Thanks for this write up! It was really insightful. A few questions:
People who apply to found an NGO come with all sorts of motivations.
Could you say more about what motivations they come with?
As this is a regional program, we couldnât have a cohort composed entirely of only 4 countries, even though several were outstanding candidates.
Base on my experience working in India, Iâve seen a lot of benefits of having multiple orgs working in the same geographies at the same time/âstage to share resources, advice, talent, etc. Curious what you were limited by here /â 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
A common refrain in EA is that the broader social sector doesnât care about impact, and that good intentions are their only north star.
I have not heard this sentiment quite stated so strongly in EA, but if it is then Iâd 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 impactâthey 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 arenât prioritising EA causes, but I donât 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 âfixâ what they endured. Others were motivated by specific issues theyâve worked on professionally (education, environment, public health). A few were drawn by the âfounder identityâ 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. Iâll write a dedicated post on motivations later, but itâs 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: youâre right, there can be real benefits to multiple orgs in the same geography, especially around resource-sharing and peer support. We didnât 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. Itâs definitely a trade-off.
On the âgood intentions vs. impactâ point: thanks for catching that nuance. I didnât mean to suggest that EA as a whole dismisses the broader social sector, more that Iâve heard an impression that âtraditional NGOs (led by people in the Global South) care less about impact than EA orgs.â Like you, I strongly disagree with that oversimplification. In our applicant pool, and in general in the sector, people whoâve 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. Thatâs one of the things that excites me most about bridging EA methods with practitioners already in the field.
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, Iâve seen a lot of benefits of having multiple orgs working in the same geographies at the same time/âstage to share resources, advice, talent, etc. Curious what you were limited by here /â 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 Iâd 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 impactâthey 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 arenât prioritising EA causes, but I donât 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 âfixâ what they endured. Others were motivated by specific issues theyâve worked on professionally (education, environment, public health). A few were drawn by the âfounder identityâ 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. Iâll write a dedicated post on motivations later, but itâs 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: youâre right, there can be real benefits to multiple orgs in the same geography, especially around resource-sharing and peer support. We didnât 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. Itâs definitely a trade-off.
On the âgood intentions vs. impactâ point: thanks for catching that nuance. I didnât mean to suggest that EA as a whole dismisses the broader social sector, more that Iâve heard an impression that âtraditional NGOs (led by people in the Global South) care less about impact than EA orgs.â Like you, I strongly disagree with that oversimplification. In our applicant pool, and in general in the sector, people whoâve 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. Thatâs one of the things that excites me most about bridging EA methods with practitioners already in the field.