Settings and activity
31 results found
-
2 votes
Ideas
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
shared this idea
·
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Hi Folks,
I wanted to chime in on this as this is one of our struggles in reporting. Our processes work on a rolling calendar, and we assign reviews of grants and LOI's based on submitted dates, but as there are two submitted dates in a process, we realize this doesn't work. However, we wonder if there is a way for something to be developed from the Status Change Log?
When we look at the Status Change Log, it reflects the different submitted dates of each stage within the process. So when an LOI is submitted the title there shows, "LoiSubmitted" and, for the full application, "ApplicationSubmitted." Is there any way in which the developers might be able to wrangle this information into some kind of reporting method? Or are there other suggestions?
We have considered adding yet more report fields so that we can manually enter the information and show each submitted date internally, but the report fields are getting unwieldy trying to develop pieces to make our reports work for our needs. I would love to hear suggestions or if the Status Change Log information can be incorporated into reporting!
Thanks,
Dana
posted July 31, 2012 by Dana Jeffery, Ben & Jerry's Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Related to this question... What is the default sort criteria for GLM? For example, if I sort by "Process" and there is only one process, what is the determining factor in how the data is displayed? Our database (Filemaker) defaults to the order in which the record was created. I sorted by process for a single process, but the data appears to be random. I can't figure out what it is defaulting to.
Thanks,
Greg (Metropolitan Regional Arts Council)
posted March 1, 2012 by Greg Nielsen, Metropolitan Regional Arts Council
Ideas
shared this idea
·
-
17 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
My solution begins on the applications submitted screen where I can click on review, add our grant number before the project name and save changes.
A screen shot is attached. We've just begun doing this after working in GMS for three years so I don't know if there are any pitfalls.
http://foundant-community.custhelp.com/files/a782629924/screenshot.png (88KB)
posted September 18, 2012 by Mary Yager, Nebraska Humanities Council
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
We need to start addressing this issue ourselves. We have been using the system generated id # from our previous software. I wish the GLM generated id # was a report field that could be added to approved grants. It looks like I have to create this field, find the id # via a report and then go back and put this # in the report field. We include this id # in the grant agreement.
posted September 10, 2012 by Erin Baird, Allegany Franciscan MinistriesAn error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Shortly after posting my previous comment I did discover that once I mark an application complete I can go in and save our grant number before the project name. That does allow our number to show on the screens.
posted August 27, 2012 by Mary Yager, Nebraska Humanities Council
Ideas
shared this idea
·
-
0 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
We were just discussing tracking email and phone conversations somewhere on the request summary screen, so it was good to find this post. We're very interested in this capability.
Also, my eyes are getting older so I'm wondering if you can change the font for typing comments to post!
Thank you.
posted June 14, 2013 by Jane Somers, The Hamilton Family Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
I agree with any type of enhanced functionality that will allow us to better track the emails we send by organization. And I second Patricia's frustration with not receiving copies. I rarely receive copies when I select that I want to receive one.
posted March 27, 2013 by Emily Watanabe, Akron Community Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
This is a great discussion; however, that doesn't help anyone at this moment. I just sent out 67 emails using a template and I clicked the box to send a copy of the email to my foundation email. Out of the 67 that were sent, I've only received 5 copies, although the system generated message said that each one was sent!!!
Has anyone had trouble with this as well?
posted March 26, 2013 by Patricia Meredith, Irvine Health Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
I am glad to hear this is on the list of future enhancements! We are new users and this is already a feature we have found ourselves looking for in GLM. Thanks.
posted December 5, 2012 by Karen Race, Claneil Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
I would like this functionality as well.
posted June 15, 2012 by Jennifer Pedroni, North Penn Community Health Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
I would like to see this audit or communication feature added as well.
posted February 6, 2012 by Erin Baird, Allegany Franciscan Ministries
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
I concur with the comments above. It would be a great help to be able to track emails sent through Foundant. Any progress on this?
posted January 3, 2012 by Sue McInnish, Alabama Civil Justice Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
This was a topic of conversation at our lunch table during the Chicago Foundant Training day. We all seemed to agree that having the ability to save email correspondence to a user/organization would be extremely helpful in our processes.
Raymond, I also love the idea of manual log entry for other forms of communication. Currently I'm using a paper notebook to keep track of phone calls, which isn't exactly ideal. Thanks FOUNDANT for always listening to our ideas!
posted November 2, 2011 by Lynsie Laughlin, Foundation Management Inc.
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
I second both of these ideas.
posted November 1, 2011 by Kim Guptill, Leo M. Shortino Family Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Communications recording is something that would be very beneficial to us. We try to keep track of various interactions with organizations and so far, have been using tools outside of Foundant. We would much rather have everything at our fingertips, that is accessible throughout the process.
We would like to track email correspondence associated with a grant process, but also, we would like to have notes (manual log entry) for the Project application, not just for the Organization. So far, we have used notes on the Organization Description and Comments piece, but this is not ideal. We prefer to have something specific for the actual Project, since this is what the discussions are connected to.
Thanks for looking into making this a possibility, it would be a perfect solution for us!
posted October 25, 2011 by Dana Jeffery, Ben & Jerry's Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Alison,
Yes! That is a great idea. In fact we've got an even bigger initiative around auditing in general, communications as well as other aspects of the system.
In the communication the thought was to automate auditing of e-mail communications as you described as well as providing a manual log entry of other communications such as site visits or telephone conversations or even letters or dare I say texts!
We'd love to hear more thoughts around auditing in general as well as communications specific. Looking forward to more on this subject.
Thank you,
-Raymond
posted October 19, 2011 by Raymond Burket, Foundant Technologies
Ideas
shared this idea
·
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
We also use social media quite extensively. We follow grantees and share resources via our FB and Twitter profiles. For us collecting the grantees SM handles would be used to make sure that we are following all of our groups. Right now we are following most of the active orgs and hadn't thought about incorporating a SM question into our grant proces. Something that we would consider and find useful if made available. But not critical for our needs.
Kelli
BTW, follow us @TheSimmonsFdn on FB and Twitter :)
posted September 4, 2013 by Kelli King-Jackson, The Simmons Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Chris,
Thanks for your reply.
I've added a text field for Twitter and URL field for an organization's facebook page in my LOI.
I find that as organizations increasingly migrate to social media to communicate to their constituencies, that having their 'official' (ie not personal) IDs is helpful and a different sort of access point to the organization than a website or official correspondence. I use SM as an early part of my due diligence to understand an organization's priorities and tone better. Following them via SM also then encourages them to follow our foundation where we attempt to communicate our priorities and tone - it brings a whole new level of engagement.
Mark
posted August 21, 2013 by Mark Petersen, Bridgeway Foundation
Ideas
shared this idea
·
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
That really doesn't work so wonderfully when it comes time to mail out the checks. It needs to be a field that can be pulled up in a report. Otherwise, it is a long drawn out process of checking each and every application to check for a mailing address. We've had the same issue with organization name to make our grant checks out to (because of coalitions, fiscal sponsors, etc). We added it to the application but now we have to search each approved application to check for the name. There should be a better way to capture this sort of information.
posted May 1, 2012 by Cheryl Lee, Town Creek Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Hi Kyle,
There is not a specific place to enter the check payment address in the software however below are a few ideas:
1. Enter the information in the payment comment box
2. Create a question on your form that asks for that information
3. Include it in your grant agreement
If you have any further questions or ideas please reach out to me via email, mailto:support@foundant.com .
Thanks,
Lynsey Monaco
Foundant Client Services Team
posted March 22, 2012 by Lynsey Monaco, Foundant Technologies
Ideas
shared this idea
·
-
17 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Hi All,
It would be so helpful if I were able to choose the data that appears on the Organization Summary Page. For example, it provides the date of the grant, but we don't use that date and would much prefer to use a date we have as a custom field.Additionally, before the request is decisioned, it would be very helpful to see the amount requested field.
By bottom line, it would be great to make this section "customizable"!
Thanks
Laura
posted June 12, 2013 by Laura Kurzrok, Eastern Bank Charitable Foundation
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Being able to report on evaluation data would be very helpful!. Thanks for making the suggestion Monica!
posted March 27, 2013 by Diana Rode, Judy Family Foundation
Ideas
shared this idea
·
-
79 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
This is also an issue for us, so I'm happy to see the good ideas shared.
We do not need to assign Final Grant Reports for review, but we would like to share these documents with our staff who are not Foundant Administrators. Currently we save the print packets of the reports to our shared drive which does not allow the staff to refer back to the original application. We could combine it with the print packet of the application, but that would take add another step that we may not be able to take the time to do. But if you were able to at least provide a way to add a Staff Evaluator to a report with access to that applicant's entire application, then it would really streamline the process and make it so much easier to keep our other staff updated and connected to our grant programs.
posted July 16, 2012 by Teresa Crane, National Environmental Education Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Thanks for your comments, Sarah. As I started reading your post I was thinking I could save the followup and evaluation as a pdf and attach it to the new application, which I currently do with the grantee's followup reports. I will be working on this when we finish our first round of grants on Foundant. I think this is a good way to handle it.
posted February 2, 2012 by Laura Gilbertson, The William Bingham Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Hi Laura, as noted in my post above we have been trying to find a solution for this same issue too. I think if you use the suggestion by Ron in his post above it would let you do what you are describing. You would make a new "Application Process," but it would have the form of the grant follow-up report form that you are using. Then you can ask grantees to fill out the f/up report just as they would an application and submit it, and then you have the ability to assign it to a Board member and it will show up on their Dashboard as a new "Application" (except it will have a different Process name to help them distinguish it as a f/up report). Big con to this work-around: the follow-ups are no longer linked in the system to the grant they are related to, and you can no longer search for them as "Follow-ups" -- they are technically Applications and you would have to narrow down by process name.
I was concerned about these cons, so I spoke with Mark L. from Foundant the other day and he had what I thought was a good alternative suggestion that we are going to be trying in our upcoming grant round. After a grantee submits a Follow-Up report (in the regular "linked" way), staff downloads the PDF of that report and then attaches it as a "Supporting Document" to an application (using the "Add Document" internal option on the application summary page). However, in our case our practice previously was to send the prior year grant reports to our Board along with new applications, so we are going to be attaching the PDF f/up reports to the new applications (we have a lot of repeat grantees). I am not sure this solution would be helfpul for you if you want to attached to already-funded grants, because then I don't think there is a way to have a funded grant "re-show up" on a Board dashboard -- so then Board members would still have to search for the old grant using the search feature to see the f/up, and at that point they might as well search for the f/up report itself, or just search for the org. itself as you describe above.
I hope one of these solutions may be helpful -- I have spent a lot of time considering their pros and cons in the last few days!
posted February 2, 2012 by Sarah Kelley, Island Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Also, is there any way (other than have the grantee click "Save as draft" 6 months after the application was granted then "Submit" a year after) to allow the grantee to have some kind of mid grant report that fits into the process like the followup? I can only find the ability to attach one followup report.
posted February 1, 2012 by Sally Weldon, Community Foundation of Western North Carolina
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
We are new Foundant users currently going through our first round of grant applications and have not yet started working on followups. However our procedure has been that when we receive a final report from a grantee it is evaluated by at least one board member, who shares the evaluation with the other board members. Staff sets up the follow-up evaluation and sends to the board reviewer as an email attachment, it would be great if this could be done in the same place as the applications. During the training of our Board members on Foundant one of them asked about this and everybody agreed it would be helpful to have this capability. Currently we are uploading evaluations of closed-out grants to the organization so board evaluators can see the ratings of previous grants.
posted January 26, 2012 by Laura Gilbertson, The William Bingham Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Hello All, We are new Foundant users as well and have quickly come across this same issue of needing a streamlined way for Board members to review and evaluate grant Follow-ups.
Previously, we used a process identical to Susan's -- groups would send in their grant reports (in fact, returning grantees were required to submit their reports before a new proposal could be considered), and we would include these in the mailed paper packets that we sent to Board members, so that they could review groups' reports before turning to their renewal applications.
Using the current Foundant set-up of attaching the Follow-ups to prior year grants, I count 5 different "clicks" before a Board member would be able to see a group's grant report, and they would have to know it was there in the first place (as opposed to being able to see it on their dashboard). Not to get too philosophical about it, but with so much emphasis on grant evaluation in the philanthropy world in general, and with all the effort that groups put in to their grant reports, we feel that having our Board review grant follow-ups is just as important as having them review new applications, and we would like to see the system reflect that.
So, we would like to add our vote -- please make a way that Board members could see grant Follow-ups right on their Dashboard, and have a way to evaluate and comment on them!
Raymond, I can see your point about how multiple follow-ups could be assigned, but I don't see why that should prevent staff from being able to choose some or all of them to assign to Board evaluators?
And Ron, I thought that was a great idea to create a new Follow-up Process using the Application form, so I did that, but I am wondering if you have any solution for how to link those follow-up reports to the prior year grants?
Thanks a lot,
Sarah Kelley
Island Foundation, MA
posted December 9, 2011 by Sarah Kelley, Island Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Thank you for your comments thus far. With the ad hoc nature of Follow-ups (assigning as many as one wants) versus our other forms, this implementation could be a bit daunting. Please keep the comments coming. I'm going to retreat into my cave :-) to consider this and come back with some questions and perhaps ideas.
-raymond
posted August 3, 2011 by Raymond Burket, Foundant Technologies
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
We have a similar issue. We decided to create the follow up report as an "application" which has the capabilities we desire, but ideally, it would be good for follow up reports to have this flexibility.
posted August 1, 2011 by Ron Katz, United Way of Asheville and Buncombe County
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
You are not alone Susan. Our follow up reports need to be evaluated by the appropriate program officer and in some cases the ED. It seems ashame to have to do this outside of the system where it is much harder to track. I'd like the evaluation option on the follow-up forms in place as soon as possible.
posted July 25, 2011 by Anne Rogers, Mass Humanities
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
As with applications, I think that there should be a way to assign follow-up reports to individual reviewers for approval/denial.
Idea posted October 18, 2012 by Gloria Dillard, American Osteopathic Association
Ideas
shared this idea
·
-
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Doing Business As or AKA
Another purpose for this function would be to allow tracking all smaller entities within a larger entity. The best example I have is when we make grants to a local University or College. The grants are made to a particular Department or College within the University for specific program or community projects with the Department being listed as the grantee. We can easily look back and see what has historically been done in that Department. This process occurs at the University in many of their Departments. However, when we want to pull the entire record for the University, we have to go to reports and grab all records for all Departments. If we could have an AKA or DBA field and place University of Nebraska in that field, then when reporting, we could enter the AKA field with University of Nebraska in it and get all information for all departments in a quicker and easier fashion. It would save a lot of time.
Joan Stolle
Woods Charitable Fund, Inc.
Lincoln, NE
posted April 12, 2013 by Joan Stolle, Woods Charitable Fund
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
I think Joan's is a great idea. I just wanted to add that it would be great if we were able to search on that information, as well, and have it be one of the export fields. We have applicants who are well known to trustees by their AKA names and end up making the change on our votesheets and re-sorting to get them in the right place.
Thanks
posted July 14, 2011 by Mary Nicosia, GMA Foundations
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Joan! Smile
Great idea. I'd like to offer a more general alternative that might handle your request as well as many others. We have had other requests from clients for special organization fields. What you you think about having the ability to add "Organization Report Fields?" This would address your request as well as many others we get around adding organization information beyond the default fields we provide. We have had other requests around folks wanting the ability to classify and report on their organizations. Would this work for you?
Does anyone else like this idea? Thank you!
posted July 14, 2011 by Raymond Burket, Foundant Technologies
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
We have a large number of University grants to many departments within our University here in Nebraska. For "organization" we have them list their college or department so that at any time we can access that department and see their exact grant history when that organization opens. However, there are many times when we need to know all grants for the University over the years (since 1941 when our foundation began).
We would like to see an AKA field for each organization so that we can enter the University of Nebraska's name in the AKA. Then when we want to know all the grants to the University, all we have to do is search on the AKA field and retrieve all University of Nebraska grants. This would also work for City or County entities. The AKA could be City of Lincoln and the Department name would be used as the organization name. Another way to use AKA's would be to enter the organization's acronym or dba name. In the later, if someone can't think of the legal name for an organization, they may remember the short name. As a rule, we always use the organization's legal name in the "organization" field. Any other name the organization goes by could be placed in AKA.
Idea posted July 12, 2011 by Joan Stolle, Woods Charitable Fund
Ideas
shared this idea
·
-
19 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Daren,
Thanks for the update. I second what Amy and Mary have said. If an application has been submitted, it's important to maintain an accurate record of that application in the GLM system. With the number of grant processes we are working on (upward of a dozen), we need to keep things as transparent as possible to avoid confusion for the applicant and for us. We are currently limiting the use of the delete option to unsubmitted applications.
As to the two scenarios you mention: By our definition, an application would be labelled "Withdrawn" before decisions are officially finalized. After decisions are made, if a grantee cannot meet the grant terms and conditions and returns the funding, we call this a "Cancelled" grant. The amount awarded is adjusted to $0. (In our terminology, changes to approved grants are known as "grant adjustments".)
Stephanie
posted May 22, 2013 by Stephanie Tuxill, Vermont Community Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Daren-
I like to have a record of it. That way if they come back the next year, I know that there is a history there. I do manually creat a new grant for the projects that we fund within the foundation, but for things funded in other ways, it isn't so easy. Keeping the grant application allows me to keep the information somewhere that trustees can acess in the future if they want to.
Amy
posted May 22, 2013 by Amy Moore, O.P. & W.E. Edwards Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Hi Daren,
We would also be looking for one before the decision. As to your question about just deleting it, sometimes there's a specific reason (like an issue with financials, for example) that we'd want to make sure people knew about the next time they applied, so we might need the original submitted documents for reference.
-Mary
posted May 22, 2013 by Mary Nicosia, GMA Foundations
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
I really need a "withdrawn" category before a decision has been made about the grant. Often, a grantapplicaiton that comes to our general fund would be better funded through one of the donor advised funds at our foundation or through one of the trustees personally or through other grantmaking vehicles that our trustees use. In this case, I would prefer to mark the grant as withdrawn or something softer than denied. While it is true that the grant is denied by the General fund, we are still funding it thorough other means. Seeing "denied" as the status can throw off the grantee as welll as our trustees when they are looking at funding history. If I saw withdrawn or something similar, I would know to dig a little deeper into the grant history.
Amy
posted May 21, 2013 by Amy Moore, O.P. & W.E. Edwards Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
I have had to switch grants to a different process as well - similar to Example 1. Having a withdrawl or similar category would be helpful.
posted May 3, 2013 by Amy Moore, O.P. & W.E. Edwards Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
I agree and was about to suggest the same thing. Approved and Denied are two ends of the spectrum, and there are many reasons (on our end or the applicant's) as to why an application might be submitted but then withdrawn before final decisions are made. Since it's not truly denied we don't want it to mess up our statistics. We use FIMS, and are used to choosing Withdrawn as a third option.
Example #1: In the first few months of being live we already have 2 instances where an application is submitted through one process (i.e., small community grants), and the decision is made to approve it as an out-of-cycle grant through a different process (i.e., Arts grants) because it is a better fit withour funding priorities. In order for our statistics to be accurate, we need to Withdraw it from one process and then create a manual (Approved) grant in the second process (attaching the original application as a PDF).
Example #2: During the evaluation process an applicant informs us that due to an unforeseen circumstance their project cannot move forward on a timeline that fits that grant round. They don't want to impact their ability to apply this calendar year, so they ask to withdraw their application. They hope to be able to resubmit at the second deadline, but it's unclear if they will be in a postion to do so. Again, the only way to accurately capture this in the system is to change the status to Withdrawn. (The only other options seem to be Abandon or Delete.)
thanks for your consideration! Stephanie
posted May 2, 2013 by Stephanie Tuxill, Vermont Community Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Hi - I just wanted to bring this back up to the front. We have a couple of clients who use the denied to determine eligibility (ie - if you were denied, you can't reapply for two years), so I have program officers who are looking up applicants, see they've been denied, and tell them they're not eligible. The reply I got nearly a year ago says a Withdrawn category is high on the priorities list. Is there an update?
Thanks,
Maryposted May 2, 2013 by Mary Nicosia, GMA Foundations
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
I would like to see a Withdrawn option with a comment box.
posted June 21, 2012 by Bob Coakley, Thomas J. Long Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Hi - Would it be possible to add a Withdrawn category?
Thanks,
MaryIdea posted June 8, 2012 by Mary Nicosia, GMA Foundations
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
I would like to see multiple contacts - currently our work-around is to keep a report field called Contacts for Email List. (We export the info anytime we need to send an important notice... and for our general Outlook email list.) Most applicants want to have at least two people on every notification - and some want as many as five or six different email addresses notified. I know this is a tall order in contact management...
posted September 16, 2013 by Mary Giraulo, United Arts of Central Florida
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Many of our organizations want to include multiple contacts for e-mails. Is there a way to include a back-up e-mail contact automatically? Thanks, Amy Palmer
posted May 24, 2012 by Amy Palmer, Cultural Council of Greater Jacksonville
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
For this next release we are looking at making more of these fields available. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Thank you Mary!
posted June 21, 2011 by Raymond Burket, Foundant Technoloiges
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Along the same lines, it would be great to be able to pull the ED's name when doing exports. We have some clients who do not want checks going to anyone else in the organization. Currently, that means, giong into each merged letter and changing the name, which can only be found by going into each record individually.
posted June 21, 2011 by Mary Nicosia, GMA Foundations
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
A very valid request Amity. As you probably know, we currently capture only two instances of contact information on the registration form. This information applies to an applicant/organization for all subsequent requests as well. The scenario you're describing would probably benefit from having the ability to associate other contacts, outside the of the registration page, to a specific grant request. Currently we work around this need by asking folks to enter additional contacts in the application form. This works, but we don't flag those folks as "contacts" from a Grant Lifecycle Manager (GLM) point of view. They are just text boxes.
In the long term, we'd like to see GLM have the ability to associate multiple contacts to a grant request. In the short term, I think it might worth a quick phone to go over our options around capturing additional contact information in grant requests. Myself or one of my cohorts will contact you around your question sometime today or tomorrow. Thank you!
-raymond
posted June 16, 2011 by Raymond Burket, Foundant Technologies
Ideas
shared this idea
·
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Yes! Tabs or Pagination has been on our list for a long time now. In the future we are looking at the Groups concept actually being pages. Turbo Tax does a great job with this concept. I think it might make things a lot easer for both applicants and reviewers. Thank you Aaron.
-raymond
posted July 5, 2011 by Raymond Burket, Foundant Technologies
-
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
I am looking to get the link (html) into the GLM email templates most definitely! I just never know if the verbage I use is the right lingo for "real" computer people! :o)
I certainly appreciate you hearing my request and I am glad to see that it is on your list.
Thanks,
Lynn
posted April 3, 2012 by Lynn Larson, Fred and Jean Allegretti Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Lynn,
That makes sense. One big question, are you looking for this using the Foundant e-mail functionality, or from your own program (Outlook or G-mail). If the former, then yes, we could really use the ability to create links and other simple HTML in e-mails. It is on our list to allow you to move beyond plain text in e-mail templates.
If the latter (one is using Outlook or another e-mail program), the link and the actual web address are completely independent. One could have a link such as "Go Here" that mapped to a very long web address (URL) like one of ours for example!
Let us know if getting HTML into GLM e-mail templates (links in particular) is what you are looking for in this request. I get the feeling that is the case.
Thank you Lynn!
-raymond
posted April 3, 2012 by Raymond Burket, Foundant Technologies
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
I'm only looking for a link to the log in page. They would still have to
log in. It would just be nice if they haven't saved that as a favorite or
whatever to have them click a link to get them to the page that allows them to log in.
I'm looking for a way to have it say "Click Here" (or something like that)
that links them to this page:
http://demo.grantinterface.com/Common/LogOn.aspx?eqs=oVBumf2XVy8MFenCB3IVjrv0pUhLFbLh0
Without it looking like that big long thing, which is what I am doing now.
It would NOT send them directly into the system, it's just a way to get them to
the sign on page.
Does that help explain what I am looking for? Does it make sense? Does that effect security?
Thanks!
Lynn
posted April 3, 2012 by Lynn Larson, Fred and Jean Allegretti Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
I agree.
posted February 1, 2012 by Anne Rogers, Mass Humanities
Ideas
shared this idea
·
-
69 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Chris,
Thanks for responding to my suggestion! It didnt really take much time to create the questions, and I actually did paste the text most times, its just that I had to do the same ones about three times each and could have saved myself a few minutes if I could have copied the entire thing over. The copy/paste feature is a pretty stardard thing so I thought it might be something easy to include, but as I have no idea how to develop a system like this, that was just a guess.
As for the question library, I can see how that might be useful for some, but other than the basic name/org/contact info type of questions, ours are pretty specific and I don't know that I would find what I needed in a library of standard questions.
Thanks,
Rob
posted August 7, 2012 by Robert Williams, Virginia Department of Transportation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Some of the forms I have created have similar questions in different sections. When creating the form, it would be convenient to be able to duplicate a question and tweak it, rather than create it again from scratch. I think this would be a big time saver. Thanks!
Idea posted October 12, 2011 by Robert Williams, Virginia Department of Transportation
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
I would love to have a requested amount column as well. At least on the stages before a grant is approved. It is a key piece of information for my board and me and being able to see it at a glace would be a big plus.
posted January 21, 2013 by Amy Moore, O.P. & W.E. Edwards Foundation
Ideas
shared this idea
·
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Personally - I don't want to import from an external spreadsheet (that would be error prone indeed) - but I WOULD appreciate being able to edit online in a spreadsheet type of view, as another user suggested in Cross populate from reports back to database. :) Thanks for keeping it on the "possibly someday" list.
posted September 13, 2013 by Mary Giraulo, United Arts of Central Florida
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Hi Chris,
Thank you so much for your reply! That makes sense. I know I'm also definitely excited about email merges, so no worries, the short-term roadmap sounds good to me. Even the couple of updates that I've seen since I've started have been very useful. Thanks for all your hard work!
Owen
posted August 29, 2013 by Owen David, Community Foundation Santa Cruz County
Ideas
shared this idea
·
-
26 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
As for what point in the lifecycle... all. I expect to use it most after the application is submitted and after the grant is awarded, BUT I can also see myself postponing this step and getting stuck if the batch option isn't available in Application Evaluation Open, for example.
posted September 13, 2013 by Mary Giraulo, United Arts of Central Florida
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Yes, I would be very interested in a Batch Charity Check - just went into 44 applications and did them one by one, but had the sneaking feeling that I might have missed one by accident. It would be nice to have a one-click.
Short of that... would it be possible to retrieve the charity check info (last date the check was run, and result) in a report or export data? I would like to verify that I did the Charity Check on all the applications, without having to open each record again.
posted September 13, 2013 by Mary Giraulo, United Arts of Central Florida
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Ray - For Barra, we do an initial charity check when the LOI is reviewed. After that, we would not plan to check again until the day we write the check.
posted November 4, 2011 by Lyn Church, Barra Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Thank you Lyn and Meredith. We've been having some discussions here and I'm working on understanding is when folks feel they need to perform CC. In other words, at what stages or points in a request/grant lifecycle is CC required (to be in compliance with the IRS) and then what points are optional, but perhaps helpful. I have much to learn and would love any help our customers can offer. Thank you!
posted November 3, 2011 by Raymond Burket, Foundant Technologies
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
We use Charity Check when we do our initial review of LOI's and Applications. Since they come in staggered, the batch would not be an issue at that point. If we want to do a check on the day we write checks, batch would make a huge diffference because we write 75 - 150 checks at once three times a year.
posted November 3, 2011 by Lyn Church, Barra Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Thanks Raymond -- I will be interested in hearing responses from other colleagues -- but I would think that the major difference between your clients that utilize the Charity Check module in GLM is simply WHEN in their process they do the checks. I would imagine that batch checks would likely be helpful to anyone using this feature if their applicant pool is large at all.
posted October 6, 2011 by Meredith Huffman, Genuardi Family Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Your suggestion makes complete sense given the parameters you've described. It seems like Charity Check and compliance should be (for the most part) something all foundations could agree and standardize upon. This in turn would help us design the software a bit better to meet these requirements. Thank you for your thoughts and getting the dialog started. Does anyone else have ideas around compliance and the ideal workflow? Are there areas in terms of compliance where foundations might differ from one another?
posted October 5, 2011 by Raymond Burket, Foundant Technologies
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
My request: I would love for GLM to allow administrators to select a group of applicants in a given process and perform a "batch" Charity Check.
Background: A recent incident of a grantee changing tax status from a public charity to a private foundation between the time of application and issue of grant funds has spurred our foundation (at the behest of our tax professional) to commit to an extra layer of due diligence as part of our current and all future grant processes.
Our plan: The very day we will mail grant checks, we'll re-perform a charity check on every single proposed grantee. As a side note, we also perform Charity Checks at other points of the cycle, including initial LOI submission.
Rationale: If an organization's tax status changes in the interim period between LOI submission and final grant decisions (whether the status change was from that of a public charity to that of private foundation, which violates our particular foundation's guidelines, or whether the 501c3 was revoked altogether for compliance issues), Charity Check would reveal this. In the event that an organization's tax status HAS changed, and updates to IRS' Pub 78 (and thus Charity Check) are lagging and showing an organization to still be eligible for a grant, our Foundation would still be within IRS compliance, by the virtue of our having performed a due diligence check on the actual date of grant issue. (As per our tax guru).
The ability to select a group of applicants in a given process (in this instance, the proposed grantees of given grant cycle) and perform a "batch" charity check would save a lot of time, versus our current option of going into 100-150 records for each proposed grantee and perform individual Charity Checks.
Thanks for your consideration
Idea posted September 13, 2011 by Meredith Huffman, Genuardi Family Foundation
-
50 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Batch close applications - DONE!!
YOU GUYS ROCK!
posted August 7, 2013 by Sarah Copeland, Grand Rapids Area Community Foundation Grant
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Hi Emily & Daren -- Like Emily the variable is grant amount. Everything else in a given grant process would be the same (grant report assignments, etc.).
posted June 6, 2012 by Meredith Huffman, Genuardi Family Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Hi Daren:
We would definitely use batch approval. Although, we would still need to manually enter the grant amount, in general, all of the other info (follow ups) would be the same for that process. For payment due date and grant date, we need a little more clarification on these in general- we are still manually entering grants into FIMS as the import process we have found to be difficult- and it seems to quicker to manually enter the grants.
So, the only one-off parameter for us would be the grant amount- everything else within a process is the same.
Thanks!
posted June 6, 2012 by Emily Bronson, Berkshire Taconic Community Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
I second that request!
posted June 4, 2012 by Meredith Huffman, Genuardi Family Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
I know we can currently batch DECLINE applications- would it be possible to batch APPROVE applications as well?
Idea posted May 2, 2012 by Emily Bronson, Berkshire Taconic Community Foundation
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Hi,
I would want to keep the "Show Applicant this Option" feature for the administrator only and not for any other users. Even so, I don't see myself using this feature very often, as I will typically just email the applicant any further questions / comments - especially now that the email system keeps a record of it.
If I'm understanding you correctly, something resembling the "request comment" functionality would work well, as long as it is situated behind each question in the application. I see this as a good spot for evaluators to "mark up" the application as they prepare for committee meetings and site visits. It would be an efficient way to track notes and to share them with other evaluators.
I hope this helps.
September 17, 2013 by Kristen Cullen, Carolyn Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
I guess if I needed comments to go back to the applicant - I would email those to them. Not make a comment within the application for them to see on their side. That's just me.
As for the "request comment" section - I could certainly have the board members put their comments there. IF they can do that. When I try it now as a board member (without admin access) it doesn't give me the opportunity to type any comments in.
I think the ease of being able to put them in right under the section they just read was the main benefit.
posted September 17, 2013 by Derek Jernstedt, Quest Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Hi Chris,
I envision using it internally only. We'd like to use it as a place for the evaluators to share comments with one another during the review process. Derek's photos capture perfectly what I'd like to see! I'm happy to give you more details, if you'd like.
Thanks!
posted September 3, 2013 by Kristen Cullen, Carolyn Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
Our board members are trying to figure out a way to make their notes within the site, while reviewing an application.
When this "comments" section appeared - it seemed like a great option. Our board still meets to discuss the proposal and having the notes in there wouldn't be an issue with either of our two foundation's boards (HEDCO and Quest).
Understand what you're saying though Chris - that some may not want others to see this and it would/could be optional.
We'd love it...but it's only for Administrators right now.
posted August 29, 2013 by Derek Jernstedt, Quest Foundation
An error occurred while saving the comment Ideas
commented
I second Kristen's comments. Actually thought the evaluators (Board Members) could do this...so I told them about this cool new ability to post their comments in the site while reviewing proposals. Found out that this is only for people with administrator rights. Would LOVE to see it added for all!
Thanks
posted August 26, 2013 by Derek Jernstedt, Quest Foundation
Ideas
shared this idea
·
Chris-
Thanks for the explanation. I figured it helped better gauge memory needs. Just sharing feedback from our users. We survey users about the application process after each application is submitted.
Erin
posted July 2, 2013 by Erin Baird, Allegany Franciscan Ministries