Bringing up potential issues with a grantee seems useful, especially if theyâre things the grantor may have missed or underappreciated. The discussion around a history of claiming false affiliations (see additional details quoted in Shakeel) especially seems important.
On the other hand, there are several points in the post that, while I would find them apt in a discussion of a grant by GiveWell or one of the EA Funds, donât make sense in the context of an organization like OP that doesnât solicit funding from individuals and doesnât aim for that level of transparency. Specifically, I think itâs fine for them to make a grant in cases where the public information about an organization wouldât be enough to justify the grant, the org doesnât have a public track record, or the org and itâs leaders havenât participated in EA. There are many valuable funding opportunities that are only available to grantmakers who are willing to work directly with organizations and make decisions based on privately shared information, and we shouldnât be pressuring OP to avoid these.
Definitely agree that my expectations are higher for a funder that solicits support from the general public.
However, I donât think meeting the objectives in Holdenâs blog post ordinarily require this level of secrecy. There are a number of possible intermediate points between âfull public disclosureâ and ânot providing for any meaningful external assessment at all.â For example, if OP wanted to, it could presumably gather a panel of respected (and trusted) community members, have them sign an NDA (with two exceptions), and give them the justification for a sufficiently challenged grant. The two exceptions to the NDA would allow panelists to rate on a 1-to-7 scale âIs the amount of transparency appropriate under the circumstances?â and âIn light of all the information, how reasonable was the grantmaking decision?â, and disclose the trimmed mean.
Of course, it is OPâs prerogative not to take an intermediate approach, and it would incur some costs. But how many six-figure-plus grants are they making that look this iffy from the external perspective?
Bringing up potential issues with a grantee seems useful, especially if theyâre things the grantor may have missed or underappreciated. The discussion around a history of claiming false affiliations (see additional details quoted in Shakeel) especially seems important.
On the other hand, there are several points in the post that, while I would find them apt in a discussion of a grant by GiveWell or one of the EA Funds, donât make sense in the context of an organization like OP that doesnât solicit funding from individuals and doesnât aim for that level of transparency. Specifically, I think itâs fine for them to make a grant in cases where the public information about an organization wouldât be enough to justify the grant, the org doesnât have a public track record, or the org and itâs leaders havenât participated in EA. There are many valuable funding opportunities that are only available to grantmakers who are willing to work directly with organizations and make decisions based on privately shared information, and we shouldnât be pressuring OP to avoid these.
Holdenâs 2016 OP blog post, Update on How Weâre Thinking about Openness and Information Sharing, gets into some of these questions, and I think itâs pretty reasonable.
Definitely agree that my expectations are higher for a funder that solicits support from the general public.
However, I donât think meeting the objectives in Holdenâs blog post ordinarily require this level of secrecy. There are a number of possible intermediate points between âfull public disclosureâ and ânot providing for any meaningful external assessment at all.â For example, if OP wanted to, it could presumably gather a panel of respected (and trusted) community members, have them sign an NDA (with two exceptions), and give them the justification for a sufficiently challenged grant. The two exceptions to the NDA would allow panelists to rate on a 1-to-7 scale âIs the amount of transparency appropriate under the circumstances?â and âIn light of all the information, how reasonable was the grantmaking decision?â, and disclose the trimmed mean.
Of course, it is OPâs prerogative not to take an intermediate approach, and it would incur some costs. But how many six-figure-plus grants are they making that look this iffy from the external perspective?