In 2023[1] GiveWell raised $355 million - $100 million from Open Philanthropy, and $255 million from other donors.

In their post on 10th April 2023, GiveWell forecast the amount they expected to raise in 2023, albeit with wide confidence intervals, and stated that their 10th percentile estimate for total funds raised was $416 million, and 10th percentile estimate for funds raised outside of Open Philanthropy was $260 million.

 10th percentile estimateMedian estimateAmount raised
Total$416 million$581 million$355 million
Excluding Open Philanthropy$260 million$330 million$255 million

Regarding Open Philanthropy, the April 2023 post states that they "tentatively plans to give $250 million in 2023", however Open Philanthropy gave a grant of $300 million to cover 2023-2025, to be split however GiveWell saw fit, and it used $100 million of that grant in 2023.

However for other donors I'm not sure what caused the missed estimate

Credit to 'Arnold' on GiveWell's December 2024 Open Thread for bringing this to my attention

 

  1. ^

    1st February 2023 - 31st January 2024

136

3
0

Reactions

3
0
Comments10


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Copying Chandler's response from the comments of the open thread:

Hi Arnold,

Thanks for your question! You are correct that our funds raised for metrics year 2023, $355 million, was below our 10% percentile estimate from our April 2023 blog post. We knew our forecasts were quite uncertain (80% confidence interval), and, looking back, we see two primary reasons that our forecasts were incorrect.

First, we were optimistic about the growth of non-Open Philanthropy funding. Our funds raised in 2023 from sources other than Open Philanthropy was $255 million, which is about at our 10% percentile estimate and is similar to the $253 million we raised in 2022 from sources other than Open Philanthropy (see the bottom chart in the blog post). We've continued to expand our outreach team, with a focus on retaining our existing donors and bringing in new donors, and we believe these investments will produce results over the longer term.

Second, Open Philanthropy committed $300 million in October 2023 and gave us flexibility to spend it over three years. We chose to allocate $100 million to 2023, 2024, and 2025, which is less than the $250 million we had forecast for 2023.

We discuss our current funding situation in a recent blog post about our approach to grant deployment timelines. We remain funding constrained at our current cost-effectiveness bar. Raising more money remains our single most important lever for maximizing impact---if we have more funding, we'll be able to make more grants to cost-effective programs that save and improve lives.

The other number I found potentially concerning was the 50% drop in year-over-year funds from new non-anon donors (p. 10 of the 2023 metrics report, see paste below). Funds from new/non-anon donors in 2021 were slightly higher than in 2022 per the 2022 metrics report, so the prior year wasn't the anomaly. 

I don't want to over-update on a single year's Y/Y difference, but my concern would grow if 2024 ended up similar to 2023.

I would not have predicted much effect of the FTX affair on GiveWell's new donor acquisition, but it's possible that played a role.

Another thing to look at would be how donations in general changed in 2020-2024. From what I've read, there have been decreases in US giving (of around 2%).

FTX was late in 2022, but nonetheless 2022 already shows most of the drop in new donors. 

I would expect most donations to be in giving season, though, which in 2022 would be after FTX collapsed

Good observation -- most of the drop in the number of new donors was seen in 2022, but little of the drop in the amount of donations from new donors happened then [$43.4MM (2021) vs $41.1MM (2022) vs. $20.5MM (2023]. Because of their size, the bulk of the 2021 --> 2022 drop was almost certainly people giving under $1,000, which is somewhat less concerning to me due to the small percentage of GiveWell's revenue that donations under $1K provide (less than 3%). There are a good number in the $1-$10K range, but they did not show a significant decline overall between 2021 and 2022. 

Presumably, the 2022 --> 2023 drop in revenue involved loss of new higher-dollar donors. My assumption is that higher-dollar donors act somewhat differently than others (e.g., I expect they engage in more due diligence / research than those donating > $1,000 on average). So it's plausible to me that the 2021 -> 2022 numerical decline and the 2022 --> 2023 volume decline have (or do not have) very similar causes. I'd guess FTX might hit higher-dollar new donors more because of the extra due diligence. 

The following chart is for all donors, not new ones:

I wonder if this is mostly an effect of total effective giving growing less than GiveWell anticipated, or if more money is going to other effective giving opportunities.

Some evidence for the latter would be that in Europe different effective giving initiatives are growing (for example effektiv-spenden in Germany raised 13 million in 2022, and 19 million in 2023, doneer-effectief in the Netherlands raised 700.000 in 2022, and 2.5 million in 2023, I don't know if there is a similar trend in other EU-countries). I sense that within EA there is some shift in focus to causes such as animal wellbeing. Anecdotally I shifted my giving away from GiveWell towards the Doneer-Effectief animal wellbeing fund.  

However, these trends are not totally unexpected and in size might only explain a fraction of the 75 million difference between the median estimate and actual data of non-open philanthropy funding. Does anybody have a good sense of how effective giving as a whole changed between 2022 and 2023?

How much of the money raised by effectiv-spenden, etc. is a essentially pass through to Givewell? (I know Israel now has a similar initiative, but is in large part passing the money to the same orgs.)

Donations to Norway's Gi Effektivt and Sweden's Ge Effektivt also simply pass through to GiveWell (for the global health part of Ge Effektivt).

@Luke Moore 🔸 could probably be helpful with some overview for 2022-2023, while I expect 2024 numbers will take a few months before presenting.

More from Rasool
80
59
Rasool
· · 14m read
Curated and popular this week
Garrison
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is the full text of a post from "The Obsolete Newsletter," a Substack that I write about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and artificial intelligence. I’m a freelance journalist and the author of a forthcoming book called Obsolete: Power, Profit, and the Race to build Machine Superintelligence. Consider subscribing to stay up to date with my work. Wow. The Wall Street Journal just reported that, "a consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI." Technically, they can't actually do that, so I'm going to assume that Musk is trying to buy all of the nonprofit's assets, which include governing control over OpenAI's for-profit, as well as all the profits above the company's profit caps. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman already tweeted, "no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." (Musk, for his part, replied with just the word: "Swindler.") Even if Altman were willing, it's not clear if this bid could even go through. It can probably best be understood as an attempt to throw a wrench in OpenAI's ongoing plan to restructure fully into a for-profit company. To complete the transition, OpenAI needs to compensate its nonprofit for the fair market value of what it is giving up. In October, The Information reported that OpenAI was planning to give the nonprofit at least 25 percent of the new company, at the time, worth $37.5 billion. But in late January, the Financial Times reported that the nonprofit might only receive around $30 billion, "but a final price is yet to be determined." That's still a lot of money, but many experts I've spoken with think it drastically undervalues what the nonprofit is giving up. Musk has sued to block OpenAI's conversion, arguing that he would be irreparably harmed if it went through. But while Musk's suit seems unlikely to succeed, his latest gambit might significantly drive up the price OpenAI has to pay. (My guess is that Altman will still ma
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as
Omnizoid
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Crossposted from my blog which many people are saying you should check out!    Imagine that you came across an injured deer on the road. She was in immense pain, perhaps having been mauled by a bear or seriously injured in some other way. Two things are obvious: 1. If you could greatly help her at small cost, you should do so. 2. Her suffering is bad. In such a case, it would be callous to say that the deer’s suffering doesn’t matter because it’s natural. Things can both be natural and bad—malaria certainly is. Crucially, I think in this case we’d see something deeply wrong with a person who thinks that it’s not their problem in any way, that helping the deer is of no value. Intuitively, we recognize that wild animals matter! But if we recognize that wild animals matter, then we have a problem. Because the amount of suffering in nature is absolutely staggering. Richard Dawkins put it well: > The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In fact, this is a considerable underestimate. Brian Tomasik a while ago estimated the number of wild animals in existence. While there are about 10^10 humans, wild animals are far more numerous. There are around 10 times that many birds, between 10 and 100 times as many mammals, and up to 10,000 times as many both of reptiles and amphibians. Beyond that lie the fish who are shockingly numerous! There are likely around a quadrillion fish—at least thousands, and potentially hundreds of thousands o
Recent opportunities in Global health & development
63
· · 1m read