Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by Vilhelm Skoglund, Joey🔸, Lowe Lundin
6 min read 0

79

Opportunities to take actionBuilding effective altruismCareer choiceCause prioritizationEffective givingAnnouncements and updatesFunding opportunitiesGrantmakingOrganization updates
Frontpage

Edit: Rejections will be sent out around the end of April and not the end of March, as was initially stated.

Previously: Launch of 1st round & 1st round retrospective (recommended for all applicants).

We are now launching the second round of Meta Charity Funders. Apply for funding by March 24th or join the circle as a donor.

Below we will first list some updates from the previous round before providing some information primarily meant for people who intend to apply to the next round.

Updates from the previous round

  • We expect to grant more money this time than the last time ($686,580), as we have more members and people still haven’t deployed their yearly spending, which was the case for many members the last time around. Our expected grant amount this time around is $500k - $3mio, though this is still uncertain and is dependent on funder-applicant fit. 
  • We are now 10 members in the circle, up from 9 last time around. 
  • We expect to fund many initiatives not on this list, but some projects that members of our circle have expressed extra interest in funding this round:
    • Effective Giving/Giving multiplier-organizations, such as the ones incubated by CE’s Effective Giving Incubation program.
    • Career development programs, that increase the number of individuals working in high-impact areas, including GCR reduction, animal welfare and Global Health
      • Especially in regions where there currently are fewer opportunities to engage in such programs
    • Research/Mapping of the Meta space, to better understand current gaps and opportunities.

Information for this round

In this part we will outline the application process and guide you as an applicant to create a good application. We expect all applicants to have read this part to inform themselves.

Process

The expected process is as follows:

  • Applications open, February 26th
    • Stick to 100 words in the summary, this should give a quick overview of the project.
    • In the full project description, please include a main summarizing document no longer than 2 pages. This is all we can commit to reading for the first stage. Any extra material can only be expected to be read if we choose to go further with your application.
    • When choosing the “Meta” category, please be as truthful as possible, it’s obvious (and reflects negatively on the application) when a project has deliberately been placed in a category in which it does not belong.
  • Applications close, March 24th
  • Initial application review finished, March 31st
    • If your project has been filtered out during the initial application review (which we expect 60-80% of applications will), we will let you know around the end of April.
  • Interviews, due diligence, deliberations, April 1st - May 14th
    • If your application has passed the initial application review, we will discuss it during our gatherings and we might reach out to you to gather more information, for example by conducting an interview. This is still not a commitment from us to fund you.
  • Decisions made, May 15th
    • We expect to pay out the grants in the weeks following the decisions.

What we mean by Meta

A common reason for rejection in the last round was that projects were not within scope for the funding circle. We recognize that this was primarily our fault as we never clearly defined it, so we will try to make it a bit clearer here.

Meta organizations are those that operate one step removed from direct impact interventions. These can focus on the infrastructure, evaluation, and strategic guidance necessary for the broader field to maximize effectiveness and impact. They are essential in bridging gaps, identifying high-impact opportunities, and enabling other organizations to achieve or amplify their end-product impact.

Below we will list a couple of illustrative examples. Note that we only chose these examples because we think the organizations are well known, and thus more likely to give people an understanding of the type of work we want to fund. We are not saying that we intend to fund these organizations.

Clear Passes

  • Charity evaluators like GiveWell: These organizations assess and recommend high-impact charities, ensuring donors can contribute effectively to causes with confidence in their impact.
  • Incubators like Charity Entrepreneurship: They support the creation and development of high-impact charities, providing resources, mentorship, and strategic advice to nascent organizations.
  • Cause prioritization research like Rethink Priorities: These entities conduct research to identify and prioritize the most pressing causes, guiding resources and efforts towards areas where they can achieve the greatest impact.
  • Field-building organizations like 80k: Initiatives aimed at promoting impactful careers, thereby increasing the number of individuals working in high-impact areas.

Organizations whose primary impact comes from first-order interventions fall out of the scope of the funding circle.

What we’re looking for in an application

Some general things we are looking for in an application that we would like to highlight: 

  • In our 1st round retrospective, we have the section “The most common reasons for rejection”, where we hope that we can make it easier for applicants to avoid the most common mistakes people make in their applications. We would especially like to highlight:
    • Scope: Please read "What we mean by Meta" and think through if your project is within scope.
    • Theory of Change: A common reason for rejection in the last round was that “The theory of change was unclear, unfocused, or seemed implausible”. You need to help us understand how your project ends up contributing to a better world. Please read Aidan Alexander’s post on ToC’s to better understand how to make a good ToC. Highlighting the flaws/uncertainties in your own model and the information you are trying to gather by running this project is a big plus.
  • Strong founders/Track record: We think one of the strongest indicators for future success is the people related to a project and previous achievements. In your application, please explain how and why you/your organization are well suited to run this project. Back up your claims with data to the extent you can, this includes historical data for this project, data for similar projects, or data that attests to the (relevant) skills of the team. If possible, also think through and highlight how your project excels compared to other similar projects.
  • Strategic alignment with field needs: Applications should demonstrate an understanding of the ecosystem and articulate a rationale for why their project is necessary at this time. Why this? Why now? Why has no one been doing this before and is it reasonable that you are applying for X FTEs to do it instead of doing an MVP first?
  • Price tag: Think through the amount of funding you are applying for. We as funders, try to put a price tag on what you intend to deliver. We are looking for the highest impact use of a marginal $, this means that price tag matters compared to what you are going to deliver. Conversely, if it seems you significantly underestimate the costs, you likely won’t be able to deliver what you say you will if you get funded.

Transparency

Individual donors working together

We want to stress that since this is a funding circle and not a grantmaking organization, all members are responsible for their own donations. This means that funding decisions are made personally by individual circle members and do not necessarily reflect the priorities of the funding circle in its entirety. 

Time committed by funders

The funding circle is an activity the funders do on the side of their normal jobs. 

In the week before applications close and the week afterwards, members expect to spend a cumulative ~100 hours doing an initial application review. This means that we will not have the time to thoroughly review each application in the first stage and we urge applicants to keep this in mind when writing the applications.

Feedback

Unfortunately, we can’t commit to giving individual feedback to any applicants, as i) It is time-consuming and we are already working on a strained time budget. ii) We are not one, but ~10 actors, so any feedback from one actor might not be true for another, which means it's unclear whether the feedback is even true, or provides value for the applicant. Therefore, we will resort to including some more general feedback in our retrospective.




 

79

0
0
2

Reactions

0
0
2
Mentioned in

More posts like this

Comments1


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
[comment deleted]0
0
0
Deleted by davidavid,
More from Vilhelm Skoglund
113
Making Community Building a more attractive career path
Vilhelm Skoglund
· · 18m read
34
34
236
Launching the meta charity funding circle (MCF): Apply for funding or join as a donor!
2 authors
· · 3m read
15
15
97
Meta Charity Funders: Second round retrospective
3 authors
· · 8m read
13
13
View more
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
41
Meta Charity Funders: 2025 Spring round. Apply now!
Joey🔸
· · 2m read
0
0
20
(How) can we help the EA-space with our MEL/impact Consulting best?
Q
Teresa Jakovlev
· · 1m read
6
6
23
Last week to apply for the Futurekind AI Fellowship! (deadline: April 1)
Jay Luong
· · 1m read
0
0
View more