Finance Dept G/L coding vs Funds and Appeals

Lynne Reed 2

 Hello everyone!

Our finance dept uses a complex and cumbersome (for FD) g/l coding which has a minimum of 6 figures and sometimes 10 figures depending on restricted, unrestricted, subaccounts, etc.  While I understand the need for finance to use the coding that suits them best, it is a nightmare on the RE end. Before I started with this org, the campaign/fund/appeals structure varied with each person who handled the DB (lots of turnover). My first task when hired was to restructure the DB which I did by simplifying the process on my end to nomenclature that made sense to a non-finance person. Our old reports required a chart of accounts to interpret what you were looking at. 

Even though this has simplified MY data entry and reports now make sense, I still have to use the g/l codes when giving the checks to Finance so back I go to the hundreds of codes in the Chart of Accounts. Since my batch report doesn't help them (no g/l codes they need) our reconciliation becomes a complex task that falls on me. Finance enters the checks into their system, sends us a spreadsheet with their coding, which I then have to match up to what I gave them. There's also the fact that finance refuses to have all contributions to our department first. 

This system is annoying, but manageable right now but we're starting to do large donor acquisition mailings and regular appeals so we anticipate an increased volume.

So, I would like your feedback on the following:

1. Do you have a similar situation within your org and how do you handle it?
2. Do you have any recommendations on how I could reduce the amount of reconciliation I do because of this "double entry" system? 
3. Keep in mind: Finance RULES in our org - the non=profit portion of our org is nothing compared to the for-profit area. We have more than 30 programs in multiple states and handle client trusts for foster families as well.
   
4. Whatever other suggestions you have (besides "find a new job") would be welcome!

Thank you everyone!

Jeannine Lozier

Lynne Reed:

 Hello everyone!

Our finance dept uses a complex and cumbersome (for FD) g/l coding which has a minimum of 6 figures and sometimes 10 figures depending on restricted, unrestricted, subaccounts, etc.  While I understand the need for finance to use the coding that suits them best, it is a nightmare on the RE end. Before I started with this org, the campaign/fund/appeals structure varied with each person who handled the DB (lots of turnover). My first task when hired was to restructure the DB which I did by simplifying the process on my end to nomenclature that made sense to a non-finance person. Our old reports required a chart of accounts to interpret what you were looking at. 

Even though this has simplified MY data entry and reports now make sense, I still have to use the g/l codes when giving the checks to Finance so back I go to the hundreds of codes in the Chart of Accounts. Since my batch report doesn't help them (no g/l codes they need) our reconciliation becomes a complex task that falls on me. Finance enters the checks into their system, sends us a spreadsheet with their coding, which I then have to match up to what I gave them. There's also the fact that finance refuses to have all contributions to our department first. 

This system is annoying, but manageable right now but we're starting to do large donor acquisition mailings and regular appeals so we anticipate an increased volume.

So, I would like your feedback on the following:

1. Do you have a similar situation within your org and how do you handle it?
2. Do you have any recommendations on how I could reduce the amount of reconciliation I do because of this "double entry" system? 
3. Keep in mind: Finance RULES in our org - the non=profit portion of our org is nothing compared to the for-profit area. We have more than 30 programs in multiple states and handle client trusts for foster families as well.
   
4. Whatever other suggestions you have (besides "find a new job") would be welcome!

Thank you everyone!

Hi, I feel your pain -- Finance has much more sway/power for my organization as well. I spent at least a year of relationship building and long conversations with Finance and have moved the ball forward on reporting in general. We now have a better understanding of each other's needs which has allowed us to work on reporting needs for both entities by creating some comprises to better facilitate the must haves for each "side". I did add the Finance names of funds to the Fund definition so I would have an RE resource and have pondered utilizing the Fund ID as Fiscal Information (GL Code) and Fund Name as Foundation related which would allow for smoother reporting for both sides but I haven't fully thought through all the ramifications of this change which is why I haven't pulled the trigger yet. We also spent at least two years closing old funds, deactivating the GL codes and creating when possible broader funds (which I realize for 30 programs may not be an option) but did help our overall reporting and reconciling. Good luck.

JoAnn Strommen

Lynne Reed:

 Hello everyone!

Our finance dept uses a complex and cumbersome (for FD) g/l coding which has a minimum of 6 figures and sometimes 10 figures depending on restricted, unrestricted, subaccounts, etc.  While I understand the need for finance to use the coding that suits them best, it is a nightmare on the RE end. Before I started with this org, the campaign/fund/appeals structure varied with each person who handled the DB (lots of turnover). My first task when hired was to restructure the DB which I did by simplifying the process on my end to nomenclature that made sense to a non-finance person. Our old reports required a chart of accounts to interpret what you were looking at. 

Even though this has simplified MY data entry and reports now make sense, I still have to use the g/l codes when giving the checks to Finance so back I go to the hundreds of codes in the Chart of Accounts. Since my batch report doesn't help them (no g/l codes they need) our reconciliation becomes a complex task that falls on me. Finance enters the checks into their system, sends us a spreadsheet with their coding, which I then have to match up to what I gave them. There's also the fact that finance refuses to have all contributions to our department first. 

This system is annoying, but manageable right now but we're starting to do large donor acquisition mailings and regular appeals so we anticipate an increased volume.

So, I would like your feedback on the following:

1. Do you have a similar situation within your org and how do you handle it?
2. Do you have any recommendations on how I could reduce the amount of reconciliation I do because of this "double entry" system? 
3. Keep in mind: Finance RULES in our org - the non=profit portion of our org is nothing compared to the for-profit area. We have more than 30 programs in multiple states and handle client trusts for foster families as well.
   
4. Whatever other suggestions you have (besides "find a new job") would be welcome!

Thank you everyone!

Fortunately for me, we do not have the same situation.  Sorry you haven't been able to make your situation easier.

One idea to possbily help you with reconcilation might be to look at something besides batch report.  Have you considered using a report like Reports>Financial Repors>Account Distribution Report?  You could include records for the batch/day/week etc and at least that way you'd have gift and GL account #. Or provide finance the report so they know where to enter the gifts.

Just a thought. 

Christine Cooke 2

Lynne Reed:

 Hello everyone!

Our finance dept uses a complex and cumbersome (for FD) g/l coding which has a minimum of 6 figures and sometimes 10 figures depending on restricted, unrestricted, subaccounts, etc.  While I understand the need for finance to use the coding that suits them best, it is a nightmare on the RE end. Before I started with this org, the campaign/fund/appeals structure varied with each person who handled the DB (lots of turnover). My first task when hired was to restructure the DB which I did by simplifying the process on my end to nomenclature that made sense to a non-finance person. Our old reports required a chart of accounts to interpret what you were looking at. 

Even though this has simplified MY data entry and reports now make sense, I still have to use the g/l codes when giving the checks to Finance so back I go to the hundreds of codes in the Chart of Accounts. Since my batch report doesn't help them (no g/l codes they need) our reconciliation becomes a complex task that falls on me. Finance enters the checks into their system, sends us a spreadsheet with their coding, which I then have to match up to what I gave them. There's also the fact that finance refuses to have all contributions to our department first. 

This system is annoying, but manageable right now but we're starting to do large donor acquisition mailings and regular appeals so we anticipate an increased volume.

So, I would like your feedback on the following:

1. Do you have a similar situation within your org and how do you handle it?
2. Do you have any recommendations on how I could reduce the amount of reconciliation I do because of this "double entry" system? 
3. Keep in mind: Finance RULES in our org - the non=profit portion of our org is nothing compared to the for-profit area. We have more than 30 programs in multiple states and handle client trusts for foster families as well.
   
4. Whatever other suggestions you have (besides "find a new job") would be welcome!

Thank you everyone!

 Reconcilation is always a painful process.  And Finance and Development departments speak two different languages and yet, have to be able to match up!

 What I have found helps is this:

In RE the Fund ID is the code that is used for the Development folks to see in reporting and tells the story of what bucket the $$ is slated for.  I used the Fund Description to put the Finance Account Number first followed by the Fund Description that is a little more verbose than the Fund ID.  Also, on the Fund ID I have found it helpful to give the funds a one/two letter code that relates to Campaign or the category of giving so that when you report on FundID, those items sort together.  Example:  a.annual fund, a.scholarship fund  or c.Capital Improve-Gym, c.Capital Improve-Library  or en.EndowSmith or ev.Gala.

 Then when having to reconcile.  I can used the Financial Reports --> Gift Detail and Summary Report to export a report that has both the Fund ID and the Fund Description (so you have both department's language in the same place) And then can sort and resort the export.  I break the columns into cash vs stock, pledge or pledge payments.  Especially since most or all orgs will take pledge payments and put them in a different account than the commitment.  And on the RE side it all goes in the same account unless you are going to manually change that during data entry.  With high volume I doubt that would happen.

 I also include the batch number on this export so that I can easily refer to the batch if needed for further clarification.

Hope this helps you think through the process and give you some tools. :-)

 

Lynne Reed 2

Jeannine Lozier:
Hi, I feel your pain -- Finance has much more sway/power for my organization as well. I spent at least a year of relationship building and long conversations with Finance and have moved the ball forward on reporting in general. We now have a better understanding of each other's needs which has allowed us to work on reporting needs for both entities by creating some comprises to better facilitate the must haves for each "side". I did add the Finance names of funds to the Fund definition so I would have an RE resource and have pondered utilizing the Fund ID as Fiscal Information (GL Code) and Fund Name as Foundation related which would allow for smoother reporting for both sides but I haven't fully thought through all the ramifications of this change which is why I haven't pulled the trigger yet. We also spent at least two years closing old funds, deactivating the GL codes and creating when possible broader funds (which I realize for 30 programs may not be an option) but did help our overall reporting and reconciling. Good luck.

Jeannine,

 I appreciate your sympathy and input. Congratulations on your perserverance in getting the ball rolling. I too am struggling with making sure I have thought  of all the possilbe ramifications.

It was suggested that we put the finance g/l code into re then print a g/l report, but finance isn't going to go by what we say so why create the extra work. Our development dept has a long way to go to gain acknowledgement or respect from finance. The past employees created this distrust and now we're tasked with cleaning up their messes.

Good luck with your own project!

Thanks again....

Christine Cooke 2

Lynne Reed:

Jeannine,

 I appreciate your sympathy and input. Congratulations on your perserverance in getting the ball rolling. I too am struggling with making sure I have thought  of all the possilbe ramifications.

It was suggested that we put the finance g/l code into re then print a g/l report, but finance isn't going to go by what we say so why create the extra work. Our development dept has a long way to go to gain acknowledgement or respect from finance. The past employees created this distrust and now we're tasked with cleaning up their messes.

Good luck with your own project!

Thanks again....

The suggestion of the Finance account codes in the RE Fund Description is so that you can put whatever Finance codes that fund by their fund.  

The Fund ID field is Development's code and the Fund Description field is Finance's code for the SAME account info so you don't have to follow a table or list or backtrack except for on maybe a few stray items.  Of course Finance is going to code however they want to.  The goal is to make reconciling their language with your language without needing a dictionary for every line item.

 Another example:  Finance codes all $$ going toward academic programming into one big pot, on the Development side, they need to know each specific area Math, English, Drama, etc.  The Fund ID field would reflect Math, English or Drama but in ALL three of those Fund Descriptions would be the account number that Finance uses, which would be the same for all three.  Make more sense.

 Many orgs have the challenge of Development regaining Finance's trust because of past misdeeds.  Like said by others, you have to spend time building a relationship with Finance and work together to clean up and move forward.  Over time trust will be built, especially if you can make reconciling work in a way that both sides understand. Good luck in your endeavors!

Lynne Reed 2

JoAnn Strommen:

Fortunately for me, we do not have the same situation.  Sorry you haven't been able to make your situation easier.

One idea to possbily help you with reconcilation might be to look at something besides batch report.  Have you considered using a report like Reports>Financial Repors>Account Distribution Report?  You could include records for the batch/day/week etc and at least that way you'd have gift and GL account #. Or provide finance the report so they know where to enter the gifts.

Just a thought. 

JoAnn,

 Sad but true fact: Finance overides our coding often - probably because of their multiple digit sub accounts - necessary for them, not for us. If they think a check should be coded one way and we have another way, we have to have a discussion. That's part of the reason I threw out their g/l coding in re and recreated campaigns/funds/appeals that were more generalized and essentially report on a broader scope. It seems that in the past someone was trying to use RE for tracking expenditures -- totally not what it's designed for. My cleanup task has been challenging but it's nothing compared to reaching a comfortable compromise with finance on daily reconciliation. Basically, they rule, we drool!

Art Davila

Lynne Reed:

 Hello everyone!

Our finance dept uses a complex and cumbersome (for FD) g/l coding which has a minimum of 6 figures and sometimes 10 figures depending on restricted, unrestricted, subaccounts, etc.  While I understand the need for finance to use the coding that suits them best, it is a nightmare on the RE end. Before I started with this org, the campaign/fund/appeals structure varied with each person who handled the DB (lots of turnover). My first task when hired was to restructure the DB which I did by simplifying the process on my end to nomenclature that made sense to a non-finance person. Our old reports required a chart of accounts to interpret what you were looking at. 

Even though this has simplified MY data entry and reports now make sense, I still have to use the g/l codes when giving the checks to Finance so back I go to the hundreds of codes in the Chart of Accounts. Since my batch report doesn't help them (no g/l codes they need) our reconciliation becomes a complex task that falls on me. Finance enters the checks into their system, sends us a spreadsheet with their coding, which I then have to match up to what I gave them. There's also the fact that finance refuses to have all contributions to our department first. 

This system is annoying, but manageable right now but we're starting to do large donor acquisition mailings and regular appeals so we anticipate an increased volume.

So, I would like your feedback on the following:

1. Do you have a similar situation within your org and how do you handle it?
2. Do you have any recommendations on how I could reduce the amount of reconciliation I do because of this "double entry" system? 
3. Keep in mind: Finance RULES in our org - the non=profit portion of our org is nothing compared to the for-profit area. We have more than 30 programs in multiple states and handle client trusts for foster families as well.
   
4. Whatever other suggestions you have (besides "find a new job") would be welcome!

Thank you everyone!

 Hello Lynne,

Our organization went through the process of integrating RE and FE last year.  The Development team and the Finance Team each designated a point man/woman to walk through every appeal/campaign/fund that was used in RE and coordinated it with a GL line in FE.  We are five months into the integration and so far both sides are extremely happy!  The Finance team can run a revenue report and it reflects what was recorded in RE without any surprises.  I will say that we did use a BlackBaud Consultant (Tim Goetz - he was awesome), we used the 80 hour pass, and utilized his and our knowledge and we made it work out. 

I think step one would be to sit down with the Finance team and go over the revenue structure.  I'm on the finance team and we have a very strong relationship with our development team and we fully understand each other on how and where revenues should be recorded. 

Hillary Murphy

Lynne Reed:

 Hello everyone!

Our finance dept uses a complex and cumbersome (for FD) g/l coding which has a minimum of 6 figures and sometimes 10 figures depending on restricted, unrestricted, subaccounts, etc.  While I understand the need for finance to use the coding that suits them best, it is a nightmare on the RE end. Before I started with this org, the campaign/fund/appeals structure varied with each person who handled the DB (lots of turnover). My first task when hired was to restructure the DB which I did by simplifying the process on my end to nomenclature that made sense to a non-finance person. Our old reports required a chart of accounts to interpret what you were looking at. 

Even though this has simplified MY data entry and reports now make sense, I still have to use the g/l codes when giving the checks to Finance so back I go to the hundreds of codes in the Chart of Accounts. Since my batch report doesn't help them (no g/l codes they need) our reconciliation becomes a complex task that falls on me. Finance enters the checks into their system, sends us a spreadsheet with their coding, which I then have to match up to what I gave them. There's also the fact that finance refuses to have all contributions to our department first. 

This system is annoying, but manageable right now but we're starting to do large donor acquisition mailings and regular appeals so we anticipate an increased volume.

So, I would like your feedback on the following:

1. Do you have a similar situation within your org and how do you handle it?
2. Do you have any recommendations on how I could reduce the amount of reconciliation I do because of this "double entry" system? 
3. Keep in mind: Finance RULES in our org - the non=profit portion of our org is nothing compared to the for-profit area. We have more than 30 programs in multiple states and handle client trusts for foster families as well.
   
4. Whatever other suggestions you have (besides "find a new job") would be welcome!

Thank you everyone!

This is what works for us and is so easy.  We get all gifts first.  This works best for so many reasons but the main one being thank you turn-around time and stewardship.  We post all gifts by batch.  Then we post to the GL even though we're not integrated with Financial Edge and this creates a csv. file with the correct debit and credits.

The debit and credits must be defined on the GL Distributions Tab on each fund.  Our Org account structure looks like this:

XX-XXXXXX-XXXXXX

The first 2 digits define the fund restriction (Temp Rest, Unrest, Perm Rest).  The next segment is our FUND ID.  The next segment is the account code.  30-300000-301020 denotes our unrestricted bank account and 30-300000-304000 denotes unrestricted contribution income.

Accounting could do double entry when we sent the checks over to them but they choose to use our .csv files and import them into our health system accounting system and reconcile the bank accounts by the batch deposits.  We have a high level of confidence and trust in this system.

By having your GL Distribution tab set up to mirror your Accounting GL Structure, you have taken the guesswork our of everything.  Hope this made some sense!

Carrie Kran

Lynne I realize this topic isn't super recent, but I'm beginning to deal with something very similar. Essentially what Development may think of as one fund, Finance has more pieces of coding and that one fund may mean 3 different things to them, depending on factors such as the type of entity it came from.


I'd love to know if you were able to resolve some of your issues, and how! Thanks!

 

Lynne Reed:

 Hello everyone!

Our finance dept uses a complex and cumbersome (for FD) g/l coding which has a minimum of 6 figures and sometimes 10 figures depending on restricted, unrestricted, subaccounts, etc.  While I understand the need for finance to use the coding that suits them best, it is a nightmare on the RE end. Before I started with this org, the campaign/fund/appeals structure varied with each person who handled the DB (lots of turnover). My first task when hired was to restructure the DB which I did by simplifying the process on my end to nomenclature that made sense to a non-finance person. Our old reports required a chart of accounts to interpret what you were looking at. 

Even though this has simplified MY data entry and reports now make sense, I still have to use the g/l codes when giving the checks to Finance so back I go to the hundreds of codes in the Chart of Accounts. Since my batch report doesn't help them (no g/l codes they need) our reconciliation becomes a complex task that falls on me. Finance enters the checks into their system, sends us a spreadsheet with their coding, which I then have to match up to what I gave them. There's also the fact that finance refuses to have all contributions to our department first. 

This system is annoying, but manageable right now but we're starting to do large donor acquisition mailings and regular appeals so we anticipate an increased volume.

So, I would like your feedback on the following:

1. Do you have a similar situation within your org and how do you handle it?
2. Do you have any recommendations on how I could reduce the amount of reconciliation I do because of this "double entry" system? 
3. Keep in mind: Finance RULES in our org - the non=profit portion of our org is nothing compared to the for-profit area. We have more than 30 programs in multiple states and handle client trusts for foster families as well.
4. Whatever other suggestions you have (besides "find a new job") would be welcome!

Thank you everyone!