I thought I would share this with all of you since you've been so kind as to offer guidance and
support regarding this new organization. I'm in the process of landing my first sponsorship. One of
the local microbreweries here in Colorado is taking a good look at the program and thinks it's a
great idea and fits into their ideology. I think once I get the first donor of some recognizable
status, others will fall into place.
I've also contacted a different grant writer to get a better impression of what is truly out there,
and if that one doesn't work, I'll just keep looking. I think this idea is certainly worthy of
pursuing until it's actually operational. What happens after that (if there will be enough demand)
will be worked out by market forces rather than the program never seeing the light of day, and
having the opportunity to succeed or fail on it's own merits.
Thank you all for your support. One way or another, this will be off the ground in June.
"John Gorentz" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Claire Petersky wrote:
>
> > "Bob Matter" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<
[email protected]>...
> >
> > > I've heard from a professional grant writer that I spoke with that
there are
> > > no funds out there for startups such as this. If anyone has any
advice to
> > > the contrary, I would be most appreciative if you shared it.
> >
> > Personally, I think this is not true. Perhaps the grant writer you spoke to doesn't know of
> > funds for this sort of venture, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. In fact, complaints in
> > the nonprofit world usually run the other way -- there's lots of money for new programs. The
> > hard thing is finding money to keep the lights on, and buy a new ream of letterhead, year
> > after year.
>
> That pretty much matches what I've seen and heard, too. It happens at all
different levels, and it probably has
> to work that way.
>
> You hear about a junior level faculty person getting a research grant.
The next thing you know, her department
> chair is pressuring her to put some of her salary on the grant, which is a
good deal for the departmental budget
> in the short term, but not a good deal for the researcher who needs the
money to finance the research so she can
> be successful and get an even bigger grant the next time. Granting
agencies usually consider this sort of thing
> an abuse, so they put mechanisms in place to stop it. But those who pay
the regular day-to-day operating costs
> keep looking for new loopholes to shift operating costs to grants.
>
> The person in the middle, whether a researcher or a little non-profit
agency that gets grants, can try to use the
> granting agency's requirements to advantage to protect the funds for the
new venture and also apply pressure on
> those who provide the operating costs to keep it up.
>
> I'm in the process of trying to find a few leads for Mr. Matter. I
haven't reported back to him yet because it's
> still in progress. I've heard of a local woman who has set up her own
little nonprofit that provides recreational
> opportunities for parents and their disabled children -- though as far as
I know so far, it doesn't do any
> bicycling or bicycle tours. She apparently has been very successful in
getting grants. Sounds promising.
>
> But one comment I heard elsewhere bothers me, and I'm wondering if you
have any insight. I got it from a person
> who is somewhat familiar with the workings of a private philanthropic
organization. She said that programs that
> are "replicable" are the ones that get funded. Do you think that is true
in general?
>
> I have issues with that notion. I can understand why a government funding
agency needs to do it that way, but why
> do private foundations need to be that way? I'm thinking back to 1993,
when the Bill and Hillary Criminal
> administration was proposing its first budget. My hero Rush Limbaugh
spent a lot of time poking fun at the
> "midnight basketball" component. He attacked the concept on two levels,
one that I agreed with and one that I
> disagreed with. It seemed that some private nonprofits had had great
success with midnight basketball in some
> cities. I didn't see any need for Rush to disparage that. But just
because a program is successful when run by
> some person who has the personality and drive and whatever it takes to
make it work, doesn't mean it will work
> well when it is made into a government program. Government programs need
to be bureaucraticized, which isn't
> necessarily a bad thing, but it usually means the personal idiosyncracies
that may have made something like
> midnight basketball a success will be stifled.
>
> Now maybe bicycle touring for disabled children and their families is
something that requires a person with the
> drive, enthusiasm, and personality quirks of a Bob Matter to work. Maybe
it isn't something that can be easily
> replicated (i.e . bureaucratized). Why can't a private foundation see
that Bob Matter is doing something really
> good that deserves support, even realizing that it might not do so well
without his personality behind it. I'm
> not saying that Bob Matter's plan is NOT replicable, but I don't see why
it should be in order to get funded. A
> private foundation ought to be agile enough to deal with it in ways that
would be impossible for a government.
>
> Of course, one has to be careful about telling a private foundation that
its criteria are all wrong. It would
> take some tact and finesse. And maybe it's my idea that's wrong, anyway.
>
> BTW, in the interests of bipartisan bashing, I should point out that
George W Bush's idea of funding "faith-based"
> charities suffers from all the defects of Bill and Hillary's midnight
basketball (plus a few additional ones that
> are way off topic for this newsgroup). Some programs might be very
successful at the private level, but once
> they're made into government programs, everything that made them
successful in the first place will get stiffled.
>
> Well, here's hoping somebody at whatever level is able to help Bob
Matter's bicycle touring idea get off the
> ground.
>
> John Gorentz