Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
mjamer 🔸1
0
0

Thanks for taking the time to complete and share a first-pass assessment, David! I'll follow up with a bit more info when I'm able.

Reply
See in context
by mjamer 🔸
4 min read 8

91

Effective givingRethink CharityEA Giving TuesdayOrganization updates
Frontpage

Update October 13, 2022: Giving What We Can and One for the World are supporting a pared-down version of EA Giving Tuesday in 2022. Read more and sign up for updates in their post. 

Summary 

  • We’re actively seeking an EA-aligned organization to lead EA Giving Tuesday in 2022 and future years. If you have ideas or leads, reach out to me (Megan Jamer) at megan@eagivingtuesday.org.
  • Since 2017, the EA Giving Tuesday donation matching initiative has helped hundreds of EA donors direct over $1.9M USD in extra funding to effective nonprofits.
  • Rethink Charity currently houses EA Giving Tuesday, and needs to hand it over to another EA-aligned organization before giving season.
  • If not handed off, EA Giving Tuesday will “hibernate.” It’s likely the website and most of the resources will remain online indefinitely, but may be out of date.

What is EA Giving Tuesday? 

EA Giving Tuesday organizes people around a shared goal: to direct matching funds to highly effective nonprofits that they wouldn't otherwise receive. The project supports donors and highly effective nonprofits, to make it as easy as possible to participate in matching opportunities with counterfactual value. EA Giving Tuesday has historically been focused on Facebook’s Giving Tuesday match.

If you’re unfamiliar with the project, there’s in-depth information on our website, and in the EA Giving Tuesday 2020 retrospective. Since 2019, EA Giving Tuesday has been housed within Rethink Charity. 

How valuable is EA Giving Tuesday?

The project’s main impact metric is matching funds directed to effective nonprofits during Facebook’s match. Here is what donors have accomplished through EA Giving Tuesday’s preparation and coordination efforts: 

YearDonatedMatchedOverall match %Learn more
2017$379k$48k13%EA Forum post
2018$719k$469k65%EA Forum post
2019$1.1M$563k52%EA Forum post
2020$1.6M$412k25%EA Forum post
2021$1.4M$411k29%Website

The value of the matching funds should be weighed against the resources required to run the project. You can find more information about project inputs in the EA Forum posts linked in the table above.

The project may have other sources of value, including: 

  • Offering a way for EAs to collaborate and take tangible action together
  • Potentially inspiring EAs to donate more, because of the match
  • Being a source of frustration and joy that fuels the creation of potentially dank memes

When does the project need to be handed off by?

A hand off plan will likely need to be in place by September 30, 2022, if EA Giving Tuesday is to be actively run this year. Otherwise, the project will “hibernate.” The next section describes some likely changes under this “hibernation” scenario.

I’m a donor or effective nonprofit that’s participated in EA Giving Tuesday? What does this update mean for me? 

EA Giving Tuesday will very likely “hibernate” if not handed off. Donors and nonprofits will see key changes in this hibernation form:
 

  • We expect the website and most of the resources will likely remain online indefinitely.
  • Donations will need to be made without a restriction (e.g., “Nonprofit’s X Project”) or the need for a regranting arrangement (e.g., “Nonprofit A via Nonprofit B”).
  • We’ll add disclaimers to the website and resources (i.e., instructions and FAQ) to reflect that they won’t have been updated since 2021 and may be out of date.


If the project is handed off successfully with enough lead time before Giving Tuesday, its incoming leadership would plan and execute a 2022 strategy.

What type of organization could be a good fit to lead this project? 

Here’s some characteristics of an organization that could be a great fit: 
 

  • The org’s mission involves effective giving and/or EA community building.
  • The org is an active member of the EA community, and would take trust and relationships with donors and nonprofits in this community seriously.
  • The org either has a U.S.-based person to lead the project, or would be able to source U.S.-based talent for this role.
  • The org has experience running complex operational projects.
  • The org can take over this project permanently, not just in 2022.

If you have ideas or leads for others that could be a good fit, please email Megan at megan@eagivingtuesday.org.

What resources are required to run EA Giving Tuesday? 

The receiving organization would be responsible for funding all project expenses and for recruiting a team and taking ownership of all of the systems used to run it (HubSpot, Mailchimp, Google Workspace, etc.). 

Funding from EA funding sources could possibly be available for this project. For an idea of the time and resources required to run EA Giving Tuesday in the past, please see the Estimating our impact section of the 2020 retrospective. 

I’ve received feedback that EA Giving Tuesday could be run in a leaner style, by focusing on the few aspects of the project that offer the most value. I basically agree! I think running a leaner project would be a good goal for the new leader to have.

Lead EA Giving Tuesday in 2022 and beyond!

I believe EA Giving Tuesday is a valuable project for the EA community. Unfortunately, neither I nor Avi Norowitz (the project’s leader for several years) are able to lead it.  At this time, Rethink Charity is unable to recruit new leads for the project.

I’m deeply grateful to have had the opportunity to work on this project since 2020 alongside talented and dedicated colleagues. In particular, I have really enjoyed supporting a wide network of donors and nonprofits in the EA community. 

EA Giving Tuesday is an exciting and operationally complex project that empowers donors in the EA community to take action together to maximize the impact of their donations.

If you’d like to help out with finding EA Giving Tuesday an EA-aligned organization to lead the project, please don’t hesitate to reach out – email megan@eagivingtuesday.org! 



 

91

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in

More posts like this

Comments8


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
david_reinstein17
0
0

Q: Where can we see the 'bottom line' on the impact for the most recent years?

I'm looking for.

  1. Additional amounts raised/diverted relative to counterfactual (with no EA GT org)

minus

  1. Cost (money and value of time) of this

As I didn't see anything in the linked posts etc., I sketched one below (which took about 20 minutes):

Proto-BOTEC sort of for 2020, sort of going forward

A quick skim and proto-Botec from the recent linked report for 2020

  1. Benefit: 243k increase in counterfactual funds raised for effective charities

Report: 411k in counterfactual matched donations ...

  • 275k from 100% match. Previous report suggests no EA donors would get the 100% match without the EA GT org. This seems wrong to me. Maybe EAGT made this happen in the past, but in the future many of the institutions and knowledge are in place ... so let's say 100k would be raised from this without EAGT going forward.
    --> 175k counterfactual impact of 80k

  • $136k of which was from 10% match ... ~ 40% of which obtained without EA GT (see discussion in that report) --> --> 81k counterfactual impact of 80k

81 + 175 = 256k

  • Less 17% lost tax benefits, which I'll estimate at 25% ... so subtract about 5% of the total
  1. $25,000 in costs (Hours organizing, other expenses)

466 + 297 = 763 paid and unpaid hours organizing this. I suspect that as we learn more, get better, have the sheets etc. in place, it will take fewer hours.

... So let's say 450 total hours going forward.

I'm not sure what type of labor goes into this. Let's say 150 hours of 'managerial and tech time' valued at $100 per hour, and 300 hours of 'volunteer/student time' valued at $30/hour.[1]

150 * 100 + 300 * 30 = $24,000

Nonlabor costs ... about $1000

Not considered:

  • chances Facebook continues GT matches

  • extent to which this leads counterfactual donations to be made

  • less tangible benefits,

  • cost of the time spent by donors (est: 411 donors spending ~30 min each = 200 hours = maybe 10k in value of time?)

Overall first-pass assessment

This seems like a potentially good use of resources. ~243k in increased amounts received by to EA charities per year. Let's say these have 10x the value of the counterfactual matched charities, so a this is worth $219k per year.

Relative to perhaps $25-35k in time costs? Or, if I'm wrong about the 'learn by doing time savings', maybe $50-60k in time costs.

Probably worth doing, or worth further investigation (including perhaps a MonteCarlo Fermi using Squiggle or something).

    1. (Of course some might say EA hours are super valuable, on the other hand people get something out of this, it's social, and it may not substitute for time spent solving X-risk issues etc. ↩︎
Reply
mjamer 🔸2
0
0

Hi David! I apologize for the very slow response. A few points: 
- Your analysis makes me upgrade how important I think diligent time tracking is on this project in future years, segmented by e.g., 'managerial and tech time' vs 'volunteer/student time'
- I don't have a go-to answer for you on the time costs for EA GT 2021. We had 2 Ops Specialists (Aisha and Mac) each work ~200 paid hours; I worked about 350 paid hours (including hiring and training); Avi worked probably a few hundred volunteer hours (including hiring and training); Gina and a few others worked a small amount of volunteer hours. 
- Can the project's time costs decrease via "learn by doing?" I am somewhat optimistic about this. But it's tricky because historically, new people have had to be trained on the systems and context every year. So processes can be improved, but a big thing is getting the same people to contribute to the project year after year. And this is tough, because it's uncertain the project will run any given year, and it's only seasonal. Ideally, the "institutional knowledge" would sit at an EA org (ideally, with the same people) over the long term. 
- Thanks again for your BOTEC, I enjoyed reading it and I imagine it has helped folks in the community evaluate the projects' value. 

Reply
mjamer 🔸1
0
0

Thanks for taking the time to complete and share a first-pass assessment, David! I'll follow up with a bit more info when I'm able.

Reply
david_reinstein2
0
0

And thanks for all the work you have done on this project!

Reply
mjamer 🔸1
0
0

I appreciate that - thanks! I have worked a lot on it. A lot of the credit goes to my great EA GT teammates, in present and past years. 

Reply
Jack Lewars16
0
0

Hi guys - OFTW is interested in hosting this. I'll reach out by email.

Reply
Denkenberger🔸2
0
0

Is there funding available for the org/individuals if they take it on?

Reply
mjamer 🔸3
0
0

Hi David! At present, there's no funding secured. That said, the project has received funding in past years. I'm relatively confident (70-80%) that for the right org/individual, there are a few different funding sources that would consider funding it. 

Reply
More from mjamer 🔸
79
Changes to EA Giving Tuesday for 2022
4 authors
· · 2m read
4
4
55
EA Giving Tuesday Donation Matching Initiative: 2020 retrospective
mjamer 🔸
· · 36m read
0
0
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 20m read
 · 
Advanced AI could unlock an era of enlightened and competent government action. But without smart, active investment, we’ll squander that opportunity and barrel blindly into danger. Executive summary See also a summary on Twitter / X. The US federal government is falling behind the private sector on AI adoption. As AI improves, a growing gap would leave the government unable to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges and threaten the legitimacy of its democratic institutions. A dual imperative → Government adoption of AI can’t wait. Making steady progress is critical to: * Boost the government’s capacity to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges * Help democratic oversight keep up with the technological power of other groups * Defuse the risk of rushed AI adoption in a crisis → But hasty AI adoption could backfire. Without care, integration of AI could: * Be exploited, subverting independent government action * Lead to unsafe deployment of AI systems * Accelerate arms races or compress safety research timelines Summary of the recommendations 1. Work with the US federal government to help it effectively adopt AI Simplistic “pro-security” or “pro-speed” attitudes miss the point. Both are important — and many interventions would help with both. We should: * Invest in win-win measures that both facilitate adoption and reduce the risks involved, e.g.: * Build technical expertise within government (invest in AI and technical talent, ensure NIST is well resourced) * Streamline procurement processes for AI products and related tech (like cloud services) * Modernize the government’s digital infrastructure and data management practices * Prioritize high-leverage interventions that have strong adoption-boosting benefits with minor security costs or vice versa, e.g.: * On the security side: investing in cyber security, pre-deployment testing of AI in high-stakes areas, and advancing research on mitigating the ris
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
In our recent strategy retreat, the GWWC Leadership Team recognised that by spreading our limited resources across too many projects, we are unable to deliver the level of excellence and impact that our mission demands. True to our value of being mission accountable, we've therefore made the difficult but necessary decision to discontinue a total of 10 initiatives. By focusing our energy on fewer, more strategically aligned initiatives, we think we’ll be more likely to ultimately achieve our Big Hairy Audacious Goal of 1 million pledgers donating $3B USD to high-impact charities annually. (See our 2025 strategy.) We’d like to be transparent about the choices we made, both to hold ourselves accountable and so other organisations can take the gaps we leave into account when planning their work. As such, this post aims to: * Inform the broader EA community about changes to projects & highlight opportunities to carry these projects forward * Provide timelines for project transitions * Explain our rationale for discontinuing certain initiatives What’s changing  We've identified 10 initiatives[1] to wind down or transition. These are: * GWWC Canada * Effective Altruism Australia funding partnership * GWWC Groups * Giving Games * Charity Elections * Effective Giving Meta evaluation and grantmaking * The Donor Lottery * Translations * Hosted Funds * New licensing of the GWWC brand  Each of these is detailed in the sections below, with timelines and transition plans where applicable. How this is relevant to you  We still believe in the impact potential of many of these projects. Our decision doesn’t necessarily reflect their lack of value, but rather our need to focus at this juncture of GWWC's development.  Thus, we are actively looking for organisations and individuals interested in taking on some of these projects. If that’s you, please do reach out: see each project's section for specific contact details. Thank you for your continued support as we
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
We are excited to share a summary of our 2025 strategy, which builds on our work in 2024 and provides a vision through 2027 and beyond! Background Giving What We Can (GWWC) is working towards a world without preventable suffering or existential risk, where everyone is able to flourish. We do this by making giving effectively and significantly a cultural norm. Focus on pledges Based on our last impact evaluation[1], we have made our pledges –  and in particular the 🔸10% Pledge – the core focus of GWWC’s work.[2] We know the 🔸10% Pledge is a powerful institution, as we’ve seen almost 10,000 people take it and give nearly $50M USD to high-impact charities annually. We believe it could become a norm among at least the richest 1% — and likely a much wider segment of the population — which would cumulatively direct an enormous quantity of financial resources towards tackling the world’s most pressing problems.  We initiated this focus on pledges in early 2024, and are doubling down on it in 2025. In line with this, we are retiring various other initiatives we were previously running and which are not consistent with our new strategy. Introducing our BHAG We are setting ourselves a long-term Big Hairy Audacious Goal (BHAG) of 1 million pledgers donating $3B USD to high-impact charities annually, which we will start working towards in 2025. 1 million pledgers donating $3B USD to high-impact charities annually would be roughly equivalent to ~100x GWWC’s current scale, and could be achieved by 1% of the world’s richest 1% pledging and giving effectively. Achieving this would imply the equivalent of nearly 1 million lives being saved[3] every year. See the BHAG FAQ for more info. Working towards our BHAG Over the coming years, we expect to test various growth pathways and interventions that could get us to our BHAG, including digital marketing, partnerships with aligned organisations, community advocacy, media/PR, and direct outreach to potential pledgers. We thin
Recent opportunities in Effective giving
151
Projects I'd like to see in the GHW meta space
Melanie Basnak🔸
· · 8m read
3
3
15
Help tighten up a calculator for cost effectiveness of addiction treatment?
LSterling
· · 1m read
0
0
96
Updates on Open Philanthropy’s Effective Giving and Careers program
2 authors
· · 6m read
0
0
View more