Hide table of contents

Farmed Animal Funders is soliciting proposals for pooled fund ideas that will fill an unmet, yet high-impact, charitable intervention playing a critical role in the movement to end factory farming. Proposals are due by May 31st, 2024.

Farmed Animal Funders (FAF) is a donor community made up of individuals and foundations giving more than $250,000 per year to end factory farming. A pooled fund from FAF members and new donors can play an important role to fill financial gaps across multiple nonprofits while relying on unique expertise to impactfully distribute funds.

We are seeking pooled fund proposals that meet the following criteria:

  • The proposal supports efforts to end factory farming. 
  • The specific theory of change, strategy, intervention, or geography is unlikely to receive sufficient funding to meet the need/problem without the attention of a pooled fund.
  • The projected animal impact of this pooled fund is exceptionally high.
  • Multiple organizations can effectively absorb and deploy at least $1 to $3 million USD, or more for exceptional opportunities, combined over a defined period of funding (e.g., 1 year, 3 years) to advance the proposed work. We encourage collaboration where strategic and enthusiastically supported by all organizations. 
  • One or more people have unique subject matter expertise to meaningfully evaluate and advise on grant applications. Suggestions of specific advisors (which might be you) are preferred, but not required.

Pooled fund themes could range from specific geographies, specific interventions, or specific time-sensitive opportunities. As one example, FAF previously hosted a pooled fund for organizations working on farm animal welfare policy in Europe based on a time-sensitive legislative opportunity that benefited from legislative advocacy efforts across several countries. We encourage creativity!

We are also open to supporting existing pooled funds that have an unmet financial need.

We will evaluate pooled fund ideas based on:

  • How well they meet the criteria listed above.
  • How interested FAF members are in funding as a pool (rather than funding organizations directly and individually). This depends on factors like member interest in the topic and whether funders’ in-house advisory expertise is sufficient or not for evaluation.
  • Potential to recruit new funders to the movement to end factory farming, such as with novel issue framing.

We intend to review proposals, including potential follow-up questions or calls, in June 2024. Top proposals will be shared with FAF members for feedback.

If any ideas are selected, FAF intends to:

  • Raise funds for the pool from existing FAF members and relevant prospective funders seeking high-impact opportunities to give.
  • Distribute grant applications to relevant nonprofit organizations.
  • Identify and select subject matter experts to advise on grant evaluations.
  • Evaluate grant applications with selected fund advisors and FAF members to make funding decisions.
  • Distribute funds to selected nonprofits organizations.

To formally submit a proposal for a pooled fund:

Please submit a document no longer than two pages to pooled-fund@farmedanimalfunders.org by May 31st, 2024 with the following:

  • Email subject: Pooled Fund RFP
  • Your name, affiliation(s), and contact information (email, phone, and address).
  • Description of the pooled fund idea, including the suggested organizations involved, timeframe, potential expert advisors, and funding need/request.
  • Description of how the idea meets each of the described criteria.

We are more interested in the content of the proposal, so no need to invest time into formatting. If you prefer early feedback on one or more ideas before drafting a formal proposal, please email Zoë Sigle, FAF’s Director of Programs, at pooled-fund@farmedanimalfunders.org to schedule a 15-minute call.

We thank you in advance for your creativity and ideas!

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
Jim Chapman
 ·  · 12m read
 · 
By Jim Chapman, Linkedin. TL;DR: In 2023, I was a 57-year-old urban planning consultant and non-profit professional with 30 years of leadership experience. After talking with my son about rationality, effective altruism, and AI risks, I decided to pursue a pivot to existential risk reduction work. The last time I had to apply for a job was in 1994. By the end of 2024, I had spent ~740 hours on courses, conferences, meetings with ~140 people, and 21 job applications. I hope that by sharing my experiences, you can gain practical insights, inspiration, and resources to navigate your career transition, especially for those who are later in their career and interested in making an impact in similar fields. I share my experience in 5 sections - sparks, take stock, start, do, meta-learnings, and next steps. [Note - as of 03/05/2025, I am still pursuing my career shift.] Sparks – 2022 During a Saturday bike ride, I admitted to my son, “No, I haven’t heard of effective altruism.” On another ride, I told him, “I'm glad you’re attending the EAGx Berkely conference." Some other time, I said, "Harry Potter and Methods of Rationality sounds interesting. I'll check it out." While playing table tennis, I asked, "What do you mean ChatGPT can't do math? No calculator? Next token prediction?" Around tax-filing time, I responded, "You really think retirement planning is out the window? That only 1 of 2 artificial intelligence futures occurs – humans flourish in a post-scarcity world or humans lose?" These conversations intrigued and concerned me. After many more conversations about rationality, EA, AI risks, and being ready for something new and more impactful, I decided to pivot my career to address my growing concerns about existential risk, particularly AI-related. I am very grateful for those conversations because without them, I am highly confident I would not have spent the last year+ doing that. Take Stock - 2023 I am very concerned about existential risk cause areas in ge
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
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
Written anonymously because I work in a field where there is a currently low but non-negligible and possibly high future risk of negative consequences for criticizing Trump and Trumpism. This post is an attempt to cobble together some ideas about the current situation in the United States and its impact on EA. I invite discussion on this, not only from Americans, but also those with advocacy experience in countries that are not fully liberal democracies (especially those countries where state capacity is substantial and autocratic repression occurs).  I've deleted a lot of text from this post in various drafts because I find myself getting way too in the weeds discoursing on comparative authoritarian studies, disinformation and misinformation (this is a great intro, though already somewhat outdated), and the dangers of the GOP.[1] I will note that I worry there is still a tendency to view the administration as chaotic and clumsy but retaining some degree of good faith, which strikes me as quite naive.  For the sake of brevity and focus, I will take these two things to be true, and try to hypothesize what they mean for EA. I'm not going to pretend these are ironclad truths, but I'm fairly confident in them.[2]  1. Under Donald Trump, the Republican Party (GOP) is no longer substantially committed to democracy and the rule of law. 1. The GOP will almost certainly continue to engage in measures that test the limits of constitutional rule as long as Trump is alive, and likely after he dies. 2. The Democratic Party will remain constrained by institutional and coalition factors that prevent it from behaving like the GOP. That is, absent overwhelming electoral victories in 2024 and 2026 (and beyond), the Democrats' comparatively greater commitment to rule of law and democracy will prevent systematic purging of the GOP elites responsible for democratic backsliding; while we have not crossed the Rubicon yet, it will get much worse before things get better. 2. T