Harnessing the Expected Value of Other People’s Giving

You don’t need people to become Effective Altruists

Lots of money already goes from the hands of individuals and small organizations into charities every day. My question is: how can we as Effective Altruists increase the amount of that money that is redirected toward more effective charities?

It is not necessary that someone identify as an EA, truly understand the philosophy, or even know what utilitarianism is for them to donate more effectively. Often it may be enough to simply make someone aware that some charities may be orders of magnitude more effective than others. And through this framework, we have the potential to significantly expand our effective impact beyond just our own contribution or occupation.

What people are getting when they give

I, like most people, had never thought of the idea that some charities could be far better than others before hearing about EA. Charity has never been a large part of my life, as I’m sure it is not for most people even in the developed world.

The one time I remember explicitly giving to a charity with my own money, I gave $40 to TeamTrees, a large portion of my net worth at the time. I did this partially because I wanted to feel like I was having some impact on the world, but mostly because I wanted to feel like a part of a movement—that I could tell people I had donated to this cause that would actually do something and that they should donate too. What drew me most to TeamTrees was that the promise was to plant one tree for every dollar donated. To me, that meant my donation would cause 40 additional trees to exist relative to the counterfactual. My action would directly lead to carbon sequestration that would contribute to mitigating climate change. In other words, I wanted to feel good about myself.

What TeamTrees offered me was not careful cost-effectiveness analysis, but legibility. I could easily picture what my $40 was supposedly doing. I suspect this is true for many people: when they give, they are often not just trying to do good, but trying to feel connected to a visible story of doing good.

Which charitable dollars are actually available

Many people readily and regularly give money to causes they are close to like their church or their child’s school band fundraiser, but those donations are usually tied to a very specific purpose and context and are therefore difficult to redirect. Sometimes they give either because they don’t want to feel guilty, or they want to feel good about themselves; like rounding up for cancer research at the checkout in a grocery store. This is also hard to redirect because it is highly situational.

The relevant question, then, is not simply who is generous, but whose charitable dollars are still up for grabs. Some donations are effectively locked in by obligation, identity, or context. Others are discretionary: the person already expects to give something, but still has influence over where it goes. That is where casual EA outreach can have the greatest effect.

Aside from these fixed and situational donations, I posit that when most people are actively selecting a charity to give to among many, they do not actually know all that much about what it does and its effectiveness. Many may even assume that it is basically impossible, or at least prohibitively hard, to know whether a charity actually does a lot of good in the world or not. This lack of trust leads to less giving.

Perhaps just telling these people that there are individuals out there who dedicate their entire careers to making sure your money goes the furthest it possibly can could provide the important piece of mind. For people who do not need to be convinced that giving is good, simply knowing that there is a way to make a more informed choice may be enough to unlock both more confidence and more generosity, whether that means donating instead of not donating or choosing something effective like the Against Malaria Foundation over something picked almost at random.

I saw a quote the other day: “Effective altruists are to woke people what woke people are to everyone else.” To really walk someone through the whole framework can mean asking them, very quickly, to entertain conclusions that sound alien, cold, or morally extreme by ordinary standards. In everyday conversation, especially with people you barely know, it is much easier and perhaps more productive to start with the narrower claim that some charities do far more good than others.

People who already give

The following are some examples of categories of individuals that may engage in discretionary personal giving on a regular basis:

• Muslims: Muslims are expected to pay Zakat, 2.5% of qualifying wealth above necessary expenses each year to charity. Much of this may go to religious organizations but some could be redirected.
• Observant Jews: Many observant Jews are familiar with ma’aser kesafim, the practice of setting aside about one-tenth of income for tzedakah, which means they may already think of part of their income as money meant to leave their hands.
• Latter-day Saints (Mormons): Many Latter-day Saints commonly observe a monthly fast and are invited to give a fast offering at least equal to the value of the meals not eaten, which creates a recurring pool of money already mentally set aside for helping others.
• Sikhs: Sikhs who practice Dasvandh, literally meaning “tenth part,” of their earnings urging followers to donate a minimum of 10% of their income to support charitable causes.
• Seventh-day Adventists: Seventh-day Adventist teaching encourages percentage-based offerings, called Promise, in addition to tithe, so some Adventists already decide in advance that a recurring slice of income will be given away.
• High-income people who already donate occasionally: Wealthy households are already much more likely to give than average. Philanthropy research done by Bank of America found that 81% of affluent households made charitable contributions and that donors are more likely to give when they believe their contribution will make a difference. These people often have both the capacity to give and an openness to a pitch about some EA charities if it increases their confidence that their money will move the needle.
• Animal lovers not already locked into a local organization: If someone already cares deeply about animals but is not fully attached to one local org, they may be open to the idea that some animal charities raise the welfare of far more animals than others.

It may be prudent to present several different options of charities that might be most appealing based on the person we are talking to. Let’s think about the animal lover, for example. Say they mentioned something about how they have pets and have been trying to go vegetarian over the last couple of months. You could slip into the conversation something about Legal Impact for Chickens or Sinergia Animal. Or maybe they are Sikh and so would be more amenable to donating to an effective charity in India. This kind of personalization makes an abstract idea feel more concrete.

People who can direct other people’s money

There is also a second, potentially higher-leverage category. While most individuals’ direct lifetime charitable contributions may be fairly low regardless, some of these same people will at some point be in charge of a meaningful amount of money and have influence over where it goes. In these cases, the opportunity is not just to affect one person’s giving, but to redirect an entire pool of money that would likely have been given away regardless.

Note that the following only applies to situations where there is money that will be given away regardless, and the individual has some discretion over where to aim it. It does not apply, for example, to your uncle choosing whether or not to give you money for your school fundraiser, but it does apply to the school administrator that chooses which charity that money is allocated toward.

I have identified several groups of people that you can keep in mind are more likely than the average person to be in a position to direct charitable money. When you realize you are talking to one, you can try to slip into the conversation that there is a more effective way to donate money. Although all of these groups are likely to donate to more local causes rather than what is most effective because part of what they want is the warm fuzzies that come from a visible and personal connection, that does not mean they are wholly closed off to the idea of effectiveness.

• Small business owners: Small business owners usually like to be involved in their community. This can push them toward local causes, but it can also give them a reputational incentive to support one of the most effective charities and publicly frame themselves as serious about doing good.
• Event organizers: Event organizers often choose the beneficiary for fundraisers, benefit dinners, charity nights, and donation drives.
• Leaders of student organizations: Student org leaders often decide where fundraising proceeds will go. Many student groups raise money “for charity,” but are not all that tied to which charity the money goes.
• Leaders of community organizations: Leaders of local associations, volunteer groups, and service-oriented organizations often help shape where collective money, drives, or donations are directed. They are valuable because they can redirect not only funds, but also the giving norms of the people around them.

The point of all this is not that EAs should try to turn every ordinary conversation into a philosophical debate, as in many cases that would be counterproductive. Rather, if you notice someone already in a position to give, or to direct money that will likely be given anyway, a brief mention that there are much more effective options could increase your EV. This kind of expansion may be more effective than trying to walk someone through the emotional highs and lows of the drowning child thought experiment before asking their name.