How Should We Structure Custom Objects for Memberships, Grants, or Programs?

Start with the Lifecycle

A useful way to think about custom objects is simple: if something has a lifecycle, it should have its own place in your data model. Memberships, grants, and programs all move through defined stages, whether that’s enrollment, awarding, or renewal.

Trying to track these within standard contact or deal records often leads to scattered data and limited visibility. By giving each of these processes its own object, you can manage status and timelines in a structured way while still connecting everything back to donors and organizations.

Structuring Memberships

Memberships work best as a dedicated object that captures the full lifecycle of a member relationship. This allows teams to manage changes like tier upgrades or renewals without losing historical context.

Key properties often include:

• Term or duration
• Tier or level (e.g., individual, patron, lifetime)
• Status (active, expired, pending renewal)
• Start and end dates
• Renewal timing or eligibility

Membership records are usually associated with both the individual and, when relevant, an organization. This makes it easier to track participation and understand how membership fits into broader engagement over time.

Structuring Grants and Deliverables

Grants are often more complex because they involve funding, reporting requirements, and deadlines. A single grant award typically spans years and requires tracking internal ownership alongside external obligations.

A common approach is to create:

• A Grant object to track the overall award and restrictions
• A related Deliverables object to track reporting schedules, milestones, and obligations

By separating the grant from its deliverables, teams can track reporting progress in detail without losing sight of the overall funding relationship or the internal accountability required to execute the work.

Structuring Programs and Services Delivered

Programs often involve multiple touchpoints and measurable outcomes that are difficult to track within a single record. Without a clear structure, participation data ends up buried in notes, making it impossible to report on impact.

A more effective approach includes:

• A Program object to represent the initiative
• A Services Delivered object to track specific participation, outcomes, or activities

With this setup, organizations can tie program impact directly to fundraising. You can see which donors participate in which programs and how program-level performance aligns with specific funding sources.

How Structured Data Protects Your Reporting

When memberships, grants, and programs are modeled as their own objects, teams can manage each process according to its real-world timeline. Without this structure, teams often work from slightly different views of the same information, leading to gaps between development, finance, and program staff.

With a clear model in place:

• Each process has its own lifecycle, status, and timeline
• Relationships between people, funding, and programs are easier to follow
• Reporting becomes more consistent and easier to maintain

As organizations scale, this structure allows renewals and program delivery to happen in parallel, giving teams a clearer view of both activity and impact without relying on manual reconciliation.

Learn More About Structuring Nonprofit Data