This is an online portal with information on donations that were announced publicly (or have been shared with permission) that were of interest to Vipul Naik. The git repository with the code for this portal, as well as all the underlying data, is available on GitHub. All payment amounts are in current United States dollars (USD). The repository of donations is being seeded with an initial collation by Issa Rice as well as continued contributions from him (see his commits and the contract work page listing all financially compensated contributions to the site) but all responsibility for errors and inaccuracies belongs to Vipul Naik. Current data is preliminary and has not been completely vetted and normalized; if sharing a link to this site or any page on this site, please include the caveat that the data is preliminary (if you want to share without including caveats, please check with Vipul Naik). We expect to have completed the first round of development by the end of March 2022. See the about page for more details. Also of interest: pageview data on analytics.vipulnaik.com, tutorial in README, request for feedback to EA Forum.
|Affiliated organizations (current or former; restricted to potential donees or others relevant to donation decisions)||GiveWell Good Ventures|
|Best overview URL||https://causeprioritization.org/Open%20Philanthropy%20Project|
|Page on philosophy informing donations||https://www.openphilanthropy.org/about/vision-and-values|
|Grant application process page||https://www.openphilanthropy.org/giving/guide-for-grant-seekers|
|Regularity with which donor updates donations data||continuous updates|
|Regularity with which Donations List Website updates donations data (after donor update)||continuous updates|
|Lag with which donor updates donations data||months|
|Lag with which Donations List Website updates donations data (after donor update)||days|
|Data entry method on Donations List Website||Manual (no scripts used)|
Brief history: The Open Philanthropy Project (Open Phil for short) spun off from GiveWell, starting as GiveWell Labs in 2011, beginning to make strong progress in 2013, and formally separating from GiveWell in June 2017
Brief notes on broad donor philosophy and major focus areas: The Open Philanthropy Project is focused on openness in two ways: open to ideas about cause selection, and open in explaining what they are doing. It has endorsed "hits-based giving" and is working on areas of AI risk, biosecurity and pandemic preparedness, and other global catastrophic risks, criminal justice reform (United States), animal welfare, and some other areas.
Notes on grant decision logistics: See https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/our-grantmaking-so-far-approach-and-process for the general grantmaking process and https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/questions-we-ask-ourselves-making-grant for more questions that grant investigators are encouraged to consider. Every grant has a grant investigator that we call the influencer here on Donations List Website; for focus areas that have Program Officers, the grant investigator is usually the Program Officer. The grant investigator has been included in grants published since around July 2017. Grants usually need approval from an executive; however, some grant investigators have leeway to make "discretionary grants" where the approval process is short-circuited; see https://www.openphilanthropy.org/giving/grants/discretionary-grants for more. Note that the term "discretionary grant" means something different for them compared to government agencies, see https://www.facebook.com/vipulnaik.r/posts/10213483361534364 for more.
Notes on grant publication logistics: Every publicly disclosed grant has a writeup published at the time of public disclosure, but the writeups vary significantly in length. Grant writeups are usually written by somebody other than the grant investigator, but approved by the grant investigator as well as the grantee. Grants have three dates associated with them: an internal grant decision date (that is not publicly revealed but is used in some statistics on total grant amounts decided by year), a grant date (which we call donation date; this is the date of the formal grant commitment, which is the published grant date), and a grant announcement date (which we call donation announcement date; the date the grant is announced to the mailing list and the grant page made publicly visible). Lags are a few months between decision and grant, and a few months between grant and announcement, due to time spent with grant writeup approval.
Notes on grant financing: See https://www.openphilanthropy.org/giving/guide-for-grant-seekers or https://www.openphilanthropy.org/about/who-we-are for more information. Grants generally come from the Open Philanthropy Project Fund, a donor-advised fund managed by the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, with most of its money coming from Good Ventures. Some grants are made directly by Good Ventures, and political grants may be made by the Open Philanthropy Action Fund. At least one grant https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/us-policy/criminal-justice-reform/working-families-party-prosecutor-reforms-new-york was made by Cari Tuna personally. The majority of grants are financed by the Open Philanthropy Project Fund; however, the source of financing of a grant is not always explicitly specified, so it cannot be confidently assumed that a grant with no explicit listed financing is financed through the Open Philanthropy Project Fund; see the comment https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/october-2017-open-thread?page=2#comment-462 for more information. Funding for multi-year grants is usually disbursed annually, and the amounts are often equal across years, but not always. The fact that a grant is multi-year, or the distribution of the grant amount across years, are not always explicitly stated on the grant page; see https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/october-2017-open-thread?page=2#comment-462 for more information. Some grants to universities are labeled "gifts" but this is a donee classification, based on different levels of bureaucratic overhead and funder control between grants and gifts; see https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/october-2017-open-thread?page=2#comment-462 for more information.
Miscellaneous notes: Most GiveWell-recommended grants made by Good Ventures and listed in the Open Philanthropy Project database are not listed on Donations List Website as being under Open Philanthropy Project. Specifically, GiveWell Incubation Grants are not included (these are listed at https://donations.vipulnaik.com/donor.php?donor=GiveWell+Incubation+Grants with donor GiveWell Incubation Grants), and grants made by Good Ventures to GiveWell top and standout charities are also not included (these are listed at https://donations.vipulnaik.com/donor.php?donor=Good+Ventures%2FGiveWell+top+and+standout+charities with donor Good Ventures/GiveWell top and standout charities). Grants to support GiveWell operations are not included here; they can be found at https://donations.vipulnaik.com/donor.php?donor=Good+Ventures%2FGiveWell+support with donor "Good Ventures/GiveWell support".The investment https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/us-policy/farm-animal-welfare/impossible-foods in Impossible Foods is not included because it does not fit our criteria for a donation, and also because no amount was included. All other grants publicly disclosed by the Open Philanthropy Project that are not GiveWell Incubation Grants or GiveWell top and standout charity grants should be included. Grants disclosed by grantees but not yet disclosed by the Open Philanthropy Project are not included; some of them may be listed at https://issarice.com/open-philanthropy-project-non-grant-funding
|Cause area||Count||Median||Mean||Minimum||10th percentile||20th percentile||30th percentile||40th percentile||50th percentile||60th percentile||70th percentile||80th percentile||90th percentile||Maximum|
|Global health and development||3||3,000,000||2,100,000||300,000||300,000||300,000||300,000||3,000,000||3,000,000||3,000,000||3,000,000||3,000,000||3,000,000||3,000,000|
If you hover over a cell for a given cause area and year, you will get a tooltip with the number of donees and the number of donations.
Note: Cause area classification used here may not match that used by donor for all cases.
|Cause area||Number of donations||Number of donees||Total||2019||2018||2016||2013|
|Global health and development (filter this donor)||3||1||6,300,000.00||3,000,000.00||0.00||3,000,000.00||300,000.00|
|Global poverty (filter this donor)||1||1||46,696.00||0.00||46,696.00||0.00||0.00|
Graph of spending by cause area and year (incremental, not cumulative)
Graph of spending by cause area and year (cumulative)
If you hover over a cell for a given subcause area and year, you will get a tooltip with the number of donees and the number of donations.
For the meaning of “classified” and “unclassified”, see the page clarifying this.
|Subcause area||Number of donations||Number of donees||Total||2019||2018||2016||2013|
|Global health and development||3||1||6,300,000.00||3,000,000.00||0.00||3,000,000.00||300,000.00|
|Global poverty/Global health and development||1||1||46,696.00||0.00||46,696.00||0.00||0.00|
Graph of spending by subcause area and year (incremental, not cumulative)
Graph of spending by subcause area and year (cumulative)
|Center for Global Development (filter this donor)||FB Tw WP Site||6,300,000.00||3,000,000.00||0.00||3,000,000.00||300,000.00|
|University of Michigan (filter this donor)||FB Tw WP Site||46,696.00||0.00||46,696.00||0.00||0.00|
Graph of spending by donee and year (incremental, not cumulative)
Graph of spending by donee and year (cumulative)
If you hover over a cell for a given influencer and year, you will get a tooltip with the number of donees and the number of donations.
For the meaning of “classified” and “unclassified”, see the page clarifying this.
|Influencer||Number of donations||Number of donees||Total||2019||2016||2013|
|Alexander Berger|Jacob Trefethen||1||1||3,000,000.00||3,000,000.00||0.00||0.00|
Graph of spending by influencer and year (incremental, not cumulative)
Graph of spending by influencer and year (cumulative)
Sorry, we couldn't find any disclosures information.
Sorry, we couldn't find any country information.
|Title (URL linked)||Publication date||Author||Publisher||Affected donors||Affected donees||Document scope||Cause area||Notes|
|Suggestions for Individual Donors from Open Philanthropy Staff - 2019||2019-12-18||Holden Karnofsky||Open Philanthropy||Chloe Cockburn Jesse Rothman Michelle Crentsil Amanda Hungerfold Lewis Bollard Persis Eskander Alexander Berger Chris Somerville Heather Youngs Claire Zabel||National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls Life Comes From It Worth Rises Wild Animal Initiative Sinergia Animal Center for Global Development International Refugee Assistance Project California YIMBY Engineers Without Borders 80,000 Hours Centre for Effective Altruism Future of Humanity Institute Global Priorities Institute Machine Intelligence Research Institute Ought||Donation suggestion list||Criminal justice reform|Animal welfare|Global health and development|Migration policy|Effective altruism|AI safety||Continuing an annual tradition started in 2015, Open Philanthropy Project staff share suggestions for places that people interested in specific cause areas may consider donating. The sections are roughly based on the focus areas used by Open Phil internally, with the contributors to each section being the Open Phil staff who work in that focus area. Each recommendation includes a "Why we recommend it" or "Why we suggest it" section, and with the exception of the criminal justice reform recommendations, each recommendation includes a "Why we haven't fully funded it" section. Section 5, Assorted recomendations by Claire Zabel, includes a list of "Organizations supported by our Committed for Effective Altruism Support" which includes a list of organizations that are wiithin the purview of the Committee for Effective Altruism Support. The section is approved by the committee and represents their views.|
|Recommendation to Open Philanthropy for Grants to Top Charities||2019-11-26||GiveWell||Open Philanthropy Good Ventures/GiveWell top and standout charities||Malaria Consortium Helen Keller International Sightsavers Against Malaria Foundation END Fund GiveDirectly Development Media International Dispenses for Safe Water Food Fortification Initiative Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition Georgetown University Initiative on Innovation, Development, and Evaluation Iodine Global Network Living Goods Project Healthy Children||Periodic donation list documentation||Global health and development||The document details GiveWell's recommendation in 2019 for grants by Good Ventures (via the Open Philanthropy Project) to GiveWell top and standout charities. The overall amount of money recommended for allocation is $54.6 million, and the document explains that Open Phil's calculation that it may make sense to spend down more slowly was the reason for reducing the allocation from last year. It discusses the principles used for allocation: (1) Put significant weight on cost-effectiveness estimates, (2) Consider additional information not explicitly modeled about the organization, (3) Consider additional information not explicitly modeled about the funding gap, (4) Assess funding gaps at the margin, (5) Default to not imposing restrictions on charity spending, (6) Default to funding on a 3-year horizon, and (7) Ensure charities are incentivized to engage with the process. The three charities that get significant grants are Malaria Consortium for its SMC program ($33.9 million), Helen Keller International ($9.7 million), and Sightsavers ($2.7 million). Against Malaria Foundation, END Fund, and GiveDirectly receive the minimum "incentive grant" amount of $2.5 million that all top charities should receive. The top charity Deworm the World Initiative is not given an incentive grant because it received a previous grant through GiveWell discretionary grant that more than covers the incentive grant amount. 8 standout charities get $100,000 each|
|GiveWell’s Top Charities Are (Increasingly) Hard to Beat||2019-07-09||Alexander Berger||Open Philanthropy||Open Philanthropy||GiveDirectly Against Malaria Foundation Schistosomiasis Control Initiative Target Malaria JustLeadershipUSA||Broad donor strategy||Global health and development|Criminal justice reform|Scientific research||In the blog post, Alexander Berger discusses how, originally, Open Philanthropy Project donations for near-term human well-being (primarily in the areas of criminal justice reform and scientific research) are compared against a cost-effectiveness benchmark of direct cash transfers, which is set as 100x (every $1 donated should yield $100 in benefits). However, since GiveWell has recently made its cost-effectiveness calculations for top charities more thorough, and now estimates that top charities are 5-15x as cost-effective as cash (or 500-1500x, with 1000x as a median), Berger is now comparing all the existing near-term human well-being grants against the 1000x benchmarks. He finds that, using the back-of-the-envelope calculations (BOTECs) done at the time of justifying the grants, many of the criminal justice reform grants do not clear the bar; in total only $32 million of the grants clears the bar, and about half of it is a single grant to Target Malaria. Berger links to https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GsE2_TNWn0x6MWL1PTdkZT2vQNFW8VFBslC5qjk4sgo/edit?ts=5cc10604 for some sample BOTECs.|
|Suggestions for Individual Donors from Open Philanthropy Project Staff - 2018||2018-12-20||Holden Karnofsky||Open Philanthropy||Chloe Cockburn Lewis Bollard Amanda Hungerford Alexander Berger Luke Muelhhauser||National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls Texas Organizing Project Effective Altruism Funds The Humane League Center for Global Development International Refugee Assistance Project Donor lottery||Donation suggestion list||Criminal justice reform|Animal welfare|Global health and development|Migration policy|Effective altruism||Open Philanthropy Project staff give suggestions on places that might be good for individuals to donate to. Each suggestion includes a section "Why I suggest it", a section explaining why the Open Philanthropy Project has not funded (or not fully funded) the opportunity, and links to relevant writeups. The post continues a tradition of similar posts published once a year.|
|The world’s most intellectual foundation is hiring. Holden Karnofsky, founder of GiveWell, on how philanthropy can have maximum impact by taking big risks.||2018-02-27||Robert Wiblin Kieran Harris Holden Karnofsky||80,000 Hours||Open Philanthropy||Broad donor strategy||AI safety|Global catastrophic risks|Biosecurity and pandemic preparedness|Global health and development|Animal welfare|Scientific research||This interview, with full transcript, is an episode of the 80,000 Hours podcast. In the interview, Karnofsky provides an overview of the cause prioritization and grantmaking strategy of the Open Philanthropy Project, and also notes that the Open Philanthropy Project is hiring for a number of positions.|
|Where, why and how I donated in 2017||2018-02-01||Ben Kuhn||Ben Kuhn Open Philanthropy Effective Altruism Funds Effective Altruism Grants||GiveWell GiveWell top charities EA Giving Group Effective Altruism Funds||Periodic donation list documentation||Global health and development||Kuhn describes his decision to allocate his donation amount ($60,000, calculated as 50% of his income for the year) between GiveWell, GiveWell top charities, and his own donor-advised fund managed by Fidelity. Kuhn also discusses the Open Philanthropy Project, EA Funds, and EA Grants, and the EA Giving Group he donated to the previous year|
|Good Ventures and Giving Now vs. Later (2016 Update)||2016-12-28||Holden Karnofsky||Open Philanthropy||Good Ventures/GiveWell top and standout charities||GiveWell top charities Against Malaria Foundation Schistosomiasis Control Initiative Deworm the World Initiative GiveDirectly Malaria Consortium Sightsavers END Fund Development Media International Food Fortification Initiative Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition Iodine Global Network Living Goods Project Healthy Children||Reasoning supplement||Global health and development||Explanation of reasoning that led to $50 million allocation to GiveWell top charities|
|Open Philanthropy Project: Progress in 2014 and Plans for 2015||2015-03-12||Holden Karnofsky||Open Philanthropy||Open Philanthropy||Broad donor strategy||Global catastrophic risks|Scientific research|Global health and development||The blog post compares progress made by the Open Philanthropy Project in 2015 against plans laid out in https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/givewell-labs-progress-2013-and-plans-2014 and lays out further plans for 2015. The post says that progress in the areas of U.S. policy and global catastrophic risks was substantial and matched expectations, but progress in scientific research and global health and development was less than hoped for. The plan for 2015 is to focus on growing more in the domain of scientific research and postpone work on global health and development (thus freeing up staff capacity). There is much more detail in the post.|
|Potential U.S. Policy Focus Areas||2014-05-29||Holden Karnofsky||Open Philanthropy||Open Philanthropy||Broad donor strategy||Cause prioritization|Criminal justice reform|Drug policy|Migration policy|Macroeconomic stabilization policy|Global health and development|Climate change|Tax policy||The blog post reviews the current understanding of the Open Philanthropy Project of various cause areas that they are considering for their grantmaking. They break up the cause areas discussed as: Windows of opportunity: outstanding tractability (i.e., "the time is right"), Ambitious longshots: outstanding importance, and Green fields: outstanding "room for more philanthropy". Other causes of interest (that do not neatly fit into one of these boxes) are also discussed.|
|Advocacy for Improved or Increased U.S. Foreign Aid||Open Philanthropy||Open Philanthropy||Review of current state of cause area||Global health and development||The Open Philanthropy Project reviews the current state of policy advocacy for increasing development assistance from the United States government, in order to identify what a new funder (potentially, the Open Philanthropy Project) could do in the space.|
Graph of top 10 donees by amount, showing the timeframe of donations
|Donee||Amount (current USD)||Amount rank (out of 4)||Donation date||Cause area||URL||Influencer||Notes|
|Center for Global Development||3,000,000.00||1||Global health and development||https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/center-global-development-general-support-2019||Alexander Berger Jacob Trefethen||Donation process: This is a grant renewal of another grant of the same size three years ago. The grant page says: "Our renewal decision at this stage was based largely on our previous decision and the view that three years was too short a window on which to update for a mature but hits-based organization like CGD."
Intended use of funds (category): Organizational general support
Intended use of funds: Grantee "is a think tank that conducts research on and promotes improvements to rich-world policies that affect the global poor." For the previous grant: "CGD says it used to conduct research on aid effectiveness, U.S. development policy, universal basic income in India, and taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and sugar."
Donor reason for selecting the donee: The grant renews a previous grant https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/center-global-development-general-support-2016 and the reasons remain the same as specified in that grant write-up. The grant page says: "Our renewal decision at this stage was based largely on our previous decision and the view that three years was too short a window on which to update for a mature but hits-based organization like CGD."
Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): The grant amount as well as structure of the grant exactly match the February 2016 grant https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/center-global-development-general-support-2016 namely $3 million over 3 years
Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Timing determined by the end of the previous three-year grant https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/center-global-development-general-support-2016 made in Februay 2016 (the renewal, in June 2019, is four months ago)
Intended funding timeframe in months: 36
Donor thoughts on making further donations to the donee: According to the grant page: "We expect to undertake a more thorough evaluation of CGD’s performance approximately two years into this grant, which would be five years into our overall support." Announced: 2019-09-05.
|University of Michigan||46,696.00||4||Global poverty/Global health and development||https://www.openphilanthropy.org/giving/grants/university-of-michigan-support-for-david-manley||--||Grant to support course development and research by Professor David Manley. Professor Manley is planning to develop and teach a new course titled “Changing the World.” The course will focus on global health and poverty, animal welfare, environmental preservation, and the long-term survival of human civilization. The goal is to provide students with the conceptual resources to evaluate which global causes matter most, and how they can most effectively make a difference. Announced: 2018-11-03.|
|Center for Global Development||3,000,000.00||1||Global health and development||https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/us-policy/miscellaneous/center-global-development-general-support-2016||Alexander Berger||Donation process: https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/center-global-development-general-support-2016#Our_process says: "In mid-2014 [...] we told CGD that we were interested in funding more policy outreach work. In October 2014, CGD sent us a proposal for a $2.3 million grant to create a “Do Fund”, which would support policy outreach work for three years. In follow-up conversations, CGD told us that it would prefer unrestricted funding, and we shifted to considering that. [...] CGD sent us an outline of some hypothetical activities that it might undertake with different levels of additional unrestricted funding [...]. Before reaching a decision, we investigated the case studies summarized above to improve our understanding of CGD’s track record."
Intended use of funds (category): Organizational general support
Intended use of funds: The funding is unrestricted, but as part of the grant proposal, the grantee, CGD, shared a list of activities it may use the funds for: https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/center-global-development-general-support-2016#Grant_timeline_and_proposed_activities The activities include various forms of additional research, hiring people (consultants, associates, researchers) and expanding a fellowship exchange program
Donor reason for selecting the donee: https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/center-global-development-general-support-2016#Considerations_in_favor_of_and_against_the_grant says: "We see our unrestricted grant to CGD as a way to support an organization with values closely aligned with ours. We think it is likely that CGD has produced a great deal more value for the global poor than it has spent as an organization, and the potential future activities that CGD has shared to date generally strike us as promising, so we see further unrestricted funding as an attractive grant opportunity. As is fairly typical of our policy grants, our modal guess is that this grant will have limited, if any, humanitarian impact, but that there is a sufficient probability of a very large positive impact to justify the grant." Earlier sections in the grant page discuss proposed activities and track record
Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): Amount of $3 million (which is to be distributed in three annual installments of $1 million each) determined based on what CGD requested (initially, $2.3 million), as well as what Open Phil considers an appropriate level of fundings
Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Timing determined partly by the completion of the timeframe for the previous grant, and also by the time it took Open Phil and CGD to work out the case for the grant
Intended funding timeframe in months: 36
Donor retrospective of the donation: Followup conversation with Todd Moss and Kathy Smith of grantee organization at https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/default/files/Todd_Moss_Kathy_Smith_06-21-16_%28public%29.pdf on 2016-06-21. The grant would be renewed at https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/center-global-development-general-support-2019 in June 2019 for the same amount ($3 million over 3 years) for the same reasons. This suggests that Open Phil would continue to endorse the reasoning behind the grant Announced: 2016-02-24.
|Center for Global Development||300,000.00||3||Global health and development||https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/center-global-development-general-support||Alexander Berger||Donation process: This grant was made by Good Ventures with input from GiveWell, before the Open Philanthropy Project was a clear and distinct entity.
Intended use of funds (category): Organizational general support
Intended use of funds: The grant page says the grant is "to the Center for Global Development (CGD) in July 2013 for general operating support. The grant will support CGD’s research on topics related to global poverty and inequality."
Donor reason for selecting the donee: The grant page says: "We’ve found CGD to be a valuable resource as we explore potential future focus areas for Good Ventures. Learn more about our rationale for awarding this grant and how CGD is informing our work. This award is a “learning grant,” meaning that it’s designed to help us learn more about an organization or cause we find promising. This grant is unrestricted so that the organization can decide for itself how best to translate the funds into impact." The linked blog post with the rationale is https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/grant-center-global-development-cgd
Donor retrospective of the donation: Followup conversation with Todd Moss and Kathy Smith of grantee organization at https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/default/files/Todd_Moss_and_Kathy_Smith_12-15-2015_%28public%29.pdf on 2015-12-15. Followup grants https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/us-policy/miscellaneous/center-global-development-general-support-2016 and https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/center-global-development-general-support-2019 suggest that the grant would be considered a success and Open Phil would continue to endorse its reasoning Intended funding timeframe in months: 36.
Sorry, we couldn't find any similar donors.