I understand what you're saying, and to some extent, I agree with you. Regarding AVA and the effort involved: I would never doubt it, and we must also remember that it has become a job for that team—they receive salaries and execute it. It’s not a volunteer initiative. I’d say it’s a business with very good intentions and highly altruistic.
Since it’s a private initiative, of course, demanding things is a luxury because no one is obligated to take feedback. Perhaps the solution is to lower the costs of the luxurious hotel (choosing a more standard one) and be more transparent with the scholarships. At least in my country, they have awarded a scholarship to someone who can undoubtedly afford it, which suggests that they are being assigned randomly, superficially, or based on friendships.
Again, this is just an assumption, since without public data, it’s impossible to know. And I emphasize, I understand that no one is obligated to make that information public either.
If an organization in Asia or Latin America receives funding from ACE (approximately $30,000 per year), it is unrealistic to expect them to afford a conference that requires at least $2,000–$3,000 in total expenses (registration, flights, accommodation, food, etc.). The opportunity cost is huge—this money could be directly invested in impactful projects rather than covering travel expenses. While Los Angeles may seem attractive due to its proximity to funders, this does not justify the excessive costs, especially when meetings with funders could be pre-arranged online or through smaller, more accessible gatherings. Scholarships, while helpful, are limited and tend to favor organizations already based in the U.S. or Europe or individuals with strong English and networking skills, which does not always correlate with real impact. A better approach would be to establish a more transparent selection process for scholarships and redirect funds toward on-the-ground work. A $30,000-a-year organization that wants to take the next step needs to attend AVA USA, as things currently work, to access funders of a higher caliber and open new opportunities.
Mexico City would be a much better alternative, as it is well-connected, significantly more affordable, and still accessible to North American funders. The issue is not just financial but structural—conferences should serve the movement, not just those who can afford them. High-impact organizations should not have to spend the equivalent of a month’s worth of funding just to access funders, when these conversations could happen online or in more accessible locations. It is also important to highlight that just the entrance fee for AVA costs $480.
I understand what you're saying, and to some extent, I agree with you. Regarding AVA and the effort involved: I would never doubt it, and we must also remember that it has become a job for that team—they receive salaries and execute it. It’s not a volunteer initiative. I’d say it’s a business with very good intentions and highly altruistic.
Since it’s a private initiative, of course, demanding things is a luxury because no one is obligated to take feedback. Perhaps the solution is to lower the costs of the luxurious hotel (choosing a more standard one) and be more transparent with the scholarships. At least in my country, they have awarded a scholarship to someone who can undoubtedly afford it, which suggests that they are being assigned randomly, superficially, or based on friendships.
Again, this is just an assumption, since without public data, it’s impossible to know. And I emphasize, I understand that no one is obligated to make that information public either.
If an organization in Asia or Latin America receives funding from ACE (approximately $30,000 per year), it is unrealistic to expect them to afford a conference that requires at least $2,000–$3,000 in total expenses (registration, flights, accommodation, food, etc.). The opportunity cost is huge—this money could be directly invested in impactful projects rather than covering travel expenses. While Los Angeles may seem attractive due to its proximity to funders, this does not justify the excessive costs, especially when meetings with funders could be pre-arranged online or through smaller, more accessible gatherings. Scholarships, while helpful, are limited and tend to favor organizations already based in the U.S. or Europe or individuals with strong English and networking skills, which does not always correlate with real impact. A better approach would be to establish a more transparent selection process for scholarships and redirect funds toward on-the-ground work. A $30,000-a-year organization that wants to take the next step needs to attend AVA USA, as things currently work, to access funders of a higher caliber and open new opportunities.
Mexico City would be a much better alternative, as it is well-connected, significantly more affordable, and still accessible to North American funders. The issue is not just financial but structural—conferences should serve the movement, not just those who can afford them. High-impact organizations should not have to spend the equivalent of a month’s worth of funding just to access funders, when these conversations could happen online or in more accessible locations. It is also important to highlight that just the entrance fee for AVA costs $480.