Use of Constituent Titles in your database

Anna Brewer

Our Foundation is considering foregoing the use of entering titles on constituents' records unless requested by the constituent, in an effort to be more inclusive.

• What is your organization’s practice in the use of titles (Dr., Mr., Mrs., Ms., etc) when adding new constituents to your database?
• Do you intentionally collect/ask for the constituent’s preference for a title or no title?
• In practice, if you do not have access to the constituent’s preferred title, does anyone make assumptions when entering the constituent’s information in your databases, e.g., constituent's name is "Taylor"?
• If you do not use titles unless upon request by the constituent, how long has the organization been doing this? Why did your organization shift? What challenges and/or opportunities did you meet in making this change?
• If you do not use titles, but are unfamiliar with the constituent, do you still address the letter to the constituent with only a first name?

Thanks!

 

Elizabeth Perron

Hi


I have moved this forum post from the Help Forum to the Raiser's Edge Community in hopes of getting more product specific eyes & replies...


In harmony and inclusion,

Elizabeth

Blackbaud Community Team

Dariel Dixon 2

This question comes up every so often.  I think that each organization is different, and before embarking on this journey you need to have a good handle on what your constituency generally looks like, and how they would feel about such a change.  At some organizations, there is a more casual type of relationship with the donors, as opposed to some organization that are more formal.  I've also noticed that it's a bit of a cultural thing as well.  If you have a constituency that generally feels that way, I think it's worth considering both the pros and cons to doing so.  Granted, I think it's a good idea, if your constituency is open to it. My constituent base, I'm not sure how it would go over to be honest.  


In regards to the questions you asked, we do try to use titles when we add constituents.  We try to ask for titles when possible.  We are trying to be more strategic when it comes to non-binary donors, and using the appropriate titles when necessary. If we don't have a title, we will make an educated guess.  If we can't make an educated guess, we will default to just first name, just for lack of other options.  

Christine Cooke 2

Pretty much what Dariel Dixon said.  


If it's one of the names that has become unisex like Taylor, Morgan, Chris, Pat, etc. don't use a title.  Personally I would never assume, I feel that is offensive to the individual, which does nothing for either inclusiveness or stewardship.


and FYI if you did not know, there has been a gender free title available and published in Webster's for several years now which is Mx.

Which can be utilized if you do not know or as a preference.

Anna Brewer

Thank you for your reply Christine; I, too, agree assuming is offensive and does neither for inclusiveness or stewardship. Your feedback will be helpful for our organization. 

Anna Brewer

Thank you for your reply, Dariel. I agree organization's constituent and the culture of the constituent must be taken into consideration. I think it will be something to navigate based on our constituency base, but a much needed change. Your feedback will be helpful for our organization.

Anna Brewer

Thank you for your assistance Elizabeth!

Judy Spigarelli

I'm fairly new to my organization and they have moved away from titles, and it's so much easier!  I'm never comfortable assuming the gender of a title (I know two females named Joey).  Although I would use the non-binary title Mx., it's not something that is common in my area, so it too could make someone uncomfortable.


No titles is a wonderful way to go!


Best of luck,

Judy

Jeannie Goings

Although Webster's provides us with a gender-free title, not all embrace the use of "Mx." We have constituents who identify as non-binary with a preference to drop the honorific title.