My impression is that the ratio of organisations to individuals among Animal Welfare Fund grantees is much higher than among Long-Term Future Fund grantees. If that’s correct, do you have a sense of why that is?
Some possibilities that come to mind:
Simply a difference in what applications you tend to get
A difference between the two cause areas in what kinds of projects tend to be most impactful
A difference between the two Funds in the typical views of the Fund Managers regarding what kinds of projects tend to be most impactful
(Such that, if the AWF Fund Managers were running the LTFF or vice versa, we might expect the ratios of organisations to individuals among grantees to become more similar across the two funds)
A difference in the sort of decision process used by each Fund (e.g., more or less emphasis on consensus?), which happens to affect how well orgs vs individuals do in the process, without that having been the explicit intent
Yeah, I think your impression of the ratio is correct.
Briefly, as Michael St Jules notes, AWF interfaces with a much bigger community/​movement than the LTFF currently does. I think that goes some of the way to explaining the difference in the ratio. Within the respective remits of each fund, it seems the AWF just generally has a more developed movement that it can grant to. The total FAW movement is > $100M per year. My guess is the total EA-aligned LTF movement is now just a pretty small fraction compared to that total.
I think the research point is also important. My impression is that they tend to have a higher % of grantees focused on research than we do, and that in general, a higher number of research projects tend to be by individuals.
I would guess it’s because there just are a lot more animal charities, and because the LTFF is mostly research-focused, and research is doable as an individual, whereas the other activities charities work on are less so.
It might make sense to compare research grants at both funds, specifically.
One major difference could be that EAA research requires more data collection, which could be harder as an individual.
Another reason might be due to the existence of the research fund at ACE, which does fund individuals.
Another could be that the LTFF space is much better funded, especially the organizations by large grantmakers, so what’s left to fund is mostly individuals.
My impression is that the ratio of organisations to individuals among Animal Welfare Fund grantees is much higher than among Long-Term Future Fund grantees. If that’s correct, do you have a sense of why that is?
Some possibilities that come to mind:
Simply a difference in what applications you tend to get
A difference between the two cause areas in what kinds of projects tend to be most impactful
A difference between the two Funds in the typical views of the Fund Managers regarding what kinds of projects tend to be most impactful
(Such that, if the AWF Fund Managers were running the LTFF or vice versa, we might expect the ratios of organisations to individuals among grantees to become more similar across the two funds)
A difference in the sort of decision process used by each Fund (e.g., more or less emphasis on consensus?), which happens to affect how well orgs vs individuals do in the process, without that having been the explicit intent
Yeah, I think your impression of the ratio is correct.
Briefly, as Michael St Jules notes, AWF interfaces with a much bigger community/​movement than the LTFF currently does. I think that goes some of the way to explaining the difference in the ratio. Within the respective remits of each fund, it seems the AWF just generally has a more developed movement that it can grant to. The total FAW movement is > $100M per year. My guess is the total EA-aligned LTF movement is now just a pretty small fraction compared to that total.
I think the research point is also important. My impression is that they tend to have a higher % of grantees focused on research than we do, and that in general, a higher number of research projects tend to be by individuals.
I would guess it’s because there just are a lot more animal charities, and because the LTFF is mostly research-focused, and research is doable as an individual, whereas the other activities charities work on are less so.
It might make sense to compare research grants at both funds, specifically.
One major difference could be that EAA research requires more data collection, which could be harder as an individual.
Another reason might be due to the existence of the research fund at ACE, which does fund individuals.
Another could be that the LTFF space is much better funded, especially the organizations by large grantmakers, so what’s left to fund is mostly individuals.