Case Study 2 — RYCC Budgets to a Foundation's Indirect Cap
Composite, for teaching. RYCC and the Hartwell Foundation are illustrative.
The Situation
Denise Okafor must build RYCC's \$50,000 budget for the Hartwell Foundation. Two things complicate it: the foundation caps indirect costs at 10%, and Denise (a math-anxious director) is intimidated by budgeting. This chapter reassures her that the math is simple and the discipline is what matters.
Applying the Chapter
She builds from the narrative, line by line. Her narrative describes two instructors and a coordinator delivering classes at three sites, with family-engagement events and student incentives driving retention. So her budget funds exactly those: personnel (salary × effort + 25% fringe), supplies (laptops supplement, materials), participant support (family events, incentives), local travel, and a little for printing and recruitment. Each line traces to an activity; no activity lacks a line.
She respects the indirect cap. Hartwell allows only 10% indirect. So Denise applies 10% to her direct-cost total — far less than a university's negotiated rate would be, but it's the foundation's rule, and exceeding it would be non-compliant. She notes that RYCC absorbs the rest of its true overhead, a reality she'll address in the sustainability section (Chapter 14) and her funding strategy (Chapter 33).
She sizes to the target. Her first pass comes to about \$53,900 — over the \$50,000 ask. Rather than pad or shave dishonestly, she makes a real budgeting decision: trims the laptop supplement (the schools can supply some), adjusts instructor effort slightly, and lands at a defensible \$50,000. The adjustments are genuine, not cosmetic.
She checks the match. Denise verifies the budget total matches the \$50,000 in her executive summary and narrative, that the year (single-year) totals add up, and that every number agrees across the table, the text, and the justification she'll write next.
The Math Anxiety, Resolved
Denise feared the budget would require skills she lacks. In practice, it required only: salary times effort, salary times a fringe percentage, a direct total times 10%, and addition. A calculator and care did the rest. The hard part wasn't the arithmetic — it was the discipline: building from the narrative, respecting the cap, sizing honestly, and checking every total. As this chapter promised, anyone who can run a household budget can build a grant budget.
The Payoff
RYCC's budget funds exactly the program the narrative describes, respects the foundation's indirect cap, hits the target honestly, and matches every total. A Hartwell program officer reading it sees a coherent, realistic plan from an organization that understands its own costs — and a budget whose modest, well-targeted proportions (most of the money going to instruction and engagement, the activities that produce outcomes) reinforce that RYCC's priorities are right.
Discussion Questions
- Hartwell caps indirect at 10% while a university might negotiate 40%+. What does RYCC do about the difference, and where in the proposal does that reality surface (Chapters 14, 33)?
- Denise's first pass was over budget. Why is making real trims (laptops, effort) better than cosmetic padding or dishonest shaving?
- Compare RYCC's foundation budget to Hernandez's research budget (Case Study 1). What's identical in their method, and what differs in indirect treatment and format?