Page 4 RAiN April 1978 NCAT bas prublems. We've been quiet as lung as possible, to give it space to get on its feet (Ind time to sort out its problems inlernally. That hasn't happened to date, and tbe problems caused to grantees and other urganizations and individuals outside NCA l' make it important tbat we all sbare our perspectives 0 11 what has bappened and what can be done to improve the situation. The following perspectives are my own - based on my participation on tbe planning committee fo~ NCA T and co1ltilluing discussion with board members. staff and othet a.t. groups. There are certainly other viewpoints. If you have helpful insights to add to the discussion. send us feedback. - TB mrnffiTI where ·are you al? I[ 'S been almost three years now since the planning committee for the National Center for Appropriate Technology first met-flown in at a co [ of $20,000 to a $35 /day hot springs resort in Montana, complete with astro-turf surrounding the artificially cooled, chlorinated hot springs swimming pool and golf course surrounded with condominium lots (care to take a tour?). 0 meals for less than $6. We were brought there to talk abour simple living. And to explore the inherent contradictions of the world's largest government propo ing to develop technology for 10caUy self-reliant living. A Center for Decentralized Technology. Small renewable energy systems for poor people encouraged through a Montana Energy and Magnetohydrodynamits Re earch and Development Institute (MERDI), whose board members represented such compatible bedfellows as Edward Teller, Anaconda Copper. Montana Power Company, banks and technical universities. Those were bad omens and difficult conditions through which to try to assist local technologies, but a lot of good energy by a lot of good people has also gone into getting NCAT going. It seems time now to try to evaluate what has happened with NCAT in these three years, particularly as all reports indicate that things aren't going too well there now. People and groups -awarded grants have been experiencing interminable delays in getting their money. As of February, many of the regional new letter grantees still hadn' t seen contracts or money more than six months after they had been notified and had started work. One group given a grant to develop a solar-powered irrigation pump refused the grant when it cventuaUy arrived- they had gone ahead without the long-promised money and the project was already finished. The Trust for Public Land in San Francisco had to pay for a project with their own money when NCAT funds never came. People and Energy experienced similar problems with two NCAT grants. Paperwork and accounting demands seem excessivewhether caused by CSA, NCAT or a single accounting clerk. Ecotope Group, with a $300,000 grant from the Department of Energy and an $8,000 grant from NCAT found the paperwork required by NCAT to be several times greater than their larger grant. The NCAT staff itself is snowed under evaluating grant proposals and doing paperwork on approved grants- yet other similar government grant programs have avoided such problems. We have personally had extremely hard times getting information from NeAT- repeated requests failed to obtain even a list of NCAT extension workers and regional newsletters. The list we printed in RAIN we had to get from Craig Decker. a Washington, D.C. a.t. person who came by the Rainhouse after si tting in on an NCAT board meeting. There is always start-up confusion in any organization, and it's excusable if our name won't stick onto their computer mailing list. But everyone we talk to seems to have similar problems. People continually write to us expressing frustration at not getting any response to letters, phone calls, grant proposals, etc. There doesn't seem to be any single cause for all the prob lems. The Community Services Administration (formerly the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz