I think it could be a good idea for EA orgs to follow (and possibly publish) policies for screening potential donors, in order to avoid negative associations with shady businesses and potential moral responsibility for benefiting from their ill-gotten gains. I've decided to post the Creative Commons organization's donor screening guidelines as an example that other organizations could emulate (and even copy and paste - the document itself is licensed under CC-BY 4.0).
CC Guidelines for Screening Donors
(adopted by the Board of Directors March 30, 2020)
Creative Commons takes a proactive approach to ensuring that gifts in whatever form made to the organization come from individuals, foundations, donor advised funds and corporations (collectively, potential and current “Donors”) who align with our ethics and cultural values. The “Creative Commons Guidelines for Screening Donors” documents this approach, using best practices from other organizations leading this effort and is aimed at providing an overview of the general process and principles used by Creative Commons when (1) accepting contributions valued at over $10,000 USD in a single gift during a calendar year, or (2) accepting contributions from a Donor that cumulatively makes one or more gifts valued at more than $10,000 USD in a calendar year. The document outlines:
- CC’s general approach to screening and scope of the screening process
- Decision-making process
- Sources of information used to screen a potential Donor
- Monitoring and engaging Donors
- Quality control
I. SCOPE
The guidelines apply to all relationships between Donors (potential or current) and Creative Commons (CC) that involve the following types of support, among other things:
- Donations: such as cash donations, donations in-kind, campaigns, and employee giving; and
- Partnerships: such as operational collaboration and knowledge exchange, joint advocacy, innovation projects, training, and joint programming.
Partnerships encompass all relationships between the CC and a Donor in which CC grants the Donor the possibility of using CC’s name, emblem/logo or image in its communication and promotional materials, or anything else that thereby potentially creates a public association between the Donor and Creative Commons, including the Creative Commons Network, subsidiaries and similar, and/or any Creative Commons events.
For Donors that are not individuals, the processes and criteria set forth in these Guidelines may involve a review of the potential Donor’s executive level staff as well as board members, in the discretion of the Creative Commons.
II. DECISION MAKING PROCESS & INFORMATION SOURCES
A wide range of functions and units across CC are part of the process to decide on Donations and Partnerships. The process will typically include input from CC’s:
- Development Team
- Relevant program or project team
- Legal Team
- CEO
- Development Council
- Members of the Board of Directors, where relevant expertise is needed
Beginning with the Development Team, current and prospective Donors that meet the criteria for screening described above will be screened using a wealth screening database. Additionally, the Development Team may use other publicly available data to identify any risk associated with receiving any form of support from a Donor. Within the limits prescribed by law, the screening may include a search of publicly available criminal records, main business interests, sources of income, known associates, an Internet news search, and/or reports of positive and negative corporate performance. The expectation is that the Development Team will use reasonable efforts and diligence throughout the screening process that results in a recommendation as to the suitability of the current or potential Donor, and will exercise discretion in deciding which sources to use.
Once assessed, the Development Team will provide a written report to the CEO, the Legal Team, any relevant program / project teams, the Development Council and board members selected by it and the Development Team for review and approval during the Qualification Stage of the fundraising pipeline. As part of the report, the Development Team will provide recommendations for or against accepting any form of support from the screened Donor. Additionally, the Development Team will use the same screening process for unsolicited donations above the thresholds described above.
III. KEY DECISION-MAKING CRITERIA
The following section clarifies exclusionary, cautionary, and positive criteria. These categories are not finite and may be supplemented from time to time by CC in its sole discretion, including upon review of a particular Donor.
A. Exclusionary Criteria
An exclusionary criterion is one that categorically causes Creative Commons to reject any form of support from the Donor. These criteria are established and evaluated by CC in its sole discretion. The exclusionary criteria include the Donor’s involvement in:
- The manufacture or sale of arms, including any direct or indirect involvement in the manufacture or sale of illegal or controversial weapons;
- International crimes; this encompasses International crimes as defined in treaty and customary law, which include violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and violations of International Human Rights Law (IHRL), such as crimes against humanity, genocide, torture; as well as other international crimes such as piracy, transnational organized crime, human trafficking, financing of terrorism, amongst others; and
- The manufacture of products that are widely recognized as deleterious to human health.
- Gifts from anonymous donors where the donor and the origin of the funds cannot be determined.
The exclusionary criteria are supplemented by a list of cautionary criteria and positive criteria, detailed below, which further influence the decision to accept support from a Donor.
B. Cautionary Criteria
Beyond the exclusionary criteria outlined above, cautionary criteria flag issues that may present potential risks, keeping in mind that some of these risks may be mitigated. Cautionary criteria are often more qualitative in nature, and therefore do not allow for clear thresholds. The cautionary criteria for a Donor is as follows, based on CC’s reasonable assessment and determination in its discretion:
- Has been involved in past controversies;
- Does not respect internationally recognized human rights and fundamental labor standards;
- Has engaged in practices running counter to the rules and principles of international humanitarian and human rights law;
- Does not respect materially the local or national laws and regulations of the country(ies) where it operate(s);
- Through its business practices, materially contributes to armed conflicts or natural disasters;
- Any other criteria that, in CC’s sole discretion, causes CC to question the advisability of accepting a contribution from the Donor.
C. Positive Criteria
Whereas cautionary criteria are meant to flag potential risks and issues of concern with a Donor, positive criteria focus on issues that may reflect more positively on a Donor’s reputation and future business behavior. The positive criteria potentially include where the Donor:
- Would respond positively to input aimed at improving their business practices in a way that promotes social responsibility;
- Promotes the education, health and social welfare of their employees to an extent that goes beyond what the law requires; or
- Has a positive image, good reputation and a track record of good ethical behavior.
D. Donations from High-Risk Sectors
CC closely monitors donations from Donors who derive a significant part of their revenue from sectors defined as high risk. For CC, these sectors include (among others that CC may subsequently identify):
- Food, beverage or other products publicly recognized as deleterious to health (e.g. fast food chains/stores, confectionary, energy/carbonated drinks, junk food/unhealthy snacks, tobacco);
- Other products deleterious to health (e.g. certain pesticides, lead paint, asbestos, etc.);
- Mining and extractive companies with associated social, environmental or health issues (e.g. petroleum companies, energy companies and mining companies);
- Pharmaceutical companies; and
- Military contractors.
- Is engaged in socially sensitive industries, including gambling and pornography.
Decisions are taken after thorough examination of such Donation. They may also be referred to the Board of Directors for further examination or a final decision.
IV. MONITORING DONORS
Given the fluid nature of the environments in which the CC and its Donors operate, the screening process must be able to account for sudden and unforeseeable changes. The monitoring and management of relationships with Donors is therefore an essential part of the overall screening approach to long-term relationships with Donors. The monitoring process distinguishes between:
- Changes in a Donor’s policies and fundamentals that are likely to affect the long term trajectory of their business practices
- Unexpected development/controversies that are likely to affect reputational risk associated with a linkage to the Donor.
A. Review of Donor Policies
CC reviews Donors and their fundamentals every year at the renewal or annual anniversary of a multi-year relationship. This review is led by the Development Team in consultation with the Legal Team and Development Council, and is based on the most recently-available information for each Donor. The objective is to assess whether there have been any significant changes to a Donor’s policies and practices. If a deterioration in the Donor’s policies and practices are identified and deemed significant enough to alter the balance of risk and benefits of a relationship with a Donor, the Development Council will then carry out a complete review of the proposed relationship. In extreme cases, such as when there have been very significant changes to a Donor’s practices in relation to CC’s exclusionary criteria, CC may consider the suspension and eventual termination of the relationship. In most cases, however, significant changes in a Donor’s practices and policies will first lead to a direct engagement on the issue with Donor, if needed.
B. Monitoring Developments and Controversies in the Media
In addition to the review of existing Donor relationships every year, CC regularly monitors the media for developments linked to Donors. The monitoring is carried out by the Development Team with support from staff and relevant project teams as reasonably requested.
C. Engaging with Donors
Along with its proactive and systematic monitoring system of Donors, CC aims to maintain a frequent, transparent and constructive engagement with Donors. This enables the CC to be a critical friend where appropriate.
V. QUALITY CONTROL
In addition to the numerous checks and balances that have been built into the screening process (e.g. multiple sources of information, multi-stakeholder decision making, etc.) the following steps are implemented to ensure that the screening process is effectively and efficiently implemented:
- A register of accepted and rejected Donors is shared with the CC Board of Directors on a yearly basis, which shall remain confidential;
- Recommendations for changes to these Guidelines shall be considered annually by the Development Council and submitted to the Board of Directors for review and approval; and
- The Audit Committee will review the outcomes of the screening process no less than annually.
This seems quite burdensome. In order to accept a $10k donation from a 'high-risk' PopVax employee (listed on 80k's job board!) you'd have to:
Involve a wide range of senior people in your org:
Pay for a wealth screening database:
Write a written report that is reviewed by many senior people:
be very diligent:
Review each year:
Regularly stalk them on social media:
Communicate frequently with donors with feedback about their business practices:
... and a $10k donation from a Palantir employee would simply be totally prohibited.
Overall it seems plausible to me that actually following this for a $10k donation would eat up most of the donation in due diligence overhead. My guess is that CC does not actually follow the letter of this policy in practice.
I just posted the CC policy as an example of a donor screening policy, and by posting it I don't necessarily endorse its exact contents. As you helpfully pointed out, the terms of this policy could be overbroad and burdensome, and would have to be adapted to the different context in which EA orgs operate.
First, many EAs donate a lot more money ($1-10k/year) than the average non-EA donor, so $10k would likely be on the high end for a gift to CC but typical for an EA org. So I think the threshold for an EA org to scrutinize a donor should be much higher than CC's threshold - $50-100k might be appropriate.
Second, by "totally prohibited" I think you are referring to the section on exclusionary criteria. The most relevant criteria for your Palantir example might be these ones:
Even if taken literally, this would only apply to Palantir employees who work directly on weapons systems or any software that is being used to commit violations of international law (such as war crimes). Palantir has branches that work with the private sector, and most employees there would likely be exempt.
That said, if it applied to literally all employees who worked on a particular project at Palantir, it's probably too broad. Taking money from rank-and-file employees of Palantir (or any large tech company) is unlikely to bring CC into disrepute, but taking money from a senior executive might. (That said, there is a group trying to disparage the events startup Partiful based on its founding employees' connections to Palantir, though it's hard to say how much influence they will have.)
As @huw suggested in another comment, this could be outsourced to an organization or team that can do centralized donor vetting and risk scoring for the whole EA community. Impact Ops comes to mind (and in fact does this).
Well you did suggest people could "emulate" and "copy-paste"
No, any employee who is 'involved' in arms, including totally unobjectionable sales to the US Government, would be involved. The language is quite clear that, while it includes illegal weapons, there is nothing to suggest it is limited to them. As far as I can see even accountants would be 'involved' - you can't make weapons without accounting!
Larks, I’ve noticed that your comments on this post focus on criticizing the specific rules in the CC donor policy document that I shared as an example for other EA organizations to consider. You rightly point out that some of these rules might be impractical for EA orgs to follow. However, I feel frustrated because I think your responses have missed the point of my original post, which was to highlight the value of having a written donor screening policy, and to offer the CC document as a resource that other orgs can legally copy and adapt to their own needs (under the CC-BY license), rather than to recommend that others adopt the policy verbatim.
I would appreciate it if we could keep the conversation focused on discussing the broader idea of implementing donor screening policies or processes for EA orgs, rather than
getting bogged down in the specifics of this documenttearing down this specific policy without suggesting alternatives. By focusing on the bigger picture, we can ensure that EA organizations develop systems that promote transparency and trust, especially in light of past controversies such as FTX. I think this approach would help build more confidence in the community, while still allowing for flexibility in implementation.If you have thoughts on how these policies or processes could be better adapted to fit the needs of EA organizations, I’d be glad to discuss them here. I hope we can continue this conversation in a collaborative and constructive way.
Using a very simple cntrl-f methodology, I estimated that over 95% of this post is the CC Guidelines. In contrast you spend less than one sentence arguing for having such a policy, and zero words whatsoever considering tradeoffs. If you want engagement on something you need to provide some material to engage with, and if you thought the CC Guidelines were inappropriate for EA orgs and require significant modification you should say so in the post! I don't think you can share a lengthy post and then declare, post hoc, that almost the entire post is off-limits, running the risk that orgs might copy-paste it without understanding the issues, and that comments should be restricted to a topic which was barely mentioned in the post.
Indeed, as far as I can see even you agree with this, since one paragraph after chastising me for getting "bogged down in the specifics of the document" you ask for advice on how to adapt these policies, which necessarily involves engagement with the specifics.
Also, what makes PopVax "high-risk" according to CC's criteria, in your opinion?
PopVax is an Indian biotechnology company. Biotech is a type of pharma company.
Thanks for posting this. My comment is on the viability of donor screening; I'm looking for places to reduce the level of burden to make this more viable.
I'm not going to focus on the specific details of the CC policy, but will mention one big issue that I think makes it a weak model in general. It comes across too close to one-size-fits-most, rather than being heavily risk stratified. That stratification should depend on the amount, the presence or absence of yellow/orange/red flags in a more cursory screen, and so on.
For at least some organizations, I like the $10K threshold for performing some sort of donor screening. That's in part based on my gut that third parties may see a five-figure donation as significant. I could be persuaded to go higher depending on the size of the organization and the nature of its work. Maybe I'm showing my own biases, but I think it would be hard for the general public to get or at least stay mad at a bednet-distribution charity that took a problematic $50K donation as long as it promptly disgorged it upon detection, and those orgs' effectiveness is less dependent on public esteem anyway. Tolerances for policy or meta work would probably be less.
But for orgs on the relatively higher screening side of things: in the $10K to perhaps $25K or $50K range, that should probably look more like 15-30 minutes of time from a junior staffer / contractor / intelligent college student intern looking for yellow, orange, or red flags, not a full-fledged review. If no flags are found, clear the donor for three years (unless their donations go up a level or the organization happens to learn of concerns). If there are flags, send the file to the development director ("DD") or other mid-level staff. The DD could clear yellow flags or decline red flags, or do a medium-to-full fat writeup if necessary.
In my view, the primary point of vetting one's midsize donors for most orgs is to stop donations from red-klaxon donors -- e.g., SBF's parents, most people who have been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude or fraud, people who are readily known to have engaged in pretty shady behavior with crypto initial coin offerings, etc. It is not realistic to scope midsize-donor investigation to catch everyone from whom one wouldn't take a donations after a bespoke custom investigation. At this level, I don't think it is necessary to consider an individual donor's employer unless it presents a conflict of interest, the donor is a senior executive, or the employer is really problematic/controversial.
Moving to the $50K-$250K range, I predict that a lot of donors will still be low risk and should be able to screen OK even at stricter orgs without involvement of senior staff or a lot of paperwork. Anyone whose source of income is being a lawyer at a typical law firm, a physician doing typical physician things, a trader at somewhere like Jane Street, etc. shouldn't be too hard to clear efficiently. One potential crux is that I'm relatively more concerned that the donations are cleanly obtained and relatively less concerned about the donor's non-financial activities (as it were). So I don't necessarily think most orgs would have many donors who need the full-dress vetting treatment.
When does a donor become more than "midsize" for screening purposes? One non-exclusive indicator: when the org cannot afford to disgorge a donor's money going back several years immediately and without grave impacts on the viability of the org's continuing work, then that donor is not midsize. In other words, perhaps post-acceptance screening (cf. post-claims underwriting in insurance) can be a viable part of the overall vetting strategy . . . but only if the org can immediately spit back the money that it wouldn't have taken had it conducted a full investigation upfront.
I'll check feasibility with GiveWell's donor numbers because I know where to find those. There were 138 100K+ donors through GiveWell in 2022, plus an unclear number of anonymous donors (p. 12). A few hundred screened donors seems appropriate for an org moving as much money as GiveWell, especially since most of its donors are repeat donors and I do not think full reinvestigations would be necessary each year.
What to do with the anonymous money is likely to be a major issue here, though. If an org is going to do that, I guess the only mitigation may be healthy reserves for post-acceptance screening if the donor's identity becomes known and is problematic?
I think this is a really thoughtful and constructive critique – thanks for sharing! I think you raise a great point about varying the depth of due diligence needed for donors based on the volume of their donations.
Has someone built donor screening as a service? I feel like a lot of this labour would be pretty repetitive and generalisable (you could modularise the different risk factors so that different orgs can tailor to their preferences).
Is this what you have in mind?
Legendary! Thank you!
Executive summary: Creative Commons provides detailed guidelines for screening potential donors who contribute over $10,000 USD annually, establishing clear criteria to avoid partnerships with ethically problematic donors while maintaining organizational integrity.
Key points:
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.