Best practices: Should spouses have full constituent records?

Judy Jansen · April 2015

We have a difference of opinion in our office about whether or not spouses should have their own constituent records. First let me note that we are using the Events module, so we just started breaking out spouses last year when one spouse would attend an event without the other. The only other ones we had were spouses of board members, and of course widowed constituents. Now some of our staff would like to record gender-specific appeals and other such info on individual spouses. What are your thoughts on best practices? At the last Blackbaud conference I attended people were very strongly on both sides of the fence. Thanks for your advice.

Paula Alionyte · April 2015

It's a tricky question, as it would be useful to have spouses as constituents for data analysis purposes, although I personally don't think it's best practice when it comes to database management, as it might make the database clunky and full of unnecessary, not often in use records. Also, if we consider RE NXT costs per constituent record, it would probably significantly increase your database costs (obviously, that does not apply to every database).

You could record gender specific appeals on the main constituent record by coding the fact it was targetted to the spouse maybe?

Judy Jansen · April 2015

Good point, Paula. Thank you for your
insights. We are not on the NXT version yet, but this is an
important consideration if we go that directions in the future.

~
Judy

JoAnn Strommen · April 2015

Yes, as you said there are views on both sides of the fence. We do have separate spouse records for some of our constituents, but only those where both spouses have a relationship with our org. In working in the database at times I like having the separate records, other times not so much.

I think the key factor is how you use your database/what type of org you are. We do a lot of personal contact and I like being able to print a pledge card for either spouse that is requested (but not 2 cards) by a solicitor. At times it can mean more clean-up when exporting data. Why would you want/not want separate records? How can you work around it with one record as mentioned in prior post.

I wasn't stressing out over it as there were so many rumors that RE 8 would require separate records. But hopefully the next release of RE is years of testing away.

Judy Jansen · April 2015

Thank you, JoAnn. I believe the policy here has been similar to yours, in that we had separate records if both spouses had a unique relationship with the organization. We are a "high touch" org with our donors. Thus, there are a lot of actions recorded. One of our solicitors is frustrated by trying to sort out WHICH spouse they met with or had a discussion with, so she prefers separate records. Another solicitor on staff doesn't want us to break them all out because she would have to look both places for past actions if a meeting is coming up, if we are just now breaking out those records.

I realize that export cleanup can be an issue, too, which I have mentioned to our staff. Up to now, we haven't had to worry much with Head of Household issues, since the first name on the record is the HOH. If we break them all out, we will have to be careful about this.

New hires and new modules seem to bring up questions about Head of Household policies and separate spouses. I appreciate your clean, clear thinking on these things, so I can make a pros and cons list for our staff.

One more question along this line: Is anyone running into these policy issues if you have the event module installed?

Judy Jansen · April 2015

Oh, and another staff member wants them separated for the appeal tracking and analysis. Sorry I forgot to include that above.

Erin Fleischmann · April 2015

I agree with JoAnn, it depends on your organization. We are a university and a lot of our constituents were students who got full records and then married. We get around a lot by putting everything on head of household (actions, gifts, etc.). We use the comments/notes to distinguish if it was targeted to teh spouse - even if the spouse has a full record. This eases household giving tax receipts, mailings, etc. You still have to be careful though as it does create other issues (if you are pulling lists based on giving - you need to make sure you are only exporting data on the HOH).

Angela May · April 2015

Great input so far, I just wanted to add my opinion since we use the Event Module. We are a K-12 school, and we transitioned from the "one record per household" system to the "one record per person" system a few years ago. Our primary reasons were: integration with Education Edge, easier data management in the Event Module, and the opportunity for each person to have a unique online experience in NetCommunity (in the K-12 world it is called Online Campus Community).

A few things you may want to consider are: would you ever need both individuals in a spouse pair to access NetCommunity, or to register separately for events, or be marked as solicitors, or be linked to an organization as a contact? If your answers are "yes", you need the "one record per person" system. Your flexibility in the database increases significantly with this system.

In my opinion, the Event Module works best when you are able to link a constituent as a participant, independently from their spouse. I like this approach for so many reasons. One reason is the "at a glance" view on the Events tab of the constituent record. You just click on the Events tab and you can see what events they have attended over time (conversely, non-constituents do not have an Events tab). I also love that it makes reporting so much easier.

If you use NetCommunity (or are considering it), the "one record per person" allows each person to have unique log in credentials, and a customized online experience. For example, if the wife is a board member and the husband is a volunteer, you can tailor their online experiences, so that the board member sees board-specific content, while the volunteer sees volunteer-specific content.

I'll end with a tip that has been a lifesaver for us. When we designate a Head of Household, we mark the non-HOH spouse with a solicit code "send mail to spouse". Then, when we query, it is so easy to either include or exclude them using that solicit code. If we ONLY want to mail to the HOH, we simply exclude anyone who has the "send mail to spouse" solicit code.

Tina Gorski-Strong · April 2015

I agree with Angela for all the same reasons. We use Online Express and all communications and event registrations work more effectively when constituents have their own record. We do not code the non HOH record. I try really hard to use the system versus what can be static codes. Anytime the HOH is the needed output, the last step in my queries is to run through MAIL for HOH only. It creates an output query and we are good to go.

Judy Jansen · April 2015

Wow! Very well said, Angela! And thanks for the additional thought about Online Express, Tina.

I am leaning now toward separate records, despite the solicitor's possible need to check both records.

Now I have one last question: is there a way to globally break out spouse records, or do you have to do them one at a time like we have been doing as the need arises? I can't find anything in the knowledgebase about this, and I suppose each situation could be different, so maybe there isn't a way to do it globally. Has anyone tried?

Nicole S · April 2015

Judy Jansen:

Oh, and another staff member wants them separated for the appeal tracking and analysis. Sorry I forgot to include that above.

That's a tough one. I would ask if the staff person considers them 2 seperate donors?

Sharon Campbell · April 2015

Judy Jansen:

Wow! Very well said, Angela! And thanks for the additional thought about Online Express, Tina.

I am leaning now toward separate records, despite the solicitor's possible need to check both records.

Now I have one last question: is there a way to globally break out spouse records, or do you have to do them one at a time like we have been doing as the need arises? I can't find anything in the knowledgebase about this, and I suppose each situation could be different, so maybe there isn't a way to do it globally. Has anyone tried?

Judy - I understand that Omatic has the Elevator which will "elevate" spouses to constituents. Has anyone used this? We are a school and want to work toward integration with Education Edge. Both parents are constituents in EE so we need them to have separate records as well in RE to be able to integrate. PLUS having separate records in RE is almost necessary for us as more and more spouses have different relationships with our school - say, the wife is a board member and the husband is a solicitor. I would love some input on how well the Elevator works.

Lauren Henderson · April 2015

Re: Sharon Campbell

Sharon, we are a high school, and have EE and RE integrated. You can run the integration from EE to RE without making both parents full constituents- in the integration setup, you can make the primary spouse a constituent, and the other spouse a non-constituent. There are a few class years that had the parents added separately (mostly for event purposes), but I have found that it isn't worth the trouble in general. If both spouses have significant and different relationships to the school (e.g. alumna and board member) then I do keep both as full constituents.

Re: Judy Jansen,

I can understand the solicitors' frustrations of having both as full constituents, and it may not be something that you fully implement either way- it can be taken on a case-by-case basis. Also, this way you can know your universe of spouses who are both full constituents, and better keep an eye out for potential problems or discrepancies.

Judy Jansen · April 2015

Thank you, Lauren. We are in conversations here, trying to find consensus between solicitors and our new marketing director, who thinks that the online experience will be richer if we give spouses their own records. However, a data analyst who we are hiring temporarily has reccomended that we do as you said, on a case-by-case basis. It truly is an organizational policy issue, as it looks like the opinions polls are 50/50. The main headache that we have is when we want to email all of our spouses through Online Express. It looks like we have to create separate queiries for primary constits and spouses who don't have their own records. Maybe that's a post with another subject line, but if anyone has a quick answer, I'm open.

Gina Gerhard · April 2015

Judy - I think if you want the simplicity of creating email lists just using a query that feeds directly into Online Express (assuming it works like Netcommunity), then YES it's easier to give spouses their own records.

Otherwise, you'll have to do some exports to get your emails out and use 'imported lists' instead? Which is certainly not as easy.

So perhaps the requirement of frequent emailing might sway your decision to create records?

Lisa Carter 3 · May 2015

Angela May:

Great input so far, I just wanted to add my opinion since we use the Event Module. We are a K-12 school, and we transitioned from the "one record per household" system to the "one record per person" system a few years ago. Our primary reasons were: integration with Education Edge, easier data management in the Event Module, and the opportunity for each person to have a unique online experience in NetCommunity (in the K-12 world it is called Online Campus Community).

A few things you may want to consider are: would you ever need both individuals in a spouse pair to access NetCommunity, or to register separately for events, or be marked as solicitors, or be linked to an organization as a contact? If your answers are "yes", you need the "one record per person" system. Your flexibility in the database increases significantly with this system.

In my opinion, the Event Module works best when you are able to link a constituent as a participant, independently from their spouse. I like this approach for so many reasons. One reason is the "at a glance" view on the Events tab of the constituent record. You just click on the Events tab and you can see what events they have attended over time (conversely, non-constituents do not have an Events tab). I also love that it makes reporting so much easier.

If you use NetCommunity (or are considering it), the "one record per person" allows each person to have unique log in credentials, and a customized online experience. For example, if the wife is a board member and the husband is a volunteer, you can tailor their online experiences, so that the board member sees board-specific content, while the volunteer sees volunteer-specific content.

I'll end with a tip that has been a lifesaver for us. When we designate a Head of Household, we mark the non-HOH spouse with a solicit code "send mail to spouse". Then, when we query, it is so easy to either include or exclude them using that solicit code. If we ONLY want to mail to the HOH, we simply exclude anyone who has the "send mail to spouse" solicit code.

Thanks for the good information. We still have spouses under relationships. I am the database manager for our school but the RE person does not want to change everyone to a constituent. It makes it difficult for their online experience and for the donation form. She does not use the plug in to enter online gifts . We talked about purchasing the event module but it sounds like we need to make some changes. Thanks again for the post.

Janice Edmiston · May 2015

The value of spouses having full constituent records and more importantly linking them is when one spouse dies. The gift records are kept "active", so you can pull the surviving spouses name and solicit them for a gift, i.e. tribute, memorial, or naming opportunity. When a record is marked deceased with no links it may be omitted from reports.

Tracy Torgerson · May 2015

Ultimately, spouses are connected to your organization and "deserve" a full constituent record. The only exception that I can see (based on our organization) is if the spouse has no connection with us except through their spouse. If the goal is to develop relationships through the years, a good place to start would be to individualize each spouse with a full consitutent record.

Julie Hiland · May 2015

I'm also on the fence, but mostly prefer one combined record for the reporting/exporting reasons already stated. We do create separate records when each spouse has a relationship with us or is a contact for different companies/foundations.

We prefer that all giving go on the HOH record, but where the headache lies is when a spouse makes a gift or registers for an event online, and we don't have control over the new record being created.

A great thread, which I'll continue to follow!

Tami Ramaker · May 2015

Judy,

If you want both spouses to get E-Community, then the best way to do that (especially now that RE has changed e-mail rules) is to have different constituent records. You may also want constituents to have their own records if one spouse has a United Way designated gift to you and the other one has an employee giving gift, etc., although you can use the reference field or gift notes instead to indicate one or the other of the spouses. If you have them as a couple and you do not know if they are actually married or not, then to satisfy IRS principles you need to track their donations specific to each donor, anyway. Challenge with two records is to avoid duplicate mailings when you are sending out asks, which will frustrate donors and make them feel like you don't know them very well. I would recommend identifying one as head of household, assigning the other one a specific solicit code (like 'Do Not Solicit - Partner Record') and then be very careful that gifts from both of them are logged to the head of household record. That and/or literally not entering an address on the second record, but that only works if you never plan to mail only to the spouse. Double constituent entries also create an issue if you have giving society levels because some gifts may be applied to the spouse record - assign soft credits from the spouse record to the head of household but not vice versa, then in your query ask for hard and soft credits to the head of household spouse and then exclude the 'Do Not Solicit - Partner Record' constituents when you query for society levels. On the head of household record, be sure your addressee has both names. A lot of extra steps and room for error with two constituent records, so until you have a second email or individual giving / relationships, I would leave donors at one constituent record and the spouse as a relationship. You can then change the spouse to its own constituent record if and only if you get the second email etc.

Tami Ramaker, Damien Center

Morgyn-Britney Hall · May 2015

This is a very informative thread! I am going to forward this conversation to our database manager, as we have been discussing several of our organization's best practices in regard to Raiser's Edge. At this point, we only create an individual constituent record for the spouse if we have something to document about our communication. Either way, we include the individual as the constituent's spouse on the Bio1 tab (which would mean that it appears on the Relationships tab as well) and adjust the marital status dropdown. Similar to what many of you have reflected, we do not want to fill up the database with constituent records that are only there for the sake of a spouse with whom we are involved. The benefit of recording the spouse in the Bio1 tab is that we can make an easy adjustment at any time to add the spouse as a constituent down the road if a need arises for increased contact.

Deborah McGlauflin · May 2015

We take the same approach, Morgyn. Like you, we prefer to keep the database leaner, which is particularly important to us since we're a hospice and have a lot of tribute constituents. We make good use of a variety of addressees and salutations and have found it easy enough to convert a spouse relationship to a constituent if and when needed -- in the case of the other spouse's death or when the spouse clearly has their own "track" of interest and involvement with our organization. But that's just what works for us. I'm really enjoying learning about what works for other organizations!

Kate Hudson · June 2015

Angela May:

Great input so far, I just wanted to add my opinion since we use the Event Module. We are a K-12 school, and we transitioned from the "one record per household" system to the "one record per person" system a few years ago. Our primary reasons were: integration with Education Edge, easier data management in the Event Module, and the opportunity for each person to have a unique online experience in NetCommunity (in the K-12 world it is called Online Campus Community).

Hi Angela, I am arguing for my org, a high school that is integrated with EE, to move from one record per HH to one record per person this year. My reasonings are numerous and you summed up some of them well, but I was wondering if you could expand on the transition and if you created constituent records for the older records that were just a relation? Did your gift processing change at all?

Heather MacKenzie · June 2015

Angela May:

Great input so far, I just wanted to add my opinion since we use the Event Module. We are a K-12 school, and we transitioned from the "one record per household" system to the "one record per person" system a few years ago. Our primary reasons were: integration with Education Edge, easier data management in the Event Module, and the opportunity for each person to have a unique online experience in NetCommunity (in the K-12 world it is called Online Campus Community).

A few things you may want to consider are: would you ever need both individuals in a spouse pair to access NetCommunity, or to register separately for events, or be marked as solicitors, or be linked to an organization as a contact? If your answers are "yes", you need the "one record per person" system. Your flexibility in the database increases significantly with this system.

In my opinion, the Event Module works best when you are able to link a constituent as a participant, independently from their spouse. I like this approach for so many reasons. One reason is the "at a glance" view on the Events tab of the constituent record. You just click on the Events tab and you can see what events they have attended over time (conversely, non-constituents do not have an Events tab). I also love that it makes reporting so much easier.

If you use NetCommunity (or are considering it), the "one record per person" allows each person to have unique log in credentials, and a customized online experience. For example, if the wife is a board member and the husband is a volunteer, you can tailor their online experiences, so that the board member sees board-specific content, while the volunteer sees volunteer-specific content.

I'll end with a tip that has been a lifesaver for us. When we designate a Head of Household, we mark the non-HOH spouse with a solicit code "send mail to spouse". Then, when we query, it is so easy to either include or exclude them using that solicit code. If we ONLY want to mail to the HOH, we simply exclude anyone who has the "send mail to spouse" solicit code.

I have some couples in RE who both have a unique constituent record, and I love your solicit code of mail to spouse! We are going to implement that here in my office. Thanks, Angela!

Jill Bradley · June 2015

All of you have pointed out some great points of consideration when determining a practice for spouse entry. Stepping into my position as DBA I found that the database contained both types of situations. A full spouse record as well as a relationship spouse record. There was no rhyme or reason for either scenario.

What I found was a high incident of error with the situations where spouses had their own records. Duplicate processes need to take place for maintenance of both records. If one spouse received an attribute for inclusion into a Giving Society the other needed the same attribute. If one received an attribute for No Phone solicitation the other needed the same attribute. When updating an address we needed to be diligent with making sure the addresses were linked and many times they were not. When adding a child/friend relationship, both records would need the relationship added. If we entered a call report into an Action both records would need the call report. When assigning a solicitor…well you are getting the picture.

We now try to keep the family unit together as much as possible except for situations, such as others have mentioned, where they each have their own activity. For us that may mean one spouse is an Alumni while the other is a Faculty member. We do use NetCommunity and constituents are registering for Events online. In these cases we do sometimes have to create a full record for the spouse that is registering and paying.

Laura Caswell · June 2015

"What I found was a high incident of error with the situations where spouses had their own records. Duplicate processes need to take place for maintenance of both records. " - Jill Bradley

We have s business rule that pops up whenever we open a record of linked spouses. The rule is just a reminder that there is a spouse record and please update the address and any other notes/activities on that record as well. We have found it helps with data entry and a side benefit has been for new employees. New employees can see how constituents are linked. We are a university and give every alum their own record.

laura

Jessica Radomski · June 2015

We are upgrading to from one profile per household to one profile per person. I was wondering how you guys handle past soft credits Going forward, we will soft credit both spouses for a donation but I'm not sure what to do with donations that were given prior to the upgrade of profiles. Any advice you have for me would be appreciated!

Gina Gerhard · June 2015

Jessica - I'd ask a basic question for your organization - what's the purpose of your soft credits?

If it's for recognition purposes, then perhaps you don't have to concern yourselves with back-entering soft-credit information but just work with it going forward?
For historical giving reports, you would probably be reporting out on hard credit giving only anyway?

Jessica Radomski · June 2015

Gina Gerhard:

Jessica - I'd ask a basic question for your organization - what's the purpose of your soft credits?

If it's for recognition purposes, then perhaps you don't have to concern yourselves with back-entering soft-credit information but just work with it going forward?

For historical giving reports, you would probably be reporting out on hard credit giving only anyway?

Thanks for the great response, Gina!

Melanie McKean · June 2015

Gina Gerhard:

Jessica - I'd ask a basic question for your organization - what's the purpose of your soft credits?

If it's for recognition purposes, then perhaps you don't have to concern yourselves with back-entering soft-credit information but just work with it going forward?

For historical giving reports, you would probably be reporting out on hard credit giving only anyway?
Gina - We have seperate records and hard credit all gifts to HOH, but unfortunately have historical records that have both hard and soft credits in each record. So reporting on total giving for a couple is complicated at best. We are considering cleaning up all records so that all gifts are hard credited to HOH. We want the soft-credit to go in the spouse's record so that anytime we're in that particular record, we can see giving history and not have to go to HOH for that info.

Along the same lines, we are wondering if we actually need to clean-up the historical info? Is there a way to report on hard credits for both individuals as a total rather than seperate amounts? We haven't found an easy way to do this without duplications or lots of manual fixes. Any insight would be helpful.

Melanie

Best practices: Should spouses have full constituent records?

Comments

Categories