I had written up what I learned as a Manifund micrograntor a few months ago, but have never gotten around to polishing that for publication. Still, I think those reactions could be useful for people in the EA Community Choice program now. You’ve got the same basic pattern of a bunch of inexperienced grantmakers with a few hundred bucks to spend each and ~40-50 projects to look at quickly. I’m going to post those without much editing, since the program is fairly short. A few points are specific to the types of proposals that were in the microgranting experiment (which came from the ACX program).
General Feedback for Grant Applicants [from ACX Microgrants Experience]
Caution: This feedback is based on a single micrograntor’s experience. It may be much less applicable to other contexts—e.g., those involving larger grantors, grantors who do not need to evaluate a large number of proposals in a limited amount of time, or grantors who are in a position to fund a significant percentage of grants reviewed. I had pre-committed to myself that I would look at every single proposal unless the title convinced me that it was way too technical for me to understand. This probably affected my experience, and was done more for educational / information value reasons than anything else.
If you have a longer proposal, please start with an executive summary, limited to ~ 300 words. You may get only 2-3 minutes on an initial screen, maybe even less.
After getting a sense of the basic contours of the proposal, I found myself with a decent sense of where the weaker points probably were and wanted to see if these were clear dealbreakers in an efficient manner. Please be sure to red-team your proposal and address the weak points!
Use shorter paragraphs with titles or other clear, skimmable signals. As per above, I need to be able to quickly find your discussion on specific points.
One recurrent weakness involved an unclear theory of impact that I had to infer from the proposal. It is usually helpful to explicitly lay out what the theory of impact is. In particular, there were several proposals with a theory of impact of ~ “I publish something, then impact somehow.” This does work sometimes, but most academic publications end up with ~0 impact. I found myself wanting more specific information about why there’s a reasonable chance that won’t happen to the applicant’s publication.
I would not assume that I know the importance of various signals of quality in your field. For example, if Professor Smith is highly regarded (such that his invitation to work with you is a good signal), how can you succinctly show—rather than just tell—me that?
I would like to see a CV, resume, 1-2 page bio, etc. linked for most applicants. An organizational/project website helps too, if you have one.
Please be realistic when projecting the likelihood of success on various outcomes. If I think they are unrealistic, I would generally assume you are biting off more than you think you are and/or are overselling the project. I recall one project with a 1-2% chance of its high-level impact; I took that as a positive signal because it was realistic.
If there is some real thought and/or data behind an estimate that may look optimistic, I’d suggest showing it (e.g., linking to a Google doc to avoid cluttering up the main proposal page).
In some cases, I’d want to hear about success or lack thereof with other funders—this was more common in biomedical research or projects that seemed potentially commercializable. Given that decent funding exists in those areas, I’d rather you get it if possible and leave the open / unrestricted charitable funding for projects with no good alternative. If you can’t get it, then I have to consider whether I have a good enough reason to override the judgment of people who know a whole lot more about the subject area than I do. I’m open to the possibility that I should, but I’ll need convincing. This is doubly true if your theory of impact requires non-EA/non-Manifund funding shortly after the seed stage. In those cases, I need some indication of how likely you are to get that funding even if your seed stage goes well.
One challenge of fundraising on Manifund is that you don’t know how much you will be offered. In many cases, reading about the $50K version of the project gives me very little information about what would happen with the minimum amount specified to proceed (which was often 10% or less than the target). In several cases, I thought the project was clearly not viable at or near the stated minimum—and I ruled out the possibility of making a small signalling offer because I didn’t want to fund the project at a low level.
I tended to value “sweat equity” or “skin in the game” in which the person seeking the grant could show prior investment of their own time and/or resources into earlier stages of the project. I recognize that this is not exactly fair to certain applicants, but I find it a costly and thus valuable signal of the prospective grantee’s commitment to and valuation of the proposed work. In addition, the presence of the applicant’s volunteer time and/or resources can create a multiplier effect by which the grant unlocks the value of that time and/or those resources. So to the extent that an applicant can show these factors, I think they are worth mentioning,
Hyperlinks are your friend—you can link to a deeper discussion of something if I’m interested in reading more without bogging the proposal down in details if I’m not.
After all the text I went through in rapid fashion, I would have welcomed a good infographic or two.
Dang, I wish I’d read this before I put in my Manifund application—and before I chucked in some money towards other Manifund proposals. This is very insightful. I hope to participate in more Manifund funding efforts, and hope to take your advice to heart going forward.
I had written up what I learned as a Manifund micrograntor a few months ago, but have never gotten around to polishing that for publication. Still, I think those reactions could be useful for people in the EA Community Choice program now. You’ve got the same basic pattern of a bunch of inexperienced grantmakers with a few hundred bucks to spend each and ~40-50 projects to look at quickly. I’m going to post those without much editing, since the program is fairly short. A few points are specific to the types of proposals that were in the microgranting experiment (which came from the ACX program).
General Feedback for Grant Applicants [from ACX Microgrants Experience]
Caution: This feedback is based on a single micrograntor’s experience. It may be much less applicable to other contexts—e.g., those involving larger grantors, grantors who do not need to evaluate a large number of proposals in a limited amount of time, or grantors who are in a position to fund a significant percentage of grants reviewed. I had pre-committed to myself that I would look at every single proposal unless the title convinced me that it was way too technical for me to understand. This probably affected my experience, and was done more for educational / information value reasons than anything else.
If you have a longer proposal, please start with an executive summary, limited to ~ 300 words. You may get only 2-3 minutes on an initial screen, maybe even less.
After getting a sense of the basic contours of the proposal, I found myself with a decent sense of where the weaker points probably were and wanted to see if these were clear dealbreakers in an efficient manner. Please be sure to red-team your proposal and address the weak points!
Use shorter paragraphs with titles or other clear, skimmable signals. As per above, I need to be able to quickly find your discussion on specific points.
One recurrent weakness involved an unclear theory of impact that I had to infer from the proposal. It is usually helpful to explicitly lay out what the theory of impact is. In particular, there were several proposals with a theory of impact of ~ “I publish something, then impact somehow.” This does work sometimes, but most academic publications end up with ~0 impact. I found myself wanting more specific information about why there’s a reasonable chance that won’t happen to the applicant’s publication.
I would not assume that I know the importance of various signals of quality in your field. For example, if Professor Smith is highly regarded (such that his invitation to work with you is a good signal), how can you succinctly show—rather than just tell—me that?
I would like to see a CV, resume, 1-2 page bio, etc. linked for most applicants. An organizational/project website helps too, if you have one.
Please be realistic when projecting the likelihood of success on various outcomes. If I think they are unrealistic, I would generally assume you are biting off more than you think you are and/or are overselling the project. I recall one project with a 1-2% chance of its high-level impact; I took that as a positive signal because it was realistic.
If there is some real thought and/or data behind an estimate that may look optimistic, I’d suggest showing it (e.g., linking to a Google doc to avoid cluttering up the main proposal page).
In some cases, I’d want to hear about success or lack thereof with other funders—this was more common in biomedical research or projects that seemed potentially commercializable. Given that decent funding exists in those areas, I’d rather you get it if possible and leave the open / unrestricted charitable funding for projects with no good alternative. If you can’t get it, then I have to consider whether I have a good enough reason to override the judgment of people who know a whole lot more about the subject area than I do. I’m open to the possibility that I should, but I’ll need convincing. This is doubly true if your theory of impact requires non-EA/non-Manifund funding shortly after the seed stage. In those cases, I need some indication of how likely you are to get that funding even if your seed stage goes well.
One challenge of fundraising on Manifund is that you don’t know how much you will be offered. In many cases, reading about the $50K version of the project gives me very little information about what would happen with the minimum amount specified to proceed (which was often 10% or less than the target). In several cases, I thought the project was clearly not viable at or near the stated minimum—and I ruled out the possibility of making a small signalling offer because I didn’t want to fund the project at a low level.
I tended to value “sweat equity” or “skin in the game” in which the person seeking the grant could show prior investment of their own time and/or resources into earlier stages of the project. I recognize that this is not exactly fair to certain applicants, but I find it a costly and thus valuable signal of the prospective grantee’s commitment to and valuation of the proposed work. In addition, the presence of the applicant’s volunteer time and/or resources can create a multiplier effect by which the grant unlocks the value of that time and/or those resources. So to the extent that an applicant can show these factors, I think they are worth mentioning,
Hyperlinks are your friend—you can link to a deeper discussion of something if I’m interested in reading more without bogging the proposal down in details if I’m not.
After all the text I went through in rapid fashion, I would have welcomed a good infographic or two.
Dang, I wish I’d read this before I put in my Manifund application—and before I chucked in some money towards other Manifund proposals. This is very insightful. I hope to participate in more Manifund funding efforts, and hope to take your advice to heart going forward.