Well i think that's the point of the post to debate this! And i think there are relevant trade offs in regards to maintaining the impact of the organisations which are seeking to diversify funds that aren't usually considered so maybe "far more counterfactually" seems too strong. 

I think there’s an important nuance here regarding what truly constitutes a 'healthy sanity check' when it comes to funding. Simply having a non-EA funder interested in your project doesn’t necessarily validate its impact. For instance, if a funder’s motivation is based on personal affinity, like finding the team charming or being impressed by the organization for non-impact reasons, this might not confirm that the project is the best use of resources.

To me, a real sanity check comes from the support of funders who prioritize impact and apply a high bar to their investments. If a highly discerning funder with a strong emphasis on impact independently chooses to support the project, regardless of whether you accept their funding or not, that’s a stronger endorsement than diversification for its own sake.

Great post!

I think one other major complications of funder diversification is managing multiple competing interests. So in some ways it’s great to have more funders so you aren’t reliant on them to agree with all of your strategic choices but you can just do the most impactful thing and get one of the funders to back it but sometimes that also works in the opposite way with funding diversity. I think this is less the case for AIM as you are more established, but in the early stages of funding diversification there aren’t actually that many EAA funders to chose from, people often argue that its a higher counterfactual to have non EA funders but on the flip side you then have to manage those funders priorities and if they are less EA they often want you to invest more in a less impactful thing in order to fund you. So being that the funding options are so small in the EAA movement I’m not sure that funder diversification nets out as positive for all organisations or that we should all strive for it.

<< Needing more than one funder provides a healthy sanity check on if the project is really the best use of funds>> Also to this point… doesn’t it heavily depend on the funder? If the funder isn’t impact driven I’m not sure it’s a great sign they want to fund you?

Additionally less important but it also takes up much more time to report and communicate with non EA donors. For us for example they don’t care or understand ICAPs (fair enough) so then you have to spend time translating your work to what they care about. I think this is fine but it’s a bit more of a time sink when they care about things that you don’t actually think are important to track in regards to impact eg vanity metrics.

I do however firmly agree with this your point on increasing funding in itself not being an aspirational goal and wish more organisations would be firmer with capping their funding goals if they will likely decrease their impact per dollar significantly consistently in the future, particularly in contrast to other organisations. So I agree with the conclusion but perhaps not that funding diversification is a prerequisite for it. Is it not possible that organisations can just reject funding over a certain amount regardless of funding diversification?

Thanks for writing this!

I’ve really struggled with this when writing AAC’s mission and vision statements. Historically our vision and mission statements have been much more pragmatic and realistic like speeding up the end of animal suffering through increasing talent density etc etc. and I agree with Emres point on the difficulty of communicating what we are doing to a broader audience. These kind of static vision statements whilst being pragmatic seem to be less inspirational to external stakeholders, staff and smaller donors.

So I’m leaning towards changing AAC to have a more broad directional vision statement because I think this is more likely to inspire actions and isn’t that the point of visions? So I guess my question is, do you think that organisations are really genuinely aiming for this goal with the thought that we should strive to achieve it in our lifetime and in their plans or do you think we are just trying to inspire action and that really our theories of change are more in line with the things we do have power over. If AAC was able to increase talent density in the movement and fix the talent bottlenecks I’d be pretty happy with us an organisation and think we’ve done “our bit” but I don’t think that would inspire my staff.

No it’s helpful thank you for flagging I can update accordingly ☺️

Thank you Jessica 💚 I guess the next challenge will be can we maintain the good outputs over time and if our team grows!

It’s nice to know other people are also excited about our work.

I would love more people to share progress updates on what their orgs are up to too.

Thank you Vaidehi, this means a lot, it’s always such a trade-off between the amount of time it takes to write a post that is understandable to other vs. using our time on something else, so this was really nice to hear.

Would be curious to hear what intuitions you have that resonated the most with this post? And any that you have that weren’t mentioned 👀

Thank you 💚 it was a team effort and I appreciate all the advice and feedback you have given. It would be hard to do this in a silo.

The world is burning 🔥 happy to contribute where we can to putting a little of it out

Thanks for everything you do! We wouldn't be here without you.
 

What do you think is the most neglected, potentially high-impact career opportunity that could make significant progress for farmed animals.

Thanks for sharing! 
I really agree with this too, i think there is a lot of pressure in the EA community to get a job in EA to feel part of the community and this often leads to people just trying to get jobs immediately, when often you can do the most good by gaining some experience first. I will caveat that i still think there is a spectrum of certain jobs where you can learn more or less and it is still important to try to find those ones or have some idea of what you want to try your fit for first. In addition its not the case for all roles, e.g. i think campaigners in the animal space would be better going into this role straight out of university-ish because a lot of it is learning on the job/ from others and there aren't many campaign type jobs in for-profits :) 

For me personally, even though I think I had the steepest learning curve in my current role as a founder, I learnt a lot in my previous years of work that was transferable. More importantly, I built up financial stability that helped me take bigger risks, like starting my own organisation (I am PRETTY certain i would not have done this if i didn't have the buffer i had and a fall back job) 

I wonder how as a community we can help people to feel okay about this and less pressure to get an EA job straight away? More case studies? 

Also just want to add that lobbying is a very sought after skill in some EA cause areas (like animals) where there is a skill gap so you could also consider getting a role in an animal advocacy non profit after to help them make progress and not have to pay extortionate PA prices. 

+1 to direct impact being underrated. But i do think that its not just any role that can be useful and that most of working in government is what you make out of it (networking, finding the highest leverage opportunities and connections etc.) not just getting a role.