Monday, 31 January

Today was focused on the Social Security Application submission. The Attourney and I worked through the morning to get all the proofreading and final editing done before I was to upload the proposal document to the SSI website and submit the entire application (as you can imagine, the Social Security Administration requires quite a bit of paperwork).

The Grant Writer had given me the password and UID before she left last Thursday (a previous engagement kept her out of work the day of the deadline), but when I went to submit the application to the SSI site the password/UID were not working. I went through a bit of a panic trying to figure it out and ended up on the phone with SSA's technical support troubleshooting the problem. This was a $400,000 renewal application; this grant provides salaries for two of our employees and the entire HOPE project and today was the absolute deadline for the renewal application. In the end, tech support straightened it out for me and the application was submitted. Whew.

Afterwards I read over the paper that the Peter's Place Attourney (PPA) had given me. Today was our meeting to discuss housing as a human rights issue as a potential research paper for this internship. I went down to Peter's Place (7 short blocks south of here) to discuss the issue with the PPA. Her idea was to see if there was enough information available on housing as a human right, not just internationally (because there is), but in America, too, and see if there was a place for "housing as a human right" in the Partnership's rhetoric. I left the meeting with plans to do as much research on institutional, educational, non-profit-related information or arguments on why housing should be considered a human right. The PPA doesn't know if this exists, which is where my role picks up.

I worked a full 8 hours today.

Friday, 28 January

Today began slow. I arrived on time and started going through my email. I read the newly published Partnership letter, noticed some incorrect contact information and brought it to the creator's attention. Apparently, the letter I was reading was from last year; the site had not been updated to reflect the mass internal email they sent out to inform us of the recent newsletter.

After that was straightened out, I made the "last" changes to the Clark Foundation LOI and printed it out on letterhead for the CEO to sign, which usually means, even though the changes I made were per his suggestion and he told me and the Grant Writer that she and I had complete control over it, he'll ask me to take it back and make another change or two before signing it. Again. He's funny. In the end, he didn't, but that fact was surprising.

Also today I worked on making different arrangements for the upcoming Panel Discussion, originally scheduled to be on February 17th. The Advocate wants to move it to NYU. So it looks like it will be the 25th in the afternoon. Reservation request sent.

And lest I forget, I was back and forth between the CEO and the Gimbel Foundation, our next potential donor, asking about what's required for a first-time grant request, whether we can still send in our Proposal, or if it was absolutely too late. We determined, looking at their past grantees, that this Fnd was PERFECT for the Partnership, so we were excited when we found out we could submit a GOS request past the deadline. One of the times I called the sec'tary there, she asked me to tell her a little bit about the Partnership. I vaguely panicked, not feeling adequately informed to accurately demonstrate our services, but dove right into explaining what we do before I had a chance to freak out and put her on the phone with my CEO.

I worked a full shift today (8 hours).

Thursday, 27 January

Well, I finally wised up and started writing down my tasks as I go through my day, making it MUCH easier to create a journal log at the end of the day, when I'm trying to unwind from the day's activities (read: trying to forget). So now I give you an ACCURATE depiction of my day:

First thing this morning I went to an information session on the Educational Rights Project, an endeavor pursued and presented by our Education Advocate (EA). The gist of the session was that homeless children have rights as protected by the McKinney-Vento Act, a federal law that guarantees the rights and protection (against discrimination) of homeless youth. The idea is that because the effects of homelessness on children are proven to detract from their ability to learn and perform well in school, this law makes it possible to keep the children in their home school (or school of choice) and provide transportation for them (two of the biggest factors contributing to increased school mobility). The EA is planning to hold training/awareness sessions for school guidance counselors and administrators to provide them with this information in an attempt to prevent violations of the McKinney-Vento Act (M-VA). I was excited to learn about this because it provides stability for children in an otherwise unstable environment.

During the session, I was pulled into the hall (I thought maybe I was in trouble :) and asked to retrieve documentation supporting our Tiger Foundation Grant Request- they called and the CEO was on the phone with them requesting the information. So, in a vague state of panic, I rode the elevator back up to the 14th floor (from the 11th) and pulled our file on the Tiger Fnd and went straight in the CEO's office. I tried to offer her a letter while he was on the phone, but he waived me off. After standing there listening to his conversation for a few minutes, I wasn't sure my presence was necessary, and started to leave. He motioned me to stay, so I sat down and listened in on the rest of it. Afterwards, he was very positive about the conversation and thought it was quite likely we would be getting the $100,000.00 grant. This is of particular interest to me because I worked on this grant before I started my internship here, back when I was a temp. A feeling of accomplishment began to swell within me and anticipation has ensued.

Afterwards, I returned to the tail end of the session on ERP. When it ended, I read over the entire packet she (our EA) provided us. She and I have discussed me assisting her with data collection and analysis, a project she's looking to expand once the FRC moves into East New York (Brooklyn).

I proofread for errors and content the "final" Clark Fnd LOI.

Most importantly, I had a conversation with the CEO about our Adovate. I was concerned about an email I received from her yesterday regarding the HSP clients and our revised "battle plan." Here is the email in it's entirety:

Erin and all -

I am going to ask that Erin run with the HSP project over the next week. If you can all can continue to ask the housing related questions to your clients as you reach them, and report your findings to Erin.

Erin - if you can start compiling anecdotal pieces on each HSP client that is in a substandard living situation, and potentially join the case manager on a home visit to look at the property - that would be great.

I would like to aim for information on 4 HSP families with substandard or unsafe living situation by next Wednesday. I would like to have information on the following as well:

1. What shelter did they come from
2. Were they forced to take the housing unit wit out even seeing it
3. Did they find the unit of did DHS find the unit for them
4. Was there an inspection process
5. Does the unit meet their level of need if there is a physical disability or special need
6. The more thorough assessment of the apartment and building conditions - peeling paint, no hot water, etc.

So if you all could work together on this it would be great. We really need some ammunition!

("And all" refers to the CEO and the case workers who are developing relationships with the HSP clients, a service we provide called "Aftercare" for formerly homeless individuals/families who have recently moved into housing)

It was the part in bold that I found most concerning. Why is the City of NY our enemy? How does the CEO deal with an employee who wants to wage bureaucratic war on the City? What is the appropriate response? How can I respond? It's a delicate situation for me to be asking these questions; on the one hand, I am a student, here to learn about, among other things, how a non-profit organisation works; on the other hand, I am a live "employee," interacting with these individuals, building relationships and trying to do a job. Some information the CEO CAN'T give me because it should be kept between just him and her, and if I was a regular employee, I would NOT have access to how he would be reprimanding/reigning her (in). More than anything, I was just curious and hold no bias either way. I understand the Advocate's position: she's been here longer and seen more things, she has more reason to hold no faith in the City to protect the homeless. It's partly her enthusiasm and passion that make her a good Advocate. I imagine it's tricky finding a way to put the brakes on without squashing her energy or discouraging her, as her CEO. He and I talked; I told him where I was coming from and what my concerns were and asked him how he will/would handle the situation. He told me, without giving much detail, that he was meeting with her on Monday to reign her in. I felt better.

I worked 8 hours today.

Wednesday, 26 January

Today was another slow day. I came in around 9, worked some more with the Grant Writer (she got back from a Grant Writing conference Monday and we talked about what she learned, I spent some time reading the material she came back with), checked my email and did some schoolwork. She has taken over the majority of the Grant Writing, so some of the research she is doing herself, too, leaving me slightly out of the loop.

I also began writing the donation request letter for FaF. Staring a blank piece of paper is daunting when trying to write, so I quickly filled out the form of the letter (date, address of recepient, addressee line, etc.). Once that was done, I just started writing. This is what I have so far:

Dear Potential Donor Contact,

As fellow New Yorkers, we know you recognize the faces of homelessness when you see them on our streets, but can you spot the newly housed individuals and families looking for a fresh start? Furnish a Future does. We see them daily as they browse our furniture and home goods warehouse, located in Bushwick, Brooklyn, looking for pots and pans, small appliances, sofas and chairs, rugs and other essential items that turn a house into a home.

It's a humble beginning.

I left at 1 today, only pulling in four hours.

Tuesday, 25 January

Today was a slow day. I arrived at 9 and left by 5, but worked mostly with the Grant Writer, editing and proofreading and planning for the upcoming deadlines (she's going out of town later this week and will not be here for one of them).

Later in the day, I met with the Advocate to make phone calls to the HSP clients that I found in FaF's database. We spoke with a woman who, the Advocate inferred, seemed so grateful for her housing to complain about any "small" issues. However, the woman did mention that the building was extremely dirty; 'gross' was the word she used, I believe. After she got off the phone, she seemed disappointed that the client wasn't living in worse conditions (or, at least that she wasn't admitting to living in crappy conditions; there's a thought that, though it may be infested with rats and peeling lead paint dust into the children's cereal, at least it's not the streets). I'm concerned that, in her passion for protecting our clients and fighting for their rights, she sees NYCDHS as the enemy and looks for their weakness. She, of course, has more experience dealing with them, knows their track record better than I, but, in my humble opinion, compromise and communication are the keys to resolving conflict, and tools, I'm afraid, the Advocate finds obsolete.

Monday, 24 January

Today, because there wasn't much going on in the office, I took the day off to enjoy the city. However, I did spend about a half-hour checking my email and had a conversation regarding the RSVP'd attendees for the upcoming Panel Discussion.

Friday, 21 January

Today I took a half day because there were no pressing deadlines, but I knew that the Advocate would want to find out the results of my database research from yesterday. However, when I came in and after I checked my email, chatted with the Grant Writer about the day's projects and with the CEO about yesterday's Discussion, I got to the Advocate, only to find out she wouldn't have time to work with me on it today. So, I spent my time catching up on my journals, registering for various lectures and discussions, and proofreading for the Grant Writer.

I only worked 4 hours today.

Thursday, 20 January

Today was the panel discussion. The catering was in order, the room reserved (I have to stay on top of the billing for this because the Professor speaking on our Panel works for NYU and reserved the room through her department so we could get a better rate) and I carried the video camera equipment with me. I was at NYU with plenty of time this morning, got up to the room where the tables and chairs were arranged perfectly. Everything went off without a hitch. And because there were only Partnership employees around the table, along with a few board members (I was very pleased about that), the discussion was relaxed and comfortable.

Professor Shinn, our Expert for this Panel, has done much research on homelessness and discussed with us the results of her relevant studies. When she casually mentioned the replacement of Section 8 with the HSP, the questions around the room narrowed; our Lead Advocate and Director of FaF because, as respectfully as possible, a little prickly about the topic. They, of course, had very specific questions and the Professor seemed to be, without obviously committing herself, in support of the change. As others around the table started asking more questions about the HSP and what support there existed that would lend credit to the City's move away from Section 8, the Moderator (the CEO) gracefully stepped in to steer us away from the topic. Later on, in private, I overheard the Lead Advocate admit, apologetically, that she hadn't realised how much anger she had pent up about this issue until the Panel. I wished I'd had more to contribute to the discussion, more questions to ask of the professor, but even after giving her research papers a thorough reading, I didn't have any curiosities I needed answering.

The point of the "Conversations with the Experts" series is to open up dialog with the experts so we can glean from them information to apply new practices to our existing ones, as well as offer a direction for the strategic planning of the overall organisation. I'm concerned that people are just not getting anything out of the discussions. I've been to the last two and, for the most part, I fear that people consider them a waste of time. Two hours is NOT enough time to sum up Research and Existing Practice and place them side by side, compare them and forumulate a new plan for how to handle homelessness. Professor Shinn's paper titled, "Predictors of Homelessness Among Families in New York City: From Shelter Request to Housing Stability" demonstrated that "the demographic characteristics and housing conditions were the most important risk factors for shelter entry" and "Receipt of subsidized housing was the primary predictor of housing stability," but for an organisation that deals with people who are already homeless, even though we KNOW what causes homelessness, we can't stop it because of the stage of our intervention. For individuals like our Lead Advocate and Attournies, who work on lobbying for appropriate legislation and eviction prevention court cases, respectively, the planning sessions are helpful. But for the caseworkers who deal with individuals and families once they're inside the shelter network, the 'prediction' is a reality.

After the Panel Discussion I went wtih the Director of FaF to her office/furniture warehouse in Brooklyn, Bushwick, to be specific. On the way there (we had quite a bit of time for discussion because the train was stopped due to a police investigation, so we took a cab ride from Manhattan) she answered all of my questions about FaF, how it works, what the history of it is, the direction it's heading in, etc. It was a great information gathering session, as well as an opportunity to plug myself for future employment.

When we arrived, she showed me around the warehouse, we ordered lunch, she explained their database system so I could navigate my way through it (that's why I was there- to gather contact information for the HSP clients I have been researching- the ones with 100+ building code violations). Afterwards, we talked some more about a few of the side projects she has going on the back burner. I volunteered to help her with reseraching potential donors of furniture and/or household items; she gave me her idea of what she wanted, answered some basic questions and asked me to write up a template donation request letter. Wow. My first tabula rasa for grant writing! This will require thorough knowledge of FaF as well as a history and plan for the future. I am greatly looking forward to this assignment.

And yes, I worked a full 8 hours today.

Wednesday, 19 January

Today I was at it bright and early. The Wagner School of Public Service at NYU was hosting a Panel Discussion on "New York City's Homeless Policies" that began at 8 am at the Puck Building, just south of Houston (pronounced "How-stun") on Lafayette St. I made it on time to reserve seats for the Grant Writer, Lead Advocate and Lead Attourney. On the Panel was the Deputy Commissioner for Policy and Planning for the NYC Dept of Homeless Services (NYCDHS or just DHS), the Executive Director for the Council on Homeless Policies and Serivces, the Executive Director of the Supportive Housing Network of New York and the Executive Director of the Bowery Residents Committee.

Essentially, they were discussing what our Advocate had discussed with us yesterday, only in bigger, more positive terms (because the person from DHS and Bowery were proponents of the new HSP programme). It was interesting to hear about the new policy from the other side of the table. Quite a few local advocates from the community were there, at least in part, to take up issue with the new HSP programme. Some of their concerns were addressed during the Q&A session. A few of those hit a nerve and the tension could be sliced right through. It was exciting to be two rows from the stage, in the presence of the panelists, whose every facial expressions were seen by me. I felt like I was taking part in Democracy, I'm that nerdy.

After the panel we went back to the office. I worked on last minute details for the panel discussion tomorrow, burned off copies of the packets (30) we'll be handing out tomorrow and searched for recording equipment for the discussion. We decided that a tape recording of it would work just as well as video taping it, but I found a new digital camera and played with it until it was time to leave, trying to figure how to work it, as no one had the time to help me. I took it, along with the 30, 20 page packets home with me (I need with me when I go to work because I wasn't stopping by the office before going to NYU). I also looked up the building code violations for the 10 Section 8/FaF clients the Advocate wanted me to get the phone numbers from FaF tomorrow (the plan is for us to just start small and look up the addresses of the most problematic buildings) and made printouts (and took them home with me to take to FaF right after the panel discussion tomorroow) of their entire Violations Summary Report.

I worked 9.5 hours today.

Tuesday, 18 January

Much of NYC observes Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (just a few more than Hanukkah observers) and so Monday was spent lazily. However, Sunday, I spent a good two hours doing research on this upcoming Panel Discussion; I was reading the speaker's published works (the ones related to homelessness) and taking notes, thinking about what questions I'd like to ask her come Thursday. Also, the CEO is moderating the event and has been grilling me on my analysis of the speaker's works to see if I have an understanding of them, if can provide him more thoughts on questions to ask the speaker.

Tuesday I got started immediately on researching building code violations on those apartments. I knew that the Advocate needed some numbers today (because she was having a phone conference with the Coalition later in the afternoon) and if Friday's attempt at extracting information was indicative of today's, it was going time to decode this information.

So I set straight to work right away, chipping away at the tedious task of data information, wait, download web page, absorb, record, repeat. After accumulating all of it, I started calling the borough offices for more assistance. They were generally friendly, however unhelpful. So I worked to analyse the data I had, see if I could make any sense of it as is, try to understand the bigger picture of what I was looking at. Once I changed my perspective, I decided to make tallies of all the violations and break them down individually, to give the Advocate some statistics and be able to explain everything I didn't know, in order that she could draw general conclusions from my work.

I worked right until 12.30, which was when the Advocate's information session started. She explained to an internal dozen of us what the new changes in NYCDHS housing vouchers system, a more thorough explanation of her explanation to me on the project she handed me. It was a very informative two hours.

After that, she and I sat down to discuss my findings. I found myself nervous, unsure of how I would explain all of my findings; I felt unprepared, but I managed my way through. She drew some conclusions from my numbers and asked me into a conference with the CEO about my findings and what our next step would be. There I was, sitting before the CEO, someone who I'm normally extremely relaxed around, to the point of comfortable, and I was nervous and felt put on the spot. But I was able to explain to him what I'd found and sit back, privy to their planning session. It felt important.

I was supposed to meet with another Attournery with the Partnership, J, but I was too busy and had to cancel on her. I was also supposed to have ready a tangible agenda for the Discussion this Thursday, but that got pushed aside, too, mostly by the Advocate work, but intermittently with Grant Writing discussion, editing, and planning.

Heck yeah, 8 hours were worked today. I'm STILL sitting in the office.

Friday, 14 January

Today was a continuation of yesterday's work. I spent the bulk of the morning going back and forth with the Grant Writer and the CEO about how we wanted to write the letter of interest (LOI) to the Foundation which, I thought, was due today (the one I referenced yesterday). We decided one important thing: the letter didn't need to be mailed today; in fact, we could wait a week on it considering the deadline isn't until March. However, the CEO gave me a list of changes to make to the Grant Writer's work and I was determined to make them. This required actually writing the letter! The first assignment where I am allowed full creative license! This was a difficult task, though, and required a good bit of research on the Partnership to be able to write a fully knowledgeable letter. In the end, the Grant Writer took over it because I was swamped with other tasks (though, at this moment, I can't tell you what all I was working on- just that I was busy all day long).

Also today I worked on learning the language of the Housing and Preservation Department's website in order to answer our lead Advocate's questions about the addresses she asked me to research. I quickly discovered the website's incompetence at explaining the violations summary reports and found myself calling around to different HPD departments to have my questions answered. Nobody wanted to help me. One gentleman even suggested I come down to his department for assistance. For the most part, the difficulty in them answering my questions rested in fact that they were looking at a different format than I was, so they couldn't explain to me what was on the screen. Grumble, grumble, grumble.

I worked 8 hours today.

Thursday, 13 January

As predicted, I paid dearly today for my absence yesterday. I arrived with a mailbox full of emails regarding, most pressingly, the upcoming panel discussion and the lack of venue nailed down. By the end of the day, and much back and forth between the primary organiser of the event as well as the speaker at the discussion (which felt unprofessional because it wasn't her job, yet, because we were getting a discount for securing the venue under her name, it was necessary that we do), we had the venue locked. I ordered the catering and contacted the AV folks (who reminded me that they hadn't been paid for our last event*) and got the majority of the details squared away.

Interspersed with those details was my work with the Grant Writer, who passes everything she writes past my nose before handing it over to the CEO for his perusal. It's flattering that my opinion on the work she does is considered valuable, and weird simultaneously, mostly because I know far less about the subject than I should know, even though, considering I'm just an intern and not "responsible" for knowing such things, I feel a sense of accountability for this. I bounced back and forth between editing a recent proposal and reviewing and planning for upcoming deadlines to making calls to hammering the details for next Thrusday's event. I hiked across town to the future site of the next panel discusison (the Feb 17th one) to check out the facilities and make sure they met our requirements for an open forum discussion.

When I returned, I was approached by our Director of Advocacy and asked to take on a new project, one that involved filtering through an online database hosted by the city of NY for the purpose of looking up building code violations for clients of our FaF program (who have recently moved into housing and qualified for free furniture). The Partnership's concern with Mayor Bloomberg's recent announcement about the changes to NYC's voucher system (Section 8) and plan to combat the disintegration of Section 8 vouchers by replacing them with the Housing Stability Plus programme is fueled by our pre-existing fear that, in the City's aggressive attempt to rapidly move people from the shelter system into permanent, (ultimately) self-sufficient housing, formerly homeless families and individuals will be / are being moved into sub-standard housing (the fabled "slums"). My task is to quietly research addresses of former clients to dig up building code violations on the properties. She gave me the "tools" to perform this task and explained that, essentially, anyone can do what I'm doing, but not without understanding the language of database system. My job: learn the language to effectively explain the Violation Summary Reports to her (and others). She needs numbers by Tuesday.

Meanwhile, we have a deadline for a foundation proposal tomorrow and an unfinalised draft of said proposal that will require a few hours' work to complete. It must be mailed by the end of the day. Also, I was asked by the Director of FaF, who is organising this coming Thursday's event, to put together an agenda for the event, which requires reading through the panelist's academic papers and summarising them. It's not a tremendous amount of work, but it will require lots of quiet time to concentrate, a commodity rare in the open-space cubicle I occupy. Looks like I'll be taking my work home this weekend.


I worked 8 hours today.

*an issue I went straight-away to my accounting department to resolve and had resolved by the end of the day.

Wednesday, 12 January

Today I took a half-day because the Grant Writer was out of the office and also because we were going to attend the grant writing seminars in the afternoon. I didn't think there was much work to be done. I also got lazy about finding the location of said seminars.

On the location of the seminars, it listed the NY Library, which, I assumed, was the same as the NY Public Library, a building, I made an ass out of myself assuming, I figured I would have no difficulty finding. Turns out, the seminars were held at a downtown building, way down in Union Square, far from Mid-town (where the main branch of the NY Library is located). With the first seminar nearly half over by the time I discovered this, I called it a day and decided to register for the next available class. I can make up my hours in the next few days.

I'm sure to pay tomorrow for my laziness today. [kicking herself]

Tuesday, 11 January

Arrived: 9 am, sharp
Hours worked: 8
Checked out: 5 pm, also sharp

Today was far more productive than yesterday. I came into work and gave myself a desk right away. It's been a bit of a struggle finding myself a seat since I left the Executive Assistant position, but with the gaps in our Development Department and the holidays everywhere, I've made myself nice, impromptu homes. And anyway, the network here allows me to log into any computer within it and have access to the entire server (or, at least, to the departmental files I need anyway).

The greatest portion of my day was spent working on reserving a space for one of our upcoming panel discussions on February 17th. I was the unofficial logistics coordinator of our last panel discussion on December 7th (referenced in my prior post) and I offered my assistance to the coordinator of Discussion #4 (2/20/05), though I can't tell you exactly what the discussion is on, just that the title is, "Conversations with the Experts."

As I mentioned in my previous post, the series of panel discussions will be the topic of one of my research papers, though, no further details have been discussed.

Also today, I sat down to work on a grant proposal for a foundation. Here's how our development department works: We (the Grant Writers) are responsible for soliciting (accumulating and accounting belong to other positions within the department) revenue for the Partnership. The Partnership acts as an umbrella organisation that mothers smaller, more client-based programmes; these programmes are Positive Step, Peter's Place, Furnish a Future (FaF), the Family Resource Center (FRC), and the Senior Aides Programme (this is a very simplified and streamlined list). Our job is to find foundations into which our services fit their service interest areas. Our primary sources are our pre-existing files (two enourmous filing cabinets filed according to foundation/government contractor/trust name) and the Foundation Center, a website that has mostly updated information (though, boo hiss, we've discovered that all of the information is NOT up-to-date).

We have a master list of prospective foundations and also a master list of upcoming due dates for grant proposals and interim/final reports for grants that we received. Interim and final reports go out to foundations, etc. which request an update on how their money is being spent, the progress of our organisation and/or programmes, etc.

As my CEO's grant writer assistant (the position I have assumed since I left the Executive Assistant position), I've been charged with reviewing those lists and, due date by due date, reviewing the files on existing granters and researching prospective granters, surmising the information for his perusal so he can decide which foundation to request XX amount of money for one of our programmes. At first he asked to see all the information I dug up first hand. As we progressed in this process, I was able to answer his questions without showing him the information because I knew which questions he'd be asking. This allowed me to slowly learn this decision-making process and, ultimately, give him recommendations on which foundations to try for, how much to ask for and for what programmes.

As I was saying, there were two grant proposals that the CEO liked; one for the GP Foundation and the other for the Taconic Foundation. GP was very cut dry, short and to the point, the other more narrative style, emotionally pulling. He wanted me to find a way to blend the two of them together. I sat down, read through both (a tedious job considering they both include an overlap of information) and began the process of weaving the two. I was under the gun to complete this because we had/have a few Foundations that this proposal would work for and looming deadlines (one of them tomorrow). I completed the task and showed it to the Grant Writer, who was quite impressed.

Tomorrow I have two lectures, hosted by the Foundation Center, on Proposal and Budget Writing Basics. The Gimbel Foundation deadline is tomorrow and I haven't pulled the file on it. It's hard to decide who's responsible for what; my CEO will talk to me about something, but I'm unsure if the Grant Writer is ultimately responsible for completing it. I'll have to sit down and talk to him about the overlap between the two of us. It would be great if she and I had a system of handling our assignments so there was no confusion about who's doing what. I should sit down and talk to her about this.

Monday, 10 January

Today is the first day of my internship here at the Partnership for the Homeless. I wish I could say I'm excited about undertaking this new task, but I've the advantage of being "temporarily" employed with the organisation since October of 2004, first as the Executive Assistant to the CEO and then, because he found a permanent replacement for my position and also because he found my skills and talents so invaluable that he kept me on well past (what I considered) my expiration date, as teh CEO's all-purpose employee, working directly with him on grant writing and, as a side gig, arranging a panel discussion (discussed later in this post) that we (and by "we," I mean "the Partnership") were hosting. There is nothing "new" about this task at hand; I've developed excellent relationships with my co-workers, both professional and personal, and am confident I will walk away from this organisation with priceless references and letters of recommendation.

Before I divulge the details of my daily tasks, I should fill you in on how I got here and why I'm still around. As forementioned, I started as a temporary replacement for the Executive Assistant position (employed with Eastern Professional Temporary Services) last October. I was told then, by my Temp Agent, that I would only be here a week or so, just long enough for them to find my replacement. By the end of my first week, I learned that my "temp" job was only relatively "temporary;" the process of finding permanent employees is a slow, meticulous process for the Partnership. Eager to find permanence in this city, and encouraged to do so by my Temp Agent, I threw my hat in the ring for the Executive Assistant position, interviewing with the Human Resource Assistant as soon as I could.

But it was not in the cards for me to serve as Assistant to the CEO; however several things happened during my 6-week stint as his assistant that would hold me to the agency. He and I developed an excellent working relationship, one built on honesty, humility, mutual dedication to our respective positions, and a similar sense of humour. He discovered my enjoyment of writing and editing, a find uncovered when his many communications I typed up or printed out were returned to him with red ink on them. When he informed me that I wasn't getting the job of Executive Assistant, he stressed how the position was too simple for me, that I was capable of so much more. Apparently, as his assistant, I displayed talents unusual of a "temp" and Executive Assistant. Come to find out from a Programme Director during an informal business meeting (i.e. a going away party at a local pub), my CEO had spoken of me during Programme Director meetings (unusual, considering my "lowly" position), convincing his Directors that the organisation had to find a way to keep me onboard.

And so I stayed with the organisation after the new Executive Assistant began, ostensibly to help her transition into her position. During that week, my CEO found ways to keep me occuppied, trying to get a feel for what I would be interested in doing for the Partnership; a trial by fire. At the time, our Development Department (in place to, among other things, generate revenue for the non-profit, charitable donation-based organisation) was down a pair of Grant Writers and a Director. With the Director of Communications and Development Associate already picking up the slack, there existed an immediate need for attention in the grant writing area, especially with looming deadlines for funding requests, final and interim reports (detailed explanation to follow).

The CEO presented a run-down of what needed to be done: what tasks he had to do, how I could assist him and, to my surprise, asked me if I could put together a grant request. Confident that anything I attempt and wish to complete, regardless of my expertise, I'm capable of doing, I responded optimistically and undertook the task. He presented me with a list of deadlines and foundations, pointed out which ones needed the most attention and sent me on my way.

It wasn't long before I found myself elbow-deep in file drawers, pouring over past grant applications, researching our past communications and histories with foundations and making recommendations to the CEO as to how much and for what we should be requesting. In the beginning I wasn't doing any writing, per se, as much as I was researching and collecting necessary data for inclusion in the grant proposals. The standard proposal, I learned, included a brief letter explaining our interest in the particular foundation, a (roughly) 6-page proposal that included a brief history, an outline of our programmes and their needs, and how the grant would be applied, and an IRS Determination Letter, which authorises our tax-exempt status. Also commonly included in a proposal is a budget, for the individual programme the grant is requesting, as well as for the overall organisation, a list of our Board of Directors, a list of major donors (sometimes both governmental contracts and private/corporate sponsorship) and an Annual Report (ours is a glossy, 20+ page booklet that outlines our individual programmes' accomplishments and the direction the Partnership is headed).

Two weeks before moving out of the Executive Assistant posistion, our lead attourney came into my office, timidly put before me a sheet of notes about a panel discussion we were hosting in three weeks and asked if I could handle the logistical planning of the event. Not one to back away from a challenge, I took the assignemnt from the focused lawyer and began to tackle the task. Within a week, I had nailed down the place of the event (a feat which required multiple trips to the venue - the Kimmel Center at New York University in Washington Square Park, the ultimate site chosen - to ensure it met our very specific requirements), ordered the menu, and arranged for a sound system and digital recording of the discussion. I was the contact person for the other organisers of the discussion. The relation of this task to my journal is relevant because the subject of this (as well as the prior and subsequent) panel discussion(s) is to be, tentatively, the focus of one of my research papers for this Spring term, as well as a recurring task (I'm planning another panel discussion for February 17th) during this term. More details to follow.

As for today, I was down at NYU first thing this morning, before coming to work, surveying different rooms for our next event (the aforementioned February 17th panel discussion). Upon arrival, I finalised the paperwork for this internship (including the official letter from the Partnership confirming my internship), talked over my responsibilities and duties with the Human Resources Director, met with the Grant Writer about what she's working on and needs my immediate assistance with (which was nothing) and dicsussed, with the CEO, a pair of grant proposals which serve the same function, but go about it completely differently. More on that tomorrow. I clocked only four hours today, as I had a bit of a late start and need an enclosed office and a computer to do the majority of my writing (the space was unavailable today).