Why Grant Writers Should Not Be Paid a Percentage of the Award

The idea can sound appealing: the nonprofit pays the grant writer only if funding is awarded, or the writer receives a percentage of the grant.

For an organization with limited cash, this may appear to reduce risk. In practice, percentage-based or success-only arrangements create serious ethical, financial, and professional concerns.

The funder—not the writer—controls the award

A consultant can research carefully, assess fit, develop a strong proposal, and submit accurate materials. The final decision may still be influenced by competition, limited funds, changing priorities, geography, existing relationships, board preferences, or factors the applicant never sees.

Compensation based entirely on the award makes payment depend on decisions outside the professional's control rather than on the quality and completion of the work.

Professional work has value even when a proposal is declined

A well-developed application may strengthen organizational messaging, clarify a program, identify useful evidence, improve future proposals, and create material that supports donor communication or later funding requests.

A rejection does not mean the research, analysis, consultation, and writing were never performed.

Percentage compensation can distort judgment

When a professional's income depends on the size or success of an award, pressure can arise to pursue weak-fit opportunities, recommend an inflated request, minimize organizational concerns, or imply a degree of certainty that responsible grant work cannot provide.

A consultant should be free to advise that an opportunity is unsuitable, that readiness work is needed first, or that the requested amount should be grounded in the program and funder's context.

Grant funds are awarded for authorized purposes

Funders generally expect awarded money to be used according to the approved budget and stated charitable purpose. A nonprofit should never assume that an outside percentage fee can simply be taken from the award.

How proposal-development costs may be treated depends on the funder's rules, the approved budget, accounting requirements, and other applicable obligations. Those questions should be resolved before any expense is represented as payable from grant funds.

Success-only arrangements can exclude careful professionals

Grant work may require dozens of hours before any decision is made, followed by months of waiting. A professional business cannot responsibly commit substantial research and writing time with no assurance of compensation.

Organizations that require unpaid speculative work may attract people willing to overpromise or those who have not yet established sound professional practices.

Clear fee structures support accountability

Hourly fees and retainers can be appropriate when the scope and responsibilities are clearly established. These structures compensate the work itself and allow the nonprofit to understand its investment before the engagement begins.

A grant professional can be accountable for excellent work, sound judgment, and honest communication—but cannot sell control over a funder's decision.

Funding Bridge Consulting does not charge a percentage of grant awards. Fees are based on the professional services required, with written scope, advance payment, responsibilities, and authorization points established before work begins.