Case Study 2 — RYCC Defends Its Indirect Costs Without Apology
Composite, for teaching. RYCC and the Hartwell Foundation are illustrative.
The Situation
Denise Okafor must justify RYCC's \$50,000 budget for the Hartwell Foundation. Two lines worry her: the personnel (most of the budget) and the indirect costs, which she fears the foundation will see as "money not reaching the kids." Her instinct is to apologize for the indirect and hope the personnel is self-explanatory. This chapter tells her to do neither.
Applying the Chapter
She justifies personnel with concrete work. Rather than "Coordinator: \$25,000," she explains: the 0.5 FTE coordinator recruits and enrolls 90 students, schedules instruction across three sites, manages school-partner relationships, and collects the attendance and assessment data the evaluation requires — so the half-time effort is visibly full of necessary tasks. The instructors' effort she ties to two 90-minute sessions a week plus prep across 30 weeks. The reviewer sees the personnel costs are real, not padded.
She ties every line to the narrative. The family-engagement and incentive line references the retention strategy from her project narrative (Chapter 9); the materials line references the three sites. The budget reads as part of one coherent plan.
She defends indirect costs confidently. Hartwell allows 10% indirect, and Denise justifies it without apology: "Indirect costs (10%) support the facilities the program runs in and the financial and administrative systems that manage this grant responsibly and keep our reporting to the Foundation accurate. They are part of what makes the program possible and accountable, not separate from it." She does not call them "unfortunate" or over-explain; she states plainly that the infrastructure is real and necessary — informed by the "overhead myth" understanding that a suspiciously low overhead would signal a starved, not a virtuous, organization.
She reconciles the numbers. Denise checks that her justification totals match the budget table and her narrative — all agree, including the trims she made to hit the \$50,000 target.
The Trap She Avoids
Denise's instinct to apologize for indirect costs would have signaled that even she doubted they were justified — inviting the program officer to share the doubt. And leaving the personnel line as a bare number would have missed the chance to show the coordination load that justifies it. By justifying both confidently and concretely, she presents a budget she clearly believes in.
The Payoff
RYCC's justification makes every dollar visibly necessary, ties the money to the plan, and defends the indirect costs as the real infrastructure they are. A Hartwell program officer reads a budget from an organization that understands and can defend its own costs — the mark of a responsible steward, and a reassurance that RYCC will manage the grant well if funded.
Discussion Questions
- Denise's instinct was to apologize for indirect costs. Walk through why apology is self-defeating and what confident framing accomplishes instead.
- How does the "overhead myth" history give Denise grounds to defend indirect costs rather than minimize them?
- Compare Denise's foundation justification to Hernandez's research justification (Case Study 1). What's identical in method, and what differs (indirect framing, the lines each must defend)?