Reposted from The Grantsmanship Center's August 2011 newsletter {Centered}
Mail Fraud. Guilty. Document Forgery. Guilty. Making False Statements. Guilty.
In June 2011 a California jury returned its verdict in the case of grant proposal writer Jean Cross, an independent contractor. The charges involved a 2007 grant proposal submitted by a community coalition for funding under the 21st Century Community Learning Center grant program.
After the $35 million grant was approved for funding, one of the key partners, the Desert Sands Unified School District, found that the proposal that had been submitted was "materially different" from the copy they had received from the applicant organization, that memos of understanding had been altered, and that district signatures had been forged. The school district blew the whistle, withdrew from the collaboration, and called for an investigation. The grant was returned to the funding source. Ultimately the proposal writer was charged with fraud, forgery, and making false statements.
While this situation was extraordinary, it's worth looking at, since it highlights at least five crucial lessons for grantseekers.
The proposal writer had approached the coalition about submitting a proposal about ten days before the deadline, according to testimony by the head of the coalition.
[Extensive investigative and trial coverage can be found at The Desert Sun newspaper.]
Patty Hasselbring, a former trainer for The Grantsmanship Center, has worked with nonprofits for more than 30 years on both sides of the funding desk: as executive director of grantseeking nonprofit organizations and as executive director of a funding agency. She and her husband also breed and raise alpacas.
Mail Fraud. Guilty. Document Forgery. Guilty. Making False Statements. Guilty.
In June 2011 a California jury returned its verdict in the case of grant proposal writer Jean Cross, an independent contractor. The charges involved a 2007 grant proposal submitted by a community coalition for funding under the 21st Century Community Learning Center grant program.
After the $35 million grant was approved for funding, one of the key partners, the Desert Sands Unified School District, found that the proposal that had been submitted was "materially different" from the copy they had received from the applicant organization, that memos of understanding had been altered, and that district signatures had been forged. The school district blew the whistle, withdrew from the collaboration, and called for an investigation. The grant was returned to the funding source. Ultimately the proposal writer was charged with fraud, forgery, and making false statements.
While this situation was extraordinary, it's worth looking at, since it highlights at least five crucial lessons for grantseekers.
The proposal writer had approached the coalition about submitting a proposal about ten days before the deadline, according to testimony by the head of the coalition.
- Lesson #1: Plan. One of the core principles for people who practice sound grantsmanship is planning. Even a relatively simple proposal requires thoughtful planning. In this case, the proposed programming involved a multitude of schools and community organizations. How can solid program planning be accomplished with so many collaborators in just ten days?
- Lesson #2: Use accurate data. Everything we include in grant proposals must be accurate, with sources cited. If we don't have time to gather the data, we don't have time to plan a program or prepare a proposal worthy of funding.
- Lesson #3: Use original signatures. Original signatures on original documents are essential, and the process for approval by school districts and units of government is likely to take longer than just a few days. If there isn't time to get approval of the final documents and signatures by all parties, don't apply.
- Lesson #4: Be honest. Always. With partners, with collaborators, and with funders. All partners and collaborators must have full knowledge of the program. All parties should be clear about expectations and about how much money is involved, and they must agree to their organizations' commitments to the program - financial and otherwise.
- Lesson #5: Do what is right. It's not illegal to charge a percentage for grants development, but it is strongly discouraged by reputable groups. Indeed, it is considered unethical. It's easy to understand why. One might easily question why anyone should get $5 million for writing a proposal. Why not charge a flat fee, up front, either by hour or by project, for the work of developing a proposal? This would provide the transparency that taxpayers, donors, and funders want.
[Extensive investigative and trial coverage can be found at The Desert Sun newspaper.]
Patty Hasselbring, a former trainer for The Grantsmanship Center, has worked with nonprofits for more than 30 years on both sides of the funding desk: as executive director of grantseeking nonprofit organizations and as executive director of a funding agency. She and her husband also breed and raise alpacas.
No comments:
Post a Comment