> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://ambitious-impact.gitbook.io/ambitious-impact-docs/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://ambitious-impact.gitbook.io/ambitious-impact-docs/ambitious-impact-eval/assessing-neglectedness.md). # Assessing neglectedness How we think about additionality and neglectedness ## Introduction This guide details how we think about neglectedness at Ambitious Impact. Our research focuses on investigating whether we should recommend an idea for incubation through the Charity Entrepreneurship Incubation Program. Neglectedness is the degree to which an area of work (e.g., hypertension) is being tackled by different actors. We divide neglectedness into three areas: * Actors: The number and scale of actors who work in a space or deliver a specific intervention, by location. * Funding: The amount of funding currently deployed within a given intervention/area. * Attention: The degree to which an intervention/area is popular in given circles. This may refer to support from academic communities, the public, etc. ## Assessing the funding landscape When assessing the funding landscape, we aim to generate an 80% confidence interval range for the amount of funding in a given space. Ideal outputs include: * A useful range for the total amount of funding in the relevant space * An estimate of the amount of money spent relative to the overall burden (i.e., USD per DALY available) * A sense of historical and future trends in this funding space. ### Step-by-step guide Here’s a suggested process for determining a range for the amount of funding being spent on a given area / intervention. 1. Determine the relevant space you wish to look at. For instance, if you are working on a very niche salt intervention, you may want to look at the money being spent on the broader issue of hypertension, which could be directed to work on salt consumption. If you are working on a very established intervention, such as Teaching At The Right Level, you may wish to narrow down on spending trends within that intervention space. 1. You may wish to report why you decided to look at this specific space, and report alternative sources or spaces a possible organization could draw funding from. 2. Google “philanthropic funding for \[cause area]” and “the state of global \[cause area] funding” to see if anyone has already done your job for you 1. Can also zoom out at this stage, so you could look for e.g., both hypertension (narrow cause area / specific intervention) and NCDs (broader cause area) 1. The broader cause area can inform the upper bound of your estimate 2. [IHME’s Financing Global Health visualizer](https://vizhub.healthdata.org/fgh/) can also give you an overview of the total funding going to various Global Health cause areas 3. There are also a few sources reporting on ODA which covers both Global Health and Global Development interventions, but I was unable to find a comprehensive source that includes NGO/private philanthropy funding as well 1. 2. 4. I was unable to find a comprehensive source to get an overview of the total funding going to various Animal Welfare interventions 5. Also worth checking if other research organizations have already looked into this (Rethink Priorities, Founders Pledge) 3. If you can only find information for the broader cause area, use an LLM to find the largest philanthropic organizations operating in the narrow cause area by asking: “Which philanthropic organizations give the most money to \[cause area]?” 1. I would suggest using the narrow cause area / specific intervention for LLM research. 4. Then use the LLM to find how much the identified actors have given by asking: “Looking at the websites of \[list identified organizations], how much funding have they given to \[cause area] initiatives?” 1. We should also look through funders in the AIM network. The LLM also seems to do a decent job of this, but many also have public grants databases that are easily filtered (linked below). 1. AIM network (Global Health): [GiveWell](https://airtable.com/appGuFtOIb1eodoBu/shr1EzngorAlEzziP/tblG72bMUu36lrWsr/viwJScgH8B6uRwJ8C), [Founders Pledge](https://www.founderspledge.com/programs/ghd-catalytic-impact-fund), [EA Funds](https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/grants), [Open Philanthropy](https://www.openphilanthropy.org/grants/?q=\&focus-area%5B%5D=human-health-and-wellbeing\&focus-area%5B%5D=global-health-development\&focus-area%5B%5D=global-public-health-policy\&focus-area%5B%5D=global-health-rd), [Agency Fund](https://www.agency.fund/investments), [Mulago](https://www.mulagofoundation.org/our-portfolio), [AIM Global Health Funding Circle](https://www.globalhealthfunders.com/updates), Schmidt Futures, [D-Prize](https://d-prize.org/winners) 2. AIM network (AW): [EA Funds](https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/grants), Animal Charity Evaluators, [Open Philanthropy](https://www.openphilanthropy.org/grants/?q=\&focus-area%5B%5D=farm-animal-welfare), [AIM Strategic Animals Funding Circle](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fRQejQGJsKx33ud8u/strategic-animals-funding-circle-results-from-first-two), Navigation Fund, Farmed Animal Funders, Mobius 2. It’s good practice to double-check ChatGPT’s sources, but it seems to be hallucinating less nowadays. 3. Note that ChatGPT seems to do a less good job for AW causes, but I guess we basically know all the funders, so we could do it manually anyway? 1. It does seem to better able to do it with a bit more prompting - when I sent it the specific grants database page of Open Philanthropy it was able to do this 5. Once you have collated this information, you should report it as follows: 1. A confidence interval of how much funding you think there is available in the space: e.g., From [Rethink Priorities’ report on hypertension](https://rethinkpriorities.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Hypertension.pdf): “Philanthropic spending on hypertension is roughly $50 million-$150 million per year (80% confidence interval)”. You should then detail why you think it falls within this range. 2. An estimate for how much funding is available per death and per DALY caused by the given condition, based on data from IHME GBD: e.g., From [Founders Pledge’s report on air pollution](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Td4nkg4v2spDgyyKL/air-pollution-founders-pledge-cause-report): “Air pollution receives just $9.57 per death, or $0.30 per DALY” 1. This is harder to do for animals, so I suggest we skip this level of specificity in this case. ### Resources * [G-FINDER](https://www.impactglobalhealth.org/data): R\&D / Pipeline funding tracker in global health areas * [VizHub - Financing Global Health](https://vizhub.healthdata.org/fgh/): Global Health financing tracker * [Visualizing ODA](https://visualizingoda.org/flow/visualize) and [Aid Atlas](https://aid-atlas.org/): ODA funding tracker across Global Health and Development interventions * [Donor Tracker](https://donortracker.org/): Global Health and Development tracker, in particular OECD countries. * [World Bank Projects](https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/projects-home) * AIM network (Global Health): [GiveWell](https://airtable.com/appGuFtOIb1eodoBu/shr1EzngorAlEzziP/tblG72bMUu36lrWsr/viwJScgH8B6uRwJ8C), [Founders Pledge](https://www.founderspledge.com/programs/ghd-catalytic-impact-fund), [EA Funds](https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/grants), [Open Philanthropy](https://www.openphilanthropy.org/grants/?q=\&focus-area%5B%5D=human-health-and-wellbeing\&focus-area%5B%5D=global-health-development\&focus-area%5B%5D=global-public-health-policy\&focus-area%5B%5D=global-health-rd), [Agency Fund](https://www.agency.fund/investments), [Mulago](https://www.mulagofoundation.org/our-portfolio), [AIM Global Health Funding Circle](https://www.globalhealthfunders.com/updates), Schmidt Futures, [D-Prize](https://d-prize.org/winners) * AIM network (AW): [EA Funds](https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/grants), Animal Charity Evaluators ([Recommended Charity Fund](https://animalcharityevaluators.org/donate/donor-resources/recommended-charity-fund/) and [Movement Grants](https://animalcharityevaluators.org/movement-grants/past-movement-grants-recipients/)), [Open Philanthropy](https://www.openphilanthropy.org/grants/?q=\&focus-area%5B%5D=farm-animal-welfare), [AIM Strategic Animals Funding Circle](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fRQejQGJsKx33ud8u/strategic-animals-funding-circle-results-from-first-two), Navigation Fund, Farmed Animal Funders, Mobius ### Examples of good practice GiveWell: [Crowdedness calculations for public health regulation (public)](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rzV2rR2kJy1cU6M41nWnBiEnAqHZW6fjlPPyOBV5fiM/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.u1zyloji5ohk) What we like: Transparent desk research with a clear sourcing and simple estimation approach that is similar to what we suggest: add up the largest funders you can find and get a range that way. Rethink Priorities: [Hypertension in low- and middle-income countries: Burden, interventions, and potential for philanthropic funding](https://rethinkpriorities.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Hypertension.pdf) and [Fungal diseases: Health burden, neglectedness, and potential interventions](https://rethinkpriorities.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/FungalDiseases-PDF.pdf) What we like: Transparent desk research using an approach similar to what we suggest which reports its findings with a clear and reasoned confidence interval for the amount of funding available in the space (which inspired how we suggest funding is reported in this process). Founders Pledge: [Air Pollution Cause Report](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RGb2FxoK0Z_i37DqAeRwgVQb1tWSVEE_MV1D92mgZS4/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.k2r9oaf7qeti) What we like: Funding availability is reported in terms of the amount of funding available per death/DALY caused by the issue. ## Appendix: Examples of the step-by-step funding assessment process ### Hypertension #### Rethink Priorities report ([Kudymowa, Leow, Van Schoubroeck & Hird, 2024](https://rethinkpriorities.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Hypertension.pdf)) Based on 3 hours of research searching the scientific and gray literature and the websites and annual reports of four large philanthropic organizations (Gates Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, Wellcome Trust, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative) Findings: “In 2019, $733 million (out of $41 billion on global health in total) was spent on NCDs through mechanisms of Development Assistance for Health—41% of this came from private philanthropies (Jailobaeva et al., 2021). A quick search of the websites and annual reports of the four philanthropic organizations did not yield spending figures related to hypertension or, more broadly, cardiovascular diseases or NCDs. NCDs did not appear to be a focus area of the Gates Foundation (e.g. 2021 Annual Report), the Wellcome Trust (e.g. Annual report and Financial Statements 2021), or the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (e.g. Chan Zuckerberg website). The promotion of cardiovascular health features prominently on the Bloomberg Philanthropies website and in their 2021 Annual report (p. 32), but we have not found concrete spending figures. Our impression from skimming these reports and websites is that the vast majority of these organizations’ hypertension-related spending goes towards Resolve to Save Lives. The Gates Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative jointly committed $225 million over five years, i.e. $45 million per year, to support Resolve to Save Lives in 2017 (NCD Alliance website). Overall, taking these different pieces of information together, our best guess is that annual philanthropic spending on hypertension is about $50 million-$150 million (80% confidence interval). Our reasoning is as follows: Annual philanthropic spending for hypertension is at least $45 million, and we expect that the true figure is likely somewhat higher than that (we expect that we missed some smaller funding streams). We also know that total spending on NCDs from philanthropies is $300 million/year, which likely goes only partly towards hypertension, and partly to other NCDs (e.g. cancers, mental health conditions). As hypertension represents a large part of NCDs and also shares some risk factors with other NCDs, we think that plausibly half of the NCD funding could go towards hypertension.” #### Using methodology 1. Nothing really came up when specifically looking at hypertension. Googling “philanthropic funding for NCDs” finds the same Jailobaeva et al., 2021 paper and also a more up-to-date paper from the NCD Alliance -> \~$300 million spent on NCDs by private philanthropies (41% of $733 million) 2. ChatGPT identified the following funders: Leducq Foundation, Resolve to Save Lives, Wellcome Trust, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies -> Also mentioned that RTSL got major funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Gates Philanthropy Partners. 3. I added in the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative as ChatGPT didn’t identify this itself. Then it got the following information from these organizations’ websites: 1. RTSL - >$13.4 million total through regranting over many years 2. Leducq Foundation - >$14 million over \~5 years ($2.8M/year) 3. Bloomberg - $215 million total from Bloomberg across 2017-2027 1. 2017 - $225 million total to support RTSL over five years from Bloomberg, the Gates Foundation, and Gates Philanthropy Partners, which is funded with support from the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation ($45M/year) 2. 2022 - $115 million additional funding over the next five years from Bloomberg specifically ($23M/year) 4. Gates Foundation - >$16.64 million total over many years 5. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Wellcome Trust, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative - N/A 4. Philanthropic spending on hypertension is roughly $30 million-$150 million per year (80% confidence interval) 1. $30 million is based on the Bloomberg $23M/year from 2022-2027 plus additional small amounts from other funders (e.g., Leducq’s $2.8M/year and others we might be missing) 1. This could be too little and instead it should be $45M/year based on the RTSL funding from Bloomberg, Gates, and others but this is historical (2017-2022) and doesn’t seem to have been renewed other than Bloomberg 2. $150 million is based on the $300M going to NCDs as a whole where we assumed 50% would go to hypertension (definitely primed by RP’s report). This means that hypertension receives \~$4,000 per death, or \~$140 per DALY based on 2021 IHME data. ### Fungal diseases #### Rethink Priorities report ([Kudymowa, Hu & Hird, 2024](https://rethinkpriorities.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/FungalDiseases-PDF.pdf)) We estimate that annual philanthropic spending is less than USD 10M. Our impression is that most philanthropic spending on fungal diseases comes from three initiatives with a total budget of around USD 10M or lower per year * Wellcome Trust - Unclear, but likely \ --- # Agent Instructions This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com. ## Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the following URL with the `ask` and `goal` query parameters: ``` GET https://ambitious-impact.gitbook.io/ambitious-impact-docs/ambitious-impact-eval/assessing-neglectedness.md?ask=&goal= ``` `ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. `goal` is what the user is ultimately trying to achieve, the reason they need the answer. Sharing it helps GitBook give you a better, more relevant answer. A goal is most helpful when it describes the outcome the user wants rather than restating the question. For example, with `ask=how do I create an API token`, a goal like `automate deployments from our CI pipeline` lets GitBook tailor the answer to that use case. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.