Chris Hohn

The four-line truth

Lines are separate lifecycle measures and are never summed: committed = donor-published lifetime award totals; awaiting = latest-FY statutory 'approved for future payment' balance; deployed = disclosed paid amounts (withheld-amount gifts counted separately). Absence of events is absence of loaded evidence, not zero giving.

Top recipients

1. Big Win Philanthropy1 grant · FY2021 ·statutory$360.0M
2. European Climate Foundation5 grants · FY2020–FY2024 ·statutory$185.9M
3. Foundation for International Law for the Environment5 grants · FY2020–FY2024 ·statutory$99.3M
4. Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, Inc5 grants · FY2020–FY2024 ·statutory$76.6M
5. PSI5 grants · FY2020–FY2024 ·statutory$69.8M
6. United Nations Children's Fund5 grants · FY2020–FY2024 ·statutory$63.4M
7. Triggerise5 grants · FY2020–FY2024 ·statutory$58.4M
8. Energy Foundation China5 grants · FY2020–FY2024 ·statutory$55.1M

Largest recipients across loaded paid line-item records; recipient names as filed (entity resolution pending). Aggregate-basis sources carry no recipient detail.

Transparency

• Publishes an open grants databaseno donor-published database loaded0/40
• Capital traceable to a named recipient75% of $2,645,769,00022/30
• Statutory filings carry recipient detail75% of $2,645,769,000 filed11/15
• Most recent evidenceFY202415/15

England & Wales charities may withhold recipient names on materiality or serious prejudice grounds, and a charitable trust may withhold recipients and amounts entirely while the settlor lives (Charities Act 2011 s.132(4)).

Voluntary points reward disclosure the donor chose — publishing an open grants database, and naming recipients. Compelled points reflect how completely and how currently their statutory filings land. The split exists because disclosure regimes differ by jurisdiction: a high compelled score is law-abiding, not generous, and a low one may reflect a rule the donor did not write.

What the filed accounts actually disclosed

• 2024-12-3129 named recipients · 1 aggregate rowChildren's Investment Fund Foundation (UK) · note "GRANT FUNDING OF ACTIVITIES" · USDrecipients namedtext layer
• 2023-12-3131 named recipients · 1 aggregate rowChildren's Investment Fund Foundation (UK) · note "7. GRANT FUNDING OF ACTIVITIES" · USDrecipients namedread from scan
• 2022-12-3127 named recipients · 1 aggregate rowChildren's Investment Fund Foundation (UK) · note "7. GRANT FUNDING OF ACTIVITIES" · USDrecipients namedtext layer
• 2021-12-3129 named recipients · 1 aggregate rowChildren's Investment Fund Foundation (UK) · note "6. GRANT FUNDING OF ACTIVITIES" · USDrecipients namedread from scan · review flagged
• 2020-12-31141 named recipients · 1 aggregate rowChildren's Investment Fund Foundation (UK) · note "6. GRANT FUNDING OF ACTIVITIES" · USDrecipients namedread from scan · review flagged

Extracted from the charity's own filed accounts and independently re-read; every note reconciles (named + aggregate = the printed total). A note with no named recipients is a disclosure outcome, not an absence of giving: SORP Module 16 lets a charity withhold names on immateriality or serious prejudice, and Charities Act 2011 s.132(4) lets an England & Wales charitable trustwithhold recipients and amounts entirely while the settlor is alive.

Vehicles · 1 founder-linked via Wikidata

• The Children's Investment Fund Managementno EIN claim

Provenance