In today’s fragmented nonprofit data environment, donor information is spread across CRMs, digital platforms, and third‑party tools. As a result, identity resolution has become essential to effective direct response.

As fundraising data is spread across systems, each captures only a partial version of the donor relationship, and that introduces the risk of bad data. Modern fundraising works by smart segmenting, and that requires trust.

The Heller Donor Data Hub includes a proprietary identity resolution capability designed specifically for nonprofit fundraising data. Unlike generic matching tools or CRM features, this functionality is purpose-built to address the realities of nonprofit data, where records are often incomplete, identities evolve over time, and donors engage across channels.

Identity resolution is a core function that enables accurate segmentation, coordinated campaigns, and consistent use of data across mail and digital fundraising efforts. Here’s how it works.

Step 1: Ingest data from all sources

Effective identity resolution begins by bringing data together. The Donor Data Hub ingests donor data from across an organization’s full ecosystem, including CRMs, online giving systems, email platforms, event tools, spreadsheets, and other fundraising data sources. Each of these systems typically tells only part of the story, often using different identifiers, formats, and naming conventions.

Digital fundraising systems, in particular, make things more complex. Donors may give online using shared email addresses, submit forms with incomplete information, or interact anonymously before (and after) being tied to an existing record. Our tool is designed to ingest multiple sources simultaneously, not as one‑off imports, so identity decisions are informed by the complete fundraising context rather than isolated data points.

Step 2: Standardize and normalize donor information

Before records can be matched, donor data must be consistent. The engine standardizes and normalizes key fundraising fields, including names and nicknames, addresses and household information, email and phone formats, and giving history across channels. This process ensures that variations in formatting or data entry do not prevent meaningful connections between records.

For organizations running both direct mail and digital campaigns, normalization plays a critical role in aligning data generated at different speeds and through different tools. Online giving, email engagement, and event registrations often arrive with less structure than traditional mail data. The data is first normalized, then the identity resolution logic is applied.

Step 3: Apply nonprofit‑specific matching logic

Our identity resolution algorithm does not rely on a single identifier or simple exact‑match rules, it uses proprietary, nonprofit‑specific matching logic designed to balance accuracy with scale.

This logic combines deterministic signals, such as exact or near‑exact matches, with probabilistic signals that strongly suggest related records. It also incorporates context from giving behavior and historical relationships, including patterns that span direct mail and digital engagement.

This layered approach allows the platform to confidently connect records that belong together while avoiding over‑matching that could corrupt donor history, householding, or suppression logic. The goal is not just to match records, but to do so in a way that supports reliable fundraising outcomes.

Step 4: Create a unified donor and household view

Once records are resolved, the Donor Data Hub produces a single, reliable view of each donor and household, even when data originates from many systems. This unified view becomes the shared foundation for both mail and digital execution.

For fundraising teams, that foundation supports accurate householding for direct mail, correct giving totals and recency metrics across channels, consistent segmentation for coordinated campaigns, and dependable suppression and deduplication. It can work with, or function as, an organization’s primary CRM. The Donor Data Hub functions as an infrastructure layer, ensuring that every downstream system receives clean, consistent, and trustworthy data.

Step 5: Maintain accuracy over time

Identity resolution is not a one‑time cleanup exercise.
As new data flows into the Donor Data Hub—through online gifts, email engagement, event participation, acquisition lists, and ongoing fundraising activity—the same proprietary identity resolution logic is continuously applied. This ongoing process ensures that donor relationships remain consistent as data changes over time.

For organizations running frequent digital campaigns alongside regular mail drops, this continuity reduces the need for manual reconciliation and repeated list rebuilding. Identity resolution operates as an always‑on function of the data hub, helping mail and digital programs stay aligned as fundraising activity evolves.

Why this matters for direct response fundraising

When identity resolution is handled well, its impact is felt across fundraising programs. Organizations see fewer duplicate mail pieces, more accurate householding, cleaner suppression across channels, and greater consistency between mail and email audiences. Campaign teams gain confidence in their segments and spend less time resolving discrepancies in the final stages before deployment.

The result is not just operational efficiency, but stronger coordination between direct mail and digital fundraising efforts, supported by data that can be trusted across systems and partners.

Built for fundraising reality—and backed by experts

The identity resolution capability within the Donor Data Hub is purpose built for nonprofit fundraising data and supported by Heller Consulting’s expert team. That combination matters because successful identity resolution requires both sophisticated logic and a deep understanding of how donor data is actually used in real campaigns.

Rather than relying on algorithms alone, organizations benefit from a system designed with direct response and digital fundraising in mind, supported by practitioners who understand the stakes of data quality at campaign launch. The result is donor data that can be trusted when it matters most—whether preparing a mail file, deploying an email campaign, or coordinating activity across channels.

>> Learn more about the Donor Data Hub and get a demo.

The post How identity resolution works for nonprofit data matching appeared first on Heller Consulting.

Toys for Tots

Donor Data Hub client

Toys for Tots is a national nonprofit organization best known for its annual toy drive, which distributes toys to children and families in need during the holiday season. The program is supported by a large network of local chapters and volunteers operating across communities nationwide.

To sustain this work year after year, the organization relies on broad donor support and long‑running fundraising efforts that must be managed consistently and accurately across a complex, distributed operation.

The post Toys for Tots Donor Data Hub Case Study appeared first on Heller Consulting.

Sustainable Cities Fund

Agentforce for Nonprofits Implementation

The Sustainable Cities Fund is a national philanthropic organization focused on advancing equitable, climate‑forward solutions in cities across the United States. Through re‑granting and strategic investments, SCF supports local partners working at the intersection of sustainability, infrastructure, and community impact. To do this effectively, the Fund must manage complex grantmaking programs, multifaceted constituent relationships, and outcomes data across cities and initiatives.

As the Fund’s programs expanded, its technology needed to do more than store data—it needed to support how grantmaking actually works.

The post Sustainable Cities Fund Agentforce Nonprofit Implementation appeared first on Heller Consulting.

Build a data-ready culture in 2026

AI is not optional for nonprofits but it only works if your data is trustworthy, governed, and usable. This guide shows how to strengthen your data foundation so AI supports your mission instead of introducing risk.

Grounded in Heller Consulting’s work with mission‑driven organizations, this practical resource walks through what data readiness really means in 2026—and how to get there without overengineering or burning out your team.

Why data readiness matters now

The fundamentals of good data management haven’t changed. The stakes have.
Poor data wastes staff time, erodes trust, and undermines reporting. In an AI‑powered environment, it also creates real risk—from unreliable predictions to privacy and governance failures. Strong data practices do more than improve accuracy and compliance—they enable responsible, effective use of AI.
This guide helps nonprofits move from ad hoc data management to a durable, organization‑wide data culture.

Who this guide is for

This resource is designed for nonprofit leaders and teams who are responsible for:

• Fundraising, advancement, or development operations
• Programs and service delivery
• Data, analytics, or CRM administration
• Technology strategy or digital transformation
• Exploring or piloting AI tools responsibly

If your organization is feeling pressure to “do something with AI” but knows your data isn’t quite ready, this guide is for you.

A practical approach with no hype, no shortcuts

Data readiness isn’t about buying more tools. It’s about clarity, consistency, and shared responsibility.

You’ll learn how to focus on high‑value data, build sustainable governance habits, and introduce AI deliberately—with guardrails, human oversight, and mission alignment at the center. The goal isn’t experimentation for its own sake—it’s trust, efficiency, and better decision‑making.

Inside this Guide​

• Create clear ownership and accountability for data

• Identify and prioritize the data that actually matters
  Improve data quality without chasing perfection

• Break down silos where shared data drives better outcomes

• Establish realistic data retention and deletion policies

• Prepare your people and systems for responsible AI use

• Each section includes real‑world examples and concrete steps you can take this quarter, rather than abstract theory.

The post Data & AI Strategy for Nonprofits appeared first on Heller Consulting.

Data 360, formerly called Salesforce Data Cloud, isn’t just another object model or add‑on. It doesn’t behave like core Salesforce data, and it doesn’t solve problems on its own. What it does offer nonprofits, when implemented well, is something they’ve struggled to achieve for years: a genuinely unified view of people, activity, and engagement across systems. 

That promise is real—but it depends entirely on foundation, clarity, and intent.

What makes Data 360 different 

One of the most important things to understand about Data 360 is that it doesn’t replace your existing Salesforce data model. It sits alongside it. It sits alongside it. 

The platform is designed to ingest data from multiple sources, apply unification rules, and resolve those records into a single, persistent identity behind the scenes. Sources are frequently multiple Salesforce instances, cloud storage, and marketing platforms. When it works well, users don’t see the complexity. They see one person, one organization, one history—regardless of how many systems originally contributed data. 

In practice, that means records, while still stored separately in their own systems—an alum record here, a donor record there, an event attendee somewhere else—can be recognized as the same individual through defined matching logic. A set of unification rules does the heavy lifting in the background, allowing Salesforce to present a cleaner, more trustworthy picture in the foreground. 

For nonprofits that have lived with duplication and fragmentation for decades, this is a meaningful shift. 

Foundation matters more than features 

Data 360 becomes easier to understand once you’re inside it—but getting there requires preparation. Firstly, you need to understand your data model. Working with Data 360 requires you to know what your systems contain, how fields relate to one another, and where the truth actually resides. Without that clarity, unification becomes guesswork, and guesswork at scale is risky. 

This is why it projects succeed or fail long before configuration begins. The hard work is not technical wizardry. It’s the data governance decisions, and agreement on what should and should not be brought into Data 360. 

For nonprofits, this often means answering difficult questions upfront: Which systems are authoritative? What data is good enough to unify? Where are the gaps we should acknowledge instead of masking? 

Moving from analysis to action 

Salesforce often describes Data 360 in phases—analyze and act among them—but what matters most for nonprofits is what comes after unification. 

Once data is unified, it becomes far more usable. Engagement patterns are easier to see. Relationships are clearer. Downstream tools—reporting, segmentation, automation, and eventually AI—have a more reliable foundation to work from. 

But it does not make those decisions for you. It creates the conditions where acting on data becomes possible, not inevitable. 

This is where intentional design matters. Unified data should serve a purpose, whether that’s improving donor experience, supporting fundraising strategy, or reducing internal friction. Without a clear use case, Data 360 risks becoming an impressive but underused asset. 

Enablement and learning are part of the work 

Data 360 is not something teams “set and forget.” Salesforce continues to evolve it, rename it, and expand its capabilities. Keeping up requires active learning. 

Salesforce provides extensive enablement resources, from Trailhead to communities, Slack channels, office hours, and planning documentation. These resources exist for a reason: Data 360 touches architecture, data governance, and long‑term strategy, not just configuration.

Heller Consulting invests in this enablement so our teams can help nonprofits navigate Data 360 with confidence—not just implement it, but explain it, test it, and adapt it as needs evolve. 

How we help nonprofits approach their data responsibly 

We don’t start Data 360 conversations with technology. We start with readiness. 

That means helping nonprofits understand their current data landscape, clarifying goals, and determining whether Data 360 is the right next step—or whether foundational work should come first. In many cases, that foundational work is what makes the cloud viable later. 

When nonprofits are ready, we help design unification logic that reflects reality, not wishful thinking. We support testing and documentation, so organizations understand how their data is being resolved. And we help teams connect unified data back to real outcomes, rather than treating Data 360 as an abstract platform investment. 

Most importantly, we stay grounded. The platform is powerful, but it is not magical. Its value comes from thoughtful planning, strong data practices, and a clear sense of purpose. 

A practical step forward 

For nonprofits that have struggled with fragmented data, Data 360 represents a real opportunity—but only if approached with care. 

With the right foundation, the right partners, and the right expectations, Data 360 can help organizations finally see their constituents more clearly and act more intentionally. That’s not about chasing the newest Salesforce feature. It’s about building data confidence that lasts. 

Heller Consulting helps nonprofits do exactly that—one carefully and well‑designed step at a time. 

The post How nonprofits can put the Salesforce data cloud to work appeared first on Heller Consulting.

This article outlines what is meant by product and platform in a general, non‑marketing sense, and why the difference matters from an operational and architectural standpoint.

What we mean by a product

A product is a point solution designed to address a specific operational need. Examples include tools for email marketing, online donations, event registration, or reporting. Each product typically has a defined scope and a clear set of features aligned to a particular use case.

Raiser’s Edge is a product because it is a purpose‑built fundraising application with defined features, workflows, and data structures controlled by the vendor. While it can be extended through APIs and connectors, those extensions are designed to enhance the core application rather than serve as a foundation for building many different systems. In other words, it solves a specific set of fundraising and constituent‑management needs, but it does not function as a general‑purpose technology layer.

Products tend to be opinionated. The vendor determines how functionality works, how data is structured, and how enhancements are prioritized. This is often an advantage: when a product is well chosen, users can be confident that it will do the job it was designed to do with relatively little configuration.

Because products are self‑contained, they are usually easier to deploy and maintain. Ongoing support, upgrades, and security are largely handled by the vendor, which reduces the burden on internal teams. Training materials and documentation are typically focused on helping users work within established workflows rather than designing new ones.

The tradeoff is flexibility. When an organization’s needs extend beyond what the product was built to support, options are limited. New requirements may require additional products, custom integrations, or waiting for changes to appear on the vendor’s roadmap. Over time, a collection of well‑chosen products can still result in a complex ecosystem with many integration points and data handoffs.

What we mean by a platform

A platform is a foundational technology layer on top of which many solutions can be built, configured, or connected. Platforms provide core services—such as data models, identity management, workflow engines, and APIs—that enable organizations to assemble systems tailored to their specific needs.

Salesforce is a great example of a platform, because it provides a foundation rather than a single function. It includes a data model, security, workflow tools, APIs, and extension points that allow many different solutions to be built or connected on top of it. Donation tracking, email automation, reporting, and integrations can all exist within—or be tightly connected to—the same underlying system, shaped by configuration and custom logic rather than fixed features.

Rather than solving a single problem, a platform creates an environment where problems can be solved in multiple ways. New capabilities are often added by extending the data model, configuring automations, or integrating additional components rather than introducing an entirely separate tool.

Platforms are typically more expensive and more complex to implement than individual products. They require architectural decisions, governance, and ongoing administration. As a result, they demand greater technical skill—either within the organization or through external support.

The benefit is control. Platforms allow functionality to be driven more directly by organizational requirements than by a vendor’s release cycle. Changes can often be made incrementally, and systems can evolve over time without needing to be replaced wholesale. For organizations with diverse or changing needs, this adaptability can outweigh the added complexity.

The in-betweeners

Managed packages on a platform

Some tools sit between products and platforms by being products built on top of a platform. Kindsight Ascend is a managed package on Salesforce: it delivers a defined fundraising application with pre‑built data models and workflows, while relying on Salesforce for core services like security, automation, and APIs. Ascend is not a platform itself, but it inherits the flexibility of one—allowing organizations to extend or integrate beyond the packaged functionality when needed.

Platform‑leaning products

Blackbaud CRM also occupies this middle ground. It offers far more configurability and extensibility than point solutions like Raiser’s Edge, including APIs and developer tooling, which makes it suitable for complex environments. At the same time, it remains a vendor‑controlled system, with core architecture and roadmap defined by Blackbaud. As a result, it behaves less like a general‑purpose platform and more like a highly extensible product.

Control, responsibility, and ownership

One of the clearest distinctions between products and platforms is where control resides.

With products, control largely sits with the vendor. The vendor defines how the product works, how data is handled internally, and when enhancements are delivered. The organization’s responsibility is to use the product as intended and to adapt its processes accordingly.

With platforms, control shifts toward the organization. Decisions about data structures, integrations, automations, and user experience are more directly influenced by internal priorities. This also means greater responsibility: platforms require active stewardship to remain coherent, secure, and usable over time.

This difference in ownership has practical implications. Product‑based approaches tend to minimize internal overhead but constrain customization. Platform‑based approaches maximize flexibility but require sustained investment in skills, governance, and support.

Implications for system architecture

Choosing products versus platforms is not simply a software preference—it is an architectural decision.

Product‑centric architectures often consist of multiple specialized tools connected through integrations. Each system is optimized for its purpose, but the overall ecosystem can become brittle if integrations are poorly designed or insufficiently monitored.

Platform‑centric architectures emphasize a shared data layer and common services. Integrations still exist, but they are often fewer, more standardized, and more tightly governed. This can improve data consistency and reduce duplication, but it also increases the importance of design decisions made early in the platform’s lifecycle.

In practice, most real‑world environments blend both approaches. Platforms frequently rely on products for specialized capabilities, and products increasingly expose APIs that allow them to function as components within a broader platform strategy. The distinction is less about exclusivity and more about which approach serves as the architectural anchor.

Operational considerations

The product‑versus‑platform decision also shapes how teams work day to day.

Product‑oriented environments typically emphasize user adoption and vendor support. Training focuses on how to use features effectively, and system changes are often event‑driven—new versions, new modules, or new add‑ons.

Platform‑oriented environments emphasize system literacy. Teams need to understand how data flows, how automations are triggered, and how changes in one area affect others. Documentation, change management, and internal enablement become ongoing operational activities rather than one‑time efforts.

Staffing models often differ as well. Platforms tend to benefit from dedicated system administration or technical roles, while product‑based environments may rely more heavily on vendor support and lighter internal ownership.

Cost over time

Initial cost comparisons between products and platforms can be misleading. Products are often cheaper to deploy, while platforms require more upfront investment in configuration and design.

Over time, however, cost trajectories may diverge. Product ecosystems can become more expensive as additional tools are added and integration complexity grows. Platform environments may stabilize once core capabilities are established, particularly if new requirements can be met through configuration rather than procurement.

Neither model is inherently more cost‑effective. The relevant question is how costs align with an organization’s capacity to manage complexity and change.

A framework, not a rule

The distinction between products and platforms is best understood as a lens, not a prescription. It helps clarify tradeoffs related to flexibility, control, responsibility, and long‑term evolution, but it does not dictate a single “right” answer.

Some organizations benefit from the focus and simplicity of well‑chosen products. Others benefit from the adaptability and coherence of a platform‑centered approach. Many find value in combining both—using platforms for core systems of record and products for specialized functions.

What matters most is being explicit about the choice. When teams understand whether they are adopting a product or committing to a platform, expectations around cost, effort, ownership, and outcomes become clearer—and system decisions become easier to evaluate over time.

Distinguishing between platforms and products isn’t about labeling tools as good or bad. It’s about being clear‑eyed about what each type of system is designed to do, where control sits, and how much flexibility an organization is actually buying. When teams blur these distinctions, they often end up with mismatched expectations—assuming a product will behave like a platform, or underestimating the governance and skills required to successfully operate one. Being explicit about these categories helps organizations make decisions that align with their capacity, priorities, and long‑term direction, rather than chasing features or vendor narratives.

Our role at Heller is to help organizations navigate this landscape pragmatically. That means starting with how the organization works today, where it needs to evolve, and what level of ownership it is prepared to take on—then mapping those realities to the right mix of products, managed packages, and platforms. In some cases, that leads to extending an existing product. In others, it means investing in a platform and designing the systems that sit on top of it. The goal is not to push a particular tool, but to help organizations choose technology structures that will hold up over time as their needs, teams, and ambitions change. Get in touch if you need help navigating your CRM options.

The post Product vs platform: How we think about CRMs appeared first on Heller Consulting.

At Heller Consulting, we spend a lot of time helping nonprofits, education institutions, and healthcare organizations navigate these decisions. What follows is a practical way to think about today’s CRM landscape, grounded in what we’re seeing across hundreds of engagements—and in the real tradeoffs that come with each approach. 

The CRM conversation has shifted 

For many organizations, CRM selection used to be a relatively contained decision. You picked a fundraising database, implemented it, and optimized around its feature set. That model is breaking down. 

Today’s teams expect their CRM to support marketing automation, self-service reporting, integrations with finance and programs, flexible security models, and increasingly, AI-enabled workflows. At the same time, data governance, security, and cross-department collaboration have moved from “nice to have” to non-negotiable. 

That’s why the most important distinction in the CRM landscape today isn’t brand or price—it’s product versus platform.

Product CRMs: clear boundaries, faster starts 

Product-based CRMs are built to solve a specific set of problems, most often fundraising. They typically come with predefined functionality, a single vendor responsible for support and updates, and a lower barrier to entry. 

For some organizations, this is exactly the right fit. Product CRMs can make sense when: 

• The CRM will primarily serve one department 

• Customization needs are limited 

• Internal technical capacity is low 

• Speed and cost predictability matter more than flexibility 

The tradeoff is that these systems often have firm boundaries. Access to data can be limited. Integrations may be constrained. And as needs expand—new programs, new engagement models, new reporting requirements—organizations can find themselves working around the system rather than with it. 

In 2026, we’re seeing more organizations reach the ceiling of what product CRMs can reasonably support, particularly as expectations around personalization, analytics, and automation increase. 

Platform CRMs: flexibility with responsibility 

Platform-based CRMs take a fundamentally different approach. Rather than delivering a fixed set of features, platforms provide a highly configurable foundation on which organizations build an ecosystem of tools. 

Examples include enterprise platforms like Salesforce and Microsoft Dynamics 365. These solutions can support fundraising, programs, marketing, service delivery, and analytics in a single, integrated environment. 

The advantages are significant: 

• Deep customization to match real business processes 

• Large ecosystems of interoperable solutions 

• Ongoing investment from platform providers 

• Greater control over data and integrations 

But platforms also shift responsibility. Ownership of the CRM ecosystem sits with the organization, which means success depends on having the right combination of internal skills, governance, and partner support. Implementation effort is higher, and ongoing administration is not optional. 

The organizations that succeed with platforms are the ones that approach them as long-term investments—not just technology projects. 

Platform-powered products: a middle ground 

In response to these dynamics, we’re also seeing the rise of platform-powered products—solutions that offer out-of-the-box functionality built on top of a broader platform, with room to extend over time. 

These options can be appealing for organizations that want a faster start than a fully custom platform build, without locking themselves into a closed product ecosystem. They can provide a clearer implementation path while still preserving future flexibility. 

As with any approach, the details matter. The quality of the underlying platform, the openness of the data model, and the maturity of the partner ecosystem all influence whether this middle ground actually delivers on its promise. 

Sophistication isn’t just about features 

One of the most common mistakes we see is equating CRM sophistication with feature lists or price points. In practice, sophistication is about fit. 

A low- or mid-sophistication product can be the right choice for a focused fundraising team with stable requirements. A highly sophisticated platform can fail if governance, change management, and ownership aren’t in place. 

Before evaluating specific vendors, organizations need to get clear on: 

• Who the CRM is meant to serve 

• Which departments are in scope now—and later 

• How decisions about data, security, and integrations will be made 

• What internal capacity exists for ongoing ownership 

Skipping these conversations often leads to surprises after contracts are signed, when stakeholders realize the system doesn’t align with how the organization actually works. 

Choosing a strategy, not just a system 

In 2026, there is no single “best” CRM. There are only tradeoffs—between speed and flexibility, simplicity and control, short-term cost and long-term adaptability. 

The most successful organizations we work with start by defining their CRM strategy before narrowing their vendor list. They treat CRM selection as part of a broader technology roadmap, grounded in people, processes, and data—not just software. 

That approach doesn’t eliminate complexity, but it does make the landscape navigable. And it leads to decisions that organizations can live with, grow into, and build on for years to come. 

At Heller Consulting, we help organizations cut through the noise and make confident CRM decisions. Our approach starts with understanding your goals, your data realities, and the people who will live in the system every day—not just the features on a demo slide. From there, we guide you through CRM selection with clear requirements, objective comparisons, and an honest assessment of tradeoffs across product and platform options.  

Because we work across Salesforce, Microsoft, Blackbaud, and adjacent tools, our recommendations are grounded in fit—not vendor preference—and designed to set you up for long‑term success, not just a successful go‑live. Get in touch for a consultation. 

The post Making sense of the technology landscape in 2026 appeared first on Heller Consulting.

Here are some core best practices that shape how Heller Consulting approaches every CRM selection engagement.

We start with the work, not the software

Most organizations don’t wake up wanting a new CRM. They arrive at that conclusion after months—or years—of friction: frustrated staff, data that can’t be trusted, systems that don’t talk to one another, and manual workarounds that quietly drain capacity. Rather than jumping straight to vendors, we begin by understanding what isn’t working and why.

That discovery is intentionally broad. We look at user experience, data visibility, integration gaps, governance challenges, and confidence in the current system’s future. Just as importantly, we listen for where work is happening outside the CRM—in spreadsheets, side systems, and inboxes—because that’s often where the real pain lives.

By grounding the conversation in day-to-day realities, we help organizations articulate the true problem they’re trying to solve. Only then does it make sense to evaluate technology.

We anchor decisions to mission and strategy

A CRM selection can easily become a long list of requirements and feature comparisons. Our job is to keep teams oriented toward what matters most. We do that by explicitly tying technology decisions back to organizational goals.

In practice, this means translating mission-level priorities into decision drivers that can guide evaluation. Whether an organization is focused on deepening relationships, expanding reach, improving stewardship, or operating more cohesively across departments, those priorities become a filter for every choice that follows.

This approach does two things at once. It prevents teams from getting distracted by nice-to-have functionality, and it creates a clear line of sight between the CRM investment and organizational outcomes—something leadership and boards need in order to confidently support the work.

We define ‘good’ before looking at options

One of the most effective tools we use during selection is a structured decision-driver exercise. Rather than debating dozens of individual requirements in isolation, we help teams align on a small set of guiding principles that reflect what success truly depends on.

These drivers often include elements like a constituent-centered experience, organization-wide alignment, extensibility for future needs, and strong data integrity. They’re not abstract ideals; they’re practical lenses that help teams evaluate tradeoffs when no solution does everything equally well.

By revisiting these drivers throughout the process, organizations stay grounded in what they agreed mattered most—especially when vendor demos and pricing conversations start to blur the picture.

We bring clarity to a crowded CRM marketplace

The nonprofit CRM landscape is expansive and, at times, overwhelming. To make it more navigable, we frame options in terms of platforms and products.

Platforms—such as Salesforce or Microsoft Dynamics—offer flexibility, scalability, and deep customization, but they also require ownership: internal capacity, governance, and long-term investment.

Products tend to be more opinionated, with defined feature sets and vendor-managed updates, often serving specific functional areas particularly well.

Neither approach is inherently better. What matters is fit. By helping teams understand the implications of each model, we enable more informed conversations about cost, staffing, risk, and sustainability—well before a decision is made.

We look at total cost of ownership, not just licenses

CRM budgets are often underestimated because licensing is only part of the story. A responsible selection process accounts for implementation, data cleanup and migration, integrations, training, change management, ongoing support, storage, and future enhancements.

We encourage organizations to think in terms of total cost of ownership over multiple years. This longer view makes it easier to compare options honestly and to plan for the resources required to make the CRM successful—not just live.

It also opens the door to more strategic conversations about what data is truly actionable, what should be archived elsewhere, and how to avoid paying a premium for complexity that doesn’t advance the mission.

We plan for adoption from day one

A CRM only delivers value if people use it—and trust it. That’s why adoption and change management are not afterthoughts in our selection work. We talk early about how success will be measured, from short-term indicators like login activity and task completion to longer-term signals like data quality, reporting confidence, and operational efficiency.

We also help organizations anticipate the human side of change: new roles, new skills, and new ways of working. Clear expectations, strong executive sponsorship, and ongoing communication all play a role in turning a CRM from a system into shared infrastructure.

We guide the process, not the outcome

Perhaps the most important principle underlying our approach is this: CRM selection is not about finding the “best” tool. It’s about making a decision an organization can stand behind—because it reflects their work, their people, and their priorities.

By combining structured analysis with deep respect for how nonprofits operate, we help teams move forward with confidence. The result isn’t just a technology choice. It’s a foundation that supports better decisions, stronger relationships, and more resilient work over time.

If you’re beginning—or rethinking—your own CRM journey, the right first step isn’t a demo. It’s a conversation about what your organization needs to do next, and what kind of system will truly support that work. Get in touch with our team for a consultation.

The post CRM selection best practices for nonprofits appeared first on Heller Consulting.

Agentforce Nonprofit: a naming change with operational implications

Nonprofit Cloud (NPC) is now Agentforce Nonprofit. While you may still see the former name in parts of the product and documentation, the rebrand reflects Salesforce’s emphasis on agent-driven workflows and AI-assisted operations across the platform. For nonprofit leaders, the takeaway is continuity—not disruption—paired with incremental gains in productivity through embedded agents and standardized platform features.

Fundraising: faster processing and more donor self-service

The latest batch of updates introduce meaningful improvements to gift processing and donor experience. A new Donor Support Agent (currently in beta) allows donors to manage common requests—such as updating recurring gifts—through an Experience Cloud site, reducing routine staff workload while meeting donor expectations for self-service.

On the operations side, gift entry becomes more flexible and scalable. Teams can customize the Gift Entry Grid using templates and Lightning Web Components, add up to 50 designations to a single gift, backdate transactions for commitments, and accurately record in-kind donations using $0 gift transactions. Together, these updates streamline processing, improve data accuracy, and give relationship officers clearer, gift-specific views through dynamic Flexcards in gift planning.

Program and case management: lower barriers with faster delivery

Program teams gain tools that reduce intake friction and speed service delivery. Prospective participants can now browse programs as guest users on Experience Cloud sites, removing login barriers and increasing early engagement. Once they apply, staff can manage intake for one or multiple programs in a single flow, with real-time eligibility checks helping prevent manual rework and enrollment errors.

Mobile attendance tracking enables faster, in-the-moment service capture, while updated data kits support Data 360 readiness—an important step for organizations working toward integrated reporting and outcomes measurement.

Grantmaking: future-forward applications and better completion rates

The Grantmaking updates focus on stability and applicant experience. The new Application Form object is positioned as the path forward, ensuring access to future platform enhancements. Mobile-friendly form components improve usability across devices, and required file attachments help prevent incomplete submissions—reducing follow-up work for staff and delays for applicants.

Volunteer management: smarter matching with less setup

Volunteer coordination benefits from agent-driven assistance and improved data models. A generative AI agent can now help match volunteers to open shifts based on skills, location, and availability, accelerating outreach during critical staffing gaps.

Behind the scenes, new data model objects (DMOs) for Volunteer Management Intelligence simplify integration with Data 360, reducing manual mapping and setup complexity for analytics and reporting.

Expanded object capabilities: consistency across teams

Many core Agentforce Nonprofit objects now support standard Salesforce features such as path, kanban, and calendar views. This brings greater consistency across fundraising, program management, and volunteer workflows—making it easier for teams to adopt best practices without custom workarounds.

What nonprofit leaders should take away

The Spring 2026 release is less about flashy features and more about operational maturity. Salesforce is investing in:

• Reducing administrative overhead through self-service and agents
• Improving data quality at the point of entry
• Making complex workflows easier to scale across teams

For technology and development operations leaders, this is a strong release to evaluate process alignment. Many of the gains come from configuration and adoption—not large-scale reimplementation—making this update particularly relevant for organizations focused on efficiency, governance, and staff sustainability.

The post New Salesforce update pushes automation, ops efficiency appeared first on Heller Consulting.

Unlocking smarter service with AI

ASHRAE AI Roadmap

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) is a global professional association committed to advancing the arts and sciences of heating, ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration, and related systems. ASHRAE develops widely recognized technical standards and guidelines and provides education and certification programs for engineers and industry professionals. Its mission is to serve humanity by promoting sustainable technology and improving indoor environmental quality and energy efficiency.

ASHRAE technology leaders asked Heller to help them clarify where AI could responsibly add value—without risking member trust or intellectual property tied to their Standards. Through a structured AI preparedness assessment and collaborative workshops, we co-created an actionable roadmap to move from exploration to measured incorporation of AI.

The post ASHRAE AI Roadmap appeared first on Heller Consulting.

Data, AI, and Your Nonprofit: Building a Data-Ready Culture in 2026

Here at Heller, we talk a lot about databases—fundraising CRM platforms, engagement systems, donor and program data. We also talk about people, processes, workflows, and workarounds. Last year, I wrote about the bedrock of your fundraising program: data itself. This year, the conversation has only become more urgent, as nonprofits navigate an explosion of AI and automation tools. The fundamentals of good data management haven’t changed, but the stakes (and opportunities) are higher. Robust data practices not only ensure accuracy, security, and regulatory compliance – they also position your organization to leverage AI responsibly for greater impact.

In this guide, we’ll share updated best practices for nonprofit data governance and quality in 2026, grounded in Heller’s recent work with mission-driven organizations and informed by emerging trends in the broader industry. We’ll cover how to foster a culture of data ownership, break down silos (when it makes sense), clean and streamline your data, and prepare your team and technology for an AI-powered future. Along the way, I’ll offer practical steps to get started and real examples (anonymized) of how these practices help nonprofits accelerate their mission.

Table of Contents

Inside this Guide

Get this guide as a podcast

Absorb these insights during your commute or while taking a walk instead: Listen and subscribe to Connected Cause.

LISTEN NOW

Heller Consulting's approach to nonprofit data and AI

Methodology

Our data and AI strategy approach starts with clarity, not tools. We work with you to define ownership, prioritize the data that truly matters, and establish governance practices that make information reliable, usable, and secure. From there, we design a practical roadmap that connects data quality, integration, and analytics to real organizational goals—whether that’s better reporting, smarter segmentation, or preparing for responsible AI use. AI is introduced deliberately and safely, with clear guardrails, human oversight, and an emphasis on augmenting staff decision‑making rather than replacing it.

 

Experience and Perspective

With decades of experience helping mission‑driven organizations manage complex data ecosystems, we understand both the technical and human sides of data and AI adoption. Our consultants combine deep platform knowledge with nonprofit‑specific insight, guiding organizations through data cleanup, integration, analytics foundations, and early AI exploration without creating unnecessary risk. The result is not experimentation for its own sake, but a durable data foundation that supports trust, scales with emerging technology, and enables AI to deliver meaningful, mission‑aligned value.

The post Data, AI, and Your Nonprofit: Building a Data-Ready Culture appeared first on Heller Consulting.

Salesforce approaches moves management as a lifecycle problem rather than a prescriptive workflow, giving nonprofits the flexibility to define how donor relationships progress while providing standard tools to track, plan, and measure those interactions.

How Salesforce defines moves management

Salesforce describes moves management as the process of tracking and advancing donors through stages of engagement, from prospect identification through long‑term stewardship. Conceptually, Salesforce aligns this with a sales funnel: constituents move through defined stages, and every interaction is recorded as part of that journey.

Importantly for IT leaders, Salesforce does not hard‑code a single set of donor stages. Instead, organizations define their own lifecycle stages based on their fundraising strategy and configure Salesforce to reflect those stages using standard objects and fields.

This design choice makes Salesforce adaptable across different fundraising models, including major gifts, annual giving, grants, and hybrid portfolios.

Representing donor “moves” in Salesforce

In Salesforce’s nonprofit solutions, moves management is implemented through a combination of standard CRM components rather than a single feature.

Salesforce uses Opportunities to represent solicitations and expected revenue, Activities (tasks, emails, events, calls) to represent individual moves, and Campaigns to group coordinated outreach efforts. Together, these components create a chronological record of how a donor relationship is progressing.

For organizations using the Nonprofit Success Pack (NPSP), Salesforce also provides Engagement Plans. Engagement Plans allow teams to define a repeatable sequence of tasks tied to a donor or opportunity, so that key follow‑ups and touchpoints are automatically created when a plan is launched.

From an IT perspective, this reduces reliance on external task tools and helps keep institutional knowledge inside the CRM.

Visualizing and managing the solicitation process

Salesforce emphasizes visibility as a core requirement for effective moves management.

Within NPSP, Salesforce uses Opportunity stages to track where a donor or prospect is in the solicitation process. These stages can be visualized using Path and Kanban views, which provide a clear, at‑a‑glance understanding of progress across multiple donors or opportunities.

Path is configurable by record type, meaning organizations can present different guidance and required fields depending on whether the opportunity represents a major gift, a grant, or another fundraising stream. This flexibility allows IT teams to enforce data quality without imposing a one‑size‑fits‑all workflow.

Segmentation and prioritization inside Salesforce

Salesforce positions segmentation as foundational to moves management. Rather than treating all donors the same, organizations are encouraged to identify and group prospects based on engagement, giving history, and potential capacity.

In NPSP, this is supported through rollup fields such as total giving, largest gift, and first gift date, which can be used to build list views, reports, and dashboards for fundraiser portfolios. Salesforce’s guidance emphasizes defining these groupings intentionally before configuring the system, rather than retrofitting logic later.

For IT leaders, this reinforces the importance of clean data models and shared definitions before automation is introduced.

Reporting and accountability

Salesforce frames reporting as an essential part of moves management, not an afterthought.

Because activities, opportunities, and campaigns are all tracked within the same platform, Salesforce enables organizations to report on donor engagement patterns, stage progression, and fundraising outcomes in a single system. This allows leaders to evaluate not just revenue, but whether moves are happening consistently and where donors may be stalling.

For IT teams, this underscores the need to standardize how moves are logged and to ensure required fields and activity tracking are enforced appropriately.

What IT leaders should focus on

Salesforce’s own guidance consistently points to alignment as the critical success factor. Moves management works best when lifecycle stages, opportunity types, and engagement plans are designed in partnership with fundraising teams and reflect real‑world practices.

IT leaders should also prioritize governance. Salesforce provides flexibility, but without clear standards for stage definitions, activity logging, and required data, moves management becomes inconsistent and harder to measure over time.

Salesforce emphasizes training. Many of the platform’s moves‑management capabilities—such as Path, Engagement Plans, and segmentation—require users to understand not just how to click, but why the system is structured the way it is.

Salesforce does not treat moves management as a standalone module. Instead, it provides a set of configurable tools designed to reflect how donor relationships evolve over time.

For IT leaders, the opportunity lies in using that flexibility to create a system that is structured enough to support accountability, yet adaptable enough to match fundraising reality. When implemented thoughtfully, Salesforce becomes more than a database—it becomes the operational backbone of relationship‑driven fundraising.

The post Moves management in Salesforce appeared first on Heller Consulting.