GiveWell estimates about one-third of its 2016 expenses ($2.0 million) supported traditional top charity work and about two-thirds supported the Open Philanthropy Project, the same breakdown as in 2015.
Own records only Only the person's or their organisation's own records speak to it, so it is not scored.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
Reasoning
The split of expenses between top charity work and Open Phil is GiveWell's own internal estimate of staff time.
Cite this claim
GiveWell, “GiveWell estimates about one-third of its 2016 expenses ($2.0 million) supported traditional top charity work and about two-thirds supported the Open Philanthropy Project, the same breakdown as in 2015.” (said 2018). Verdict: own records only. Reliability API, claim c_ca073f2824ff, method 0.1.0+7831dd9d, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_ca073f2824ff
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by GiveWell
-
Mostly true
“GiveWell’s Cross-Cutting research subteam focuses on improving our grantmaking over time—it investigates the impact of the programs we fund, works to resolve our largest uncertainties, and…”
-
Resolved true
“That was our largest fundraising year to date, and we’re now preparing for the potential of a future at a substantially larger scale.”
GiveWell's 2025 fundraising of $616 million was its largest fundraising year to date.
-
Resolved true
“Around $124 million (29% of funds directed) went to our four Top Charities”
Around $124 million (29% of funds directed) in 2025 went to GiveWell's four Top Charities.
-
Resolved true
“In 2025, we directed around $427 million to high-impact programs and organizations. This represents an increase of 8% in funds directed compared to 2024.”
-
Mostly true
“Each spring, we share our plans for the year.”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.