Comments
AMF does. Quoting Rob Mathers' (AMF CEO) recent post, emphasis mine:
Many recognise the impact of AMF’s work, yet we still have significant immediate funding gaps that are over US$300m. ...
There is already a significant shortfall in funding for malaria control activities, including for net distribution programmes so miraculous things will have to happen in the coming year if we are to get anywhere close, globally and across all funding partners, to where we need to be to be able to drive malaria impact numbers down. Counterfactually of course, if the funding that is being brought to bear was not there, the number of people affected by malaria would be horrifically higher. Currently there are ~620,000 deaths a year from malaria and 250 million people fall sick.
The Global Fund is the world’s largest funder of malaria control activities and has a funding replenishment round every three years, with funding provided by global governments, that determines the funds it has available across three disease areas: HIV/Aids, malaria and TB. The target for the 2024 to 2026 period was raising US$18 billion, largely to stand still. The funding achieved was US$15.7 billion. The shortfall will have major ramifications and we are already seeing the impact in planning in the Democratic Republic of Congo, one of the two countries in the world worst affected by malaria, for the 2024 to 2026 programme. Currently only 65% of the nets desperately needed will be able to be funded. We have never had this low a percentage of funding at this stage, with limited additional funding forecast.
The latest actual publicly-available RFMF figure I can find for AMF, and the other top GW charities, is here from Q3 2020, which is probably what you're referring to in the OP by "It's hard to find up-to-date data"; back then it was just $37.8M, nearly an order of mag lower, although I'm not sure whether Rob's and GiveWell's RFMF figures are like for like.
Open Philanthropy has significantly cut back its allocation to GiveWell. “In our GHW portfolio, we decided — and announced last year — that we would scale back our donations to GiveWell’s recommendations to $100M/year, the level they were at in 2020”
I would also not read too much into GiveWell’s decision to hold onto funds for a year. They do that sometimes when they have an opportunity which they expect will be good, but which hasn’t yet been fully vetted; or if there is an opportunity that isn’t quite ripe yet for some reason. This has as much to do with expectations about next year’s fundraising as it does about todays opportunities.
Something else you might consider is, if you didn’t give to GiveWell, where would you give? And would that other opportunity be better or worse, in expectation?
The Open Phil report you link to says:
This suggests that Open Phil is pulling back funding as GiveWell finds funding from non-Open Phil sources. I suspect that if GiveWell was getting fewer non-Open Phil donations Open Phil would pick up the slack again.
Donations to GiveWell are effectively indirect donations to Open Phil, which is fine if you like Open Phil.
The Life You Can Save recommends several charities beyond the GiveWell five. I get the impression that GiveWell's assessments are more thorough and stringent, but that's irrelevant if they're fully funded.