I'd like to request the ability to delete an organization entirely, even if the organization had an application previously. I am unable to permanently delete the organization, even though the request has been deleted because the system still thinks there is an application attached to that organization. We have several organizations that began requests but have either left them blank or partially filled in. I've deleted the requests but would like to delete the organizations altogether as they are not eligible for our grants and will not be able to apply.

When viewing the PDF of the application packet, it is not easy on the eyes. The text that accompanies each application question is not easily discernible from the answer. It is difficult to read through quickly. It would be great to see someone with an eye for clean design to edit the fonts and layout of the application packet and any other PDF reports.

Currently, the application packet is super long. It would be so much better if the packet only printed out the sections for which the applicant provided an answer.

Right now it seems like there isn't a way for applicants to see their completed follow ups/final reports from previous grants by other users from their organization. Under Organization History, only the application is available. New grantwriters with an organization want to be able to see how previous final reports were filled out or how a project turned out.

Most of our requests/grants have more than one contact. I understand why there is only one log-in, but it would be great if we could link additional contacts to a request or at least be able to list them on the Request Summary. Currently, we have added questions to the application, but have to open the application to view the additional contacts.

Currently, there is only an option to select site visit, board summary, correspondence, and other document types in the Request Documents section on the Request Summary. It would be great if we could either customize that list to meet our specific needs, or be able to add a couple more types. Common documents we would use are project modification, revised budget, returned grant funds. We currently use "Other", but I think adding a couple more options provides consistency in data entry.

It would be great to be able to view some additional information on the Request Summary, specifically the project start and end date, and the total grant award. Ideally, it would be able to customize that form to our needs. Program staff don't want to have to open the application to find that information and would prefer to have it on the Request Summary.

Alerts/reminders would be a helpful administrator tool. For example, I need to take an action on a grant in September 2018 and
would like to record this in GLM. It would be very helpful if I could set reminders for specific dates and then have pop-ups when I log-in to notify me that my reminder deadline is approaching. Thank you for your consideration.
Kelly

When an applicant returns to the application to resume work, the groups of questions could be collapsed and if all questions within the group are complete - the group could be flagged (with a check or a color change). Or, have an option to allow the admins to create the applications in pages, which can be flagged as complete when all questions are filled in on that page.

So this probably only occurred to me because I just copied a follow up TEN times... not sure many folks will have encountered this. In any case, when you create a follow up, there are six automatic email selections to decide on (even if "not using" is your decision). I found it tedious to have to select the six emails ten times (sixty drop-down menus), so I was wondering if it would be possible when copying a follow up, to have the automatic email selections default to the original follow up's selections?

I would really love to see a more efficient way to do in-line evaluation - such that the reviewer can read the entire application (including uploaded documents) and score at the same time. There is currently a way to insert "shared questions" into the evaluation form... but it is incomplete and does not include uploaded documents. Pretty please??? Thank you!!

It would be helpful if a report could include uploaded request documents. We have to upload a source document to every grant request, so we want to be able to run a report to identify any requests missing a document.

I am running serial reports on a follow up in batches as they are reviewed and marked complete. It would be nice to be able to filter these reports by the approval date. Right now I can only sort by initial submit date or date modified. If the report was modified after submission by one our administrators - for instance if we had to contact the grantee for additional information, that date effects our ability to run serial reports based on the last report run. Simple solution - add date completed for follow ups.

Hi- not sure if others have requested this but any possible
way you guys can add a "withdrawn" option just like:
"Denied", "Abandoned" and "Approved". Thank you!

When making questions in forms, it would be helpful to be able to move the dialogue box that pops up in order to read information on the form behind it. I am frequently wanting to see the wording of other questions on the form while developing new questions. I work around this by printing the question list as PDF but it would be easier to just be able to move the box. Thanks for considering.

We had a thought that the system should be able to automatically send emails at the approval and denial stages in granting. My thoughts are that we could setup a template that uses merged fields to email applicants whether they are approved or denied. Thoughts?

Hello! We recently moved a number of applications into "Denial Draft" and then, a few weeks later, into "Deny." It appears Foundant records their denial dates as the dates they were moved into "Denial Draft." Would it be possible to change that so that denial dates are the dates they are formally and finally denied? It would more accurately reflect our decision-making process.Thanks!Bob Hybben

We noticed that when an applicant adds a third-party e-mail address and then composes e-mail, the third-party receives an e-mail from "administrator" (of the site) (or in our case, my name) versus the name of the applicant. I would suggest the applicant be able to add their e-mail address as the "from" as well as the third-party e-mail address as the "to."

Is there a way to limit the viewing capabilities of the Board members or other evaluators other than Administrators in seeing Archived Processes? I wish that the Admin was the only one who could view the archived processes. I see this as an opportunity for Board members and other evaluators to get lost in old processes while looking for current info. Thanks!