Products A-Z All Services Can't find what you're looking for? Chat Live!
Products A-Z Can't find what you're looking for? Chat Live!
Can't find what you're looking for? Chat Live!
Hi all, I am looking for a way to search constituent records for relationship names. For example if Steve Shreve is a contact on a relationship but not his own record. I also have this issue searching contacts on organization records. I am sure there is a simple way, but...? I know I can create a query but this seems clunky to do every time, unless I can streamline it somehow with a shortcut that I can quickly plug in a name.
Also, I'm sure this is too much to ask, but it would be wonderful to search all fields for specified text. Like if I am unsure if someone is constituent, relationship, org contact, just ask it to search any field for Shreve. This isn't possible, is it?
Maybe I'm not getting what you're going for at all... If you want to see all the records with a relationship to Steve Shreve, have you tried just entering his name on the open constituent screen? It seems to bring up all records with that name linked for me. Just have check boxes at the bottom checked. (Maybe limited to individuals identified as a contact for the org - but most of our are contacts.)
Are you looking at doing this for specific people or attempting a major database cleanup?
If I understand your question, wouldn't the "Check contact name" checkbox on the search window find Steve?
Do you mean before you add a new constituent?
If that's what you mean this is very clunky in RE. It will search for non-constituent records (IND & ORG) when you go through the relationship tab, but not in a regular "open constituent" search.
So in essence, if you are adding a relationship to a person who is a nonconst. on another record (someone's spouse for example) you could check the box to also search for non consts. but you can't do this in a regular search.
A cheat is to go to the relationship (if you know it exists) and do the whole "make relationship a constituent" route.
Would be great if RE would just have another checkbox on the main search screen to "Search for nonconsituent relationships". Done, end of story?
Gina Gerhard: Would be great if RE would just have another checkbox on the main search screen to "Search for nonconsituent relationships". Done, end of story?
Awww. You're cute.
If only anything were that simple.
Hi, sorry to be unclear, and yes you are correct about searching with the "check contact name" box checked... Duh, I forgot, that does work for org's contacts.
However what I want also is to search for spouses who are already set up under relationship but don't have their own constituent records. So if the main record is Sarah Shreve but the spouse under relationship is Steve Shreve, but I don't want to make him his own constituent record, isn't there some way to search for him? I read something about doing this with a query, can't remember where I read that but maybe in a forum, but I'm not sure how to do it.
Thanks for your help so far!
Raiser's Edge 7.92 will have the ability to search by spouse name:
https://www.blackbaud.com/files/support/guides/re7/walkthru/new792/constit.htm
Due out soon.
Meanwhile, yes, you can pull the info by query. Criteria: Spouse relationship not blank, etc. Output the names. (Sorry not in RE right now but fairly basic). If you're going to be doing this for a lot of records (looking for non-constit relationships) you may want to keep the query and then just open it, use binoculars to look for particular name.)
Amy - the check spouse name checkbox in search allows you to put in the spouse's name and get the record where that spouse record lives.
So, spouses and contacts you have a checkbox for. I do see a great need, however to be able to search all non-constituent relatonships - not just spouses and contacts. Is this what will be available in 7.92?
No, same old same old.
I saw in one of the BBCON presentations that they were considering a "check relationship" box, but that it was giving them problems. Can't find the screen shot though.
Great, thanks for the help!