Comments
This is the second in a series of posts about a nonprofit incubation program we’re running in Spanish-speaking Latin America, funded by Open Philanthropy. The goal is to support the creation of new, evidence-based organizations that implement cost-effective interventions adapted to local contexts. You can find the first post here.
We have finished selecting the first cohort of founders. In this post we will introduce the framework used to select them, along with some learnings that can be useful for other people founding or considering founding an effective nonprofit or joining an incubation program.
But first, a quick update: we have decided to rebrand our program name, as the previous one had an important similarity to another impact-focused incubator, Catalyze Impact. Our new program name is: Theory of Change Makers.
We launched the Theory of Change Makers program to incubate high-impact nonprofits in Spanish-speaking Latin America. From nearly 200 applications (19 countries), we selected a first cohort of 20 participants representing 9 nationalities, 11 countries of residence, and over 278 years of combined professional experience (59% in the social sector). Their profiles range from PhDs and international professionals to grassroots leaders with deep community ties.
The selection process:
Key learnings:
Other reflections:
Here is some initial data about the first cohort of the program:
The selection process included:
To make this post useful for the broader ecosystem, not just a report on how we selected our participants, the next section will focus on insights and takeaways that might be valuable for anyone considering founding a non-profit or applying to an incubation program.
Why previous experience in the social sector mattered for us
🌀 The "Multi-Armed NGO" bias
Many participants in their applications proposed highly holistic, multi-purpose organizations (organizations that addressed poverty, education, environment or health simultaneously). There seems to be a strong inclination toward believing that the more integrated the organization, the better. We had to be explicit in interviews and trial tasks about focusing on targeted interventions. This was a pattern we saw repeatedly, but once the reasoning supporting the shift (including this article by Happier Lives Institute) was explained, virtually all candidates agreed on focusing on a single-intervention organization moving forward.
📚 Encouraging signs of epistemic flexibility
One thing that didn’t surprise us was how many people, despite having no prior exposure to EA, dove deep into research, evidence, and preparation for their interviews.
A common refrain in EA is that the broader social sector doesn’t care about impact, and that good intentions are their only north star. We strongly disagree. When you’ve committed your career to doing good, working in the field day in and day out, often making personal sacrifices along the way, impact is your number one priority.
However, in highly resource-constrained environments, organizations often lack the time or expertise to conduct rigorous research to guide their interventions. Funders rarely support (and fund) thorough Monitoring & Evaluation, and when they do, it’s often not rigorous enough.
In the Global South, people working in the social sector are already deeply motivated for their interventions to succeed. When given the right tools and frameworks, they show a remarkable willingness to learn, question their assumptions, and increase the rigor of their work.
📊 Making Cost-Effectiveness intuitive
The last question of the interview was:
“If you were to convince a donor to choose between AMF and your own future organization, what would you tell them?”
All applicants were given the same basic information about AMF and a brief explanation of what cost-effectiveness means. This was probably the most challenging question in the entire selection process, because potential founders, on the spot, had to think of ways to:
The best answers included some of the following:
“We know the bar is high. We know your money could fund a thousand bed nets and save lives worth saving. But someone once took a risk on AMF. Our organization has been created by researching proven solutions and improving them in a neglected place. We are a mixture of local leadership, and we’ll do our part to measure, learn, and share everything we find.”
🎯 The Wide Spectrum of Motivations
People who apply to found an NGO come with all sorts of motivations. Since our program lasts a year, an important part of our methodology is helping participants refine not just what they want to do, but why.
Some statistics from our application form helped us identify trends in intent. We plan to reflect on the same questions during and at the end of the process to see if, and how, motivations have shifted.
Why?: Even when an organization is designed with an evidence-based lens, unclear or misaligned intentions can lead it astray.
We used several key criteria to decide who to invite into the program:
Important trade-offs: factors that participants couldn’t necessarily control but still had to be considered:
People are in very different stages of their professional journeys, which makes it difficult to fairly gauge who “deserves” a spot. Since this is the first program of its kind in the region, we’ve had to think carefully about how to balance experience, potential, and equity.
Because the program is based in a developing region, we received applications from a wide range of profiles. Some candidates had PhDs or master’s degrees, studied abroad, spoke multiple languages, and brought networks, credentials, and access. Others had less formal opportunities for education or prestigious job titles, but carried with them years of grassroots experience and a deep connection to the problems they wanted to solve.
Each type of background brings unique strengths. Academic training can sharpen analytical skills and strategic planning, while lived experience can anchor a project in urgency, contextual knowledge, and credibility with local communities. Both are valuable, and both are necessary.
Founding an organization requires many capacities: strategic thinking, project design, the ability to fundraise and build teams, to navigate complexity, and, in this program, the willingness to engage with complex research. From a probability-of-success perspective, different profiles may have different advantages. But the real challenge is not to weigh one against the other, but to recognize how they can complement each other in the same cohort.
That’s why we interviewed people across the spectrum and in the end, selected participants who represent a mix of both strengths. Some came with more formal training, others with more lived experience, but most with a blend of both. Being born and raised in a developing country often leaves an imprint: a sense of responsibility to serve that transcends credentials and is shared by the entire group.
While we had to limit the number of people accepted, we saw real potential in many others. We’re now exploring ways to support them as well, whether through a learning community, resource sharing, or mentorship opportunities.
It is never easy to say no to someone who wants to heal the world. But we believe our responsibility is not just to select a few, but to help elevate as many as possible who are working to lead impactful change.
And to finish in a lighter, more felt way. Invited participants, besides signing a formal agreement of participation, with rules and responsibilities, were also invited to sign a personal letter of commitment, they could make changes to reflect their personal journeys and motivations, but this is the template given, which could be used for others' inspiration:
I, [name], commit to walking this path with awareness, dedication, and love. I know this process will not be easy, but it will be profoundly meaningful.
I want to put in writing the intentions that guide my participation in this program and in the life project I am building:
🔹 I commit to walking with patience and discipline.
I know that creating something worthwhile takes time. While I desire concrete results, I understand that many of the fruits will only be visible in the long term. I commit to sustaining my energy with resilience, without giving up, trusting the process, and learning from every step.
🔹 I commit to always keeping at the center those who inspire me to act.
I am not doing this just for myself. My commitment is to the children, the animals, the rural communities, the planet, and the ecosystems. They are the ones who give meaning to my efforts. My personal and professional growth will always be guided by their dignity, their well-being, and their future.
🔹 I commit to keeping an open mind and a humble heart.
I recognize that I have valuable knowledge and experiences, but also that I have much to learn. This will be a path of growth, of evolution, of constant reflection. I commit to embracing learning as an essential part of leadership.
🔹 I commit to working in community.
I am not alone. This process is built with others. I commit to not seeing my peers as competition, but as allies. The true enemy is poverty, injustice, violence, and neglect. To every person who dedicates their life to healing the world, I offer respect, support, and gratitude. I will share, listen, collaborate, and celebrate the achievements of others as part of a shared purpose.
🔹 I commit to acting with integrity.
I will always seek to have my decisions aligned with my principles. I will be consistent in what I say, think, and do—even when no one is watching. Ethics is not only a professional guide; it is the foundation of everything I want to build.
🔹 I commit to taking care of myself.
To be able to care for others, I must also care for myself. I commit to resting, asking for help when I need it, and being compassionate with myself when things do not go as I expected.
This is a promise to myself.
I may sometimes make mistakes, get distracted, or feel tired. But I will return to these words and remember why I began. I am here to give the best of myself to the world.
And finally, thanks again to all the people and organizations that have shown support so far, especially our mentors and new volunteers who will help craft the fundraising campaign for the incubated organizations. A special thanks to the AIM community (both staff and incubated orgs) for their strong support of the program. EA is truly an ecosystem, and it’s in these generous actions that we walk the talk.
If you have feedback or recommendations, please don’t hesitate to reach out.
I’ll keep posting about the journey. Thanks for following along!
Warmly,
Verónica
Founder, Laboratory for Social Entrepreneurship
Thanks for this write up! It was really insightful. A few questions:
Could you say more about what motivations they come with?
Base on my experience working in India, I've seen a lot of benefits of having multiple orgs working in the same geographies at the same time/stage to share resources, advice, talent, etc. Curious what you were limited by here / what factors went into this decision (e.g. I imagine you could have branded this as a regional wide program with a focused initial cohort, with a plan to do focused outreach into other geographies later).
Finally
I have not heard this sentiment quite stated so strongly in EA, but if it is then I'd like to also strongly disagree! After years of working with dozens of nonprofit fundraisers all over the US, I am confident that people do care about impact - they care a lot about effectiveness and using their limited time and resources efficiently. In fact, many switch into fundraising from programmatic because they their organisation needed it and saw it as important. The main difference is that they aren't prioritising EA causes, but I don't think that can be chalked up to good intentions.
Thank you so much, Vaidehi, for this thoughtful comment and for taking the time to engage.
On motivations: we saw a wide spectrum. Some applicants were driven by very personal experiences, e.g. having lived close to poverty or discrimination themselves, and wanting to “fix” what they endured. Others were motivated by specific issues they’ve worked on professionally (education, environment, public health). A few were drawn by the “founder identity” itself, the idea of building something new and leading a team. Part of our methodology is to surface motivations early and help participants refine them. Even with evidence-based tools, unclear or misaligned motivations can steer an org sideways over time. I’ll write a dedicated post on motivations later, but it’s important to flag certain drivers we need to watch out for, such as resentment, ego, the need for power, feelings of superiority, or even a saviour complex. Unfortunately, these do exist in the sector, and because we work with vulnerable populations, we have to be especially careful, not only for founders, but all of us that work on these issues.
On geography and cohort diversity: you’re right, there can be real benefits to multiple orgs in the same geography, especially around resource-sharing and peer support. We didn’t avoid that altogether, in fact, we do have overlaps. Out of the 20 fellows, five are the sole representatives of their country, with one of them currently living in another, more represented country. The constraint was more about balance: we had so many strong candidates from a handful of countries, but since this is the very first program of its kind in the region, we felt it was important to deliberately seed it across more geographies, so that in the future we can create regional clusters while still representing the breadth of Latin America. It’s definitely a trade-off.
On the “good intentions vs. impact” point: thanks for catching that nuance. I didn’t mean to suggest that EA as a whole dismisses the broader social sector, more that I’ve heard an impression that “traditional NGOs (led by people in the Global South) care less about impact than EA orgs.” Like you, I strongly disagree with that oversimplification. In our applicant pool, and in general in the sector, people who’ve worked years in constrained environments deeply care about whether their interventions work. What they often lack are the time, tools, or funding to evaluate rigorously, not the will. And when given those tools, they show remarkable openness to learning and reframing. That’s one of the things that excites me most about bridging EA methods with practitioners already in the field.