This is a major issue! Please address quickly!

this is necessary in order to move address change procedures into NXT for our shop. this, and better shared addresses functionality.

I want to emphasize that this isn't just a data quality inconvenience. This tool is actively making our data less accurate at the point of entry.

Blackbaud is placing significant emphasis on data hygiene as a foundation for AI initiatives, and this issue works directly against that goal. When a donor or registrant enters their address and the geolocation autocomplete strips out the apartment number or secondary address line, we end up with a less complete address than what we already had on file.

With the rollout of Common Record Engine, this problem will become significantly more serious. We will now see situations where data in Blackbaud Education Management is being overwritten with less accurate data from RE — because a new address was added via the autocomplete tool that is missing the apartment number, even though the existing record already had the complete address with that information intact.

In other words, Blackbaud's own tools are now overwriting good data with bad data. That is the opposite of data hygiene.

The solution starts with replacing the geolocation autocomplete with a true postal validation API — something like Smarty — that validates and standardizes addresses at the point of entry, preserving secondary address information and meeting USPS standards.

However, fixing the point of entry alone is not sufficient. Online Data Review also needs significant improvement to handle situations where an incoming address is similar but not identical to an existing address on the record. I have commented on the existing ODR idea (RENXT-I-8625) with additional context on how these two issues are connected and should be addressed in tandem.

The auto completes are very frustrating, and do not line up with standardized address information here in Canada for CanadaPost. They also have issues with things like apartment and unit numbers- living in a townhouse complex, my address is not shown as an option. Meanwhile, we have our addresses correctly formatted as per data standards, and AddressAccelerator runs in our database, and risk incorrect or incomplete data overwriting these addresses due to this.

A definite need when radius search is pulling in records from other states based on similar street or town name. SD is not near town VA, nor is MI.

This is so huge!!! It also really helps when needing to de-dupe something by address to have all the addresses standardized

I have been painstakingly adding the zip plus four codes to RE7 for the last few years. We went live with NXT in January, and it is very frustrating when the geolocator undoes my hard work by not including a plus four zip code in addresses. It would be wonderful to not have to go the USPS website every time I add or update an address.

Please also do this for the new and planned forms, like Constituent or Membership!

Highly agree. Mapping vs. Postal is definitely not the same!

This would be invaluable as far as accuracy, data integrity and user experience.

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.