5 ms·

That's really incredible. What's more fascinating is their 100% promise [1]: > We send 100% of all donations directly to hire local workers and buy local mater

That's really incredible. What's more fascinating is their 100% promise [1]: > We send 100% of all donations directly to hire local workers and buy local materials so you know exactly where your donation is going. Considering their Careers page lists they are hiring a software engineer, I dug a little further and found this info in their FAQ: > How Does New Story Fund Operational Costs With A 100% Promise? > We are committed to putting every cent of donor contributions to the building of homes. We fund our day-to-day operations by generous contributions from corporate investors and private individuals. Also, a majority of our incredible donors opt-in and add 10% onto their donation to fund New Story operations. If you are interested in investing in our organization, so we can serve even more families, email info@newstorycharity.org. The FAQ mentions an investment opportunity, though I'm not sure what the investment is, besides charity social goodwill -- which of course, is a great thing. [1] https://newstorycharity.org/100-percent/ https://newstorycharity.org/100-percent/

maxerickson 9y ago
That's just bucket A and bucket B right? Like, the money going towards operations is still donated. The page about the operations money even puts it in terms of having 2 bank accounts: https://newstorycharity.org/the-builders/ https://newstorycharity.org/the-builders/ So fine, they are able to advertise that they are spending 100% of certain funds on programs. But it is just a marketing gimmick, they still have some overall efficiency, just like any other charity.
- tehwebguy 9y ago
  It means everyone donating knows what their money is going to. If you want 100% of if to go to houses, it will.
  - snarf21 9y ago
    Exactly, it is about transparency. You get to choose what it is used for and they follow through.
    - bretthagler 9y ago
      This is right. We, of course, use both bank accounts for overall efficiency. What's important to know is that donors are able to: a) Choose exactly what they want to give towards b) Donors see the family profile and move-in video that their donation was allocated to. This holds us accountable and shows results to the donor. example: https://impact.newstorycharity.org/families/SV-FC-AHUACHAPAN-86 https://impact.newstorycharity.org/families/SV-FC-AHUACHAPAN...
  - oconnor663 9y ago
    That doesn't mean as much as it sounds like it does, though. Suppose an organization has $100 of "houses only" money, and another $100 of "general fund" money, $20 of which is also spent on houses. Now say I donate $5 of my own money to "houses only". There is absolutely nothing stopping the org from (and arguably nothing wrong with) reducing the "general fund" spending on houses by $5, so that the ultimate amount that goes to houses is unchanged.
    - nowarninglabel 9y ago
      That's not how it works with New Story as they are not putting their own operating funds towards funding houses. It'd be odd and a question in the auditing process if a non-profit operated the way you described.
- rtkwe 9y ago
  Not all gimmick it means that people/companies who are donating know that their money is either going towards operational funding or to relief efforts.
- aidos 9y ago
  It means there's more transparency about where the money is going. It's going to be hard to get corporate donations if you have to say to them, "we need X from you to run the business of providing only Y in actual support". It surely has to help stop bureaucratic creep. You're forced to run lean and efficiently in the administration.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Isn't that the pitch they make to the large contributors? That if they have $X of funds for operations they will be able to gather and deploy $Y funds for programs? Surely the large contributors have some concern for that ratio. Of course I think of matching campaigns the same way (as a gimmick). If you are willing to donate $10,000, why not blare out that you are matching $10,000 instead of just donating it.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Of course I think of matching campaigns the same way (as a gimmick). If you are willing to donate $10,000, why not blare out that you are matching $10,000 instead of just donating it. Obviously many companies match for the marketing, but besides that, they're also convincing others to donate. It's like giving people a "50% discount" on their donations. If the matchers believe in the cause, why wouldn't they match rather than just donate?
- IncRnd 9y ago
  It's similar to the difference between opex and capex. You can call it a marketing gimmick, but 100% of the money put into capex is capex, at least according to the page you linked.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    The hygienic accounting doesn't change whatever the overall efficiency is. (a sibling comment to yours points out that the separate accounting can help create good incentives, which could well be the case, but looking backward, there is still an efficiency that can be calculated and compared to other charities)
    - IncRnd 9y ago
      Hygenic accounting, marketing gimmick? It's really straightforward, so I don't see why you need to malign a charity that has found a way to separate overhead from assistance. o=overhead donations (min of 25k) a=assistance provided donations received = o+a; donated % used for charitable cause = a*100/(o+a)
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        I don't see what is malign about hygienic accounting. Marketing gimmick is certainly a cynical take.

maxerickson 9y ago

That's just bucket A and bucket B right? Like, the money going towards operations is still donated. The page about the operations money even puts it in terms of having 2 bank accounts: https://newstorycharity.org/the-builders/ https://newstorycharity.org/the-builders/ So fine, they are able to advertise that they are spending 100% of certain funds on programs. But it is just a marketing gimmick, they still have some overall efficiency, just like any other charity.

tehwebguy 9y ago
It means everyone donating knows what their money is going to. If you want 100% of if to go to houses, it will.
- snarf21 9y ago
  Exactly, it is about transparency. You get to choose what it is used for and they follow through.
  - bretthagler 9y ago
    This is right. We, of course, use both bank accounts for overall efficiency. What's important to know is that donors are able to: a) Choose exactly what they want to give towards b) Donors see the family profile and move-in video that their donation was allocated to. This holds us accountable and shows results to the donor. example: https://impact.newstorycharity.org/families/SV-FC-AHUACHAPAN-86 https://impact.newstorycharity.org/families/SV-FC-AHUACHAPAN...
- oconnor663 9y ago
  That doesn't mean as much as it sounds like it does, though. Suppose an organization has $100 of "houses only" money, and another $100 of "general fund" money, $20 of which is also spent on houses. Now say I donate $5 of my own money to "houses only". There is absolutely nothing stopping the org from (and arguably nothing wrong with) reducing the "general fund" spending on houses by $5, so that the ultimate amount that goes to houses is unchanged.
  - nowarninglabel 9y ago
    That's not how it works with New Story as they are not putting their own operating funds towards funding houses. It'd be odd and a question in the auditing process if a non-profit operated the way you described.
rtkwe 9y ago
Not all gimmick it means that people/companies who are donating know that their money is either going towards operational funding or to relief efforts.
aidos 9y ago
It means there's more transparency about where the money is going. It's going to be hard to get corporate donations if you have to say to them, "we need X from you to run the business of providing only Y in actual support". It surely has to help stop bureaucratic creep. You're forced to run lean and efficiently in the administration.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Isn't that the pitch they make to the large contributors? That if they have $X of funds for operations they will be able to gather and deploy $Y funds for programs? Surely the large contributors have some concern for that ratio. Of course I think of matching campaigns the same way (as a gimmick). If you are willing to donate $10,000, why not blare out that you are matching $10,000 instead of just donating it.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Of course I think of matching campaigns the same way (as a gimmick). If you are willing to donate $10,000, why not blare out that you are matching $10,000 instead of just donating it. Obviously many companies match for the marketing, but besides that, they're also convincing others to donate. It's like giving people a "50% discount" on their donations. If the matchers believe in the cause, why wouldn't they match rather than just donate?
IncRnd 9y ago
It's similar to the difference between opex and capex. You can call it a marketing gimmick, but 100% of the money put into capex is capex, at least according to the page you linked.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  The hygienic accounting doesn't change whatever the overall efficiency is. (a sibling comment to yours points out that the separate accounting can help create good incentives, which could well be the case, but looking backward, there is still an efficiency that can be calculated and compared to other charities)
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    Hygenic accounting, marketing gimmick? It's really straightforward, so I don't see why you need to malign a charity that has found a way to separate overhead from assistance. o=overhead donations (min of 25k) a=assistance provided donations received = o+a; donated % used for charitable cause = a*100/(o+a)
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      I don't see what is malign about hygienic accounting. Marketing gimmick is certainly a cynical take.