Organisation with Multiple Branches

Roma Sharma

 

I have one question and hope you can share your experience. We have some multiple location organisations on the system, so, in my understanding, these are not duplicate records as they have different addresses. I therefore use Bio 2 to add the parent company and then link other records in the relationship to avoid any future confusion. Some fundraisers in our team have requested to merge the records and i think my concern is only that merging is not the solution. Please will you be able to share with me... does anybody else have a similar situation and would like to share the experience as to what protocols or procedures are in place.? Any help and guidance will be very much appreciated. Many thanks.

JoAnn Strommen

Roma Sharma:

 

I have one question and hope you can share your experience. We have some multiple location organisations on the system, so, in my understanding, these are not duplicate records as they have different addresses. I therefore use Bio 2 to add the parent company and then link other records in the relationship to avoid any future confusion. Some fundraisers in our team have requested to merge the records and i think my concern is only that merging is not the solution. Please will you be able to share with me... does anybody else have a similar situation and would like to share the experience as to what protocols or procedures are in place.? Any help and guidance will be very much appreciated. Many thanks.

You're correct they are not duplicate records (I suppose there could be an exception. )  I don't think merging is the answer.  We keep separate records for multiple locations/local office/HQ etc.  To me it's part of maintaining accurate records/data entry.  For some things we want to pull local office for other things corporate office is pulled.   Merging would make this very difficult if not impossible as there's one primary address and you'd have multiple contacts.

What is the fundraisers main concern with them being separate?  Is it finding the desired record?  If so, can you code them in someway for them?

It sounds like our procedure would align with how you are currently handling it.

JoAnn Strommen

JoAnn Strommen:

You're correct they are not duplicate records (I suppose there could be an exception. )  I don't think merging is the answer.  We keep separate records for multiple locations/local office/HQ etc.  To me it's part of maintaining accurate records/data entry.  For some things we want to pull local office for other things corporate office is pulled.   Merging would make this very difficult if not impossible as there's one primary address and you'd have multiple contacts.

What is the fundraisers main concern with them being separate?  Is it finding the desired record?  If so, can you code them in someway for them?

It sounds like our procedure would align with how you are currently handling it.

Forgot, was going to ask if you'd searched for other posts on this subject.

Here's a few links:

http://forums.blackbaud.com/forums/p/22493/673794.aspx#673794

http://forums.blackbaud.com/forums/p/18482/206042.aspx#206042

Jackie Browne

JoAnn Strommen:

Forgot, was going to ask if you'd searched for other posts on this subject.

Here's a few links:

http://forums.blackbaud.com/forums/p/22493/673794.aspx#673794

http://forums.blackbaud.com/forums/p/18482/206042.aspx#206042

We are actually having the same exact issue in my office. I recently ran a LYBUNT and SYBUNT report, and there were a number of donors listed who we knew gave this year, but they were on the list because separate records listed in the database (different offices for one company, individuals being entered separately from their foundations, and companies being listed separately from their foundations).  It throws off reporting on donors who have lapsed, dropped off, or continuously donated, which affects analyzing our work and targeting mailers/communications.

One of your links had a company who created a master record to which all other records were soft-credited - that seems like a lot of duplicative work;  and you suggested, as have others that, keeping the records separate. 

 Is, perhaps, the best solution to enter the gift on the record from which the check was written, and soft credit all of the related company/foundation/individual records?  I just don't know how to then prevent inflating numbers all over the place - I know you can exclude soft credits from reports, but then how can you show that one organization has given consistently if there are three records with all gifts listed or soft credited?  It would show that three records gave continuously.  But, if you don't include the soft credits, it will show that the three gave inconsistently. This will also make targeting mailers difficult if one record has not shown a gift in a few years because gifts started coming from a different office (or an individual switched from giving personally to giving through their foundation).

If anyone has additional suggested solutions I'd also be greatly appreciative!

Melissa Graves 3

Roma Sharma:

 

I have one question and hope you can share your experience. We have some multiple location organisations on the system, so, in my understanding, these are not duplicate records as they have different addresses. I therefore use Bio 2 to add the parent company and then link other records in the relationship to avoid any future confusion. Some fundraisers in our team have requested to merge the records and i think my concern is only that merging is not the solution. Please will you be able to share with me... does anybody else have a similar situation and would like to share the experience as to what protocols or procedures are in place.? Any help and guidance will be very much appreciated. Many thanks.

How you do this may require some research on each company. Honestly not all separate addresses for companies with the same name are satellite offices. If you want to be particular and they are owned separately then they absolutely deserve separate records. if they are owned separately (i.e. McDonalds) then one giving one year and another giving another year is not consistent giving for the company. BB is doing some discovery on soft credits and you really should step up and tell them you want to give your opinion on this because I have given my opinion 100,000 times over the past decade and they are finally looking into it but if you want it changed in a way that works, get involved. I still like crediting the satellite offices, branches, etc. and soft crediting the main company. In Sybunt, Lybunt reports I use SC to Both to effectively remove anyone who was either soft credited or hard credited but YES as you pointed out, it will double, triple count anyone who is in the report as a true Sybunt/Lybunt since it lists both. I wish the S/L reports would automatically exclude BOTH and let you choose who to show. Or at least separate the SC options between who to exclude and who to include. Also, if they ever institute the promised householding options (like eTapestry has) then SCing would be used very minimally and not be so problematic. My 2 cents.

Roma Sharma

Melissa Graves:
How you do this may require some research on each company. Honestly not all separate addresses for companies with the same name are satellite offices. If you want to be particular and they are owned separately then they absolutely deserve separate records. if they are owned separately (i.e. McDonalds) then one giving one year and another giving another year is not consistent giving for the company. BB is doing some discovery on soft credits and you really should step up and tell them you want to give your opinion on this because I have given my opinion 100,000 times over the past decade and they are finally looking into it but if you want it changed in a way that works, get involved. I still like crediting the satellite offices, branches, etc. and soft crediting the main company. In Sybunt, Lybunt reports I use SC to Both to effectively remove anyone who was either soft credited or hard credited but YES as you pointed out, it will double, triple count anyone who is in the report as a true Sybunt/Lybunt since it lists both. I wish the S/L reports would automatically exclude BOTH and let you choose who to show. Or at least separate the SC options between who to exclude and who to include. Also, if they ever institute the promised householding options (like eTapestry has) then SCing would be used very minimally and not be so problematic. My 2 cents.

Dear All- Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge and experince. Very helpful. Many thanks. Kind Regards

Roma