Not doing so will strongly select for people who already have the means to support themselves in Silicon Valley for 3 months, which is like saying "rich kids only".
I don't know about this case, but the article mentions "the meager monthly stipend she allowed herself", which suggests that Julia chose to spend as much of the funding as possible on the nonprofit itself, despite considerable inconvenience. If that's so, I admire her for it, and it's a strong signal of authenticity for Zidisha.
Don't get me wrong, YC clearly provides great support in general for its founders. What I'm suggesting is that I would expect them to go that bit further to be inclusive - especially with their public commitment to encouraging female founders.
My impression is that the funding founders get is interpreted as funding for the company, rather than for the founder to live. Is that wrong?
Oh yes, quite wrong. The #1 purpose of the funding has always been to cover founders' living expenses while in YC. It was more than enough for that when we went through it in 2009, and of course the startups get a lot more these days.
I should repeat that I don't know any details, but I bet you the YC partners had no idea of the lengths Julia was personally taking. (Literally! Commuting an hour on foot with a two-year-old is quite a length to take.) This is clearly a strong and determined person. It seems unlikely that she would have brought such details up or asked for special treatment in any way.
They give you money and you can spend it however you want. It's generally assumed the cost to start at startup these days is only food+housing for two or three people.
> she and Adam would have to get by in the Bay Area on the meager monthly stipend she allowed herself.
YC does give people a decent chunk of money; at least startups. Maybe it's different for non profits? From the article, it seems she chose to live frugally and spend it on her project.