Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by Melanie Basnak🔸
3 min read 0

16

Effective givingOpportunities to take actionGrantmakingOpen PhilanthropyRequests (open)
Frontpage
This is a linkpost for https://www.openphilanthropy.org/request-for-proposals-effective-giving/

We are excited to announce a new Request for Proposals (RFP) for effective giving organizations, defined as initiatives devoted to raising funds for highly effective charities.[1] Through this RFP, we aim to identify and support additional efforts in the effective giving space and streamline the application process for potential grantees.

 

Motivation

Our Effective Giving and Careers program[2] has historically supported a variety of effective giving organizations across multiple countries. Examples of current grantees include Giving What We Can, Effektiv Spenden, and Doneer Effectief (you can find other recent grants here). 

Effective giving currently comprises 70% of our portfolio, reflecting its central role in our broader funding strategy. In the past few years, we have been positively surprised by the growth of the effective giving ecosystem: new initiatives have launched worldwide, and existing efforts have successfully channeled substantial funds to promising opportunities.

Based on our internal analysis, we estimate that our current grantees deliver an adjusted return on donations[3] of up to ~8x, with an overall estimate of ~6x across our effective giving portfolio. We believe that there may be additional organizations poised to generate similar impact that we’re not currently supporting. Through this RFP, we hope to:

  1. Invite and encourage new and existing effective giving organizations to apply for funding.
  2. Simplify and standardize the application process for both applicants and our internal review team.
  3. Better understand the current funding needs and gaps within the effective giving space.

 

Eligibility

Any organization contributing to raising funds for effective charities is eligible to apply. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • Donation platforms (and associated outreach efforts) in their respective countries of operation.
  • Organizations advising (U)HNW donors on charitable giving.
  • Organizations recruiting pledgers (i.e., those encouraging individuals to pledge a percentage of their income to charity).
  • Organizations using matching or multiplier schemes to encourage donations to more effective charities.
  • Groups raising awareness of effective giving or funneling new donors to other effective giving organizations. 

Additional considerations

Our current grantees raise funds across a variety of focus areas that align with Open Philanthropy’s strategic priorities (global health and development, animal welfare, global catastrophic risks). Any organization raising funds for those areas is welcome to apply.

Your organization should be able to justify how it can use additional funding in a cost-effective way.

Existing grantees on renewable grants will continue to be assessed for general support on their regular schedule. However, they are welcome to apply for top-up funding if they believe they can utilize additional funds cost-effectively. Any top-up funds awarded through this RFP would be a one-time supplement rather than a permanent increase to future grant renewals.

 

Funding amount and grant structure

In general, we think unrestricted funding for general operating support can be the most valuable kind of funding, so we expect to provide that by default where possible. That being said, we are open to funding specific projects or needs; also, other factors such as the grantee’s corporate structure may influence how we structure our grant.

We aim to represent at most 50% of operational funding for more established organizations, but are comfortable contributing to a larger percentage of total funding for newer organizations. Please keep that in mind when you apply for funding.

We expect most grants to be for one or two years, and to be non-renewable by default (meaning you would need to apply for funding again, rather than having us continue to provide funding indefinitely).

We don’t have a pre-determined minimum or maximum number of applications we intend to fund. We are keen to support as many promising opportunities as possible. We expect to allocate ~$1M-$2.5M through this RFP, but the actual amount might be lower or higher, and will depend on the strength of the application pool.

 

Selection criteria and evaluation process

We expect to consider the following key factors in our assessment:

  • Track record (if applicable). This will include, but not be limited to, our estimated return on donations
  • Strength of the theory of change and plans moving forward
  • Scalability and growth potential
  • Geographic or strategic fit with our current portfolio

Our application was designed to be comprehensive and provide all of the information we think we will need to assess the candidates. That being said, we may reach out to certain applicants for additional information. We don’t expect this to be the norm, so don’t assume your application was rejected if you don’t hear from us before decisions are announced.

 

Application logistics

You can apply using this link. If useful, you can refer to this sample application using a mix of mock and real data. Applications are due by April 20th, 2025, at 11:59 pm PT.

We expect to make decisions by late May, and to update every applicant on whether we chose to fund them. Due to the anticipated high number of applications, we won’t be able to provide individualized feedback to organizations we decide not to fund.

If you have any questions regarding eligibility, application requirements, or anything else related to this RFP, please feel free to contact Melanie Basnak at melanie.basnak@openphilanthropy.org.

  1. ^

    We recognize that there is some subjectivity in the determination of which charities are effective and that different actors use different methods to determine this, and come up with different recommendations as a result. An example of a charity we would consider effective in the Global Health and Development space is a GiveWell Top Charity.

  2. ^

    Formerly called “Effective Altruism (Global Health and Wellbeing).”

  3. ^

    We obtain figures for “adjusted money raised” by each organization adjusting the donation numbers by: (1) Effectiveness: our perceived cost-effectiveness of the opportunities the organizations are raising funds for, and (2) Counterfactuality: we attribute credit to the fundraising organizations based on how likely the donors would otherwise have been to donate to high impact charities. We then divide those figures by the organization’s expenditure to obtain the adjusted return on donations.

16

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in

More posts like this

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
More from Melanie Basnak🔸
98
Family Empowerment Media: track record, cost-effectiveness, and main uncertainties
3 authors
· · 3m read
17
17
90
Livelihood interventions: overview, evaluation, and cost-effectiveness
5 authors
· · 53m read
8
8
55
A review of GiveWell’s discount rate
5 authors
· · 7m read
5
5
View more
Curated and popular this week
Sam Anschell
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
*Disclaimer* I am writing this post in a personal capacity; the opinions I express are my own and do not represent my employer. I think that more people and orgs (especially nonprofits) should consider negotiating the cost of sizable expenses. In my experience, there is usually nothing to lose by respectfully asking to pay less, and doing so can sometimes save thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour. This is because negotiating doesn’t take very much time[1], savings can persist across multiple years, and counterparties can be surprisingly generous with discounts. Here are a few examples of expenses that may be negotiable: For organizations * Software or news subscriptions * Of 35 corporate software and news providers I’ve negotiated with, 30 have been willing to provide discounts. These discounts range from 10% to 80%, with an average of around 40%. * Leases * A friend was able to negotiate a 22% reduction in the price per square foot on a corporate lease and secured a couple months of free rent. This led to >$480,000 in savings for their nonprofit. Other negotiable parameters include: * Square footage counted towards rent costs * Lease length * A tenant improvement allowance * Certain physical goods (e.g., smart TVs) * Buying in bulk can be a great lever for negotiating smaller items like covid tests, and can reduce costs by 50% or more. * Event/retreat venues (both venue price and smaller items like food and AV) * Hotel blocks * A quick email with the rates of comparable but more affordable hotel blocks can often save ~10%. * Professional service contracts with large for-profit firms (e.g., IT contracts, office internet coverage) * Insurance premiums (though I am less confident that this is negotiable) For many products and services, a nonprofit can qualify for a discount simply by providing their IRS determination letter or getting verified on platforms like TechSoup. In my experience, most vendors and companies
jackva
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
 [Edits on March 10th for clarity, two sub-sections added] Watching what is happening in the world -- with lots of renegotiation of institutional norms within Western democracies and a parallel fracturing of the post-WW2 institutional order -- I do think we, as a community, should more seriously question our priors on the relative value of surgical/targeted and broad system-level interventions. Speaking somewhat roughly, with EA as a movement coming of age in an era where democratic institutions and the rule-based international order were not fundamentally questioned, it seems easy to underestimate how much the world is currently changing and how much riskier a world of stronger institutional and democratic backsliding and weakened international norms might be. Of course, working on these issues might be intractable and possibly there's nothing highly effective for EAs to do on the margin given much attention to these issues from society at large. So, I am not here to confidently state we should be working on these issues more. But I do think in a situation of more downside risk with regards to broad system-level changes and significantly more fluidity, it seems at least worth rigorously asking whether we should shift more attention to work that is less surgical (working on specific risks) and more systemic (working on institutional quality, indirect risk factors, etc.). While there have been many posts along those lines over the past months and there are of course some EA organizations working on these issues, it stil appears like a niche focus in the community and none of the major EA and EA-adjacent orgs (including the one I work for, though I am writing this in a personal capacity) seem to have taken it up as a serious focus and I worry it might be due to baked-in assumptions about the relative value of such work that are outdated in a time where the importance of systemic work has changed in the face of greater threat and fluidity. When the world seems to
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Forethought[1] is a new AI macrostrategy research group cofounded by Max Dalton, Will MacAskill, Tom Davidson, and Amrit Sidhu-Brar. We are trying to figure out how to navigate the (potentially rapid) transition to a world with superintelligent AI systems. We aim to tackle the most important questions we can find, unrestricted by the current Overton window. More details on our website. Why we exist We think that AGI might come soon (say, modal timelines to mostly-automated AI R&D in the next 2-8 years), and might significantly accelerate technological progress, leading to many different challenges. We don’t yet have a good understanding of what this change might look like or how to navigate it. Society is not prepared. Moreover, we want the world to not just avoid catastrophe: we want to reach a really great future. We think about what this might be like (incorporating moral uncertainty), and what we can do, now, to build towards a good future. Like all projects, this started out with a plethora of Google docs. We ran a series of seminars to explore the ideas further, and that cascaded into an organization. This area of work feels to us like the early days of EA: we’re exploring unusual, neglected ideas, and finding research progress surprisingly tractable. And while we start out with (literally) galaxy-brained schemes, they often ground out into fairly specific and concrete ideas about what should happen next. Of course, we’re bringing principles like scope sensitivity, impartiality, etc to our thinking, and we think that these issues urgently need more morally dedicated and thoughtful people working on them. Research Research agendas We are currently pursuing the following perspectives: * Preparing for the intelligence explosion: If AI drives explosive growth there will be an enormous number of challenges we have to face. In addition to misalignment risk and biorisk, this potentially includes: how to govern the development of new weapons of mass destr
Recent opportunities in Effective giving
22
Updates on Open Philanthropy’s Effective Giving and Careers program
2 authors
· · 6m read
0
0
16
Request for Proposals: Effective Giving
Melanie Basnak🔸
· · 3m read
0
0
36
Feedback requested: Financial Independence Purpose Planner tool
Rebecca Herbst
· · 5m read
2
2
View more