I played around with the data and added categories here.
Some interesting results from the top 3 categories:
Community Building 30.23% of all grants for Community building (local) go to European groups, 10.20% to Oxbridge/London, 4.31% to the rest of the world and 0.72% to the Bay
EA Organisations 34.18% to London/Oxbridge based organisations: 16% of all grants have gone to EA pledge organisations (fundraising), 14.82% to 80K, 1.21% to HIPE. The remaining 3.08% to the Rest of the World (RCForward and Rethink Priorities).
Academic Research 7.33% to London/Oxbridge, 1.08% to the Bay, 0.58% to the Rest of the World
To Siebe’s question of what EA Geneva and EA Oxford is doing: Geneva received a grant to do local policy research (0.54% of total funding, 7.7% of Geneva’s total funding received—the remaining 92.3% went to community building). EA Oxford’s most recent grant went towards student career planning in addition to community building.
Note: I used the same regional categories and method for calculating CBG allocations as OP. I’ve filtered out the $120,000 grant that went from CBG from the meta fund to avoid double counting.
I’ve also labeled community infrastructure as separate from community building to differentiate between local community building and building community tools like the EA Forum, Effective Thesis, etc.
I played around with the data and added categories here.
Some interesting results from the top 3 categories:
Community Building 30.23% of all grants for Community building (local) go to European groups, 10.20% to Oxbridge/London, 4.31% to the rest of the world and 0.72% to the Bay
EA Organisations 34.18% to London/Oxbridge based organisations: 16% of all grants have gone to EA pledge organisations (fundraising), 14.82% to 80K, 1.21% to HIPE. The remaining 3.08% to the Rest of the World (RCForward and Rethink Priorities).
Academic Research 7.33% to London/Oxbridge, 1.08% to the Bay, 0.58% to the Rest of the World
To Siebe’s question of what EA Geneva and EA Oxford is doing: Geneva received a grant to do local policy research (0.54% of total funding, 7.7% of Geneva’s total funding received—the remaining 92.3% went to community building). EA Oxford’s most recent grant went towards student career planning in addition to community building.
Note: I used the same regional categories and method for calculating CBG allocations as OP. I’ve filtered out the $120,000 grant that went from CBG from the meta fund to avoid double counting. I’ve also labeled community infrastructure as separate from community building to differentiate between local community building and building community tools like the EA Forum, Effective Thesis, etc.
I like this additional categorization, the “community infrastructure” distinction seems valuable. Thanks for sharing!