Hide table of contents

This post describes EA Israel’s approach to community-building, as presented at EAG London 2022. It includes a video and a brief summary of our approach (below).  

A more detailed explanation can be found in the speaker notes of the talk’s slides. The slides also include the summary of the talk, which is not included in the video due to a technical issue.

Additional resources by EA Israel for local groups can be found here.

An overview of our approach

EA Israel’s approach is based on two different models of community-building, for different “levels of engagement” (as defined by CEA’s Concentric Circles Model of Community Building):

A user-centered model, by which we’re viewing our audiences as "users", and viewing the group as a “service provider”.

In this model, a user is an individual who has a concrete problem or desire (e.g. career dilemmas, how to evaluate the impact of projects), and would approach a local group’s “service” that answers their problem.

A volunteer-oriented model - It relates to the contributors and core circles, and suggests looking at community members with this level of engagement, as an exclusive volunteer group.

This model generally stresses the value of volunteering for the goal of community-building and recommends prioritizing the onboarding and retention of volunteers.

A brief explanation

Drawing from the field of brand management, we’re assuming the perceived value that individuals attribute to EA plays a significant role in their engagement with the movement. 

In this context, a major obstacle to community building is that individuals who just encountered EA don’t see the actual value they can receive from the EA toolkit, compared to the effort they will have to put into receiving it.

To tackle this obstacle:

1) We build gradual onboarding experiences

We try to build onboarding experiences where individuals can see over time the value that EA can give them.

For instance: In addition to offering a fellowship (which offers high value, but demands high effort), we offer lighter four-meetings-long crash courses and even lighter one-time discussion groups. The latter two formats serve as entry points to the group, after which members are able to see the value proposition of EA more clearly.

2) We choose, shape, and communicate our activities in a way that highlights their perceived value

When choosing, shaping, and communicating about an activity, we keep its perceived value in mind. 

To do that, we divide our potential audience into different segments, based on the concrete wants and needs they have (career advice, donation advice, tools for social entrepreneurship, a community to discuss all of these with, etc.). 

Then, we take into account the difference in preferences of individuals within each segment. For instance, within the same segment of career advice, some prefer listening to podcasts, some prefer a workshop, some prefer someone to consult with, and so forth.

With these “needs” and “preferences” in mind, we can choose to focus on activities that have a better product-market fit. Then, we can shape these activities to be as helpful as possible in achieving what our audience is looking for. Then, when communicating about the event, we highlight what our audience will get from participating.

For example:

  • Let’s take the user needs of (1) entrepreneurship dilemmas, (2) finding collaborators, and (3) seeking people to consult with. 
  • We can match those needs with the activity of a networking event.
  • Holding these needs in mind can help us shape the event’s content. For instance, we can decide to encourage members to add a sticker of “seeking collaborators” on their name tags and stand in different parts of the room based on their interest in cause areas.
  • When advertising the event, we highlight that the event’s goal is to help participants to seek collaborators and advice.

A diverse offering of activities

When shaping our community-building activities, we think of the differences in needs and preferences within our audience, and try to offer a diverse offering of activities, instead of focusing on 1-2 main activities. The rationale is to:

  1. Get the low-hanging fruits of each segment. 
  2. Get the information value of understanding the demand in each segment
  3. Appeal to a diverse crowd: For instance, if a group focuses mostly on discussion groups, it will attract mostly the kind of individuals who see this as an activity they want to spend their free time on. 
    However, not all promising potential EAs fall under this category, and in addition, some promising individuals are put off by social groups that are centered only around discussions.

This sort of strategy, of having many small activities, is much easier when you have many volunteers available - which is exactly what makes the user-centered model, and the volunteer-based model, complement each other.

The volunteer-based model

The volunteer-based model emphasizes the high value of volunteering for the goal of community-building. 

The trivial value of volunteering is that they add additional resources - the more hands your team has, the more your team can do.

However, another value of volunteering is that it serves as a gradual entry to EA. While new members volunteer, they can learn about the value that EA can provide them. 
We’re 100% explicit with our volunteers about this, and tell them that our most important projects require EA proficiency (and even speak about specific examples that might interest them in the future), but that it’s best to start with a simpler project and learn about EA simultaneously. 

You can read more about this process on the slides and speaker notes of the talk - where you can also find more detailed explanations about the models described above.

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 20m read
 · 
Advanced AI could unlock an era of enlightened and competent government action. But without smart, active investment, we’ll squander that opportunity and barrel blindly into danger. Executive summary See also a summary on Twitter / X. The US federal government is falling behind the private sector on AI adoption. As AI improves, a growing gap would leave the government unable to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges and threaten the legitimacy of its democratic institutions. A dual imperative → Government adoption of AI can’t wait. Making steady progress is critical to: * Boost the government’s capacity to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges * Help democratic oversight keep up with the technological power of other groups * Defuse the risk of rushed AI adoption in a crisis → But hasty AI adoption could backfire. Without care, integration of AI could: * Be exploited, subverting independent government action * Lead to unsafe deployment of AI systems * Accelerate arms races or compress safety research timelines Summary of the recommendations 1. Work with the US federal government to help it effectively adopt AI Simplistic “pro-security” or “pro-speed” attitudes miss the point. Both are important — and many interventions would help with both. We should: * Invest in win-win measures that both facilitate adoption and reduce the risks involved, e.g.: * Build technical expertise within government (invest in AI and technical talent, ensure NIST is well resourced) * Streamline procurement processes for AI products and related tech (like cloud services) * Modernize the government’s digital infrastructure and data management practices * Prioritize high-leverage interventions that have strong adoption-boosting benefits with minor security costs or vice versa, e.g.: * On the security side: investing in cyber security, pre-deployment testing of AI in high-stakes areas, and advancing research on mitigating the ris
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
In our recent strategy retreat, the GWWC Leadership Team recognised that by spreading our limited resources across too many projects, we are unable to deliver the level of excellence and impact that our mission demands. True to our value of being mission accountable, we've therefore made the difficult but necessary decision to discontinue a total of 10 initiatives. By focusing our energy on fewer, more strategically aligned initiatives, we think we’ll be more likely to ultimately achieve our Big Hairy Audacious Goal of 1 million pledgers donating $3B USD to high-impact charities annually. (See our 2025 strategy.) We’d like to be transparent about the choices we made, both to hold ourselves accountable and so other organisations can take the gaps we leave into account when planning their work. As such, this post aims to: * Inform the broader EA community about changes to projects & highlight opportunities to carry these projects forward * Provide timelines for project transitions * Explain our rationale for discontinuing certain initiatives What’s changing  We've identified 10 initiatives[1] to wind down or transition. These are: * GWWC Canada * Effective Altruism Australia funding partnership * GWWC Groups * Giving Games * Charity Elections * Effective Giving Meta evaluation and grantmaking * The Donor Lottery * Translations * Hosted Funds * New licensing of the GWWC brand  Each of these is detailed in the sections below, with timelines and transition plans where applicable. How this is relevant to you  We still believe in the impact potential of many of these projects. Our decision doesn’t necessarily reflect their lack of value, but rather our need to focus at this juncture of GWWC's development.  Thus, we are actively looking for organisations and individuals interested in taking on some of these projects. If that’s you, please do reach out: see each project's section for specific contact details. Thank you for your continued support as we
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
Our Mission: To build a multidisciplinary field around using technology—especially AI—to improve the lives of nonhumans now and in the future.  Overview Background This hybrid conference had nearly 550 participants and took place March 1-2, 2025 at UC Berkeley. It was organized by AI for Animals for $74k by volunteer core organizers Constance Li, Sankalpa Ghose, and Santeri Tani.  This conference has evolved since 2023: * The 1st conference mainly consisted of philosophers and was a single track lecture/panel. * The 2nd conference put all lectures on one day and followed it with 2 days of interactive unconference sessions happening in parallel and a week of in-person co-working. * This 3rd conference had a week of related satellite events, free shared accommodations for 50+ attendees, 2 days of parallel lectures/panels/unconferences, 80 unique sessions, of which 32 are available on Youtube, Swapcard to enable 1:1 connections, and a Slack community to continue conversations year round. We have been quickly expanding this conference in order to prepare those that are working toward the reduction of nonhuman suffering to adapt to the drastic and rapid changes that AI will bring.  Luckily, it seems like it has been working!  This year, many animal advocacy organizations attended (mostly smaller and younger ones) as well as newly formed groups focused on digital minds and funders who spanned both of these spaces. We also had more diversity of speakers and attendees which included economists, AI researchers, investors, tech companies, journalists, animal welfare researchers, and more. This was done through strategic targeted outreach and a bigger team of volunteers.  Outcomes On our feedback survey, which had 85 total responses (mainly from in-person attendees), people reported an average of 7 new connections (defined as someone they would feel comfortable reaching out to for a favor like reviewing a blog post) and of those new connections, an average of 3
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
47
Ivan Burduk
· · 2m read