Case Study 2 — RYCC Decodes a Foundation's Mind

Composite, for teaching. The Riverside Youth Coding Collective and the Hartwell Family Foundation are illustrative and do not depict real organizations.

The Situation

Denise Okafor, executive director of the Riverside Youth Coding Collective (RYCC), has identified the Hartwell Family Foundation as a promising funder for her program's expansion. The foundation's website says it supports "community-rooted programs that open pathways to opportunity for young people in our region, with a focus on initiatives led by and accountable to the communities they serve."

Denise's first draft of an appeal leads with how good RYCC's coding program is and how much the kids love it. This chapter tells her that is a mistake — not because it is untrue, but because it is aimed at the wrong target. She needs to think like Hartwell.

Applying the Chapter

Identify the room. Hartwell is a small family foundation. The "room" is likely the family and perhaps one part-time program officer, reading letters of inquiry around a table. The decision will be relationship-driven and less formulaic than a federal review, and a program officer who believes in RYCC could champion it. This tells Denise two things: cultivate a relationship early, and lead with mission fit and a human story backed by evidence — not with rigor and methodology, which would suit a study section, not this board.

Decode the priority statement. Denise applies the decode template to Hartwell's language, phrase by phrase: - "Community-rooted" and "led by and accountable to the communities they serve" — Hartwell strongly prioritizes community leadership. RYCC is neighborhood-based and partners with local schools and families, but Denise's draft never says so. She must foreground it. - "Open pathways to opportunity for young people" — the mission is opportunity, not coding per se. Coding is RYCC's vehicle; opportunity is Hartwell's destination. Denise must frame coding skills as a pathway to concrete futures (high-school tech tracks, eventual jobs), not as an end in themselves. - "In our region" — geography matters; RYCC's local focus is an asset to name explicitly.

Read what they actually fund. Following the chapter's advice, Denise pulls Hartwell's recent grants (from its public tax filing). She finds the foundation has funded several small, neighborhood-led youth programs and no large institutional ones. This confirms the fit and tells her that RYCC's smallness and rootedness are advantages here, not weaknesses to apologize for.

The Translation

Denise rewrites her opening. Before: "RYCC runs an excellent after-school coding program that students love, and we'd like to expand it." After: "In our neighborhood, the digital-skills gap is foreclosing futures that Hartwell exists to open. RYCC — a community-rooted program built with local schools and families — has shown it can put middle-schoolers on a real pathway to tech opportunity. For \$50,000, we can extend that proven, neighborhood-led pathway to three times as many local youth." Every phrase now answers Hartwell's priorities: community-rooted, pathways to opportunity, in our region.

The Relationship Move

Because the room is relationship-driven, Denise does not just send a polished letter cold. She sends a brief, warm note to Hartwell's program contact, using the first-contact email template, asking whether an expansion of a neighborhood-led youth coding program fits their current focus — and offering to share a one-pager. She is beginning the cultivation that, in the foundation world, often matters as much as the document.

Discussion Questions

  1. Hartwell's "community-led" priority is true of RYCC but absent from Denise's first draft. Why is foregrounding a true feature alignment rather than spin — and where would it cross into dishonesty?
  2. Reading Hartwell's actual past grants changed Denise's confidence about fit. What did the grant list tell her that the mission statement alone did not?
  3. Compare Denise's situation to Dr. Hernandez's in Case Study 1. The rooms are very different (a family foundation vs. an NIH study section). What is identical about the move each makes before writing?