RodenKinzer747

It is no surprise that individuals work more difficult and perform much better if you find an immediate correlation among their results and the praise. Executives make an effort to take companies to the next level to be able to increase stock option value. Salespeople proceed all-out to improve commission earnings. Following this reasoning, wouldn't it be expected that nonprofits reward grant writers based on approved grants instead of submitted grants or loans? In the end, why pay someone a good hourly rate regardless of whether the actual request is given or not?

This theory is not really new. It has been, as well as is still, a very controversial topic in the nonprofit industry.

On a single side, it is unfair to the grant writers. The Association of Account raising Experts (AFP) considers it unethical for not-for-profits to pay grant writers on the percentage set up tied to the grant amount. They may not be commission salespeople but if these were, their commission would be due on delivery of the work product, not when or if grants or loans are granted. Just as much as some of us non profit grant writer want to, all of us don't pay stockbroker commissions only when trades lead to capital benefits; we put our rely upon our brokers and pay all of them for their extended hours of investigation and insightful advice. Of course, hopefully they just recommend winning stocks, but we pay the commission rate upfront on uberrima fides that their own picks are solid. The same principle pertains to grant writers; we hire their expertise in writing offer requests and should put uberrima fides within their skills and experiences. Similar to the stockbroker who else cautions, "Past performance is no guarantee of future outcomes, inch grant writers are not able to predict the future to determine if their proposals is going to be approved.

Inequities apart however, a few look at why it is simply not good business for the not for profit to enter into these kinds of transaction arrangements.

The actual nonprofit could actually lose out on a grant approval when the foundation discovers that the author is being compensated from the offer proceeds. Offer requests are created for specific purposes and foundations expect the nonprofit to apply 100% from the grant towards that approved task. Monies to pay for grant writers are required in the future from operating budgets and few foundations fund general operating expenses.

As well, grant writers might portray your charitable organisation grantwriter within a disapproving light by irritating foundations having an onslaught associated with unrelenting persuasive tactics and follow-ups in an effort to speed up the evaluation process and get their suggestion approved.

You may even unconsciously invite disputes between yourself and the grant writers over compensation on successful grants that are distributed over multiple periods if contingent payment plans were not obviously agreed upfront regarding the timing associated with payments under multiyear disbursements.

If your charity is actually small and lacks sufficient operating funds to properly compensate grant writers, succeed the writer to your trigger as a ally, then negotiate pro bono work until your charitable organisation becomes solidly set up. You might have a lot more to reduce than to gain by paying grant writers on conditional terms, so proceed haggle together with your stockbroker rather.