If anything I think charities might be a bit too advantaged by going through AIM. The success rate is about ⅓ in terms of CE charities becoming field leading—this is compared to something like 1⁄10 of charities founded by other founders in the movement/via other incubators. I think part of this is fairly earned (e.g. strong cofounders and ideas selected via more rigorous process) but part is reputational—a bunch of funders I know are categorically more excited about AIM charities than identical charities that have not gone through the program. I think the same goes for hiring high talent staff. Why that happens concretely, I think cofounder pairing and idea pairing create a huge value add and the training, mentorship and community help new charities avoid some predictable mistakes.
What clear advantages come through creating a charity through AIM, compared to starting a charity independently?
If anything I think charities might be a bit too advantaged by going through AIM. The success rate is about ⅓ in terms of CE charities becoming field leading—this is compared to something like 1⁄10 of charities founded by other founders in the movement/via other incubators. I think part of this is fairly earned (e.g. strong cofounders and ideas selected via more rigorous process) but part is reputational—a bunch of funders I know are categorically more excited about AIM charities than identical charities that have not gone through the program. I think the same goes for hiring high talent staff. Why that happens concretely, I think cofounder pairing and idea pairing create a huge value add and the training, mentorship and community help new charities avoid some predictable mistakes.