Reasons an Application is Deemed Noncompetitive

The application process for the Echoing Green Fellowship program is highly competitive. We employ a rigorous evaluation process and carefully review every application we receive. Applicants are evaluated against our funding criteria as well as against their peers. This year, we received nearly 1,500 applications. Of those applications, fewer than 400 were invited to submit a Phase 2 application. The following are the most commonly cited reasons for designating an application as “noncompetitive.”

Mission of the project is outside our mission and funding guidelines: Echoing Green seeks proposals that are for more than simply creating great new programs. We are looking for innovative ideas for changing systems and developing new approaches to old problems. We are interested in proposals for high impact, sustainable organizations with the potential to create lasting social change beyond their immediate communities.

Non competitive applications put forth ideas for expanding an existing program or bringing an existing model for addressing a social challenge to a new community. Other applications proposed ideas for programs that were an interesting spin on existing approaches to social challenges but wouldn’t introduce new ways of thinking about a problem or create real social change.

Mission of the project and definition of activities are vague: This is one of the most prevailing issues that our reading committee have with many of the initial applications. Based on the application, it is difficult for the reader to determine the specific objectives of the organization or services the applicant intends to deliver. In an attempt to demonstrate visionary thinking, many applicants used language that presented their ideas at such a high level that it is difficult to determine the actual purpose of the organization they were planning to launch. As we read these applications we find ourselves asking, “I understand the change they want to see in the world, but what are they actually going to do?”

In many cases, the mission of the proposed organization is either too broad, lacking specificity, or too inclusive, lacking focus. It is critical for start up organizations to have a very clear mission and goals. Addressing an issue on too many fronts or without clearly defined objectives often results in resources stretched too thin and a failure to make significant progress in any one area.

The link between the specified need and the purpose of the organization or proposed activities is not clear: Most applicants did a good job of providing interesting quotes or statistics that demonstrated a need in their community. However, in some cases the quotes or statistics documented a need other than that which their organization will address. In a well-written application, the reader can follow a clear line of logic from the definition of need, through the proposed activities to the long term goals of the organization. Some applicants did not connect the mission of their organization to the need presented using statistics. Applicants failed to show how their strategy and specific activities would lead to measurable improvement in the area of need.

The applicant has defined a very local need and a very local solution. Echoing Green is looking for fellows who are creating a new model for addressing social challenges in bold and broad ways. While a fellow may be addressing a problem on a local level, they are working to get to the root of the problem. They are seeking to not only address the immediate issue, they are seeking to create systemic change that will eradicate the problem, not simply reduce the need. They are working on creating a solution that can be replicated across communities and potentially across program areas. They are working to change the way that people think about that particular issue, both within their community and outside of their community. They are indeed, “thinking globally and acting locally.” Some of the applications we received demonstrated a very real need that directly impacts their local community. The applicant presented a coherent strategy for addressing the need on a local level. Their application did not, however, indicate that they were thinking about the problem from a broader and deeper perspective.

The applicant is proposing the creation of a new information source and not a social change organization. Each year, Echoing Green receives numerous applications for creating new websites that the applicant is confident will become the information hub for anyone interested in that particular issue. While there may be some sort of call to action on the proposed web site, the organization itself does little more than manage the internet site. The rationale for creating such sites is usually something like “survey results show that people would get involved if they only knew how.” We hate to say it but that survey response is a bit of a cop-out. If people are the slightest bit motivated to become involved in an issue, the information on how to get involved can be found. We don’t deny that information resources are valuable and that access to information could be improved. However, creating an information outlet in and of itself does not lead to action or to real and lasting social change.

Applicant does not adequately present how their organization will improve upon existing models. Every year, we receive applications to address a need that numerous existing organizations are already addressing. The applicant provides adequate statistics to demonstrate that although a number of organizations are focused on the issue, there remains a significant need. Clearly, a new approach is required. Often, these applicants fail to identify why existing programs are not adequately addressing the need. Or they fail to identify how their proposed program will operate differently, making inroads where others have fallen short. The applicant puts forth the argument that new will be better but doesn’t provide supporting reasons why it will be better. For these applications, our readers have a very difficult time gauging how well the applicant really understands the issues.

Applicant does not appear to understand the other players in their field. It is not uncommon for an applicant to boldly state that no other organizations exist like the one they are proposing. This audacious claim generally is not true. A simple Internet search often reveals numerous other organizations with what appear to be very similar program models. In these cases, the applicant comes across as naïve and uninformed. Rather than simply claiming to be one of a kind, applicants present much stronger cases when they have done their homework and can clearly identify how their ideas will help to advance the entire field.

Program does not appear to be unique or innovative: The Echoing Green “innovation test” is by far the hardest test to pass. Our readers have extensive experience across a range of program areas and a broad understanding of existing approaches and programs for attacking social challenges. When applicants propose projects that are similar to programs that already exist, we read carefully to identify how the applicant is seeking to improve upon existing models in significant ways. Applicants often identify small changes that can lead to greater efficiencies in how a service or program is delivered but don’t represent a true shift in thinking about how to approach and solve a long standing social challenge. In some cases the applicant may not have done the research that would have revealed that the program they are proposing is not only already in existence, it has been broadly implemented.

There is not sufficient evidence that the proposed program should be pursued by a new independent organizations rather than through a partnership with a current provider or within an existing organization: Echoing Green believes that in order to truly test the strength of a big, new and often controversial approach, the entrepreneur driving their vision for change must be able to work outside of the structure, limitations and potential political concerns of an existing organization. They must be able to secure and fully control the resources necessary to make their vision come to life. Many applications presented ideas that were creative and smart, but did not represent the level of change that would necessitate independence. In fact, it would be more appropriate for many of these intelligent ideas to be introduced into an existing organization with strong ties to the community and the infrastructure to support the proposed program.

Project plan is not realistic: While Echoing Green seeks out individuals who “dream big”, our Fellows must also be realistic. A common applicant mistake is to present an extremely broad strategy for addressing the area of need. In an attempt to appear bold and to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the need, they propose to attack the problem on several fronts at once. It is difficult for the reader to determine where the applicant will focus first or what they believe are the highest priorities and the plan appears overwhelming and unrealistic. In addition, we evaluate applicants’ project plans considering the objectives set forth in the plan and their relevant experience to determine if the plan is realistic. We also look at applicant’s connections to the communities they plan to serve since community support is an invaluable asset.

Project does not appear sustainable: There are a number of indicators that programs are not sustainable. Examples include proposals for a discrete projects with defined beginning and end points, proposals so ambitious that they would clearly require vast resources to support the mission, and proposals where there doesn’t appear to be a viable, long-term funding stream.

There is no clear plan for identifying or measuring impact: The applicant has identified data gathering techniques but has not clearly established a link between the data they plan to collect and the impact of their program. While the applicant has a plan for tracking activity, they do not have a plan for evaluating their effectiveness.

Applicant(s) have not demonstrated sufficient relevant experience: Echoing Green does not expect the applicant to have started an organization previously and we don’t require that they have formal education in their program area. However, we do seek applicants who have demonstrated their interest, passion and leadership abilities through their previous work, academic and volunteer experience. Additionally, we expect that applicants have some knowledge, credibility and experience with the community they intend to work with.

Applicant could not fully explain the concept in the allotted space: We acknowledge that the application’s character count can seem constrictive but the ability to express the project idea in a concise manner will be necessary as the applicant’s idea progresses. In the social sector and elsewhere applicants will have to explain their ideas to people of varying expertise in their field of knowledge. In order for people to understand the applicant’s mission, the idea should be expressed without use of jargon or technical language. As one reader commented, “there are a lot of words but not much substance.”

Partnership does not seem to be working together: For partnership applications, both parties should be involved in the creation and execution of the project and planning to work on it full-time. This should be reflected in preparing the application. Anyone reading the application should be able to understand the contribution that each partner will make. Partnership applications that are written in the “I” voice lessen the contribution of the other partner.

Applicant did not provide financial information: When you’re seeking funding, it’s essential that you explain how this funding will be spent. Thus, failure to provide budgetary information when requested on the application raised serious concerns about an applicant’s preparation.