 individuals screened).▸ [VERIFIED] Audited financials available — Big-4 reviewer, clean opinion FY24.Confidence
Overall: High (84%) — primary records accessible, ownership chain mapped to UBO. Limiting factor: one offshore vehicle (Cayman) with restricted disclosure.Recommended Next Steps
1. Counsel review of C.A. No. 2025-████ filings before LOI2. Direct reference call w/ 2 of 3 departing seniors3. Cayman UBO walk-through via local counsel_Depth scales to stakes.
Not the other way around.
A bouncer doesn’t need a 60-page institutional report. A $50M acquisition isn’t safe with a one-pager. Sentinel listens for the decision behind the request and calibrates accordingly.
- §Verdict-first summary
- §Top 3 signals — red, amber, green
- §Confidence rating
- §One concrete next step
- §Structured executive brief
- §Findings by category
- §Ranked red flags + positives
- §Recommended diligence path
- §Structured brief +
- §Deep narrative + timeline
- §Jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction
- §UBO mapping · litigation · media
- §Risk matrix · open leads
- §Bring your own data feeds
The questions
we hear most.
We're a 501(c)(3). Is this a sound use of restricted funds?+
Donor due diligence is a standard part of fiduciary responsibility — most gift acceptance policies require it implicitly even when the procedure isn't documented. Most foundations classify DD costs as a general operating expense, not restricted spend. Talk to your board treasurer if uncertain; most are relieved you're asking.
Won't asking for source-of-funds clarity offend a donor?+
Major donors are accustomed to wealth verification in other financial contexts (banks, foundations, advisors). Frame it as standard practice for gifts above a threshold. A donor who refuses any clarity on a significant gift is themselves providing you information.
Do you handle international donors and non-US organizations?+
Yes. Sentinel reads OpenSanctions (covers 200+ jurisdictions), UK Companies House, EU consolidated sanctions, UN watchlists, and local registries via web search. Coverage is strongest in US/UK/EU/Commonwealth jurisdictions and weaker in some emerging markets — Sentinel always flags coverage gaps explicitly.
Document the clean ones too.
The first Quick Vet is free. Run it on your next major-gift prospect — clean result is just as valuable as a flagged one when the question "what did we know?" arrives.