Hi there

Just been tasked with cleaning our tables. Constituency codes are pretty important but we have way too many. Any advice on what we are doing wrong or how to improve the list we have below? I read quite varied opinions about what we should and shouldn't use but wanted to get other peoples feedback on this?

Book Buyer
Anon
Auction Buyer
Campaigner
Celebrity
Panel Member
Charity
Community Contact
Community Group
Company
Corporate contact
Investor Level One
Investor Level Two
Educational Contact
Educational Establishment
Employee Fundraiser
Employment Brokerage
eNewsletter Signup
Enquirer
Eventer
Ex Payroll Giver
Ex Regular Giver
Ex-Crisis Investor
Finance
Fundraiser Sponsor
Funeral Directors
GIK Donor
GIK Prospect
Housing
In Memory Deceased
In Memory Donor
Independent Fundraiser
Individual Donor
Individual Donor Prospect
Legacy Enquirer
Legacy Giver
Legacy Pledger
Legacy Prospect
Legator
Lottery
Major Donor
Major Donor Contact
Major Donor Prospect
MP
NetCommunity User
OLD - Policy Contact
Payroll Giver
Peer
Policy and External Affairs Contact
Political Party
Raffle Player
Regional - Volunteer - Newcastle
Regional Community - Newcastle
Regional Community - Oxford
Regional Company - Newcastle
Regional Company - Oxford
Regional Development Board - Oxford
Regional Eventer - Newcastle
Regional Eventer - Oxford
Regional Individual - Oxford
Regional Major Donor - Oxford
Regional Major Donor Prospect - Oxford
Regional Statutory - Newcastle
Regional Statutory - Oxford
Regional Trust - Newcastle
Regional Trust - Oxford
Regular Giver
Religious Contact
Religious Individual
Religious Organisation
Staff
Statutory Grant
Supplier
Trust Contact
Trust or Foundation

Many thanks

Mark
Crisis UK

You say "Constituency codes are pretty important...". Why? What processes do you have that rely on them that makes them so important?

The biggest problem I have with Constituent Codes is the implied need to mark something explicitly that can be determined implicitly by data stored elsewhere on a record.

For example, is your Constituent a "Major Donor" because they have that particular code, or because they have a gift of a certain size, or raised through a certain Appeal?

Likewise for "Regular Giver". Are they a regular giver because someone added the code, or because they gave a certain number of gifts within a certain time frame?

The use of codes like these opens up a huge element of risk when pulling lists based on those codes. Imagine the scenario where a donor gives a one-time donation of $1,000,000. For whatever reason the "Major Donor" constituent code does not get added to their record. When you generate an invitation list to your donor recognition event, you base it on the "Major Donor" code, and that person never gets the invite.

Alternately, the "Major Donor" code gets added somehow to someone who never has donated, and they do get an invitation.

What happens when your definition of "Major Donor" changes? How are you going to recode all the affected records?

The biggest reason to use Constituent Codes is to classify records and give you the ability to isolate them in Queries and list for a given circumstance. I advise to identify what you pull regularly for lists, and work backwards from their to determine the best way to mark records. I pull my donor lists based on what is present on their Gift records as there are more stringent procedures for entering that data due to the taxation issues involved.

If I had my way, I'd not use Constituent Codes at all.

All I can say is WOW.

My list has 10 options.

Most of what you have I would store somewhere else

Book Byter, auctiob buyer, payroll giver, ex payroll giver, GIK Donor, Legacy Giver, regular giver, etc - would be found in gifts or events.
Panel Member, sponsor would be in events
Contacts (you have several) would have an individual code and you would see contacts in relationships
Prospects (you have several) would be coded in the Prospect Module

The key to any code list is not to have to do things in two places when you find out informaiton. If you have to both add a GIK and add a GIK Giver code (or you have to do too much. It is a waste of time and on top of that you have to waste time double checking that everyone remembered to do both.

I also believe that constituent codes rarely change. If you have to monitor someone going from prospect to giver, you have to change the too often. I only have special individual codes for board and staff - otherwise all individuals just get an individual code. I know if they are a "giver" by looking at or querying the gifts. I have organization codes based on type of org. Foundation, Corporation, non profit, school, etc.

IMO, your list should be limited to under 10 if possible. If you had to place your donors from this year into a pie chart which says "giving by donor type" you would not want 50 pie slices. You would want 5-10 at the most.

I just went through this exercise with my organization a few months ago.

I shorten the list from 89 to 15 options (I still want to get rid of a few more, but that's a battle for another day ).

I removed codes that were no longer being used, duplicated information else where in the database, or could be coded in a different location.

The remaining codes are meant to describe groups we interact with as an organization, instead of groups we create inside of the organization. For example, Corporation is one of my codes, but Corporate Sponsor is not a code.

Also, I agree with Melissa when she says "constituent codes rarely change". That's a good way of thinking about it.

Ok I can see what you are saying and I agree with all these points you all have posted. I think because Constiteuncy Code has been set as a required field years ago it has now been a very specific focus point for defining our supporters. It also makes its nice and easy to see straight from Bio1 when looking at a record but I know we can work around that one.

So what would you suggues if we have someone who is an Event Participant. That is all they have ever done is run in one of our fun runs. We have this information under the Events tab. What would the constituency code be here? We would normally put "Eventer" but looking at your sugguestions it seems like the best options would be to put either "Individual" or nothing at all?

Major donors for us is a little tricky as our MD team "cherry pick" their supporters so its not something that we can define by solely gifft history. I need to work with them closely to figure out what they do exactly.

Would anyone like to share with me their list of constituency codes?

Many thanks

Mark
Crisis UK

Individuals can have:
Individual
Board Member
Former Board Member
Employee
Former Employee

Organizations can have:
Foundation
Corporation
Non-Profit
Donor Advised Fund
Estate
Government Agency
School

Your MD team can still cherry pick their portfolios by assigning a MGO as a solicitor. It does not have to be based on gift.