Nonstop Nonprofit

The 100% Funding Model: The foundation for New Story’s team, mission, and vision

Episode Summary

Brett Hagler · CEO and Co-founder, New Story | Brett has spent his career in both the startup world and the nonprofit sector, mixing the two to achieve success in both, and to that end, Brett is a vocal supporter of the 100% model of nonprofit funding that's used by New Story, charity: water, and other high-performing charitable organizations.

Episode Notes

Before we start the conversation, let us give you a little context: about a month ago, in January 2021, Funraise CEO and Co-founder, Justin Wheeler, put up a relatively controversial post on his LinkedIn page talking about the 100% model. Specifically, he wrote, 

"This won't be popular, but the 100% model charities adopt is broken.

At best, it makes a donor feel good about giving to you.
At worst, it perpetuates the idea that overhead spend is bad.

In reality, the reason why nonprofits that have adopted this model are growing fast is that they are spending MORE on overhead, not less."

While Justin stands by that perspective, he also loves open and productive discourse between passionate people, so when Brett and the team at New Story (an awesome team, btw) responded to that post with some solid counterpoints and a suggestion that we bring the discussion here, to the Nonstop Nonprofit podcast, Justin was all about it.

Normally, this is where we'd sum up the episode in a sentence or two, but today we're going to ask that you listen to Justin's conversation with Brett as they discuss his take on the 100% funding model and Brett shares why it's the foundation for New Story's team, mission, and vision. Afterward, Justin would love to hear your take on these ideas—don't be shy! Hit him up on his LinkedIn page or email him directly at and get your voice heard!

Episode Transcription

Hello, I'm Justin Wheeler, and welcome to this episode of Nonstop Nonprofit! 

Today on Nonstop Nonprofit, we're welcoming Brett Hagler, CEO and Co-founder of New Story. Brett has spent his career in both the startup world and the nonprofit sector, mixing the two to achieve success in both, and to that end, Brett is a vocal supporter of the 100% model of nonprofit funding that's used by New Story, charity: water and other high performing charitable organizations. 

But before we start the conversation, I'm going to give you a little context: about a month ago, in January of 2021, I put up a relatively controversial post on my LinkedIn page talking about the 100% model, the very topic that Brett and I will be discussing today. Specifically, I wrote, 

"This won't be popular, but the 100% model charities adopt is broken. At best. It makes a donor feel good about giving to you. At worst, it perpetuates the idea that overhead spend is bad. In reality, the reason why nonprofits that have adopted this model are growing fast is that they are spending MORE on overhead, not less."

Now, I stand by that perspective today, just as I did when I hit publish. Having said that, I love open and productive discourse between passionate people, so when Brett and the team at News Story (which is an awesome team by the way) responded to that post with some solid counterpoints and a suggestion that we bring this discussion here, to the Nonstop Nonprofit podcast, I was all about it! 

Normally this is where I'd sum up the episode in a sentence or two, but today I'm going to ask that you listen to my conversation with Brett as we discuss his take on the 100% funding model and he shares why it's the foundation for New Story's team, mission, and vision. Afterward, I'd love to hear your take on these ideas. Hit me up on my LinkedIn page or email me at and let's talk! Now, let's dive into the episode.


Justin Wheeler All right, everyone, hey, thank you for joining Nonstop Nonprofit, I'm so excited today to have the CEO and founder of New Story, Brett Hagler, here on the show. Brett, thank you so much for joining the show.

Brett Hagler Thanks, Justin. Great to be with y'all.

Justin Wheeler For those listening, we're going to be talking about the 100% model. Couple weeks ago, I made somewhat of a dramatic post talking about how I felt like it was broken, maybe too strong of words. Brett has built an amazing organization. They're growing at hyper speed. And I want to talk to them about their strategy and how they've invested in growth to achieve the phenomenal results. Before we jump in to that, Brett, tell me a little bit more about New Story and what inspired you to get it started.

Brett Hagler Sure. So New Story we, our mission is to pioneer solutions to end global homelessness. We worked in now Haiti, El Salvador and Mexico, and we're basically trying to create innovative ways to build housing at a lower cost for families that are living between three on the high end, ten dollars a day. So that's our demographic. And got started after a trip that I took to Haiti. I went down there a couple of years after the 2010 earthquake and had no idea about the global housing problem and that over a billion people live in inadequate housing. And I was exposed to that problem. Problem itself broke my heart, but I had a for-profit startup at the time and I didn't think about starting my own nonprofit. So I try to go find other nonprofits that I could get really excited about. And for me, I was coming from more like a Silicon Valley background, very tech-oriented, entrepreneurial. And the more I looked around, the more I just felt that the nonprofits I was considering were just very traditional or very old school and was just felt so different than the kinds of startups and teams and culture that I personally was excited about, which was back then, like the AirBnBs of the world and those really exciting startups. And I just felt like such a disconnect. And I felt there was a lack of transparency, innovation, R&D, technology, I thought that didn't pay enough, like all these things. And so the reason why I actually started New Story was twofold. It was, one, to obviously help the families that we care deeply about, but two, it just felt like there needed to be literally a New Story in how you build a nonprofit. And that's why it's called New Story. So until we get started, that was 2000, basically 2015 and we were one of the first nonprofits to go through Y Combinator, which is a startup accelerator in Silicon Valley that's produced AirBnB, Doordash, Dropbox, a few other multibillion-dollar startups. And we went through the exact same program that all the for-profit companies went through. And the best part about it was they didn't treat us any differently because we are nonprofit. So that's always been in our DNA. And since then, we've now we've been able to raise now with over 60 million dollars, built over three thousand houses. We ended up last year creating the world's first 3D printed community of homes in Mexico with our partner Ikon, that was on an Apple documentary. And yeah, we now have about 30 team members. We're hiring a lot this year and we're excited to scale up. And our goal is to 12 million people is kind of our big milestone that we're marching towards. So I'll stop there and let you dive in Justin.

Justin Wheeler Yeah. That's phenomenal growth and I was going to actually jump in a little bit and talk about Y Combinator and you did a great job explaining it. I love that, that you weren't treated any differently because at the end of the day, a for-profit or nonprofit, the only difference is the tax code. Everything else should be really treated the same, especially if we're going to address hard problems, it's going to require talent of all levels. And so I love your background and that founding story. What would you say, over the next several years, what's your guys' goal? I mean, it's a million people housed. What sort of scale does that take to get to that level of impact?

Brett Hagler Yeah, so we need to get to a little more than two hundred thousand homes. And so the key drivers for us is creating innovations and processes that can decrease the cost of housing per person so we can decrease the cost of housing per person. Obviously, you can fund more, but also families that are in our demographic, which are families in extreme poverty, are coming out of extreme poverty, are in a better place to actually afford to pay for a high percentage of the total home costs, which is kind of our end goal. We don't want it to always be one hundred percent philanthropy. We may have to subsidize a little bit through philanthropy, but the flywheel for us is use innovation, use more streamlined processes, more effectiveness and efficiencies through our partners to decrease the costs and improve the speed. And if we do that and we make it more affordable for families. So that's kind of our flywheel. So we need to build about two hundred thousand units and we also need to raise about a half a billion dollars. And so this year in 2021, we're trying to get past $20M and the year after this will hopefully be passed, or 2022 we'll hopefully be passed $30M, maybe closer to $35M.

Justin Wheeler Wow.

Brett Hagler So that's kind of just to give context of our, some of our growth ambitions.

Justin Wheeler Yeah, that's awesome. What are the key drivers of your guys is growth. I know 2019 you guys I think did 1$11M, $11.Me or was it $12.9M, one of the two. What did you guys do last year in terms of revenue?

Brett Hagler So last year we just were a little, we did way less than we wanted to, mainly because of Covid-19, but also because we really wanted to do more things that we're investing into the future. So we ended up still having a growth year. It wasn't anywhere what we planned for before Covid-19, but we still had a growth year and we really just wanted to kind of make investments into the future. So I would say it was a good year. It wasn't great. We're trying to make 2021 and 2022 pretty big years where if we combine those two years, 2021 and 2022, ideally it's over $50M total is what we're trying to also.

Justin Wheeler Well congrats. I mean, not many nonprofits can say they grew in the height of a pandemic. So congratulations to the team for that growth. I want to jump into the topic now and talk about, because you guys have an interesting funding model, which I think has obviously led to the growth you've experienced over the last five years in raising the $60M+, so talk to us about your approach to funding and why you decided to take the path that you've taken.

Brett Hagler Yeah, so we've always had what people refer to as the 100% model. There was really two reasons in the beginning to do it. The first thing was just to give donors an option and choice as to where they would like to allocate their funds. Right. And so we started after, our first communities who were funding or in Haiti, and it was after the earthquake. And I mean, there were horrendous stories and PR about the misuse of funds and mistrust in charities. I mean, just terrible, terrible stories that definitely like repelled a lot of people in wanting to give there right. So we said, hey, well, the first thing we can easily do is at least promise that all of the money you're going to give to this, to the homes in Haiti are going to go towards the direct labor costs and the material cost to build the houses. Right. And then we'll get another group to fund the overhead. So that just that was like how it started was from Haiti and from so many bad stories that we just didn't want that to be an issue of why people wouldn't fund it. And then the second reason was really that I wanted to be able to communicate to the more so like investor types or if anybody does any investing in funds like limited partners that are really funding the future of the organization or of the business. Right. And how I communicate to those folks is exactly how I communicate to a venture capitalist, that is that I am a startup and I'm growing. Right. I'm talking to them differently and talking about our team, talking about R&D that we're going to do with a risk. And I'm talking about all these investments into the future. And that's just a way different message than somebody that wants to get involved and wants to fund a house for a marginalized family. And so to me, I just thought it was easier to split the communication and also split the option, right for donors. And so know we're going to get into how important OpEx is and overhead, but for us, it was just making it simple for people to choose. And then it also helped with just very clear communication as to which audience we were talking to and how we would talk to that audience.

Justin Wheeler Yeah, totally. And I the scenario of treating sort of I think you guys call them builders, right? This group of donors that funds the OpEx and overhead. So we're, Funraise is a venture backed company. We've raised about $25M in venture capital. And so totally understand the language that's necessary and why investors invest and in R&D and in OpEx for that future sort of growth potential. So in New Story's case, obviously there's the bottom line for your builders. Isn't obviously this growth opportunity or this like liquidity event that's going to happen and three to five years, it's the promise of impact. So how do you communicate, how do you tie impact into that investor language where it still gets people excited thinking about high growth with a different sort of outcome?

Brett Hagler Yeah, for sure. So we have just for context, we have a private group of donors that we call The Builders. And it's a little more than 50 individuals or families right now. They all commit to three year commitments and to a minimum of fifty thousand dollars a year to join. Right now, the average is closer to one hundred thousand a year to join. So that is just absolutely amazing from a planning perspective. And all of that money goes towards for operational expenses and is and is unrestricted. Right. And so that's just a little bit of how we've set it up. Now, when I'm pitching Builders and we're doing our reports, we're really measuring, of course, the number of lives that were impacting and the homes that we're building, but we're also talking about future investments that we're making to have more outsized impact. So, for example, getting into 3D printed houses with our partner, Ikon, we were able to do that early and to move quickly on it because we had a pool of unrestricted capital from forward-thinking innovative minds that want us to take calculated risk. That's way different than my mom's friend that is going to give a thousand dollars and she just wants to help another mom get into a house. It's like it's just way different than saying, oh, hey, by the way, like you should help this mom getting into a house. And, you know, it's important that for overhead and for R&D and we're trying to create a 3D printing machine that's probably not going to work. And like, you should fund that, too. And so we just we split it out. And The Builders, which funds all our overhead operational expenses in our R&D, they're seeing both the short-term benefits, which is the number of families we get to impact, and we're talking about our investments that we're making for the future. So some years, for example, if we're building a new software product, that is going to have to do with repayments for the families that move into our homes. And we want to track the loans and we want them to actually just do repayments through software and a system that we've built. Right. Well, I can go out and communicate to them and say, hey, well, in 2021 it's going to cost half a million dollars to bring on three or four engineers to build this. And so our ratio or whatever you want to look at may be skewed this year, but should I not invest and do these software engineers for building a system for years to come because it's going to mess up the ratio? Like just that this doesn't make sense because you're investing for the future. You're saying if we get this done, then we believe that years from now it's going to have an outsized impact, that it's going to be, at minimum, 10 times more of how many people you can impact. So I guess to summarize, it's communicating the short-term direct impact, but also the investments that you're making into the future. And to make investments that usually comes through team or some type of R&D or innovation project that you need money to put into it.

Justin Wheeler Yeah, makes total sense. On the financial ratio piece, with your budget split, do you find yourself still needing to, or wanting to, or caring to, pay attention to, sort of, because I mean, there could be a scenario where you raise a bunch more from private donors, from Builders than maybe you do from the public in one year. So how do you look at the financial ratios? Do you think it's obsolete? Do you think it's important to understand, what's your thoughts there?

Brett Hagler I get why obviously why people care a lot about it, because if you're working with a team that maybe doesn't have, doesn't have the competence to do some big things in the future, I could see how it's mismanaged. Right.

Justin Wheeler Yeah.

Brett Hagler But if you're working with a really talented, competent team, sometimes they're going to be years where you're going to be more heavy on the overhead or OpEx for reasons that I talked about. It could be, hey, we have a three year plan and let's say in three years, we want to let you say on a revenue side, write in three years we want to get to $30M a year in revenue. Right. Well, what does that, what investment do you have to make this year to make that happen? That could be hiring 10 new people where those numbers are going to show up for another two years? Right. So it's like do not invest in hiring the ten people because you don't want your perfect ratio to be messed up. And I just think too many, too many leaders, they don't make the bets and the investments that they need to take because they're too short-sighted in the ratios. As long as, the way I would say is the most important thing is as long as you can explain why the numbers or why the ratio is what it is, then you have to be able to explain it. Right. So for us some years, it's going to be way leaner. Right. So we're spending a total of call it $20M, sometimes almost $16M or $15M of that is going to go towards building houses. Some years it could be closer to half and half. It just depends what you're working on and your strategy. That's why we love having, that's why we love giving people the option. We love just saying, hey, if you care deeply about directly helping a family get into a new house, like we have a fund that is totally restricted and that money will be used to do that. And we can do it with high integrity, with efficiency and we'll show you the family. Then we have the option on the other side.

Justin Wheeler Yeah.

Brett Hagler So that's how we think about it. We've never put out, like, certain ratios or percentages just because I think once you start doing that, like you're always going to want to try to make it go in a certain direction. Your always going to try to be like, oh, we're going to be more lean or efficient this way. And again, what that does is it makes you stop thinking about investments and big bets in R&D, because that stuff cost money and if that stuff costs money, and it's not directly related to that specific outcome or that specific percentage, you're not going to be incentivized to do it.

Justin Wheeler Yeah, a hundred percent. I love that. Looking at sort of the OpEx at a year at a time really doesn't make that much sense when you're trying to end a huge problem. It's going to be a multi-year, obviously, strategy. And as you mentioned, some years, it's going to be a lot more expensive than others. And, you know, from a donor perspective, a new donor coming in, they see an organization spending 50% on operations that's going to send all sorts of red flags to that donor. And the question I have is, how do we remove that? How do we get the donor to start digging more and saying, well, why are you spending, you know, 50 % this year? How do we move donors into asking better questions? Because what I've seen and I've experienced a lot of times donors, they look at that sort of ratio, they look at that number or organizations are forced to like, oh, I think this R&D is actually more related to programs. We're going to bury this under this program expense and then it forces organizations not to be as transparent as they could be or should be. And it sounds like, you know, New Story's approach is we're just going to separate it. The donors that want to fund OpEx, we're going to put them in that bucket, donors who don't, we're going to go here and that's how we're going to deal with it. Do you think there's a way to have a broader conversation to get more donors thinking the way you're Builders are thinking? Regardless of the size of gift that they give or do you think that there's just different donors?

Brett Hagler Yeah, I think I mean, just to be really transparent, I think it totally depends who your donor demographic is right. And I'm not going to go into specific examples of that. I think we could all probably think of, OK, here, there's a certain donor type that, you know, if they're giving call it small monthly donations or even if it's a couple of thousand dollars or ten thousand dollars a year, like there are certain types that would understand the strategy you have of, hey, maybe we're going to invest more in team this year or in this R&D project or whatever it might be. I think it's a pretty small demographic and you got to be really dialed into it. Actually, that is part of New Story's, demographic, just kind of where we come from, from like the startup and VC world. But if not, I think it just confuses people. You could try to go out there and sell it, but I personally think that it's easier to split things out. That's just from my experience. There's many different ways to do it. Because the last thing we're trying to do is, we're not trying to hide anything. Right. I, literally our some of our biggest donors, all they're doing is funding our overhead and all I'm talking to them about is our team and new things we want to try. And so it's not trying to hide it. It's just giving people an option.

Justin Wheeler Yeah.

Brett Hagler Yeah. So I don't know. It's tricky. I mean, it's...

Justin Wheeler I think there's a lot of transparency, especially looking at sort of the way you guys break it out. It's super transparent. I don't think that's an issue. I think for organizations who can't operate and maybe they just need to be more innovative and figure out a way to, you know, to find the right types of donors. But I think that what you see with some organizations who can't operate like that, who can't say 100% of their donation goes to their programs, feel like they're less competitive, and maybe that's a good thing. Maybe the nonprofit community needs more competition. Maybe the nonprofit community needs more innovation to drive organizations to think bigger and better. Maybe that's part of it. You know, you hear often from probably smaller organizations, sub $5M that they feel it's a disadvantage because that's just something that they don't have the resources maybe to pull off. Which kind of takes me to the next question, or do you want to respond to that?

Brett Hagler Yeah, I don't know. I would just my gut from, you know, been in this now for almost six years. And so I'm not trying to speak for other folks. I just from my perspective, I think that whether you're percentages one hundred or ninety or eighty, like as long as you have a compelling story and you're being really smart about why it is what it is, I don't know. I just I don't think, there's going to be some people that may be hesitant, but I think at large, the majority of people, if you're doing all the other things right, I doubt that they're going to be like, oh, screw these guys. It's 70% like, you know, if you can clearly communicate what the other is for. And also, it's like just being smart. It's like sometimes don't advertise your exact percentage as clearly as possible. Right. Like like you don't want to hide anything. Right. But it doesn't have to be on the top of your homepage.

Justin Wheeler Yeah. That data point requires more context. It requires more conversation, right? It's not a leading indicator. So yeah I agree with that.

Brett Hagler And it's all about how you frame it too, right? And I think a lot of orgs can do better at this. You can frame that hiring excellent people and getting great people into the social impact space is the most strategic thing you can do.

Justin Wheeler Yeah.

Brett Hagler Right. Like that is the most strategic thing you can do is get excellent people on your team. Right. So I'm always talking about that, even to our folks that fund houses, I'm like, if we want to really impact people at scale, I have to build one of the best social impact teams in the world. Right. And you talk about it where it's not like you don't shy away from hiring great people or paying people. Well, it's like, no, you go all in and you say, like, this is it right? Like, this is the foundation that everything else will be built on. And if we can't have excellent people and if I can't recruit from great places, then like you're just going to get linear impact and you're going to get mediocrity. That's what you're going to get. And so that's up to you as to how you communicate things.

Justin Wheeler In the beginning, you talked about efficiency and you know, most organizations, I think of efficiency, like where can we lean out on OpEx? But what you looking at is how do we drive down the cost per home? Like, how do we increase our gross margin essentially on the product that we're building? That approach is super interesting. It's not like kind of how do we cut like six people so that our margins are better, It's how do we the impact that we're making, how do we make it cheaper to make.

Brett Hagler Exactly.

Justin Wheeler I love that concept.

Brett Hagler The other thing, I mean, also obviously depends on your impact strategy. Right. So for us, like, if we're going to build software, it's going to be something that is obviously going to have an impact for the direct work that we do. But our strategy is also to democratize that and to share it with other nonprofits so that they can use it for their housing needs. Right. So from that perspective, I'm pitching it to somebody and I'm saying, OK, well, this year we're going to spend an extra half a million dollars on engineering. It's going to, one, it's going to directly impact our work. And three years from now, we envision one hundred other organizations using this software, which then you could say is going to impact about X amount of people. So it depends on your impact strategy. But for us, it's been awesome to have that approach.

Justin Wheeler Yeah, awesome. Two more questions from my end. So has this funding strategy ever impacted your growth, do you think, negatively? Like have you ever felt like you... this is maybe more relevant the early days of getting it started. But did you ever feel like you actually grew slower because you didn't have enough OpEx funding?

Brett Hagler Yeah, I mean, I think what we're trying to figure out right now, I mean, yes, I think if you like, you're usually limited by, your OpEx usually is the driver of how much impact you can have and how much revenue you can bring in and what you're setting up your investment for the future. Right. So if we would had an extra five million dollars two years ago, I definitely think we would have had more impact and we would have been in a better place today. For us long term, we are trying to work, this year hasn't really started yet, but we're still pretty big on a monthly subscription program. It's called The Neighborhood. And so our goal is to first start getting as many subscribers as we can. First big milestone is ten thousand monthly subscribers and then eventually get to one hundred thousand. And at some point I think it's interesting to give people an option then once you're at a pretty big scale, if they want to give a percentage of their monthly donation towards our operations, if we can prove to them that, hey, if you give 20% or half whell we can prove that we're going to go get X amount of more money subscribers, which is going to then create X amount of more impact.

Justin Wheeler That's awesome.

Brett Hagler So, that's more in the future.

Justin Wheeler Yeah.

Brett Hagler But like right now, because we're pretty reliant, which is fine. It's working for us is our Builder group. But I think long term we're going try to have another way to bring in the operational funding.

Justin Wheeler Yeah, that makes sense. I asked that question I remember, Scott from charity: water shared a story where they almost shut their doors because they had millions in the bank for water projects, but almost zero dollars for.

Brett Hagler Oh, I see.

Justin Wheeler For their overhead. And so that story is initially what got me thinking about, well, how effective is this 100% model, right? How like how common is that sort of scenario for organizations who are adopting a 100% model? When I was at Liberty in North Korea, another organization that I had helped start, we adopted the 100% model as well and moved a lot of our, you know, had the same sort of like demographic of donors, like Silicon Valley, entrepreneurs, things like that, that we're actually funding operations. And there were times when it was like we knew we needed more people on the team to accomplish the goals we had over the next three to five years. But we were stuck because we couldn't tap into, we had all this restricted funding for refugee rescues... we couldn't touch it. And our board would often get so pissed off. They were like, why did we ever adopt this model? Like we need to grow and we can't.

Brett Hagler Yeah.

Justin Wheeler But again, your innovation, going back to thinking about, well, how do we create more sources of overhead funding through donors who are now duly connected to the mission of providing houses, but also growing the overall revenue? I love that.

Brett Hagler Yeah. I mean, look, it's not, having it split out is definitely not for everybody but if you do do it, I think creating some type of program that people can commit to for multi years, it's just awesome like we have with the builders program. charity: water has it with The Well and I'm sure there's other good examples, just the ones I'm most familiar with. It's so great to know as a CEO over the next couple of years, I have this amount of money coming in for for operational expenses.

Justin Wheeler Yeah, totally.

Brett Hagler At minimum, if we don't raise any more money like this is at minimum what we have coming in and if we can plan against that, like we can do everything against that. And when you're getting those type of people committed to your long term mission and to your team and to what it takes to build an excellent organization, they are also very well-connected. And a lot of our big partnerships on the homebuilding side has come through this private group of donors. Right. Because they know that the CEO or the CMO at this company or it just all these things are happening because you've created a a unique group of people that you're communicating to in a very different way. It's about the future. It's about the vision. It's about being part of building something truly great and getting people to understand that. I would argue the best way that most people could help, well a certain percentage of people is by funding the team and by funding the future.

Justin Wheeler Right. Yeah. I mean, when I was at Liberty in North Korea the way I like that is you could fund a single rescue is three thousand dollars to fund one rescue or you could take that three thousand dollars and likely multiply it through some of our other fundraising strategies. Turn out three thousand to twelve thousand or whatever it might be. And you know, to your point, not every donor has that mindset. Not every donor thinks that they're givin  g...

Brett Hagler Totally.

Justin Wheeler As that philanthropic or like a as a venture investment that could be multiplied.

Brett Hagler And they shouldn't.

Justin Wheeler So, yeah, makes makes total sense. So, Brett, I totally appreciate this conversation. New Story has been great to interact with. We had Sarah on the podcast a while back and so as a small token of my appreciation, I'm going to go and subscribe to your guys monthly giving program.

Brett Hagler Oh cool!

Justin Wheeler For those listening. How can they do that? How can you do the same? Where can people go to make a contribution or become a monthly subscriber?

Brett Hagler Yeah. So just go to our website, We are, in about two months, we're going to start making a really big push for the we're calling it The Neighborhood. So sign up to be a to be a good neighbor, love your neighbor, and every month you can help a family that is living in inadequate housing and you could change it every month. So just on our website, it'll be there front and center.

Justin Wheeler Awesome. Brett, thanks for your time.

Brett Hagler Yeah Justin.

Justin Wheeler Thanks for being an innovative leader in the nonprofit space. Really appreciate it. And good luck with your ambitious goals in the years to come.

Brett Hagler Thanks. And for anybody listening, if you're looking for a new nonprofit, career opportunities, we're hiring a lot this year.

Justin Wheeler Hiring tons. Alright, when we post this up, we'll post that as well. Hopefully drive some traffic to your guys site. Awesome, thanks Brett!

Brett Hagler Thanks man, cheers!

Justin Wheeler Cheers.


Thanks for listening to this episode of Nonstop Nonprofit! 

This podcast is brought to you by your friends at Funraise. Nonprofit fundraising software, built by nonprofit people. Don't forget to get your next episode the second it hits the internets. Go to and sign up for email notifications today. 

See you next time!