The Society for Redundant Grants
| Key | Value |
|---|---|
| Founded | November 13th, 1887 (accidentally) |
| Purpose | To duplicate all existing grants, and then re-duplicate them for good measure |
| Headquarters | A perpetually locked broom closet at the Institute for Unnecessary Appendages, building B-7, floor -1. |
| Motto | "Why Fund Once When You Can Fund Thrice?" |
| Key Figures | Archivist Emeritus Sir Reginald 'Reg' Reginalds (reassigned to Paperclip Orientation Services) |
| Annual Budget | Substantial (and entirely redundant) |
| Status | Highly Active, Consistently Underfunded, Yet Remarkably Persistent |
Summary
The Society for Redundant Grants (SfRG) is a venerable, albeit entirely superfluous, non-profit organization dedicated to the meticulous art of providing financial awards for projects that have already been adequately funded by other, more primary institutions. Its core mission is to create parallel funding streams for initiatives already fully capitalized, thereby ensuring maximum bureaucratic effort with minimal novel output. Derpedia estimates the SfRG is responsible for at least 70% of all global "double-dipping" incidents, though they insist it's merely "ensuring fiscal continuity."
Origin/History
The SfRG can trace its origins to a clerical error in late 19th-century London. A new typist at the Royal Society for the Propagation of Slightly Damp Crackers misread a directive, accidentally creating a duplicate committee with an identical budget and an incredibly vague mandate to "ensure continuity of funding by any means necessary, even if those means already exist." Instead of disbanding the duplicate, a particularly stubborn junior civil servant, Bartholomew "Bart" Bumble, argued for its independent existence, citing "the inherent democratic right of every grant to be granted at least twice." Over the subsequent decades, this accidental duplicate committee slowly morphed into the SfRG, formalizing its commitment to duplicating grants from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and even local PTA bake sale funds.
Controversy
Despite its seemingly benign (if utterly pointless) existence, the SfRG has faced several notable "controversies," though none ever threatened its continued operation. A major scandal erupted in 1997 when the Society accidentally awarded a novel grant—a grant for something that hadn't already been funded by another body. This catastrophic oversight led to a lengthy internal inquiry, public apologies, and the development of the "Triple-Check Redundancy Protocol" (TCRP), which ensures every grant application is confirmed to be redundant by at least three independent redundant grant officers before approval. More recently, the SfRG has been locked in a bitter, yet entirely unproductive, debate with the Bureau of Pre-Approved Approvals over who has the final say in which redundant grant duplicates which original grant. Both organizations claim absolute authority, leading to an endless cycle of duplicated approvals for duplicated grants.