Search for constituents *and* non-constituents from the Constituent Search window
Most of our duplicates seem to arise from a new constituent being added when that person actually already had a non-constituent entry somewhere in RE. For instance, a new donor who was listed as having a non-constituent relationship with an employer, foundation, or family member. Currently, to check these we have to go into an existing constituent record's relationship, click "add new individual relationship" and run the search from that window with the"display non-constituents" checkbox marked, and (should we find a record), query the name to see who is connected to it, go to that record, access the non-constituent relationship record and use that to create the new constituent. Adding that "display nonconstituents" checkbox would cut the workflow on this significantly and ensure complete, non-duplicative entries.
-
Nicole Holt
- Apr 23 2012
- Reviewed: Voting Open
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- +98
Related ideas
Thanks for the clarification, Jarod. I'd like to point out that calling the process "not necessarily efficient" is really an understatement-I understand that, at least, it is possible, but I am fighting uphill to get staff to open an unaffiliated record to run the relationship search, and it presents the likely mistake of saving that relationship record if it's found. The noncon search has been and continues to be a data integrity nightmare.
Hey Nicole, so sorry for the disappointment! And I assure you that my deleting of the comment that was posted in error was in an attempt to avoid confusion, not mislead anyone or cover anything up. I will point out that the reason this was a priority in NXT web view was due to the fact that there was literally no way to accomplish this in NXT web view prior to the enhancement. The steps you mention (Search for the non-constituent via the "Add a relationship" form) are not yet applicable in web view. So while I agree the process is not necessarily efficient in RE7/database view, it is at least possible.I will be looking into whether or not there is straight forward way to incorporate this functionality in a more efficient way into RE7 in a future patch/release. I'll mark the Idea status accordingly.
Sorry again for the confusion!
I was so excited when I saw this in my email. And now I'm so disappointed that it seems to only be for NXT (and that the note stating that it was being implemented was deleted instead of explained as an error---that's a little too much like gaslighting).
Hey Karen. This was my mistake. We were trying to update an idea in the NXT Idea Bank and mistakenly posted the comment to this thread as well. Sorry about the confusion.
What feature, exactly, was sent to production today? We moved through a few threads here, so I want to know where to look!
I want a checkbox in the Constituent search window that is just for organizations. It would be great not to have to wade through a sea of results that included both individuals and orgs, when all I wanted was orgs.
It would be better if Raiser's Edge did not allow non-Constituent Relationships and Participants.
Michael - I agree with you IF RE had the ability to properly report on spouse SCs vs other SCs. As it currently is when couples have two records so may reports and analysis of mine is WRONG.
We should also be able to search non-constituent participants. There is a check box for contacts. Add another for participants
Yes, please add the option to search Relationships from the Constituent search box. Having to run a query to find a Relationship record is very inefficient and a waste of time.
Completely agree. I do run an occasional QA query that searches for non-constituent participants who have addresses on their participant records, and see if they exist in the database. If so, I link them up. You can't always tell, but this process has had enough ROI for us that I continue to do it.
We serve people with disabilities and regulations prohibit us from soliciting them--nor do we want to solicit them. We need to track them in the database as non-constituent records--individual relationships associated with family or advocates. This reasoning is why I disagree with Michael's comment, and also the reason I would like to see a search that includes individual relationships. Thank you.
100% agreed. My membership team needs to be able to quickly find and open non-constituents who share a joint membership with the the primary member/name on record -- but they are not always spouses so we can't simply add them all as spouses. PLEASE add a "Check individual relationships" check box similar to "Check contact name".