Contributions Only - Duplicate Entry Problem

[jeffkoke]

Background: An individual has been entered into PowerChurch via a newcomer card. The person has not been assigned an envelope number, since they have not given to the church, yet.

Contributions only data entry receives a contribution from this person, but can not look them up using the envelope look up, since no envelope has been assigned, yet.

Contributions only can not view the database to determine if that person is in the system. So, they create a new entry into the system causing duplicate entry.

How can the above be rectified?

Anyone else run into this and figure out a solution?

AdvanceThanks,
Jeff

[Zaphod]

You're talking about entering a new contributor through the "Add Contributor" button on the Enter Contributions screen, right? If you do that, and you enter a duplicate, you will be prompted to either continue adding new member (in case you're entering Jr. or something), or edit the existing member.

I just did a test of this to be sure, and it works for someone who has CO Data Entry Only (and that's all) permissions. Also, it's sort of smart enough to catch slight variations in spelling. In the test I just ran, I tried to duplicate "Donna Smith" by entering "Don Smith" and I got the warning.

So, if someone chooses to ignore the warning that comes up, they can. But it does let you know if you're entering a potential duplicate.

[jeffkoke]

Hmmm, ok, perhaps I wasn't quite clear on what I thought I meant to say

Here's what the contributions only data entry person did:
1. Run the check thru the check reader
2. PC returned the search/add contributor panel as it was a new (checking) account number
3. Data entry selected the magnifying glass to do a look up.
4. The person's name was not displayed

The next logical thing for the data entry person to do is add the "new" contributor to the system.

Since I was part of the counting team this Sunday, I knew that the name was in PC+. I instructed (perhaps this is where I went wrong) the data entry person to attempt to run a membership/integrated lookup in order to verify whether the name was in fact in PC+. He got an error stating he did not have enough permissions.

I went to another computer and set the next envelope number for the contributor, then returned to have him re-enter the check.

Could/should this have been done differently with the data entry person having the ability to set an envelope number to an existing entity in PC?

Too many words for a Monday! Oh, its Tuesday.

Jeff

[Zaphod]

I think you should have been able to use the Add Contributor function, but that's only on the Enter Contributions screen, not the Check Reader screen. You could have added this person there, and you would have gotten the warning that he already exists. Then, you could have edited the record to add an envelope number.

All that can be done with CO Data Entry only permissions.

Maybe the solution is to add 'Add Contributor' to the Check Reader screen?

[jeffkoke]

Sold!!

Not being in front of the system, I can not recall all of what is where.

I'll vote for it.

Thanks for the quick reply.

Jeff

[NeilZ]

I agree ... our current workaround is that we told our counters is that if a new check account comes in, and the person cannot be found on the current contributor's list, hold the check for manual entry (Enter Contributions) before you run the envelopes.

Another thing I tell them is to only enter the last name of the contributor. Many a time we've seen with new visitors, the wife's name on this week's check, but the husband gave a check the week before and the envelope number is in his name. If they didn't sign our Friendship Pad, all we have is the one name, so the entry person adds the wife as a new contributor.

With the last name entered only, we can see a matching last name with the same address, and we can marry them up, so to speak.

[jeffkoke]

With the last name entered only, we can see a matching last name with the same address, and we can marry them up, so to speak.

Hmm, I didn't think we had that authority!

Jeff

[Tracy]

I'm confused, and need you to check this for me.

Data Entry scans a check, the New Check dialog pops up, If the individual can not be found, and the Locate is canceled out of, isn't there a Add contributor: there to handle this?

[jeffkoke]

I'm confused, and need you to check this for me.

Data Entry scans a check, the New Check dialog pops up, If the individual can not be found, and the Locate is canceled out of, isn't there a Add contributor: there to handle this?

Yes, there is...and when the person doing the counting that week is a "contributions only" data entry account, they dutifully create a new person/entry into PC and we then have a duplicate entry: one with an envelope number (that was just created) and the original that did not have an envelope number assigned (because they can't "access" the profile).

The problem is that if a profile exists without an envelope number assigned, the data entry only can not access the membership module, select the profile and then assign the next envelope number.

Make sense? Is there a better way now that v9 is out?

Jeff

[Tracy]

Logged in as a Data Entry Only, I am able to see and update a profile that has an Envelope number of 0 inside this Add Contributor assistant. I found the contributor using the method NeilZ explained directly from the New Check dialog, not needing to go to the Enter Contributions screen.

When your contribution entry individual clicks the Add contributor button, something might be typed slightly different, OR the dialog Add, Edit, Cancel appears and they hit Add.

Consider this: If the user chooses Edit, and can not find the person and address, then click the Back button, Next Button then the Add Button. Yes, it is a little more time consuming. Perhaps putting this off to the side for someone else to find and validate through the Check Reader as NeilZ suggested is another option to help keep the flow going.

This was available in PC+ 8.5 when the Check Reader screen was introduced.

[jeffkoke]

Hmm, ok, I'll certainly have a look.

If our process is flawed (and it sounds like it is), I'm much appreciative of your attention and recommendations.

Jeff