The Grant That Requires a Guarantee
You direct financial education for a regional nonprofit. A foundation grant of $40,000 funds a 10-week budgeting and credit course for 120 adults in a workforce reentry program. The grant letter states that at least 85% of enrolled participants must complete the course, and the program officer verbally told you that 'we expect to see measurable credit-score improvement.' Two weeks before launch, your partner agency reports that 30 of the 120 enrollees will be released from their work shifts only intermittently due to mandatory overtime, and 15 have no reliable phone or email for reminders. Your only instructor is certified and excellent but teaches evenings only, and your classroom holds 25. Your board chair asks whether to accept the grant as written or renegotiate.
1. Using the setup, what are the three most consequential delivery risks, and how should you sequence a response to the board chair?
Read the worked answer
The risks are (1) an attendance/completion target (85% of 120 = 102 completers) that is structurally threatened by 30 intermittent-shift enrollees and 15 hard-to-reach enrollees; (2) a vague outcome expectation ('measurable credit-score improvement') that the funder stated verbally but did not put in writing, creating ambiguity about what counts as success; and (3) capacity constraints - one evening-only instructor and a 25-seat room against 120 enrollees.
Sequencing matters. First, quantify the exposure: if the 30 intermittent and 15 unreachable enrollees are treated as at-risk, the realistic completion ceiling may fall near 75 of 120 (62%), well under the 85% floor. Second, convert the verbal outcome expectation into a written, measurable definition before signing - e.g., 'X% of completers who provide consent show a score increase of at least Y points at 90 days' - because an unwritten outcome is unenforceable and will be judged after the fact. Third, propose a delivery redesign (cohort rotation, a second instructor, or a hybrid format) as a condition of acceptance rather than accepting and hoping. The board chair should be told: accept only with amended targets or amended delivery, not both unchanged.
2. The foundation refuses to change the 85% completion clause but will allow 'reasonable accommodations.' Draft the accommodation logic you would present and identify the ethical line you must not cross.
Read the worked answer
Accommodation logic: distinguish between lowering the bar and removing barriers. Legitimate accommodations include rotating cohort schedules so shift workers can attend alternate sessions, a make-up pathway with equivalent instructional contact, text-and-call outreach alternatives for the 15 without reliable digital access, and splitting 120 into five 24-person cohorts to fit the 25-seat room. These change when and how people attend, not what they must demonstrate.
The ethical line: do not inflate completion by counting partial attendance as completion, by waiving assessments, or by redefining 'complete' after the fact to hit 102. That would misrepresent outcomes to a funder and to participants, and it would violate the duty of honesty owed to both. If honest accommodations still cannot reach 85%, the correct move is to report the shortfall with explanation, not to manufacture the number. A financial educator's credibility rests on the accuracy of the claims made about learner outcomes.