by Cindy Gibson

When the folks at the Case Foundation launched their new grantmaking program to help lift up some of the best examples of "citizen-centered" community deliberation and problem-solving, they hoped they'd get at least 1,000 applications.

Someone should have told them to be careful what you wish for.

The foundation didn't receive 1,000 applications; they got nearly 5,000. Clearly, the initiative has touched a nerve. Not only are thousands of people wanting to "do something" for and with their communities, there is a sense that they appreciate the opportunity to be involved in a foundation's attempt to walk the talk of citizen-centeredness by involving "real people" in every phase of the grantmaking process -- from creating guidelines to voting on the winners.

Part of that process involved recruiting a group of people to score applications based on criteria that emerged out of feedback the foundation received from community-based nonprofit practitioners across the country. What made this group unique was the diversity of members' experiences and backgrounds. Few, for example, had ever worked in a philanthropic organization or been employed by a nonprofit focused on "civic engagement." From a pastor in Indianapolis to a "grassroots grandmother" in Arizona to a high school student in D.C. to an education specialist in Boston, these individuals happily shouldered the task of scoring nearly 100 applications each, providing thoughtful and detailed comments on nearly every one.

Thanks to their heroic efforts, the foundation was able to compile its Top 100. This list contains the names of a truly remarkable group of individuals and organizations representing every geographic region in the United States, as well as a wide range of ethnic backgrounds, income levels, ages, and experiences. What they all have in common is a fierce determination to bring people together to engage in the hard work of democracy and community building.

But what made these 100 the "top?" And what are the reasons that others didn't make the cut?

We decided to ask the experts: the 92 judges who helped to score each and every application. And they told us.

Let's start first with the issues most common among those who didn't move on. What made judges score an application low?

Lack of understanding about the citizen-centered concept
Despite explanation of this concept in the application guidelines and throughout the foundation website, some applicants seemed to be confused or unaware as to the focus of the grant awards program. This was indicated by grantseekers who requested support for personal fundraising efforts, projects that had little or no community involvement, traditional volunteering/service projects, or established programs for nonprofits.

Little detail about community outreach
A fundamental component of citizen-centered approaches is ensuring participation among diverse groups of people in communities, and this requires serious thought about outreach and recruitment, details of which were not provided by some applicants.

Pre-defined "it"
Some applicants seemed to have made the decisions on their own about which issue(s) the rest of the community could/should be addressing, rather than involving others in those decision processes.

No description about "what next"
Although the foundation didn't expect applicants to outline detailed strategic plans, it did ask applicants, at the very least, to indicate how they saw their projects as laying the groundwork for longer-term civic engagement efforts in their communities -- a question that was left unanswered by some applicants.

Too pie-in-the-sky
Some applicants outlined plans that were just too ambitious or simply unfeasible, given the amount of the potential grants.

And now onto the Top 100. What were the characteristics of those who judges scored the highest?

Clear grasp of the citizen-centered concept
The best proposals were those that described how applicants incorporated the two essential components of citizen-centered efforts: civic deliberation (discussing and deciding on the "it" together) and civic problem-solving (action).

Detailed description of how the community would be involved
The top applicants provided considerable details about their community and how their efforts would bring representatives from different ideological, religious, political, ethnic/racial, and economic sectors together. An important part of this description was the recruitment process applicants said they would use (or did use) to meet this goal.

A respect for community deliberation in deciding the "it"
Top applicants communicated a respect for deliberative processes by describing how they would (or did) involve the entire community in figuring out the issues they would address and outlining a plan of action. In one community, for example, a group of individuals is holding a series of roundtables to determine which issues are most important to public safety and then reconvening to lay out action plans.

A plan for "what next"
Top applicants indicated how they envision their projects can become a catalyst for other and future citizen-centered efforts in their communities. As one judge said, "They showed their work to be deliberate and intentional, not just 'one-shot.'"

A focus on the "do"
While deliberation is an important part of citizen-centered approaches, action is equally important, and the top applicants indicated a clear understanding of how their efforts would result in concrete results.

Passion and purpose
Threaded through the best applications was a sense of passion and purpose and an understanding that civic engagement isn't just about "me" or "you" but the entire community and its well-being. "We want to get beyond the issues that divide us and work together toward the things we all care about as a community," wrote one applicant.

These are just a few general comments offered as feedback to the thousands of energetic, passionate, and amazing individuals who cared enough to apply for support. Now, the Top 100 will flesh out their ideas. And in March, 20 of these 100 will be selected to receive $10,000. Four of the Top 20 will then receive an additional $25,000. Which four will be decided by you -- the public -- through an online voting process.

So how will you decide which finalists get the top dollar? You won't know until you learn all about the projects, so check out the Top 100 -- read their applications and project diaries, view videos and photos, and submit comments. They need your help to make their big dreams for their community a reality!

Cynthia Gibson authored Citizens at the Center as a consultant to the Case Foundation.