Agreed. We are getting a lot of "duplicate" addresses with incorrect formatting according to USPS standards. For example, the current system does not recognize that "Drive" is actually the same as "Dr" and so it adds a "new" address to the constituent's record. We also find that for every new constituent created automatically because of first-time gifts through BBMS, we have to manually correct the address format to match the USPS standards. This is a waste of time for us and it does not promote good data integrity since it relies on manual processes rather than pulling the correct address format to begin with.

Our current process is to have to go into database view to run these addresses through the Address Accelerator there before being able to export them to send to our mailing partner. This is an extra step that would have already been done from a database side that NXT bypasses because it doesn't use that architecture. This can cost us money with returned postage! Please add this as something to be worked on so that the old system is truly "unified" to the new.

Can I vote for this more than once? It seems like an old-technology problem, not a feature of the new Unified view that you're trying to get us excited about.

It was embarrassing - for Blackbaud - this summer when I was helping to onboard a new client. The implementation consultant led us through a demonstration of online giving and my address was not found in the drop-down. It created a very clunky experience for me acting as the donor and I'm sure it raised some red flags for the new customer. This should be an easy fix.

I came to add this to the idea bank and am so glad to see this idea already here and so clearly described by Carlene. Consistency throughout the address entry points is critical. When using event registration forms and RENXT standard donation forms, donors are using the suggested addresses. We then must manually correct to match the USPS standard format that is used for manual address entry inside RENXT (which is our preferred format). Additionally, we find that donors are frequently NOT including their apartment or suite number on the registration and standard online giving forms because they simply select the offered address from the verification. This makes future postal delivery to those donors very difficult.

This would be such an upgrade from current functionality and important for future functionality as we move to Unified View.

This is absolutely necessary. Standardizing and validating USPS addresses helps avoid mailing to a residence that requires a unit/apartment number and helps to identify and eliminate mailings to the same address.

Postal addresses are so very important when mailing solicitations, thank you letters, etc. We have to validate all our addresses with the USPS system so it only makes sense that the addresses being pulled in are CASS certified.
Also, for us, leaving out apartment building numbers only makes our returned mail count that much higher. Please make this happen.

{"children":[{"type":"paragraph","children":[{"text":"This seems to especiallybe am issue when there is a secondary addresses (apartment, suite, unit, etc). With so much more automation at the post office these days, the things that used to make it through to the local level where the local carriers would recognize the name and deliver the item, nowadays get rejected at the regional level because it's not an exact match to what's in their computers. "}]}]}

This is essential as we start trying to use NXT. Right now any new address that is entered either through manual entry or an online form we have to log into DBV so it can be run through address finder and standardized.

{"children":[{"type":"paragraph","children":[{"text":"This would be so helpful!"}]}]}