I wanted to leave my very-quick takes, in case they might be useful. (Do flag if they’re more annoying than beneficial, and feel free to ignore)
Overall:
I’m impressed by the number of grants and the writeup.
It seems like EA community building is growing a lot and that’s exciting.
I wonder if some of these grants/writeups were worth the time. The managers are pretty senior, and some of these grants are tiny (<$4k). At very least, some of the writing seems a bit excessive. (It’s valuable, for sure, but the opportunity cost is also good. This is clearly a nitpick.)
Related to the above, I’m a bit curious if some people might be undervaluing their work or undervaluing the benefits for more funding. Some of these numbers seem like they are pretty low. That said, the fund would need more money to raise payments across the board. (I’d like to see this, but it’s interesting that other funders aren’t quickly coming in with that money)
I think it would have been a bit neater, from a funder perspective, if the longtermist/animals/welfare-specific parts would have been funded instead by those respective funds. I feel pretty mixed about having them here, because I’d expect it to make donations less promising for donors of any of the three preferences/beliefs.
The fact that it took 4 months from the end of the decision period (August) to now (December 25) is of course a natural thing to work to improve upon. I imagine it would have been fine if this would have been released in parts, so that more could have been released sooner. Also, I would have probably traded off less detail for having it sooner.
On some specific grants:
Metaculus Seems pretty safe and I look forward to the results. One small point is that I think Metaculus might be a c-corp startup; if this is the case, it could be neat if future donations come with equity. (Mainly a concern if donations increase, and the investment is general-purpose)
Effective Thesis This surprised me. I like the idea of effective thesis, and haven’t been keeping track of it closely. I’m curious how 3 FTE will be spent here. Mainly, I’m curious about just how effective this sort of intervention is, particularly at a larger scale.
Ewelina Tur Therapy sessions seem like a really safe bet. There are lots of mental health issues in our community (and in all the other communities I know of). I feel a bit weird about subsidizing services, as opposed to just giving more money to the people who might need the services, but subsidization does have some advantages, especially early on.
Rachel Shu
So we decided to provide $25,000 for initial work on the series, in hopes that that would allow Rachel and Larissa to make enough progress to give us a better sense of what impacts the full project would have, helping us to thereby decide whether the remainder of the work should be funded.
I like seeing negotiation via the grantmaking process like this, as opposed to just saying yes/no. Trying to push for more small-scale projects at first seems pretty good.
Effective Institutions Project
we view the area of ‘improving institutions’ as requiring stronger strategic foundations before it can productively absorb significant amounts of resources
I think this is broadly reasonable, but I am curious on what work would really move the needle here. If it’s the case that such work would reveal that this area is underfunded, then it would be very high-priority for someone to do this work, if it were obvious what exactly to do. (I’m biased, as I work in the area and would also like for this work to exist)
I agree with the comment on small grants. I’d be happy to see policies to save grantmakers time, such as:
(a) the EA funds doesn’t make grants of less than $5k, or
(b) Grants of less than $5k are only approved for specific categories and it’s a yes/no thing where the write-up just lists “grants in category X”
I worry about the opportunity costs of grantmakers spending time evaluating very small grants. I’d like to encourage people
who are thinking of applying for e.g. just web hosting to think through the next few steps they’ll need for their charitable initiative (maybe they’ll need web hosting, then a lawyer, then an accountant) and apply for a few next steps at once!
It’s much better in my view if we can convince people to apply for a few steps on their charitable project rather than reapplying to the fund, with extra work for themselves and the grantmaker and significant time lost, every few months.
Grant sizes are typically between $5,000 and $200,000, but can be as low as $1,000 and higher than $500,000. EA Funds can make grants to individuals, non-profit organizations, academic institutions, and other entities. You do not need to be based in the US or the UK to apply for a grant. If you are unsure whether you are eligible for a grant, please simply apply.
[...]
Please aim to submit as few applications as possible. E.g., new projects should apply every 2–6 months, established organizations once a year, unless there is a significant reason for submitting multiple applications. Please think ahead about possible further expenses and consider including contingency in your budget.
I think the second of those paragraphs is in line with you suggesting that people should apply for funding for a few steps at once, rather than just for the first step. And I think that’s indeed often the best move.
That said, I’d personally prefer that people still feel that it’s fine to apply for grants of just $1k-5k, if they think that’s the best move if their case. This is because:
That can be the appropriate amount for some projects
Sometimes that just really is all someone needs for something.
Or sometimes they really should start a project with a pilot / initial steps that will only cost roughly 1k-5k, and should only get funding for further work after that pilot / those initial steps are completed or partially completed.
Small projects are still often fairly impactful
I think that, for approved grants, net positive impact will be positively correlated with grant size, but I’d guess the correlation is moderate rather than strong. Some small projects
It seems important that there’s some mechanism for funding small things, and EA Funds seems like currently one of the best mechanisms for that
There’s also mechanisms like being friends with pretty well off EAs who know your skills and plans well and are willing to donate to your work, but that will miss many people & projects that should get funded
Part of why this seems important is as a stepping stone towards more ambitious work; often a lot of the value of the small projects is giving someone a chance to test & build fit for some kind of work that they could then do more of later. If the initial steps weren’t funded, the whole journey might not happen (so to speak).
Small projects are often not very time-consuming to evaluate
There’s a (I’d say) moderate correlation between grant size applied for and time spent on evaluating the grant. I’d guess we generally move fewer dollars per hour when looking at small grants than at big grants, so small grants are in some sense less efficient as a use of fund managers time, but only moderately so.
(These are just my personal quickly written views, and I acknowledge that many of those statements are quasi-quantitative yet vague and not based on systematically looking at data—hopefully it’s useful anyway.)
Good points. I think I agree that being able to offer grants in between $1k-$5k seems pretty useful. If they get to be a pain, I imagine there will be ways to lessen the marginal costs.
I think I’d like to see more “quick takes” by more people on things like this. It’s fine if they’re rough, but it helps provide both a sanity check and a survey of what community members think.
I think it would have been a bit neater, from a funder perspective, if the longtermist/animals/welfare-specific parts would have been funded instead by those respective funds. I feel pretty mixed about having them here, because I’d expect it to make donations less promising for donors of any of the three preferences/beliefs.
+1, although I can see some as pretty borderline, e.g. a seminar or course on longtermism or another cause is definitely still community building, and can bring in more community builders who might do broader EA community building. Brian Tan, Shen Javier, and AJ Sunglao ($11,000) is cause-specific (mental health), but doesn’t really fit in the other funds (not that you’ve suggested they don’t fit here). Funding work that supports multiple groups or unaffiliated individuals within an area that falls entirely under the scope of a single fund seems borderline, too.
Really happy to see this!
I wanted to leave my very-quick takes, in case they might be useful.
(Do flag if they’re more annoying than beneficial, and feel free to ignore)
Overall:
I’m impressed by the number of grants and the writeup.
It seems like EA community building is growing a lot and that’s exciting.
I wonder if some of these grants/writeups were worth the time. The managers are pretty senior, and some of these grants are tiny (<$4k). At very least, some of the writing seems a bit excessive. (It’s valuable, for sure, but the opportunity cost is also good. This is clearly a nitpick.)
Related to the above, I’m a bit curious if some people might be undervaluing their work or undervaluing the benefits for more funding. Some of these numbers seem like they are pretty low. That said, the fund would need more money to raise payments across the board. (I’d like to see this, but it’s interesting that other funders aren’t quickly coming in with that money)
I think it would have been a bit neater, from a funder perspective, if the longtermist/animals/welfare-specific parts would have been funded instead by those respective funds. I feel pretty mixed about having them here, because I’d expect it to make donations less promising for donors of any of the three preferences/beliefs.
The fact that it took 4 months from the end of the decision period (August) to now (December 25) is of course a natural thing to work to improve upon. I imagine it would have been fine if this would have been released in parts, so that more could have been released sooner. Also, I would have probably traded off less detail for having it sooner.
On some specific grants:
Metaculus
Seems pretty safe and I look forward to the results. One small point is that I think Metaculus might be a c-corp startup; if this is the case, it could be neat if future donations come with equity. (Mainly a concern if donations increase, and the investment is general-purpose)
Effective Thesis
This surprised me. I like the idea of effective thesis, and haven’t been keeping track of it closely. I’m curious how 3 FTE will be spent here. Mainly, I’m curious about just how effective this sort of intervention is, particularly at a larger scale.
Ewelina Tur
Therapy sessions seem like a really safe bet. There are lots of mental health issues in our community (and in all the other communities I know of). I feel a bit weird about subsidizing services, as opposed to just giving more money to the people who might need the services, but subsidization does have some advantages, especially early on.
Rachel Shu
I like seeing negotiation via the grantmaking process like this, as opposed to just saying yes/no. Trying to push for more small-scale projects at first seems pretty good.
Effective Institutions Project
I think this is broadly reasonable, but I am curious on what work would really move the needle here. If it’s the case that such work would reveal that this area is underfunded, then it would be very high-priority for someone to do this work, if it were obvious what exactly to do. (I’m biased, as I work in the area and would also like for this work to exist)
I agree with the comment on small grants. I’d be happy to see policies to save grantmakers time, such as:
(a) the EA funds doesn’t make grants of less than $5k, or
(b) Grants of less than $5k are only approved for specific categories and it’s a yes/no thing where the write-up just lists “grants in category X”
I worry about the opportunity costs of grantmakers spending time evaluating very small grants. I’d like to encourage people who are thinking of applying for e.g. just web hosting to think through the next few steps they’ll need for their charitable initiative (maybe they’ll need web hosting, then a lawyer, then an accountant) and apply for a few next steps at once!
It’s much better in my view if we can convince people to apply for a few steps on their charitable project rather than reapplying to the fund, with extra work for themselves and the grantmaker and significant time lost, every few months.
Here are some excerpts from the EAIF application page which might be of interest in this context:
I think the second of those paragraphs is in line with you suggesting that people should apply for funding for a few steps at once, rather than just for the first step. And I think that’s indeed often the best move.
That said, I’d personally prefer that people still feel that it’s fine to apply for grants of just $1k-5k, if they think that’s the best move if their case. This is because:
That can be the appropriate amount for some projects
Sometimes that just really is all someone needs for something.
Or sometimes they really should start a project with a pilot / initial steps that will only cost roughly 1k-5k, and should only get funding for further work after that pilot / those initial steps are completed or partially completed.
Small projects are still often fairly impactful
I think that, for approved grants, net positive impact will be positively correlated with grant size, but I’d guess the correlation is moderate rather than strong. Some small projects
It seems important that there’s some mechanism for funding small things, and EA Funds seems like currently one of the best mechanisms for that
There’s also mechanisms like being friends with pretty well off EAs who know your skills and plans well and are willing to donate to your work, but that will miss many people & projects that should get funded
Part of why this seems important is as a stepping stone towards more ambitious work; often a lot of the value of the small projects is giving someone a chance to test & build fit for some kind of work that they could then do more of later. If the initial steps weren’t funded, the whole journey might not happen (so to speak).
Small projects are often not very time-consuming to evaluate
There’s a (I’d say) moderate correlation between grant size applied for and time spent on evaluating the grant. I’d guess we generally move fewer dollars per hour when looking at small grants than at big grants, so small grants are in some sense less efficient as a use of fund managers time, but only moderately so.
(These are just my personal quickly written views, and I acknowledge that many of those statements are quasi-quantitative yet vague and not based on systematically looking at data—hopefully it’s useful anyway.)
Good points. I think I agree that being able to offer grants in between $1k-$5k seems pretty useful. If they get to be a pain, I imagine there will be ways to lessen the marginal costs.
I think I’d like to see more “quick takes” by more people on things like this. It’s fine if they’re rough, but it helps provide both a sanity check and a survey of what community members think.
+1, although I can see some as pretty borderline, e.g. a seminar or course on longtermism or another cause is definitely still community building, and can bring in more community builders who might do broader EA community building. Brian Tan, Shen Javier, and AJ Sunglao ($11,000) is cause-specific (mental health), but doesn’t really fit in the other funds (not that you’ve suggested they don’t fit here). Funding work that supports multiple groups or unaffiliated individuals within an area that falls entirely under the scope of a single fund seems borderline, too.