Thanks so much for writing this Will! I can’t emphasise enough how much I appreciate it.
if a project doesn’t seem like a good use of the people running it, then it’s not likely to get funded.
Two norms that I’d really like to see (that I haven’t seen enough of) are: 1. Funders being much more explicit to applicants about why things aren’t funded (or why they get less funding than asked for). Even a simple tagging system like “out of our funding scope” or “seemed too expensive”, “not targeted enough”, or “promising (review and resubmit)” (with a short line about why) is explicit yet simple.
2. More funder diversity while maintaining close communications (e.g. multiple funders with different focus areas/approaches/epistemics, but single application form to apply to multiple funders and those funders sharing private information such as fraud allegation etc).
I know feedback is extremely difficult to do well (and there are risks in giving feedback), but I think that lack of feedback creates a lot of problems, e.g.:
resentment and uneasiness towards funders within the community;
the unilateralists curse is exacerbated (in cases where something is not funded because it’s seen as bad they keep seeking out other funders because they assume that it just wasn’t a good fit for the funder);
funding applications and ideas don’t get better (e.g. a process for ‘review and resubmit’ could be great); and
it wastes lots of time for all the grantees and funders.
Whereas providing quality feedback (or at least some minimal feedback) can create a lot of good outcomes, e.g.:
(1) Provide feedback as much as we can (the only reason we haven’t promised to give feedback to everyone is that this is a pilot and we don’t know whether that’s feasible for us)
(2) The application form is almost a copy and paste of the EA Funds application form, to make life easier for those who are applying to both
(BTW applications are still open and close on 22nd May)
I also want to echo pretty much every bullet point that Luke made about the value of feedback, which I think are excellent points.
I’m really curious as to why this is being downvoted (was at −2 when I originally wrote this comment, now it’s at 0 with 7 votes), I find SoGive Grants interesting and relevant to the discussion.
Especially since More funder diversity is a main point of Luke’s comment.
I regret that I have but one strong upvote to give this. Lack of feedback on why some of the projects I’ve been involved in didn’t get funding has been incredibly frustrating.
One further benefit of getting it would have been that it can help across the ecosystem when you get turned down by Funder A and apply to Funder B—if you can pass on the feedback you got from Funder A (and how you’ve responded to it), that can save a lot of Funder B’s time.
As a meta-point, the lack of feedback on why there’s a lack of feedback also seems very counterproductive.
Obviously I do not speak for Will or anybody else, but I wrote “Some unfun lessons I learned as a junior grantmaker” partially as a response to what I perceived as misconceptions by some of the comments in this thread and elsewhere on the Forum.
Thanks so much for writing this Will! I can’t emphasise enough how much I appreciate it.
Two norms that I’d really like to see (that I haven’t seen enough of) are:
1. Funders being much more explicit to applicants about why things aren’t funded (or why they get less funding than asked for). Even a simple tagging system like “out of our funding scope” or “seemed too expensive”, “not targeted enough”, or “promising (review and resubmit)” (with a short line about why) is explicit yet simple.
2. More funder diversity while maintaining close communications (e.g. multiple funders with different focus areas/approaches/epistemics, but single application form to apply to multiple funders and those funders sharing private information such as fraud allegation etc).
I know feedback is extremely difficult to do well (and there are risks in giving feedback), but I think that lack of feedback creates a lot of problems, e.g.:
resentment and uneasiness towards funders within the community;
the unilateralists curse is exacerbated (in cases where something is not funded because it’s seen as bad they keep seeking out other funders because they assume that it just wasn’t a good fit for the funder);
funding applications and ideas don’t get better (e.g. a process for ‘review and resubmit’ could be great); and
it wastes lots of time for all the grantees and funders.
Whereas providing quality feedback (or at least some minimal feedback) can create a lot of good outcomes, e.g.:
people update their plans appropriately;
‘bad’ projects get weeded out sooner;
people learn how to write better proposals; and
more impactful projects get funded.
Heartily agree with this.
For the pilot of SoGive Grants, we plan to
(1) Provide feedback as much as we can (the only reason we haven’t promised to give feedback to everyone is that this is a pilot and we don’t know whether that’s feasible for us)
(2) The application form is almost a copy and paste of the EA Funds application form, to make life easier for those who are applying to both
(BTW applications are still open and close on 22nd May)
I also want to echo pretty much every bullet point that Luke made about the value of feedback, which I think are excellent points.
I’m really curious as to why this is being downvoted (was at −2 when I originally wrote this comment, now it’s at 0 with 7 votes), I find SoGive Grants interesting and relevant to the discussion.
Especially since More funder diversity is a main point of Luke’s comment.
I don’t know but FWIW my guess is some people might have perceived it as self-promotion of a kind they don’t like.
(I upvoted Sanjay’s comment because I think it’s relevant to know about his agreement and about the plans for SoGive Grants given the context.)
Related thread that Sam and Nick are speaking on: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/hDK9CZJwH2Cqc9n9J/some-clarifications-on-the-future-fund-s-approach-to?commentId=JLDaxyk8uxdwcYNye#comments
I regret that I have but one strong upvote to give this. Lack of feedback on why some of the projects I’ve been involved in didn’t get funding has been incredibly frustrating.
One further benefit of getting it would have been that it can help across the ecosystem when you get turned down by Funder A and apply to Funder B—if you can pass on the feedback you got from Funder A (and how you’ve responded to it), that can save a lot of Funder B’s time.
As a meta-point, the lack of feedback on why there’s a lack of feedback also seems very counterproductive.
Obviously I do not speak for Will or anybody else, but I wrote “Some unfun lessons I learned as a junior grantmaker” partially as a response to what I perceived as misconceptions by some of the comments in this thread and elsewhere on the Forum.
.