Hello! Itās amazing that your funding allocation to these areas has gone up so much. Letās hope it leads to good things in future!
Hereās my question:
I know that when you fund more mature effective giving organisations, you often limit yourselves to 50% or so of their operating costs in a hope to encourage funding diversification and ongoing sustainability of the effective giving field. This means an organisation (like e.g. Giving What We Can) can have both a really strong giving multiplier and a genuine operating costs funding gap.
This is in strong contrast to the average EA intuition developed by observing other areas, where āfunding gapā is often thought of as ābelow the funding barā, with a certain negative reputation attached to it. Iāve had multiple conversations with people in EA who believe that if CoGi hasnāt fully funded an effective giving organisation, its marginal giving multiplier must be close to 1x (that is, low). It seems that this rather widespread belief is hurting your aims of encouraging funding diversification.
Are you planning to publish summaries of at least some effective giving organisations you partially fund, confirming that you both estimate them to have a high marginal giving multiplier and also a genuine further funding gap? It would help my attempts to encourage people who give effectively and want to maximise their impact to direct more of their donations to the operating costs of effective giving organisations, if I had something official-looking to point to.
Hello! Itās amazing that your funding allocation to these areas has gone up so much. Letās hope it leads to good things in future!
Hereās my question:
I know that when you fund more mature effective giving organisations, you often limit yourselves to 50% or so of their operating costs in a hope to encourage funding diversification and ongoing sustainability of the effective giving field. This means an organisation (like e.g. Giving What We Can) can have both a really strong giving multiplier and a genuine operating costs funding gap.
This is in strong contrast to the average EA intuition developed by observing other areas, where āfunding gapā is often thought of as ābelow the funding barā, with a certain negative reputation attached to it. Iāve had multiple conversations with people in EA who believe that if CoGi hasnāt fully funded an effective giving organisation, its marginal giving multiplier must be close to 1x (that is, low). It seems that this rather widespread belief is hurting your aims of encouraging funding diversification.
Are you planning to publish summaries of at least some effective giving organisations you partially fund, confirming that you both estimate them to have a high marginal giving multiplier and also a genuine further funding gap? It would help my attempts to encourage people who give effectively and want to maximise their impact to direct more of their donations to the operating costs of effective giving organisations, if I had something official-looking to point to.