The Nonlinear Library EA - EA Meta Funding Landscape Report by Joel Tan
Apr 26, 2024
13:14
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: EA Meta Funding Landscape Report, published by Joel Tan on April 26, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum.
The Centre for Exploratory Altruism Research (CEARCH) is an EA organization working on cause prioritization research as well as grantmaking and donor advisory. This project was commissioned by the leadership of the Meta Charity Funders (MCF) - also known as the Meta Charity Funding Circle (MCFC) - with the objective of identifying what is underfunded vs overfunded in EA meta. The views expressed in this report are CEARCH's and do not necessarily reflect the position of the MCF.
Generally, by meta we refer to projects whose theory of change is indirect, and involving improving the EA movement's ability to do good - for example, via cause/intervention/charity prioritization (i.e. improving our knowledge of what is cost-effective); effective giving (i.e. increasing the pool of money donated in an impact-oriented way); or talent development (i.e. increasing the pool and ability of people willing and able to work in impactful careers).
The full report may be found here (link). Note that the public version of the report is partially redacted, to respect the confidentiality of certain grants, as well as the anonymity of the people whom we interviewed or surveyed.
Quantitative Findings
Detailed Findings
To access our detailed findings, refer to our spreadsheet (
link).
Overall Meta Funding
Aggregate EA meta funding saw rapid growth and equally rapid contraction over 2021 to 2023 - growing from 109 million in 2021 to 193 million in 2022, before shrinking back to 117 million in 2023. The analysis excludes FTX, as ongoing clawbacks mean that their funding has functioned less as grants and more as loans.
Open Philanthropy is by far the biggest funder in the space, and changes in the meta funding landscape are largely driven by changes in OP's spending. And indeed, OP's global catastrophic risks (GCR) capacity building grants tripled from 2021 to 2022, before falling to twice the 2021 baseline in 2023.
This finding is in line with Tyler Maule's
previous analysis.
Meta Funding by Cause Area
The funding allocation by cause was, in descending order: (most funding) longtermism (i.e. AI, biosecurity, nuclear etc) (274 million) >> global health and development (GHD) (67 million) > cross-cause (53 million) > animal welfare (25 million) (least funding).
Meta Funding by Intervention
The funding allocation by intervention was, in descending order: (most funding) other/miscellaneous (e.g. general community building, including by national/local EA organizations; events; community infrastructure; co-working spaces; fellowships for community builders; production of EA-adjacent media content; translation projects; student outreach; and book purchases etc) (193 million) > talent (121 million) > prioritization (92 million) >> effective giving (13 million) (least funding).
One note of caution - we believe our results overstate how well funded prioritization is, relative to the other three intervention types.
We take into account what grantmakers spend internally on prioritization research, but for lack of time, we do not perform an equivalent analysis for non-grantmakers (i.e. imputing their budget to effective giving, talent, and other/miscellaneous).
For simplicity, we classified all grantmakers (except GWWC) as engaging in prioritization, though some grantmakers (e.g. Founders Pledge, Longview) also do effective giving work.
Meta Funding by Cause Area & Intervention
The funding allocation by cause/intervention subgroup was as follows:
The areas with the most funding were: longtermist other/miscellaneous (153 million) > longtermist talent (106 million) > GHD prioritization (51 million).
The areas with the least funding were GHD other/miscellaneous (3,000,000) > animal welfare effective givi...
The Centre for Exploratory Altruism Research (CEARCH) is an EA organization working on cause prioritization research as well as grantmaking and donor advisory. This project was commissioned by the leadership of the Meta Charity Funders (MCF) - also known as the Meta Charity Funding Circle (MCFC) - with the objective of identifying what is underfunded vs overfunded in EA meta. The views expressed in this report are CEARCH's and do not necessarily reflect the position of the MCF.
Generally, by meta we refer to projects whose theory of change is indirect, and involving improving the EA movement's ability to do good - for example, via cause/intervention/charity prioritization (i.e. improving our knowledge of what is cost-effective); effective giving (i.e. increasing the pool of money donated in an impact-oriented way); or talent development (i.e. increasing the pool and ability of people willing and able to work in impactful careers).
The full report may be found here (link). Note that the public version of the report is partially redacted, to respect the confidentiality of certain grants, as well as the anonymity of the people whom we interviewed or surveyed.
Quantitative Findings
Detailed Findings
To access our detailed findings, refer to our spreadsheet (
link).
Overall Meta Funding
Aggregate EA meta funding saw rapid growth and equally rapid contraction over 2021 to 2023 - growing from 109 million in 2021 to 193 million in 2022, before shrinking back to 117 million in 2023. The analysis excludes FTX, as ongoing clawbacks mean that their funding has functioned less as grants and more as loans.
Open Philanthropy is by far the biggest funder in the space, and changes in the meta funding landscape are largely driven by changes in OP's spending. And indeed, OP's global catastrophic risks (GCR) capacity building grants tripled from 2021 to 2022, before falling to twice the 2021 baseline in 2023.
This finding is in line with Tyler Maule's
previous analysis.
Meta Funding by Cause Area
The funding allocation by cause was, in descending order: (most funding) longtermism (i.e. AI, biosecurity, nuclear etc) (274 million) >> global health and development (GHD) (67 million) > cross-cause (53 million) > animal welfare (25 million) (least funding).
Meta Funding by Intervention
The funding allocation by intervention was, in descending order: (most funding) other/miscellaneous (e.g. general community building, including by national/local EA organizations; events; community infrastructure; co-working spaces; fellowships for community builders; production of EA-adjacent media content; translation projects; student outreach; and book purchases etc) (193 million) > talent (121 million) > prioritization (92 million) >> effective giving (13 million) (least funding).
One note of caution - we believe our results overstate how well funded prioritization is, relative to the other three intervention types.
We take into account what grantmakers spend internally on prioritization research, but for lack of time, we do not perform an equivalent analysis for non-grantmakers (i.e. imputing their budget to effective giving, talent, and other/miscellaneous).
For simplicity, we classified all grantmakers (except GWWC) as engaging in prioritization, though some grantmakers (e.g. Founders Pledge, Longview) also do effective giving work.
Meta Funding by Cause Area & Intervention
The funding allocation by cause/intervention subgroup was as follows:
The areas with the most funding were: longtermist other/miscellaneous (153 million) > longtermist talent (106 million) > GHD prioritization (51 million).
The areas with the least funding were GHD other/miscellaneous (3,000,000) > animal welfare effective givi...