01 — The history we’re starting with
The process begins with those who know the history best.
Across four decades, donors, board members, and volunteers built a portfolio of approximately 80 named scholarships. Each was established to recognize an individual and carry particular values, interests, or commitments forward through support for students.
Board members carried that work with care as volunteers, while the history accumulated across records, conversations, and generations of leadership. The Executive Director before me recognized the value of bringing it together and began a scholarship booklet.
I have continued that thoughtful beginning with board members and volunteers—filling gaps, clarifying details, and developing a durable portfolio that future stewards can continue to enrich.
Whose name does the scholarship carry, and what history should accompany it?
What was the gift intended to support?
What connects the scholarship’s intent with the student selected to receive it?
What history, records, and relationships will help future stewards carry it forward?
02 — The allocation
One application. Two thoughtful decisions.
Students submit one application rather than applying for individual named scholarships. A proprietary matrix uses GPA and other objective information to determine the dollar amount awarded.
Then recipients are paired with named scholarships according to criteria such as the school they will attend, academic excellence, major, and other fund-specific requirements. The second step requires careful, hands-on comparison of the student pool with the named scholarships portfolio.
03 — The concept
I have translated the foundation’s established process into a concept for a rules-driven allocation tool. It would import applicant data, faithfully reproduce the foundation’s adopted calculations, and then use the completed named scholarships portfolio to support effective, objective recipient-to-fund matching.
Screen eligibility, flag exceptions, and calculate each initial award through configurable, traceable rules.
Separate hard restrictions from preferences, evaluate all valid recipient-to-fund pairings, and optimize across the full portfolio.
Route ambiguous cases for human review, preserve overrides and reasons, and keep every final amount explainable.
04 — The guardrails
Technology can support stewardship. It cannot replace it.
The matching concept would first apply each fund’s established eligibility requirements, then compare eligible recipients with its documented preferences. Looking across the full portfolio would help surface strong combinations for review and support thoughtful use of the available named scholarships.
Under the foundation’s existing award approach, a named scholarship would be applied when it increases the student’s calculated award. Matches requiring additional context—including close candidates, special circumstances, or developing criteria—would remain available for the board and staff to review.
Each stage would retain the original calculation, proposed match, supporting evidence, any adjustment, and the final decision. This would complement the judgment already central to the process with organized information and a consistent record for future reference.
05 — Where it stands
Preserve the legacy first. Build thoughtfully from there.
The allocation workflow, student-application requirements, matching approach, and audit controls have been mapped. The scholarship portfolio continues to grow through collaborative documentation, and each completed profile creates a stronger foundation for the future tool.
The work is intentionally progressive: respect what has been built, preserve what is known, and introduce new capability without losing the judgment, donor intent, and institutional history at the center of the program.