Hide table of contents

                                                       
Applications are now open for our two upcoming Incubation Programs: 

  • July-August 2023 with a focus on biosecurity interventions and large-scale global health interventions
  • February-March 2024 with a focus on farmed animals and global health and development mass-media interventions

In this post we set out some of the key updates we’ve made to the program, namely: 

  • Increased funding 
  • More time for participants in person in London
  • Extended stipends and support to provide an even bigger safety net for participants 
  • Even more ongoing support after the program
  • More time for applications

Context: 

In four years we’ve launched 23 new effective charities that have reached 120 million animals and over 10 million people. The Incubation Program provides you with two months of intensive training, well-researched charity ideas, and access to the funding you need to launch. All we care about is impact, and the most pressing determinant of success is finding potential founders. 

APPLY HERE

Updates to the Incubation Program

All the details are here on our website, but below we summarize the latest changes/improvements.

Increased quantity and probability of funding 

In recent years, in part due to our portfolio’s track record, we’re seeing a significant uptick in the seed funding being achieved by our incubatees. In the most recent round, for example, eight out of nine participants started organizations and received $732,000, with grants ranging from $100,000 to $220,000. The ninth participant joined the CE team as a research analyst. 

A Bigger Safety Net

In the past two years, we’ve trained 34 people. After the program: 

  • 20 launched new charities and raised over $1.2 million in seed funding 
  • 6 got jobs in EA orgs (including CE)
  • 1 worked on mental health research with funding in Asia (and 1 year later become a co-founder of a newly incubated by CE mental health charity)
  • 1 worked as a senior EA community manager 
  • 1 got funded to do their own specialist research project and has since hired 3 people 
  • 2 launched their own grantmaking foundation
  • 1 works for that grantmaking foundation 
  • 1 is running for office in America and was elected to the district parliament
  • 1 kept on working on the project they co-founded in the alternative protein space
  • 1 runs a charity evaluator in China
  • 1 was hired by one of the previously incubated charities 


So in summary: 100% of participants, within weeks of finishing the program, landed relevant roles with high personal fit and excellent impact potential. 

During the program we will provide you with: 

  • Stipends to cover your living costs during the Incubation Program (e.g., rent, wifi, food, childcare). The stipends are around $2,000 per month and are based on participants' needs and adjusted accordingly.
  • Travel and board costs for the 2 weeks in person in London.

If, for any reason, you do not start a charity after the program, we provide: 

  • Career mentorship (our track record for connecting non-founder participants to research grants, related jobs, and other pathways to impact is near 100%).
  • Two-month stipends to provide a safety net during the period of looking for alternative opportunities.

More time in-person in London

The Incubation Program lasts 8 weeks, followed by a 2 week seed-funding process.

  • The 8 week program runs online, now with 2 weeks in person in CE’s London office 
  • During the 2 week seed-funding process you make final improvements to your proposal, which is submitted to the CE seed network that makes the final decision on your grant.

Even more support after the program

You will graduate the program with a co-founder, a high-quality charity idea, a plan for implementation, and a robust funding proposal. On top of that we offer you:

  • A seed grant of up to $200,000 (not guaranteed, but in recent years 80%+ of projects received funding)
  • Further learning:
    • Weekly ‘getting started’ sessions for the first 4 weeks
    • Regular emails with further videos and resources that are relevant to you later in your charity journey (e.g., on hiring, or charity registration)
  • Support in WIX website design
  • Mentorship
    • Monthly mentorship meetings with the CE team
    • Access to a broad network of mentors and potential funders
    • Coaching from external topic experts (e.g., on co-founder relations or M&E)
  • Operations support
    • Get professional operations and HR support from the CE team that will help you to set up your organization quickly
    • Start with a US charitable fiscal sponsorship allowing you to accept tax deductible donations
  • Community
    • Join a Slack group of over 100 charity founders and effective charity employees
    • Enjoy weekly London socials and annual gatherings
    • Tap into the knowledge and template base of our network of incubated charities

More time for applications

Applications will be open: 

  • From February 1 to March 12,  2023
    • Final results (acceptance letters): Mid May, 2023
  • From July 10 to September 30, 2023
    • Final results (acceptance letters): Early December, 2023

We hope you will apply early; doing so will give you access to a resource list that will help you prepare for the application process. Also, the earlier you apply, the earlier we will be able to process your application.

We will announce the top ideas for the July-August 2023 program soon, so be on the lookout for our next newsletter or post on the EA forum! We recommend applying early to increase your chances. 

APPLY HERE


 

Comments11


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

As usual, I recommend checking our participants video about their experience in the program: 

Best of luck!

Thank you, Emre!

Excited to see another impactful set of charities get founded!

Hi! Do you take in founders with existing high impact (potentially) organisations that have already in the bootstrapping phase?

Hi Karolina, thanks so much for summarizing this, it's great to see the changes at a glance and exciting to see how the program is evolving. Two questions regarding the process:

  1. When you say you're able to process early applications sooner, does this mean that early applicants will get earlier responses? If so, do you have a time frame from submitting the application to receiving the response?

  2. Since you were recruiting for this year's summer cohort last fall already, would you be able to say how many spots you are still looking to fill?

Thanks in advance!

Hi there, thanks for your question! As Talent Systems Specialist, I'm happy to answer them:

  1. The main benefit will be going through the earlier stages sooner. Acceptance letters will be sent out by mid-May at the latest, but earlier for people who make it to the final stages sooner (i.e., apply earlier and send in their test tasks etc. earlier).  I can't say anything more precise than that as the total time we need to process all candidates through the entire application round will still depend largely on how many applications we get and how high the quality of the pool is - this varies from round to round from ~700-3000 initial applications.
  2. This is correct - we always recruit for two program rounds during each application round (so there is some flexibility for candidates and for us to recommend a particular program cohort and cause area combination to each future incubatee). We are usually looking for cohorts between 8-20 people (ideally 14-16) and have already accepted 3, so there are between 5 and 17 spots left for the July/August 2023 cohort and 8-20 for Feburary/March 2024. However, if we find someone who we think is a great fit and their test tasks and interviews are really exciting, we will never not accept them. Amazing founders are our bottleneck!

Would love to see you put in an application if you're interested! 

All the best,
Judith

Thank you so much Judith, this helps a lot!

Is it possible to get a list of the questions in the application form without having to fill in the earlier sections?

You can click on the dots at the bottom


For other forms, I usually just fill in random values and don't submit.

Indeed - you can do as Lorenzo suggested.  :) 

Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f