Comments
Thanks for sharing your slides. It is very helpful to have them to work off.
Promoting Effective Giving and Giving What We Can within EA Groups
Thanks for sharing your slides. It is very helpful to have them to work off.
The EA Hub page about promoting GWWC and effective giving within EA groups has recently been updated. Big thanks to all those who helped develop this resource (in particular Eve McCormick, Catherine Low, Julia Wise, and Jessica McCurdy).
GWWC are currently working to expand our event guides and have recently made major updates to a lot of our core content (e.g. Giving Recommendations, Pledge page, Charity Evaluation Guide, Charity Comparison Examples, Case Studies).
If you have any feedback about how to improve the article please comment on the doc, comment here, or email [email protected]. Also, if there are any particular resource that would be most helpful to expand or develop please let us and we can prioritise it.
With giving season approaching, now is a great time to think about giving related content, and the new year is a great time to help people plan how they can best make giving a part of their life.
Full text of the guide is below.
Giving What We Can is a community of effective givers. They inspire people to donate significantly and as effectively as possible. Giving What We Can aims to broadly promote effective giving, create a community around giving effectively, and provide pledges to help people to give more, and to give more effectively.
As of November 2020, GWWC has over 5,000 members that have taken The Pledge (10%+ of income over lifetime) and about 550 who have an active Try Giving pledge (1%+ for any period). So far, their members have donated more than $198m and pledged almost $2 billion.
There are three pledge options:
Specifically, the wording is as follows:
“I recognise that I can use part of my income to do a significant amount of good. Since I can live well enough on a smaller income, I pledge that from now until ______ I shall give ____ to whichever organisations can most effectively use it to improve the lives of others, now and in the years to come. I make this pledge freely, openly, and sincerely.”
There are three main reasons for taking a pledge (instead of just donating without a pledge):
Your donations can do an astonishing amount of good. However, the impact can vary wildly depending on where you donate. The best charities can be at least ten times better than a typical charity within the same area, hundreds of times better than poor-performing charities, and the worst charities can do harm.
This very simple idea is still not widely known, nor integrated into people’s lives. Giving more effectively is an incredibly accessible idea. It’s so accessible that many people come to this conclusion themselves and then find various EA brands from this search. Other people are just waiting to hear it, simply sharing this idea more widely is still very neglected.
A pledge is a great commitment device and taking a Giving What We Can pledge can be a very powerful way to make a large positive impact over one’s lifetime.
For example, a donor on a typical American income who donated 10% of their income to an effective global health charity could save roughly 100 lives over their career (e.g. ~45 years, ~$50k USD income, ~$4k USD per life saved donating to a life-saving charity recommended by GiveWell).
There are many organisations working on some of the world’s most pressing problems that could have a similar or even larger expected impact with the same donation.
Aside from purely the donations influenced there are a number of significant potential benefits from promoting GWWC:
Some additional benefits for local groups:
Check out the Frequently Asked Questions to make sure you understand the fine print and common misconceptions.
Taking a pledge can be a big decision, especially for those who do not have much experience making big financial decisions such as undergrads. This may particularly be the case for students who expect to graduate with significant debt. It is important to be respectful, not overly pushy, and emphasise that it is important to seriously think through their commitment. Emphasise that Try Giving might be a better option for some.
Some people who take a pledge do not annually meet their pledge, and broken commitments are generally not a good standard to set (it’s preferred that people formally resign if they don’t intend to get back on track).
Some people might be less inclined to do direct work if they take a pledge.
Overemphasis on GWWC could result in a distorted image of EA: People thinking EA is only about donating.
Mentioning how much you donate can (if done poorly) come across as overly self-promoting.
Can make EA seem inaccessible for people who would find it hard to take a pledge, for example, those who have low-incomes, high-debt, or significant family responsibilities.
It could mean that you are able to spend less time and effort promoting career plan changes, which may be more impactful.
All groups can talk about GWWC as part of their regular activities:
GWWC promotion may be even more valuable for groups which:
It is an invitation, not an admonition
Many of us want to do good in the world. Donating effectively and making a pledge to continue to do so significantly is a great way to do this. Giving What We Can invites those interested and able to take a pledge and does not admonish those who are uninterested or unable.
Money can be a sensitive topic
It is important to remember that people come from many different financial backgrounds and have different relationships to donating. While sharing an income distribution graph can be a good way to visually share the immense privilege those of us in developed countries have, some people may feel that it minimizes or discredits the struggles of the poor in developed countries. Additionally, there are certainly inaccuracies in any attempt to convey the true distribution of income.
This Forum post details some of the negative images that might be associated with GWWC and suggests some tips for curbing them.
Being aware of how this is a sensitive topic can allow you to promote GWWC in a more respectful and considerate way.
Depicting poverty
Giving What We Can is cause-neutral, however many groups focus on the impact of effective global health and poverty charities when discussing GWWC. If you are focusing on this cause area, be very careful about how you depict poverty in general. You can find helpful guidelines on depicting poverty in this Forum post.
Resources
Luke Freeman, the Head of Giving What We Can, is available to assist any groups interested in promoting effective giving and GWWC, through helping to plan events, or speaking at events. Contact Luke at [email protected].
Some groups choose to concentrate their GWWC activities into an annual pledge drive campaign. These are typically held around giving season in lead up to the end of the year. For US groups in particular, it can also be helpful to coordinate this around EA Giving Tuesday (Website, Facebook Page) which coordinates donations during Facebook and Paypal’s yearly donation matching campaign
Pledge drives may be a good way to concentrate your effort, but also require a lot of work and coordination.
It is also important to remember that taking a pledge is a big decision that should not be made rashly. It is more common now for groups to aim not to maximize the number of pledges but rather increase the number of people seriously considering The Pledge, taking a Try Giving pledge, or making a donation to an effective charity.
Resources
GWWC can organise for someone give a presentation at your event, or you give your own talk about GWWC or effective giving.
GWWC can easily do a standard “pitch” talk which outlines Giving What We Can and effective giving, or even customise the talk to your audience. You are also welcome to use any of the following materials to give your own talk, or play a video.
Resources
You are welcome to use or adapt GWWC’s standard introduction pitch presentation
You can also play any of these pre-recorded talks:
Giving Games are educational activities designed to introduce participants to effective giving.
During a typical Giving Game, each participant is given $10, introduced to the featured charities, and asked to make an initial choice based on short fundraising pitches. The facilitator then goes into more detail about the work of the non-profits, and how to maximize the potential impact of charitable giving.
In particular, the facilitator explains core concepts like cost-effectiveness, evidence, and how the overhead myth is incorrectly used to assess the performance of nonprofits. At the end of the Giving Game, participants decide where to donate.
Giving What We Can are happy to dial in and help run a Giving Game for you, or help train you to run one yourself.
EA Groups can get funding to run Giving Games either through Giving What We Can (contact [email protected]), CEA Group Support Funding, or The Life You Can Save .
Resources
A pledge panel is a short presentation by some people who have taken the Giving What We Can pledge about their decisions and common questions people might have about the pledge.
Possible formats:
Members who’ve taken the pledge will often talk about how they came to sign a pledge, and how it fits into their lives, followed by questions and answers. This can be an opportunity for people to talk about their motivations and charity choice in a public way.
Some groups run photo drives on social media to promote GWWC. Members who have taken a pledge submit pictures and quotes on why they took their pledge. These are then posted incrementally on social media.
Could have different versions of these for
Resources
An Everyday Philanthropist activity invites members to make a real-world donation decision. This activity can happen if you have one or more donors willing to take advice from group members about where they will donate.
Ideally, the donors will provide a dossier with what their intentions are (e.g. “most improve the lives of farmed animals”) and some suggested charities to help guide the discussion. This works best if either the donor or event organising team provide good summary information on each of the charities.
This makes for a great end of year event and has been the most attended event for EA Sydney multiple times.
Resources
Pledge parties are a great way to celebrate new pledges or anniversaries .
Celebration is an important part of life. It can be wonderful to take the time to celebrate people making significant commitments to help others can. It helps to affirm our commitments, recognises the significance of the decision, and helps inspire others.
Group Celebrations
If you organise a group which has Giving What We Can members this can easily be done as a part of other events such as your first event for the year, or in conjunction with a Giving What We Can event like a Pledge Panel or Giving Game.
Let your members know you’re running the event and now is a great time to let you know if they pledged or are considering doing so. If you’re not sure who’s pledged you can also check your members’ names against the public members page.
Feel free to get in touch with GWWC on [email protected] and they can invite other members who live nearby and give you a list of pledge anniversaries for the event.
Individual Celebrations
Just taken a pledge yourself? Consider having a party with your friends or family to celebrate.
Perhaps include this as part of your birthday or anniversary celebrations.
Two members reported that they started with a Try Giving pledge and have been increasing their pledge by 1% every wedding anniversary and celebrating it each year.
Physical Pledge Certificates
A physical pledge is normally mailed to members within the first 2 months, it can be nice to sign these at the event. If you need a paper pledge earlier then contact GWWC on [email protected] and they can be mailed early, or the template given for you to print yourself.
Take photos holding their pledge forms and share this on social media afterwards, alongside quotes from the members.
A giving circle is a form of participatory philanthropy where groups of individuals donate their own money or time to a pooled fund, decide together where to give these away to charity or non-profit.
These are similar to giving games but a bit more advanced, and often ongoing (such as a small group of friends who have something in common) or organised around a given topic (e.g. COVID).
We haven’t yet made resources for conducting a giving circle, however, there are some resources by Giving 2.0 here.
A tabling event aims to introduce people to the GWWC pledge, by setting up in a high traffic location, engaging with passerbys, and handing out flyers. Tabling is usually conducted by university groups, and is not designed to get people to take their pledge on the spot, but to familiarize them with GWWC and the organizations that surround it, and to encourage them to look further into them. Additionally, by getting the contact information of interested individuals, we can reach out to them in more depth at a later point to discuss GWWC more seriously or EA more broadly.
Many groups have found that tabling is not the most effective way to get many people interested in GWWC. However, running a tabling event can be an encouraging project to engage new committee members of an EA group who might enjoy talking with other people about GWWC.
Resources
One-on-one chats can be an effective way to get someone to seriously consider taking the GWWC or Try Giving Pledge, and to provide tools and information to help them choose an effective charity.
Resources
Write an editorial, a letter to the editor, or submit a press release – especially around key dates such as a milestone (e.g. 5,000 members) or during a pledge drive. Please get in touch with [email protected] if you’re going to speak with the media.
Examples:
Have your members who’ve taken a pledge submit their story for the GWWC blog.
Run specific fundraisers for charities or funds, for example, around giving season or key dates.
Groups can run talks by charities, regranting organisations, philanthropic advisors etc. The EA Resource Hub has a guide on running speaker events, which includes a spreadsheet with possible speakers. You can also contact Luke at [email protected] to be connected to potential speakers.
Hi Luke,
I recommend expanding the discussion in the "Things to be careful of" section. In particular, it seems worthwhile to estimate the impact of people in EA not having as much runway as they could have.
You mentioned that some people took The Pledge and did not follow through. It's important to also consider the downsides in situations where people do follow through despite regretting having taken The Pledge. People in EA are selected for scrupulousness which probably correlates strongly with pledge-keeping. As an aside, maybe it's worth adding to The Pledge (or The Pledge 2.0?) some text such that the obligation is conditional on some things (e.g. no unanticipated developments that would make the person regret taking the pledge).
Thanks Ofer. What do you think about changing this wording on the guide:
"Some people might be less inclined to do direct work if they take a pledge." -> "Some people might be less inclined to do direct work (due to "lock-in" or not having enough runway/financial stability) if they take a pledge."
"It’s important for people to consider this seriously. Only they can know how they will feel." -> "It’s important for people to consider this seriously, understand their financial situation, and under what conditions it is best to resign."
In terms of the wording of the pledge itself, I lean towards keeping it as is while including the FAQ which includes information about resigning from the pledge (we make promises all the time that have implied conditionality, such as the example about picking up your niece from school, and marriages which most people agree should end if that is best, but that's rarely in the vows).
In cases where someone is particularly scrupulous to a point of detriment I would recommend either not pledging or if they did, to take a Try Giving pledge and renewing it on a regular basis.
I'm very open to further discussion on these points.
Regarding the first potential change: It seems to me helpful (consider also "inclined" -> "inclined/able"). Regarding the second one, I was not sure at first that "resign" here means ceasing to follow through after having taken the pledge.
For both changes, consider wording it such that it's clear that we should consider the runway / financial situation factors over a person's entire life (rather than just their current plans and financial situation) and the substantial uncertainties that are involved.
The niece scenario seems quite different from that of the pledge. To recap the scenario:
If you're in the ICU, it is quite possibly basically impossible for you to pick up your niece! If you're on oxygen support, or have a damaged spine, or many of the other conditions that warrant ICU, attempting to drive to her school might literally kill you, leaving her still unpicked up. If you're on strong painkillers you might still be able to physically operate the car, but your judgement is so impaired that driving would impose an unacceptably large risk on third parties, violating their rights. Or you might just be in a coma and unable to do anything at all. This seems quite dissimilar to the case of people wishing to get out of their pledge commitment. My impression is these people generally much more mundane motivations, closer to "I don't want to" than "I cannot". I think it is reasonable to infer a silent "unless it is impossible" into a promise, but not a "unless I change my mind" - that would invalidate the entire point of the pledge.
Similarly, I strongly disagree about the marriage example. The classic marriage oath clearly states that it is meant to be until death, explicitly clarifies that a long list of conditions are not sufficient grounds for its end, and brings together a huge group of witnesses.
It's hard to imagine how people could make much clearer their intentions to enter into a permanently binding contract, as was enshrined in law for much of its history.
Nor do I agree that fidelity to promises is a problem as you imply:
The idea that someone should fulfil their commitments is not a detriment or a problem. On the contrary, being a trustworthy person yields many advantages. Being able to credibly commit yourself can give others the confidence to act in beneficial ways that they might choose not to if they were afraid you would screw them over later. It also allows us to bind ourselves, protecting ourselves from future moments of weakness.
Hi Larks,
Thanks for the input. I'm sorry I'm not entirely following what you are suggesting here.
I'd be very happy to take input on what you would suggest.
The essence of the pledge is to be a useful commitment device that helps people to stick to a commitment knowing that they've promised it to themselves and also to others (e.g. by taking a public pledge where your name is alongside others).
However, we don't want the commitment to be seen as so high that no one would take it on a slight chance that the best thing for themselves and the world would be that they resign.
I completely agree that broken commitments are bad (as laid out in the document), but shying away from commitments because there's a chance they might be broken is also bad.
I'm very open to any suggestions you have for how to communicate that.
In regards to the "scrupulous to a point of detriment" I'm referring to cases where scrupulousness is detrimental (i.e. Scrupulosity, OCD). If someone has that propensity it is probably better to not make a more ambitious and narrow commitment that there's a chance they might need to resign from (and instead make a softer commitment or one with very very clear caveats).
Thanks again 😀