Thank you for this. I agree that there is an urgent need for more grantmakers, based on my own experience and on conversations with people who are actively involved in the space.
I have thought about this a little and discussed it with some grantmakers at Coefficient Giving, so I wanted to briefly mention a few ideas in case they have not already been considered.
First, have you considered headhunting strong forecasters or superforecasters? My intuition is that demonstrated forecasting ability may be a useful signal of grantmaking potential.
Second, have you considered making grants specifically aimed at improving the grantmaker pipeline? I think there are many possible projects and programmes that could increase the supply of capable grantmakers, and it would be very valuable to support more work in this area, both for Coefficient Giving and for the community as a whole.
Third, one specific pipeline project I would encourage you to consider is a more tiered grantmaking ecosystem. I suspect that many people would be willing and able to start by making microgrants, similar to BlueDot Rapid Grants, or by doing part-time grantmaking, similar to SFF. Their performance could then be evaluated, and the most promising people could gradually be given more responsibility and a larger grantmaking budget.
For example, I could imagine a Coefficient microgranting programme that is open to a wider range of people and explicitly presented as a potential pathway into a full-time grantmaking role. Another possibility would be for Coefficient Giving to direct more near-miss applicants toward opportunities where they can gain relevant grantmaking experience, while also providing more support to related organisations that could help develop this talent.
My impression is that the bar for a grantmaking role at Coefficient Giving is currently so high that many promising people may not be willing or able to spend their scarce time and motivation on an intense application process, especially if the odds of success seem low and they are not yet sure whether they would be good at the work. A more gradual pathway could help reduce these barriers while also giving Coefficient Giving better evidence about who is likely to perform well.
Thank you for this. I agree that there is an urgent need for more grantmakers, based on my own experience and on conversations with people who are actively involved in the space.
I have thought about this a little and discussed it with some grantmakers at Coefficient Giving, so I wanted to briefly mention a few ideas in case they have not already been considered.
First, have you considered headhunting strong forecasters or superforecasters? My intuition is that demonstrated forecasting ability may be a useful signal of grantmaking potential.
Second, have you considered making grants specifically aimed at improving the grantmaker pipeline? I think there are many possible projects and programmes that could increase the supply of capable grantmakers, and it would be very valuable to support more work in this area, both for Coefficient Giving and for the community as a whole.
Third, one specific pipeline project I would encourage you to consider is a more tiered grantmaking ecosystem. I suspect that many people would be willing and able to start by making microgrants, similar to BlueDot Rapid Grants, or by doing part-time grantmaking, similar to SFF. Their performance could then be evaluated, and the most promising people could gradually be given more responsibility and a larger grantmaking budget.
For example, I could imagine a Coefficient microgranting programme that is open to a wider range of people and explicitly presented as a potential pathway into a full-time grantmaking role. Another possibility would be for Coefficient Giving to direct more near-miss applicants toward opportunities where they can gain relevant grantmaking experience, while also providing more support to related organisations that could help develop this talent.
My impression is that the bar for a grantmaking role at Coefficient Giving is currently so high that many promising people may not be willing or able to spend their scarce time and motivation on an intense application process, especially if the odds of success seem low and they are not yet sure whether they would be good at the work. A more gradual pathway could help reduce these barriers while also giving Coefficient Giving better evidence about who is likely to perform well.