[Imc-finance] A network wide grantmaking proposal

[Sascha Meinrath]

Hi all,

I think this is a really interesting proposal and is in parallel with many
of the efforts being made by individual IMCs and various affinity groups.
There have been multiple calls over the last few years for people
interested in grantwriting to get more organized.  And I know that this is
something that I have been talking a lot about with local and global
activists.  Thus far, individual projects have organized their own
grant-writing collectives and affinity group -- this is a first pass at
creating a global Indymedia grantwriters group.  Meanwhile if people are
interested in writing grants for their own IMCs or projects, I encourage
you to let me know since there is a lot of interest out there and the
UCIMC can help support these activities.

More comments below:

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, k.skvorak wrote:

>
> --
> A 'macro' concept proposal for short and long term IMC foundation
> fundraising. - Prioritizing'Project based' funding  and creating a
> coherent and "centralized" way to get  diverse proposals to a
> selection of smaller foundations-
>
> Greetings  all finance thinkers out there
>
> I just wanted to float out an idea, for people to consider for a
> (potentially) network wide mutually supportive and (somewhat)
> coherent foundation fundraising strategy.
>
> There is little doubt that the IMC network is 'maturing' in a lot of
> ways, and that there are opportunities for fundraising all over the
> established foundation world.
>
> While there are indeed a few big funders that are willing to respond
> to big, more 'open ended' or network wide proposals like that that
> came from Ford,  they are a small number relative to all of the
> foundations out there.
>
> Many other smaller foundations often prefer a more specific, smaller
> and targeted proposal to give money toŠ.something that I will call
> for these purposes "project based" funding proposals, and these
> small funders can not even afford to look at a proposal the size of
> Fords grantŠ.remember the vast majority of 'progressive'  grants are
> under $5000Šand many much smaller than that.

I think project-based funding is an incredibly powerful opportunity for
Indymedia as a whole and for individual IMCs and Indymedia projects.
There are certainly hundreds (if not thousands) of possible funding
opportunities that IMCs and Indymedia projects could tap into.  Often,
"small" grants are more than enough to fund many of the projects IMC-istas
are engaged in.

> Right now there are certainly some IMC collectives and even working
> groups that are 'tapped' in to these funding opportunities, and are
> already succesfully getting the funds on their own.  That is a good
> thing, as far as it goes.

The UCIMC is certainly tapped into multiple resources, but we too suffer
from never having as many grantwriters as we need, and we have missed
multiple deadlines for grants (even ones we were _invited_ to apply for)
simply because we didn't have the people-power to get the grants written.
With more people working on grants, I think we could bring in much more
funding to various Indymedia projects.

> At the same time some of  these few 'usual suspect'  funders are
> receiving proposals from different IMC's apparently unconnected to
> each other and some IMC's are indeed getting needed
> funds autonomously and without any connection to other IMC
> proposals. and these funders are 'dealing' with this seeming
> contradiction or perhaps they understand that there is no
> contradiction here at all.  In fact there are local  geographically
> selective foundations for which this local autonomous approach is the
> only possible one.

Coordination is certainly useful -- I'm not aware that this has been a
problem thus far, though as more IMCs do fundraising, it will certainly
become more likely.

> Of course for other national or international funders this is very
> confusing Š.and to be honest with ourselves, this approach is not the
> optimal way to do network wide mutual aidŠas each IMC has differing
> abilities to write, and most importantly,  to research and submit
> grant proposals.
>
> So I am suggesting trying a different approach.
>
> If the IMC network as a whole, from a 'centralized' location - for
> instance UCIMC or someplace else, were sending out a diverse proposal
> package each funding cycle to a growing selection of friendly funders
> it would give the appearance of 'central' coherence to the IMC
> network that is not apparent otherwise.   Yet this 'centralized'
> appearance would not be as complicated for our own internal workings
> as when we seek or accept  large 'network wide' grantsŠthat then
> require disbursement and the risk of  creating,  at the very least,
> 'apparent' internal heirarchies.

Kevin had sent me this proposal off-list, and as I mentioned to him, I'm
concerned about creating centralized structures for the Global Indymedia
Network.  Obviously, I trust the UCIMC (I'm their treasurer ;), but I
really like the decentralization of funding and the empowerment of local
initiatives and groups.  Multiple IMCs and projects are sponsored by the
UCIMC, however, this is because they have chosen to make that affiliation
-- thus it is a fully voluntary and cooperative arrangement.  I would be
very uncomfortable formalizing any role with the UCIMC in terms of
centralization of Global Indymedia decision-making or coordination; and
I'm not sure what benefits would be gained for the Global Network by doing
this.  So, if the idea is to centralize grant information, I'm all for it
and certainly the UCIMC could help with the endeavor; but I'd rather not
see the UCIMC assume any sort of official capacity over the process.

> In this 'project based' approach, there is no 'internal vetting' of
> the proposals,Š.only perhaps mutual aid and support in making the
> proposals look good.   It will be up to the funders to choose which
> IMC project best suits their needs for that cycle.

This is what is currently being done among people who have expressed an
interest in grant-writing.  Basically, all one has to do is let people
know you're interested or that you're working on a grant (if you need
help), and people tend to lend a hand.  That said, having resources and
contacts centrally available would certainly add support to these
initiatives.

> Of course this approach does not (necessarily) exclude independent
> IMC's from submitting their own proposals if that is what they are
> committed toŠ.so I am not (necessarily) suggesting any coercion of
> already self funded IMC's.
>
> One way it could work is as follows:
>
> If IMC Nigeria, or Peru, or Palestine or New York or any other IMC
> collective or workgroup needs funds, they are probably pretty
> specific as to what those needs are.   They need equipment, travel
> funds, funds to support a community education and media center etc
> etcŠ. there are so many good ideas out there- specific local project
> ideas.
>
> And while these local collectives have really clear ideas about their
> local needs and ambitions, they may or may not have clear ideas how
> to approach funders for thatŠespecially the rich foundations in the
> 'North' that I am talking about hereŠ so they often 'ask' IMC at
> large for funding.  This is perhaps an acceptable model,  but we have
> seen some of the difficulties with this- unwieldy process etcŠand
> again the inherent problems with internal disbersment
>
> Instead  I am proposing is that local collectives create their local
> project proposals for their own IMC collectives, then these proposals
> can be sent to this list, or some new list for collection and at the
> same time  some mutual aid if the local group wants help in 'touching
> up' the proposal.- On this list we can also perhaps ask ourselves
> some of the pertinent questions that funders like to ask:
>
> "what is the track record of this group if any?"  "what are their
> connections to, and how do they serve the local community"?  " what
> kind of commitments to follow thru with the goals of the proposal,
> and how will those goals be reported, in time, to the foundation?"
> (not every goal is met by every 'grantee'Š.and foundation boards are
> used to thisŠso we don't have to overly stress about this...)
>
> Then comes the good part.   -  Each quarter these proposals can go
> out in a package to a variety of foundations.  This would of course
> be set up in advance, and these funders would be looking forward to,
> and expecting each cycle of diverse local proposals from the IMC
> network.  These funders can then choose themselves which of these
> projects their foundation would like to supportŠit is left up the the
> funders to make this determination, and not any internal 'vetting'
> process of our own.  I suspect that their are plenty of progressive
> funders that would prefer and welcome this approach, and look fwd
> each cycle to see "what the IMC network is up to"

This could certainly work for some grantors and foundations -- but
granting cycles are really all over the place (e.g. some are yearly, some
are ongoing, etc.).  It'll certainly be an amazing resource once set up --
and I think that it would be worth trying.

> This also provides valuable mutual aid and equalization for those
> local proposals that are very good, but whose members may not have
> foundation connections or skills yet.  It also provides the
> invaluable service of getting these proposals into tha nads of likely
> funders that is the biggest obstacle for many local IMC's.
>
> This does not preclude  any global fund,  internal disbersement
> etcŠor network wide grants if that serves other needs like emergency
> funding, network wide infrastructure etc.
>
> I would certainly be willing to spend at least a little time
> contacting different funders and sorting out which ones would like to
> receive regular IMC proposals, and to help create this friendly
> foundation 'database'Šwhich is really not that daunting a task  and
> is as easy as making phone calls to them.
>
> This is not at all an odd concept, because many groups and funders
> have longstanding relationships, and foundations support the same
> groups year after yearŠ.and we can follow that same example and not
> force local IMC volunteers to rediscover the wheel year after year Š
>
> And this could all be easier to implement than  it sounds as many
> funders even accept email or electronic proposals these days,Š.so
> there may not even be a lot of 'paperwork' to doŠ.
>
> Just an idea.
>
> If anyone thinks this is an important enough idea to comment on,
> translate, or redistribute,Šplease feel free.

Could you send this to imc-communication@indymedia.org and to
imc-translation@indymedia.org (with explicit instructions on where to send
translations that are needed).

In solidarity,

--Sascha Meinrath
Urbana-Champaign IMC