The bigger EA donors have typically been (and still are) incredibly sceptical of funding policy work and there has been almost no* funding in this space for smaller new projects. (the SAF Fund might change that, although funding rounds are infrequent). Big donors tend to be sceptical due to:
Concern about the reputational risk of this work.
Lack of expertise in donor organisations to vet such projects.
So, out of my personal donations one I am particularly proud of is probably offering initial funding to get the APPG for Future Generations growing and encouraging the people running it to hire and expand. (I don’t know the full funding for these orgs but I believe, as well as my donation, that they were initially funded by donors who were enthusiastic about policy but outside the big EA grantmakers.)
I believe (but I am bias) that this was a great call and that UK policy work has gone shockingly well. The APPG for Future Generations and CLTR have lead to policy wins feeding into to the UK government making resilience a priority, improving the UK’s ability to manage unexpected extreme risks, improving the UK’s preparedness for future pandemics, and improving how UK policy makers consider the long-term.
(It is also notable that there has not been reputational problems and some conversations suggests that the risk-conscious approach taken by here may actually have reduced some reputational risks.)
*** Disclaimer: I work for the APPG. Views all my own but expect bias. ***
* This area does seem strangely neglected still. For example based on grant pay-outs and feedback received I believe that:
Open Phil does not fund new longtermist-adjacent policy advocacy projects – with the exception of CSET (a project run by a very senior political figure). Although they do give to existing policy projects such as existing large biosecurity organisations.
The Long-Term Future Fund receives numerous applications for policy projects (I know of a few and am sure there have been more) but does not appear to have funded any such work. (As far as I am aware the APPG is the only policy advocacy project the LTFF ever funded, and that was when it was already going and had built traction and they wouldn’t fund it to do anything new or different from what it was already doing in case of the risks).
My charitable take is that the LTFF’s (and maybe others) lack of focus in policy is because of the challenge of vetting policy work. Consider for example that ideally to vet policy advocacy projects well you would have an expert who understand policy in the specific country where the grant is for, but having policy experts for every country is impractical
I think policy is a domain where there are still many opportunities for spotting and funding projects early, and having more impact than donating to the EA Funds. As mentioned it may be very hard for the EA Funds to do this kind of work.
That said I think this only applies if if you have (or know and trust someone) with relevant expertise. There are risks and I think plenty of the projects I have come across I thought, this should not to be funded.
(I had planned to write a whole post on this and on how to do active grant-making well as a small donor – not sure if I will have time but maybe)
I had planned to write a whole post on this and on how to do active grant-making well as a small donor – not sure if I will have time but maybe
I would love to read this post (especially any insights that might transfer to someone with AI Safety expertise, but not much in other areas of EA!). Do you think there’s much value in small donors giving to areas they don’t know much about? Especially in areas with potential high downside risk like policy. Eg, is the average value of the marginal “not fully funded” policy project obviously positive or negative?
Grants for UK policy work focused on the long-term. In particular the APPG for Future Generations and CLTR.
The bigger EA donors have typically been (and still are) incredibly sceptical of funding policy work and there has been almost no* funding in this space for smaller new projects. (the SAF Fund might change that, although funding rounds are infrequent). Big donors tend to be sceptical due to:
Concern about the reputational risk of this work.
Lack of expertise in donor organisations to vet such projects.
So, out of my personal donations one I am particularly proud of is probably offering initial funding to get the APPG for Future Generations growing and encouraging the people running it to hire and expand. (I don’t know the full funding for these orgs but I believe, as well as my donation, that they were initially funded by donors who were enthusiastic about policy but outside the big EA grantmakers.)
I believe (but I am bias) that this was a great call and that UK policy work has gone shockingly well. The APPG for Future Generations and CLTR have lead to policy wins feeding into to the UK government making resilience a priority, improving the UK’s ability to manage unexpected extreme risks, improving the UK’s preparedness for future pandemics, and improving how UK policy makers consider the long-term.
(It is also notable that there has not been reputational problems and some conversations suggests that the risk-conscious approach taken by here may actually have reduced some reputational risks.)
*** Disclaimer: I work for the APPG. Views all my own but expect bias. ***
* This area does seem strangely neglected still. For example based on grant pay-outs and feedback received I believe that:
Open Phil does not fund new longtermist-adjacent policy advocacy projects – with the exception of CSET (a project run by a very senior political figure). Although they do give to existing policy projects such as existing large biosecurity organisations.
The Long-Term Future Fund receives numerous applications for policy projects (I know of a few and am sure there have been more) but does not appear to have funded any such work. (As far as I am aware the APPG is the only policy advocacy project the LTFF ever funded, and that was when it was already going and had built traction and they wouldn’t fund it to do anything new or different from what it was already doing in case of the risks).
My charitable take is that the LTFF’s (and maybe others) lack of focus in policy is because of the challenge of vetting policy work. Consider for example that ideally to vet policy advocacy projects well you would have an expert who understand policy in the specific country where the grant is for, but having policy experts for every country is impractical
I think policy is a domain where there are still many opportunities for spotting and funding projects early, and having more impact than donating to the EA Funds. As mentioned it may be very hard for the EA Funds to do this kind of work.
That said I think this only applies if if you have (or know and trust someone) with relevant expertise. There are risks and I think plenty of the projects I have come across I thought, this should not to be funded.
(I had planned to write a whole post on this and on how to do active grant-making well as a small donor – not sure if I will have time but maybe)
I would love to read this post (especially any insights that might transfer to someone with AI Safety expertise, but not much in other areas of EA!). Do you think there’s much value in small donors giving to areas they don’t know much about? Especially in areas with potential high downside risk like policy. Eg, is the average value of the marginal “not fully funded” policy project obviously positive or negative?
Hey Neel. It doesn’t add much (still not had time for a top level post) but in case helpful a bit more of my reasoning is set out here.