Submittable

Database of our child care providers and their grants

Managing communications from email, notes section, ability to pull up review while on calls, attaching necessary documents

Segmenting the data by project

Labels! Please allow us to segment these out by project and not have a complete running list of all labels ever used...the scrolling is getting out of hand!

Better document retrieval and storage - documents uploaded to the application are not easily viewed and I often have to download them, making this time-consuming.

When closing out a document, the submission returns you to the top of the page instead of anchoring to your location.

Make it easier to pull data!

Application Organization.

Flexible review systems.

Easy Communication with applicants and reviewers.

I'd love to be able to bulk send attachments that are specific to each applicant.

I wish there were support you could chat live with on the site instead of email (though email is pretty swift, sometimes the question needs to be reiterated through a few emails).

Streamlining the review process

Verifying application information

Automating processes

Easy form builders

Inclusion of the ability to rank preferences in an application form response, i.e., rank the following in order of preference.

Easier way to navigate between applications within a project

user friendly

intuitive interface

good communication

Ability to work with additional inboxes

more accessible financially

more frequent updates on product changes

keeping things in one place

allowing for multiple projects at once

downloading submissions option

user friendly interface for our clients

un-intuitive layout for backend users like me

hard to set up automated replies

unable to turn off status read or not which freaks our clients out

Hard to get to the actual submission

List sorting of winners/labeled groups.

Ease of application creation/question creation.

Template building for quick responses to applicants.

Labels shouldn't be an option for all reviewers, we had a reviewer for our Florida applicants create labels like "1" "2" "3" which confused my reviewers in California.

Running reports across multiple grant projects is tedious and clumsy. Our grant project had 15 regions but it was the same application, we had to compare applications across regions, but could only have a set amount of winners for each area. It would've been easier to create 1 application and 1 opportunity but have filters for the # of applications for each region instead of creating 15 separate applications.

Reviewers also found the review forms difficult. There should be an easier way to run a report on their pending reviews in an excel format, or just a better functionality to review. Even with onboarding, our reviewers were confused and didn't use the review function.

User Friendly

Multi Tier Review

Customer Service

Adding New Features

The multiple notifications on the multi tier review was confusing for our volunteers

The automatic labels keep changing between the full state name and the initials

I would love to have a feature where if the applicant checks a box an email would automatically go out

Create filters

preset automated responses

archive submissions

add publication dates

I wish I could pick the colors of the filters instead of Subimttable automatically picking them for me

I wish there was a way to see what blogs are being published on what days and have the info of the author and title of blog

I wish there was a way to log blog publications within submittable and have a calendar link I could synch to my microsoft account.

Quick and easy report generation

Customized applications

Clean interface

Messages are sometimes not delivered

Better customization of mass messages (often the user's name is not inputted correctly)

Applications are easy to build.

It's very user-friendly for applicants and reviewers (most drawbacks are for internal staff).

Support is usually quick to respond and they are all very friendly. Their staff in general are always great to work with – which is (and was) a huge selling point.

Their blog posts and guides are informative and extremely on point with where philanthropy should be/is heading – human-centered, trust-based approaches.

The organization is clearly leaning into/improving/advocating for accessibility, equity, and inclusivity in the submission and review processes.

They are continually adding features or making small updates based on user feedback.

If wanting built-in CRM functionality for ongoing management of awards and applicant communications, this won't be the right fit. There are not umbrella profiles for applicant organizations with contacts and submissions housed underneath; each application is wholly freestanding.

Emails frequently get caught in spam/junk/quarantine folders, regardless of safelisting the domain. Because we can't 100% rely on all system communications reaching the submitter or reviewer, we often handle communications externally instead or have to do additional follow up, which is added time and something we anticipated the system would streamline.

The level of implementation support is unfortunately a place where we feel we were misled following the demos. We anticipated more hands-on and extensive assistance that would remove the bulk of the burden from our grant program managers, but this wasn't our experience. The indicated support was a major factor for our company that led to our selection of Submittable.

Advanced reporting unfortunately doesn't live up to the name. There are several limitations that require extensive manual manipulation to get the report structure where you want; and it's not as intuitive or simple as other parts of the backend (such as form creation). Transparently, the reporting is by far the biggest headache for our program managers.

The #1 advanced reporting drawback is the data delay. Data received through any type of form is not immediately available upon submission for advanced reports (but oddly is instantaneous for standard reports). Additionally, the delay is inconsistent – sometimes three hours, sometimes 18, sometimes more. This impedes administrative efficiency for program managers and affects internal processing timelines; we have to build in extra days to prepare materials for reviewer meetings or any meeting where we may need a report quickly following submission. As a fail-safe given the uncertainty of up-to-date data, we now manually check and/or edit data once we've pulled a report into Excel. I personally have switched to only using standard reports and then build in time for a manual overhaul in Excel to get what I need in our preferred format. Despite the time this takes, it's always faster for me than waiting for data and then adjusting advanced reports.

Branding customization is limited, especially for organizations running multiple programs. Within our company, we support many clients who have their own brand and/or look; since they don't use our organization's branding, it can be confusing for applicants to have our company's logo anywhere near other applications. It would be nice to offer our clients their own branded landing page without paying for an entirely new account, considering we don't usually need a separate back end system.

The additional instructions for form fields appear under the response box rather than directly under the main question/header. This often results in applicants not seeing supplemental information, prompts, or guidelines until after they've provided their response.

Placeholder tags are limited. We'd truly love to utilize DocuSign for agreements but are unable to because we can't pull in all necessary field responses from the original submission.

The inability to edit an application for a submitter is a definite pain point. There may be something small, like a typo in their organization name, and everything following is impacted, e.g., all system communications where we use a placeholder tag for that field (another reason we can't use DocuSign). We've also had applicants mistype numbers somewhere and ask us to quickly update (in which case we'd keep their emails on file for record). Since that's not an option in Submittable, we open for editing and make them go through the work for something that could be remedied on our end in a matter of seconds. This hinders rapport with some applicants because the editing process can be confusing and frustrating for individuals who struggle with technology; and the back and forth to walk them through the editing process is time that could be spent elsewhere.

Not being able to see account emails and/or names of individuals for open submission drafts is a barrier. In our former system we could view basic information and personally reach out to applicants to ensure they didn't miss due dates. Additionally it enabled us to remove email addresses from reminder communications for those we knew already submitted and simply opened up an accidental additional draft. When we send these reminders in Submittable, we always get applicants reaching out panicked or annoyed because they already submitted but think this means we didn't receive it.

There's not an option to cc other emails when communicating with the submitter through the system. This can be limiting and requires us to move communications back into our personal inbox instead of keeping everything together in Submittable.

It's not possible to reassign submissions to a different email. This is needed in situations where a submitter has left an organization and a now defunct email was used for login as opposed to a generic company one (like info@). It makes future communications for reporting impossible through the system. There is such high turnover in nonprofits, especially in development departments, so this is an inevitable issue for many users.

Not all form fields are concealable – only those where answers can be inserted. It would be helpful to conceal text-only fields and dividers as there are moments when the content is obsolete to the reviewer. This is either because it's information there to guide applicants through the submission process OR because we've concealed all fillable fields in a section but then the section header and other text-only fields are still oddly hanging around. It can make the app look a bit off to reviewers and forces them to scroll through more content than they really need to.

Report structures cannot be duplicated and applied to different projects, which is vital for organizations with dozens of different funding programs or cycles throughout the year. This leads to so much extra manual work.

There's limited control over notification emails sent to assigned reviewers. You can't customize these, and if needing to quickly switch a submission back a stage for something, the second that submission is returned to the stage with external reviewers, they receive another email about that assignment, despite already getting the notice originally.

Submission PDFs are not customizable, which would be ideal to create clean and specific documents for sharing with board members or partners whom you won't provide access to in the system. Additionally, some reviewers like the option of printing, and the current formatting of the PDFs are not as reader-friendly as the online portal. Of particular note: rich text formatting doesn't carry over; monetary numbers throughout aren't comma delimited (this is an issue in the online reviewer view too) which can result in reviewers improperly reading a request amount.

Form uploads are not included within/at the end of submission PDF downloads. It's a lot of extra work to do bulk exports with zip files and then merge everything manually to get one PDF of submitted content for simplified recordkeeping and/or sharing with external parties as needed.

There are inconsistent/intermittent errors that occur when utilizing tables in applications, such as numbers disappearing entirely or not being calculated in the total if a $ is typed in originally. We've unfortunately had to find workarounds and make sure to add IFERROR formulas in the Excel file we upload to bypass the system errors.

There are numerous nitpicky things that cause difficulty on the back end. This is inevitable with any software or system; regardless, that doesn't make those quirks/limitations/etc. any less frustrating.

Hold information.

Easy to navigate.

Organize information.

User friendly.

How information is exported into files.

Room to archive.

Phone number to customer service when things need to be fixed right away.

Submittable is mostly user-friendly for applicants, and the application process goes smoothly. It is easy to set up an account and start applications, and the application forms are easy to read and fill out.

Submittable is user-friendly for reviewers. It is easy for volunteers or staff members to access all applications and submit their scores on the platform.

The ability to use internal forms makes due diligence processes or other internal reviews easy for staff to complete. It's helpful that these reviews can be automatically assigned upon submission and that they are easily accessed while reading through forms.

Advanced reporting is far from advanced. There are SO many limitations and the need to manually do so many things in order to get the report structure you want, and it is not intuitive. The reporting is by far the most frustrating thing about Submittable and actually adds on staff time instead of cutting it down.

PDFs of submissions should include all supplemental files uploaded in the submission. You should not have to do massive exports with zip files and then merge everything manually to get one PDF of submitted content for simplified records or sharing.

We should be able to see the account emails and names of individuals who have started a draft submission. In our former system (GIFTS online via Blackbaud), we could see that information and could reach out personally to applicants to ensure they didn't miss deadlines and could remove emails from our reminder communications from those we knew already submitted and simply opened up an accidental additional draft. When we send reminders in Submittable to draft submissions, without fail, we get 5-10 people who reach out and are upset because they already submitted but think this means they didn't, regardless of how we word the email and tell them they may have an extra draft if they think they already submitted.

You should be able to simply build one report in whatever format you need and be able to switch between different projects that use the same exact form fields. My team has the same exact form used for nine different grant programs because they are the same programs, just for different local communities, but we have to build out the same report manually each cycle for each community.

You can really do a lot within the form options—eligibility questionnaires, all kinds of fields for applicants as well as staff, and additional questionnaires you can add to a submission after.

There are pretty good options for reviewing submissions (i.e. literally adding scores), labeling, and filtering, to help us stay organized.

While Submittable has a convenient messaging tool built in to submissions, these messages often go to users' spam folders or their "Other"/"Promotions" tabs. This is not Submittable's fault, of course, but is just a thing that happens.

Customer support can sometimes be a bit slow to respond.

It allows for artists to submit works in a variety of file types.

It allows for keeping a record of applicants, and submitted works from past years in an archive along with contact information.

It is a quick way to launch a competition or invite artists to submit work.

The applicants find the process pretty easy.

Judges can leave helpful comments alongside the applications.

Email exchanges are archived along with the submission information.

Technical assistance is not as swift or truly helpful as it was at the beginning.

There is an insufficient number of submissions provided in the package. This limit should be very high for a submission software, after all this is its basic purpose.

I don't appreciate all the hard sell and fear it will likely turn off enthusiasm for this useful product on the part of those whose approval is needed.

Casting this as a public service or social justice product rings a bit hollow since it is such an expensive product. Submittable is well beyond the capacity of small not-for-profit organizations where the priority is offering programs to the community, and supporting artists and arts educators directly with competitive artist fees

We can receive documents from applicants in a secure way without having them be downloaded to our computers.

Submittable emails you directly when someone emails through the platform which is extremely helpful.

Submittable allows us to have many different forms on file to easily send.

It would be nice if you could send an email through the platform and attached a certain application to an email not listed on the application.

I wish you could change the search within applications rather than just by the applicant's name.

I wish you could have different file folders where you could put applications to separate them after they are complete.

allows an applicant to save an application that is in process

connects recommendations directly to the specific application

ease of uploading recommendations for recommenders

Would like to see the ability to have management edit an application on the backend, as applicants sometimes make mistakes and want us to fix them.

Needs a better way to edit a problem with a recommender's email address on an application. Currently, the only way is to open a submitted application for editing, which is not ideal after the deadline has passed.

Great overview of all applicants to our various grants programs

Smooth and equitable application process

Easy application review system

Tracking our grants pot--currently, there does not seem to be a way to have an overview of how much funding our grant applicants are requesting as a total per program. I calculate this manually, which is time consuming.

The total funds pot is currently in dollars, and I can't change this to the currency we use internally.

The automated submittable emails aren't very attractive and their action button isn't always clear.

Allowing for a judging process without seeing names and personal information

Tracking submission rates in each age group

Whenever I've reached out to Submittable staff for help, I've gotten excellent responses and customer service!

I'm most appreciative that Submittable staff worked with our limited and set budget to create a platform that completely services the competition

I can't think of anything, honestly

Reporting

Creating an application

Communication with reviewers and applicants

Assignment of reviews

Randomization abilities for 'select all that apply' questions

Ability to show references in the application

Communicate with individual collaborators

Budgeting

Application process

Communication

Reviews

Customizability

Labels

Images on signatures in email responses come out weird (and not the right size)

Track funding

Easy usability

Provide LIVE Support

Allowing for the automation of emails to be sent based on a trigger

A better archiving system for outdated submissions to have additional options for organizing

Allow for easy integration of contracts/attachments on the automated email response options.

Easy to use

Reliable

Great customer support and applicant support

Applicant report process

Stores our records - important for recognition of employees

Committe can access easily

Streamlines the nomination and ranking process

Allowing for information to carry over to any initial form submitted - identifying it as related to the nominee.

Allow for forms to be resent if someone has not responded. Currently, we go through email.

We are a limited user of Submittable; the cost seems high.

Streamlined grant application process

Makes creating forms and requesting information easy for grantees and applicants

Automated emails to applicants

Some features are not in the tabs where you would expect them

You can’t change fonts and while you can personalize the form, this has limitations

Communication with applicants via the messaging feature that syncs to email.

Communication with staff with notifications that there are applications needing review.

User friendly report creation

User friendly application development (especially the variety of questions types)

Creating charts could be more user friendly, as they do not translate perfectly when importing from Excel.

It would be nice if data entered to charts by the applicant could be captured in staff reports.

Customer Service does not have a phone presence, only FAQs. It would be helpful to work with someone over the phone during troubleshooting.