Case study · Custom software

From paper forms to a grant system the board loves

Asked for a form. Delivered a grant system. The Hazel Miller Foundation wanted its paper application online. In one month I delivered that application, plus a verified database of its grant history, a giving dashboard, and a view for the board to review and vote.

Try the application

The General Grant Application in the foundation’s plum and teal: a row of step chips from Welcome to Review, and the Eligibility step with four confirmations ticked.
The application’s Eligibility step. Application screens on this page show made-up example data.

Project details

Client
Hazel Miller Foundation, Edmonds, WA
My role
Product and visual design, AI-assisted build, data migration
Length
One month
Year
2026
Status
Launching October 3, 2026

About the foundation

The Hazel Miller Foundation was established in 2009 to fund programs and projects serving Edmonds and South Snohomish County. Nonprofits and public agencies apply, and the foundation’s board decides grants in cycles through the year.

The problem

After four months of trying, the application was online, and everything still ended up in Excel

The foundation spent four months trying to move its paper application online. The form it ended up with had usability problems, and its answers still exported to a spreadsheet. The form was only the most visible of three gaps.

Applying

An application that was hard to finish

One blanket checkbox covered eligibility, and the rules confused even board members. Applicants couldn’t tell which board meeting would decide their request, or when they would hear back.

Records

A grant history scattered across files

Every grant since 2010 lived in Excel spreadsheets on the director’s desktop, alongside scanned PDFs and an accounting export. Each new application added to the pile.

Deciding

Decisions made from stacks of paper

Board members reviewed applications as printed documents, and staff assembled each board packet by hand.

What they asked for vs. what they needed.

Asked for

Their paper application, online: a form that works.

Needed

An application people can finish, one reliable record of every grant, and a way for the board to decide without reading rows in an Excel spreadsheet.

Changing the mental model

Old

An application is a form that ends up in a spreadsheet saved to the desktop of the director’s laptop.

New

An application is a record that flows from the applicant, to the database, to the board’s vote.

How I addressed it

Five decisions that closed the three gaps

Applying

Decision 1. Start from the foundation’s own look.

Before designing a screen, I built a small design system from the styles already on the foundation’s website: its Alice and Lato type, and its plum and teal. Applicants see the foundation they know, and every screen stays consistent. One change was needed: the brand teal fails contrast on white, so text uses a darker teal.

The design system’s Colour page: plum, teal and neutral swatches with their hex values and uses, and rules such as “Teal has two values on purpose” and “Colour never carries meaning alone”.
The design system’s colour page. Every value is taken from hazelmillerfoundation.org.

Applying

Decision 2. Make the application easy to finish.

The application runs in seven steps, from eligibility to signature. Choosing a service area shows the due date and the board meeting that will decide the request, before the applicant writes a word. The blanket checkbox became four plain confirmations, and questions ask for plain words instead of form-speak.

Long answers are treated as normal, and an applicant can stop on any step and email themselves a link back to their answers.

The Welcome step with the service area set to Education and Youth Services, and a note that those applications are due by the first Friday of October and decided at the November board meeting.
Choosing a service area shows the due date and the deciding board meeting at once.

Records

Decision 3. Build one source of truth, correct to the dollar.

I connected the application to an Airtable database, then compiled the foundation’s history into it from spreadsheets, scanned PDFs and accounting exports. I normalized and cleaned the data, corrected the mistakes I found, and reconciled organization names so each grantee’s history sits in one place.

The result holds every grant since 2010. At migration, every total matched the original spreadsheets to the dollar: 823 awards, $15,548,384, to 197 organizations. The May 2026 awards have been added since.

The awards table in Airtable: each grant with its project name, organization, category, amount, the meeting that approved it, and its approved and paid dates. The footer reads 851 records, sum $15,862,237.
Every award, with its organization, category, amount and dates.
The organizations table in Airtable: each grantee with its type, the other names it appeared under, its linked awards, and the number of grants it has received.
Organizations, with the other names each one appeared under in the old records.

Records

Decision 4. Let the foundation question its own history.

With clean data in one place, I built a giving dashboard on top of it. The foundation can compare its giving across years, categories and organizations, narrow any chart to a category or a span of years, and open any grantee’s full history. At this point the system already went beyond what the foundation had asked for.

The Hazel Miller Giving Explorer: totals of $15.5M awarded since 2010, 823 grants and 197 organizations, category filters, and a stacked bar chart of dollars awarded by year, with the tallest years labelled Hazel Hall and Civic Park, pandemic-year capital, and Housing Hope.
The top of the dashboard: the totals, filters that scope every chart, and giving by year.
Where the mission moved: each year’s dollars as shares by category, and a slope chart comparing 2010–14 with 2021–25, where Youth and Education falls from 33% to 17% and Poverty and Hunger rises from 15% to 25%.
How the foundation’s giving has shifted between causes.
The organizations table: 60% of dollars go to the top 10 grantees, 86 organizations were funded once, and a sortable list of grantees with total, number of grants, first and latest year, and a small history chart for each.
Every grantee, sortable, with its history at a glance.

Deciding

Decision 5. Design for the people who decide.

Looking at the system through a board member’s eyes, I saw they were about to trade stacks of paper for rows in a database. Neither is a good way to decide who gets a grant, so I built the board a view of its own.

Every application in the cycle opens with a two-paragraph summary drafted with AI, and expands to the full application, laid out just as the applicant saw it. Board members vote Yes, No or Maybe, suggest an amount and add a comment. One button sends all of their votes to the foundation.

Behind it, the packet that staff used to assemble by hand now fills itself: they name the meeting and choose its categories, and the matching applications come in. Staff track which summaries are written, and download a decisions sheet once the board has voted.

The board view: a bar showing 6 of 10 votes cast with Email my votes and Download my votes buttons, a contents list of ten applications with vote marks, and a summary sheet for one applicant with the amount requested, budgets, people served, past grants, an executive summary, and Yes, No and Maybe buttons with a suggested amount and a comment.
The board view, shown with test applications. Votes stay on the board member’s device until they send them.
The Board Packet Manager: a table of packets from the February 2026 meeting to the November 2026 meeting, with their categories, number of applications, how many summaries are written, and links to each packet’s board view and decisions sheet.
The staff side: one packet per board meeting, with its summaries, board view and decisions sheet.

The Board loved the online application but even more so the Board Packet and review portal—the online voting was a huge hit! Thank you for everything.

Maria Montalvo, Board Chair, Hazel Miller Foundation

Outcomes

Results

Asked for a form, delivered a system

In one month: the application, a design system, a verified grant database, a giving dashboard and a board view.

One record, correct to the dollar

Every grant since 2010 in one place. At migration: 823 awards and $15,548,384, matching the original spreadsheets.

The part nobody asked for

The board view and packet portal weren’t in the original request. They became the part the board liked best.

Launching October 3, 2026

The application and the new hazelmillerfoundation.org go live together. Beyond the board’s response, nothing is measured yet; completion rates and time saved come with the first real applications.

All work

Ready to simplify?

Start with the audit.

A 60-minute conversation to find your biggest opportunities.

Book a workflow audit →

No pressure. Just possibilities.

Sun rising over hills, with a road winding toward it Hand-drawn rays rotate slowly around a stationary sun, passing behind the hills.

A smoother
tomorrow
is possible

Book a workflow audit

Tell us what's eating your week.

A 60-minute conversation to find your biggest opportunities. We'll get back to you within one business day.