Case Study 2 — RYCC Proves a Small Org Can Manage the Grant
Composite, for teaching. RYCC and partners are illustrative.
The Situation
Denise Okafor must establish RYCC's capacity for the Hartwell Foundation. RYCC is a four-year-old organization with a $400K budget and 3.5 staff — small, and Denise worries a funder will doubt whether RYCC can run a three-site expansion and manage the grant. Her draft capability statement is a warm "about us." This chapter tells her to make it targeted evidence instead.
Applying the Chapter
She replaces "about us" with matched evidence. Instead of "RYCC is a passionate, mission-driven nonprofit," she writes: "RYCC has run its coding program at [school] for four years, enrolling [N] students annually with an 85% completion rate and graduates entering high-school tech tracks — proving we can recruit, retain, and instruct the population this expansion serves." Every sentence answers "can they do this expansion?"
She addresses grant management head-on. Knowing a funder's biggest worry about a small org is whether it can manage money and reporting, Denise establishes it explicitly: "RYCC has managed [prior grant] successfully, with financial systems and reporting processes [briefly], and the administrative capacity to administer this award responsibly." She doesn't leave the funder's stewardship worry unanswered.
She foregrounds relationships — her real advantage. RYCC's deep partnerships with the three target schools are something a large, distant organization couldn't easily replicate. She features them, with commitment letters confirming site access, space, and referral pipelines.
She runs the capacity checklist. The expansion requires multi-site coordination (her coordinator role, justified in the budget, Ch 12), instruction (her instructors), school access (partner letters), and grant management (addressed above). Every demand has a clear answer; no gap is left for a reviewer to find.
She secures specific commitment letters. Each of the three schools provides a commitment letter (space, access) drafted by Denise for them to edit — not generic "we support this great program" letters, but specific, binding confirmations of what RYCC depends on.
The Trap She Avoids
Denise's warm "about us" draft would have left a reviewer to wonder whether a small org could really run three sites and manage the grant. By presenting targeted evidence (track record matched to the demands), addressing grant management directly, and securing specific commitment letters, she turns RYCC's smallness from a liability into a story of a proven, rooted, well-managed organization ready to grow.
The Payoff
RYCC's capacity section answers every form of "can they do this?" — the program track record, the grant-management capacity, the committed sites — so a Hartwell program officer reads a small organization that is nonetheless a safe bet. The relationships that are RYCC's genuine advantage are documented and committed. The reviewer's risk in funding a small org is met with evidence, not reassurance.
Discussion Questions
- Why is grant-management capacity the element RYCC most needed to address, given its size — and how did Denise establish it?
- RYCC's small size could read as a weakness or (via relationships and track record) as a strength. How did Denise frame it as the latter?
- Compare RYCC's capacity case to Hernandez's (Case Study 1). What's identical in method (the checklist, commitment letters), and what differs (organizational vs. investigator/team capacity)?