Reflections from an Incubation Program in Latin America

This is the second in a series of posts about a nonprofit incubation program we’re running in Spanish-speaking Latin America, funded by Open Philanthropy. The goal is to support the creation of new, evidence-based organizations that implement cost-effective interventions adapted to local contexts. You can find the first post here.

We have finished selecting the first cohort of founders. In this post we will introduce the framework used to select them, along with some learnings that can be useful for other people founding or considering founding an effective nonprofit or joining an incubation program.

But first, a quick update: we have decided to rebrand our program name, as the previous one had an important similarity to another impact-focused incubator, Catalyze Impact. Our new program name is: Theory of Change Makers.

TL;DR

We launched the Theory of Change Makers program to incubate high-impact nonprofits in Spanish-speaking Latin America. From nearly 200 applications (19 countries), we selected a first cohort of 20 participants representing 9 nationalities, 11 countries of residence, and over 278 years of combined professional experience (59% in the social sector). Their profiles range from PhDs and international professionals to grassroots leaders with deep community ties.

The selection process:

• 3½ weeks of outreach, ~200 applications (70–80% new to EA).
• First screening: 78 shortlisted.
• Second screening: 50 interviews.
• Final cohort: 20 invited, 20 accepted.

Key learnings:

• Experience matters. Prior social-sector work experience proves commitment and provides resilience, realism, and trust networks; also, candidates have seen ineffective programs first-hand and were eager for tools to do better.
• The “multi-armed NGO” bias is strong. Many candidates initially proposed broad, multi-issue orgs. Once shown the importance of focused interventions, nearly all were willing to adapt.
• Encouraging epistemic flexibility. Even those new to EA principles engaged deeply with research when given the tools, disproving the idea that the Global South social sector doesn’t care about rigor in impact.
• Making cost-effectiveness intuitive is essential. Our final interview question asked candidates to persuade a donor choosing between AMF and their new org. The strongest responses acknowledged the high bar, avoided intimidation, and clearly articulated their unique value.
• Motivations vary widely. Part of our methodology will be helping founders refine why they want to create an org, not just what they want to do.
• Non-negotiables: a true calling to serve, strategic thinking, intrinsic motivation, openness to evidence, and thorough preparation.
• Trade-offs: we balanced geographical diversity (to avoid cohorts dominated by a few countries) and avoided duplicating interventions already pursued by EA-aligned charities in the region.

Other reflections:

• Early applications had an advantage as the bar rose over time.
• Effort in the application process was a strong signal of effort in the program.
• Program specifics matter: as our program does not offer stipends, financial stability was necessary to ensure participants could commit sustainably.
• The hardest challenge was balancing candidates with formal credentials and networks against those with lived experience and conviction. We chose a mix, because both types of leadership are needed.

Complete post:

Summary data

Here is some initial data about the first cohort of the program:

• Number of participants: 20
• Countries of nationality: 9
• Countries (in alphabetical order): 🇦🇷 Argentina, 🇧🇴 Bolivia, 🇨🇱 Chile, 🇨🇴 Colombia, 🇪🇨 Ecuador, 🇬🇹 Guatemala, 🇲🇽 México, 🇵🇪 Perú, 🇻🇪 Venezuela — covering all three regions: North, Central, and South America.
• Countries of residence: 11
  • An interesting surprise: we have two founders who are Latinas living in Spain, and who will be working with Latino immigrants there.
• Average age: 35.5 (youngest: 27, oldest: 46). A specific age range was not a prerequisite for application.
• Combined years of work experience: 278 years (average of 14 years).
• Combined years of work experience in the social sector: 165 years (average of 8 years).
  • This means that 59% of our participants’ work experience has been in the social sector, a strong indication of how committed they already are to using their careers for social good.
• Combined years of volunteering in the social sector (excluding overlapping years counted as paid work): 109 years.
  • This means that, in addition to their paid positions, 39% of their “work time” has gone to voluntary work in the social sector.

Logistics of the selection process

The selection process included:

• Application: 30–40 minutes to complete.
   We received ~200 applications (from 19 LATAM countries)  in 3½ weeks of outreach.
  • Thanks to everyone who shared the program! Special thanks to 80,000 Hours, Probably Good, High Impact Professionals, and Animal Advocacy Careers for featuring it on their job boards and/or newsletters.
  • We also did outreach outside EA, with about 70–80% of applicants new to EA. 
    • But half of the selected participants (10) have heard/participated in some way with EA previously, so it might be an advantage to be acquainted with the terminology and/or principles.
• First screening: 78 applicants were invited to the second stage, which involved:
  • Watching a 1.5-hour video on the importance of using evidence in designing social interventions.
  • Selecting one report and preparing three questions about its applicability to their local context, identifying core vs. adaptable elements, and implementation risks.
    • Report options included: GiveWell’s review on cash transfers, RHSC’s family planning with contraceptives, ACE’s cage-free eggs, and Nature’s piece on carbon pricing.
  • Completing a Weighted Factor Model with their top career choices, including founding a non-profit.
• Second screening: 50 applicants were interviewed.
  • Interviews covered their main motivation for founding a non-profit, how they first became involved in the social sector, and how that shaped their decision to dedicate their career to service. 
  • We also discussed logistics—since the program is part-time and participants will keep full-time jobs for at least 6–12 months until we can secure funding for their new orgs—and their alignment with the program’s methodology (more on this below).
• Final selection: 20 people were invited to join the program — all 20 accepted.

To make this post useful for the broader ecosystem, not just a report on how we selected our participants, the next section will focus on insights and takeaways that might be valuable for anyone considering founding a non-profit or applying to an incubation program.

Main learnings in the selection process

Why previous experience in the social sector mattered for us 

1. Emotional resilience and realism
   • Years in the field teach humility and patience.
   • They’re not naive about the time and effort required for change, yet they still want to lead. 
   • There is no better indication of wanting to serve and be useful for the world, than having already done so in the past.
2. First-hand exposure to ineffective programs
   • Many have lived what it means to see resources misused, programs fail, and trust eroded.
   • This gives them a built-in incentive to do better, not out of theory, but lived necessity.
   • They’re more receptive to evidence because they’ve seen what happens without it.
3. Relationships rooted in trust
   • Their networks already exist on the ground; they’ve earned credibility in communities, which is hard to build quickly.
   • This helps them mobilize faster, pilot and scale more organically.
4. Strategic curiosity
   • Instead of staying in existing structures, they’re choosing to leap out of a desire to make things better and at scale.
   • They have cause-specific expertise, which will speed learning and research.
   • This blend of experience + willingness to build from scratch is very powerful.

Things we saw a lot in the application process and why an EA lens is highly beneficial from an incubation perspective

🌀 The "Multi-Armed NGO" bias

Many participants in their applications proposed highly holistic, multi-purpose organizations (organizations that addressed poverty, education, environment or health simultaneously). There seems to be a strong inclination toward believing that the more integrated the organization, the better. We had to be explicit in interviews and trial tasks about focusing on targeted interventions. This was a pattern we saw repeatedly, but once the reasoning supporting the shift (including this article by Happier Lives Institute) was explained, virtually all candidates agreed on focusing on a single-intervention organization moving forward.

📚 Encouraging signs of epistemic flexibility

One thing that didn’t surprise us was how many people, despite having no prior exposure to EA, dove deep into research, evidence, and preparation for their interviews.

A common refrain in EA is that the broader social sector doesn’t care about impact, and that good intentions are their only north star. We strongly disagree. When you’ve committed your career to doing good, working in the field day in and day out, often making personal sacrifices along the way, impact is your number one priority.

However, in highly resource-constrained environments, organizations often lack the time or expertise to conduct rigorous research to guide their interventions. Funders rarely support (and fund) thorough Monitoring & Evaluation, and when they do, it’s often not rigorous enough.

In the Global South, people working in the social sector are already deeply motivated for their interventions to succeed. When given the right tools and frameworks, they show a remarkable willingness to learn, question their assumptions, and increase the rigor of their work.

📊  Making Cost-Effectiveness intuitive

The last question of the interview was:

“If you were to convince a donor to choose between AMF and your own future organization, what would you tell them?”

All applicants were given the same basic information about AMF and a brief explanation of what cost-effectiveness means. This was probably the most challenging question in the entire selection process, because potential founders, on the spot, had to think of ways to:

• Acknowledge the high bar and applaud it
• Not be intimidated by it
• Strategically highlight what makes them unique
• Communicate it effectively

The best answers included some of the following:

“We know the bar is high. We know your money could fund a thousand bed nets and save lives worth saving. But someone once took a risk on AMF. Our organization has been created by researching proven solutions and improving them in a neglected place. We are a mixture of local leadership, and we’ll do our part to measure, learn, and share everything we find.”

🎯 The Wide Spectrum of Motivations

People who apply to found an NGO come with all sorts of motivations. Since our program lasts a year, an important part of our methodology is helping participants refine not just what they want to do, but why.

Some statistics from our application form helped us identify trends in intent. We plan to reflect on the same questions during and at the end of the process to see if, and how, motivations have shifted.

Why?: Even when an organization is designed with an evidence-based lens, unclear or misaligned intentions can lead it astray.

What was non-negotiable?

We used several key criteria to decide who to invite into the program:

• A true calling to serve. Lived experience and/or previous work (voluntary or paid) was the strongest evidence.
• A mix of traits: strategic thinking, intrinsic motivation, and openness to evidence and rigor.
• The ability to shift their mindset, if needed.
• Preparation: some participants went above and beyond, reading all the material, not just the mandatory content.

Important trade-offs: factors that participants couldn’t necessarily control but still had to be considered:

• Geographical diversity while maintaining enough overlap to foster collaboration and potential co-founding teams. We had many (70% of all) applicants from Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Mexico. As this is a regional program, we couldn’t have a cohort composed entirely of only 4 countries, even though several were outstanding candidates.
• Existing overlap with EA charities in the region: a few strong candidates had intervention ideas very similar to the small number of EA-aligned charities already operating locally (e.g., mental health interventions in Ecuador and Colombia). These applicants weren’t selected for the cohort, but we recommended two of them to those organizations in the hopes they could benefit from this pre-vetted talent.

Some things that aren’t as obvious as they might seem

• The sooner you apply, the better. The bar kept rising as we reviewed more applications. Even with fixed criteria from the start, an application that was “good enough” early on might not have made it to the second stage if submitted later, after we had already reviewed outstanding ones. There are humans on the other side of the screening process; some bias is inevitable.
• Effort in the application reflects effort in the program. Applicants only see their own responses, so their benchmark is their own context. Reviewers, however, see all applications through the lens of “let me find the best candidate.” So even if you have an impressive CV and experience, if your answers aren’t thorough, know that other applicants may have invested more effort and time,  and will inevitably receive a higher evaluation.
• Program specifics matter. In some incubation programs that include funding, not having a current job could be an advantage, as participants can fully commit from day one. In our case, however, excellent profiles who were between jobs or lacked financial stability could not be considered. Founding a non-profit is already risky; adding the uncertainty of a competitive job search could create unnecessary stress and overwhelm for the participant.

The hardest part of the selection process

People are in very different stages of their professional journeys, which makes it difficult to fairly gauge who “deserves” a spot. Since this is the first program of its kind in the region, we’ve had to think carefully about how to balance experience, potential, and equity.

Because the program is based in a developing region, we received applications from a wide range of profiles. Some candidates had PhDs or master’s degrees, studied abroad, spoke multiple languages, and brought networks, credentials, and access. Others had less formal opportunities for education or prestigious job titles, but carried with them years of grassroots experience and a deep connection to the problems they wanted to solve.

Each type of background brings unique strengths. Academic training can sharpen analytical skills and strategic planning, while lived experience can anchor a project in urgency, contextual knowledge, and credibility with local communities. Both are valuable, and both are necessary.

Founding an organization requires many capacities: strategic thinking, project design, the ability to fundraise and build teams, to navigate complexity, and, in this program, the willingness to engage with complex research. From a probability-of-success perspective, different profiles may have different advantages. But the real challenge is not to weigh one against the other, but to recognize how they can complement each other in the same cohort.

That’s why we interviewed people across the spectrum and in the end, selected participants who represent a mix of both strengths. Some came with more formal training, others with more lived experience, but most with a blend of both. Being born and raised in a developing country often leaves an imprint: a sense of responsibility to serve that transcends credentials and is shared by the entire group.

While we had to limit the number of people accepted, we saw real potential in many others. We’re now exploring ways to support them as well, whether through a learning community, resource sharing, or mentorship opportunities.

It is never easy to say no to someone who wants to heal the world. But we believe our responsibility is not just to select a few, but to help elevate as many as possible who are working to lead impactful change.

And to finish in a lighter, more felt way. Invited participants, besides signing a formal agreement of participation, with rules and responsibilities, were also invited to sign a personal letter of commitment, they could make changes to reflect their personal journeys and motivations, but this is the template given, which could be used for others' inspiration: 

✨ Personal Commitment Letter ✨

I, [name], commit to walking this path with awareness, dedication, and love. I know this process will not be easy, but it will be profoundly meaningful.

I want to put in writing the intentions that guide my participation in this program and in the life project I am building:

🔹 I commit to walking with patience and discipline.
 I know that creating something worthwhile takes time. While I desire concrete results, I understand that many of the fruits will only be visible in the long term. I commit to sustaining my energy with resilience, without giving up, trusting the process, and learning from every step.

🔹 I commit to always keeping at the center those who inspire me to act.
 I am not doing this just for myself. My commitment is to the children, the animals, the rural communities, the planet, and the ecosystems. They are the ones who give meaning to my efforts. My personal and professional growth will always be guided by their dignity, their well-being, and their future.

🔹 I commit to keeping an open mind and a humble heart.
 I recognize that I have valuable knowledge and experiences, but also that I have much to learn. This will be a path of growth, of evolution, of constant reflection. I commit to embracing learning as an essential part of leadership.

🔹 I commit to working in community.
 I am not alone. This process is built with others. I commit to not seeing my peers as competition, but as allies. The true enemy is poverty, injustice, violence, and neglect. To every person who dedicates their life to healing the world, I offer respect, support, and gratitude. I will share, listen, collaborate, and celebrate the achievements of others as part of a shared purpose.

🔹 I commit to acting with integrity.
 I will always seek to have my decisions aligned with my principles. I will be consistent in what I say, think, and do—even when no one is watching. Ethics is not only a professional guide; it is the foundation of everything I want to build.

🔹 I commit to taking care of myself.
 To be able to care for others, I must also care for myself. I commit to resting, asking for help when I need it, and being compassionate with myself when things do not go as I expected.

This is a promise to myself.
 I may sometimes make mistakes, get distracted, or feel tired. But I will return to these words and remember why I began. I am here to give the best of myself to the world.

And finally, thanks again to all the people and organizations that have shown support so far, especially our mentors and new volunteers who will help craft the fundraising campaign for the incubated organizations. A special thanks to the AIM community (both staff and incubated orgs) for their strong support of the program. EA is truly an ecosystem, and it’s in these generous actions that we walk the talk.

If you have feedback or recommendations, please don’t hesitate to reach out. 

I’ll keep posting about the journey. Thanks for following along!

Warmly,
 Verónica
 Founder, Laboratory for Social Entrepreneurship

 

 📩 veronicasuarez@emprendimientosocial.org