The Nonlinear Library EA - Meta Charity Funders: What you need to know when applying by Joey
Sep 1, 2024
12:40
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Meta Charity Funders: What you need to know when applying, published by Joey on September 1, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum.
In this post, we include what is most important to know when you apply to
Meta Charity Funders. We expect to update this post every round.
The most common reasons for rejection
By sharing the most common reasons for rejections, we hope to support future grantees and help people make more informed decisions on whether they should apply to Meta Charity Funders.
The suggested project is not within scope: A fair amount of applications fall outside of the areas which our donors were interested in supporting. At a high level, Meta Charity Funders exists to fund projects that fall within the "meta" category and are unlikely to be funded by other major funders in this space. See
"What we mean by 'meta'" further down.
The theory of change (ToC) is unclear, unfocused, or seemed implausible: Some applicants do not share sufficient reasoning on how their project (in the end) contributes to a better world. Other applicants have a theory of change which seems too complex or involves too many programs. We generally prefer fewer programs with a more narrow focus, especially for earlier-stage projects. Other ToCs simply seem like an inaccurate representation of how well the intervention would actually work.
As a starting point, we recommend Aidan Alexander's post on ToCs.
Going too big too early: We hesitate to give large grants (~$150k+) to new projects without much track record. An incremental upscaling is generally preferred to a more sudden upscaling, as something akin to "track record" or "expected upside" divided by "funding ask" is the ratio we're trying to maximize as funders. The absence of a substantial track record makes it challenging to justify larger funding requests, such as those needed for hiring many additional employees.
To be more specific, we are particularly wary of situations where a project seeks to more than double its budget with less than 12 months of demonstrated success. This caution stems from the need to ensure that significant increases in funding are truly warranted and likely to yield proportional benefits.
Insufficient alternative funding sources: Some grants might seem good if continued but are not funded because they seem unlikely to be able to fundraise enough to sustain their long-term budget. While we are okay with funding a large portion of a project's budget as a one-off grant, we do not want organizations to depend on us for long-term funding as we are very uncertain about who our donors will be or what grants they will prioritize in the future.
This is another reason we prefer not to give out larger grants for newer projects.
What we're looking for in an application
Some general things we are looking for in an application that we would like to highlight:
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? When evaluating an opportunity most funders are thinking about whether this is one of the be...
In this post, we include what is most important to know when you apply to
Meta Charity Funders. We expect to update this post every round.
The most common reasons for rejection
By sharing the most common reasons for rejections, we hope to support future grantees and help people make more informed decisions on whether they should apply to Meta Charity Funders.
The suggested project is not within scope: A fair amount of applications fall outside of the areas which our donors were interested in supporting. At a high level, Meta Charity Funders exists to fund projects that fall within the "meta" category and are unlikely to be funded by other major funders in this space. See
"What we mean by 'meta'" further down.
The theory of change (ToC) is unclear, unfocused, or seemed implausible: Some applicants do not share sufficient reasoning on how their project (in the end) contributes to a better world. Other applicants have a theory of change which seems too complex or involves too many programs. We generally prefer fewer programs with a more narrow focus, especially for earlier-stage projects. Other ToCs simply seem like an inaccurate representation of how well the intervention would actually work.
As a starting point, we recommend Aidan Alexander's post on ToCs.
Going too big too early: We hesitate to give large grants (~$150k+) to new projects without much track record. An incremental upscaling is generally preferred to a more sudden upscaling, as something akin to "track record" or "expected upside" divided by "funding ask" is the ratio we're trying to maximize as funders. The absence of a substantial track record makes it challenging to justify larger funding requests, such as those needed for hiring many additional employees.
To be more specific, we are particularly wary of situations where a project seeks to more than double its budget with less than 12 months of demonstrated success. This caution stems from the need to ensure that significant increases in funding are truly warranted and likely to yield proportional benefits.
Insufficient alternative funding sources: Some grants might seem good if continued but are not funded because they seem unlikely to be able to fundraise enough to sustain their long-term budget. While we are okay with funding a large portion of a project's budget as a one-off grant, we do not want organizations to depend on us for long-term funding as we are very uncertain about who our donors will be or what grants they will prioritize in the future.
This is another reason we prefer not to give out larger grants for newer projects.
What we're looking for in an application
Some general things we are looking for in an application that we would like to highlight:
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? When evaluating an opportunity most funders are thinking about whether this is one of the be...