What does the data tell us about MacKenzie Scott’s philanthropy?

In May 2019, two months before her divorce from tech billionaire Jeff Bezos was finalized, MacKenzie Scott signed the Giving Pledge — a campaign launched by Warren Buffett, Melinda French Gates, and Bill Gates, urging wealthy individuals to give away the majority of their fortune. Since then, she has made good on that promise. In just three years, Scott’s total donations have amounted to more than $14 billion, exceeding those given by most philanthropists who began their charitable works long before her. This includes her ex-husband — one of the wealthiest persons in the world. But more than her record-breaking donations, it is Scott’s unorthodox method of grant-giving that has most disrupted the development sphere. Unlike most mainstream donors, Scott’s philanthropy involves no formal application process or reporting requirements. Instead, Scott and her advisers have proactively identified organizations that fit with her philanthropic goals and awarded them with grants — typically a few million. The grants are also unrestricted — which means that organizations can then spend them however they see fit. The recipients were mostly ecstatic, although the secrecy around the selection process gained mixed reactions from some experts in the field. How much has been given? Seemingly heeding the call for greater transparency, Scott finally launched Yield Giving, a website detailing her philanthropic work, in December 2022. The website says that more than $14 billion was given to 1,600 organizations between 2019 and November 2022. So far, data is available on only $10.6 billion of that giving. Currently, 446 organizations are yet to share the exact amount they received. On the portal, these grants are labeled “Disclosure delayed for benefit of recipient.” How was it disbursed? For over three years, Scott anonymously donated to organizations in the hopes that she would not attract public attention. Her grant-making is quite straightforward: decisions are based on the recommendations of her staff at Lost Horse LLC and outside advisers at Bridgespan, then disbursed through donor-advised funds. Scott set up the Lost Horse in 2019 to oversee her donations. Meanwhile, Bridgespan is a nonprofit that provides consultancy services to donors, NGO leaders, and impact investors. It received a $40 million grant from Scott in 2020. Scott still carries out “quiet giving,” but shared her plans last December for an open-call process that will give other organizations a chance to be heard. Last month, the $250 million Yield Giving Open Call was announced for U.S.-based organizations whose annual operating budget in two of the last four fiscal years fell between $1 million and $5 million. The call is managed by nonprofit Lever for Change. Where is the money going? It is difficult to tell exactly how much money is being spent in any given geography. Since the grants are unrestricted, the information on the website is solely based on the organizations’ self-reported purpose and geographical and sectoral priorities. For instance, a U.S.-based nonprofit with a presence in low- and middle-income countries may report that it has operations across the globe. But without any additional information on the website, it is not possible to tell which locations the money will be spent in. The same is the case with the focus areas, where all the reported sectoral priorities of the organizations are mentioned. Based on our analysis of reported data, Scott has so far donated $8.9 billion to 1,010 U.S.-based organizations. An additional 377 U.S.-based organizations have not shared their grant amount — which means that the total amount spent in the U.S. is likely to be significantly higher. How much is being spent outside the US? Among the U.S. organizations, 48 also reported working globally or in another country. However, a closer look revealed that only 12 among these organizations have an active presence in low- and middle-income countries — mainly in Latin America and Caribbean and Africa. Those organizations received a total of $124 million, excluding PEN America Writers Emergency Fund as it did not share its grant amount. Additionally, eight U.S.-based organizations also work in other high-income countries — including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Seven of these organizations received $105.8 million in total, while the other — RI International — has not shared its grant amount. This leaves nearly $1.7 billion for 146 organizations working primarily outside the United States. This includes one organization in Canada, MakeWay, which received $15 million. An additional 68 organizations outside the U.S. have not shared their grant amount. Of the money that went to non-U.S.-focused organizations, $347 million was given to 28 organizations with global operations, $196.5 million to 12 organizations focused in sub-Saharan Africa, $22.5 million to two South Asia-focused organizations, and $19 million to two Latin America-focused organizations. A further $939.5 million went to 70 organizations focused in more than one country or region. The rest went to organizations operating in just one country: • India - $64 million to 13 organizations. • Brazil - $32.2 million to 11 organizations. • China - $20 million to one organization. • Bangladesh - $10 million to one organization. • Kenya - $7 million to one organization. • Mexico - $6 million to one organization. • South Africa - $4.5 million to two organizations. • Zambia - $3 million to one organization. By sector, we found 180 grantees working in education and social development. They received over $1.5 billion. A further $1 billion went to 81 grantees working solely in education. Global health ranked next, with $809 million awarded to 54 organizations. RIP Medical Debt was the biggest recipient organization, with $80 million — $50 million in 2020 and $30 million in 2022. Since its founding in 2014, RIP Medical Debt has helped over 4 million families, eliminating $7 billion in medical debt across the U.S. Co-Impact followed, with $75 million for the Gender Fund — a program aiming to raise and deploy $1 billion to women-led organizations in the global south. GiveDirectly was also among the top recipients, with $60 million for its Project 100+ program — an initiative that provided cash assistance to American households in need of aid in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. It received a further $50 million as an unrestricted grant. The rest of the grants ranged from $300,000 to $50 million. Should others emulate Scott’s way of giving? Experts in the field have highlighted the pros and cons of Scott’s approach. A transparent application process promotes accountability among organizations asking for funding since they would have to show how they plan to spend the money and how exactly it would reach the intended recipients. On the other hand, unrestricted grant-giving makes it easier for organizations to reallocate the money to underfunded areas since they won’t be tied to the donor’s priorities. Broadly, NGOs have expressed a significant preference for unrestricted funding when asked, with one survey finding that it was almost twice as valuable. The significant sums Scott has given away also raise questions about where philanthropic funding goes and potentially present a lobbying opportunity for the development sector. The $25 million Scott donated to Habitat for Humanity International is a huge amount even for a leading international organization — it accounted for 8% of the total funding it received in the fiscal year 2020. But this raises questions about whether the money could deliver more effective results if it was distributed among smaller NGOs in Africa or Asia. Scott has finally answered the call for greater transparency, and while the data show some level of diversity, it is still heavily concentrated in the U.S. For the development sector, this offers a window to push for more of that capital to be allocated internationally. After all, she still has over $28 billion of fortune to give away. Try out Devex Pro Funding today with a free five-day trial, and explore funding opportunities from over 850 sources in addition to our analysis and news content.