...to overhead being taken out of the donation to run the granting program
I want to flag that overheads for granting programs in EA are often very low, in relative terms. For example, EA Funds spent roughly 700k last year in overhead[1] and distributed >30M, for an overhead ratio of <2.5% [2](though I expect it to increase substantially this year and in upcoming years).
In generally I’d expect overheads in EA granting programs to be too low rather than too high, in the sense that the world will be better off if a higher percentage of resources in EA granting programs can productively be allocated to grantmaking, operations, monitoring and evaluation, etc.
Technically the money for overhead is raised from external private donors rather than from public donations due to past commitments made from EA Funds. But of course money is fungible, and going forwards I’d like to drop this commitment for LTFF and EAIF.
Though the Global Health and Development fund incurred ~0 overhead, so we might want to exclude that. But even if we’re just looking at EA Infrastructure Fund and the Long-Term Future Fund, and assume 100% of overhead costs goes to those two funds, the overhead ratio still ends up being <4%.
I want to flag that overheads for granting programs in EA are often very low, in relative terms. For example, EA Funds spent roughly 700k last year in overhead[1] and distributed >30M, for an overhead ratio of <2.5% [2](though I expect it to increase substantially this year and in upcoming years).
In generally I’d expect overheads in EA granting programs to be too low rather than too high, in the sense that the world will be better off if a higher percentage of resources in EA granting programs can productively be allocated to grantmaking, operations, monitoring and evaluation, etc.
Technically the money for overhead is raised from external private donors rather than from public donations due to past commitments made from EA Funds. But of course money is fungible, and going forwards I’d like to drop this commitment for LTFF and EAIF.
Though the Global Health and Development fund incurred ~0 overhead, so we might want to exclude that. But even if we’re just looking at EA Infrastructure Fund and the Long-Term Future Fund, and assume 100% of overhead costs goes to those two funds, the overhead ratio still ends up being <4%.