DIRECT ACCESS / CONTINUATION
“I found my sport. I put in the work. Now the pathway is pricing me out.”
Every year, committed Kansas City athletes hit a wall that has nothing to do with talent or effort. Club fees. Travel. Tournaments. Gear. The further a young person goes in sports, the more it costs to keep going — and for kids from lower-income families, the pathway simply ends.
#Ready2Grow exists so that commitment, not income, decides how far a kid can go.
THE PROBLEM IT SOLVES
“The pathway I’m on is pricing me out”
GameChanging Grants get any kid in the door. #Ready2Play brings quality programming into the neighborhood. But neither answers what happens next: a young person who has found their sport, committed to it, and is developing in it — and then the pathway gets expensive. Club fees, carding, travel, tournament entries, gear. Their peers walk into that next season freely; they get priced out.
This is a distinct fourth problem — not affordability of starting (Grants), not availability of programming (#Ready2Play), not the system itself (Play Equity Collective). It is the income barrier applied to continuation: capable, committed young people falling off the path as it climbs.
Grants get any kid in the door; #Ready2Grow carries a committed kid down a path that would otherwise be walled off.
DIRECT IMPACT
What it is.
A portable scholarship that follows an income-eligible young person (ages 12–18) into the club or program they choose. It covers club registration, carding, uniforms, travel, tournament fees, and gear. The youth picks the pathway; the scholarship travels with them.
01
Eligibility is the income barrier plus the young person's commitment and readiness — not athletic ability, GPA gates, or talent identification.
Anchored in income, never talent
An elite-pipeline model was considered and rejected in June 2026 — it would subsidize the broken pay-to-play system rather than change it.
Reciprocity is the engine
02
A club that receives a #Ready2Grow athlete receives a 50% fee reduction and joins the Kansas City Play Equity Coalition as a supporting member. We don't write checks to clubs—we change their incentives.
This is the line between subsidizing the system and reshaping it — the program's best idea.
03
The young person names the pathway and explains why it matters to them. For many, staying in the game is about connection, regulation, and belonging — not just athletic development.
Youth voice, trauma-informed
THE MECHANISM, PER SCHOLARSHIP
How we think it might work
A committed, income-eligible young person is identified — through #Ready2Play activations, GameChanging Grants alumni, BBBSKC, or partner referral. The continuum feeds itself: a Grants kid who found their sport becomes a #Ready2Grow candidate three seasons later.
01
The youth names their club or program. The club signs the reciprocity agreement: 50% fee reduction plus KCPEC membership.
02
Income eligibility is verified — by a delivery partner, not ShareWaves.
03
The scholarship — $1,500–$5,000 per athlete per year, planning at roughly $2,500 — pays vendor-direct against the remaining costs.
04
The athlete is supported across the season. Retention across seasons is the North Star metric.
05
The delivery structure
This is the working hypothesis and the open decision.
ShareWaves' advisor review points to incubating, not operating.
ShareWaves holds the architecture
The coalition, the reciprocity terms, the funding, and the storytelling. This keeps ShareWaves a backbone rather than a program operator, and preserves the option to absorb the program in 2027 with a board and capacity in place — if the pilot proves the mechanism.
A delivery partner runs the participant-facing work
Stipend administration, income verification, and the human-development support layer — containing operational and clinical risk that ShareWaves is not built to carry directly.
An honest note on selection: unlike Grants, this program selects. Scholarships are scarce and expensive; someone has to choose who gets one.
Thoughtful, commitment-based criteria make that selection fair — they don't make it disappear. We say so plainly rather than pretend otherwise.
2026 targets and cost
SIX
Scholarship athletes, H2 2026 (one per month)
~$2,500
Planning cost per athlete
$17,000
H2 2026 direct budget ($15,500 contingent)
Contingent on two gates clearing first:
The delivery-model decision — operate vs. incubate.
Signed club reciprocity agreements
Design and legal work (~$1,500) is underway; scholarship funds will not move until the gates clear. Money is not the binding constraint here — design is. We will not accept restricted scholarship funding before the model is decided.
How we’ll measure it
Now- Pilot
Athletes bridged; partner clubs signed and reciprocity compliance; pilot enrollment and participant experience.
Building Toward
Retention across seasons — whether a young person who would otherwise have left the game stays in it; participant well-being; downstream pathway and access indicators.
What it is not
Not an elite or talent-identification program. Achievement may result; it is never the entry criterion.
x
Not a fourth peer program in public framing — the continuum is three Direct Access programs; #Ready2Grow completes the journey (first exposure → first participation → continued opportunity).
x
Not yet a committed program. External copy says "emerging, in development" until the delivery decision is made.
x
OPEN DECISIONS
What’s still being decided
Operate vs. incubate — who runs the participant-facing delivery? Advisor recommendation: incubate for the pilot; revisit in 2027.
DELIVERY MODEL
Who holds stipend administration, income verification, and the clinical / human-development support layer?
DELIVERY PARTNER
Legal review of the 50% fee reduction plus KCPEC membership requirement.
RECIPROCITY TERMS
SELECTION CRITERIA
The commitment/readiness rubric that governs who receives a scarce scholarship.