combined with lack of transparency regarding the statistical odds of getting funded
LTFF received about 911 grants and funded 196 grants in 2023. EAIF received about 492 applications and funded 121 grants. (I’m not committing to the exact numbers, this is just what I can quickly pull from the database).
The actual success rate should be significantly rosier than the above numbers, as a) sometimes applicants withdraw applications, b) sometimes we refer applications to other funders, and c) some applications are clearly irrelevant (eg if a homelessness shelter applies to LTFF).
The success rate is lower than past years, in part due to us rising the bar (which is mostly due to our own funding constraints) and in part because I think the number of spam applications we’ve received has gone up over time.
Note that the numbers presented shouldn’t be taken too seriously. Distributions of applications to different funds should vary widely, eg the ill-fated Future Fund had something like a 4% acceptance rate in 2022, and if anything had a substantially lower bar than 2023′s LTFF.
Hope that helps! Let me know if there are other stats that could be helpful.
As someone considering applying to LTFF, I found even rough numbers here very useful. I would have guessed success rates 10x lower.
If it is fairly low-cost for you (e.g.: can be done as an automated database query), publishing this semi-regularly might be very helpful for potential applicants.
Thanks for the feedback! Do you have thoughts on what platform would be most helpful for you and other (potential) applicants? Independent EAF shortform, a point attached somewhere as part of our payout reports, listed on our website, or somewhere else?
I don’t have a strong opinion here. I would guess having the information out and findable is the most important. My initial instinct is directly or linked from the fund page or applicant info.
The actual success rate should be significantly rosier than the above numbers, as a) sometimes applicants withdraw applications, b) sometimes we refer applications to other funders, and c) some applications are clearly irrelevant (eg if a homelessness shelter applies to LTFF).
To clarify, I think withdrawn applications counted in the denominator when I was pulling data, but not the numerator. Additionally, I expect common reasons for withdrawal includes being funded elsewhere; I’d weakly guess that withdrawn applications are more likely than baseline to counterfactually be funded.
LTFF received about 911 grants and funded 196 grants in 2023. EAIF received about 492 applications and funded 121 grants. (I’m not committing to the exact numbers, this is just what I can quickly pull from the database).
The actual success rate should be significantly rosier than the above numbers, as a) sometimes applicants withdraw applications, b) sometimes we refer applications to other funders, and c) some applications are clearly irrelevant (eg if a homelessness shelter applies to LTFF).
The success rate is lower than past years, in part due to us rising the bar (which is mostly due to our own funding constraints)
and in part because I think the number of spam applications we’ve received has gone up over time.Note that the numbers presented shouldn’t be taken too seriously. Distributions of applications to different funds should vary widely, eg the ill-fated Future Fund had something like a 4% acceptance rate in 2022, and if anything had a substantially lower bar than 2023′s LTFF.
Hope that helps! Let me know if there are other stats that could be helpful.
As someone considering applying to LTFF, I found even rough numbers here very useful. I would have guessed success rates 10x lower.
If it is fairly low-cost for you (e.g.: can be done as an automated database query), publishing this semi-regularly might be very helpful for potential applicants.
Thanks for the feedback! Do you have thoughts on what platform would be most helpful for you and other (potential) applicants? Independent EAF shortform, a point attached somewhere as part of our payout reports, listed on our website, or somewhere else?
I don’t have a strong opinion here. I would guess having the information out and findable is the most important. My initial instinct is directly or linked from the fund page or applicant info.
Doesn’t (a) point the other way?
To clarify, I think withdrawn applications counted in the denominator when I was pulling data, but not the numerator. Additionally, I expect common reasons for withdrawal includes being funded elsewhere; I’d weakly guess that withdrawn applications are more likely than baseline to counterfactually be funded.
Thanks for clarifying! I’d been thinking they weren’t in the denominator.
(I also hadn’t been thinking about why someone might withdraw, and being funded elsewhere makes a lot of sense.)