Meta Charity Funders: What you need to know when applying
In this post, we include what is most important to know when you apply to Meta Charity Funders. We expect to update this post every round.
The most common reasons for rejection
By sharing the most common reasons for rejections, we hope to support future grantees and help people make more informed decisions on whether they should apply to Meta Charity Funders.
The suggested project is not within scope: A fair amount of applications fall outside of the areas which our donors were interested in supporting. At a high level, Meta Charity Funders exists to fund projects that fall within the âmetaâ category and are unlikely to be funded by other major funders in this space. See âWhat we mean by âmetaââ further down.
The theory of change (ToC) is unclear, unfocused, or seemed implausible: Some applicants do not share sufficient reasoning on how their project (in the end) contributes to a better world. Other applicants have a theory of change which seems too complex or involves too many programs. We generally prefer fewer programs with a more narrow focus, especially for earlier-stage projects. Other ToCs simply seem like an inaccurate representation of how well the intervention would actually work. As a starting point, we recommend Aidan Alexanderâs post on ToCs.
Going too big too early: We hesitate to give large grants (~$150k+) to new projects without much track record. An incremental upscaling is generally preferred to a more sudden upscaling, as something akin to âtrack recordâ or âexpected upsideâ divided by âfunding askâ is the ratio weâre trying to maximize as funders. The absence of a substantial track record makes it challenging to justify larger funding requests, such as those needed for hiring many additional employees. To be more specific, we are particularly wary of situations where a project seeks to more than double its budget with less than 12 months of demonstrated success. This caution stems from the need to ensure that significant increases in funding are truly warranted and likely to yield proportional benefits.
Insufficient alternative funding sources: Some grants might seem good if continued but are not funded because they seem unlikely to be able to fundraise enough to sustain their long-term budget. While we are okay with funding a large portion of a projectâs budget as a one-off grant, we do not want organizations to depend on us for long-term funding as we are very uncertain about who our donors will be or what grants they will prioritize in the future. This is another reason we prefer not to give out larger grants for newer projects.
What weâre looking for in an application
Some general things we are looking for in an application that we would like to highlight:
Strong founders/âTrack record: We think one of the strongest indicators for future success is the people related to a project and previous achievements. In your application, please explain how and why you/âyour organization are well suited to run this project. Back up your claims with data to the extent you can; this includes historical data for this project, data for similar projects, or data that attests to the (relevant) skills of the team. If possible, also think through and highlight how your project excels compared to other similar projects.
Strategic alignment with field needs: Applications should demonstrate an understanding of the ecosystem and articulate a rationale for why their project is necessary at this time. Why this? Why now? Why has no one been doing this before? And is it reasonable that you are applying for X FTEs to do it instead of doing an MVP first? When evaluating an opportunity most funders are thinking about whether this is one of the best opportunities in the meta space, not just if itâs positive in expected value.
Price tag: Think through the amount of funding you are applying for. As funders, we try to put a price tag on what you intend to deliver. We are looking for the highest impact use of a marginal $; this means that the price tag matters compared to what you will deliver. Conversely, if it seems you significantly underestimate the costs, you likely wonât be able to deliver what you say you will even if you get funded.
Transparency
Individual donors working together
We want to stress that since this is a funding circle and not a grantmaking organization, all members are responsible for their own donations. This means that funding decisions are made personally by individual circle members and do not necessarily reflect the priorities of the funding circle in its entirety.
Time committed by funders
The funding circle is an activity the funders do on the side of their normal jobs.
In the week before applications close and the week afterwards, members spend a cumulative ~100 hours doing an initial application review. This means that we donât have the time to thoroughly review each application in the first stage and we urge applicants to keep this in mind when writing their applications.
Feedback
Unfortunately, we canât commit to giving individual feedback to any applicants, as i) It is time-consuming and we are already working on a strained time budget. ii) We are not one, but ~10 actors, so any feedback from one actor might not be true for another, which means itâs unclear whether the feedback is even true, or provides value for the applicant. Therefore, we resort to including some more general feedback in our retrospective.
What is Meta Charity Funders (MCF)?
Over the past 10 years, Open Philanthropy and EA Funds comprised a large percentage of all meta-funding and are far from independent of each other. This lack of diversity means that potentially effective projects outside their priorities often struggle to stay afloat or scale, and the beliefs of just a few grant-makers can massively shape the EA movementâs trajectory.
It can be difficult for funders within meta as well. Individual donors often donât know where to give if they donât share EA Fundsâ approach. Thorough vetting is scarce and expensive, with only a handful of grant-makers deploying tens of millions per year in meta grants, resulting in sub-optimal allocations.
This is why we launched the Meta Charity Funders, a network of donors sharing knowledge, discussing funding opportunities, and running joint open grant rounds in the EA meta space. We believe many charitable projects create a huge impact by working at one level removed from direct impact to instead enhance the impact of others. Often these projects cut across causes and donât fit neatly into a box, thus being neglected by funders.
What we mean by âmetaâ
Meta organizations are those that operate one step removed from direct impact interventions. These can focus on the infrastructure, evaluation, and strategic guidance necessary for the broader field to maximize effectiveness and impact. They are essential in bridging gaps, identifying high-impact opportunities, and enabling other organizations to achieve or amplify their end-product impact.
Below we will list a couple of illustrative examples. Note that we only chose these examples because we think the organizations are well-known, and thus more likely to give people an understanding of the type of work we want to fund. We are not saying that we intend to fund these organizations.
Clear Passes
Charity evaluators like GiveWell assess and recommend high-impact charities, ensuring donors can contribute effectively to causes with confidence in their impact.
Fundraising organizations like Effektiv Spenden spread awareness and increase the funding available in the EA community.
Field-building organizations like 80,000 hours promote impactful careers, thereby increasing the number of individuals working in high-impact areas.
Incubators like Ambitious Impact support the creation and development of high-impact charities by providing resources, mentorship, and strategic advice to nascent organizations.
Cause prioritization research organizations like Rethink Priorities conduct research to identify and prioritize the most pressing causes, guiding resources and efforts towards areas where they can achieve the greatest impact.
Organizations whose primary impact comes from first-order interventions fall out of the scope of the funding circle.
Example proposal
Below we have a fictional example of what a good proposal could look like for an application sent in to Meta Charity Funders.
Effective Giving Hogwarts (EGH) | |
| This yearâs total budget: $76,000 USD | Requested grant size: $50,000 USD |
| Grant ratio: ~66% of budget | Countries of operation: UKâRegistered charity |
| Date of grant: July 2024 | Duration: July 2024âJuly 2025 |
| 100-word description: In the last two years, Effective Giving has taken off in the Effective Altruism movement with several recent organizations reaching major milestones and many moving significantly more money than they spend counterfactually (see e.g. here <insert link>). However there are still major communities without a major effective giving presence. As far as we know, no major targeting has occurred aiming at the British magical community. This is despite some members of the community having significant wealth and fame. As a student of Hogwarts in their senior year (LinkedIn profile or CV link), I feel I am well placed to bring the concepts of effective giving to the British magical community to leverage their altruism and funds for making a massive difference for sentient beings, magical or not. | |
2024â2025 top SMART goals:
| |
Plan for measuring impact: I plan to track all the donors in a spreadsheet based on a year-end survey I send to them. Our advisory board will review the survey to make sure it does not create social desirability bias. I will also try to put an estimated counterfactual number on each donation by consulting with existing Effective Giving organizations how they do it to make sure we do not overestimate our actual counterfactual impact. Signs we should shut down: If we do not hit 80%+ of OKRs or if me (Jane) is offered a high value counterfactual job after graduating. Hitting a counterfactual ratio of above 1:1 in the first year and above 1:3 in our 2nd year. | |
Our progress so far:
| |
1-year plan: The current plan is to host 6 Effective Giving-related events over the year, and to run a monthly newsletter which people can sign up to. I also plan to attend our yearly career fair and take part in a one month student swap during the Triwizard Tournament. I plan to try to get two of my newsletters shared in the school newspaper and put up posters for each event across the school (only in places we are legally allowed to place posters). I also plan to look for a co-founder (the plan is to hire for the 2nd half of the year) who can help support this project. I have a few candidates in mind (e.g., LinkedIn link 1, LinkedIn link 2), but I would like to test them out in a volunteer capacity before determining if we work well enough together long-term. | |
| Biggest success: Last year the event I ran (see above) was likely the biggest success. Attendees rated it a 5.2/â5.86 and I feel (although I did not measure) that it made attendees move significantly more money to effective charities even later. | Biggest failures: I tried to get funding for this project from the three largest funders in the space and they were each skeptical that the wizarding world was an ideal target market. |
Supporting documents:
| |
Extra information:
| |
Team profile
| |
Iâm curious about the interplay between âMeta Charity Funders exists to fund projects that . . . are unlikely to be funded by other major funders in this spaceâ and â[i]nsufficient alternative funding sourcesâ in the long term as a common reason for rejection. One possible narrative under which a proposal could fit within both implied criteria is temporalâi.e., that (1) other major funders would not fund the proposal now, but (2) there is a reasonable probability that other major funders would fund in the future if it developed further and could show a longer/âstronger organizational track record. Are there other narratives that you have in mind that could meet those implied criteria here? In comparison to some object-level work, it seems meta projects would be significantly less likely to receive non-EA funding, government grants, etc. down the road.
In particular, how does the âinsufficient alternative funding sourcesâ issue interact with the diversifying effect that seems to be a large part of the value that MCF brings to the table? Cf. âThis lack of diversity means that potentially effective projects outside [OP/âEA Funds] priorities often struggle to stay afloat or scale, and the beliefs of just a few grant-makers can massively shape the EA movementâs trajectory.â
Thanks to AIM and the donors for what they are doing in this space!
Executive summary: Meta Charity Funders aims to support âmetaâ projects that enhance the impact of others in the effective altruism space, providing guidance on how to apply successfully and what types of projects they fund.
Key points:
Common reasons for rejection include: projects outside scope, unclear theory of change, premature scaling, and insufficient alternative funding sources.
Successful applications demonstrate strong founders, strategic alignment with field needs, and appropriate funding requests.
MCF is a network of individual donors, not a unified organization, with limited time for application review.
âMetaâ projects focus on infrastructure, evaluation, and strategic guidance rather than direct impact interventions.
An example proposal is provided, illustrating desired elements like clear goals, impact measurement plans, and team profiles.
Transparency about the funding process and limitations on feedback are emphasized.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.