The Challenges of the Hired Hand

Those of you who have sat on proposal review committees have learned to detect the hired hand grant writer, right? Using just the slightly wrong terms, a certain awkwardness in how facts are strung up and a somewhat wooden project design? Lots of standard propoleese words?

Several rants exist on the internet about the disservice done to whatever good cause or whatever cozy researcher position by hiring the under-qualified “grant mercenary” to write your R01. But these are not my clients, nor my causes, and somehow I can’t drum up all that much compassion for the PhD tenure professor who can’t get it together to justify their own research project, especially given four cycles a year, and RFPs that haven’t changed in years.

Our clients are those that run small (budget between 30K- less than 5 million) social and health service providing organizations and local government entities in rural New Mexico. They make between nothing and 60K/year, and they work an average of 60 hrs/week. Their battle is an uphill one, all the time, and they are truly mission-driven. Their budgets never have enough room to hire that “development person” on a permanent basis, and so they call me. 3-5 week before deadline. Frantic.

I think we do a pretty good service to these clients. Many of them I have worked with for years. I know their mission, their services, why they are needed and who they benefit. I know the budget gaps, the organizational capacity and the organization’s needs. I don’t have to make stuff up. Or, let’s say, not very much stuff. There’s no way you can convince me that one of the large national grant writing firms can do the same kind of tailored and detail-oriented service for these local clients.

In the past I saw some of the projects funded by my grants morph into something completely new and unintended, or, fail miserably. As a consequence, I have tried to improve my ability to be realistic about what we promise in the proposal. So after the client gets funded, they don’t hate me for the whole duration of the project, struggling to live up to an impossible plan. Knowing your clients well helps with that reality check too.

Sometimes we work for statewide associations, larger nonprofits, or state government. The picture there isn’t much different at the individual level, although you wonder why improvements couldn’t be made at the institutional level, building the agencies’ capacity to write their own proposals. It doesn’t happen though, so they call me too. 5-3 weeks before deadline. Frantic.

With these projects it’s much more challenging to avoid hired-hand syndrome. Their scopes are larger, the budget bigger, the partnerships more complex, the issues not necessarily close to my expertise. And the politics are usually a nightmare.

Many times during the 3-5 weeks, as I am frantically trying to educate myself on whatever the issue is, I am asking myself, why don’t they write their own $#@! grant? Why don’t they have all this info stored somewhere other than their heads? What do you mean you don’t have last year’s proposal anymore?

And then I send the first draft, and very few edits come back from client staff, the very people who should straighten out all the obvious hired hand phrases and the output projections that are completely fictional. Too few edits, and I think….these people put way too much trust in me. And who are they going to blame if this doesn’t get awarded? Not themselves.

What it boils down to is effective communication, asking the right questions of the right people, in the communication style appropriate to the person. Making it very clear what you don’t know, and what you won’t do. And hoping that your client has the ability to follow up, meet internal deadlines, and focus on at least one good editing session. Tony Poderis has some good pointers on how to work with a grant writer effectively.

As challenging as all this is, it’s what makes me tick. Every new project is initially a confusing unorganized mess of information, facts, and knowledge. Once complete, and the submit button is pushed, it’s a well-organized case for a worthy project. And, if funded, it changes lives.

Once a New Mexico House Representative, upon hearing that I am a grant writer, sighed and said, that there are so many good grant writers who write grants for bad projects or organizations, and they get funded. I told her that I have turned jobs down, because I felt that the organization was too dysfunctional, or had unethical practices. The hired hand does discriminate.

I read all my reviewer comments on unfunded proposal, and I try to learn from them. I haven’t found hired hand complaints in written comments (which doesn’t mean reviewers haven’t thought or said it). But I don’t feel bad about being the hired hand. I provide a service by doing work that that would otherwise not get done. I help decrease the rural resource gap. And sometimes I make stuff up to get my client the award. Get over it.

oh my board.....

The rural resource gap is mirrored in a number of other rural gaps, or divides. Rural nonprofits are much less savvy at creating or influencing policy (something Kellogg has been addressing now for several years),then there's the gap in the workforce (see my previous post), and the gap in access to academic research resources. However, the governance gap is the most obvious to me in my daily work. While non-rural nonprofit boards all over the country are seemingly much more on top of their responsibilities, in NM we seem to think that governance is insignificant to an organization’s health.

Over the last 18 months no less than three large nonprofit community organizations in Southwest New Mexico experienced a Board of Directors erupting into conflict over the departure of the executive staff person. While each of these conflicts had their own causes and characteristics, together they are a symptom of one ailment: Local nonprofit boards ill-prepared to fulfill their duties. Two organizations now have seemingly stabilized, but one lost all of its government contracts and is now defunct. These conflicts were not healthy processes leading to stronger organizations. They left deep scars on individual relationships, resulted in loss of staff, and left the community with a perception of incompetence and needless in-fighting.

And many of the other boards in the area are not exactly collecting laurels….some more observations from the last few months: a board going below the number of directors set in the by-laws, another board either ignoring or somehow missing the fact staff that have been committing Medicaid fraud for a number of years, (this organization is on its way out, too) and many other boards watching idly as their staff struggles with dramatically shrinking resources as a result of the recession.

And finally, despite a wealth of information available on the new IRS Form 990, and its implications for nonprofit governance, not one area board (that I know if) is gearing up for a thorough review of their organization’s 2008 Form 990, due for most organizations in November.

Oh,…let’s mention the other side of it too: Executives who are condoning and enabling weak boards. I understand the temptation here, and how it is more convenient to run the show without the directors breathing down your neck. It’ll bite you in the butt at some point though. Guaranteed. I also see executives with good intentions, but no understanding of what it means to work for a board. They, along with their directors, should attend the next “Basic Roles and Responsibilities of NP Boards” training in the area.

I also worry that the recent local board conflicts discourage our community members from serving on the boards of crucial community organizations. Serving on a board can be a fulfilling, educational and rewarding way to volunteer for your community. Especially younger people underestimate how much this service adds to their resume, and how much they can learn: from leadership to financial management, supervision and teamwork, fundraising and policy, all are important workplace skills.

So, how can erupting and dysfunctional boards be avoided? Directors serving on boards may ask themselves: Are we as individuals and as a group prepared to guide this organization through an executive transition? Do we have the knowledge and leadership skills to be guardians of the mission in such times? Are we ready to put loyalty to the organization before our own egos, ideas and interests? And are we engaged enough to work with the executive (whether incoming or outgoing), supporting and supervising him or her? Are we ready to put in the extra hours needed to revise the organizational budget and make the needed decisions to steer the organization through the recession?

In times of economic crisis we cannot afford community nonprofits to fail those most vulnerable residents who are depending on their services. People serving on boards must recognize their responsibility, hone their skills, or get off the board.