Should You Hire a Staff Grant Writer or a Contractor? A Strategic Decision Guide for Nonprofits
At some point in a nonprofit’s growth, this conversation shows up:
Grants are taking more time. Deadlines feel tighter. Leadership is stretched. Someone says, “Maybe it’s time to hire a grant writer.”
The question sounds straightforward. It isn’t.
If you start by asking which option is cheaper, you’re starting in the wrong place. The more strategic question is this: What problem are we actually trying to solve? Before you decide whether to hire a staff grant writer or work with a contractor, you need clarity about your internal capacity, your grant volume, and the maturity of your funding systems.
Let’s walk through that framework together.
The Three Capacity Scenarios I See Most Often
In my work with human services nonprofits, organizations typically fall into one of three categories.
1. You’re Not Truly Grant-Ready Yet
You may be applying for grants. You may even have won one or two. Yet your internal systems feel inconsistent. Outcomes aren’t clearly articulated. Budgets feel reactive. Governance may be uneven. Messaging shifts depending on who’s writing.
In this scenario, hiring either staff or a contractor won’t fix the underlying issue. What you need first is readiness and strategic alignment. Without that foundation, even a strong grant writer will struggle to produce consistent results.
If your organization is early-stage or under $500K and still building infrastructure, your next best step is strengthening internal systems before adding personnel.
2. You’re Grant-Active but Reactive
This is common in $750K–$3M organizations. You have programs. You have some funding history. You know grants matter. Yet leadership is juggling too much, deadlines feel rushed, and prospect research happens sporadically.
Here, the issue isn’t readiness. It’s sustainable capacity.
You don’t necessarily need a full-time employee. You need steady, strategic oversight of your grant pipeline.
3. You’re Scaling a Multi-Funder Portfolio
Organizations above $3M with federal, state, and foundation grants often reach a point where grant volume justifies dedicated in-house capacity. There are reporting requirements, compliance demands, and enough submissions annually to keep someone fully engaged.
At this stage, staffing can make strategic sense. The key is volume and infrastructure.
Understanding which category you’re in is more important than comparing hourly rates.
What Hiring a Staff Grant Writer Actually Requires
Hiring staff is more complicated than just posting a job description.
A mid-level nonprofit grant writer typically earns between $55,000 and $85,000 annually, depending on experience and region. When you add benefits, payroll taxes, professional development, and overhead, the true cost often increases by 25 to 35 percent.
That means your real annual investment may land closer to $70,000–$110,000+.
Beyond compensation, consider what staffing requires:
Consistent grant volume to justify full-time work
Strong program design and evaluation systems
Clear strategic direction
Ongoing supervision and performance management
Recruitment and onboarding capacity
A plan for turnover disruption
If your grant pipeline doesn’t generate enough consistent work to sustain a full-time role, you risk underutilization or burnout. If your systems aren’t mature, you risk hiring someone into chaos. Staffing works best when your organization already has strategic clarity and enough volume to support it.
What Hiring a Contractor Actually Requires
Outsourcing is not a shortcut. It still requires engagement.
A strong contractor or retainer partner will need:
A clear internal point person
Timely program and financial information
Access to evaluation data
Leadership alignment around funding priorities
The difference is structural. You are not responsible for benefits, payroll, recruitment, or HR oversight. You gain senior-level expertise without adding headcount.
For many established nonprofits in the $1M–$5M range, this model provides steady capacity without the complexity of hiring.
The goal is not to “hand off grants.” The goal is to create a structured, sustainable grant function that integrates with your leadership and program teams.
| Factor | In-House Staff | Contractor / Retainer |
|---|---|---|
| Salary & Benefits | $70K–$110K total cost annually (salary + benefits/overhead) | Fixed monthly investment |
| HR & Payroll Management | Required | Not required |
| Supervision Load | Moderate to high | Lower (strategic oversight vs daily management) |
| Turnover Risk | Can significantly disrupt pipeline | Lower disruption with long-term partner |
| Grant Volume Needed | High, consistent volume | Moderate to high, scalable |
| Best Fit | Large, complex, high-volume portfolio | Growth-stage, scaling, or stabilizing portfolio |
Neither option is inherently better. Each serves a different stage of organizational growth.
Hidden Risks Leaders Don’t Always Consider
There are a few risks I encourage Executive Directors and boards to examine carefully.
First, hiring before strategy is clear. If you haven’t defined your funding priorities, a new staff member will spend their first year reacting rather than building.
Second, expecting a grant writer to fix systemic gaps. Grants are not isolated documents. They reflect program design, evaluation quality, governance stability, and financial clarity.
Third, underestimating supervision demands. Even experienced grant writers require context, direction, and leadership integration.
Finally, turnover disruption: When a staff grant writer leaves, institutional knowledge leaves with them. Deadlines don’t pause.
These risks don’t mean you shouldn’t hire. They simply mean you should hire intentionally.
A Practical Decision Framework
If you’re weighing whether to hire a staff grant writer or work with a contractor, ask yourself:
Do we have enough annual grant volume to justify full-time capacity?
Are our programs and outcomes clearly defined and measurable?
Is our board aligned around funding strategy?
Do we have leadership bandwidth to supervise another employee?
Are we building toward long-term sustainability or reacting to short-term gaps?
If most of your answers reveal structural gaps, strengthening systems should come before staffing. If your answers reveal stable infrastructure and high volume, staffing may be appropriate.
When Each Option Makes Strategic Sense
Hiring in-house often makes sense when:
You manage a large, complex grant portfolio
You submit high volumes of proposals annually
You have established evaluation and reporting systems
You have capacity for supervision and professional development
Working with a contractor often makes sense when:
You are growth-stage and scaling strategically
You need senior-level thinking without adding payroll
You want predictable, year-round grant capacity
You value flexibility and lower HR complexity
The most sustainable nonprofits don’t make this decision emotionally. They make it structurally.
Grants are not magic revenue. They are system-dependent revenue. Whether you hire internally or externally, the real determinant of success is the strength of your internal infrastructure and the clarity of your funding strategy.
If you’re wrestling with this decision, slow down long enough to examine your systems first. When your foundation is strong, either model can work. When it isn’t, no staffing decision will fix what’s underneath.
Build the Right Structure Before You Hire
The most sustainable funding decisions are rooted in systems, not urgency. Whether you’re considering hiring staff or outsourcing, clarity about your infrastructure and grant strategy matters more than the job title.
If you’d like help thinking through your next step, I’d welcome a strategic conversation: Click here to schedule a meeting with me.
If you’re gathering information as part of that process, you can also review my detailed guide, How Much Does It Cost to Hire a Grant Writer?
Remember: The goal isn’t to hire quickly. It’s to build a funding structure that will hold as your organization grows.
