Vertical 1 of 3 · 2027 options

Summit Scholarship

The demand question is settled. 2,150 women applied for 14 scholarships — under one percent got one. The 2027 question is not whether people want this. It is what we do when the film doubles the number asking.

Where it stands

2026 applications

2,150+

Countries

Scholarships funded

Acceptance rate

<1%

Campaign reach

745,584

Warm leads captured

1,485

Reach is the measured 2026 campaign figure; the full-cycle number is 894,226. Both are organic only — the platform API does not report paid. Awarded to date across all cycles is $225k+, which is a verified floor rather than a total.

The constraint is no longer money, it is throughput. Fourteen scholarships cost roughly $50k fully loaded against a program that is contribution-positive. What limits us is the manual work of reading two thousand applications and the systems around it — both of which sit on one person.

Four options for 2027

These are not mutually exclusive, but they compete for the same attention. What I need from the board is a ranking, and a view on whether the scale option is too aggressive.

A · Rebuild the backend and hold at 14 Foundation

Rebuild application intake, screening and reviewer workflow to handle 5,000 applications without a human bottleneck. Hold the scholarship count flat and spend the year on infrastructure and impact measurement.

Cost ~$15kNew revenue noneRisk if skipped program breaks under film volume

B · Co-funded scholarships with partner organizations Recommended

Named seats funded jointly with aligned organizations — the model the SheJumps conversation surfaced. A partner funds a scholarship, we run the selection and the storytelling, both brands carry it. This converts partner interest directly into seats instead of into logo placement.

Target 8–10 partner-funded seatsRevenue $40–55kCost relationship time, not cash

C · Tiered awards — more women, smaller grants Reach

Restructure into a pyramid: a larger number of smaller awards under a handful of full scholarships. Roughly 40 awards at $1,500 plus 5 at $5,000 for similar total outlay. Serves far more women; each one less deeply.

Women funded 14 → 45Cost broadly flatTrade-off dilutes the flagship story

D · Regional cohorts Depth

Concentrate awards in three or four geographies rather than spreading across 82 countries. Gives us measurable community-level impact, a local sponsor story, and alumnae who can actually meet each other.

Cost flatPayoff fundable impact dataTrade-off narrows a global brand

My read B, with A as non-negotiable

Option A is not really an option — the backend gets rebuilt or the program fails publicly in its highest-visibility year. Treat it as cost of doing business. On top of that, B is the one that changes the ratio: it is the only path that meaningfully raises the number of women funded without first raising the same money ourselves. C and D are worth a real conversation for 2028; I would not do three of these at once.

The number that should embarrass us is not 2,150 applications. It is 14. Every option above is judged by whether it moves that number, and B moves it furthest per unit of my attention.