Skip navigation

This review of data from websites in early 2017 is new. It is part of an ongoing series. It confirms that grant consultants’ hourly rates and flat rates (also called per-proposal rates or per-project rates), which they charge for services, continue to vary greatly. Other posts in the series for 2017 will explore: retainer rates, prospect research rates, proposal review and editing rates, and other topics related to how grant consultants earn an income. The context for all posts in this series will be the United States of America.

Hourly Rates

Proposals submitted to corporations or foundations are often significantly less complex (and thus generally less costly for clients) than those submitted to units of local, state, or federal government. Consequently, many consultants vary their rates based on the type of grant maker. Other consultants do not differentiate among types of grant makers.

Hourly rates for writing grant proposals vary greatly. According to PayScale.com, as of early 2017, the hourly pay rates for a self-selected sample of salaried Grant Writers vary by stage of career. For early career, the range is $14.35 to $30.67; for mid-career, the range is $17.12 to $38.59; for experienced, the range is $17.94 to $50.38; and for late career, the range is $19.50 to $70.96.

The range of self-reported bonuses varies, with larger bonuses reported for mid-career salaried Grant Writers than for late career or for early career.

In early 2017, grant writing consultants’ hourly rates tend to be higher than those of many salaried Grant Writers. Based on a review of sampled websites of consultants doing business across the United States, the standard rates billed to clients for grant writing and related consulting services stretch from $35 per hour to $250 per hour. The median for sampled rates is $80 per hour, which is $15 less per hour than in 2016. Most sampled rates fall between $50 and $100 per hour, which is $1,000 to $2,000 for every 20 billable hours.

Some grant writing consultants offer lower rates for non-profit clients versus other types of clients. They also offer lower rates for writing grant proposals versus other kinds of grant-related services (e.g., grants management or project evaluation). In addition, some consultants specify a minimum number of hours (e.g., 20 hours at $100/hour) or a minimum not-to-exceed amount (e.g., $10,000).

Flat Rates

An alternative to charging by the hour is to charge a flat rate (also called a per proposal rate or a per project rate). Grant writing consultants often indicate that they will need to do a thorough analysis of the details of a grant opportunity before quoting a flat rate.

Consultants’ actual flat rates vary by such factors as the lead-time to prepare and turn around the proposal, the complexity of the project, the proposal’s length, the amount of the grant request, and the time needed to complete the assignment. Most consultants vary their rates by the type of grant source: foundation, corporation, state, federal. Some consultants also vary their rates by the nature of the proposal document – a letter of inquiry, a letter of intent to apply, and a corporate solicitation letter tend to cost considerably less than a full-length grant proposal to be sent to a government agency.

As the table below indicates, the floor that some grant writing consultants quote for a basic proposal (typically for a private foundation) may be as low as $500 or even less. Other consultants may set the floor at $5,000, $6,000, or $12,500. The ceilings quoted for a more complicated proposal may be $10,000 or $12,000; however, such flat-rate ceilings may reach $15,000, $45,000, or even $60,000. Beyond such wide variations in quoted flat rates, consultants may charge a premium for preparing a proposal with a very short lead-time before it is due, regardless of its source.

Grant Writing Services Minimum Flat Rates Maximum Flat Rates
Consultant/Firm 1 $195 $995
Consultant/Firm 2 $500 $3,000
Consultant/Firm 3 $500 $3,000
Consultant/Firm 4 $500 $3,000
Consultant/Firm 5 $500 $7,500
Consultant/Firm 6 $500 $15,000
Consultant/Firm 7 $600 $8,000
Consultant/Firm 8 $950 $2,000
Consultant/Firm 9 $1,000 $3,500
Consultant/Firm 10 $1,000 $5,000
Consultant/Firm 11 $1,000 $6,000
Consultant/Firm 12 $1,000 $8,000
Consultant/Firm 13 $1,500 $8,000
Consultant/Firm 14 $1,500 $10,000
Consultant/Firm 15 $1,500 $45,000
Consultant/Firm 16 $2,250 $6,000
Consultant/Firm 17 $2,500 $7,500
Consultant/Firm 18 $2,500 $12,000
Consultant/Firm 19 $3,500 $7,500
Consultant/Firm 20 $5,000 $11,000
Consultant/Firm 21 $5,000 $12,000
Consultant/Firm 22 $5,000 $15,000
Consultant/Firm 23 $5,500 $7,000
Consultant/Firm 24 $6,000 $15,000
Consultant/Firm 25 $6,000 $15,000
Consultant/Firm 26 $6,970 $7,650
Consultant/Firm 27 $12,500 $60,000
Consultant/Firm 28 $1,000 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 29 $2,500 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 30 $3,300 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 31 $4,000 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 32 $4,000 Unstated

 

In 2017, grant writing consultants often require advance payment in full if the contracted flat rate falls below a predefined threshold. The most frequently stated threshold – $3,000 plus or minus $500 – is the same as it was in 2016 and in 2015. If the flat rate exceeds a given threshold, consultants generally require 50% of the total contract to be paid in advance. They make the balances due either upon delivery of the completed proposal or within either 15 days or 30 days after delivery.

Many consultants provide hourly rates, typically as an alternative to flat rates and sometimes in addition to flat rates. Such hourly rates may be one definite amount or they may cover a range, where which rate will apply will depend upon the nature of services to be performed. In 2017, most of the hourly rates found in an online search are $50 to $100, with a median of $80.

Grant Writing Services Minimum Hourly Rates Maximum Hourly Rates
Consultant/Firm 1 $50 $65
Consultant/Firm 2 $60 $100
Consultant/Firm 3 $100 $130
Consultant/Firm 4 $100 $150
Consultant/Firm 5 $50 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 6 $50 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 7 $50 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 8 $65 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 9 $70 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 10 $75 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 11 $75 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 12 $80 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 13 $80 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 14 $80 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 15 $85 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 16 $95 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 17 $100 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 18 $100 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 19 $120 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 20 $125 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 21 $125 Unstated
Consultant/Firm 22 $150 Unstated

 

This post presents data for early 2017. It updates an earlier post for 2016. It explores what Grant Writers are paid as compensation in terms of median salaries. Subsequent posts will explore compensation in terms of hourly rates and flat fees, retainer fees, review and revision fees, and other aspects of compensation. All data will be for the United States of America.

Median Salaries for Grants/Proposal Writers

What Grant Writers earn reflects many factors. Among them are years of experience, level of educational attainment, geographic location, and the nature of the employer.

For early 2017, Salary.com has reported in that the national median annual salary for “Grants/Proposal Writers” was $65,549, which is up only 1.9% from 2016. The middle 50% earned from $58,724 to $73,629; the bottom 10% earned $52,510 or less; and the top 10% earned $81,004 or more. These base salaries represented about 71% of total compensation; the other 29% were fringe benefits and bonuses.

Calculated on a full 52-week year, the same national median annual salary works out to $1,260.56 per week, and the range for the middle 50% becomes from $1,129.31 to $1,415.94 per week. Calculated over a 2,080-hour work-year, the same national median annual salary works out to $31.51 per hour, and the same range for the middle 50% becomes from $28.23 to $35.40 per hour.

Median Salaries By Selected Cities

As of early 2017, “median annual salaries” in selected cities searched on Salary.com ranged from $52,485 in Helena, Montana to $81,005 in San Francisco, California. Most of the medians for these cities fell in the range of $63,000 to $68,000. In the past year, Lincoln, NE saw by far the largest gain in median salary – an enviable gain equivalent to 11.24% compared to a national gain of only 1.9%.

Median Annual Salaries — 2016 and 2017 Data Comparison
  2016 Salary.com Data 2017 Salary.com Data
Portland, ME $66,318 $65,527
Boston, MA $69,503 $73,907
New York, NY $75,881 $75,883
Washington, DC $71,408 $70,365
Charlotte, NC $64,213 $64,080
Atlanta, GA $64,902 $65,015
Tampa, FL $61,350 $63,049
Houston, TX $64,741 $65,943
Dallas, TX $64,722 $64,908
Tulsa, OK $61,221 $63,592
Nashville, TN $60,803 $61,346
Cincinnati, OH $62,830 $62,702
Indianapolis, IN $61,897 $64,337
Chicago, IL $67,676 $68,818
Minneapolis, MN $67,347 $66,333
Bismarck, ND $58,370 $59,453
Lincoln, NE $55,860 $62,137
Casper, WY $58,672 $59,761
Helena, MT $51,529 $52,485
Boise, ID $62,148 $63,722
Seattle, WA $68,789 $70,970
Portland, OR $66,414 $67,587
San Francisco, CA $78,584 $81,005
Los Angeles, CA $70,559 $72,460
Salt Lake City, UT $61,182 $63,523
Denver, CO $65,044 $66,251
Albuquerque, NM $59,284 $61,223
Phoenix, AZ $62,939 $65,065
Anchorage, AK $72,657 $74,440
Honolulu, HI $69,857 $68,342
USA $64,355 $65,549

It may be worth noting that year-to-year gains in median annual salaries were not uniform across the country. Out of the 30 selected cities presented in the table, five saw year-to-year declines and another pair saw year-to-year gains of $200 or less.

 

Median Salaries 2017

This post is one of a series that explores reasons why grant proposals fail to win funding. It presents some of the reasons that relate to proposal development (writing and budgeting) and delivery (publishing). These reasons for funding outcomes are among those that are most amenable to a grant seeker’s influence or control.

Other posts in the series have explored other reasons for a proposal’s success or failure that have fallen along a continuum that is less and more within a grant seeker’s control or influence:

  • Choice of opportunities
  • Applicant attributes
  • Context and competition
  • Applicant readiness
  • Proposal content

 

A grant proposal may succeed or fail for any combination of reasons. Some reasons reflect aspects of the proposal as an act of writing and budgeting. Other reasons reflect aspects of the proposal as an act of publishing. These reasons are largely within the control of a grant seeker.

 

Development

Some reasons a grant proposal may fail to win funding pertain to the development of that proposal:

  • Its tone is too formal or too informal
  • Its narrative is too long or too brief
  • Its narrative includes too many extraneous details
  • Its narrative omits key details
  • Its narrative fails to convey organizational competence and/or staff expertise
  • It fails to convey the significance of a problem and/or its solution
  • Its grammar or punctuation is deficient
  • Its text has too many spelling errors
  • Its budget has too many arithmetical errors
  • Its contents are internally inconsistent (e.g., budget and activities)
  • Its content requires too much effort to read (e.g., no headings)
  • It uses too much technical jargon
  • It uses technical terms incorrectly
  • It uses too many acronyms
  • It does not explain what its acronyms mean
  • It omits required information

 

Delivery

Other reasons a grant proposal may fail to win funding pertain to the delivery of a proposal:

  • It uses incorrect application forms
  • It fails to provide all information required on application forms
  • It uses an incorrect document format
  • Its font type or size, margin size, or text-spacing ignore instructions
  • It uses an incorrect file format (e.g., .doc or .pdf)
  • It lacks required print or electronic signatures
  • It omits required attachments or appendices
  • It includes inappropriate attachments or appendices
  • It omits a required letter of transmittal or cover letter
  • Parts or all of it lacks page numbers
  • Its parts or sections are out of a required sequence
  • Required sections or pages are missing
  • It is uploaded far too close to an online application deadline
  • Its contents after uploading are incomplete

 

This is the last post in this series.

This post is one of a series that explores reasons why proposals fail to win funding. It presents some of the reasons that relate to proposal content (or lack of it). Content is among those reasons for funding outcomes that are most amenable to a grant seeker’s control or influence.

Other posts in the series explore other reasons for a proposal’s success or failure that will fall along a continuum that is less and more within a grant seeker’s control or influence:

  • Choice of opportunities
  • Applicant attributes
  • Context and competition
  • Applicant readiness
  • Proposal development and delivery

 

A grant proposal may succeed or fail for any combination of reasons. Some reasons reflect the proposal’s qualities as an instrument of exposition and persuasion; these reasons are largely within the control or influence of a grant seeker.

 

Content

A grant proposal may fail to win funding for reasons related to its content if:

  • It does not clearly fit a funder’s interests or priorities
  • It does not clearly reflect the funder’s interests or priorities
  • It lacks a well-defined goal
  • It does not link its goal to a funder’s goal
  • It lacks measurable objectives
  • Its expected outputs and outcomes are unclear
  • Its objectives are not attainable in the time available
  • Its work plan is not feasible in the time available
  • It fails to demonstrate a clear and compelling need
  • It presents inadequate data to make its case
  • It provides obsolete or incomplete data to support need
  • Its activities do not follow a logical sequence
  • Its timeline for activities or deliverables is unclear
  • It does not identify persons responsible for key activities
  • Its personnel appear to lack skills necessary for their roles
  • Time commitments of key personnel are insufficient
  • It fails to convey organizational capacity and accomplishments
  • It fails to base its strategies on proven approaches
  • It offers no plan to monitor progress or to adjust strategies
  • Its research rationale or literature review is out of date
  • Its evaluation design fails to measure attainment of objectives
  • Its identified evaluation instruments are inappropriate
  • Its budget is unreasonable (too high)
  • Its budget is inadequate (too low)
  • Its budget is not justified or explained
  • Its budget includes explicitly disallowed cost items
  • Its budget does not reflect the funder’s priorities

 

The next post in this series will explore the development and delivery of an applicant’s grant proposal as potential reasons for its funding outcome.

 

This post is one of a series that explores reasons why grant proposals fail to win funding. It presents some of the reasons that relate to an applicant’s state of readiness to apply for a competitively awarded grant – or to manage one if it were awarded. These reasons are among those at least partially amenable to a grant seeker’s control or influence.

Other posts in the series explore reasons for a proposal’s success or failure that will fall along a continuum that is less and more within a grant seeker’s control or influence:

  • Choice of opportunities
  • Applicant attributes
  • Context and competition
  • Proposal content
  • Proposal development and delivery

 

A grant proposal succeeds or fails for any combination of reasons. Some reasons reflect aspects of the applicant’s leadership. Other reasons reflect aspects of the applicant’s resources. Still other reasons reflect aspects of the applicant’s procedures.

 

Leadership

A proposal may not win a grant if an applicant’s leadership:

  • Lacks firm commitment to pursuing a particular grant opportunity
  • Wavers, procrastinates, equivocates, or acts indecisively before a grant deadline
  • Decides to apply for a grant too close to its application deadline
  • Lacks a pre-existing proposal submission approval process
  • Demands too much lead time or requires too many steps to approve submitting a proposal
  • Decides not to submit a proposal–or decides to submit one–but does so only at the eleventh hour

 

Resources

A proposal may fail for reasons related to an applicant’s access to resources if:

  • Available data do not substantiate need
  • Appropriately qualified key personnel cannot be identified or described
  • Appropriate partnering agencies are unavailable for a required partnership
  • One or more required partners withdraw from a proposal near its deadline
  • Partnering agencies cannot agree to terms on a memorandum of understanding
  • Qualifications of available and identified personnel are inadequate
  • Applicant is unable to adopt a required evaluation design (e.g., an experimental design)
  • Assets are insufficient to commit any to matching funds or to provide cost sharing

 

Procedures

A proposal may fail for reasons reflecting procedural readiness if the applicant:

  • Has fiscal management practices and products that are not audit-ready
  • Lacks formal human subjects research policies and procedures
  • Lacks formal confidentiality and privacy policies and procedures
  • Fails to submit a required letter of intent or a required pre-proposal
  • Fails to submit a memorandum of understanding endorsed by all partners
  • Does not secure authorized signatures are unavailable before a proposal submission deadline

 

The next post in this series will explore the contents of an applicant’s grant proposal as potential reasons for its funding outcome.

This post is one of a series that explores reasons why proposals fail to win funding. It presents some of the reasons that relate to the context and circumstances surrounding grant-seeking opportunities at a given point in history. Other posts in the series explore reasons for a proposal’s success or failure that fall along a continuum that is less and more within a grant seeker’s control or influence:

  • Choice of opportunities
  • Applicant attributes
  • Applicant readiness
  • Proposal content
  • Proposal development and delivery

 

A grant proposal succeeds or fails for any combination of reasons. Some of reasons reflect the context of a specific grant opportunity and the nature and extent of the competition for funding.

 

Context

A grant proposal may fail to win funding due to its context if:

  • Economic conditions have eroded values of assets usable for making grants
  • Government appropriations for a grant program are far less than anticipated
  • A funder suspends, rescinds, or discontinues a grant program before its funding decision deadline
  • A funder has recently dissolved or merged with another entity
  • A funder’s grant-making priorities have changed
  • A funder’s leadership composition or decision-making style has changed
  • Partnering agencies fail to furnish letters or other timely required evidence of partnership
  • Size of the applicant pool favors other more-experienced applicants
  • A funder’s policies or priorities favor other less-experienced applicants
  • A funder desires to fund proposals from certain specific applicants over others
  • A funder desires to fund proposals from certain types of applicants over others

 

Competition

A proposal may fail to win funding due to its competitive situation if:

  • A funder has attracted far more requests than it expected
  • A funder lacks assets to fund all otherwise worthy requests
  • A funder plans to award very few grants in a given program
  • Competitors have shaped the enabling legislation or subsequent regulations
  • Competitors’ grant requests exhaust available funds faster than expected
  • Competitors have presented more compelling ideas or plans of action
  • Competitors plan to invest far more resources in what they propose to do
  • Competitors propose to use a funder’s resources far more efficiently
  • Competitors have cultivated relationships with funder more effectively

 

The next post in this series will explore aspects of an applicant’s readiness for grant seeking as reasons for the funding outcome of a grant proposal.

This post is one of a series that explores reasons why proposals fail to win funding. It presents some of the reasons for failure to win funding that relate to an applicant’s attributes. These reasons are among those minimally amenable to a grant seeker’s control or influence

 

Other posts in the series explore other reasons for a proposal’s success or failure that will fall along a continuum that is less and more within a grant seeker’s control or influence:

  • Choice of opportunities
  • Context and competition
  • Applicant readiness
  • Proposal content
  • Proposal development and delivery

 

A grant proposal succeeds or fails for any combination of reasons. Some reasons reflect the nature and attributes of the applicant as a competitive grant seeker. Among such attributes are reputation, financial history, and organizational capacity.

 

Reputation

A proposal may fail to win a grant for reasons of an applicant’s reputation as a grant seeker if the applicant:

  • Has no prior relationship with a funder
  • Has had a difficult prior relationship with a funder
  • Has done poorly in reporting results of earlier grants
  • Has performed poorly in achieving results during earlier grants
  • Has a negative reputation among grant makers

 

Financial History

In addition, a proposal may fail to win a grant for historical reasons if the applicant’s:

  • Track record in properly and effectively using funds from earlier grants is poor
  • Programs, policies, and/or personnel have been or are the subjects of controversy or scandal
  • Most recent financial audit reports note significant exceptions
  • Audit exceptions remain uncorrected
  • Financial management capacity is uncertain or inadequate

 

Organizational Capacity

Finally, a proposal may fail to win a grant for reasons of an applicant’s organizational capacity if the applicant’s:

  • Capacity or willingness to evaluate its programs is uncertain
  • Strategies are not clearly innovative or research-based
  • Stakeholders have not clearly bought into its new proposal
  • Plan of action does not clearly advance its mission and/or vision

 

The next post in this series will explore an applicant’s context and competition as reasons for the funding outcome of a grant proposal.

This post is one of a series that explores why proposals fail to win funding. It presents some of the reasons that relate to an applicant’s selection of which grant opportunities to pursue.

 

Other posts in the series explore other reasons for a proposal’s success or failure, which will fall along a continuum that is increasingly within a grant seeker’s control or influence:

  • Applicant attributes
  • Context and competition
  • Applicant readiness
  • Proposal content
  • Proposal development and delivery

 

A grant proposal succeeds or fails for any combination of reasons. Some reasons for its success or failure reflect its degree of fit with a specific grant opportunity. Other reasons reflect its failure to fit with a specific grant opportunity. In the continuum of reasons why grant proposals do not win funding, both sets of reasons are among those that fall only minimally within a grant seeker’s control or influence.

 

Degree of Fit

A proposal may fail to win a grant for reasons related to the degree of fit between an applicant and its choice of a specific grant opportunity if:

  • The needs it presents match poorly with the type of funding program or the type of grant award being sought
  • Its geographic location does not fit a funder’s priorities
  • The proposed types of services do not fit a funder’s priorities
  • The proposed beneficiaries (target population) do not fit a funder’s priorities
  • Its boilerplate is regarded as unresponsive to a specific funder’s grant-making priorities or review criteria

 

Failure to Fit

A proposal may fail to win funding for reasons related to a poor fit or an absence of fit in the selection of a specific grant opportunity if the applicant:

  • Is not among the types of applicants eligible to apply for funding
  • Requests either too much funding or too little funding
  • Does not provide a required amount of cost sharing
  • Does not commit any of its own financial resources to the total budget
  • Lacks access to necessary subject area expertise to develop a strong and persuasive proposal
  • Fails to respond to a funder’s absolute and/or competitive program priorities
  • Fails to respond to all of the grant program’s selection criteria
  • Does not address adequately the grant program’s priority criteria
  • Tries to recycle too much from its earlier proposals in its new proposal

 

The next post in this series will explore an applicant’s attributes as potential reasons for the funding outcome of a grant proposal.

This post presents when Grant Writers work. Others in the series will present where they work, what they do, what tools they use, what skills they need, and common career paths.

 

When Grant Writers Work

Grant Writers may be employed full-time or part-time and may work as exempt or non-exempt employees. A full-time position is usually one that is 30-40 hours per week. An exempt position is on that is not paid more for working overtime, which normally means anything past 40 hours per week. Grant Writers may also work as independent consultants. As consultants they may work any number of hours per week and never get any overtime.

 

Both as salaried employees and as consultants on a contract Grant Writers may work 40 or more regular hours each week, or 2,080 or more hours each year. They also may work extended hours when preparing complex proposals, when creating several proposals at once, and/or when facing two or more back-to-back deadlines.

 

Many Grant Writers work on contracts as independent consultants or freelance writers. Such persons often provide grant proposal development as one service from a menu of services in fundraising or organizational development. They may charge by the hour or by the project or they may work on a retainer.

 

Grant deadlines often come stacked one on top of the other. This can happen anytime, but it happens particularly near the end of some state and federal agencies’ fiscal years. Whenever it happens, Grant Writers tend to put in more hours than usual. During less hectic periods, many Grant Writers pursue prospect research, or they may recruit new clients if they work as consultants, or they may do both.

 

Working Hours

Consultants set their own hours, but they also need to be available when others are at work, which ordinarily means weekdays from 8am-5pm. Those Grant Writers who are on payroll usually report for work on weekdays. They remain at work from 8am-5pm and have an hour off for lunch each day.

 

Total time that Grant Writers work per proposal varies greatly. It can range from five to ten hours per short proposal (from one to five pages) to 200-plus hours per long proposal (from 25 to 300 or more pages). During any given seven-day span (or calendar week), the total hours that Grant Writers work can be as few as ten or fewer hours or as many as 100-plus hours.

 

If writing to a fixed deadline, which often happens, Grant Writers often need to work during all or parts of secular and religious holidays, on anniversaries, and on personal and family members’ birthdays. They also may need to work during school vacations, summer vacations, and other periods that other types of workers and/or family members may take off from work.

This post presents where Grant Writers work. Others in the series will present when they work, what they do, what tools they use, what skills they need, and common career paths.

 

Where Grant Writers Work

Grant Writers work in many kinds of organizations, large and small. They work in cities, suburbs, and rural towns. Many Grant Writers work in offices; others work at home or on the road as consultants.

 

Many of the non-profit and community-based organizations where Grant Writers work may have fewer than 50 employees. Other kinds of organizations where they work – such as school districts and local or state governments – may have more than 2,000 employees. If Grant Writers work as consultants, they may work alone or as part of a consulting firm with any number of other consultants.

 

Among the typical kinds of organizations where Grant Writers work are:

  • Universities and colleges (institutions of higher education)
  • Non-profit organizations
  • Community-based organizations
  • Multifunctional service agencies
  • School districts (particularly larger ones)
  • Federally recognized American Indian tribes and nations
  • Local and state units of government
  • For-profit corporations
  • Consulting firms

 

In the United States of America, the geographic distribution of Grant Writers is largely consistent with general population distribution. As one might expect, larger cities and larger metropolitan areas tend to have more opportunities for Grant Writers than the smaller ones. Among such larger metro areas with more numerous Grant Writers in 2017 are New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, Phoenix, Seattle, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco.

 

In addition, the country’s more populous states tend to have more Grant Writers than the less populous ones. Among such states in 2017 are California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, and Michigan.

 

Despite these urban distribution tendencies, Grant Writers also often work in high-poverty rural areas where social and economic needs are both chronic and acute.

%d bloggers like this: