Doubling up Constituent records - Opinions?

Daniel Noga 2

Hello everyone,



In the database I've inherited, we have a number of records covering two people--typically in the case of couples. So, for example, there will be one Constituent record with a first name "John and Jane" and a last name of "Doe." I have never seen this before, and my initial reaction is: "I don't like this. This is what Spouse records are for." What I am used to as a guideline for record creation and Spouses is: If you know someone has a Spouse, create a Spouse record for them (at least). If you make a donation or join as a member, you get your own Constituent record, even if your spouse already has one; just make sure the two are linked via reciprocal Relationship records.



This is a case where I am getting some pushback from those responsible for most data entry. We had a long discussion about it, but honestly, the objections seem to boil down to resistance to change--it's always been done this way, it's quicker/more expedient, it will be a lot of work fixing these records if a new policy is imposed, etc. To them, this is "duplication" because we can achieve with one record what I want to achieve with two (that is a hurdle I am having trouble with too--instilling in people the difference between incidental repetition of data and outright duplication.) I can even understand a reluctance to learn about all these different record types and getting a hang for the nuance of knowing when to create which records and why, etc. Still, I am not hearing compelling reasons to keep doig this, and seeing these records drives me nuts. I am not even sure what kinds of problems this can cause, I just know that I have a team that is so used to these records existing that they probably compensate for potential issues without even thinking about it. I don't know these records well, and I don't want to--I want to fix them, then get to know them.



Does anyone else have a situation like this at their org? Does anyone use doubled records like this? Does anyone know any genuinely good reasons for doing it that way? I am all ears and just want to make sure I am being as fair as possible before setting this unpopular policy.







 

JoAnn Strommen

What fun Daniel!!!



We do not have double records. Have not seen at in my experience with a couple orgs.  Don't know any good reasons for doing it.



Yes, it may be easier to enter John and Jane than doing the extra steps to create a spousal relationship.



In the long run, relationships or separate records would be my recommendation.  If records are entered using a constituent batch, the fields to enter second person as spouse relationship can easily be pulled in.  I use one regularily to enter main record and their spouse.  Spouse relationships certainly are not duplicates.  Creating spouse records does require a bit of planning: how will you record gifts, who's HOH, do you soft credit...  But all do-able



My 2 cents...

 

John Heizer

Not a fun position to be in!



My arguement would be that this is not how the database is designed to be used and that such misuse will inevitably cause problems down the road when there is an upgrade/change in RE (I've seen many organizations run into BIG problems when that happens).  They are called "Individual" records for a reason!  Currently they're treating RE like it's an Excel spreadsheet, a huge waste of its potential power.



Creating a Spouse Relationship record up-front is a trivial amount of work compared to the work required to dance around the issue (click on the Spouse button, hit F3 in the last name field, type a first name ... TA DA! you're done). What do they do when a wife keeps her maiden name?  Why should that couple have to be treated differently (and, potentially, reported on differently) than other couples?



What you've got right now, from a database standpoint, is "Garbage in."

shani traum

I feel your pain!  Periodically, we've had to "defend" out practice of separate spousal records as well.  We work ours, as you want to work yours - A single record, under one name, with non-constituent spouse relationship UNTIL there's a reason to create a separate, linked constituent record.  Once the spouse makes a gift, attends an event, etc, they get their own record. Both records have combined addressee and salutation as additional options, but not primary.



Our "justification" is that with separate records, you can track which spouse attended which event...With which spouse did the action occur...Which spouse has which constituency (one is a volunteer leader, the other a family member)...etc.  You can also better track education, business, board connections, etc.  This usually convinced the doubters that we were right.



Good luck!

Jen Claudy

This could also cause problems with address screenings (and deceased record screenings).  I'm not sure, since we have only one first name per record, but I don't know that the NCOA will recognize that John & Jane Doe moved if in their database they have John Doe and Jane Doe as separate individuals.  Plus, how do you search on that?  Always use a wildcard?  If I'm looking for Jane Doe in RE, and search for Lastname: Doe Firstname: Jane, it won't come up...unless Firstname: *Jane.



If you win your battle, you can probably do a lot of the restructuring with exports and imports.  Then set up an Audit Query so you can figure out who continues to resist change. 

Daniel Noga 2

Thanks everyone! Glad to see I am not alone in this.



I think adding the Spouse record-related fields to the Batch entry screen could be a good way to get some buy-in here--making it easy will go a long way. The keyboard shortcuts are also helpful. I try to make sure the data entry staff know about those. There is a reason the system was designed the way it was! The maiden name example is a very good one to demonstrate why this is a flawed approach and I think I can probably make an argument on that alone; one thing everyone does understand is the importance of consistency, so if I tell them about the one or two exceptions that make this rule unwise, they'll be more likely to go along.



The matter of Constituency Codes is another good reason along a similar vein, and I've actually seen (and cleaned up) the damage myself. We have a small army of volunteers here, many of whom do this as a couple. Maybe one is a door volunteer, while the other is a docent; these get two separate codes. There were cases of people sharing records and it was hard to tell which Constituent Code was supposed to apply to which spouse; there was a little trick for determining that, but I would rather dispense with such mnemonics and just do things correctly.











 

Zane Magnuson 2

On the plus side, this fight is at least keeping you from getting into the next one: Do spouses get their own records, or do they remain spouses with everything going on the primary record. You really shouldn't have it both ways in one database, because then there's a big whopping grey area of when to turn a spouse record into a constituent record.



I've always preferred both individuals having their own constituent records linked via relationships. But that's just me, and getting into it any further will likely lead to people throwing things at each other.

Daniel Noga 2

Zane Magnuson:

On the plus side, this fight is at least keeping you from getting into the next one: Do spouses get their own records, or do they remain spouses with everything going on the primary record. You really shouldn't have it both ways in one database, because then there's a big whopping grey area of when to turn a spouse record into a constituent record.



I've always preferred both individuals having their own constituent records linked via relationships. But that's just me, and getting into it any further will likely lead to people throwing things at each other.

Yeah, I am not really looking forward to hashing out these guidelines, but it's tricky because it's such a seeming gray area. Setting guidelines is one thing, following them is another. Whatever is agreed upon will need to be written down in detail and put into a procedure we can all refer to. This is the sort of thing that otherwise, you end up turning your chair to ask your colleaugue, "Hey, what did we say we were gonna do with those ____________?" and proceed to make new rules up as you go along!!

Bradley Henry

If you are looking for a good reason to not have records as John and Jane Doe, what about these.



What if they get devorced, seperate or just want to be know as thier own person.



If you want to send mail to John and Jane Doe, use the Addressees/Salutations tab to create a joint name.



Bradley.







 

Sally Harding

Hello!

I work with a LARGE database (484,529 active records) that serves a wide variety of areas and we couldn't get by with John and Jane Doe records.  We have one area that has a focus of women's health, so they want the female's name to be first in addressee/salutations.  We have another area that is really specific about receipts only being addressed to the donor, not the couple.  We have alums who are specific about them being the donors, not their spouses.  Maybe (hopefully!) you don't have those problems, but should you run into them, having John and Jane will create problems.  I feel the pain of the extra work (I'm 1/3 of the gift and data team), but in the long run it's worth it.  The corrections could be done over time.  A query of highest/VIP donors to be corrected first, then work down through giving or involvement, with folks who haven't given in the longest amount of time being the last.

Good luck!

Sally