Case Study 2 — RYCC's Implementation Plan Makes the Program Real
Composite, for teaching. RYCC and the funder are illustrative.
The Situation
Denise Okafor must write RYCC's project narrative — the plan for expanding the coding program to three schools. Her first draft is enthusiastic but vague: "RYCC will provide high-quality coding instruction to underserved youth across three sites, fostering skills and confidence." This chapter tells her that enthusiasm is not a plan, and that a reviewer needs to see she has actually figured out how to run it.
Applying the Chapter
She makes the implementation concrete. Denise rewrites the narrative to answer the operational questions a reviewer silently asks. Who delivers: two part-time instructors (qualifications stated), supported by a part-time coordinator. How she'll reach students: referral pipelines through the three partner schools' counselors, plus a family-engagement night (the recruitment mechanism, the part that most often fails). What exactly happens: twice-weekly 90-minute sessions, 30 weeks, following a sequenced curriculum (the dosage). Where: classroom space at each school, secured via partnership (letters attached). What partners contribute: space, referrals, and on-site staff liaison — committed in writing. The vague draft becomes a program a reviewer can see operating.
She structures by objective and spends detail on the hard parts. Routine elements (materials, scheduling) get brief treatment; the genuinely hard parts — recruiting and retaining middle-schoolers across three new sites — get real detail, because those are where a knowledgeable reviewer's doubt lives.
She grounds feasibility in track record and evidence base. Denise places her evidence against the reviewer's biggest doubt ("can a one-site nonprofit run three sites?"): four years of outcomes at the existing site, partner letters confirming the new sites are ready, and a curriculum adapted from an evidence-based model. Track record + partner commitment + evidence base, each against its doubt.
She pre-empts the attrition risk. Denise's honest biggest risk is that students won't stay. Rather than hide it, she writes a pitfalls-and-alternatives passage: names the attrition risk, cites her existing site's strong completion rate as evidence her engagement practices work, and specifies weekly attendance monitoring with early intervention and a mid-year corrective trigger. The reviewer's "but what about drop-off?" is answered before it's asked.
The Trap She Avoids
Denise's vague first draft would have read to a reviewer as a hope, not a plan — "fostering skills and confidence" tells them nothing about whether RYCC can actually deliver at three sites. By making the implementation concrete and pre-empting the attrition risk, she converts the narrative from aspiration into a credible, runnable plan.
The Payoff
RYCC's narrative now shows a reviewer exactly how the program operates, grounds its feasibility in real evidence placed against real doubts, and disarms the obvious attrition objection. A program officer finishes it believing not just that RYCC's idea is good but that RYCC can execute it — the belief the approach exists to create.
Discussion Questions
- Denise's vague first draft and her concrete revision describe the same program. Why does the concrete version earn belief that the vague one cannot?
- Recruitment and retention got detail while scheduling got a sentence. How does that allocation mirror Hernandez's choices in Case Study 1, despite the very different projects?
- RYCC's attrition pitfalls-and-alternatives passage uses its existing site's data as evidence. How does this combine two techniques from the chapter (feasibility evidence + pitfalls-and-alternatives) into one move?