This post is part of the Community Events Retrospective sequence.

Last year, we trialled grantmaking to support other events run by EA community members. We mostly supported small retreats for EA groups, particularly in regions outside of core EA hubs. Some examples include:

  • EA Midwest "Next Steps" Retreat (retrospective)
  • Strategic Philanthropy and Altruism Conference (at NYU Abu Dhabi)
  • Australia and New Zealand Group Leaders Retreat
  • African movement builders summit (Cape Town, South Africa)
  • An AI Governance Student Retreat
  • French X-Risk and Safe Technologies Summit (FERSTS)
  • EA Norway national conference

We will now be winding down this grantmaking programme while maintaining our support for EAGx events which were also categorised as Community EventsThis is because:

  • As outlined in the first post in this sequence, we found that EAGx events were more cost-effective than the retreats we made grants to. With reduced funding available for EA community-building efforts as a result of the FTX bankruptcy, the funding bar is higher and we need to prioritise more aggressively.
  • Other funders (such as the EA Infrastructure Fund, the CEA groups team and Open Philanthropy) also offer funding to support EA-aligned events, so resources will still be available for this kind of activity.
  • We are increasingly excited about supporting cause-specific events alongside our EAGx portfolio. We’ll continue to support events aimed at reducing existential risk, and we’re excited to expand this program. We’ll be exploring and potentially expanding this service over the coming 6 months.

One more minor consideration which factored into this decision is that an events-specific funding programme meant that organisations were requesting additional marginal funding to run events, but it was hard to establish whether an event-specific grant was the best marginal use of funds for that organisation. 

  • In some cases, an organisation or EA group would apply for funding to run a retreat and I would need to contact the funder providing their general support to establish whether they thought running an event would be a good use of additional funds for that organisation, based on their overall assessment of their activities. Evaluating a single line item for a group or organisation is difficult, and I weakly think that grantmakers can form a clearer picture of an organisation’s strengths, weaknesses and opportunities by evaluating them as a whole.
  • To be clear, organisations and individuals can and should apply for the funding opportunities available to them and I do not think that any applicant to the Community Events Programme should not have applied.

We might continue to fund some small events, especially those being organised in the vicinity of EAG and EAGx events. 

We want to emphasise that this decision does not imply that the events supported by this programme weren’t impactful or worth doing. Many events supported by the programme led to some really positive outcomes for the attendees, and some were the first EA community-building events in their respective regions (such as the African EA movement builders summit and the Strategic Philanthropy and Altruism Conference at NYU Abu Dhabi). We’d like to thank the event organisers for their hard work and dedication.


 

Comments3


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

A quick note to say that I'm taking some time off after publishing these posts. I'll aim to reply to any comments from 17 July.

Thanks Ollie for your work on this program! You did a great job with it.

Thanks David, I really appreciate that :)

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 23m read
 · 
Or on the types of prioritization, their strengths, pitfalls, and how EA should balance them   The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone is trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the first in a series of posts examining the state of cause prioritization and proposing strategies for moving forward.   Executive Summary * Performing prioritization work has been one of the main tasks, and arguably achievements, of EA. * We highlight three types of prioritization: Cause Prioritization, Within-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization, and Cross-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization. * We ask how much of EA prioritization work falls in each of these categories: * Our estimates suggest that, for the organizations we investigated, the current split is 89% within-cause work, 2% cross-cause, and 9% cause prioritization. * We then explore strengths and potential pitfalls of each level: * Cause prioritization offers a big-picture view for identifying pressing problems but can fail to capture the practical nuances that often determine real-world success. * Within-cause prioritization focuses on a narrower set of interventions with deeper more specialised analysis but risks missing higher-impact alternatives elsewhere. * Cross-cause prioritization broadens the scope to find synergies and the potential for greater impact, yet demands complex assumptions and compromises on measurement. * See the Summary Table below to view the considerations. * We encourage reflection and future work on what the best ways of prioritizing are and how EA should allocate resources between the three types. * With this in mind, we outline eight cruxes that sketch what factors could favor some types over others. * We also suggest some potential next steps aimed at refining our approach to prioritization by exploring variance, value of information, tractability, and the
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
I wanted to share a small but important challenge I've encountered as a student engaging with Effective Altruism from a lower-income country (Nigeria), and invite thoughts or suggestions from the community. Recently, I tried to make a one-time donation to one of the EA-aligned charities listed on the Giving What We Can platform. However, I discovered that I could not donate an amount less than $5. While this might seem like a minor limit for many, for someone like me — a student without a steady income or job, $5 is a significant amount. To provide some context: According to Numbeo, the average monthly income of a Nigerian worker is around $130–$150, and students often rely on even less — sometimes just $20–$50 per month for all expenses. For many students here, having $5 "lying around" isn't common at all; it could represent a week's worth of meals or transportation. I personally want to make small, one-time donations whenever I can, rather than commit to a recurring pledge like the 10% Giving What We Can pledge, which isn't feasible for me right now. I also want to encourage members of my local EA group, who are in similar financial situations, to practice giving through small but meaningful donations. In light of this, I would like to: * Recommend that Giving What We Can (and similar platforms) consider allowing smaller minimum donation amounts to make giving more accessible to students and people in lower-income countries. * Suggest that more organizations be added to the platform, to give donors a wider range of causes they can support with their small contributions. Uncertainties: * Are there alternative platforms or methods that allow very small one-time donations to EA-aligned charities? * Is there a reason behind the $5 minimum that I'm unaware of, and could it be adjusted to be more inclusive? I strongly believe that cultivating a habit of giving, even with small amounts, helps build a long-term culture of altruism — and it would