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 July 2024. 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.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Country | United States |
| 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 |
| Facebook username | openphilanthropy |
| Website | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/ |
| Donations URL | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/giving/grants |
| Twitter username | open_phil |
| PredictionBook username | OpenPhilUnofficial |
| 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) |
| Org Watch page | https://orgwatch.issarice.com/?organization=Open+Philanthropy |
Brief history: Open Philanthropy (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 as the "Open Philanthropy Project" in June 2017. In 2020, it started going by "Open Philanthropy" dropping the "Project" word.
Brief notes on broad donor philosophy and major focus areas: Open Philanthropy 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 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 database are not listed on Donations List Website as being under Open Philanthropy. 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 open philanthropy 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 Open Philanthropy 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 33 | 2,500,000 | 5,279,742 | 46,696 | 50,000 | 50,000 | 500,000 | 2,500,000 | 2,500,000 | 2,796,000 | 4,103,000 | 8,059,000 | 10,400,000 | 33,926,000 |
| Global poverty | 1 | 46,696 | 46,696 | 46,696 | 46,696 | 46,696 | 46,696 | 46,696 | 46,696 | 46,696 | 46,696 | 46,696 | 46,696 | 46,696 |
| Global health | 28 | 2,500,000 | 5,960,171 | 50,000 | 50,000 | 50,000 | 724,929 | 2,500,000 | 2,500,000 | 2,796,000 | 6,500,000 | 9,700,000 | 26,600,000 | 33,926,000 |
| 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 |
| Global catastrophic risks|Global health|Animal welfare | 1 | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 | 1,000,000 |
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 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2016 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global health (filter this donor) | 28 | 16 | 166,884,786.00 | 5,975,000.00 | 92,984,857.00 | 17,200,000.00 | 48,500,000.00 | 724,929.00 | 500,000.00 | 0.00 | 1,000,000.00 |
| Global health and development (filter this donor) | 3 | 1 | 6,300,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3,000,000.00 | 0.00 | 3,000,000.00 | 0.00 | 300,000.00 | 0.00 |
| Global catastrophic risks|Global health|Animal welfare (filter this donor) | 1 | 1 | 1,000,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1,000,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Global poverty (filter this donor) | 1 | 1 | 46,696.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 46,696.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Total | 33 | 19 | 174,231,482.00 | 5,975,000.00 | 92,984,857.00 | 21,200,000.00 | 48,546,696.00 | 3,724,929.00 | 500,000.00 | 300,000.00 | 1,000,000.00 |
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 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2016 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global health/malaria/seasonal malaria chemoprevention | 3 | 1 | 87,602,757.00 | 0.00 | 61,002,757.00 | 0.00 | 26,600,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Global health/deworming | 11 | 5 | 43,338,100.00 | 5,925,000.00 | 7,313,100.00 | 17,200,000.00 | 12,900,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Global health/nutrition/Vitamin A supplementation | 3 | 1 | 24,268,000.00 | 0.00 | 17,768,000.00 | 0.00 | 6,500,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Global health/malaria/bednets | 2 | 1 | 9,151,000.00 | 0.00 | 6,651,000.00 | 0.00 | 2,500,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Global health and development | 3 | 1 | 6,300,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3,000,000.00 | 0.00 | 3,000,000.00 | 0.00 | 300,000.00 | 0.00 |
| Global catastrophic risks|Global health|Animal welfare | 1 | 1 | 1,000,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1,000,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Global health/malaria/resistance | 1 | 1 | 1,000,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1,000,000.00 |
| Global health/nutrition | 3 | 3 | 824,929.00 | 0.00 | 100,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 724,929.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Global health/measurement | 1 | 1 | 500,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 500,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Global health | 2 | 2 | 100,000.00 | 0.00 | 100,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Global health/nutrition/iodine | 2 | 2 | 100,000.00 | 50,000.00 | 50,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Global poverty/Global health and development | 1 | 1 | 46,696.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 46,696.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Classified total | 33 | 19 | 174,231,482.00 | 5,975,000.00 | 92,984,857.00 | 21,200,000.00 | 48,546,696.00 | 3,724,929.00 | 500,000.00 | 300,000.00 | 1,000,000.00 |
| Unclassified total | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Total | 33 | 19 | 174,231,482.00 | 5,975,000.00 | 92,984,857.00 | 21,200,000.00 | 48,546,696.00 | 3,724,929.00 | 500,000.00 | 300,000.00 | 1,000,000.00 |
Graph of spending by subcause area and year (incremental, not cumulative)
Graph of spending by subcause area and year (cumulative)
| Donee | Cause area | Metadata | Total | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2016 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malaria Consortium (filter this donor) | Global health/malaria | FB Tw WP Site GW | 87,602,757.00 | 0.00 | 61,002,757.00 | 0.00 | 26,600,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Helen Keller International (filter this donor) | FB Tw WP Site | 24,268,000.00 | 0.00 | 17,768,000.00 | 0.00 | 6,500,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Sightsavers (filter this donor) | FB Tw WP Site | 15,206,100.00 | 2,796,000.00 | 2,710,100.00 | 9,700,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Deworm the World Initiative (filter this donor) | Global health/deworming | Tw WP Site GW | 14,503,000.00 | 0.00 | 4,103,000.00 | 0.00 | 10,400,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Against Malaria Foundation (filter this donor) | Global health/malaria | FB Tw WP Site GW CN GS TW | 11,651,000.00 | 0.00 | 6,651,000.00 | 2,500,000.00 | 2,500,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Center for Global Development (filter this donor) | FB Tw WP Site | 6,300,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3,000,000.00 | 0.00 | 3,000,000.00 | 0.00 | 300,000.00 | 0.00 | |
| Schistosomiasis Control Initiative (filter this donor) | Global health/deworming | Tw WP Site GW | 5,629,000.00 | 3,129,000.00 | 0.00 | 2,500,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| The END Fund (filter this donor) | 5,500,000.00 | 0.00 | 500,000.00 | 2,500,000.00 | 2,500,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||
| MIT Media Lab (filter this donor) | 1,000,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1,000,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||
| Population Services International (filter this donor) | FB Tw WP Site | 1,000,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1,000,000.00 | |
| Project Peanut Butter (filter this donor) | 724,929.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 724,929.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||
| International Development Association (filter this donor) | FB Tw WP Site | 500,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 500,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Development Media International (filter this donor) | WP | 50,000.00 | 0.00 | 50,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Dispensers for Safe Water (filter this donor) | 50,000.00 | 0.00 | 50,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||
| Food Fortification Initiative (filter this donor) | 50,000.00 | 0.00 | 50,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||
| Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (filter this donor) | FB Tw WP Site | 50,000.00 | 50,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Iodine Global Network (filter this donor) | 50,000.00 | 0.00 | 50,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||
| Project Healthy Children (filter this donor) | WP | 50,000.00 | 0.00 | 50,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| University of Michigan (filter this donor) | FB Tw WP Site | 46,696.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 46,696.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Total | -- | -- | 174,231,482.00 | 5,975,000.00 | 92,984,857.00 | 21,200,000.00 | 48,546,696.00 | 3,724,929.00 | 500,000.00 | 300,000.00 | 1,000,000.00 |
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 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2016 | 2013 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GiveWell | 25 | 13 | 164,659,857.00 | 5,975,000.00 | 92,984,857.00 | 17,200,000.00 | 48,500,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Alexander Berger | 2 | 1 | 3,300,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3,000,000.00 | 300,000.00 |
| Alexander Berger|Jacob Trefethen | 1 | 1 | 3,000,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3,000,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Claire Zabel | 1 | 1 | 1,000,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1,000,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Classified total | 29 | 15 | 171,959,857.00 | 5,975,000.00 | 92,984,857.00 | 21,200,000.00 | 48,500,000.00 | 3,000,000.00 | 300,000.00 |
| Unclassified total | 4 | 4 | 2,271,625.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 46,696.00 | 724,929.00 | 0.00 |
| Total | 33 | 19 | 174,231,482.00 | 5,975,000.00 | 92,984,857.00 | 21,200,000.00 | 48,546,696.00 | 3,724,929.00 | 300,000.00 |
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.
If you hover over a cell for a given country 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.
| Country | Number of donations | Number of donees | Total | 2021 | 2020 | 2018 | 2012 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burkina Faso|Chad|Nigeria|Togo | 2 | 1 | 61,002,757.00 | 0.00 | 61,002,757.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Nigeria|Burkina Faso|Chad | 1 | 1 | 26,600,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 26,600,000.00 | 0.00 |
| Guinea|Mali|Burkina Faso|Côte d'Ivoire|Niger|Democratic Republic of the Congo|Nigeria | 1 | 1 | 9,709,000.00 | 0.00 | 9,709,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Democratic Republic of the Congo|Guinea | 1 | 1 | 6,651,000.00 | 0.00 | 6,651,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Kenya|Nigeria|Ghana|Indonesia | 1 | 1 | 4,103,000.00 | 0.00 | 4,103,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Nigeria|Cameroon|Demoocratic Republic of the Congo | 1 | 1 | 2,796,000.00 | 2,796,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Nigeria|Cameroon|Democratic Republic of the Congo | 1 | 1 | 2,710,100.00 | 0.00 | 2,710,100.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Myanmar | 1 | 1 | 1,000,000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1,000,000.00 |
| Classified total | 9 | 6 | 114,571,857.00 | 2,796,000.00 | 84,175,857.00 | 26,600,000.00 | 1,000,000.00 |
| Unclassified total | 24 | 17 | 59,659,625.00 | 3,179,000.00 | 8,809,000.00 | 21,946,696.00 | 0.00 |
| Total | 33 | 19 | 174,231,482.00 | 5,975,000.00 | 92,984,857.00 | 48,546,696.00 | 1,000,000.00 |
Graph of spending by country and year (incremental, not cumulative)
Graph of spending by country and year (cumulative)
| Title (URL linked) | Publication date | Author | Publisher | Affected donors | Affected donees | Affected influencers | Document scope | Cause area | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FTX Future Fund and Longtermism | 2022-03-17 | Rhys Lindmark | Open Philanthropy FTX Future Fund | Miscellaneous commentary | Longtermism|Global health and development | This blog post, cross-posted at https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fDLmDe8HQq2ueCxk6/ftx-future-fund-and-longtermism (GW, IR) to the EA Forum is written in a fun format and including charts and memes. The post talks about the change to the EA funding landscape with the arrival of FTX Future Fund, including both an increase in the amount of funding and the shift toward longtermism. | |||
| Some thoughts on recent Effective Altruism funding announcements. It's been a big week in Effective Altruism | 2022-03-03 | James Ozden | Open Philanthropy FTX Future Fund FTX Community Fund FTX Climate Fund | Mercy For Animals Charity Entrepreneurship | Miscellaneous commentary | Longtermism|Animal welfare|Global health and development|AI safety|Climate change | In this blog post, cross-posted at https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Wpr5ssnNW5JPDDPvd/some-thoughts-on-recent-effective-altruism-funding (GW, IR) to the EA Forum, James Ozden discusses recent increases in funding by donors aligned with effective altruism (EA) and makes forecasts for the amount of annual money moved by 2025. Highlights of the post: 1. The entry of the FTX Future Fund is expected to increase the proportion of funds allocated to longtermist causes to increase to become more in line with what EA leaders think it should be (based on the data that https://80000hours.org/2021/08/effective-altruism-allocation-resources-cause-areas/ compiles). 2. Grantmaking capacity needs to be scaled up to match the increase in available funds. 3. The EA movement may need to shift from marginal thinking to coordination dynamics, as their funding amounts are no longer as marginal. 4. Entrepreneurs, founders, and incubators are needed. 6. We need to be more ambitious. | ||
| 2021 Allocation to GiveWell Top Charities: Why We’re Giving More Going Forward | 2021-11-22 | Alexander Berger | Open Philanthropy | Open Philanthropy Alexander Berger | GiveWell Maximum Impact Fund | GiveWell | Broad donor strategy | Global health and development | The post from Open Philanthropy co-CEO Alexander Berger announces "our largest-to-date support for GiveWell’s recommendations: $300 million for 2021, up from $100 million last year, with tentative plans to donate an additional $500 million per year in 2022 and 2023." The post explains reasons for the allocation, linking to https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/technical-updates-our-global-health-and-wellbeing-cause-prioritization-framework for technical background. Berger adds a parenthetical personal note in the post: "For what it’s worth, I still expect the bulk of my personal giving this year to go to the GiveWell Maximum Impact Fund, so I don’t think Open Philanthropy’s plans should be answer-changing for other individual donors." |
| Technical Updates to Our Global Health and Wellbeing Cause Prioritization Framework | 2021-11-19 | Peter Favaloro Alexander Berger | Open Philanthropy | Open Philanthropy Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation | GiveWell | Broad donor strategy | Global health and development|Scientific research | In this lengthy blog post, Open Philanthropy describes its updated thinking on the value of improving life expectancy versus increasing income, the implication for its bar for grants (roughly 900-1,100x cash in their new units, corresponding to 7-8x GiveDirectly in GiveWell's units), the tradeoff between investing to grow the portfolio and spending it quickly, in order to meet the goal of Good Ventures to spend down the fortune during their lifetime, the possible role of scientific research to uncover new opportunities, the role of other donors, the scalability of known highly cost-effective interventions, and many related topics. | |
| 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 | Malaria Consortium Helen Keller International Sightsavers Against Malaria Foundation The 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 | GiveWell | 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, The 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 | GiveWell | 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. | |
| Our updated top charities for giving season 2018 | 2018-11-26 | Catherine Hollander | GiveWell | GiveWell Maximum Impact Fund Open Philanthropy | GiveWell top charities Malaria Consortium Helen Keller International Against Malaria Foundation Deworm the World Initiative Schistosomiasis Control Initiative Sightsavers The END Fund GiveDirectly | GiveWell | Evaluator consolidated recommendation list | Global health and development | GiveWell annual top charities list. GiveWell recommends that donors donate to GiveWell to regrant to top charities at its discretion, but also provides details on the individual top charities so that people can make an informed decision. In addition, the amounts determined for GiveWell Maximum Impact Fund and for donation by Good Ventures are also included, though details of the amount recommended to Good Ventures are in a separate blog post https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-recommendation-to-good-ventures/ |
| 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 | ||
| Update on Investigating Neglected Goals in Biological Research | 2017-11-30 | Nick Beckstead | Open Philanthropy | Open Philanthropy Good Ventures/not recommended by GiveWell or Open Philanthropy Project | Target Malaria | Broad donor strategy | Scientific research,Global health,Biosecurity and pandemic preparedness,Agriculture | The blog post describes the way the Open Philanthropy Project is identifying neglected goals in biological research. Previously the hope was to investigate sub-areas deeply and produce write-ups. Now, the approach is more "opportunistic": rather than do public write-ups, staff look out for good opportunities for shovel-ready or highly promising grants in the specific topics identified as having strong potential. | |
| 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 The END Fund Development Media International Food Fortification Initiative Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition Iodine Global Network Living Goods Project Healthy Children | GiveWell | Reasoning supplement | Global health and development | Explanation of reasoning that led to $50 million allocation to GiveWell top charities |
| Here are the biggest things I got wrong in my attempts at effective altruism over the last ~3 years. | 2016-05-24 | Buck Shlegeris | Buck Shlegeris Open Philanthropy | Vegan Outreach Machine Intelligence Research Institute | Broad donor strategy | Global health|Animal welfare|AI safety | Buck Shlegeris, reflecting on his past three years as an effective altruist, identifies two mistakes he made in his past 3 years as an effective altruist: (1) "I thought leafleting about factory farming was more effective than GiveWell top charities. [...] I probably made this mistake because of emotional bias. I was frustrated by people who advocated for global poverty charities for dumb reasons. [...] I thought that if they really had that belief, they should either save their money just in case we found a great intervention for animals in the future, or donate it to the people who were trying to find effective animal right interventions. I think that this latter argument was correct, but I didn't make it exclusively." (2) "In 2014 and early 2015, I didn't pay as much attention to OpenPhil as I should have. [...] Being wrong about OpenPhil's values is forgivable, but what was really dumb is that I didn't realize how incredibly important it was to my life plan that I understand OpenPhil's values." (3) "I wish I'd thought seriously about donating to MIRI sooner. [...] Like my error #2, this is an example of failing to realize that when there's an unknown which is extremely important to my plans but I'm very unsure about it and haven't really seriously thought about it, I should probably try to learn more about it." | ||
| Suggestions for individual donors from Open Philanthropy Project staff | 2015-12-23 | Holden Karnofsky | Open Philanthropy | Chloe Cockburn Lewis Bollard Alexander Berger Nick Beckstead Howie Lempel | Alliance for Safety and Justice Bronx Freedom Fund The Humane League The Humane Society of the United States Center for Global Development Center for Popular Democracy Ploughshares Fund | Donation suggestion list | Criminal justice reform|Animal welfare|Global health | Open Philanthropy Project staff describe suggestions for best donation opportunities for individual donors in their specific areas. The post was originally published to the GiveWell blog. | |
| 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. | ||
| GiveWell Labs Update | 2013-09-26 | Holden Karnofsky | Open Philanthropy | Open Philanthropy | Broad donor strategy | Migration policy/labor mobility|Geoengineering research|Criminal justice reform|Animal welfare/factory farming|Open science|Global health/malaria|History of philanthropy | The blog post provides a general update on GiveWell Labs (that would later become Open Philanthropy). It lists seven causes that it considers promising and plans to investigate further. | ||
| 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 (for donations with known year of donation) by amount, showing the timeframe of donations
| Donee | Amount (current USD) | Amount rank (out of 33) | Donation date | Cause area | URL | Influencer | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schistosomiasis Control Initiative | 3,129,000.00 | 11 | Global health/deworming | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/schistosomiasis-control-initiative-general-support-2021 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget of $100 million is set by Open Philanthropy, but GiveWell decided to allocate only $70 million in end-of-year grantmaking and defers the remaining $30 million to early 2021. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation (published February 2021). Intended use of funds (category): Organizational general support Donor reason for selecting the donee: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#SCI_Foundation says: "We estimate that SCI's overall cost-effectiveness is 10x cash, which is right at our current funding threshold. We focus on SCI's overall cost-effectiveness because, based on our past experience with SCI and our understanding that SCI has access to a substantial amount of non-GiveWell-driven flexible funding, we don't currently believe that we can either predict or drive how SCI will use marginal funding. [...] our estimate of SCI's overall cost-effectiveness is quite sensitive to our estimates for its three most cost-effective country programs. [...] SCI's current and expected funding, along with this grant of $3.1 million, will allow SCI to maintain its current work through 2022." Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#SCI_Foundation says: "SCI's current and expected funding, along with this grant of $3.1 million, will allow SCI to maintain its current work through 2022." Percentage of total donor spend in the corresponding batch of donations: 4.47% Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations. Donor thoughts on making further donations to the donee: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#SCI_Foundation says: "SCI will be facing a large budget shortfall in 2023. We plan to decide in the next year whether we believe that SCI's use of additional funding in 2022 and 2023 is competitive with other opportunities to which we could direct funding. We plan to do further work on our worm burden assessment and have further conversations with SCI about how its choices of which countries to work with affect our estimate of its cost-effectiveness." Donor retrospective of the donation: SCI continues to remain a GiveWell top charity in 2021. Other notes: See https://www.givewell.org/charities/sci-foundation/November-2020-version for GiveWell's review of SCI at the time of the grant recommendation. |
|
| Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition | 50,000.00 | 27 | Global health/nutrition/iodine | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/global-alliance-improved-nutrition-universal-salt-iodization-january-2021 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget of $100 million is set by Open Philanthropy, but GiveWell decided to allocate only $70 million in end-of-year grantmaking and defers the remaining $30 million to early 2021. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation (published February 2021). Intended use of funds (category): Direct project expenses Intended use of funds: Grant to "support the Universal Salt Iodization program." Donor reason for selecting the donee: At the time of the grant, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition's Universal Salt Iodization Program was a GiveWell standout charity, per https://www.givewell.org/charities/other-charities/November-2020-version and https://www.givewell.org/charities/other-charities/November-2020-version and https://www.givewell.org/charities/GAIN-May-2017-version (May 2017 review). It therefore qualified for the $50,000 end-of-year incentive grant recommendation that all GiveWell standout charities received. Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): The amount of $50,000 is the amount of the incentive grant chosen for standout charities in 2020. https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Size_of_incentive_grants explains the reason for chosing the amount: "We also reduced our incentive grant recommendations for standout charities [from $100,000] to $50,000. Once a standout charity has been added to our list, we ask it to have one conversation with us each year and to review the notes we write to summarize what we learned from that conversation. We believe a smaller grant of $50,000 is appropriate for the time commitment this requires from standout charities." Percentage of total donor spend in the corresponding batch of donations: 0.07% Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations. Donor retrospective of the donation: https://blog.givewell.org/2021/10/05/discontinuing-standout-charity-designation/ (November 2021) announces discontinuation of the standout charity designation, and says: "We’ve recommended that Open Philanthropy make a $100,000 exit grant to each standout charity on our list." |
|
| Sightsavers | 2,796,000.00 | 14 | Global health/deworming | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/sightsavers-deworming-2021 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget of $100 million is set by Open Philanthropy, but GiveWell decided to allocate only $70 million in end-of-year grantmaking and defers the remaining $30 million to early 2021. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation (published February 2021). Intended use of funds (category): Direct project expenses Intended use of funds: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Sightsavers-_deworming_program says the grant is "to continue, through 2022, Sightsavers' deworming programs that have previously been funded by GiveWell-directed funding. This includes deworming programs in several states in Nigeria ($1.5 million, 30x cash), Cameroon ($1.2 million, 15x cash), and DRC ($200,000, 2x cash)." Donor reason for selecting the donee: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Our_recommended_allocation_to_Open_Philanthropy puts the grant in the bucket of "Limited support to programs that we have funded in the past that are less cost-effective than the needs we're prioritizing." It further says: "Many of these programs are only slightly less cost-effective than the programs we recommend on the margin (the programs that we model as more than 10x cash, listed in the next bullet). We may want to fund these programs in the future if available funding for our top charities outpaces new giving opportunities or if new information increases our estimate of their cost-effectiveness. We also think this funding could be justified on the basis of being responsible funders—i.e., not making large changes in our funding each year, which may help charities in their ability to plan." Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): The amount is the total amount that falls under the bucket of "Limited support to programs that we have funded in the past that are less cost-effective than the needs we're prioritizing." https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Sightsavers-_deworming_program has details on programs the amount will fund. It also lists funding gaps not being filled right now, for different reasons for the different gaps: desire to get Sightsavers to agree to more thorough data collection, as well as a low estimate of or high skepticism about cost-effectiveness. Percentage of total donor spend in the corresponding batch of donations: 3.99% Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations. Intended funding timeframe in months: 24 Donor thoughts on making further donations to the donee: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Sightsavers-_deworming_program lists unfuded opportunities of sizes $5.4 million (Chad), $1.3 million (Senegal), and $300,000 (Nigeria). For the first two, GiveWell plans to discuss more with Sightsavers and possibly recommend grants in the future. Donor retrospective of the donation: A followup grant from the GiveWell Maximum Impact Fund for the program in Chad in 2021 (see https://www.givewell.org/maximum-impact-fund/allocation-q1-2021 for details) suggests continued satisfaction with the grantee. Sightsavers' deworming program would continue to remain a GiveWell top charity in 2021. Other notes: See https://www.givewell.org/charities/sightsavers/November-2020-version for GiveWell's review of Sightsavers at the time of the grant recommendation. Affected countries: Nigeria|Cameroon|Demoocratic Republic of the Congo. |
|
| Dispensers for Safe Water | 50,000.00 | 27 | Global health | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/development-media-international-general-support-december-2020 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget of $100 million is set by Open Philanthropy, but GiveWell decided to allocate only $70 million in end-of-year grantmaking and defers the remaining $30 million to early 2021. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation (published February 2021). Intended use of funds (category): Organizational general support Donor reason for selecting the donee: At the time of the grant, Dispensers for Safe Water was a GiveWell standout charity, per https://www.givewell.org/charities/other-charities/November-2020-version and https://www.givewell.org/charities/dispensers-for-safe-water-December-2018-version (December 2018 review). It therefore qualified for the $50,000 end-of-year incentive grant recommendation that all GiveWell standout charities received. Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): The amount of $50,000 is the amount of the incentive grant chosen for standout charities in 2020. https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Size_of_incentive_grants explains the reason for chosing the amount: "We also reduced our incentive grant recommendations for standout charities [from $100,000] to $50,000. Once a standout charity has been added to our list, we ask it to have one conversation with us each year and to review the notes we write to summarize what we learned from that conversation. We believe a smaller grant of $50,000 is appropriate for the time commitment this requires from standout charities." Percentage of total donor spend in the corresponding batch of donations: 0.07% Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations. Donor retrospective of the donation: https://blog.givewell.org/2021/10/05/discontinuing-standout-charity-designation/ (November 2021) announces discontinuation of the standout charity designation, and says: "We’ve recommended that Open Philanthropy make a $100,000 exit grant to each standout charity on our list." |
|
| Project Healthy Children | 50,000.00 | 27 | Global health/nutrition | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/project-healthy-children-general-support-december-2020 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget of $100 million is set by Open Philanthropy, but GiveWell decided to allocate only $70 million in end-of-year grantmaking and defers the remaining $30 million to early 2021. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation (published February 2021). Intended use of funds (category): Organizational general support Donor reason for selecting the donee: At the time of the grant, Project Healthy Children was a GiveWell standout charity, per https://www.givewell.org/charities/other-charities/November-2020-version and https://www.givewell.org/charities/project-healthy-children-March-2017-version (March 2017 review). It therefore qualified for the $50,000 end-of-year incentive grant recommendation that all GiveWell standout charities received. Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): The amount of $50,000 is the amount of the incentive grant chosen for standout charities in 2020. https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Size_of_incentive_grants explains the reason for chosing the amount: "We also reduced our incentive grant recommendations for standout charities [from $100,000] to $50,000. Once a standout charity has been added to our list, we ask it to have one conversation with us each year and to review the notes we write to summarize what we learned from that conversation. We believe a smaller grant of $50,000 is appropriate for the time commitment this requires from standout charities." Percentage of total donor spend in the corresponding batch of donations: 0.07% Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations. Donor retrospective of the donation: https://blog.givewell.org/2021/10/05/discontinuing-standout-charity-designation/ (November 2021) announces discontinuation of the standout charity designation, and says: "We’ve recommended that Open Philanthropy make a $100,000 exit grant to each standout charity on our list." |
|
| Development Media International | 50,000.00 | 27 | Global health | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/development-media-international-general-support-december-2020 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget of $100 million is set by Open Philanthropy, but GiveWell decided to allocate only $70 million in end-of-year grantmaking and defers the remaining $30 million to early 2021. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation (published February 2021). Intended use of funds (category): Organizational general support Donor reason for selecting the donee: At the time of the grant, Development Media International was a GiveWell standout chraity, per https://www.givewell.org/charities/other-charities/November-2020-version and https://www.givewell.org/charities/DMI-July-2021-Version (July 2021 review). It therefore qualified for the $50,000 end-of-year incentive grant recommendation that all GiveWell standout charities received. Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): The amount of $50,000 is the amount of the incentive grant chosen for standout charities in 2020. https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Size_of_incentive_grants explains the reason for chosing the amount: "We also reduced our incentive grant recommendations for standout charities [from $100,000] to $50,000. Once a standout charity has been added to our list, we ask it to have one conversation with us each year and to review the notes we write to summarize what we learned from that conversation. We believe a smaller grant of $50,000 is appropriate for the time commitment this requires from standout charities." Percentage of total donor spend in the corresponding batch of donations: 0.07% Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations. Donor retrospective of the donation: https://blog.givewell.org/2021/10/05/discontinuing-standout-charity-designation/ (November 2021) announces discontinuation of the standout charity designation, and says: "We’ve recommended that Open Philanthropy make a $100,000 exit grant to each standout charity on our list." |
|
| Iodine Global Network | 50,000.00 | 27 | Global health/nutrition/iodine | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/iodine-global-network-general-support-december-2020 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget of $100 million is set by Open Philanthropy, but GiveWell decided to allocate only $70 million in end-of-year grantmaking and defers the remaining $30 million to early 2021. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation (published February 2021). Intended use of funds (category): Organizational general support Donor reason for selecting the donee: At the time of the grant, Iodine Global Network was a GiveWell standout charity, per https://www.givewell.org/charities/other-charities/November-2020-version and https://www.givewell.org/charities/IGN-December-2014-version (December 2014 review). It therefore qualified for the $50,000 end-of-year incentive grant recommendation that all GiveWell standout charities received. Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): The amount of $50,000 is the amount of the incentive grant chosen for standout charities in 2020. https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Size_of_incentive_grants explains the reason for chosing the amount: "We also reduced our incentive grant recommendations for standout charities [from $100,000] to $50,000. Once a standout charity has been added to our list, we ask it to have one conversation with us each year and to review the notes we write to summarize what we learned from that conversation. We believe a smaller grant of $50,000 is appropriate for the time commitment this requires from standout charities." Percentage of total donor spend in the corresponding batch of donations: 0.07% Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations. Donor retrospective of the donation: https://blog.givewell.org/2021/10/05/discontinuing-standout-charity-designation/ (November 2021) announces discontinuation of the standout charity designation, and says: "We’ve recommended that Open Philanthropy make a $100,000 exit grant to each standout charity on our list." |
|
| The END Fund | 500,000.00 | 24 | Global health/deworming | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/end-fund-general-support-2020 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget of $100 million is set by Open Philanthropy, but GiveWell decided to allocate only $70 million in end-of-year grantmaking and defers the remaining $30 million to early 2021. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation (published February 2021). Intended use of funds (category): Direct project expenses Intended use of funds: Grant to support The END Fund's deworming programs. Donor reason for selecting the donee: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Our_recommended_allocation_to_Open_Philanthropy describes the grant as an incentive grant since the grantee is a GiveWell top charity. Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): The size of the grant is chosen as the standard size of the incentive grant of $500,000. https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Size_of_incentive_grants explains the reason for reducing the incentive grant size from $2.5 million to $500,000: "We considered the cases where an organization is on our top charity list, but due to relatively lower cost-effectiveness, we are not prioritizing its funding needs most highly—i.e. we don't expect to grant donations from the Maximum Impact Fund to it or recommend that Open Philanthropy make a grant to it beyond the incentive grant. In those cases, we felt that the amount of time we asked from the organization's staff to engage with us was not commensurate with the $2.5 million grants we had been making. We considered other grants we've made and our perception of norms in international development and decided to change the standard amount of these grants to $500,000 for top charities." Percentage of total donor spend in the corresponding batch of donations: 0.71% Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations. Donor thoughts on making further donations to the donee: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#END_Fund-s_deworming_program says: "We completed a project in October that changed the worm burden adjustment in our cost-effectiveness analysis and increased our estimate of the END Fund's cost-effectiveness from 5x cash to 11x cash. We have lower confidence in this estimate than we do for our other deworming top charities. Based on past experience with cost-effectiveness estimates that we have low confidence in, we expect this estimate to go down as we continue to work on it. We had previously deprioritized work on improving this estimate, due to both the low cost-effectiveness of the program and challenges in understanding what the END Fund was funding with marginal GiveWell-directed dollars. Given the recent increase in our estimate of the END Fund's cost-effectiveness, we plan to consider whether to increase our time investment in understanding the END Fund's cost-effectiveness." Donor retrospective of the donation: The END Fund would continue to be a GiveWell top charity in 2021. Other notes: See https://www.givewell.org/charities/end-fund/November-2020-version for GiveWell's review of The END Fund at the time of the grant recommendation. |
|
| Food Fortification Initiative | 50,000.00 | 27 | Global health/nutrition | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/food-fortification-initiative-general-support-2020 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget of $100 million is set by Open Philanthropy, but GiveWell decided to allocate only $70 million in end-of-year grantmaking and defers the remaining $30 million to early 2021. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation (published February 2021). Intended use of funds (category): Organizational general support Donor reason for selecting the donee: At the time of the grant, Food Fortification Initiative was a GiveWell standout charity, per https://www.givewell.org/charities/other-charities/November-2020-version and https://www.givewell.org/charities/food-fortification-initiative-March-2017-version (March 2017 review). It therefore qualified for the $50,000 end-of-year incentive grant recommendation that all GiveWell standout charities received. Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): The amount of $50,000 is the amount of the incentive grant chosen for standout charities in 2020. https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Size_of_incentive_grants explains the reason for chosing the amount: "We also reduced our incentive grant recommendations for standout charities [from $100,000] to $50,000. Once a standout charity has been added to our list, we ask it to have one conversation with us each year and to review the notes we write to summarize what we learned from that conversation. We believe a smaller grant of $50,000 is appropriate for the time commitment this requires from standout charities." Percentage of total donor spend in the corresponding batch of donations: 0.07% Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations. Donor retrospective of the donation: https://blog.givewell.org/2021/10/05/discontinuing-standout-charity-designation/ (November 2021) announces discontinuation of the standout charity designation, and says: "We’ve recommended that Open Philanthropy make a $100,000 exit grant to each standout charity on our list." |
|
| Malaria Consortium | 27,076,757.00 | 2 | Global health/malaria/seasonal malaria chemoprevention | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/malaria-consortium-seasonal-malaria-chemoprevention-december-2020 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget of $100 million is set by Open Philanthropy, but GiveWell decided to allocate only $70 million in end-of-year grantmaking and defers the remaining $30 million to early 2021. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation (published February 2021). Intended use of funds (category): Direct project expenses Intended use of funds: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Malaria_Consortium-s_seasonal_malaria_chemoprevention_program breaks down the programs funded by this money plus $3.8 million from the GiveWell Maximum Impact Fund: (1) "Extend its funding runway for its current programs in Burkina Faso, Chad, Nigeria, and Togo through 2022 ($20.8 million) at the scale Malaria Consortium expects to achieve in 2021." (2) "Expand to newly-eligible states or local government areas (LGAs) in Nigeria in 2022 and maintain work in those new areas in 2023 ($7.8 million). We estimate that the cost-effectiveness of SMC in Nigeria is 14x cash." (3) "Put $2.2 million toward continuing its work in 2023." Donor reason for selecting the donee: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Our_recommended_allocation_to_Open_Philanthropy describes the overall thinking behind the grant. Malaria Consoortium gets a grant because it is a GiveWell top charity, and additionoally gets a lot of additional money as the best opportunity (with $24.1 million of the funding at 14x cash) among the top charities. Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Malaria_Consortium-s_seasonal_malaria_chemoprevention_program breaks down the programs funded by this money plus $3.8 million from the GiveWell Maximum Impact Fund, It also lists several other unfunded opportunities that are not being filled at this time. Percentage of total donor spend in the corresponding batch of donations: 38.68% Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations. Intended funding timeframe in months: 36 Donor thoughts on making further donations to the donee: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Malaria_Consortium-s_seasonal_malaria_chemoprevention_program lists some funding opportunities that are not being filled at this time because they are not sufficiently cost-effective and/or time-sensitive. SOme of them may be funded in the future. Donor retrospective of the donation: Followup grants from the GiveWell Maximum Impact Fund to Malaria Consortium in 2021 at GiveWell's recommendation suggest continued satisfaction with the grantee. Other notes: See https://www.givewell.org/charities/malaria-consortium/November-2020-version for GiveWell's review of Malaria Consortium at the time of the grant recommendation. Affected countries: Burkina Faso|Chad|Nigeria|Togo. |
|
| Helen Keller International | 8,059,000.00 | 7 | Global health/nutrition/Vitamin A supplementation | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/helen-keller-international-vitamin-a-supplementation-december-2020 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget of $100 million is set by Open Philanthropy, but GiveWell decided to allocate only $70 million in end-of-year grantmaking and defers the remaining $30 million to early 2021. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation (published February 2021). Intended use of funds (category): Direct project expenses Intended use of funds: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Helen_Keller_International-s_vitamin_A_supplementation_program says the grant is to (1) "Extend its funding runway for its current programs through 2023 ($5.4 million). We estimate that the cost-effectiveness of these programs is 15-50x cash." (2) "Expand to Benue State, Nigeria ($2.6 million for 2021-2023). We estimate that the cost-effectiveness of VAS in Nigeria is 25x cash." Donor reason for selecting the donee: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Our_recommended_allocation_to_Open_Philanthropy describes the overall thinking behind the grant. This grant is listed under "fully-vetted opportunities for 2021-2022 that are more than 10x cash" and in particular this grant is listed as over 15x cash. Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Helen_Keller_International-s_vitamin_A_supplementation_program gives the expected breakdown in spending of the grant. It also lists various funding gaps that it chose not to fill, including expansion to Cameroon, expansion to Kenya, and expansion to one more Nigerian state. Although these opportunities are also estimated to be 10x or more cash, GiveWell does not recommend any of them since they are not time-sensitive and other funders might fill some of these gaps. Percentage of total donor spend in the corresponding batch of donations: 11.51% Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations. Intended funding timeframe in months: 36 Donor thoughts on making further donations to the donee: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Helen_Keller_International-s_vitamin_A_supplementation_program lists some other funding gaps of HKI that are not yet being funded, despite being over 10x cash. Some of these might be recommendd in the future. Donor retrospective of the donation: The HKI Vitamin A supplementation program would continue to be recommended by GiveWell in 2021 and get GiveWell Maximum Impact Fund money in 2021 at GiveWell's recommendation, suggesting continued satisfaction with the grantee. Other notes: See https://www.givewell.org/charities/helen-keller-international/November-2020-version for GiveWell's review of Helen Keller International at the time of the grant recommendation. |
|
| Against Malaria Foundation | 6,651,000.00 | 8 | Global health/malaria/bednets | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/against-malaria-foundation-general-support-2020 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget of $100 million is set by Open Philanthropy, but GiveWell decided to allocate only $70 million in end-of-year grantmaking and defers the remaining $30 million to early 2021. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation (published February 2021). Intended use of funds (category): Organizational general support Intended use of funds: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Against_Malaria_Foundation says: "This is the amount that we estimate will allow AMF to fund all the campaigns it is considering implementing that require commitments before August 2021. [...] We expect that AMF will use this funding for campaigns in DRC (15x cash) and/or Guinea (14x cash) in 2022." Donor reason for selecting the donee: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Our_recommended_allocation_to_Open_Philanthropy describes the overall thinking behind the grant. This grant is listed under "fully-vetted opportunities for 2021-2022 that are more than 10x cash" and in particular this grant is listed as 14x cash. Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Against_Malaria_Foundation says: "This is the amount that we estimate will allow AMF to fund all the campaigns it is considering implementing that require commitments before August 2021. It is possible that this is an underestimate, as we are assuming AMF will continue to receive a relatively high amount of revenue from individual donors, based on recent trends. This risk is mitigated by the fact that we will have the opportunity to check whether this assumption has held up when we revisit AMF's room for more funding in January 2021." Percentage of total donor spend in the corresponding batch of donations: 9.50% Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations. Intended funding timeframe in months: 24 Donor thoughts on making further donations to the donee: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Against_Malaria_Foundation says: "Funding gaps that AMF told us about that we are not recommending filling at this time include those for distributions that will occur in 2023 (totaling $37.8 million). We are not recommending funding these gaps at this time because (a) we want to review recently-available monitoring results from AMF's recent distributions in DRC before committing additional funding to distributions there, and (b) these gaps are less time-sensitive (we expect that AMF will need to commit funding to these distributions in the latter half of 2021 to avoid delaying them). We expect to revisit AMF's room for more funding as part of our January 2021 recommendation to Open Philanthropy." Donor retrospective of the donation: Against Malaria Foundation would continue to be a GiveWell top charity in 2021 as well as receive grants from the GiveWell Maximum Impact Fund at GiveWell's recommendation in 2021, suggesting contined satisfaction with the grantee. Other notes: See https://www.givewell.org/charities/amf/November-2020-Version for GiveWell's review of Against Malaria Foundation at the time of the grant recommendation. Affected countries: Democratic Republic of the Congo|Guinea. |
|
| Deworm the World Initiative | 4,103,000.00 | 10 | Global health/deworming | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/evidence-action-deworm-the-world-initiative | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget of $100 million is set by Open Philanthropy, but GiveWell decided to allocate only $70 million in end-of-year grantmaking and defers the remaining $30 million to early 2021. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation (published February 2021). Intended use of funds (category): Organizational general support Intended use of funds: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Evidence_Action-s_Deworm_the_World_Initiative lists these intended uses: (1) "Extend its funding runway for its programs in Kenya ($1.9 million, 32x cash) and in three states in Nigeria ($1.9 million, 13-16x cash) through 2023. (2)Conduct scoping work in Ghana and Indonesia and do a prevalence survey in Ghana ($300,000)." Donor reason for selecting the donee: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Our_recommended_allocation_to_Open_Philanthropy lists $3.8 million of the $4.1 million in this grant as being under "The most cost-effective opportunities we know of for 2023" and estimates it as 13-30+ as good as cash. Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Evidence_Action-s_Deworm_the_World_Initiative describes the programs funded by this grant, whose cost totals to the grant amount. It also notes another funding gap that it estimates at 5x cash that is being left unfunded: "Extending its funding runway through 2023 for its programs in Pakistan and Lagos State, Nigeria." Percentage of total donor spend in the corresponding batch of donations: 5.86% Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations. Intended funding timeframe in months: 36 Donor thoughts on making further donations to the donee: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2020/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Evidence_Action-s_Deworm_the_World_Initiative says: "Funding gaps that Deworm the World told us about that we are not recommending filling at this time: Extending its funding runway through 2023 for its programs in Pakistan and Lagos State, Nigeria. [...] We plan to discuss the future of these programs with Deworm the World, including getting further feedback on our worm burden update." Donor retrospective of the donation: Deworm the World Initiative continues to remain a GiveWell top charity in 2021. Other notes: See https://www.givewell.org/charities/deworm-world-initiative/November-2020-version for GiveWell's review of Deworm the World Initiative at the time of the grant recommendation. Affected countries: Kenya|Nigeria|Ghana|Indonesia. |
|
| Malaria Consortium | 33,926,000.00 | 1 | Global health/malaria/seasonal malaria chemoprevention | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/malaria-consortium-seasonal-malaria-chemoprevention-february-2020 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget is based on guidelines set by Open Philanthropy. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation (published November 2019). Intended use of funds (category): Direct project expenses Intended use of funds: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Malaria_Consortium-s_SMC_program says: "This funding will enable Malaria Consortium to spend: (1) $30.1 million to fully fill its funding gaps in its three current countries of operation—Burkina Faso, Chad, and Nigeria—through 2021. This figure includes scaling up operations to cover additional areas in each country. Cost-effectiveness: 16x cash, (2) $3.8 million to expand its SMC program to a fourth country. Malaria Consortium has told us that this will most likely be Togo. Cost-effectiveness: 18x cash for Togo." Donor reason for selecting the donee: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Our_process says: "This work is highly cost-effective. We model this funding gap as 17x cash. In addition, Malaria Consortium performs well on our qualitative measures of organizational strength; this assessment supports our view that this gap is highly cost-effective to fill. The funding gap is time-sensitive. Malaria Consortium will need to begin planning for 2021 in 2020." https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/qualitative-assessments has the lined qualitative assessments. https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Principles_we_followed lists the general principles followed. Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): The amount is chosen to be sufficient to cover Malaria Consortium's funding gaps till 2021. https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Malaria_Consortium-s_SMC_program says: "We are choosing not to recommend that Open Philanthropy fill some or all of Malaria Consortium's funding gap for 2022—a funding gap of $35.6 million at an estimated cost-effectiveness of 17x cash—in order to preserve our options for the future. We do not expect that having funding for 2022 would affect how Malaria Consortium operates in 2020." Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations. Intended funding timeframe in months: 23 Donor thoughts on making further donations to the donee: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Malaria_Consortium-s_SMC_program says: "However, we think that the 2022 funding gap is the most cost-effective unfilled option among our top charities, and we're excited for individual donors to close this gap. Malaria Consortium's SMC program is our recommendation for donors who want to give directly to a specific charity." Donor retrospective of the donation: Malaria Consortium would continue to remain a GiveWell top charity in 2020 and 2021, and receive several additional grants from the GiveWell Maximum Impact Fund and Open Philanthropy on GiveWell's recommendation. Other notes: See https://www.givewell.org/charities/malaria-consortium/November-2019-version for GiveWell's review of Malaria Consortium at the time of the grant recommendation. Affected countries: Burkina Faso|Chad|Nigeria|Togo. |
|
| Helen Keller International | 9,709,000.00 | 5 | Global health/nutrition/Vitamin A supplementation | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/helen-keller-international-vitamin-a-supplementation-january-2020 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget is based on guidelines set by Open Philanthropy. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation (published November 2019). Intended use of funds (category): Direct project expenses Intended use of funds: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Helen_Keller_International-s_VAS_program gives the expected allocation of this money plus $2.6 million from the GiveWell Maximum Impact Fund: "$5.5 million to continue its work in five countries (Guinea, Mali, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, and Niger), including supplementing its budgets in 2020 and 2021 and extending its funding runway to 2022. Cost-effectiveness: 31x cash, $4.5 million to start a new program in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), with funding to cover 2020-2022. Cost-effectiveness: 27x cash, $2.4 million to expand its program to Bauchi State, Nigeria, with funding to cover 2020-2022. Cost-effectiveness: 25x cash." Donor reason for selecting the donee: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Our_process says: "This work is highly cost-effective. We estimate that it is 28 times as cost-effective as cash transfers ("28x cash") overall, and, by country, ranges from 19x cash to 38x cash." Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Helen_Keller_International-s_VAS_program gives the expected allocation of this money plus $2.6 million from the GiveWell Maximum Impact Fund. It further says: "We chose not to recommend that Open Philanthropy provide funding for HKI to begin new programs in Cameroon ($1.8 million at 14x cash) and Kenya ($1.5 million at 11x cash). When we model multiple funding gaps as having similar cost-effectiveness, we generally prefer continuing programs to starting new ones, in order to avoid undue disruption." Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations. Donor retrospective of the donation: Helen Keller International would continue to retain GiveWell top charity status in the coming years and continue receiving annual grants from Open Philanthropy at GiveWell's recommendation. Other notes: See https://www.givewell.org/charities/helen-keller-international/November-2019-version for GiveWell's review of Helen Keller International at the time of the grant recommendation. Affected countries: Guinea|Mali|Burkina Faso|Côte d'Ivoire|Niger|Democratic Republic of the Congo|Nigeria. |
|
| Sightsavers | 2,710,100.00 | 15 | Global health/deworming | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/sightsavers-deworming-january-2020 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget is based on guidelines set by Open Philanthropy. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation (published November 2019). Intended use of funds (category): Direct project expenses Intended use of funds: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Sightsavers-_deworming_program gives the breakdown of expected spending for the Sightsavers deworming program: "(1) $0.3 million to extend deworming in Yobe State, Nigeria through 2022. We estimate that Sightsavers' average cost-effectiveness is 9x cash (2) $1.3 million to expand its program in Cameroon to new regions, with funding to cover 2020-2022. We estimate that Sightsavers' average cost-effectiveness is 9x cash. (3) $1.1 million to expand its program in DRC to a new province, with funding to cover 2020-2022. We estimate that Sightsavers' average cost-effectiveness is 9x cash." Donor reason for selecting the donee: The Sightsavers deworming program is a GiveWell top charity, and therefore receives the $2.5 million incentive grant that all top charities receive, per https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Principles_we_followed Principle 7: "To this end, since 2016, we have recommended that Open Philanthropy provide a minimum “incentive grant” to top charities ($2.5 million) and standout charities ($100,000)." Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Sightsavers-_deworming_program says: "After receiving an incentive grant of $2.5 million, Sightsavers would have a small funding gap for two programs. We are recommending a grant of $2.7 million total in order to fill that gap." Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations. Intended funding timeframe in months: 36 Donor retrospective of the donation: Helen Keller International would continue to retain GiveWell top charity status in the coming years and continue receiving annual grants from Open Philanthropy at GiveWell's recommendation. Other notes: See https://www.givewell.org/charities/sightsavers/November-2019-version for GiveWell's review of Sightsavers at the time of the grant recommendation. Affected countries: Nigeria|Cameroon|Democratic Republic of the Congo. |
|
| The END Fund | 2,500,000.00 | 16 | Global health/deworming | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/end-fund-general-support-2019 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget is based on guidelines set by Open Philanthropy. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation (published November 2019). Intended use of funds (category): Direct project expenses Donor reason for selecting the donee: The END Fund's deworming program is a GiveWell top charity, and therefore receives the $2.5 million incentive grant that all top charities receive, per https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Principles_we_followed Principle 7: "To this end, since 2016, we have recommended that Open Philanthropy provide a minimum “incentive grant” to top charities ($2.5 million) and standout charities ($100,000)." Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): The amount ($2.5 million) is chosen since it is the size of the incentive grant (per https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Principles_we_followed Principle 7). https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation#END_Fund-s_deworming_program says: "We only recommended the $2.5 million incentive grant. The END Fund’s estimated cost-effectiveness is lower than that of Deworm the World Initiative and Sightsavers' deworming program." Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations. Donor retrospective of the donation: The END Fund's deworming program would continue to remain a GiveWell top charity in 2020 and 2021. Other notes: See https://www.givewell.org/charities/end-fund/November-2019-version for GiveWell's review of The END Fund's deworming program at the time of the grant recommendation. |
|
| Against Malaria Foundation | 2,500,000.00 | 16 | Global health/deworming | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/against-malaria-foundation-general-support-december-2019 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget is based on guidelines set by Open Philanthropy. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation (published November 2019). Intended use of funds (category): Organizational general support Donor reason for selecting the donee: Against Malaria Foundation is a GiveWell top charity, and therefore receives the $2.5 million incentive grant that all top charities receive, per https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Principles_we_followed Principle 7: "To this end, since 2016, we have recommended that Open Philanthropy provide a minimum “incentive grant” to top charities ($2.5 million) and standout charities ($100,000)." Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): The amount ($2.5 million) is chosen since it is the size of the incentive grant (per https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Principles_we_followed Principle 7). https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Against_Malaria_Foundation says: "We decided not to recommend filling AMF's room for more funding beyond the $2.5 million incentive grant." Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations. Donor thoughts on making further donations to the donee: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/2019/open-philanthropy-recommendation#Against_Malaria_Foundation says: "Over the next few months, we plan to revisit the possibility of making a large grant to AMF. Our decision will rely on what 2020 distribution agreements AMF signs in the near future (if any); how well we are able to answer outstanding questions we have about AMF's monitoring; and, if available, results from AMF's 2019 distributions in DRC, where it is likely to commit marginal funding. We estimate that AMF's average cost-effectiveness is 17x cash." Donor retrospective of the donation: Against Malaria Foundation would continue to remain a GiveWell top charity in 2020 and 2021, and receive several additional grants from the GiveWell Maximum Impact Fund and Open Philanthropy on GiveWell's recommendation. Other notes: See https://www.givewell.org/charities/amf/November-2019-Version for GiveWell's review of Against Malaria Foundation at the time of the grant recommendation. |
|
| Center for Global Development | 3,000,000.00 | 12 | 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." Other notes: Announced: 2019-09-05. |
|
| Schistosomiasis Control Initiative | 2,500,000.00 | 16 | Global health/deworming | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/schistosomiasis-control-initiative-general-support-december-2018 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget is based on guidelines set by Open Philanthropy. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-recommendation-to-good-ventures/ Charity status updates in 2018 are at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/updates-in-november-2018#Schistosomiasis_Control_Initiative_SCI Intended use of funds (category): Organizational general support Intended use of funds: Grant for general operating support, which has GiveWell top charity status; see https://www.givewell.org/charities/Schistosomiasis-Control-Initiative SCI works with governments in sub-Saharan Africa to create or scale up programs that treat schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminthiasis (STH) (deworming). Its role has primarily been to identify country recipients, provide funding to governments for government-implemented programs, provide advisory support, and conduct monitoring and evaluation on the process and outcomes of the programs. Donor reason for selecting the donee: GiveWell recommends Schistosomiasis Control Initiative for the following reasons: (1) Program has strong track record and excellent cost-effectiveness. (2) Organization has strong track record. (3) Standout transparency. (4) Room for more funding. The full GiveWell review is at https://www.givewell.org/charities/Schistosomiasis-Control-Initiative and the top charity selection is at https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-updated-top-charities-for-giving-season-2018/ Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): GiveWell explains the principles affecting its decision of how much money to allocate to each charity in https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-recommendation-to-good-ventures/ (1) Put significant weight on our cost-effectiveness estimates. (2) Consider additional information about an organization that we have not explicitly modeled. (3) Assess charities’ funding gaps at the margin, i.e., where they would spend additional funding, where possible. (4) Default towards not imposing restrictions on charity spending. (5) Fund on a three-year horizon, unless we are particularly uncertain whether we will want to continue recommending a program in the future. (6) Ensure charities are incentivized to engage with our process. Ultimately, GiveWell decides to only allocate to the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative the minimum amount for top charities, i.e., $2.5 million. It is relevant that organizational factors not modeled explicitly are marked "Relatively weak" by GiveWell for SCI Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations Other notes: Even accounting for this grant, GiveWell identifies a remaining funding gap of $16.9 million for Against Malaria Foundation. The grant page on the Open Philanthropy Project website is at. |
|
| MIT Media Lab | 1,000,000.00 | 21 | Global catastrophic risks|Global health|Animal welfare | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-catastrophic-risks/miscellaneous/massachusetts-institute-technology-media-lab-kevin-esvelt | Claire Zabel | Intended use of funds (category): Direct project expenses Intended use of funds: Grant over two years to the MIT Media Lab to support the research of Professor Kevin Esvelt. Professor Esvelt plans to use this funding to conduct research on global catastrophic risks, global health, and animal welfare. Other notes: Intended funding timeframe in months: 24; announced: 2019-06-26. |
|
| Sightsavers | 9,700,000.00 | 6 | Global health/deworming | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/sightsavers-deworming-2019 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget is based on guidelines set by Open Philanthropy. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-recommendation-to-good-ventures/ Charity status updates in 2018 are at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/updates-in-november-2018#Sightsavers-_deworming_program Intended use of funds (category): Direct project expenses Intended use of funds: Grant to support deworming programs, which have GiveWell top charity status; see https://www.givewell.org/charities/sightsavers More specifically, these programs include advocating for, funding, and monitoring programs that treat schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminthiasis (STH) (deworming) Donor reason for selecting the donee: GiveWell recommends the Sightsavers deworming program for the following reasons: (1) Strong track record and excellent cost-effectiveness. (2) Moderately strong monitoring process. (3) Standout transparency. (4) Room for more funding. The full GiveWell review is at https://www.givewell.org/charities/sightsavers and the top charity selection is at https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-updated-top-charities-for-giving-season-2018/ Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): GiveWell explains the principles affecting its decision of how much money to allocate to each charity in https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-recommendation-to-good-ventures/ (1) Put significant weight on our cost-effectiveness estimates. (2) Consider additional information about an organization that we have not explicitly modeled. (3) Assess charities’ funding gaps at the margin, i.e., where they would spend additional funding, where possible. (4) Default towards not imposing restrictions on charity spending. (5) Fund on a three-year horizon, unless we are particularly uncertain whether we will want to continue recommending a program in the future. (6) Ensure charities are incentivized to engage with our process. Ultimately, GiveWell decides to allocate $6-10 million two of its deworming charities and to Helen Keller International; Sightsavers ends up getting $9.7 million Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations Other notes: Even accounting for this grant, GiveWell identifies a remaining funding gap of $1.6 million for Sightsavers deworming programs. |
|
| Deworm the World Initiative | 10,400,000.00 | 4 | Global health/deworming | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/deworm-world-initiative-general-support-december-2018 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget is based on guidelines set by Open Philanthropy. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-recommendation-to-good-ventures/ Charity status updates in 2018 are at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/updates-in-november-2018#Evidence_Action-s_Deworm_the_World_Initiative Intended use of funds (category): Direct project expenses Intended use of funds: Grant for general operating support, which has GiveWell top charity status; see https://www.givewell.org/charities/deworm-world-initiative The grantee advocates for, supports, and evaluates government-run school-based deworming programs. Donor reason for selecting the donee: GiveWell recommends Deworm the World Initiative for these reasons: (1) Program with strong track record and excellent cost-effectiveness. (2) Strong monitoring process. (30 Standout transparency. (4) Room for more funding. The full GiveWell review is at https://www.givewell.org/charities/deworm-world-initiative and the top charity selection is at https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-updated-top-charities-for-giving-season-2018/ Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): GiveWell explains the principles affecting its decision of how much money to allocate to each charity in https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-recommendation-to-good-ventures/ (1) Put significant weight on our cost-effectiveness estimates. (2) Consider additional information about an organization that we have not explicitly modeled. (3) Assess charities’ funding gaps at the margin, i.e., where they would spend additional funding, where possible. (4) Default towards not imposing restrictions on charity spending. (5) Fund on a three-year horizon, unless we are particularly uncertain whether we will want to continue recommending a program in the future. (6) Ensure charities are incentivized to engage with our process. Ultimately, GiveWell decides to allocate $6-10 million each to two of its deworming top charities and to Sightsacers; Deworm the World Initiative gets $10.4 million Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations Other notes: Even accounting for this grant, GiveWell identifies a remaining funding gap of $27 million for Deworm the World Initiative. |
|
| The END Fund | 2,500,000.00 | 16 | Global health/deworming | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/end-fund-deworming-programs-2018 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget is based on guidelines set by Open Philanthropy. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-recommendation-to-good-ventures/ Charity status updates in 2018 are at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/updates-in-november-2018#The_END_Fund-s_deworming_program Intended use of funds (category): Direct project expenses Intended use of funds: Grant for deworming programs, which have GiveWell top charity status; see https://www.givewell.org/charities/end-fund The END Fund manages grants, provides technical assistance, and raises funding for controlling and eliminating neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). The grant is for the subset of these programs that treat schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminthiasis (STH) (deworming) Donor reason for selecting the donee: GiveWell recommends The END Fund's deworming programs for the following reasons: (1) Deworming is a priority program with the possibility of string benefits at very low cost. (2) Organization is able to absorb additional funds to start and scale up deworming programs. (3) Standout transparency. The full GiveWell review is at https://www.givewell.org/charities/end-fund and the top charity selection is at https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-updated-top-charities-for-giving-season-2018/ Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): GiveWell explains the principles affecting its decision of how much money to allocate to each charity in https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-recommendation-to-good-ventures/ (1) Put significant weight on our cost-effectiveness estimates. (2) Consider additional information about an organization that we have not explicitly modeled. (3) Assess charities’ funding gaps at the margin, i.e., where they would spend additional funding, where possible. (4) Default towards not imposing restrictions on charity spending. (5) Fund on a three-year horizon, unless we are particularly uncertain whether we will want to continue recommending a program in the future. (6) Ensure charities are incentivized to engage with our process. Ultimately, GiveWell decides to only allocate to the END Fund the minimum amount for top charities, i.e., $2.5 million Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations Other notes: Even accounting for this grant, GiveWell identifies a remaining funding gap of $45.8 million for The END Fund. |
|
| Against Malaria Foundation | 2,500,000.00 | 16 | Global health/malaria/bednets | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/against-malaria-foundation-general-support-december-2018 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget is based on guidelines set by Open Philanthropy. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-recommendation-to-good-ventures/ Charity status updates in 2018 are at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/updates-in-november-2018#Against_Malaria_Foundation_AMF Intended use of funds (category): Organizational general support Intended use of funds: Grant for general operating support, which has GiveWell top charity status; see https://www.givewell.org/charities/amf AMF funds distributions of long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs) for protection against malaria in developing countries Donor reason for selecting the donee: GiveWell recommends Against Malaria Foundation for the following reasons: (1) Excellent evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. (2) Good monitoring process for checking long-term effects. (3) Room for more funding. (4) Transparency. The full GiveWell review is at https://www.givewell.org/charities/amf and the top charity selection is at https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-updated-top-charities-for-giving-season-2018/ Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): GiveWell explains the principles affecting its decision of how much money to allocate to each charity in https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-recommendation-to-good-ventures/ (1) Put significant weight on our cost-effectiveness estimates. (2) Consider additional information about an organization that we have not explicitly modeled. (3) Assess charities’ funding gaps at the margin, i.e., where they would spend additional funding, where possible. (4) Default towards not imposing restrictions on charity spending. (5) Fund on a three-year horizon, unless we are particularly uncertain whether we will want to continue recommending a program in the future. (6) Ensure charities are incentivized to engage with our process. Ultimately, GiveWell decides to only allocate to the Against Malaria Foundation the minimum amount for top charities, i.e., $2.5 million Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations Donor retrospective of the donation: The discretionary regranting decisions https://blog.givewell.org/2019/03/29/allocation-of-discretionary-funds-from-q4-2018/ (to Malaria Consortium) and https://blog.givewell.org/2019/06/12/allocation-of-discretionary-funds-from-q1-2019/ (to Against Malaria Foundation) can be viewed as a retrospective on this decision, insofar as they consider further funding gaps for Against Malaria Foundation after the grant. Other notes: Even accounting for this grant, GiveWell identifies a remaining funding gap of $72.5 million for Against Malaria Foundation. See https://www.givewell.org/charities/amf/November-2018-version for GiveWell's review of AMF at the time of the grant recommendation. |
|
| Helen Keller International | 6,500,000.00 | 9 | Global health/nutrition/Vitamin A supplementation | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/helen-keller-international-vitamin-a-supplementation-december-2018 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget is based on guidelines set by Open Philanthropy. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-recommendation-to-good-ventures/ Charity status updates in 2018 are at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/updates-in-november-2018#Sightsavers-_deworming_program Intended use of funds (category): Direct project expenses Intended use of funds: Grant to support the Vitamin A supplementation (VAS) program, which has GiveWell top charity status; see https://www.givewell.org/charities/helen-keller-international HKI provides technical assistance, engages in advocacy, and contributes funding to government-run vitamin A supplementation programs. Donor reason for selecting the donee: GiveWell recommends HKI's VAS program for the following reasons: (1) Strong evidence base and strong cost-effectiveness. (2) Track record. (3) Standout transparency. (4) Room for more funding. The full GiveWell review is at https://www.givewell.org/charities/helen-keller-international and the top charity selection is at https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-updated-top-charities-for-giving-season-2018/ Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): GiveWell explains the principles affecting its decision of how much money to allocate to each charity in https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-recommendation-to-good-ventures/ (1) Put significant weight on our cost-effectiveness estimates. (2) Consider additional information about an organization that we have not explicitly modeled. (3) Assess charities’ funding gaps at the margin, i.e., where they would spend additional funding, where possible. (4) Default towards not imposing restrictions on charity spending. (5) Fund on a three-year horizon, unless we are particularly uncertain whether we will want to continue recommending a program in the future. (6) Ensure charities are incentivized to engage with our process. Ultimately, GiveWell decides to allocate $6-10 million two of its deworming charities as well as to HKI; HKI ends up getting $6.5 million Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations Other notes: Even accounting for this grant, GiveWell identifies a remaining funding gap of $20.6 million for HKI's VAS program. |
|
| Malaria Consortium | 26,600,000.00 | 3 | Global health/malaria/seasonal malaria chemoprevention | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/malaria-consortium-seasonal-malaria-chemoprevention-december-2018 | GiveWell | Donation process: The grant is based on GiveWell's recommendation. GiveWell made the recommendations as part of its end-of-year recommendations to Open Philanthropy, along with allocations to other GiveWell top and standout charities. The total budget is based on guidelines set by Open Philanthropy. GiveWell explains the process in detail at https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-recommendation-to-good-ventures/ Charity status updates in 2018 are at https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities/updates-in-november-2018#Malaria_Consortium-s_seasonal_malaria_chemoprevention_program Intended use of funds (category): Direct project expenses Intended use of funds: Grant for the seasonal malaria chemoprevention program, which has GiveWell top charity status; see https://www.givewell.org/charities/malaria-consortium The program distributes preventive anti-malarial drugs to children 3 to 59 months old in order to prevent illness and death from malaria Donor reason for selecting the donee: Malaria Consortium's seasonal malaria chemoprevention program is recommended as a GiveWell top charity for these reasons: (1) program with a strong evidence base and strong cost-effectiveness, (2) track record of demonstrated past success, (3) room for more funding. The full GiveWell review is at https://www.givewell.org/charities/malaria-consortium and the top charity selection is at https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-updated-top-charities-for-giving-season-2018/ Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): GiveWell explains the principles affecting its decision of how much money to allocate to each charity in https://blog.givewell.org/2018/11/26/our-recommendation-to-good-ventures/ (1) Put significant weight on our cost-effectiveness estimates. (2) Consider additional information about an organization that we have not explicitly modeled. (3) Assess charities’ funding gaps at the margin, i.e., where they would spend additional funding, where possible. (4) Default towards not imposing restrictions on charity spending. (5) Fund on a three-year horizon, unless we are particularly uncertain whether we will want to continue recommending a program in the future. (6) Ensure charities are incentivized to engage with our process. Based on these, GiveWell decided to recommend fully funding Malaria Consortium’s seasonal malaria chemoprevention program in Nigeria, Burkina Faso, and Chad. Donor reason for donating at this time (rather than earlier or later): Part of GiveWell's end-of-year recommendations for Open Philanthropy, so the timing is determined by the timing of end-of-year recommendations (which is usually the week after Thanksgiving in the United States). The grant is made by Open Philanthropy shortly after the recommendations Donor retrospective of the donation: The discretionary regranting decisions https://blog.givewell.org/2019/03/29/allocation-of-discretionary-funds-from-q4-2018/ (to Malaria Consortium) and https://blog.givewell.org/2019/06/12/allocation-of-discretionary-funds-from-q1-2019/ (to Against Malaria Foundation) can be viewed as a retrospective on this decision, insofar as they consider further funding gaps for Malaria Consortium after the grant Other notes: Even accounting for this grant, GiveWell identifies a remaining funding gap of $43.9 million for Malaria Consortium, and identifies Malaria Consortium as the best target for donations at the current margin. See https://www.givewell.org/charities/malaria-consortium/November-2018-version for GiveWell's review of Malaria Consortium at the time of the grant recommendation. Affected countries: Nigeria|Burkina Faso|Chad. |
|
| University of Michigan | 46,696.00 | 33 | 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. | |
| Project Peanut Butter | 724,929.00 | 23 | Global health/nutrition | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/giving/grants/project-peanut-butter-ready-use-therapeutic-food-rct | -- | Intended use of funds (category): Direct project expenses Intended use of funds: Grant to support a three-year randomized controlled trial (RCT) on the effect on cognitive development of reformulated ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) with additional omega-3 fatty acids and decreased omega-6 fatty acids, compared to conventional RUTF Donor reason for selecting the donee: RUTF is primarily used to treat young children in the developing world with severe acute malnutrition. The grant is based on our belief that there is a reasonable chance that increasing the ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids in RUTF will have a positive effect on the cognitive development of treated children, and that a clear result in a large randomized trial would be fairly likely to make use of the lipid-rebalanced RUTF standard practice. Donor reason for donating that amount (rather than a bigger or smaller amount): Likely the estimated cost of running the RCT. No specific amount-related considerations are discussed Other notes: Intended funding timeframe in months: 36; announced: 2016-10-26. |
|
| Center for Global Development | 3,000,000.00 | 12 | 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 Other notes: Announced: 2016-02-24. |
|
| International Development Association | 500,000.00 | 24 | Global health/measurement | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/service-delivery-indicators-project | -- | Grant supports work on the Service Delivery Indicators Program (SDI). Estimated budget is $27 million. | |
| Center for Global Development | 300,000.00 | 26 | 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 Other notes: Intended funding timeframe in months: 36. |
|
| Population Services International | 1,000,000.00 | 21 | Global health/malaria/resistance | https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-health-and-development/miscellaneous/containment-artemisinin-resistance-eastern-myanmar | -- | Grant made by Good Ventures before Open Phil formally came into being. Grant is a co-funding with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and supports work to prevent the spread of artemisinin resistance in Myanmar. Good Ventures hoped to use the grant opportunity to learn how big players like the Gates Foundation effect progress in global health. Affected countries: Myanmar. |
Sorry, we couldn't find any similar donors.