Again, some fairly quick, off-the-cuff thoughts (if they sound wrong, it’s possible that I communicated poorly):
Avoiding duplication of effort. E.g., lots of grantees apply to multiple funders simultaneously, and in Q4 2020, 3 grants were approved both by LTFF and SAF/​SFF, creating substantial unnecessary overhead.
Syncing up on whether grants are net negative. E.g., we may think that grant A is overall worth funding, but has a risk of being net-negative, so would err on the side of not making it (to avoid acting unilaterally). If we talk to other grantmakers and they agree with our assessment after careful investigation of the risks, we can still go ahead and make the grant. Similarly, we may think grant B doesn’t have such a risk, but by talking to another grantmaker, we may learn about an issue we were previously unaware of, and may decide not to make the grant.
Similar to the above, syncing up on grants in general (i.e. which ones are good use of resources, or what the main weaknesses of existing organizations are).
Joining forces on active grantmaking. E.g., another funder may have some promising ideas but not enough time to implement them all. EA Funds may have some spare resources and a comparative advantage for working on a particular one of those ideas, so can go ahead and implement them, receiving input/​mentorship from the other funder we wouldn’t otherwise have received.
Generally giving each other feedback on their approach and prioritization. E.g., we may decide to pursue an active grantmaking project that seems like poor use of resources, and other grantmakers may make us aware of that fact.
I have a clarification question: How do you define coordination in this context? Could you give a few concrete examples of coordination?
Again, some fairly quick, off-the-cuff thoughts (if they sound wrong, it’s possible that I communicated poorly):
Avoiding duplication of effort. E.g., lots of grantees apply to multiple funders simultaneously, and in Q4 2020, 3 grants were approved both by LTFF and SAF/​SFF, creating substantial unnecessary overhead.
Syncing up on whether grants are net negative. E.g., we may think that grant A is overall worth funding, but has a risk of being net-negative, so would err on the side of not making it (to avoid acting unilaterally). If we talk to other grantmakers and they agree with our assessment after careful investigation of the risks, we can still go ahead and make the grant. Similarly, we may think grant B doesn’t have such a risk, but by talking to another grantmaker, we may learn about an issue we were previously unaware of, and may decide not to make the grant.
Similar to the above, syncing up on grants in general (i.e. which ones are good use of resources, or what the main weaknesses of existing organizations are).
Joining forces on active grantmaking. E.g., another funder may have some promising ideas but not enough time to implement them all. EA Funds may have some spare resources and a comparative advantage for working on a particular one of those ideas, so can go ahead and implement them, receiving input/​mentorship from the other funder we wouldn’t otherwise have received.
Generally giving each other feedback on their approach and prioritization. E.g., we may decide to pursue an active grantmaking project that seems like poor use of resources, and other grantmakers may make us aware of that fact.
Thanks, this was very helpful!