Lasting Legacy Foundation — Planned Giving / Non‑Cash Gifts / Real‑Estate Donation Partner Map & Playbook (2026-03-18)

Executive Summary

This document is a research‑grade extraction + verification + upgrade of the conversation about building (and partnering around) a Lasting Legacy Foundation (LLF) model focused on retained life estate (RLE) and real‑estate donations, potentially using post‑possession leasing to fund grantmaking.

Key takeaways (each item is labeled by evidence status):

[Verified] Many major gift programs support Retained Life Estate gifts: donors deed a residence/farm now, retain the right to live there, and typically remain responsible for taxes/insurance/maintenance; the charity receives possession at life estate end.
Evidence: The Nature Conservancy RLE overview; Rice University gift planning pages.
Sources: https://www.nature.org/en-us/membership-and-giving/donate-to-our-mission/gift-and-estate-planning/all-planned-giving-options/retained-life-estate-gifts/ ; https://giftplan.rice.edu/?pageID=141
[Verified] Most large DAF sponsors and many charities are operationally optimized to accept complex assets and then liquidate, crediting net proceeds after fees/costs.
Evidence: Fidelity Charitable program guidelines (sell promptly; net proceeds definition); DAFgiving360 framing that DAFs typically evaluate/receive/process/liquidate non‑cash assets; NPT “Real Estate Contribution Guidelines” describing special considerations and process.
Sources: https://www.fidelitycharitable.org/content/dam/fc-public/docs/programs/fidelity-charitable-program-guidelines.pdf ; https://www.dafgiving360.org/non-cash-assets/donate-your-investments ; https://www.nptrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Real-Estate-Contribution-Guidelines-NPT.pdf
[Verified] A distinct ecosystem of specialist intermediaries exists specifically to remove the “non‑cash real estate gift headache” from nonprofits: they can take title, conduct due diligence, manage holding/sale, then grant net proceeds onward.
Evidence: Dechomai Foundation (accept non‑cash assets; sell; grant net proceeds to originating charity); Realty Gift Fund (accept real estate; remediate/prepare; convert to cash; grant net proceeds); Sharing Connexion (CO) takes title, improves, arranges sale for nonprofits.
Sources: https://dechomai.org/non-cash-gifts/ ; https://realtygiftfund.org/ ; https://www.sharingconnexion.org/our-programs/
[Verified] “Rental/lease operations” by a nonprofit can trigger tax and compliance complexity—especially if debt‑financed (potential UBI under IRC §514).
Evidence: IRS guidance on unrelated business income from debt‑financed property.
Source: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/unrelated-business-income-from-debt-financed-property-under-irc-section-514
[User‑stated] Dmitri’s strategic goal is to learn fast from existing operators by working as an employee or consultant, while being upfront about LLF’s ambitions and seeking partner, not competitor positioning.
[Tentative / speculative] A publicly marketed “RLE → long‑term rental portfolio → donor‑earmarked grants over time” model appears to be rare; the dominant default is sell and grant proceeds. This is an inference based on the prevalence of liquidation‑oriented program materials and the existence of multiple “sell‑then‑grant” intermediaries.
Evidence note: No definitive proof of “no one does it”; only a “not found in this research pass.”

Purpose of This Document

Provide an operational handoff to another AI (or team member) that can:

understand the opportunity space and constraints,
identify high‑leverage partners, and
execute an outreach / learning strategy (employment or consulting) while protecting LLF’s long‑term positioning.

Discussion Context

User goals (as stated)

[User‑stated] Build LLF’s model around estate/real‑estate donation mechanisms including Retained Life Estate, and potentially leasing homes post‑possession to fund grants.
[User‑stated] Avoid “zero‑sum competition” by structuring partnerships where existing charities/DAFs keep donor relationships while LLF solves operational headaches.
[User‑stated] Identify planned giving risk‑management and non‑cash gift operators to learn from (employee or consultant), especially in Colorado, but open to anywhere in the U.S.

Working assumptions used in the discussion

[Assistant‑stated but unverified] The best partnership wedge is “we help you say yes to gifts you currently decline,” because complex real‑estate gifts are often declined for risk/capacity reasons.
Evidence: Multiple intermediaries explicitly position as risk/capacity relief (Dechomai; Sharing Connexion; CAPLAW warns about environmental liability and due diligence).
Sources: https://dechomai.org/faqs/ ; https://www.sharingconnexion.org/our-programs/ ; https://caplaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/CAPLAW_RealEstateDonation_Fall2011.pdf

Key Facts and Verified Findings

1) Retained Life Estate (RLE) basics (gift mechanics + responsibilities)

[Verified] In an RLE gift, a donor transfers ownership of a residence/farm/vacation home to a charity but retains the right to live/use it for life or a term, and remains responsible for taxes and upkeep; the charity receives full ownership/possession when the life estate ends.
Sources:
- The Nature Conservancy: https://www.nature.org/en-us/membership-and-giving/donate-to-our-mission/gift-and-estate-planning/all-planned-giving-options/retained-life-estate-gifts/
- Rice University (MIT agreement): https://giftplan.rice.edu/?pageID=141
- Clarkson University example (life estate agreement outlines insurance/taxes/maintenance): https://engage.clarkson.edu/plan/annie-clarkson-society/smart-ways-to-give/real-estate/gifts-of-retained-life-estates/
[Verified] RLE arrangements often include an explicit “maintenance, insurance and taxes” agreement to clarify donor responsibilities while the life tenant retains use.
Source: https://giftplan.rice.edu/?pageID=141

2) Why many charities/DAFs default to liquidation rather than long‑term property operations

[Verified] Fidelity Charitable “generally seeks to sell contributed property promptly” and credits “net proceeds” after applicable costs/fees.
Source: https://www.fidelitycharitable.org/content/dam/fc-public/docs/programs/fidelity-charitable-program-guidelines.pdf
[Verified] DAFgiving360 describes donor‑advised funds as typically having the resources/expertise to evaluate, receive, process, and liquidate non‑cash assets.
Source: https://www.dafgiving360.org/non-cash-assets/donate-your-investments
[Verified] NPT provides “Real Estate Contribution Guidelines” emphasizing that real estate is a uniquely complex asset with special considerations and process steps.
Source: https://www.nptrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Real-Estate-Contribution-Guidelines-NPT.pdf

Implication (reasoned):

[Assistant‑stated but strongly supported] Many mainstream platforms are structurally incentivized to avoid long‑term “scattered single‑family rental” operations due to risk, compliance, staff capacity, and reputational exposure; liquidation reduces operational surface area.

3) Specialist intermediaries for non‑cash gifts and real‑estate donations

These are highly relevant as potential learning partners and/or pipeline partners.

[Verified] Charitable Solutions, LLC — planned giving risk management consulting for non‑cash donations and CGAs; focuses on receipt/disposition of non‑cash assets, CGA risk management, reinsurance brokerage, appraisals.
Sources: https://charitablesolutionsllc.com/about-us/ ; https://charitablesolutionsllc.com/summary-of-services/
[Verified] Dechomai Foundation — accepts non‑cash assets and provides administrative services, then grants net sale proceeds to the originating charity; positioned as outsourcing expertise and risk.
Sources: https://dechomai.org/non-cash-gifts/ ; https://dechomai.org/faqs/
[Verified] Realty Gift Fund (RGF) — accepts gifts of real estate, can “fix/remediate” for market, convert to cash, and use net proceeds to make grants to nonprofits.
Sources: https://realtygiftfund.org/ ; (gift cycle PDF example) https://realtygiftfund.org/PDF/Land-Trust-Alliance-Charitable-Gifts-of-Real-Estate-Part-1.pdf
[Verified] Sharing Connexion (Colorado) — supports nonprofits/affordable housing orgs with real estate expertise; the Real Estate Donation program can take title, identify improvements, and arrange sale; explicitly cites nonprofits’ risk aversion (including leveraged or compliance‑issue properties).
Sources: https://www.sharingconnexion.org/our-programs/ ; https://www.sharingconnexion.org/our-programs/real-estate-donations/
[Verified] “Auction + title company pipeline” example — the American Diabetes Association page describes real estate donations “quickly vetted and converted to cash” via a national auction platform and title company partnership (illustrative of a common operational pattern).
Source: https://diabetes.org/ways-to-give/real-estate

4) Outsourced planned‑gift administration / back office (where you learn the “machinery”)

[Verified] PG Calc — Planned Gift Administration / Gift Administration Services — provides back‑office administrative services for gift annuities, pooled income funds, charitable remainder trusts, plus gift admin functions (payments, tax forms, compliance reports).
Sources: https://www.pgcalc.com/gift-admin/planned-gift-administration ; https://www.pgcalc.com/gift-administration-service
[Verified] TIAA Kaspick — Planned Gift Management — manages assets, provides gift administration services, consults on policies and individual gift situations, and provides reporting.
Sources: https://www.kaspick.com/our-expertise/planned-gift-management ; https://www.kaspick.com/
[Verified] PNC Planned Giving Solutions Group — enables nonprofits to outsource investment and back‑office functions of planned giving programs; designed to increase comfort with more complex gifting.
Source: https://www.pnc.com/en/corporate-and-institutional/institutional-investment-management/ocio/planned-giving.html
[Verified] National Gift Annuity Foundation (NGAF) — “secure structure allows charities to outsource gift annuities.”
Source: https://nationalgiftannuity.org/

5) Values‑aligned or “impact‑framed” DAF sponsors relevant to partnership positioning

[Verified] ImpactAssets DAF — accepts wide range of assets including real estate and other illiquid assets.
Source: https://impactassets.org/donor-advised-fund/
[Verified] RSF Social Finance DAF — may receive real estate/complex assets case‑by‑case.
Source: https://rsfsocialfinance.org/open-a-daf/
[Verified] The Signatry — markets real‑estate gifts into a donor‑advised fund; states it takes ownership of donated land/real estate interest.
Source: https://thesignatry.com/asset-giving/real-estate/
[Verified] National Christian Foundation (NCF) — explicitly promotes non‑cash giving including real estate; “income and future proceeds flow to your Giving Fund” after gift.
Source: https://www.ncfgiving.com/stories/realestate/
[Verified] Amalgamated Foundation — provides DAFs and is described by a major foundation (MacArthur) as having experience in “compliance and risk navigation” and fund administration.
Sources: https://www.amalgamatedfoundation.org/ ; https://www.macfound.org/grantee/amalgamated-foundation-10115273/

6) Colorado-specific “partner nodes” with complex-asset capability

[Verified] The Denver Foundation — explicitly says it specializes in complex non‑cash assets including real estate.
Source: https://denverfoundation.org/donor-services/types-of-gifts/
[Verified] Rose Community Foundation — accepts real property contributions for DAFs and maintains gift acceptance policies.
Sources: https://rosefdn.org/donor-advised-funds/ ; https://rcfdenver.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Rose-Community-Foundation-Gift-Acceptance-Policy-2020.pdf
[Verified] Colorado Gives Foundation — accepts “investment assets such as stocks or real estate” and offers planned giving support to nonprofit endowment partners.
Sources: https://coloradogivesfoundation.org/endowments/giving-methods/ ; https://coloradogivesfoundation.org/endowments/planned-giving/
[Verified] Community Foundation Boulder County (CFBC) — notes CEO/development team review gifts and recommend on gift acceptance issues when appropriate.
Source: https://www.commfound.org/frequently-asked-questions/
[Verified] Colorado Planned Giving Roundtable (CPGR) — statewide education/network forum to increase quantity/quality of planned gifts.
Source: https://cpgr.org/

7) Tax/compliance touchpoints that materially affect “hold & lease” strategies

[Verified] IRS explains that IRC §514 includes certain income related to debt‑financed property as unrelated business income.
Source: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/unrelated-business-income-from-debt-financed-property-under-irc-section-514
[Verified] IRS Form 8282 is used by donee orgs to report dispositions of certain donated property within 3 years.
Source: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8282.pdf
[Verified] CAPLAW guidance highlights the importance of environmental due diligence before accepting real estate; remediation liability can be enormous; work with a real estate attorney and obtain independent environmental inspection.
Source: https://caplaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/CAPLAW_RealEstateDonation_Fall2011.pdf

Major Decisions and Conclusions

Partner strategy should assume most mainstream DAF sponsors want liquidation.
- [Verified] Fidelity Charitable seeks to sell promptly; DAFgiving360 emphasizes liquidating assets; NPT offers detailed guidelines for real estate contributions.
- Conclusion: [Assistant‑stated but strongly supported] LLF’s best partnership posture with mainstream DAF sponsors is downstream grant routing and/or overflow handling, rather than asking them to hold rentals.
The best “non‑competitive” wedge is “risk + operations removal.”
- [Verified] Sharing Connexion explicitly frames mitigating risk and taking title/sale actions; Dechomai frames outsourcing expertise/risks; Charitable Solutions frames risk management for gifts where charities can lose money.
- Conclusion: [Assistant‑stated but strongly supported] LLF should present as an outsourced “complex assets desk,” not a fundraising rival.
Colorado is unusually favorable for pilots because it has:
- multiple community foundations with complex‑gift capability,
- a strong planned giving professional network (CPGR), and
- at least one Colorado real‑estate donation specialist (Sharing Connexion).
- [Verified] by sources listed above.
- Conclusion: [Assistant‑stated but strongly supported] Start Colorado‑first for speed of learning and relationship density.
“Lease-to-grants” is plausible but should be property‑specific and compliance‑first.
- [Verified] IRS §514 debt‑financed UBI risk; CAPLAW environmental risk; RLE donor responsibility structure.
- Conclusion: [Tentative / speculative] A “hold/lease” track should only apply to a subset of properties that clear underwriting thresholds and compliance design.

Reasoning, Tradeoffs, and Why It Matters

Why many charities prefer to sell (operationally)

[Verified] Real estate gifts require due diligence (environmental, title, legal) and can create significant liability (CAPLAW).
Source: https://caplaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/CAPLAW_RealEstateDonation_Fall2011.pdf
[Assistant‑stated but strongly supported] Selling quickly reduces:
- ongoing carrying costs,
- tenant risk,
- property management complexity,
- public optics (“why are we landlords?”),
- tax edge cases (especially with debt or services).

What LLF could uniquely contribute

[User‑stated] LLF aims to specialize in real‑estate acceptance + operations to unlock more gifts.
[Assistant‑stated but strongly supported] If LLF becomes “the team that makes real estate gifts safe,” it can:
- increase acceptance rate for complex gifts,
- help partners retain donor relationships,
- create recurring cashflows in cases where holding makes sense.

Tradeoffs

Hold & lease can increase long-run impact if stabilized cashflow and governance are excellent—but increases legal/ops complexity.
Sell & grant proceeds is simplest and widely adopted—but gives up long-run rental income potential and mission uses of property.

Recommended Playbook / Process (Partnership + Learning Strategy)

Phase 0 — Decide your “relationship posture”

Choose one primary posture per partner type:

Overflow / safety valve (best for charities who decline gifts)
- “When you must say no, route the donor to us; we do the work and grant proceeds back to you or donor‑recommended charities.”
- Evidence that this model exists: Dechomai; RGF; Sharing Connexion.
White‑label back office (best for community foundations/DAF sponsors)
- “You keep donor relationship + brand; we run diligence + operations.”
Downstream grant hub (best for large DAF sponsors)
- “We operate/convert; you host the donor’s grant recommendations.”

Phase 1 — Build a short list (Colorado‑first + national)

Selection criteria (recommended):

Mission/values compatibility (e.g., “risk navigation,” “capacity building,” affordable housing).
Proven complex-asset intake (real estate explicitly).
Clear governance/acceptance policies (board comfort).
Openness to partnerships (custom branded funds, referral programs, etc.).

Phase 2 — Outreach framing (keep it non-threatening)

Core message (template):

“I’m building LLF as a specialist operator so charities can say yes to more complex gifts, especially real estate and RLE structures. I’m looking to learn inside a best‑in‑class organization and/or help you operationalize your complex gift intake and downstream handling. I want to be transparent about our long-term plan and explore partnership, not competition.”

What to offer as a first consulting project (30–60 days)

Real estate gift triage rubric + intake questionnaire
Vendor network template (title, appraisal, Phase I ESA, inspection, counsel)
Risk committee packet templates
Holding-period playbook (insurance, utilities, vacancy, reserves)
“Sell vs hold” decision model (property-level)

Phase 3 — Pilot design (the smallest credible pilot)

Pilot options:

Pilot A: “We run intake + diligence for your real estate prospects; you decide accept/decline.”
Pilot B: “You refer declined gifts to our intermediary pipeline (Dechomai/RGF-style) with documented reporting.”
Pilot C: “One property test case” with explicit underwriting thresholds and quarterly reporting.

Phase 4 — Governance + compliance guardrails (must-have)

Gift acceptance policy alignment (or addendum for pilot)
Environmental due diligence standards (Phase I triggers, etc.) — CAPLAW cautions.
Tax posture review: UBIT risk (IRC §514), sale reporting (Form 8282), debt/leverage rules.
Clear donor-control boundaries (avoid “donor directs operations” problems).

Phase 5 — Economics pitch (avoid hype, present fiduciary logic)

Instead of “2x,” position as:

“We can model expected outcomes and choose the dominant strategy per property.”
Compare “sell + invest (payout policy)” vs “lease + reserves + payout policy.”
Track outcomes with transparent reporting.

Tools, Resources, Links, and References (Verified)

Risks, Caveats, and Red Flags

High-priority risks (actionable)

Environmental liability risk — may require Phase I ESA or other environmental due diligence; remediation can be enormous. [Verified] CAPLAW warns strongly.
Source: https://caplaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/CAPLAW_RealEstateDonation_Fall2011.pdf
Debt-financed property UBI risk — holding or improving property with acquisition indebtedness can create unrelated business income exposure. [Verified] IRS §514 guidance.
Source: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/unrelated-business-income-from-debt-financed-property-under-irc-section-514
Disposition reporting — sale within 3 years of receipt can trigger Form 8282 filing requirements. [Verified] IRS Form 8282.
Source: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8282.pdf
Operational landlord risk — tenant disputes, habitability requirements, local landlord rules, insurance claims, reputational exposure. [Assistant‑stated but strongly supported] Not exhaustively sourced here; requires jurisdiction-specific review.

Red flags for properties

Unclear title, liens, boundary disputes
Environmental red flags (prior commercial use, tanks, dumps)
High deferred maintenance or structural damage
HOA constraints, rental bans, litigation
Properties outside your operational footprint (travel/time overhead)

Open Questions / What Still Needs Verification

Does a well-known “National Real Estate Giving Alliance” exist as a formal entity?
- [Assistant‑stated but unverified] It is referenced in third-party commentary on plannedgiving.com, but an authoritative primary site was not located in this pass.
  Reference mention (not authoritative proof): https://www.plannedgiving.com/only-the-top-1-of-nonprofits-accept-gifts-of-real-estate/
Pricing + economics of intermediaries
- What are actual fee schedules for: Dechomai, RGF, Sharing Connexion, Charitable Solutions, PG Calc, Kaspick, PNC, NGAF?
- Many sites do not publish full fees; requires direct outreach.
Feasibility of “hold & lease” within a public charity
- Under what circumstances does rental activity create UBIT (beyond debt-financed) and what services trigger it?
- Requires tax counsel; this document only includes verified debt-financed UBI reference.
Colorado-specific landlord/real-estate compliance
- What local regulatory/licensing considerations apply to a nonprofit operating rental property at scale in CO?
Partner appetite for “white-label ops”
- Which Colorado community foundations or DAF sponsors will pilot a white-label “real estate gift operations desk”?

Suggested Next Steps (Operational)

1) Build an outreach shortlist (10–15 targets)

Colorado-first (high learning density):

Sharing Connexion
The Denver Foundation
Rose Community Foundation
Colorado Gives Foundation
Community Foundation Boulder County
CPGR (network node)

National operators (learning + partnership potential):

Charitable Solutions
Dechomai Foundation
Realty Gift Fund
PG Calc (gift admin)
TIAA Kaspick (gift mgmt)
PNC Planned Giving Solutions (outsourcing model)
NGAF (CGA outsourcing)
ImpactAssets / RSF / Signatry / NCF (values-aligned DAF sponsors)

2) Prepare 3 “offer packages” for conversations

Employee-track: “I want deep reps in complex assets + planned gift operations; here’s how I’ll help increase throughput.”
Consultant-track (30–60 day sprint): deliver SOPs + vendor network + triage rubric + risk packet templates.
Partner-track: referral/overflow model with reporting + grants routing.

3) Create a pilot-ready “Gift Intake Kit”

Intake questionnaire (property type, debt, occupancy, condition, environmental)
Required docs checklist
Diligence workflow with responsible parties
Decision rubric (accept/decline, sell/hold)
Reporting template (quarterly ops + financial + risk)

4) Engage specialist legal/tax counsel early

Validate UBIT posture for any “hold & lease” structure
Confirm how to avoid donor-control pitfalls
Draft partnership agreements and disclosures

Handoff Notes for Another AI

If you’re the next AI continuing this work:

Expand the provider list by:
- searching “real estate gift intermediary”, “noncash gift acceptance”, “planned gift administration outsourcing”, and “real estate donation program” + “501(c)(3)” + “take title”
- extracting verified operators with primary-source pages describing their workflow.
For each target org, capture structured fields:
- Name, Type (risk consulting / intermediary / admin / DAF sponsor / community foundation)
- Geography (CO / national)
- What they explicitly handle (title, diligence, sale, grant reallocation, RLE)
- Published constraints (min gift, property types excluded, debt rules)
- Published positioning (“risk mitigation”, “outsourcing”, “capacity building”)
- Contact pathway (partner inquiry vs donor inquiry vs careers)
Build a “Partnership Offer Matrix”
- For each partner type (DAF sponsor, community foundation, nonprofit planned giving dept, intermediary):
  - what they fear,
  - what they want,
  - what LLF offers,
  - what structure avoids competition.
Create the outreach artifacts
- 1-page partner pitch
- email scripts (intro + follow-up + calendar link ask)
- “pilot proposal” template
Verification discipline
- Do not repeat claims without primary citations.
- Avoid relying on marketing blogs for statistics unless corroborated by authoritative sources.

Reviewer Notes and Improvements Made

Self-review performed (no external reviewer agent available). Key improvements made beyond the raw conversation:

Replaced earlier “hand-wavy” claims with primary-source citations wherever possible (DAF liquidation norms, RLE responsibilities, IRS UBIT rules, due diligence cautions).
Flagged unverified items explicitly (e.g., “National Real Estate Giving Alliance” as an uncertain reference).
Organized the ecosystem into actionable categories: risk consultants, intermediary donees, outsourced admin, values-aligned DAF sponsors, Colorado partner nodes.
Added an operational playbook (phases, pilot structures, deliverables).
Added a Handoff Notes section instructing a future AI how to expand and operationalize the list.

Optional Appendix — Structured Summary (YAML)

date: "2026-03-18"
project: "Lasting Legacy Foundation"
goal:
  - "Learn planned giving + non-cash/real-estate gift operations quickly"
  - "Develop partnership posture: 'operations + risk removal' not competition"
model_concepts:
  - name: "Retained Life Estate (RLE)"
    status: "Verified"
    key_sources:
      - "https://www.nature.org/en-us/membership-and-giving/donate-to-our-mission/gift-and-estate-planning/all-planned-giving-options/retained-life-estate-gifts/"
      - "https://giftplan.rice.edu/?pageID=141"
  - name: "DAF sponsors generally liquidate complex assets"
    status: "Verified (for many sponsors) / generalized inference"
    key_sources:
      - "https://www.fidelitycharitable.org/content/dam/fc-public/docs/programs/fidelity-charitable-program-guidelines.pdf"
      - "https://www.dafgiving360.org/non-cash-assets/donate-your-investments"
      - "https://www.nptrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Real-Estate-Contribution-Guidelines-NPT.pdf"
key_risks:
  - "Environmental liability (Phase I / due diligence)"
  - "UBIT for debt-financed property (IRC 514)"
  - "Disposition reporting (IRS Form 8282)"
operator_targets:
  colorado:
    - name: "Sharing Connexion"
      type: "Real estate donation operator (take title, improve, sell)"
      status: "Verified"
      source: "https://www.sharingconnexion.org/our-programs/"
    - name: "The Denver Foundation"
      type: "Community foundation / complex gifts"
      status: "Verified"
      source: "https://denverfoundation.org/donor-services/types-of-gifts/"
    - name: "Rose Community Foundation"
      type: "Community foundation / DAF + gift acceptance policy"
      status: "Verified"
      sources:
        - "https://rosefdn.org/donor-advised-funds/"
        - "https://rcfdenver.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Rose-Community-Foundation-Gift-Acceptance-Policy-2020.pdf"
    - name: "Colorado Gives Foundation"
      type: "Community foundation / planned giving support"
      status: "Verified"
      sources:
        - "https://coloradogivesfoundation.org/endowments/giving-methods/"
        - "https://coloradogivesfoundation.org/endowments/planned-giving/"
    - name: "CPGR"
      type: "Professional network"
      status: "Verified"
      source: "https://cpgr.org/"
  national:
    - name: "Charitable Solutions"
      type: "Planned giving risk management consulting"
      status: "Verified"
      sources:
        - "https://charitablesolutionsllc.com/about-us/"
        - "https://charitablesolutionsllc.com/summary-of-services/"
    - name: "Dechomai Foundation"
      type: "Intermediary donee for non-cash assets (sell then grant)"
      status: "Verified"
      sources:
        - "https://dechomai.org/non-cash-gifts/"
        - "https://dechomai.org/faqs/"
    - name: "Realty Gift Fund"
      type: "Real estate donation intermediary (fix/remediate, sell, grant)"
      status: "Verified"
      sources:
        - "https://realtygiftfund.org/"
        - "https://realtygiftfund.org/PDF/Land-Trust-Alliance-Charitable-Gifts-of-Real-Estate-Part-1.pdf"
    - name: "PG Calc"
      type: "Planned gift administration outsourcing"
      status: "Verified"
      sources:
        - "https://www.pgcalc.com/gift-admin/planned-gift-administration"
        - "https://www.pgcalc.com/gift-administration-service"
    - name: "TIAA Kaspick"
      type: "Planned gift management + admin"
      status: "Verified"
      source: "https://www.kaspick.com/our-expertise/planned-gift-management"
    - name: "PNC Planned Giving Solutions"
      type: "Outsourced planned giving investment + back office"
      status: "Verified"
      source: "https://www.pnc.com/en/corporate-and-institutional/institutional-investment-management/ocio/planned-giving.html"
    - name: "ImpactAssets DAF"
      type: "Values/impact DAF sponsor"
      status: "Verified"
      source: "https://impactassets.org/donor-advised-fund/"
    - name: "RSF DAF"
      type: "Values/impact DAF sponsor"
      status: "Verified"
      source: "https://rsfsocialfinance.org/open-a-daf/"
    - name: "The Signatry"
      type: "Faith-based DAF sponsor accepting real estate"
      status: "Verified"
      source: "https://thesignatry.com/asset-giving/real-estate/"
    - name: "NCF"
      type: "Faith-based DAF sponsor accepting real estate"
      status: "Verified"
      source: "https://www.ncfgiving.com/stories/realestate/"
open_verification_items:
  - item: "Whether a formal 'National Real Estate Giving Alliance' exists as a stable organization"
    status: "Unverified"
    reference_mention: "https://www.plannedgiving.com/only-the-top-1-of-nonprofits-accept-gifts-of-real-estate/"

Solanasis Docs

Explorer

Lasting-Legacy_Planned-Giving-Risk-Ops_Partner-Map-and-Playbook_2026-03-18