The Ethos of Ethics: How Grantwriters are Paid

Here we go again! The purveyors of ethical pabulum have once again weighed in --- with a thud --- with regard to the oft-debated but usually misunderstood issue of grantwriting, professionalism and appropriate compensation. While most people and many professionals seem to clearly understand that performance and compensation should be closely tied, those self-appointed spokespeople amongst us argue that grantwriters should be exempt from such accountability. In her recent article Percentage as Payment: An Ethical Issue, Karen Hodge makes the usual and now bankrupt arguments against grantwriters accepting percentage fees.

We are told there is no place for profit in the non-profit world. This belies the obvious: there are lots of people making significant profits in dealing with non-profit organizations as vendors, suppliers, consultants and yes, even as salaried employees. The essential issue is that a non-profit is organized under the Internal Revenue code so that shareholders do not receive dividends. Let’s not confuse what’s truly simple.

For over 30 years as a grantwriting professional, often working solely on a freelance and consulting basis (and yes, happily charging a percentage fee!), I continue to hear that my practices are unethical. Ms. Hodge restates this argument by saying that yes indeed, these practices are unethical because people say they’re unethical. She continues by making this ridiculous argument: “The Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) has issued strong warnings against any fundraiser accepting a percentage of funds raised as payment for services for just that reason.” I continue to be baffled and confused by this statement and so many like it. What reason? Apparently this references the previous sentence, which asserts that profit making is anathema to the non-profit world. If so …hogwash!

Here’s the crux of the matter. I have written in excess of 20 million dollars of competitive and discretionary grant applications, largely for smaller, poorer and less advantaged clients. My average grant proposal has resulted in approvals of under $100,000 per grant and thus I have written an awful lot of grants! (By the way, my “success rate” is a bit better than 1:2, which perhaps helps explain why I am willing to compete and to shoulder some of the hazard.) Most of my clients over the years were not able to afford a salaried grantwriting professional nor were they able to engage the services of a consulting individual or firm at the rates being charged. Had I been unwilling or unable to write grants for practically no “up front” fees, relying instead upon my competence and ultimate successes, my clients would not have been able to receive funding.

It is my argument that the professional associations and those who accept blindly the pap being presented are merely perpetuating their own form of racism and discrimination. By keeping the field free of freelance professionals willing to take and share the risks (that are otherwise solely the burden of a client) we close the field of fundraising and grant and program development to those least able to afford or profit from the successes.
While I suspect that Ms. Hodge is well intentioned, she and this argument are severely misguided and provide a deleterious message to community-based and smaller non-profit and public agencies around the country who desperately need a seat at the table but cannot afford the chair.

-- M.S. Kayes, NCSC Project Director