Hi! Thanks for the feedback and for sharing your concerns. I agree that it is a good idea to get a sense of the program from past incubatees. Our incubatees often attend EAGs, so that is a good opportunity and we always encourage that. That being said, Iâm surprised by what you say. To explain why, I copied results from a survey conducted after the most recent program in 2022:
Charity Incubation Program:
Foundation Program:
As you can see, people are generally very positive about the experience. When we analyze the reasons why someone applied, one of the most common answers is because they talked with a CE incubatee and they gave a glowing review. In fact, we have had people who decided to participate in the program twice, and people who didnât get in the first time, so they upskilled, applied again, got in and started a great charity. When we look at the data from earlier years, there was one person who scored it 3â7, so maybe you came across that person. As they explained in the survey, the reason for that was that very early in the program they decided to not start a charity and therefore the rest of the program wasnât a good fit. We of course would love to know why the incubatee was critical. If you would like to pass that feedback on to us, you can either DM me on the forum or email me at karolina@charityentreprenuership.com and the program and application team will have a look at that. In general, we improve the program and the application each year (e.g., we now offer financial stipends during and after the program, and adjust content based on feedback from participants), and we are always open to suggestions.
I think it is a cool idea to publish various quantitative data from post-program surveys, thanks for the idea!
Because of the above, and that it requires a 2 month initial commitment with no guaranteed future, for which the opportunity cost for someone building career capital or in full time employment is high, I have not applied.
We try to help participants as much as possibleâwe offer a financial stipend not only during the program, but also a bit before and after, so it is not a financial burden for them. The majority of people start a charity and receive seed funding after the program. In the most recent program, all but one person started a charity and received generous seed grants. The one person who didnât was offered a job at CE and will join the next program again. In previous years, the participants found that they have many more EA job opportunities and better career prospects after the program than beforeâoften, they have multiple job offers from EA-aligned organizations that they didnât have before. I think it is different if someone wants to come back to the corporate world or work in a non-EA institution, where I think something like participation in the CE IP will be a weaker signal. If you have further suggestions on how we can support people post program, let us know.
Finally, the application process is rather rigid and does not seem open to outliers, neurodiverse applicants (relative to those who apply) who might not fit your mold but might otherwise be good founders.
I agree that our application process is rather rigid, we have been optimizing it over the years. When it comes to neurodivergent candidates, a couple of members of the CE team are neurodivergent, including staff in leadership positions and in the program vetting team. We have had a couple of participants in the program who were non-neurotypical as well. I would be extremely surprised if the process systematically filtered out people based on their neurodiversity. However, if there are any adjustments we can make to the process to accommodate individual applicant needs that emerge from their neurotype, we are happy to do it. In that case, just email Judith, our vetting specialist and she will discuss accommodating the process, her email is judith@charityentreprenuership.com
Thanks for the reply. Needless to say, when youâre surveying 7 people they have reason to be concerned that theyâll be identifiable from their responses. I will be abstaining from providing details shared with me from the past charity starter including their main concerns because Iâm not in a position to judge if theyâd be identifiable from that, but would encourage you to collect such feedback. I think itâs safe enough to say that they werenât from the most recent cohort
Re non discriminatory hiring, I donât think the âwe have neurodivergent staffâ angle is the way to go (ala âmy best friend is blackâ response) - you might just be selecting for neurodivergence in the same direction. I think the fact your hiring process specifically seeks out peoples ability on your selection tests is the problem, because that gauges skills without the broader context of a persons life, where they may be able to adapt to disability and other circumstances. For that reason, there is merit in say deferring to a resume and work experience which can illustrate that sometimes. Other times, selecting people more generously then ensuring you have good enough training systems to develop them up to do a good job is what you should focus onâsuddenly apparent talent bottlenecks looks like a training capability skills gap.
Needless to say, when youâre surveying 7 people they have reason to be concerned that theyâll be identifiable from their responses. I will be abstaining from providing details shared with me from the past charity starter including their main concerns because Iâm not in a position to judge if theyâd be identifiable from that, but would encourage you to collect such feedback. I think itâs safe enough to say that they werenât from the most recent cohort
That makes senseâif you could encourage them to reach out to me we would be extremely interested in their feedback. I agree that such feedback is very valuable. We collect feedback throughout and immediately after the program from everyone who participated. This is the main way we improve the program for future years. Itâs not perfect, nothing is, but we are always trying to get better.
Re non discriminatory hiring, I donât think the âwe have neurodivergent staffâ angle is the way to go (ala âmy best friend is blackâ response) - you might just be selecting for neurodivergence in the same direction.
Sorry if I wasnât clearâŚ. what I was trying to say is that if we have a fairly neurodiverse staff and groups of participants, both of whom had to go through the hiring process, that is evidence that the process doesnât systematically filter them out.
For that reason, there is merit in say deferring to a resume and work experience which can illustrate that sometimes. Other times, selecting people more generously then ensuring you have good enough training systems to develop them up to do a good job is what you should focus onâsuddenly apparent talent bottlenecks looks like a training capability skills gap.
We do put some weight in CVs and work experience and we also think itâs important to look for additional data. We feel that deferring solely to resumes or work experience could bias against some candidates. For example, younger or candidates who have had fewer opportunities in life may otherwise have very good predispositions. As we often say, we look for potential. We think that if we judged based primarily on CVs, that would filter out a lot of people who could do amazing work in the future, but just havenât had the chance to prove themselves yet.
Ultimately we want to find great people and help them do great things. Weâre definitely not perfect and both the individuals in our team and our processes can, and we hope, will, continue to improve. Weâre always open to updating and if there are evidence-based practices out there, that we can learn from or adopt, weâre all ears. Again please send them to judith@charityentrepreneurship.com
Hi! Thanks for the feedback and for sharing your concerns. I agree that it is a good idea to get a sense of the program from past incubatees. Our incubatees often attend EAGs, so that is a good opportunity and we always encourage that. That being said, Iâm surprised by what you say. To explain why, I copied results from a survey conducted after the most recent program in 2022:
Charity Incubation Program:
Foundation Program:
As you can see, people are generally very positive about the experience. When we analyze the reasons why someone applied, one of the most common answers is because they talked with a CE incubatee and they gave a glowing review. In fact, we have had people who decided to participate in the program twice, and people who didnât get in the first time, so they upskilled, applied again, got in and started a great charity.
When we look at the data from earlier years, there was one person who scored it 3â7, so maybe you came across that person. As they explained in the survey, the reason for that was that very early in the program they decided to not start a charity and therefore the rest of the program wasnât a good fit. We of course would love to know why the incubatee was critical. If you would like to pass that feedback on to us, you can either DM me on the forum or email me at karolina@charityentreprenuership.com and the program and application team will have a look at that.
In general, we improve the program and the application each year (e.g., we now offer financial stipends during and after the program, and adjust content based on feedback from participants), and we are always open to suggestions.
I think it is a cool idea to publish various quantitative data from post-program surveys, thanks for the idea!
We try to help participants as much as possibleâwe offer a financial stipend not only during the program, but also a bit before and after, so it is not a financial burden for them. The majority of people start a charity and receive seed funding after the program. In the most recent program, all but one person started a charity and received generous seed grants. The one person who didnât was offered a job at CE and will join the next program again. In previous years, the participants found that they have many more EA job opportunities and better career prospects after the program than beforeâoften, they have multiple job offers from EA-aligned organizations that they didnât have before. I think it is different if someone wants to come back to the corporate world or work in a non-EA institution, where I think something like participation in the CE IP will be a weaker signal. If you have further suggestions on how we can support people post program, let us know.
I agree that our application process is rather rigid, we have been optimizing it over the years. When it comes to neurodivergent candidates, a couple of members of the CE team are neurodivergent, including staff in leadership positions and in the program vetting team. We have had a couple of participants in the program who were non-neurotypical as well. I would be extremely surprised if the process systematically filtered out people based on their neurodiversity. However, if there are any adjustments we can make to the process to accommodate individual applicant needs that emerge from their neurotype, we are happy to do it. In that case, just email Judith, our vetting specialist and she will discuss accommodating the process, her email is judith@charityentreprenuership.com
Thanks for the reply. Needless to say, when youâre surveying 7 people they have reason to be concerned that theyâll be identifiable from their responses. I will be abstaining from providing details shared with me from the past charity starter including their main concerns because Iâm not in a position to judge if theyâd be identifiable from that, but would encourage you to collect such feedback. I think itâs safe enough to say that they werenât from the most recent cohort
Re non discriminatory hiring, I donât think the âwe have neurodivergent staffâ angle is the way to go (ala âmy best friend is blackâ response) - you might just be selecting for neurodivergence in the same direction. I think the fact your hiring process specifically seeks out peoples ability on your selection tests is the problem, because that gauges skills without the broader context of a persons life, where they may be able to adapt to disability and other circumstances. For that reason, there is merit in say deferring to a resume and work experience which can illustrate that sometimes. Other times, selecting people more generously then ensuring you have good enough training systems to develop them up to do a good job is what you should focus onâsuddenly apparent talent bottlenecks looks like a training capability skills gap.
That makes senseâif you could encourage them to reach out to me we would be extremely interested in their feedback. I agree that such feedback is very valuable. We collect feedback throughout and immediately after the program from everyone who participated. This is the main way we improve the program for future years. Itâs not perfect, nothing is, but we are always trying to get better.
Sorry if I wasnât clearâŚ. what I was trying to say is that if we have a fairly neurodiverse staff and groups of participants, both of whom had to go through the hiring process, that is evidence that the process doesnât systematically filter them out.
We do put some weight in CVs and work experience and we also think itâs important to look for additional data. We feel that deferring solely to resumes or work experience could bias against some candidates. For example, younger or candidates who have had fewer opportunities in life may otherwise have very good predispositions. As we often say, we look for potential. We think that if we judged based primarily on CVs, that would filter out a lot of people who could do amazing work in the future, but just havenât had the chance to prove themselves yet.
Ultimately we want to find great people and help them do great things. Weâre definitely not perfect and both the individuals in our team and our processes can, and we hope, will, continue to improve. Weâre always open to updating and if there are evidence-based practices out there, that we can learn from or adopt, weâre all ears. Again please send them to judith@charityentrepreneurship.com
Great points well made