FundSvcs Community

I use a gift subtype of "pledge payment" and then exclude this type from my "new money" reports. On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 2:19 PM Jeffrey Austin <jeffrey.austin@shu.edu> wrote: > Listers, > > > > We’ve seen several posts about the suggested way of recording these > scenarios where a pledge is booked for an individual but payments to reduce > it are received from a DAF. I think we all agree we should record the > payments as new cash gifts and subsequently reduce the pledge balance by > the amount of the DAF gift. I would like to hear how folks are coding these > (particularly if you use Raiser’s Edge). Do you use certain attributes, > gift subtypes or any other means of recognizing that these cash gifts > aren’t really “new money”? Their “newness” is really a technicality derived > from the best practice of not allowing the DAF gifts to satisfy a personal > pledge. The problem I’m seeing now, however, is that our reports draw on RE > gifts types to determine totals of new cash and commitments. As “cash” gift > types in RE (not “pay-cash”), they can’t be linked back to the pledge in > any way. I imagine a subtype flagging the gift could work but I wanted to > hear ideas from the collective if I could. > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Austin > Director of Advancement Operations > University Advancement > Seton Hall University > 457 Centre Street > South Orange, NJ 07079 > jeffrey.austin@shu.edu > tel 973.378.9865 | mobile 201.388.7826 | fax 973.378.2671 > > What great minds can do. > > > -- *Derrick Shearer* *Director of Advancement Services* The Pingry School 131 Martinsville Rd. Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 dshearer@pingry.org 908-647-5555 ext. 1265

A gift sub-type is what I see most often. I also encourage the use of a unique soft-credit type. And, when reducing the pledge on the individuals' record, I include a "reason code" indicating the write-down was due to receipt of a DAF payment. This is particularly useful for my friends in finance so that they know that the pledge was never in default and, therefore, should not be considered "written-off" in the same way as other pledges. John John H. Taylor Principal, John H. Taylor Consulting 2604 Sevier St. Durham, NC 27705 johntaylorconsulting@gmail.com 919.816.5903 (cell/text) Serving the Advancement Community Since 1987 On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 2:19 PM Jeffrey Austin <jeffrey.austin@shu.edu> wrote: > Listers, > > > > We’ve seen several posts about the suggested way of recording these > scenarios where a pledge is booked for an individual but payments to reduce > it are received from a DAF. I think we all agree we should record the > payments as new cash gifts and subsequently reduce the pledge balance by > the amount of the DAF gift. I would like to hear how folks are coding these > (particularly if you use Raiser’s Edge). Do you use certain attributes, > gift subtypes or any other means of recognizing that these cash gifts > aren’t really “new money”? Their “newness” is really a technicality derived > from the best practice of not allowing the DAF gifts to satisfy a personal > pledge. The problem I’m seeing now, however, is that our reports draw on RE > gifts types to determine totals of new cash and commitments. As “cash” gift > types in RE (not “pay-cash”), they can’t be linked back to the pledge in > any way. I imagine a subtype flagging the gift could work but I wanted to > hear ideas from the collective if I could. > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Austin > Director of Advancement Operations > University Advancement > Seton Hall University > 457 Centre Street > South Orange, NJ 07079 > jeffrey.austin@shu.edu > tel 973.378.9865 | mobile 201.388.7826 | fax 973.378.2671 > > What great minds can do. > > >

Listers, We've seen several posts about the suggested way of recording these scenarios where a pledge is booked for an individual but payments to reduce it are received from a DAF. I think we all agree we should record the payments as new cash gifts and subsequently reduce the pledge balance by the amount of the DAF gift. I would like to hear how folks are coding these (particularly if you use Raiser's Edge). Do you use certain attributes, gift subtypes or any other means of recognizing that these cash gifts aren't really "new money"? Their "newness" is really a technicality derived from the best practice of not allowing the DAF gifts to satisfy a personal pledge. The problem I'm seeing now, however, is that our reports draw on RE gifts types to determine totals of new cash and commitments. As "cash" gift types in RE (not "pay-cash"), they can't be linked back to the pledge in any way. I imagine a subtype flagging the gift could work but I wanted to hear ideas from the collective if I could. Jeff Austin Director of Advancement Operations University Advancement Seton Hall University 457 Centre Street South Orange, NJ 07079 jeffrey.austin@shu.edu<mailto:jeffrey.austin@shu.edu> tel 973.378.9865 | mobile 201.388.7826 | fax 973.378.2671 What great minds can do.

I don't have any RE fix, but wanted to mention that, whatever coding that manages this distinction, it could/should also be used to support communication with finance, and about both the "gift" and the associated pledge reduction. Whether we reduce the pledge by the amount of the DAF distribution, or more conservatively write off the whole pledge, this is a different phenomenon from the usual pledge write-down/write-off when a donor simply does not fulfill a pledge. In particular, it's different from what colleagues in finance have in view when they manage pledge allowances for bad debts. So, whatever the coding solution, it should support communication to Finance not just about the nature of this "gift" but also about the corresponding pledge write-down/write-off. My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply. Good luck! Alan Alan S. Hejnal Data Quality Manager Smithsonian Institution - Office of Advancement 600 Maryland Avenue SW, Suite 600E P.O. Box 37012, MRC 527 Washington, DC 20013-7012 *: 202-633-8754 | *: HejnalA@si.edu<mailto:HejnalA@si.edu> [SNAGHTML5cbfa34]<https://www.si.edu/> [AASP_FundSvcs_LOGO-01(040pct)(mark)] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> On Behalf Of Jeffrey Austin Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 2:19 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG Subject: [FUNDSVCS] Commitments satisfied by DAF Listers, We've seen several posts about the suggested way of recording these scenarios where a pledge is booked for an individual but payments to reduce it are received from a DAF. I think we all agree we should record the payments as new cash gifts and subsequently reduce the pledge balance by the amount of the DAF gift. I would like to hear how folks are coding these (particularly if you use Raiser's Edge). Do you use certain attributes, gift subtypes or any other means of recognizing that these cash gifts aren't really "new money"? Their "newness" is really a technicality derived from the best practice of not allowing the DAF gifts to satisfy a personal pledge. The problem I'm seeing now, however, is that our reports draw on RE gifts types to determine totals of new cash and commitments. As "cash" gift types in RE (not "pay-cash"), they can't be linked back to the pledge in any way. I imagine a subtype flagging the gift could work but I wanted to hear ideas from the collective if I could. Jeff Austin Director of Advancement Operations University Advancement Seton Hall University 457 Centre Street South Orange, NJ 07079 jeffrey.austin@shu.edu<mailto:jeffrey.austin@shu.edu> tel 973.378.9865 | mobile 201.388.7826 | fax 973.378.2671 What great minds can do.

We use two different Attributes to keep the reports clean. On the DAF payment, we add a gift attribute of the original pledge's system ID#. On the Write-off, we have a Gift attribute of Write-off type and we indicate if it's one of the following: DAF, FF (family foundation) or BAD (when the donor does fail to pay). We run our reports out of a data warehouse. From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> On Behalf Of Hejnal, Alan Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 2:57 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG Subject: [External] Re: [FUNDSVCS] Commitments satisfied by DAF I don't have any RE fix, but wanted to mention that, whatever coding that manages this distinction, it could/should also be used to support communication with finance, and about both the "gift" and the associated pledge reduction. Whether we reduce the pledge by the amount of the DAF distribution, or more conservatively write off the whole pledge, this is a different phenomenon from the usual pledge write-down/write-off when a donor simply does not fulfill a pledge. In particular, it's different from what colleagues in finance have in view when they manage pledge allowances for bad debts. So, whatever the coding solution, it should support communication to Finance not just about the nature of this "gift" but also about the corresponding pledge write-down/write-off. My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply. Good luck! Alan Alan S. Hejnal Data Quality Manager Smithsonian Institution - Office of Advancement 600 Maryland Avenue SW, Suite 600E P.O. Box 37012, MRC 527 Washington, DC 20013-7012 *: 202-633-8754 | *: HejnalA@si.edu<mailto:HejnalA@si.edu> [SNAGHTML5cbfa34]<https://www.si.edu/> [AASP_FundSvcs_LOGO-01(040pct)(mark)] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Jeffrey Austin Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 2:19 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: [FUNDSVCS] Commitments satisfied by DAF Listers, We've seen several posts about the suggested way of recording these scenarios where a pledge is booked for an individual but payments to reduce it are received from a DAF. I think we all agree we should record the payments as new cash gifts and subsequently reduce the pledge balance by the amount of the DAF gift. I would like to hear how folks are coding these (particularly if you use Raiser's Edge). Do you use certain attributes, gift subtypes or any other means of recognizing that these cash gifts aren't really "new money"? Their "newness" is really a technicality derived from the best practice of not allowing the DAF gifts to satisfy a personal pledge. The problem I'm seeing now, however, is that our reports draw on RE gifts types to determine totals of new cash and commitments. As "cash" gift types in RE (not "pay-cash"), they can't be linked back to the pledge in any way. I imagine a subtype flagging the gift could work but I wanted to hear ideas from the collective if I could. Jeff Austin Director of Advancement Operations University Advancement Seton Hall University 457 Centre Street South Orange, NJ 07079 jeffrey.austin@shu.edu<mailto:jeffrey.austin@shu.edu> tel 973.378.9865 | mobile 201.388.7826 | fax 973.378.2671 What great minds can do. **** This email originated from an EXTERNAL sender to CHOP. Proceed with caution when replying, opening attachments, or clicking links. Do not disclose your CHOP credentials, employee information, or protected health information to a potential hacker****.

Thanks, Debra. Great strategy... smart way to link back to the commitment. Thanks all for your insights. Jeff Austin Director of Advancement Operations University Advancement Seton Hall University 457 Centre Street South Orange, NJ 07079 jeffrey.austin@shu.edu<mailto:jeffrey.austin@shu.edu> tel 973.378.9865 | mobile 201.388.7826 | fax 973.378.2671 What great minds can do. From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> On Behalf Of Gross, Debra Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 11:32 AM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Commitments satisfied by DAF We use two different Attributes to keep the reports clean. On the DAF payment, we add a gift attribute of the original pledge's system ID#. On the Write-off, we have a Gift attribute of Write-off type and we indicate if it's one of the following: DAF, FF (family foundation) or BAD (when the donor does fail to pay). We run our reports out of a data warehouse. From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Hejnal, Alan Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 2:57 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: [External] Re: [FUNDSVCS] Commitments satisfied by DAF I don't have any RE fix, but wanted to mention that, whatever coding that manages this distinction, it could/should also be used to support communication with finance, and about both the "gift" and the associated pledge reduction. Whether we reduce the pledge by the amount of the DAF distribution, or more conservatively write off the whole pledge, this is a different phenomenon from the usual pledge write-down/write-off when a donor simply does not fulfill a pledge. In particular, it's different from what colleagues in finance have in view when they manage pledge allowances for bad debts. So, whatever the coding solution, it should support communication to Finance not just about the nature of this "gift" but also about the corresponding pledge write-down/write-off. My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply. Good luck! Alan Alan S. Hejnal Data Quality Manager Smithsonian Institution - Office of Advancement 600 Maryland Avenue SW, Suite 600E P.O. Box 37012, MRC 527 Washington, DC 20013-7012 *: 202-633-8754 | *: HejnalA@si.edu<mailto:HejnalA@si.edu> [SNAGHTML5cbfa34]<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.si.edu%2F&data=01%7C01%7Cjeffrey.austin%40SHU.EDU%7Cc0b7f37e88054f2f63e808d6b780927f%7C51f07c2253b744dfb97ca13261d71075%7C1&sdata=4PDJk%2FUHu%2Fh9yFD4tKvrFog9%2FJjZRfBHt0q05qh3LLs%3D&reserved=0> [AASP_FundSvcs_LOGO-01(040pct)(mark)] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Jeffrey Austin Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 2:19 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: [FUNDSVCS] Commitments satisfied by DAF Listers, We've seen several posts about the suggested way of recording these scenarios where a pledge is booked for an individual but payments to reduce it are received from a DAF. I think we all agree we should record the payments as new cash gifts and subsequently reduce the pledge balance by the amount of the DAF gift. I would like to hear how folks are coding these (particularly if you use Raiser's Edge). Do you use certain attributes, gift subtypes or any other means of recognizing that these cash gifts aren't really "new money"? Their "newness" is really a technicality derived from the best practice of not allowing the DAF gifts to satisfy a personal pledge. The problem I'm seeing now, however, is that our reports draw on RE gifts types to determine totals of new cash and commitments. As "cash" gift types in RE (not "pay-cash"), they can't be linked back to the pledge in any way. I imagine a subtype flagging the gift could work but I wanted to hear ideas from the collective if I could. Jeff Austin Director of Advancement Operations University Advancement Seton Hall University 457 Centre Street South Orange, NJ 07079 jeffrey.austin@shu.edu<mailto:jeffrey.austin@shu.edu> tel 973.378.9865 | mobile 201.388.7826 | fax 973.378.2671 What great minds can do. **** This email originated from an EXTERNAL sender to CHOP. Proceed with caution when replying, opening attachments, or clicking links. Do not disclose your CHOP credentials, employee information, or protected health information to a potential hacker****.

We had the same 'double-counting' issue with our Funds Raised & Campaign year-over-year reporting here at James Madison University. We created a new pledge payment type called a Pledge Pardon (defined as non-cash/non-ledger) so that we do not have to write-down pledges being fulfilled by a DAF gift. This preserves the pledge write-down process for true donor defaults. We book a Third-Party Gift for the DAF "payment" and link it back to the pledge manually via a reference field (for fulfillment reporting). Third-Party gifts are excluded as new $'s in funds raised and campaign reporting since the pledge was counted in the year it was booked. Pledge Pardons are not counted in Cash reports; Third Party Gifts are. Hope this helps. Debbie ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Deborah S Jordan | AVP, Advancement Information Services, James Madison University | jordands@jmu.edu | 540.568.7849