MacKenzie Scott's Open Call Was Also a Challenge to Other Billionaires

NeMaria/shutterstock

When Chuck Feeney passed away last October, the “billionaire who wasn’t” left behind a philanthropic legacy that remains unmatched: He was the only megadonor on that level who actually emptied the safe while alive. Despite vague pledges from still-living billionaires promising to give it all away, only two other figures are currently in the running to even come close. 

George Soros, 93, has given the majority of his wealth to charity (although much of it remains tied up in OSF’s endowment) but has limited time left to dispose of his remaining $6.5 billion. MacKenzie Scott, on the other hand, is only 53 and has swiftly become the philanthropic star of our time, with over $17 billion out the door to nonprofits since 2020. All things considered, Scott remains far ahead of her peers in her own quest to empty the safe. 

The results of Scott’s first-ever Yield Giving Open Call, which wrapped up earlier this week, were another demonstration of why that remains the case, and of the immense openhandedness that’s become her hallmark. 

Last March, the open call set out with the intention of giving away 250 unrestricted gifts of $1 million to U.S. nonprofits. Since this is Scott we’re talking about, it wasn’t necessarily a huge shocker when, a year later, 361 gifts ended up going out the door — 279 gifts of $2 million apiece, and another 82 of $1 million each, for a total of $640 million. That’s well over double, approaching triple, the amount originally stipulated.

An announcement by Lever for Change, the grant challenge hub that hosted the open call, was understated in its tone: “In light of the incredible work of these organizations, as judged by their peers and external panelists, the donor team decided to expand the awardee pool and the award amount.” But still, it’s hard to ignore the fact that philanthropic competitions rarely outdo themselves to this extent. More often, they’ll stick rather closely to their initial parameters.

The Yield Giving Open Call was an outlier because the “donor team” — i.e., Scott — is herself an outlier. As in years past, Scott continues to demonstrate just how much leeway billionaire donors actually have to give in a far more unstinting and free-handed way than most of them ever do. But, as in years past, it’s also still unclear to what extent Scott’s example is spurring behavior change among her billionaire peers — and across philanthropy at large.

Scott’s example does appear to be spurring change at Lever for Change itself. As the Yield Giving Open Call began accepting applications last year, Lever for Change launched a new service that’s taking its cues from Scott’s open call. “Instead of using a challenge to scale a single solution to a critical challenge, this challenge model will allow funders to provide general operating support to a cohort of organizations within a particular field,” wrote Lever for Change’s CEO Cecilia Conrad. “This service will require a minimum commitment of $20 million in awards. Each awardee in the cohort will receive a minimum of $1 million in general operating support.”

The Yield Giving Open Call — and, potentially, more modest open calls backed by other donors — does go some way toward addressing the main criticism leveled at philanthropic competitions over the years: namely, that out of a vast pool of applicants who jump through hoops, only a single winner or a small handful actually get funding. Yield Giving’s total of 361 winners makes most philanthropic competitions look positively stingy in comparison. Given the fact that Lever for Change has become the go-to platform for ultra-wealthy donors looking to launch their own philanthropic prizes, Scott’s influence could have a real influence on the way these competitive processes work. That said, considering the fact that 6,353 organizations applied for funding, even Scott couldn’t overcome the inherent imbalances in a competitive model.

Scott’s open call also prompted criticism from small organizations objecting to a requirement that applicants have annual budgets between $1 million and $5 million. Given the growing movement within philanthropy to trust and resource those “closest to the problems,” it’s worth asking whether that restriction got in the way of the challenge’s own goal to support “community-led, community-focused organizations” advancing people of modest means and those facing systemic obstacles. At the same time, there are well over a million nonprofits of any size in the U.S. One can sympathize with the need to be realistic about the logistics of administration and due diligence that come with such a high-profile challenge.

As I noted when it was first unveiled, the Yield Giving Open Call (and possible future challenges down the line) may represent a nod toward the conventional from a philanthropist whose giving has been anything but. For all the ways in which it’s unique and did incorporate some participatory elements, this open call still has the same basic architecture of any grant competition: funder puts out a call for applicants, grantseekers apply, grantees are chosen. 

Several years back, Lever for Change’s Cecilia Conrad put it this way: “Every grantmaking process requires a choice — among ideas, organizations or proposals — and it is incumbent upon funders to [ensure] that the process does not pose an outsized burden relative to expected benefits.” 

Open calls like this one, seeing as they do require some work from applicants and set some limits on who can apply, are certainly more burdensome than Scott’s typical approach of dropping in out of the blue with several million dollars. But they also represent a chance for nonprofits to put themselves on the radar of a donor willing and able to up the ante by a cool $390 million — and that’s for what was basically a side project to Scott’s regular giving, which totaled over $2 billion last year.

No matter how Scott’s giving evolves from here, one thing remains true: She continues to show that philanthropic penny-pinching by major billionaires is a choice, not a necessity. Whether it’s via unsolicited general support, carefully crafted grant competitions or something in between, the billionaire class has more than enough horsepower to ramp things up. It just lacks the will.