Your next appeal list is almost ready. Then someone notices the same donor twice, a household with conflicting addresses, and several records whose contact preferences need clarification.
The immediate job is to resolve those records. The larger opportunity is to understand how they reached the list and what would prevent the same problems next time.
A focused database audit gives your team a way to do both. Start with one upcoming use of the data, define what reliable records would look like, and review the fields that matter to that work.
Start with a business question
Choose a question specific enough to guide the review:
- Can we produce the next appeal audience with confidence?
- Can we explain the gifts included in the annual fund report?
- Can staff identify the correct constituent before entering a gift?
For an appeal, your scope might include names, addresses, household handling, duplicate records, and communication preferences. For a revenue report, it might include gift dates, types, funds, campaigns, appeals, and adjustments.
Write down the population and review date. A sample can help you discover patterns, but describe findings as sample findings. Use a full query or other appropriate check before claiming a database-wide count.
Review identity before merging records
Search for possible duplicates using combinations of information: names, contact details, addresses, and relevant relationships. Shared information needs interpretation. Two people can use the same address or email, and one person can have several legitimate contact details.
For each suspected match, record whether it is a confirmed duplicate, a distinct constituent, or an unresolved case. Before a merge, review the information and relationships that need to survive, including giving history and contact preferences.
Make the search procedure part of everyday entry. Blackbaud's Raiser’s Edge NXT new user guidance recommends checking for an existing constituent before adding an individual. A documented search standard gives staff a consistent way to carry out that check.
Check whether contact information is usable
A populated field still needs context. Review which address is preferred, whether an email has been marked invalid, and whether the intended communication respects the constituent's recorded preferences.
Check how those preferences travel into exported audiences. A correct preference in the CRM is useful only if the process producing the mailing or email list applies it.
When a record is unclear, route it for review. Keep preference changes traceable to their source so the next staff member can understand why the record changed.
Test the coding behind a familiar report
Select a report the team already uses and inspect the records feeding it. Look for missing values, inconsistent codes, and definitions that staff interpret differently.
Imagine an illustrative annual fund report that selects gifts using appeal codes. Some staff use those codes consistently; others rely on the fund alone. The report may exclude relevant gifts even though the amounts were entered correctly.
Resolving that requires agreement about the selection rule and the entry practice. Record what each field represents, who maintains its values, and how exceptions are handled. Then validate the revised report against the underlying records.
Turn findings into assigned work
Keep a short issue log. For each finding, capture the affected records or query, the operational consequence, the proposed correction, the owner, and the review method.
Prioritize according to the next use of the data. A preference issue affecting tomorrow's mailing needs prompt attention. Historical coding outside the current reporting scope may fit a later phase.
Before a bulk change, preserve the relevant starting values, confirm the selection, and test the update on a small approved set. Validate the result before expanding the work. For merges, check the current guidance for your system and the specific data involved.
Give data health a recurring place in the calendar
Finish the audit by deciding how the team will catch new exceptions. That might mean reviewing newly created constituents each week, checking gift coding before a report is issued, or validating import results after each upload.
Assign an owner and retain the review criteria. Over time, your issue log can show which problems recur and which entry rules or integrations need attention.
TheVentiGroup supports database audits, data standardization, duplicate resolution, and ongoing Raiser’s Edge NXT administration. Tell us which task your data needs to support, and we can help define a practical scope.