Pre-submission
How applicants learn about grants, understand eligibility, read instructions, and get help before writing.
Mathews T Varghese
Connecticut State Grant Research Project
Connecticut nonprofit grant application research
A UX research case study on how nonprofits experience the State of Connecticut grant application process, from discovering the opportunity to waiting for an award decision.
Research Framing
The research started with a funding journey that was essential, but hard to navigate.
The NPG is a vital funding source for nonprofit improvements. Organizations had applied across seven rounds for capital construction, capital improvement, vehicles, technology improvement, and healthcare assets. My goal was to understand applicant and grantee pain points across the application process, then identify where the experience needed better support.
11nonprofit representatives interviewed
2017+recent government grant experience
7NPG funding rounds referenced
3application stages studied
Capital constructionCapital improvementVehiclesTechnology improvementHealthcare assets
Submission
How applicants answer questions, explain impact, manage word limits, complete budgets, and submit.
Post-submission
How applicants track status, wait for award letters, coordinate contractors, and keep submitted records.
Research Method
The interview guide followed the real applicant lifecycle.
I structured the research around the moments where nonprofits actually make decisions: how they discover grants, how they prepare the application, how they submit, and what happens after submission.
Pre-submission
How did applicants learn about the grant? What prior templates, mentorship, training, or institutional knowledge helped them know how to apply?
Submission
Who actually owned the writing? How often did they apply? What steps did they take when the requirements, budget tools, or questions became unclear?
Post-submission
How did applicants manage the grant after receiving an award letter, and what advice would they give someone applying for the first time?
Research Findings
Five findings explained why the experience felt harder than the form alone.
Transparency was limited
Interviewees described learning about NPG availability through sources other than OPM, including the Connecticut Nonprofit Alliance, BizNet, Google Alerts, trade associations, and word of mouth.
Resources from OPM were limited
Applicants wanted clearer instructions, documentation, webinars, staff access, and FAQ support that stayed available while they were actively writing.
Word limits complicated submission
Applicants struggled to explain long-term value, program impact, and nuanced answers inside strict limits, especially when questions felt redundant or unclear.
Statistical and business framing created a headwind
Some nonprofits did not have grant writers, analysts, or business-writing staff, but the application expected quantified long-term impact and financial reasoning.
Post-submission tracking was missing
Applicants could not clearly see status, award timing, or next-round movement without checking websites, emailing staff, or waiting for surprise updates.
"Through our trade associations... the Connecticut Alliance of Nonprofits."
"The application just needs to be clearer."
"Be transparent about the due dates."
Research Obstacles
The challenge was separating form problems from service problems.
Many issues sounded like website or application problems at first. The research had to uncover which pain points came from the portal, which came from government communication, and which came from nonprofit staffing realities.
Recruiting the right participants
The study needed nonprofit representatives who had actually applied for, received, or benefited from a Connecticut government grant, which narrowed the participant pool.
Different organizations had different capacity
Small and well-resourced nonprofits followed the same process, but they had very different access to grant writers, CFOs, statistical skills, and administrative support.
Applicants remembered different parts of the process
Some pain points were procedural, some were emotional, and some depended on timing, staff turnover, or whether an applicant had applied in previous rounds.
Digital issues were mixed with non-digital issues
The research had to separate portal/tool problems from communication, staffing, policy, documentation, and deadline problems.
The strongest findings were about the service around the form
The project was not just about fixing a page. The deeper issue was how applicants were informed, supported, and updated across the whole journey.
Recommendations
The recommendation is to improve the process at each stage, not just redesign a page.
The research points to three areas for change: pre-submission transparency and education, submission clarity and flexible answer support, and post-submission tracking or clear award-letter dates.
Pre-submission
Create email subscription alerts when applications go live, publish clearer timelines, and provide guidance before applicants start writing.
Submission
Explain question intent, improve instructions, reconsider rigid word limits, and make budget tools safer with previews and validation.
Post-submission
Add status tracking or clear award-letter dates, preserve submitted records, and provide more transparent communication after submission.
A better grant experience gives nonprofits confidence before, during, and after they apply.
The final story is about research turning a confusing government process into a clearer service journey: applicants need timely alerts, clearer education, better submission support, and transparent follow-through.