Lewis Bollard is the Program Director responsible for leading Open Philanthropy’s strategy for [Farm Animal Welfare](http://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/us-policy/farm-animal-welfare). Before joining Open Philanthropy, he worked as Policy Advisor & International Liaison to the CEO at The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Prior to that, he was a litigation fellow at HSUS, a law student, and an associate consultant at Bain & Company. He has a B.A. from Harvard University in Social Studies and a JD from Yale Law School.


Fund Advisor

Open Philanthropy

Lewis Bollard headshot

Lewis Bollard

Catherine is the main contact for community health support for groups, and also works on assessing and mitigating risks to the EA community. She currently sits on both the Community Health team and the Groups team at CEA, where she provides support to effective altruism groups around the world. She is also on the board of Magnify Mentoring and Effective Altruism New Zealand Charitable Trust. Before joining CEA, Catherine managed the Students for High-Impact Charity program and taught science, physics, and ethics at the high school level. She was also heavily involved in EA community building across New Zealand and Australia. Catherine holds a PhD in physics from the University of Melbourne.

Centre for Effective Altruism

Catherine Low

Aurelia Adhiambo is a project management professional who currently works as the Open Wing Alliance Africa Lead at The Humane League. She previously worked as the Africa Regional coordinator at ProVeg International Grants Program. Aurelia works with African animal advocacy organizations, providing training, technical advice, and strategy development. She holds a Bachelor's degree in Commerce from the University of Nairobi in Kenya and is currently completing her Masters Degree program in African Women Studies.


The Humane League

Aurelia Adhiambo Profile Picture

Aurelia Adhiambo

Kieran Greig is the Chief Strategy Officer at Rethink Priorities. He works with the Leadership Team to advise on Rethink Priorities’ strategy and execution, at all levels. Prior to that, he was the Director of Research for Farmed Animal Funders, a group of large donors who each give over $250,000 annually to end factory farming. He previously worked as a researcher at [Animal Charity Evaluators](https://animalcharityevaluators.org/), and prior to that was a co-founder of [Charity Entrepreneurship](https://www.charityentrepreneurship.com/) and [Charity Science Health](https://www.suvita.org/). He has written about topics like [improving the welfare of farmed fish](https://animalcharityevaluators.org/research/reports/farmed-fish-welfare-report/) and [supporting plant-based alternatives to animal products](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/eMMfBhAwrnCCxkJyz/farmed-animal-funders-custom-shallow-review-on-selecting). He has a B. Sc. from Monash University and a Masters from La Trobe University.

Rethink Priorities

Kieran Greig Headshot 2020

Kieran Greig

Aims to effectively improve the well-being of nonhuman animals, focusing on:
 - Relatively neglected geographic regions or animals
 - Promising research into animal advocacy or animal well-being
 - Activities that could make it easier to help animals in the future
 - Otherwise best-in-class opportunities.

WAM7445

WAM21054

We identify and fund the highest-impact opportunities to help animals, so your donations go furthest.


The Fund focuses on projects that primarily address farmed animals, as well as projects that could affect other large populations of nonhuman animals. 

Examples of projects that the Fund could support:

 - Supporting farmed animal advocacy in Asia
 - Advocating against the use of cruel practices within the industrial agriculture system, such as battery cages for egg-laying hens
 - Policy advocacy to increase government research and development (R&D) budget that goes to alternative protein
 - Researching ways to improve the welfare of invertebrates
 - Policy advocacy to increase government R&D budget that goes to alternative protein
 - Movement building in neglected countries and regions with large-scale animal farming
 - Growing the field of [welfare biology](https://www.animal-ethics.org/introduction-to-welfare-biology/) in order to improve our understanding of different ways to address wild animal suffering

Learn more about [scope and limitations of EA Funds](/scope-and-limitations).



The AWF has recommended over 20 million dollars' worth of grants that supported our grantees’ work and their successes, including:



## Pooled resources

We aggregate donations to create a shared fund that significantly exceeds individual donor capacity, enabling support for both smaller- and larger-scale initiatives.

## Global outreach

We actively solicit applications from organizations and individuals worldwide, ensuring a diverse range of high-impact projects for consideration.

## Rigorous evaluation

Our team conducts thorough assessments of project proposals to identify and select the most effective interventions.

## Continuous improvement

We aim to systematically evaluate the impact of our grants and adapt our grantmaking strategies to maximize our positive influence.

## Strategic collaboration

We partner with leading animal welfare organizations, researchers, and advocates to leverage collective expertise

## Transparency and accountability

We are committed to openness in our resource allocation processes, ensuring responsible stewardship of donor funds in advancing animal welfare.



Our work is focused on four areas which were selected because we think they address key bottlenecks in the community and play to our strengths. These areas will guide the growth and development of our programs.

## 1. The scale of animal suffering is immense

Annually, hundreds of billions of vertebrate animals are subject to factory farming. Roughly 83 billion terrestrial farmed animals are raised and slaughtered each year, as well as ~124 billion farmed fish. Farmed invertebrate animals (for example, shrimp and insects) number in the trillions.

Experts now agree that numerous species of animals are conscious and capable of feeling pain. Current practices within animal agriculture are likely to cause extreme suffering over the course of animals’ lives. Furthermore, hundreds of trillions of wild animals exist, many of which likely experience significant suffering that could be reduced through human intervention.

## 2. Funding to address this Issue remains critically limited

Despite the magnitude of this problem, the field of animal advocacy receives only a small percent of total charitable donations, with most of that money going to the comparatively few companion animals in shelters. This leads to some groups of animals being highly neglected in relation to their numbers and capacity for suffering.

## 3. Our fund maximizes the impact of your contribution

The Animal Welfare Fund holds a unique position to identify and support the most effective opportunities to help animals globally. What makes this possible is:

 - **Finding the best opportunities**\
   We actively seek out promising projects across the world, from established organizations to new groups. We are also not restricted to donating only to nonprofits, we can also fund individuals, academic institutions, and other entities. Our strong connections within animal advocacy and effective altruism help us discover high-impact opportunities that others might miss.
 - **Rigorous evaluation process**\
   Every grant application undergoes a systematic review, with the depth of investigation scaling with the grant size and uncertainty. Our evaluation includes assessing Theory of Change, scale of the counterfactual impact, likelihood of success, cost-effectiveness, value of funding, and forecasting. You can read more about our evaluation process in the FAQ section.
 - **Tracking impact and improving based on learning from M&E**\
   We systematically track each grant's progress against specific goals, collect progress and learning reports, and compare our predictions against the real outcomes to continuously improve our grantmaking.
 - **Expert Fund management**\
   Our fund managers have good judgment and bring diverse expertise in animal advocacy, research, grantmaking, corporate outreach, entrepreneurship, and movement building. This helps us evaluate projects from different angles and guide our grantees effectively.
 - **Strategic funding approach**\
   We build a balanced portfolio of grants that include both proven interventions and those that are more uncertain but have a very high expected value. This means supporting immediate welfare improvements while also investing in projects that could create systemic change.
 - **Movement coordination**\
   We work with other funders and organizations to strengthen the whole effective giving ecosystem and help ensure resources are allocated where they can have the highest impact.

By contributing to the Animal Welfare Fund, you can be confident that your donation will always be allocated with impact in mind, aiming to make the greatest possible difference in alleviating animal suffering and promoting their welfare.


We think it’s important that donors are well informed when they donate to EA Funds. As such, we think it’s useful to think about the reasons that you might choose to donate elsewhere.

## 1. You don’t support incremental welfare improvements

Thus far, much of the Fund’s grant money has gone toward work on reducing farmed animal suffering through positive yet incremental changes. This is not an exclusive focus since we have also supported interventions that aim to be more systemic (like policy advocacy) and that reduce demand for animal products (like advocacy to increase investment in alternative protein). However, if you believe that it is wrong to support incremental welfare improvements, some of the Fund’s grants may not be a good match for your worldview.

## 2. You have a preference for specific interventions or species 

The Fund has made a range of grants. If you have a strong preference for supporting a particular intervention type or focusing on a specific animal group (e.g., exclusively supporting corporate outreach for hen welfare or concentrating solely on farmed animals), you may find it more satisfying to donate directly to charities specializing in those areas.

You can donate through the Giving What We Can website by following [this link](https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/funds/effective-altruism-funds) and clicking the “Make Payment” button on the bottom right.

You can find all information about tax-deductibility in the Payment Details. While we advise donors to give tax-effectively when possible, we believe impact is more important than tax benefits.


How do I make a donation to an EA Fund?

The Animal Welfare Fund makes donations to a range of different interventions. Some are more proven interventions, while others are likely to be higher-risk, but potentially higher-return, opportunities. As such, we categorize the Fund’s risk level as “low-medium.”

For more information on how we think about grantmaking risk, please read our [Risk Profiles page](https://app.effectivealtruism.org/funds/about/risk).

What is the risk profile of the Animal Welfare Fund?

The Animal Welfare Fund makes grants on a rolling basis. You will usually have to wait 1-3 months after submitting an application until the full process is completed.

How often does the Animal Welfare Fund make grants?

Our grantmaking process consists of the following stages:

__Stage 1: Application Processing.__ When we receive an application, it's entered into our project management system along with the complete application details, history of previous applications from the applicant, evaluation rubrics, investigator assignments, and other relevant documentation. 

__Stage 2: Initial Screening__. We conduct a quick scope check to ensure applications align with our fund's mission and show potential for high impact. About 30% of applications are filtered out at this stage, typically because they fall outside our scope or don't demonstrate sufficient impact potential.

__Stage 3: Selecting Primary Grant Investigator and Depth of the Evaluation__. For applications that pass the initial screening, we assign investigators who are most suitable for a given evaluation. Based on various heuristics, such as the size of the grant, uncertainty, and potential risk, the Fund’s Chair also determines the depth of the evaluation. 

__Stage 4: In-Depth Evaluation__. Every grant application undergoes a systematic review. For each level of depth of investigation required, AWF has an evaluation template that fund managers follow. The framework balances ensuring that all key factors have been considered and that evaluations are consistent, while leaving space for additional, grant-specific crucial considerations. For the deep evaluations, (which are the vast majority of all evaluations), the primary investigator typically examines:

- Theory of Change (ToC) - examining how activities translate into improvements for animals and whether the evidence supports its merits 
- Scale of counterfactual impact - assessing the problem's scale, neglectedness, and strategic importance
- Likelihood of success - evaluating track record, team competence, and concrete plans
- Cost-effectiveness and benchmarking- conducting calculations to estimate impact per dollar and compare it to relevant benchmarks 
- Value of funding - analyzing counterfactuals and long-term sustainability
- Forecasting - forecasting the probability that the project will succeed or fail and due to what reasons (validity of the ToC or performance in achieving planned outcomes )
- In the case of evaluations that require the maximum level of depth, a secondary investigator critically reviews the completed write-up, raises additional questions and concerns, and provides alternative perspectives or recommendations. 

__Stage 5: Collective Review and Voting__. After the evaluation, each application undergoes a thorough collective assessment. The Fund Chair and at least two Fund Managers review the analysis. All Fund Managers without conflicts of interest can contribute additional insights and discuss key questions through dedicated channels. Finally, each Fund Manager assigns a score, which helps us systematically compare the most promising grants.

__Stage 6: Final Recommendation__
Looking at the average score, the Fund Chair approves grants that are clearly above our funding bar and rejects those clearly below it. For grants near our funding threshold, we conduct another step where all found managers compare those marginal grants against each other to select the strongest proposals.

Once decisions are finalized, approved grants move to our grants team for contracting and reporting setup.

Throughout this process, we maintain detailed documentation and apply consistent standards to ensure we select the most promising opportunities to help animals most effectively.

How Does the EA Animal Welfare Fund Make Grant Decisions?

Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) operates two distinct funding programs that serve different purposes in the animal advocacy space. Understanding these differences can help donors choose the giving opportunity that best matches their priorities.

The first is ACE's Recommended Charity Fund, which supports a select group of evaluated, established organizations. These charities undergo comprehensive evaluation every two years to verify their strong track records of impact. The Animal Welfare Fund takes a different approach, funding both established organizations and promising early-stage projects based on expected cost-effectiveness. Many organizations we supported early, such as the Shrimp Welfare Project, and Kaffesse Turkiye, later became ACE-recommended charities. We make decisions throughout the year to respond quickly to opportunities, and while our evaluations may be less comprehensive than ACE's, this allows us to consider a wider range of projects. Our grants tend to be more hits-based, potentially offering higher marginal cost-effectiveness but with less certainty than ACE's Top Charities. Donors prioritizing proven impact might prefer ACE's Recommended Charity Fund over AWF's more maximizing expected cost-effectiveness, hits-based  approach.

ACE's second program, Movement Grants, takes a pluralistic approach to strengthen global advocacy by providing numerous smaller grants to emerging groups, especially in regions where animal advocacy is developing. AWF approaches movement building differently, funding both local and international projects based primarily on their potential impact rather than geographic distribution. While we consider movement growth, our main focus is cost-effectiveness. We provide both small (<$20,000) and large (>$150,000) grants, typically fully funding particularly promising opportunities, even if this means making fewer grants overall. Donors specifically interested in building global advocacy capacity across all regions might prefer ACE's Movement Grants over AWF's more targeted approach to cost-effectiveness.

In 2023, Giving What We Can evaluated and compared AWF and ACE's regranting work. You can see this third-party comparative analysis [here](https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/why-and-how-gwwc-evaluates-the-evaluators). Given the recent changes at AWF and ACE, it is out of date. Still, it is currently the only external evaluation available, and donors may find it informative.

What other donation opportunities exist in this space? How is the Animal Welfare Fund different from a donation to Animal Charity Evaluators’ Recommended Charities or Movement Building Grants?

The Animal Welfare Fund accepts applications on a rolling basis. If your work fits our funding scope, don’t hesitate to apply using the link below.

[Apply here](https://av20jp3z.paperform.co/?fund=Animal%20Welfare%20Fund)

If your project falls outside our scope, but you believe it can create high impact for animals, feel free to apply nonetheless or contact us with any questions at: animalwelfare@effectivealtruismfunds.org

Can I apply for funding to the Animal Welfare Fund?

In May 2025, AWF recommended a grant to support a program that will train 20 leaders to educate hundreds of farmers in India on science-based best practices for cage-free egg production. Hosted on a model farm, the five-day program will offer hands-on instruction, distribute locally tailored training materials, and establish a peer-learning network to foster ongoing mentorship and knowledge sharing.

India produces [nearly as many eggs annually as all Southeast Asian countries combined](https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL). [Virtually all Indian egg production ](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/laying-hens-cages-and-cage-free)is caged, yet cage-free advocacy efforts in the country are minimal. According to a 2022 [evaluation of cage-free adoption in several Asian countries](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36583038/), nearly three-quarters of egg producers cited a lack of support - particularly technical advice, training, and resources - as a barrier to establishing cage-free farms. Given the limited traction of corporate campaigns in India so far, the scale of Indian egg production, and the claimed importance of technical support, AWF is interested in supporting a trial of hands-on farmer training’s effectiveness. If this program is successful, it could be scaled to improve the welfare of millions of hens in the country. This project will also occur at a critical time because there are just months remaining until deadlines for fulfilling corporate welfare commitments in India; this training will increase the chance that those commitments are met.

Since the grant, the program exceeded expectations, training 31 individuals - surpassing the original goal of 20 - including farm managers, academic faculty, and government officials. Most encouragingly, ripple effects can be observed. The Government of Uttar Pradesh organized a follow-up training for over 200 individuals, including egg producers, immediately after the program. Gujarat state is planning similar expanded training. This multiplication effect demonstrates the program's potential to scale impact throughout India's massive egg production industry at a critical time when corporate welfare commitments are approaching their deadlines.


Training of Trainers (5-day) in India to equip key stakeholders with best practices in cage-free egg farming

Shrimp are the most farmed animals globally (~[440 billion annually](https://rethinkpriorities.org/research-area/shrimp-the-animals-most-commonly-used-and-killed-for-food-production/)) yet receive minimal welfare protections during slaughter. In March 2025, AWF provided this grant to fund TCRS together with a research partner from Professor Amaya Albalat's leading crustacean welfare lab. The researchers will test whether properly implemented ice slurry methods can effectively stun shrimp and reduce pain during slaughter in the real environment of a shrimp farm in a hot climate rather than in a lab environment with more controlled conditions. This method will also be compared at a small scale to electrical stunning (with collaboration from the Shrimp Welfare Project). Based on the outcome of this research, TCRS aims to develop practical humane slaughter guidelines and report the outcomes of their work to the Global Seafood Alliance for consideration in their certification standards of Best Aquaculture Practices, which certifies 11% of global shrimp production.

This initiative could impact around 50 billion shrimp annually by ensuring shrimp are killed more humanely than through asphyxiation. Even if the research doesn’t prove that chill-killing can be done humanely in those conditions, and therefore won’t be recommended, this project still provides valuable information that can inform advocacy for electrical stunning. This project is likely to be incredibly cost-effective, and it has a clear theory of change and a high likelihood of success as a result of the organization’s strong track record and leadership. Additionally, despite the massive scale of impact, shrimp welfare is a neglected cause, giving the AWF a unique position to support work in this area.

Since receiving the grant,  TCRS and the lab of Prof. Amaya Albalat has already initiated lab-testing of various chill-killing methods and collaborated with several farms in India to implement and test chill-killing methods in a real farming environment. What is more, the grant contributed to spreading shrimp welfare awareness throughout the industry. In May 2025, TCRS held a webinar on eyestalk ablation, humane slaughter, and proper grow-out techniques. Most significantly, their annual Shrimp Summit in June 2025 featured a dedicated session on shrimp welfare for the first time - a milestone in bringing welfare considerations into mainstream industry discussions.


Research & pilot program on humane chill-killing at Indian shrimp farms to inform global certification standards

Africa is poised to become the world's fastest-growing egg production region; according to [FAO projections](https://www.fao.org/global-perspectives-studies/food-agriculture-projections-to-2050/en/), it will surpass Asia and Latin America by 2030. Yet across the continent, hundreds of millions of layer hens are confined to battery cages—small wire enclosures that prevent hens from spreading their wings, nesting, or expressing natural behaviors. This industrial expansion is happening with minimal animal welfare oversight, as Africa [receives](https://straydoginstitute.org/docs/State-of-the-Movement-2024.pdf) only 1.2% to 2.6% of global animal advocacy funding despite its massive scale. But a move to cage-free can [reduce](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1he5hQ_2VmLKUdsBqEPU5yeneOTCbGoAs/view) the time hens spend in disabling pain by 64% and in hurtful pain by 57%.

AWF began supporting the Animal Welfare League in 2022, recognizing their potential to prevent this trajectory from becoming entrenched. After three grants for work in Ghana that helped AWL secure cage-free corporate commitments and establish the first cage-free producer network (AWL wrote about that progress here), AWF provided a fourth grant ($130,000) in January 2025 to scale their impact across the continent through policy-level intervention in Ghana and regional work in South Africa and Morocco to increase cage-free egg supply.

AWL's approach combines multiple strategic interventions. Thanks to AWF's recent grant, AWL secured a Memorandum of Understanding with Ghana's Standards Authority to co-develop national poultry standards that could affect all [23 million](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/laying-hens-cages-and-cage-free?country=GHA~ZAF~MAR) of Ghana's hens, potentially making it one of the first African nations to have a cage-free code of practice. While policy opportunities have a very high expected impact, their success is less certain, so AWL operates simultaneously on the corporate and producer level. To support multinational companies in fulfilling their commitments in Africa, AWL works on creating cage-free directories and increasing the supply of cage-free eggs. Following the recent grant, AWL signed up nine commercial producers across South Africa and Morocco who are committed to cage-free for a total of 35,000 hens, and added them to the directory, reducing barriers to fulfilling regional corporate commitments. To ensure genuine change, AWL also introduced farmers to the Certified Humane program to strengthen third-party certification processes.

A budget to support cage-free policy work in Ghana and recruiting cage-free farms in South Africa, Egypt, and Morocco

In September 2024, the Animal Welfare Fund provided a grant of $100,000 to Fórum Nacional de Proteção e Defesa Animal to support accountability work for companies who already have committed to banning cages in their egg supply chains. The project aims to increase transparent reporting from 140 companies who are transitioning or have already transitioned to cage-free egg production. They will then launch a national campaign to publicize companies who are simply “humane washing,” but not actually fulfilling their commitments.
Fórum is a professional and experienced organization with a strong track record of engaging with companies throughout Brazil that have made cage-free commitments. They had strong outcomes using previous funding from the AWF and have increasingly improved their efforts to strongly pressure companies into reporting and improving their progress. The fund managers also believe that cage-free accountability efforts are an especially effective intervention because companies must be engaged frequently in order to fulfill their commitments, and additionally, with many deadlines for cage-free commitments approaching in 2025, this is a particularly critical time to push for implementation.

Since receiving this grant, Fórum released Brazil’s most comprehensive corporate accountability [report](https://www.egglab.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Relatorio-EggLab24-vf-3.pdf) on cage-free commitments. Thanks to the work of Fórum Nacional and many others, 16 companies reported transitioning to 100% cage-free eggs, and 14 other reported their progress toward cage-free production. In Brazil, a country that holds more than 250M hens and that, a few years ago, had almost no cage-free production, the trend is starting to change. Even the largest egg producer, Mantiqueir, [is 15% cage-free](https://valorinternational.globo.com/agribusiness/news/2024/03/18/mantiqueira-wants-more-cage-free-chickens.ghtml), sparing 2.5M hens from cages. Such progress is a huge success, thanks to an effort by many organizations in Brazil and internationally.

Project and staff expenses to work on corporate welfare washing in cage-free accountability in Brazil

Funding organizations and projects that will help alleviate the suffering of millions or billions of animals.

In 2019, the suffering of the world’s 440 billion shrimp was largely neglected. AWF's funding of Rethink Priorities’ cause prioritization work revealed this problem, then AWF grants launched the Shrimp Welfare Project (SWP) and other groups working on shrimp welfare. SWP improved 1.2 billion lives during their first two grant periods and secured commitments from 18 producers across the globe, helping 4 billion shrimp. Thanks to them and other advocacy groups AWF supported, nine retailers committed to humane stunning. The field transformed from nearly nothing to helping billions annually.

image 260(4)

Establishing the field of shrimp welfare and reducing the suffering of billions

The Global South produces almost 80% of eggs globally. Yet, before 2020, only 24% of cage-free commitments were in the Global South, but after 2020, this jumped to 51%. AWF's grants helped kickstart and scale groups across Brazil, Peru, Ghana, Indonesia, Colombia and other countries, securing commitments and ensuring implementation. For example, Sinergia Animal secured over 170 commitments in Latin America and Asia, while Fórum Animal drove accountability by securing progress reports from 30 Brazilian companies. Thanks to all the groups AWF supported, millions of hens escaped confinement.

Cage We animals

Driving cage-free adoption in neglected, high-producing countries

Policy change establishes lasting protections for billions of animals through legally-binding standards. Organizations AWF supported secured notable victories, including Crustacean Compassion achieving legal recognition of decapod sentience in the UK, which opened doors for 8 UK retailers to commit to pre-slaughter stunning of shrimp. Meanwhile, Animal Enterprise Transparency Project engaged Slovenian policymakers, resulting in legislation requiring analgesia during piglet castration and banning hen cages nationwide, making Slovenia the 5th EU country to ban all cages for hens.

Cage free Africa

Driving policy change and legal protection for the most numerous farmed animals 

Karolina is the Chair of the EA AWF, where she has worked as a part-time Fund Manager since 2019. Previously, she was the Co-founder and Co-Executive Director at Ambitious Impact (formerly Charity Entrepreneurship). For her work, Karolina was [recognized](https://www.vox.com/23892694/joey-savoie-karolina-sarek-charity-entrepreneurship-future-perfect-50-2023) in Vox's Future Perfect 50 list. She also served as a board member and advisor for various nonprofits, including Shrimp Welfare Project, Animal Policy International, and Fish Welfare Initiative.

Earlier in her career, she co-founded an organization to improve the impact of nonprofits, worked on measurement and evaluation, and was involved in research for IBM and the Jagiellonian University (JU). While still a student, she became a university teaching fellow, lecturing at JU's Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science. She graduated with a Postgraduate Diploma in Psychology and Neuroscience from Kings College London.

Fund Chair

EA Animal Welfare Fund

Karolina

Karolina Sarek

Zoë Sigle is the Director of Philanthropic Advising & Programs at Farmed Animals Funders, a donor learning community made up of foundations and individuals donating $250,000+ annually to end factory farming. She builds high-quality member programming and guides charitable giving with a focus on effectiveness. Prior to that, Zoë led the global corporate engagement program at Mercy For Animals and conducted corporate policy outreach at The Humane League. She holds a Master of Food and Agriculture Law and Policy degree from Vermont Law School and a BA from the University of Colorado Boulder.

Fund Manager

Farmed Animal Funders

Zoë Sigle

Ula is a Communication & Outreach Expert currently serving as a Communication Specialist at Rethink Priorities. She was formerly a Senior Recruitment & Digital Media Manager at Charity Entrepreneurship. She holds a PhD in Philosophy, specializing in the moral status of animals, and published a book on the topic in Polish. Before joining CE, she worked as a Project & Marketing Manager for startups affiliated with the co-founder of The Witcher game series. She also served as an application evaluator and Representative of the Humanities at the Ethics Committee for Animal Experiments in Warsaw.

Urszula Zarosa

Renata is a full-time Fund Manager at EA AWF. Previously, she served as a program manager at Effective Ventures, supporting the spinout of multiple projects into independent entities. Before that, she spent nearly eight years at Mercy For Animals, where she led efforts to advance corporate animal welfare policies and promote plant-based options in public and private institutions. She also serves on the board of the Welfare Footprint Institute.

Renata

Renata Scarellis

Dr. Neil Dullaghan is a full-time senior fund manager with the AWF, where he has worked since 2022. Previously, he worked at Rethink Priorities as a Senior Research Manager on their farmed animal welfare team and led a regranting fund focused on EU farmed animal welfare policy.

He holds a PhD in Political & Social Science from the European University Institute, an MPhil in European Politics & Society from the University of Oxford and a BA in International Relations from Dublin City University. He has volunteered for Charity Entrepreneurship and Animal Charity Evaluators.

Neil Dullaghan

Animal Welfare Fund

Nicole Ross is currently the Head of Special Projects at Constellation. Previously, Nicole worked at the Center for Effective Altruism, the Open Philanthropy Project, GiveWell, and the Center for Healthcare Ethics at Cedars-Sinai.


Constellation

Nicole Ross Headshot

Nicole Ross

Jesse is the Director of the Artificial Intelligence Task Force at the Council on Criminal Justice, where he was previously a Senior Fellow. Before that, he provided scalable support to university effective altruism groups around the world through his work at the Center for Effective Altruism, and he worked on criminal justice reform at Just Impact and Open Philanthropy. He has an MTS from Harvard Divinity School and studied political science at Carleton College.

Council on Criminal Justice

Jesse Rothman

[Jonas](https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonasvollmer/) is as an advisor at EA Funds. He currently serves as the Chief Operating Officer at the [AI Futures Project](https://ai-futures.org/) and the Director of [Macroscopic Ventures](https://macroscopic.org/). He co-founded the [Atlas Fellowship](https://www.atlasfellowship.org/), a program for talented young people, and previously led EA Funds as its Executive Director. He also co-founded and led the [Center on Long-Term Risk](https://web.archive.org/web/20220207010703mp_/https:/longtermrisk.org/), a research group and grantmaker aiming to reduce long-term risks from artificial intelligence. He holds degrees in medicine and economics with a focus on public choice, health economics, and development economics. He previously ran a ballot initiative that [doubled Zurich's development aid](https://web.archive.org/web/20220206055332mp_/https:/forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/dTdSnbBB2g65b2Fb9/eaf-s-ballot-initiative-doubled-zurich-s-development-aid), helped launch an ongoing [campaign](https://web.archive.org/web/20220206055332mp_/https:/www.swissinfo.ch/eng/animal-rights_swiss-to-vote-on-banning-factory-farming/45233958) to ban factory farming in Switzerland, and played a key part in establishing the effective altruism community in continental Europe.

Fund Advisor at Effective Altruism Infrastructure and Long-Term Future Fund

AI Futures Project

Jonas Vollmer headshot

Jonas Vollmer

Peter is the co-founder and Chief Advisory Executive of [The Institute for AI Policy and Strategy (IAPS)](https://www.iaps.ai/), a think tank working to understand and navigate the transformative potential of advanced AI. Previously, Peter co-founded and led [Rethink Priorities](https://rethinkpriorities.org/), a think tank dedicated to figuring out the best ways to make the world a better place. Peter has been heavily involved in the EA community since 2012 and is excited about building a large and robust social movement around improving well-being for people across the world, for nonhuman animals, and for future generations. Prior to working in EA, Peter was a data scientist in industry for five years.


The Institute for AI Policy and Strategy

Peter Wildeford

Aims to improve the work of projects that use the principles of effective altruism, by increasing their access to talent, capital, and knowledge. 

*The EA Infrastructure Fund was formerly named the EA Meta Fund.*

Participants at EAG

EAGx conversation

The Effective Altruism Infrastructure Fund aims to increase the impact of projects that use the principles of effective altruism, by increasing their access to talent, capital, and knowledge.



The Effective Altruism Infrastructure Fund recommends grants that aim to improve the work of projects that use the principles of effective altruism, by increasing their access to talent, capital, and knowledge. While the other three Funds support direct work on various causes, this Fund supports work that could multiply the impact of direct work, including projects that provide intellectual infrastructure for the effective altruism community, run events, disseminate information, or fundraise for effective charities.  This will be achieved by supporting projects that:

*   Directly increase the number of people who are exposed to principles of effective altruism, or develop, refine or present such principles
*   Support the recruitment of talented people who can use their skills to make progress on important problems
*   Aim to build a global community of people who use principles of effective altruism as a core part of their decision-making process when deciding how they can have a positive impact on the world
*   Conduct research into prioritizing between or within different cause areas
*   Raise funds or otherwise support other highly-effective projects
*   Improve community health by promoting healthy norms for interaction and discourse, or assist in resolving grievances

This includes a broad range of projects in global wellbeing (including animal welfare), longtermism, as well as cause-general work. 



The EA Infrastructure Fund has recommended several million dollars worth of grants, to a range of organizations, including:



The Effective Altruism Infrastructure Fund (EA Infrastructure Fund) recommends grants that aim to improve the work of projects using principles of effective altruism, by increasing their access to talent, capital, and knowledge.

The EA Infrastructure Fund has historically attempted to make strategic grants to incubate and grow projects that attempt to use reason and evidence to do as much good as possible. These include meta-charities that fundraise for highly effective charities doing direct work on important problems, research organizations that improve our understanding of how to do good more effectively, and projects that promote principles of effective altruism in contexts like academia.

*The EA Infrastructure Fund was formerly named the Effective Altruism Meta Fund.*



Choosing to give to highly effective charities can greatly increase the positive impact of your donations. ‘Infrastructure’ refers to the idea that creating additional resources and support to projects aiming to improve the world can multiply this impact.

Donating to improve the infrastructure available to effective projects (instead of to the projects carrying out this work directly) is sometimes called 'meta charity'.

Three of the best opportunities to multiply impact (of which we are currently aware) are through improving the quality and quantity of talent, information and capital available to solve the world’s biggest problems.

Choosing to give to highly effective charities can greatly increase the positive impact of your donations. ‘Infrastructure’ refers to the idea that creating additional resources and support to projects aiming to improve the world can multiply this impact.

Donating to improve the infrastructure available to effective projects (instead of to the projects carrying out this work directly) is sometimes called 'meta charity'.

Three of the best opportunities to multiply impact (of which we are currently aware) are through improving the quality and quantity of talent, information and capital available to solve the world’s biggest problems.

## Improving talent

One of the most important factors in making progress towards solving the highest priority issues is the talent working on those issues. Some highly effective organizations are more talent-constrained than they are capital-constrained. In such cases, hiring the right talent is even more important than raising additional capital. Because of this, funding organizations that support and encourage talented people to work on high priority issues can significantly multiply the impact of your donation.

## Improving information

Choosing a high-impact cause area is often the most important driver of impact. Prioritization research could change our perception of a cause area or reveal promising new funding opportunities. As a result of research findings, many more donations may be directed to high-impact funding opportunities, meaning that the impact of a donation to fund the research itself would be multiplied.

## Improving capital

Say that a $100,000 donation to a highly effective direct intervention can be used to save the lives of 15 people. Then imagine that a $100,000 donation to a meta charity that drives capital to that highly effective direct intervention is used to raise $1,000,000 more in donations. Assuming no diminishing returns, these donations can be used to save the lives of 150 people. In this example, exactly the same donation would be 10 times more effective when donated to the meta organization. (Note that this is a hypothetical to illustrate the concept, and that, in practice, estimates of these multipliers will be subject to substantial margins of error.)

Past meta initiatives have achieved sizable success, such as [80,000 Hours](https://80000hours.org/), [GiveWell](http://www.givewell.org/) or [Founders Pledge](https://founderspledge.com/). With reasonably high confidence, we can say that donations to these organizations have caused significantly more resources to be invested in the highest priority areas than would have occurred through direct donations.

This said, finding and vetting meta opportunities can be both challenging and time-consuming.

*   The most intuitive meta donation options (that require the least vetting by potential donors), such as funding GiveWell’s operations, are often fully funded. Funding opportunities for these groups often appear only briefly and for specific projects.
*   Although there are a large number of early-stage opportunities, careful evaluation is required to identify the most credible and high-quality projects that demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of effectiveness principles.
*   Meta initiatives can be particularly challenging to evaluate and their stated metrics can require significant interpretation. Taking into account attribution, probability and discounting is important both quantitatively, when data is available, and qualitatively, when it is not.
*   Evaluating the team and leadership of a meta project requires context, experience and often a significant time commitment.



## You don’t agree with the rationale for the Fund, or the views of the Fund management team

The main reason you might choose not to donate to this fund is if you do not agree with the views of the fund management team. For example, you may not be convinced of the arguments in favour of supporting meta charities, or you may want to donate only to a select subset of meta charities. In particular, you may prefer that your money go directly toward helping others, with as little ambiguity as possible.

## You have concerns about conflicts of interest or grantmaker independence

All members of the fund management team are actively involved in the effective altruism community and have both professional and personal relationships with many of those working at meta organizations that may receive grants from this fund. Nick Beckstead (an advisor to the Fund) is a member of the Effective Venture's board.

Effective Ventures, an organization that supports EA Funds (including product, website and financial infrastructure), works to build the effective altruism community and has received grants from this fund.

The EA Infrastructure Fund makes donations to a range of different interventions. Some of these are likely to be higher-risk, but potentially higher-return opportunities. The nature of the space means that impact may be less certain, and some projects are new, and may not yet have a long track record. Overall, we classify the Fund as 'medium' risk.

[Read more about how we think about risk at EA Funds](/funds/about/risk).

What is the risk profile of the EA Infrastructure Fund?

__Expert team with a strong track record__

Sourcing and evaluating any effective charity is complex and time-consuming for individual donors. Doing the same for meta charities is typically even more challenging. This fund is managed by a team of experts with over 25 years’ combined experience researching and donating to meta organizations. The team has a strong network across the effective altruism community, which is extremely valuable in identifying and evaluating new opportunities. All team members have a track record of being early donors to promising opportunities such as the [Centre for Effective Altruism](https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/) and [80,000 Hours](https://80000hours.org/).

__Due diligence and context__

While meta organizations can offer very promising opportunities for impact, some projects may take too many risks and could potentially cause lasting damage to the brand of effective altruism. Due diligence and sufficient context are highly important. The expert team offers donors extensive and valuable experience in assessing meta projects and identifying potential risks.

#### Gain knowledge

An aspirational aim of the fund is to use the team’s knowledge and experience to support donors to learn more about EA meta organizations and expand their giving in this area. The fund will publish triannual updates on capital distributions and the reasoning behind the grants made.

#### Save charities' time

Donors often take up large amounts of time for senior management at charities. While there are benefits to these interactions up to a point, beyond that it can become an excessive cost to the team. By donating together, we can work more efficiently and reduce this effect.


Why donate to the EA Infrastructure Fund instead of donating directly to individual organizations?

The EA Infrastructure Fund accepts applications for funding. Please submit your application by using the link below.

[Apply here](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeID5kjD9zsvlwgqB3hlX54EINg6_pY6sYl4hm7s-bYuDGiwA/viewform)

Can I apply for funding to the EA Infrastructure Fund?

The grant funds production costs for [Hear This Idea](https://open.spotify.com/show/442fxr9pe0tbDtqEikODch?si=070b9cb64fa64939), a long-running podcast exploring emerging EA research and promising ideas for society’s greatest challenges. Before applying for the grant, Hear This Idea had already published 77 episodes, garnering about 170,000 listens collectively. Previous episodes included interviews from successful researchers on AI governance, semiconductors, foreign aid advocacy, and bioweapons. Due to Hear This Idea’s cost-effective production, their dollar-per-hour of listener engagement is unusually low relative to other leading EA podcasts.

The EAIF recommended this grant due to the podcast’s strong engagement metrics, high cost effectiveness, and large potential to influence audience members to explore promising and neglected ideas. According to the podcast’s listener survey, only about 15% of their audience works directly on EA topics and about 30% are students, so the podcast has a great ability to deepen listeners’ EA engagement and exposure to important topics. Moreover, their episodes have been used as a learning resource by various high-impact fellowships, such as BlueDot Impact and Charity Entrepreneurship, and guests have reported increased opportunities after appearing on the podcast.

Since receiving funding from the EAIF, Hear This Idea has [released numerous high-quality, well-researched episodes](https://hearthisidea.com/episodes/) on cyber weapons, animal welfare science, global health R&D, institutional improvement, risks from AI, and other important topics.


Ongoing support for Hear This Idea, a podcast about ideas for solving important problems

This grant aims to catalyze EAA’s growth by providing funding for a CEO who will lead the organization’s strategy, manage their growing team, and expand EAA’s community building and fundraising for effective organizations. The EAIF fund managers recommended this grant due to a high expected return on investment in terms of money counterfactually donated to high-impact organizations. EAA has a strong track record for their fundraising – from 2016-2024, EAA moved nearly USD $20 million to effective charities, with conservative estimates suggesting approximately 25% of funds raised were counterfactual.

EAA now moves around $4 million annually to effective causes–with this amount growing by about $0.5M each year. They have also begun hiring for more full-time team members. In June 2025 alone, EAA raised over $2.8 million for high-impact charities. They’ve also continued to strengthen the effective altruism community, launching cohorts of an introductory effective altruism fellowship in spring of 2025 and hosting a national conference in May 2025. EAA has now hired a CEO, and we're excited about their potential for growing the organization.


Stipend support for the first paid CEO at Effective Altruism Australia (EAA) to further grow the EA movement in Australia

EAIF recommended funding to Rethink Wellbeing to subsidize a 12-week, tailored mental health program for EA community members. This program has been run once previously and demonstrated strong pre-post effects, including substantial gains in productivity, mental wellbeing, and community engagement–as large as those of one-on-one psychotherapy at only one-third the cost. Participants’ reported productivity increases of approximately 6 to 8 hours per week, and about half of participants work directly on EA causes, implying high expected value for EA organizations if the program is scaled. Moreover, about 84% of previous participants would recommend the program to others.

Even under conservative assumptions, this program appears highly cost-effective. Rethink Wellbeing is especially well-positioned to deliver this program due to their foundation in empirical research, rigorous testing, and team with a strong track record in delivering mental health interventions. Compared to direct funding of EA groups, this intervention offers a compelling and cost-effective means of boosting capacity across the community.

Feedback for their 2025 program was even stronger than the previous iteration. Across 430 reflections, the overall session quality rating averaged 8.1, and over half of weekly feedback scores for facilitators were a perfect 10/10. Rethink Wellbeing’s programs maintain an 85% retention rate. They will run another cohort of their CBT lab beginning in fall 2025.


Funding to run a proven, cost-effective mental health program for ~175 EAs: well-being & productivity gains worth ~30 FTEs/yr

The grant supports independent research and community building on the neglected issue of extreme physical pain, which is systematically underprioritized by current metrics used in wellbeing economics. Parra seeks to identify scalable interventions to mitigate intense suffering and mobilize money and talent for this cause. Parra has already published a highly-regarded EA Forum post and a paper under review at *Nature*.

EAIF recommended this grant because the area is plausibly both highly important and neglected, and Parra’s initial research quality is strong. His quantitative models, detailed sensitivity analyses, and interdisciplinary approach suggest high promise. While we had some concerns about balancing advocacy and unbiased research, we think that Parra’s strong academic track record and clarity of reasoning were compelling reasons to fund the project.Because this cause area is currently in need of funding, the potential counterfactual impact of this grant is very high.

Since receiving this grant, Parra has published several additional research summaries and topic explanations on the EA Forum, covering topics such as [indirect realism](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ERnepBNQPBSPumjpZ/indirect-realism-illustrated-and-why-it-matters-so-much-for), [kidney stone suffering and interventions](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/JNNrkeWdTHrS87opd/the-quest-for-a-stone-free-world-chanca-piedra-phyllanthus-1), [artificial neurons](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/KHEjSPeJBLpoZ3qS5/it-s-time-to-say-goodbye-to-functionally-equivalent), [a retrospective on the first international research symposium on cluster headaches](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/7FvDvMQypyua4kTL5/most-painful-condition-known-to-mankind-a-retrospective-of), and [the valuation of a “Day Lived in Extreme Suffering.”](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/z4Hb8tZsuRCXmy3mM/how-much-should-we-value-averting-a-day-lived-in-extreme)

6-month salary to do prioritization research and community building focused on reducing extreme pain in humans

In 2023, EAIF recommended a grant to Effective Altruism Poland to promote and improve [WiecejDobra.pl](http://WiecejDobra.pl), a local effective giving platform recommended by Giving What We Can. At the time, the platform was operating at a minimum viable stage and had only been lightly promoted within EA circles. Drawing on the success of similar platforms, such as Effektiv Spenden–which achieved an estimated 10x impact multiplier even under conservative assumptions–and [evidence that local effective giving platforms can be high-impact multipliers](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/dBdNoSAbkG4k98GT9/evidence-of-effectiveness-and-transparency-of-a-few), EA Poland aimed to increase [WiecejDobra.pl](http://WiecejDobra.pl)’s reach in order to secure counterfactual donations and introduce new audiences to effective giving, effective altruism, and longtermism.

EAIF fund managers recommended this grant because of the project leader’s previous success developing an effective giving initiative, [Altruisto](https://join.altruisto.com/), and success of platforms like Effektiv Spenden. Their main concerns regarded EA Poland’s ability to hire capable communications staff and the potential for poorly executed outreach to harm the EA or effective giving brand.

However, since receiving the grant, EA Poland has significantly improved [WiecejDobra.pl](http://WiecejDobra.pl) and launched successful promotional campaigns. During the grant period, they partnered with content creators for a World Malaria Day fundraiser, achieving a return on ad spend of about 3.33x-5.41x and attracting many first-time donors to EA-aligned charities. Their average monthly donations (excluding the fundraiser) doubled compared to pre-grant levels. EA Poland believes this model of organizing fundraisers with content creators could be replicated by other effective giving initiatives. They also improved their newsletter by adding a downloadable report on effective giving, available upon signup, and conducted data analysis to measure their impact—results from which are now guiding future campaigns. This grant proved particularly cost-effective: a relatively small amount of funding supported immediate campaigns and informed [WiecejDobra.pl](http://WiecejDobra.pl)’s long-term advertising strategy.

A 12-month budget to grow and promote an effective fundraising platform in Poland, similar to effektiv-spenden.de

Funding organizations or people that aim to grow or improve the effective altruism community.

Effektiv Altruism Sverige (EA Sweden) held their largest-ever Nordic Group Organiser Retreat, convening organizers from 23 national, city, university, and field-building groups across six countries. The event included personalized support to help each group develop their Theory of Change, strategy, and organizational vision. Because of the low cost per attendee relative to similar events, we think this retreat is likely highly cost-effective.

ea-sweden

Convened a multinational strategic retreat for high-impact community builders

[Rethink Priorities](https://rethinkpriorities.org/our-research-areas/worldview-investigations/) received funding from EAIF to create a [free tool](https://portfolio.rethinkpriorities.org/) that allows users to investigate potential giving portfolios in light of decision-theoretical uncertainty. They also created [a moral parliament tool](https://parliament.rethinkpriorities.org/) that helps users determine how to allocate philanthropic resources under normative uncertainty. The tool gives users the ability to edit, add, or remove any parameters, making it applicable to a wide variety of scenarios. They published [reports](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/t6CApfeWtyreifyDd) on these tools on the EA Forum, promoting their use and emphasizing the importance of taking uncertainty seriously in philanthropic decision making.


RP tool

Created a tool for cross-cause prioritization in giving portfolios

[Abigail Olvera](https://abiolvera.com/) released a [book](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CL2VVFZY/) (in audio, physical, and ebook form) on navigating the college and scholarship system for high-achieving, low-income U.S. students. In the book, Olvera promoted EA opportunities and introduced students to resources such as 80,000 Hours and high-impact career paths, such as computer science/AI safety and global development. The book reached #3 in Teen & Young Adult College Guides eBooks on Amazon and was used as a case study for a marketing/business class at the University of Richmond. Since releasing the book, she has spoken at community colleges and workshops, such as the National Center for Women and Information Technology.

The Underdog's Guide to Scholarships: Get Big Money for Your Dream College by Abi Olvera

Published a book on scholarship strategy promoting EA opportunities

[EA Netherlands](http://effectiefaltruisme.nl) used funding from EAIF to maintain and improve their [coworking space](https://effectiefaltruisme.nl/en/office), a hub for the Dutch EA community. Many users of the office space reported meeting someone who inspired them to take an opportunity or cause more seriously, with most respondents to a feedback survey reporting a success story or meaningful collaboration in the previous 6 months. After receiving the grant, they achieved increased gender diversity of office visitors, maintained an average of 75% occupancy, and averaged 28 unique visitors per month.

EA Netherlands coworking space

Maintained and improved an EA coworking office

Sella Nevo and Dan Lahav, lecturers at Tel Aviv University, released [Making a Difference: Evidence-Based Impact](https://www.edx.org/learn/ethics/tel-aviv-university-making-a-difference-i-evidence-based-impact), to promote an EA-aligned approach to impactful work. The interdisciplinary course provides students with practical tools to analyze ethical issues, including foundations of cost-effectiveness, measurement, and evaluation, and introduces students to high-impact opportunities.

shai-pal-yBJuiaMHlsk-unsplash Tel aviv

Created an EA-outreach massive open online course (MOOC)

With financial support from EAIF, [EA Hungary](https://www.eahungary.com/) has built a large nationwide EA community and has developed local communities in cities and universities across the country. During their grant period, EA Hungary ran in-depth fellowships introducing people to EA concepts, piloted a wellbeing course for members, held several public events on EA and EA-related topics introducing new individuals to the EA community, organized weekly community-building socials and coworking days, started new local EA chapters, brought attendees to EAGxRotterdam/Warsaw/Berlin, launched a monthly newsletter, and established the Budapest AI Safety group, all while [documenting community-building efforts](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/rsq98ZnMAjfrYFwtq) and communicating extensively with donors.

effective-altrusim

Strengthened a national EA group

Harri previously worked at the Centre for Effective Altruism, as project lead of the Community Building Grants programme, which provided funding for professional effective altruism community builders. He studied Philosophy and Psychology at Oxford University, where he also ran the effective altruism student group.

EA Funds

Harri Headshot

Harri Besceli

Jamie is the Courses Project Lead at the Centre for Effective Altruism. Before joining CEA, he ran online courses at two nonprofits: Leaf, where he was Managing Director—supporting exceptional teenagers to explore how they can best help others—and Animal Advocacy Careers, where he was a co-founder. He has also worked as a teacher, researcher, and grantmaker. Jamie holds a first-class degree in History from the University of Oxford.

Jamie Harris headshot

Jamie Harris

Effective Altruism Infrastructure Fund

*This Fund currently isn’t accepting applications.*

*Consider applying to GiveWell.*

Global Health and development

The END Fund (Givewell MIF Banner)

The Global Health and Development Fund aims to improve the health or economic empowerment of people around the world as effectively as possible.



The Global Health and Development Fund recommends grants with the aim of improving people's lives, typically in the poorest regions of the world where the need for healthcare and economic empowerment is greatest. This will be achieved primarily by supporting projects that:

*   Directly provide healthcare, or preventive measures that will improve health, well-being, or life expectancy
*   Directly provide services that raise incomes or otherwise improve economic conditions
*   Provide assistance to governments in the design and implementation of effective policies

In addition, the Global Health and Development Fund has a broad remit, and may fund other activities whose ultimate purpose is to serve people living in the poorest regions of the world, for example by raising additional funds (e.g. [One for the World](https://www.1fortheworld.org/)) or by exploring novel financing arrangements (e.g. [Instiglio](https://www.instiglio.org/en/)).

The Fund manager recommends grants to GiveWell top charities as a baseline, but will recommend higher-risk grants they believe to be more effective (in expectation) than GiveWell top charities. As such, the fund makes grants with a variety of different risk profiles.



The Global Health and Development Fund has recommended several million dollars' worth of grants to a range of organizations, including:



The Fund is currently managed by [GiveWell](http://www.givewell.org/) co-founder Elie Hassenfeld. Elie and GiveWell staff have extensive experience analyzing unusually promising opportunities in the global health and development space; GiveWell recommends charities that are evidence-backed, thoroughly vetted, and underfunded.



Global health and development is a [highly tractable area](https://concepts.effectivealtruism.org/concepts/three-factor-framework-for-focus-area-selection/): even small donations can have a huge impact on improving people’s lives and preventing premature deaths.

The problem is also very large in [scale](https://concepts.effectivealtruism.org/concepts/three-factor-framework-for-focus-area-selection/). As of 2015, [over 700 million people](https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/09/19/decline-of-global-extreme-poverty-continues-but-has-slowed-world-bank) were living under the international poverty line of $1.90/day. The UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation [estimates](https://childmortality.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/UN-IGME-Child-Mortality-Report-2018.pdf) that nearly 15,000 children under the age of 5 die each day from preventable causes associated with extreme poverty.

While many organizations work on helping those in extreme poverty, the scale of the problem means there are still many outstanding giving opportunities with [room for more funding](https://concepts.effectivealtruism.org/concepts/room-for-more-funding/).

The Fund makes grants to organizations directly serving people in low- and middle-income countries, as well as promising but higher-risk opportunities to help the global poor. As such, it is suitable for donors who want to take calculated risks, but who support more straightforward giving when the fund manager is unable to identify riskier opportunities they believe to be more effective (in expectation).



## You prefer particular types of giving opportunities within global health & development

The Fund has a broad remit, making grants to support both straightforward and higher-risk giving opportunities. It also makes grants to improve people's lives in multiple ways, including preventing early deaths, improving health, and increasing economic empowerment.

Donors who have a strong preference for a particular risk profile or type of benefit may want to focus their giving more narrowly. Donors who prefer their giving to focus on more straightforward opportunities should consider supporting GiveWell, which can reallocate their donation to its top charities [based on their funding needs](https://www.givewell.org/about/FAQ/discretionary-grantmaking).

## You want to focus on causes outside global health and development

You might also choose not to support the Fund if you believe that shaping the trajectory of the long-term future is of overwhelming importance, and that global poverty interventions are not the best mechanism for shaping the future. Specifically, you might not support the fund if you believe some version of the following from [Nick Beckstead’s PhD dissertation](https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxuYmVja3N0ZWFkfGd4OjExNDBjZTcwNjMxMzRmZGE):

> The importance of the far future: From a global perspective, what matters most (in expectation) is that we do what is best (in expectation) for the general trajectory along which our descendants develop over the coming millions of years or longer.

In such a case, you might want to consider donating to [interventions focusing on the long-term future](/funds/far-future). 

Alternatively, you might want to focus your donations on improving [animal welfare](/funds/animal-welfare), or [effective altruism community-building](/funds/ea-community).

## You don’t know much about GiveWell, or trust its research

This fund will be heavily influenced by GiveWell's research. You therefore might choose not to support the fund if you don't have a high level of trust in GiveWell's research and judgment.

You can learn more about GiveWell's research [here](https://www.givewell.org/how-we-work/process).

The Global Health and Development Fund makes grants across a number of risk profiles.

It is currently looking for higher-risk, but potentially higher-return opportunities to grant to. These will typically be opportunities that GiveWell researchers have identified as having the potential to be very effective, but that are not established enough to be recommended as GiveWell top charities.

If the Fund cannot find any higher-risk, higher-return projects to grant to, it will periodically publish updates, and may choose to either roll the money forward and put it towards future opportunities, or to grant it to GiveWell top charities.

You can read a recent update about the Fund's grantmaking approach [here](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/F42BX8su2ZEquaicL/a-change-to-the-grantmaking-schedule-of-the-effective). For more information on how we think about grantmaking risk, please read our [Risk Profiles page](/funds/about/risk).



What is the risk profile of the Global Health and Development Fund?

The Global Health and Development Fund will make grants as it identifies promising opportunities.

To ensure timely disbursement, it plans to allocate all unallocated funds in a six month period to GiveWell top charities in February and August. However, it may choose to hold funds for longer if it has already granted out a substantial proportion of the funds available during the preceding six months or is close to concluding an investigation into a promising grant.

The Fund has committed to publishing updates at least twice a year, explaining how it has decided to allocate its money.

_Previously, the Fund disbursed funds three times a year. You can read the rationale for updating the Fund's grantmaking schedule [here](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/F42BX8su2ZEquaicL/a-change-to-the-grantmaking-schedule-of-the-effective)._

How often does the Global Health and Development Fund make grants?

The Global Health and Development Fund is managed by Elie Hassenfeld, [GiveWell](http://www.givewell.org)'s co-founder. GiveWell is an organization that conducts research into the most promising and effective charitable giving opportunities, with a focus on Global Health and Development.

This fund supports charities that the fund manager believes may be better in expectation than those recommended by [GiveWell](http://www.givewell.org/), a charity evaluator focused on outstandingly effective giving opportunities. For example, by pooling the funds of many individual donors, the Fund can support new but promising global health charities in getting off the ground (e.g. [Charity Science Health](http://www.charitysciencehealth.com/) or the [Innovation in Government Initiative](https://www.givewell.org/research/incubation-grants/innovation-in-government-initiative/december-2018-grant)).

If no such options are available, the Fund will likely donate to GiveWell for regranting. This means we think there is a strong likelihood that donating to the fund will be at least as impactful as donating in accordance with GiveWell’s recommendations, but could be better in expectation.

How is this Fund different from donating to GiveWell's top charities?

The Global Health and Development Fund is managed by Elie Hassenfeld, [GiveWell](http://www.givewell.org)'s co-founder. GiveWell is an organization that conducts research into the most promising and effective charitable giving opportunities, with a focus on Global Health and Development.

Elie believes GiveWell's top charities are excellent giving opportunities, which are evidence-based, cost-effective and could productively use additional funding to directly help people living in poverty. Donors who would prefer to exclusively fund this type of opportunity should either give to GiveWell for regranting to top charities at its discretion, or give directly to one of GiveWell's top charities.

More recently, GiveWell has been doing more [exploratory research](https://blog.givewell.org/2019/02/07/how-givewells-research-is-evolving/) to identify promising giving opportunities outside its traditional criteria, such as organizations working to assist in the creation of effective policy, or early-stage organizations. Donations to this fund are intended to support opportunities identified through that work, which was previously funded by Open Philanthropy through [GiveWell Incubation Grants](http://www.givewell.org/research/incubation-grants).

Thus, until GiveWell finds opportunities that surpass Open Philanthropy's available funding, donations to this fund are most likely to either:

(a) displace Open Philanthropy funding of Incubation Grant-like opportunities (and cause that funding to instead go to GiveWell's top charities), or

(b) go directly to GiveWell's top charities.

Nonetheless, donating to this fund is valuable because it helps demonstrate to GiveWell that there is donor demand for higher-risk, higher-reward global health and development giving opportunities.

If the Fund is managed by the head of GiveWell, why doesn't it just recommend that people give to GiveWell or its top charities?

The Global Health and Development Fund is not currently accepting applications for funding.

Can I apply for funding to the Global Health and Development Fund?

Between 2019 and 2022, GHDF provided $8,669,002.48 to support the Malaria Consortium’s distribution of seasonal malaria chemoprevention treatments. For more information on Malaria Consortium’s work and the rationale behind this funding, see [GiveWell’s program analysis](https://www.givewell.org/charities/malaria-consortium).

Support of seasonal malaria chemoprevention program


GHDF provided a grant to support the planning of an RCT to evaluate the impact of IRD Global’s screen-and-treat program in Karachi, Pakistan. For more information on the rationale behind this funding, see [GiveWell’s grant recommendation summary](https://www.givewell.org/research/grants/ird-global-johns-hopkins-zero-tb-planning-august-2022).


Support for the planning of an RCT of IRD Global's Zero TB program in Pakistan

GHDF provided a grant to support the Center for Global Development’s (CGD) research on the impact of lead exposure on economic and educational outcomes. This funding also supports CGD’s policy working group’s creation of policy outreach documents and engagement with global policymakers. For more information on the rationale behind this funding, see GiveWell’s [grant recommendation summary](https://www.givewell.org/research/incubation-grants/Center-for-Global-Development-lead-exposure-November-2021).

Support for research and advocacy to reduce lead exposure

GHDF provided a planning grant to the One Acre Fund’s program to provide tree seedlings to small-scale farmers in Africa, a highly cost-effective intervention to generate financial assets for the world’s poorest people. This grant supported planning for data collection, including an RCT, follow-up on a previous RCT, and additional surveys, to evaluate the impact of this program. For more information on One Acre Fund’s work and the rationale behind this funding, see [GiveWell’s grant recommendation summary](https://www.givewell.org/research/grants/one-acre-fund-planning-grant-September-2022) and the [One Acre Fund’s published results](https://docs.google.com/document/d/12aBJ6umN5Sc_O_94pvmeJ2IHYO9f55vwbyIgZHYa4EQ/edit?tab=t.0).

Support the planning of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and other data gathering activities for a tree seedlings program

Funding outstanding, evidence-based opportunities to provide better access to healthcare and economic development.

[Against Malaria Foundation](https://www.againstmalaria.com/) (AMF) distributes insecticide-treated nets in low- and middle-income countries through mass campaigns, significantly reducing malaria mortality. AMF seems to be an [incredibly cost-effective](http://givewell.org/charities/amf) charity and has a long track record of supporting campaigns in a number of countries.

Women and Children with insecticide-treated bednets distributed by the Against Malaria Foundation

Distributed bednets to prevent Malaria

With support from the Global Health And Development Fund, [Innovations for Poverty Action](https://poverty-action.org/) conducted a randomized controlled trial of an intervention to distribute face masks and promote their use to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. [This research](https://poverty-action.org/publication/impact-community-masking-covid-19-cluster-randomized-trial-bangladesh) found evidence that the intervention did increase mask-use and decreased symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Analyzed the impact of face masks on COVID-19

Malaria is the leading cause of death for children under five. The [Malaria Consortium](https://www.malariaconsortium.org/) distributes preventive seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) drugs during the high malaria season to hundreds of thousands of children in several countries who would not otherwise receive this life-saving treatment. [GiveWell estimates](https://www.givewell.org/charities/malaria-consortium) that the Malaria Consortium’s work is eight times as cost-effective as unconditional cash transfers. There is strong evidence that [SMC reduces malaria and likely provides additional benefits](https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/seasonal-malaria-chemoprevention), such as later-life income.


Malaria Consortium

Protected children against malaria

Pesticide suicide imposes a substantial burden of disease as one of the most common methods of global suicide but is highly neglected by philanthropic interventions. The [Centre for Pesticide Suicide Prevention](https://centrepsp.org/) (CPSP) worked with governments, UN agencies, and regulatory bodies to identify the pesticides most commonly used in suicide and end their use through regulatory action. According to a [systematic review](https://centrepsp.org/publications/centre-publication/preventing-suicide-by-restricting-access-to-highly-hazardous-pesticides-hhps-a-systematic-review-of-international-evidence-since-2017/) by CPSP, limiting access to highly hazardous pesticides is effective in preventing suicides.

Prevented pesticide suicides worldwide

Elie Hassenfeld is the Co-Founder and Executive Director of GiveWell.

He helps set the strategy and oversee the work of Open Philanthropy, in addition to leading the History of Philanthropy project and serving as co-Executive Director of GiveWell. Elie has a degree in religion from Columbia University and spent several years in the hedge fund industry before co-founding GiveWell in mid-2007.

GiveWell

Elie Hassenfeld

[GiveWell](https://www.givewell.org/) is a research organization that searches for the most cost-effective ways to help people living in low- and middle-income countries and publishes all its research online to help donors decide where to give.

GiveWell's research team supports fund recommendations in the following ways:

1. investigating new, high-impact giving opportunities in both direct intervention and policy; 
2. making recommendations for seed or scaling grants to promising charities that may eventually be recommended by GiveWell; and 
3. maintaining an ongoing understanding of the future needs and funding gaps of current recommended charities in order to recommend grants that maximize donor impact.

Fund Managers

Givewell Staff Logo / Headshot

GiveWell Staff

Global Health and Development Fund

Asya Bergal works as a Senior Program Associate at [Open Philanthropy](https://www.openphilanthropy.org/). Previously, she worked as a researcher at [AI Impacts](https://aiimpacts.org/) and as a trader and software engineer for a crypto hedgefund. She's also written for the [AI alignment newsletter](https://rohinshah.com/alignment-newsletter/) and been a research fellow at the Centre for the Governance of AI at the Future of Humanity Institute (FHI). She has a BA in Computer Science and Engineering from MIT.

Asya Bergal headshot

Asya Bergal

Aims to positively influence the long-term trajectory of civilization by making grants that address global catastrophic risks, especially potential risks from advanced artificial intelligence and pandemics.

It also seeks to promote longtermist ideas and to otherwise increase the likelihood that future generations will flourish.

andy-kelly-0E vhMVqL9g-unsplash

Donation Advice banner image

The Long-Term Future Fund aims to positively influence the long-term trajectory of civilization by making grants that address global catastrophic risks, especially potential risks from advanced artificial intelligence and pandemics. In addition, we seek to promote, implement, and advocate for longtermist ideas, and to otherwise increase the likelihood that future generations will flourish.



The Fund has a broad remit to make grants that promote, implement and advocate for longtermist ideas. Many of our grants aim to address potential risks from advanced artificial intelligence and to build infrastructure and advocate for longtermist projects. However, we welcome applications related to long-term institutional reform or other global catastrophic risks (e.g., pandemics or nuclear conflict). We intend to support: 

*   Projects that directly contribute to reducing [existential risks](https://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html) through technical research, policy analysis, advocacy, and/or demonstration projects
*   Training for researchers or practitioners who work to mitigate existential risks, or help with relevant recruitment efforts, or infrastructure for people working on longtermist projects
*   Promoting [long-term thinking](https://80000hours.org/articles/future-generations/)



The Long-Term Future Fund has recommended several million dollars' worth of grants to a range of organizations, including:



The Fund has historically supported researchers in areas such as cause prioritization, existential risk identification and mitigation, and technical research on the development of safe and secure artificial intelligence—where it was among the first funders. Most of our fund managers have built their careers working full time in areas directly relevant to the Fund’s mission.

__The Fund managers can be contacted at longtermfuture[at]effectivealtruismfunds.org__



The future could include a large number of flourishing humans (or other beings). However, it is possible that certain risks could make the future much worse, or wipe out human civilization altogether. Actions taken to reduce these risks today might have large positive returns over long periods of time, greatly benefiting future people by making their lives much better, or by ensuring that there are many more of them. Donations to this fund might help to fund some of these actions and increase the chance of a positive long-term future.

Many people believe that we should care about the welfare of others, even if they are separated from us by distance, country, or culture. The argument for the long-term future extends this concern to those who are separated from us through time. Most people who will ever exist, exist in the future.

However, the emergence of new and powerful technologies puts the potential of these future people at risk. Of particular concern are [global catastrophic risks](https://concepts.effectivealtruism.org/concepts/global-catastrophic-risks/). These are risks that could affect humanity on a global scale and could significantly curtail its potential, either by reducing human civilization to a point where it could not recover, or by [completely wiping out humanity](https://concepts.effectivealtruism.org/concepts/existential-risks/).

For example, tech companies are pouring money into the development of advanced artificial intelligence systems; while the upside could be enormous, there are [significant potential risks](https://futureoflife.org/background/benefits-risks-of-artificial-intelligence) if humanity ends up creating AI systems that are many times smarter than we are, but that do not share our goals.

As another example, previous disease epidemics, such as the bubonic plague in Europe, or the introduction of smallpox into the Americas were responsible for many millions of deaths. [A genetically-engineered pathogen](https://futureoflife.org/background/benefits-risks-biotechnology/) to which few humans had immune resistance could be devastating on a global scale, especially in today’s hyper-connected world.

In addition to supporting direct work, it’s also important to advocate for the long-term future among key stakeholders. Promoting concern for the long-term future of humanity — within academia, government, industry, and elsewhere — means that more people will be aware of these issues, and can act to safeguard and improve the lives of future generations.



## You don’t think that we should focus on the long-term future

Donors might conclude that improving the long-term future is not sufficiently tractable to be worth supporting. It is very difficult to know whether actions taken now are actually likely to improve the long-term future. To gain feedback on their work, organizations must rely on proxy measures of success: Has the public become more supportive of their ideas? Are their researchers making progress on relevant questions? Unfortunately, there is no robust way of knowing whether succeeding on these proxy measures will cause an improvement to the long-term future. Donors who prefer tractable causes with strong feedback loops should consider giving to the [Global Health and Development Fund](https://app.effectivealtruism.org/funds/global-development).

## You don’t think that future or possible beings matter, or that they matter significantly less

Some donors may think that future or possible beings do not matter morally, or matter less than beings who currently exist. For example, one might have a moral position similar to what philosophers term the Person-Affecting View. According to this view, “an act can only be bad if it is bad for someone, so that there is no moral obligation to create people, nor moral good in creating people” ([Parfit (1991)](http://www.stafforini.com/docs/Parfit%20-%20Equality%20or%20priority.pdf), p. 114). Donors who hold these views should consider supporting organizations which focus on helping existing people, perhaps through the [Global Health and Development Fund](https://app.effectivealtruism.org/funds/global-development).

## You have a preference for supporting more established organizations

Donors may prefer to support established organizations. The fund's most recent grants have mostly funded newer organizations and individual researchers. This trend is likely to continue, provided that promising opportunities continue to exist.

## You are pessimistic about room for more funding

Donors may be pessimistic about the room for more funding available in this area. Open Philanthropy has [made global catastrophic risk reduction a major focus area](http://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-catastrophic-risks) and may fund many of the opportunities that the fund managers would find promising.

## You have identified projects or interventions that seem more promising to you than our recommendations

Well-informed donors with a good knowledge of the space may be in a position to identify opportunities that may be more promising than the recommendations of the Fund. These donors may be able to have a bigger impact by continuing to conduct their own research, rather than deferring to the Fund managers.

## You are skeptical of the risks posed by advanced artificial intelligence

Some donors may be skeptical that artificial intelligence constitutes a significant global catastrophic risk. While the Long-Term Future Fund is open to funding organizations that seek to reduce any type of global catastrophic risk — including risks from extreme climate change, nuclear war, and pandemics — grants so far have prioritized projects addressing risks posed by artificial intelligence, and the grantmakers expect to continue this at least in the short term.

## You have different views about how to improve the long-term future

Some donors in this area favor interventions which make humanity more likely to have a future, through activities like reducing existential risks. (This is the approach of most of the Fund’s grants so far.) Others favor interventions which [reduce the likelihood that future beings experience suffering](https://ea-foundation.org/grantmaking/). Finally, some favor interventions which focus on increasing the likelihood that we achieve extremely positive futures. Donors with strong views in these areas should consider directly supporting organizations that work to achieve their desired outcomes.

Because of the speculative nature of the space in which the Fund operates, and the difficulty of making judgements about which actions are likely to positively impact the long-term future, grants made by the fund are likely to be higher risk than those made by other Funds.

For more information on how we think about grantmaking risk, please read our [Risk Profiles page](/funds/about/risk).

What is the risk profile of the Long-Term Future Fund?

To make an effective donation, individual donors must spend a lot of time answering questions about which interventions are most likely to make progress in this area, which organizations are most effectively executing these interventions, and which organizations have funding gaps that are unlikely to be filled through other sources.

For areas such as global health and development or animal welfare, donors can get guidance from charity evaluators like GiveWell or Animal Charity Evaluators. No such organizations exist which focus on improving the long-term future.

Finding promising opportunities in this area is therefore especially challenging for individual donors. The fund managers have strong networks in this area which they can use to identify and evaluate new opportunities. In particular, they have a track record of being early funders of promising organizations like [CSER](https://www.cser.ac.uk/) and [FLI](https://futureoflife.org/). These opportunities are very hard for individual donors to find without first building strong networks in the space.

Why donate to the Long-Term Future Fund instead of donating directly to individual organizations?

The Long-Term Future Fund accepts applications for funding. Please submit your application by using the link below.

[Apply here](https://av20jp3z.paperform.co/?fund=Long-Term%20Future%20Fund)

Can I apply for funding to the Long-Term Future Fund?

The Long-Term Future Fund has [supported Logan Smith between 2022 and 2024](https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/grants?search=logan+&fund=Long-Term%2520Future%2520Fund&sort=round), providing a stipend of $40,000 every 6 months. In 2023, Logan and their team published exciting mechanistic interpretability results where they used [Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) to find highly interpretable directions in language models (LMs)](https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.08600). The fund has also supported [Hoagy Cunningham](https://github.com/HoagyC), the first author of the linked paper, for the same work. This work was quite similar to [research later published by Anthropic](https://transformer-circuits.pub/2023/monosemantic-features/index.html), which generated significant excitement in the AI safety community (and was a precursor to the recent excitement of [Golden Gate Claude](https://www.anthropic.com/news/golden-gate-claude)). For more information, see [this post](https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/F4iogK5xdNd7jDNyw/comparing-anthropic-s-dictionary-learning-to-ours) comparing their two papers.

In 2024, Logan and collaborators published two additional papers on using SAEs for model interpretability: [one focused on measuring progress in interpretability learning using LMs trained on board games](https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2024/file/9736acf007760cc2b47948ae3cf06274-Paper-Conference.pdf) and one focused on dark matter–LM activations unexplained by SAEs–finding much of it is linearly predictable and exploring methods to reduce the remaining nonlinear error.

6-month stipend to create language model (LM) tools to aid alignment research through feedback and content generation

The Long-Term Future Fund provided a grant of $121,575 to Robert Miles, administered through his fiscal sponsor, Ashgro Inc. The grant includes a $71,000 stipend for Rob and $50,000 for contractors and other expenses to support his work in producing YouTube videos, appearing on podcasts, helping researchers communicate their work, growing an online community to help newcomers get more involved, and building a large online FAQ at [aisafety.info](http://aisafety.info).

This grant continues the support we've given Rob in the past; we were his first significant funder and have been consistently happy with his progress. We believe Rob's historical impact with his outreach projects has been surprisingly large. [His videos](https://www.youtube.com/@RobertMilesAI) are of very high quality, with high overall production value and message fidelity. My understanding is that many technical researchers report satisfaction with the way their ideas are presented. Additionally, his videos are popular, with a typical Rob Miles video garnering between 100,000 and 200,000 views. While this is significantly lower than top technical YouTube channels, it has gained more traction than almost any other technical AI safety outreach to date.

The grant is also fairly cheap relative to the historical impact. Rob requested a $71,000 stipend, which is substantially lower than both his counterfactual earnings and the pay of other individuals who are competent in both technical AI safety and communications.

Since receiving the grant, Rob has posted three new YouTube videos, one summarizing events in AI and AI safety, one on AI control, and one on AI safety careers. These videos are well-researched and well-produced. Additionally, he has significantly increased the content and functionality on [aisafety.info](http://aisafety.info), including developing an AI safety chatbot to help answer questions not specifically mentioned on the site. Moreover, his online community on Discord remains active and a useful platform for information sharing about AI safety.

1-year stipend to make videos and podcasts about AI Safety/Alignment, and build a community to help new people get involved


The LTFF provided funding to Jeffrey Ladish–who formerly helped establish Anthropic’s information security program–to start [Palisade Research](https://palisaderesearch.org/), a nonprofit that researches cyber-offensive AI capabilities to communicate and mitigate threats. By conducting risk assessments on cyber capabilities and clearly and transparently communicating results to well-positioned policy professionals, Palisade aimed to slow down the trajectory of AGI development and buy time for more work on safeguards and alignment. Within their first few months of operations, Palisade planned to create demos of potential threats to present to policymakers to inform Senator Chuck Schumer’s AI bill. The LTFF fund managers felt that this initiative was promising because of Ladish’s entrepreneurship and intelligence and because policy work such as this is especially crucial.

During the grant period, Ladish successfully established Palisade Research, hired an initial team, and mentored several ML Alignment & Theory (MATS) scholars. They also created BadLlama (see [here](https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.20624) and [here](https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.01376v1) for more information), demonstrating how quickly and cheaply Llama’s safety fine-tuning could be disabled. These results were widely cited, [presented to Mark Zuckerberg](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/13/senate-ai-hearing-musk-zuckerburg-schumer/) at Senator Schumer’s Insight Forums, referenced by Senator Maggie Hassan in a [hearing on threats to national security](https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/etso/hearings/advanced-technology-examining-threats-to-national-security/), and used to advise the UK AI Safety Institute. They continue to publish important research on cyber-offensive threats from AI and continue to maintain a strong team.

6 month salary & operational expenses to start a cybersecurity & alignment risk assessment org

The Long-Term Future Fund provided a $40,680 grant to Gabriel Mukobi from September 2023 to June 2024, originally for 9 months of university tuition support. The grant enabled Gabe to pursue a Master's in Computer Science at Stanford, with a focus on technical AI governance.

Several factors favored funding Gabe, including his strong academic background (4.0 GPA in Stanford CS undergrad with 6 graduate-level courses), experience in difficult technical AI alignment internships (e.g., at the Krueger lab), and leadership skills demonstrated by starting and leading the Stanford AI alignment group. However, some fund managers were skeptical about the specific proposed technical research directions, although this was not considered critical for a skill-building and career-development grant. The fund managers also had some uncertainty about the overall value of funding Master's degrees.

Ultimately, the fund managers compared Gabe to marginal MATS graduates and concluded that funding him was favorable. They believed Gabe was better at independently generating strategic directions and being self-motivated for his work, compared to the median MATS graduate. They also considered the downside risks and personal costs of being a Master's student to be lower than those of independent research, as academia tends to provide more social support and mental health safeguards, especially for Master's degrees (compared to PhDs). Additionally, Gabe's familiarity with Stanford from his undergraduate studies was seen as beneficial on that axis. The fund managers also recognized the value of a Master's degree credential for several potential career paths, such as pursuing a PhD or working in policy. However, a caveat is that Gabe might have less direct mentorship relevant to alignment compared to MATS extension grantees.

After receiving the grant, Gabe noted that the grant allowed him to dedicate more time to schoolwork and research instead of taking on part-time jobs. He produced several new publications that received favorable media coverage and was accepted to 4 out of 6 PhD programs he applied to. The grant also allowed him to graduate in March instead of June. Due to his early graduation, Gabe did not need to use the entire granted amount, saving the LTFF money. He is now pursuing his PhD in Computer Science at UC Berkeley and is a member of the technical staff at the U.S. Center for AI Standards and Innovation.

9-month university tuition support for technical AI safety research focused on empowering AI governance interventions

Sage Bergerson received funding to collaborate on a research paper to analyze the implications of compute access, especially as it relates to research agendas in academic and industry machine learning labs. The researchers also planned to address risks from decreased scrutiny of industry machine learning models and communicate these risks to AI policy professionals. The LTFF recommended this grant due to Sage’s previous experience completing an NLP research fellowship at NYU and writing a paper as a fellow at the Stanford Existential Risk Initiative.

This funding enabled Sage to work with collaborators to improve the paper by adding information about policy implications, redesigning and updating figures, conducting several rounds of edits, and soliciting feedback from many sources, such as OpenAI and GovAI. [The paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.02452) was published in January 2024 (with Sage as the second author) and has been cited in several frontier AI governance research papers. Data analysis from this project found a decline in academic involvement in compute-intensive research; the paper outlined policy recommendations to mitigate this divide.

5-month part time stipend for collaborating on a research paper analyzing the implications of compute access with Epoch, FutureTech (MIT CSAIL), and GovAI

Funding people or projects that aim to improve the long-term future, such as by reducing risks from artificial intelligence and engineered pandemics.

With a small grant from the LTFF, Joshua Clymer ran experiments on instruction-following generalization to determine LLMs’ abilities to faithfully follow instructions in vastly different contexts from their training data. Per the published [paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07723) and [benchmark](https://github.com/Joshuaclymer/GENIES), the authors found that reward models trained to follow instructions on easy tasks do not naturally follow instructions on hard tasks. This research offers important insights on the need for better interpretability methods.

Created an instruction-generalization benchmark for LLMs

The [Alignment Ecosystem Development](https://alignment.dev/) have created approximately 15 different projects, including the AI Safety Map (aisafety.world), AI Safety Info (aisafety.info), and AI Safety Quest (aisafety.quest), to grow and improve the AI safety ecosystem. These projects include maintenance of comprehensive AI safety resources and organizations, guidance for careers in AI safety, and coordination of volunteers on AI safety and alignment projects.

Built and maintained digital infrastructure for the AI safety ecosystem

Noemi Dreksler received funding to improve understanding of public and expert opinions on AI, a key to developing informed AI governance strategies. Dreksler and collaborators published several important surveys, informing policymaking and directing further technical research, including [Forecasting AI Progress](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.04132.pdf), [Towards best practices in AGI safety and governance](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.07153.pdf), and [Ethics and Governance of Artificial Intelligence](https://www.ijcai.org/proceedings/2022/0811.pdf).

Conducted public and expert surveys on AI governance and forecasting

Tessa Alexanian launched [Catalyst](https://catalystbiosummit.com/), a biosecurity summit convening 100 participants, including members of the biotech industry, DIY biologists, and biosecurity researchers. Participants found the conversations, networking, workshops, and problem-solving challenges incredibly useful and reported the summit generally exceeded expectations, according to the [retrospective written by Catalyst’s team.](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/zda3ewg65XZxxdkeA/retrospective-on-catalyst-a-100-person-biosecurity-summit)