My boring answer would be to see details on our website. In terms of submission style, we say:
We recommend that applicants take about 1–2 hours to write their applications. This does not include the time spent developing the plan and strategy for the project – we recommend thinking about those carefully prior to applying.
Please keep your answers brief and ensure the total length of your responses does not exceed 10,000 characters. We recommend a total length of 2,000–5,000 characters.
We recommend focusing on the substantive arguments in favour of your project rather than polishing your submission.
We recommend honestly communicating the strengths and weaknesses of your project rather than trying to “sell” your proposal.
You can find details on the scope of grants that EAIF will consider funding for here (although this is subject to change—details here).
For non-obvious mistakes, some examples that come to mind are:
Unclear theory of change—I think good applications often have a clear sense of what they’re trying to acheive, and how they plan to acheive it. This may seem relatively obvious, but I think still often goes underestimated. Put another way: it’s very rare for me to think “this applicant has thought about their path to impact too much”
Providing too little information—whilst we do recommend that applicants don’t take too long to write applications, it can be hard to make well evidenced decisions without having much information to go on. For projects that are clearly great / terrible this is less of an issue, but projects close to the bar do benefit from some (at least basic) info.
Providing too much (irrelevant) information—On the flip side, a large amount of (irrelevant) information can distract from the core case for the project. E.g. if an applicant does not have track record in an area they’re looking to move towards, I much prefer that they directly state this rather than include highly irrelevant info to fill the page.
Not providing any references—We often reach out to references, who can give a more detailed opinion on the applicant and/or their project plan. Without any 3rd party to contact, it can be difficult to verify claims made in an application.
Optimising for p(receive grant) rather than Impact—this is a tricky one, since people apply for projects which they believe are highly impactful, and an obvious instrumental goal to that happening is to get funding. But ultimately, it’s worth being upfront and honest about weakenesses, since ultimately our common goal is to do the most good, and perusasion / deception undermine that (even if this increases p(receive grant))
Intepreting rejection (or success) too strongly- The grant appplication process (like job applications) is extremely noisy, in which a single decision gives limited evidence about an application. Of course, this advise goes both ways—it is not literally 0 evidence, and some projects shouldn’t be funded—but I do worry if people over-update on a rejection from EAIF, especially when they are pretty close to the bar
My boring answer would be to see details on our website. In terms of submission style, we say:
You can find details on the scope of grants that EAIF will consider funding for here (although this is subject to change—details here).
For non-obvious mistakes, some examples that come to mind are:
Unclear theory of change—I think good applications often have a clear sense of what they’re trying to acheive, and how they plan to acheive it. This may seem relatively obvious, but I think still often goes underestimated. Put another way: it’s very rare for me to think “this applicant has thought about their path to impact too much”
Providing too little information—whilst we do recommend that applicants don’t take too long to write applications, it can be hard to make well evidenced decisions without having much information to go on. For projects that are clearly great / terrible this is less of an issue, but projects close to the bar do benefit from some (at least basic) info.
Providing too much (irrelevant) information—On the flip side, a large amount of (irrelevant) information can distract from the core case for the project. E.g. if an applicant does not have track record in an area they’re looking to move towards, I much prefer that they directly state this rather than include highly irrelevant info to fill the page.
Not providing any references—We often reach out to references, who can give a more detailed opinion on the applicant and/or their project plan. Without any 3rd party to contact, it can be difficult to verify claims made in an application.
Optimising for p(receive grant) rather than Impact—this is a tricky one, since people apply for projects which they believe are highly impactful, and an obvious instrumental goal to that happening is to get funding. But ultimately, it’s worth being upfront and honest about weakenesses, since ultimately our common goal is to do the most good, and perusasion / deception undermine that (even if this increases p(receive grant))
Intepreting rejection (or success) too strongly- The grant appplication process (like job applications) is extremely noisy, in which a single decision gives limited evidence about an application. Of course, this advise goes both ways—it is not literally 0 evidence, and some projects shouldn’t be funded—but I do worry if people over-update on a rejection from EAIF, especially when they are pretty close to the bar