if your post was drafted prior to the release of the new top charities and you didn’t get a chance to update it fully to take into account the new information, it would be helpful to mention that in the post.
It was drafted prior to the announcement, but I did update it after the announcement to incorporate 2016 work.
-
The “top charity incentive” grant is now set at $2.5 million, up from $1 million (and therefore it is now 5% of Good Ventures’ share of donations).
I did see that fact and that’s the number I used in the model, though I now see that I missed updating the $1K figure in the post. I have now corrected that typo but doing so does not affect any of the downstream calculations in the post.
-
Due to the growth of the Open Philanthropy Project this year and its increased expectation of the size and value of the opportunities it may have in the future, we expect Good Ventures to set a budget of $50 million for its contributions to GiveWell top charities. The Open Philanthropy Project plans to write more about this in a future post on its blog.
Good Ventures is expected to donate $50 million to GiveWell top charities (+ special recognition charities) and is likely to allocate a similar amount for the next few years. This should be incorporated into estimation of total annual money moved (mostly in terms of reducing variance).
This is a good point and one I did miss from reading the post. I’ll revise the model to fix the number at $50M, though I suppose there still is uncertainty about whether they will waver from this commitment in the future or make special grants (like they did with GD and have reportedly considered for AMF).
The model is now updated on this as of now—thanks! - and I’ll write a disclaimer at the end of the post as soon as I’m done clearing up Owen’s contention.
Thanks for updating the post! I still see the somewhat outdated sentence:
For example, a fifth top charity would likely lead Good Ventures to make an additional incentive grant of $2.5M that they would not have otherwise made.
Since GiveWell now has seven top charities, that should read “eighth” rather than fifth.
Thanks Vipul!
It was drafted prior to the announcement, but I did update it after the announcement to incorporate 2016 work.
-
I did see that fact and that’s the number I used in the model, though I now see that I missed updating the $1K figure in the post. I have now corrected that typo but doing so does not affect any of the downstream calculations in the post.
-
This is a good point and one I did miss from reading the post. I’ll revise the model to fix the number at $50M, though I suppose there still is uncertainty about whether they will waver from this commitment in the future or make special grants (like they did with GD and have reportedly considered for AMF).
The model is now updated on this as of now—thanks! - and I’ll write a disclaimer at the end of the post as soon as I’m done clearing up Owen’s contention.
Thanks for updating the post! I still see the somewhat outdated sentence:
Since GiveWell now has seven top charities, that should read “eighth” rather than fifth.
Thanks, I now fixed that typo as well!