Chris Hohn
GB · b. 1967 · Q1086748
The four-line truth
Lines are separate lifecycle measures and are never summed: committed = donor-published award/approved-commitment flows or signed recipient-confirmed commitments within the displayed source coverage period, including exact named commitments, plus reviewed current forward-portfolio aggregates that are never accumulated across source snapshots; awaiting = latest-FY statutory 'approved for future payment' or audited future-support-obligation balance; deployed = disclosed paid amounts, split into statutory, recipient-confirmed, and donor-reported evidence; in vehicles = transfers to controlled vehicles, DAFs, recipient foundations, or unresolved associated vehicles pending onward evidence (withheld-amount gifts counted separately). Absence of events is absence of loaded evidence, not zero giving.
Top recipients
- Big Win Philanthropy$360.0M
- European Climate Foundation$185.9M
- Foundation for International Law for the Environment$99.3M
- Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, Inc$76.6M
- PSI$69.8M
- United Nations Children's Fund$63.4M
- Triggerise$58.4M
- Energy Foundation China$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" · USDfiled accountsrecipients namedtext layer
- 2023-12-3131 named recipients · 1 aggregate rowChildren's Investment Fund Foundation (UK) · note "7. GRANT FUNDING OF ACTIVITIES" · USDfiled accountsrecipients namedread from scan
- 2022-12-3127 named recipients · 1 aggregate rowChildren's Investment Fund Foundation (UK) · note "7. GRANT FUNDING OF ACTIVITIES" · USDfiled accountsrecipients namedtext layer
- 2021-12-3129 named recipients · 1 aggregate rowChildren's Investment Fund Foundation (UK) · note "6. GRANT FUNDING OF ACTIVITIES" · USDfiled accountsrecipients namedread from scan · review flagged
- 2020-12-31141 named recipients · 1 aggregate rowChildren's Investment Fund Foundation (UK) · note "6. GRANT FUNDING OF ACTIVITIES" · USDfiled accountsrecipients namedread from scan · review flagged
Extracted from charity accounts filed with CCEW or OSCR 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 · 2 regulator- or Wikidata-linked
- Children's Investment Fund Foundation (UK)charity confirmed / CCEWCCEW 1091043 · co-founder
- The Children's Investment Fund Managementno EIN claim