Case Study 18.1 — RYCC and Hartwell

A composite, illustrative case. The Riverside Youth Coding Collective (RYCC), Executive Director Denise Okafor, and the Hartwell Family Foundation are composites built to teach; the foundation dynamics are real. Verify any specific funder's process with that funder.

The organization and the ask

The Riverside Youth Coding Collective (RYCC) runs a free after-school coding program for middle-schoolers in an under-resourced neighborhood. It is small — about \$400,000 in annual budget, 3.5 full-time-equivalent staff — and run by Executive Director **Denise Okafor**, who, as in most small nonprofits, wears every hat. RYCC has run its program successfully at one school, and families at two nearby schools have asked for it. Denise wants to expand to **three sites, serving 90 students over a 30-week program**, and she needs **\$50,000 to do it. Her target is the Hartwell Family Foundation**, a local family foundation with a long commitment to neighborhood-led youth opportunity.

This case follows Denise not through a proposal, but through a relationship — because that, the chapter argues, is the real unit of foundation fundraising.

Stage 1 — Qualifying the fit (Chapter 3, applied)

Denise doesn't start by writing. She starts by confirming, as Chapter 3 taught, that Hartwell is a genuine fit. She reads Hartwell's website for priorities and pulls its 990-PF to see what it actually funds. The evidence is encouraging: Hartwell has funded several neighborhood-led youth programs, its typical grants are in a range that comfortably includes \$50,000, and it funds organizations in RYCC's region. This is not a hopeful guess — it's an evidenced fit by mission, size, type, and geography. Hartwell funds organizations like RYCC, at the size RYCC needs, in RYCC's place. Denise marks it a top prospect and commits to it.

Stage 2 — Becoming known before the ask (Sections 18.2–18.3)

Here Denise does what separates funded organizations from hopeful ones: she builds the relationship before she asks. She emails Hartwell's program officer with a short, well-prepared note — two sentences on RYCC, a specific mention of Hartwell's support for neighborhood-led youth work, and two genuine questions: does RYCC's planned expansion fit Hartwell's current interests, and how does the program officer prefer to be approached?

The reply is gold: Hartwell likes a brief LOI first, and a site visit is welcome. Denise invites the program officer to see the program. The officer comes, watches the kids code, and meets RYCC's board chair. By the end of the visit, the program officer is no longer evaluating an unknown nonprofit on paper — she has seen the program land with real children and met the leader behind it. Denise has placed a potential champion inside Hartwell, the advocate who will speak for RYCC in the board meeting Denise will never attend.

Stage 3 — The LOI (Section 18.4)

Now, and only now, Denise writes — a one-to-two-page LOI tailored entirely to Hartwell. It opens by naming Hartwell specifically and why RYCC is approaching them; tells the need as a human story backed by a local statistic; describes the project and its concrete outcomes (90 students, three sites, 30 weeks, specific skill and engagement measures); establishes trustworthiness (RYCC's track record at its first school, Denise's leadership, a \$400,000 budget, an engaged board, families requesting the program); asks for the \$50,000 Hartwell actually gives; and closes by inviting continued relationship. It is short, warm, specific, and unmistakably written for Hartwell — the opposite of a mass-mailed letter.

Stage 4 — The realistic arc (Sections 18.5–18.6; full in Chapter 22)

Here the case tells the truth that beginners resist: a first foundation approach, even a strong and well-matched one, is often declined — and the decline is frequently the beginning of the relationship, not its end. RYCC's first LOI may well come back as "not this cycle": Hartwell's board is still getting to know RYCC, the cycle's funds may be committed, the timing may be off. (We follow exactly this declined-then-funded arc in detail in Chapter 22, the foundation-world counterpart to the federal A1.)

What matters is Denise's response. She treats a "no" the way Hernandez treats an NIH summary statement (Chapter 16): not as a verdict, but as a stage. She thanks the program officer, asks what would strengthen a future request, keeps Hartwell informed with brief updates, and returns the next cycle as a known organization. When the grant does come, Denise's work isn't over — it's the start of stewardship: she reports honestly and on time, communicates through challenges, acknowledges Hartwell appropriately, and treats the program officer as a partner. That stewardship is what turns RYCC's first \$50,000 grant into a renewal, and eventually into the flexible, multi-year support that genuinely strengthens the organization.

What this case teaches

  1. The relationship is the unit, not the proposal. Denise's LOI succeeds because of everything around it — the qualifying research, the cultivation, the site visit, the champion inside Hartwell. The proposal is one move in a relationship.
  2. Evidenced fit comes first. The 990-PF told Denise that Hartwell funds organizations like RYCC, at her size, in her area. Without that, all the relationship work in the world targets the wrong funder.
  3. Tailoring is non-negotiable. The LOI is written for Hartwell — its priorities, its language, its community. A generic letter would have signaled exactly the wrong thing.
  4. A "no" is often a "not yet." Persistence and relationship-building, not a single perfect letter, win foundation funding — and stewardship after the grant wins the next one.

🔄 Retrieve: Without rereading, list the four stages of Denise's approach (qualify, become known, LOI, the realistic arc/stewardship) and name the single thing the site visit accomplished. (Answers above.)