FundSvcs Community

What's the norm for oversight of gift entry? Particularly in small, very understaffed shops. I'm interested in hearing what systems or processes other shops have in place to ensure accuracy in this field.

In my role at a previous institution, we implemented a system that involved double-checking every gift entered prior to committing or posting, along with an error log to help identify patterns, although this was extremely time consuming. What level of oversight is appropriate and how do you execute it, ESPECIALLY if you're short staffed and already covering other positions' responsibilities? And how can this be done without creating a bottleneck in the flow from gift processing to receipting when the person providing the oversight has a full calendar?

------------------------------
Gabrielle Read-Hess
Coe College
greadhess@coe.edu
------------------------------

We have also experienced this. Like Sandra, our process was a review of printed receipts with access to payment documents. We have a lag before gifts are posted so that provides an opportunity to correct as well. I maintain a query of recent gifts displaying most of the data fields so I can spot check for missing info.

With RE NXT, development staff can also see relevant gifts and notify of any issues.

Hi Gabrielle, 

I have also had this experience and tried countless different methods over the years. For our team, what has been most successful is splitting the tasks. That is to say, we have folks who are focused on just doing gift entry while a more senior or more detail oriented staff take on proofing the entries. We do this before the gifts get posted to our CRM, and ideally the same day entry happens. I know that isn't always an option with staffing limiations (been there), so alternatively we have also gone through times when I just had everyone doing entry check eachother's work. In both situations, the person proofing would send it back to the entry person to correct their own errors. In my experience, the peer review combined with the person making their own corrections has worked best because it helps the team learn from eachother's mistakes while also taking some accountability. 

Good luck! It is always challenging to navigate entry errors. 

------------------------------
Kirsten Dorius
Senior Director, Development Services
University of Utah
University Advancement | 332 South 1400 East, Suite 160 | Salt Lake City, UT 84112
801.585.0745 | kirsten.dorius@utah.edu
------------------------------

Good morning,

I will echo much of what has been said.  Currently, our Business Affairs office does all of the receipting and they have checks and balances in place in that office to catch errors/items left out initially.  Once that has cleared a couple of desks, I received the finished receipting session and review it again.  Once approved, then it is posted to our CRM.  That saves much on undoing and redoing.  Again, working with a VERY small team in a collaborative effort.

Mary

Hi Gabrielle, our gift processor preps a gift batch in RENXT DB View.  It is then double checked for accuracy and constituent updates prior to committing the batch.  Any errors are sent back to the processor for correction.  A daily gift report is then sent to the entire Advancement staff.  Receipts/letters are reviewed for accuracy.  This has worked pretty well for us.  I'm fortunate to have a great team, but that has not always been the case.  When I've had a less detail oriented staff, I would identify patterns and then try to write queries for pop up messages for the staff person doing the gift entry; open pledge, has an assigned solicitor, has a proposal, etc...

Michael

Hi Gabrielle,

I've set up a system through Microsoft Teams 'Approvals' - the gift processor enters a batch and then submits an approval through Microsoft Teams before committing the gifts. I get the alert in Teams and spot check the batch - I know the common mistakes to look for at this point and if I don't spot any issues then I approve the request in Teams, usually takes a few mins to approve all the batches for the day. Gift processor gets the approval alert and then knows they are cleared to commit the batch. I set this up when I had a poor gift processor - still using it for a new person but if they get good enough, I will just tell them to only submit for approval if there is something they are not sure about and not do it every single time.

Hi Gabrielle,

In our department we have a few stages of review.  

1. The accounting team, who receives payment and gift processing material, vets the information before handing it over to gift processors. They are primarily looking for financial accuracy and compliance. 

2. The gift processor also double checks for financial accuracy and compliance, but they have a tool to assist them in additional checks once they enter the gift.  The tool helps them bring the constituent and gift records up to institutional standards. It's called the "Exception report" and we build and maintain it in SQL Server Reporting Services.  By making corrections and re-running the report, the gift processors "clear the exceptions."  The result is not only that the gifts records are ready for the next phases of posting, receipting, and membership fulfillment, but the constituent record itself is also being QA'd as a result of the donor transacting.  

3. Prior to posting the batch to the general ledger, a 'supervisor' runs another report that flags specific gifts for review. We call this the "Pre-post QA." I am primarily the one to run this report.  A few examples of flags are: it tells me if there's a pledge about to be posted, or a fund is being given to that requires specific backup, etc.,.  It will also flag things that are 'unexpected' (but not necessarily "incorrect"), for example, the donor has "estate" in the name but the gift doesn't have the common traits of a bequest.  By flagging something as 'unexpected', it's forcing me to ask "why is it that way," which creates the oversight opportunity when I am tracing the process of that particular gift.  

Since you asked about being a bottleneck I will say that by selectively flagging some gifts but not all, we're acknowledging that it's not a good use of our limited resources to apply this third review to every single gift. Running the "Pre-Post" is a daily responsibility, taking an average of 20 minutes.  There is flexibility to when in the day it gets performed, but it does not ever get postponed beyond the business day.  It needs to be performed before the gifts are posted to the GL, which is another person's daily responsibility. I do frequently have a full schedule, but I always have the option to do it as early as I need to, or I delegate the task to a trained gift processor.  I personally also find the task to be worthwhile, since overseeing gift processing is my primary responsibility. 

Building the Exception Report and the Pre-Post QA is ongoing.  Since we have the ability to modify these reports, we can adapt to new trends and changing times pretty efficiently. For example, if there's a new workflow, then we might need to introduce some new features to the reports to ensure the new rules are being followed accurately. It is also true that some features of these reports were 'inspired' by an error occurring. 

4.  The accounting team, after ensuring that numbers match what they were in the beginning of the whole process, then posts the gifts to the general ledger.  
5.  The person creating tax receipts is also providing a final level of oversight.

Thanks for posting this question.  

Dania

Quality assurance is a big issue at any institution.  I have recently switched institutions and this is the first one I have been at (3 previous) that has a verification process to make sure gifts are correct before they close.  I am not a fan, in my head, I am paying 2 people to process one gift.  I understand the need, but efficiency and monetarily it makes me a bit twitchy.  In my past organizations, to address errors, we have instituted stronger training protocols, monthly or bi- weekly meetings with the team to discuss gift processing rules, incoming projects and fundraising initiatives so they can be on alert. 

I also highly recommend a good working relationship with your annual giving team.  Many errors were prevented by working with them on the information and rules (which is the default fund on a solicitation), putting fund numbers and appeals on them.  We created trainings for development staff on who the gift staff was and how we helped them do what they do. Stressed the importance of providing as much information as possible on transmittals and not assuming the gift staff would know what to do with it.  Those helped me greatly in the past to eliminate some common errors on the gift side. 

Another thing is to work closely with your programmers.  There are many validations rules that might be worked into your CRM. Like alerts on a donor who has a pledge to the same fund but the gift is not being applied.  Getting some of these into the mix can help with the other common human errors that happen.  

At one place I created a new position of data coordinator who handled the mail, credit cards, and research. Seems like several other commentors has similar situations of having a main point person reviewing gifts prior to handing off to staff.  That helped the gift staff focus on the entry. 

Accuracy shouldn't be on the gift staff alone.  The quality of the information coming in can make a big impact of the accuracy of the team.  Making time for training is a big thing, working with the IT team.