FUNDRAISING PROSPECTUS WINTER 2015 CONTENTS Introduction 2 Quick Stats 4 Top Charities 5 Our Team 6 What We Do 8 Budget 20 Impact 22 Impact Calculations 24 Supporters 28

Front cover (top): Women and children carrying insecticide-treaded mosquito nets distributed by the Against in Ntcheu, Malawi (Image: Against Malaria Foundation)

Front cover (bottom): Health workers working in Madagascar with the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative test urine samples from schoolchildren for the presence of schistosomiasis (Image: Schistosomiasis Control Initiative)

Rear cover: A heath worker gives a child a praziquantel tablet during a mass drug administration coordinated by the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative (Image: Schistosomiasis Control Initiative) An SOVA volunteer working with Aagainst Malaria Foundation gives a tutorial on how to effectively hang a mosquito net in Orissa, India Images by Evidence Action on page 16 and inside rear cover are used under a Creative (Image: Against Malaria Foundation) Commons BY-NC-ND license. More info: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1 INTRODUCTION

Giving What We Can is a community of effective givers ­— an international society that helps people commit to giving more, and giving more effectively.

Our members commit to donate at least 10% of their career incomes to the charities they believe will be the most effective.

We use the best available research to find the most effective charities, and recommend them to our members, and to the donating public at large.

We build a community, helping to normalise ideas about effective giving, and pledging to give.

We’re small, but growing fast. We normally ask our members to donate to the world’s most effective charities. But we also need support to keep doing what we do — building a community of amazing, generous people, who want to make the world a better place.

Giving What We Can helps people donate to the best charities in the world —­ now we’re asking for you to help us. By supporting Giving What We Can, you’re not just helping charities here and now ­— you’re supporting the growth of a movement that will do good long into the future.

Please take a moment to read through, to find out what our plans for the next year are. There are some key facts on page 4, an overview of our plans starting on page 8, and information about our impact on page 22.

We hope that you’ll join us in the fight against suf- fering, and help us make 2016 an even bigger year for effective giving!

Thanks for your support, Michelle Hutchinson and the Giving What We Can team

2 3 QUICK STATS TOP CHARITIES

Giving What We Can recommends these charities on the basis of extensive research 4 showing them to be among the most effective in the world. top charities recommended 569 new members (2014-2015)

Malaria kills over half a million Schistosomiasis is a people every year, but the parasitic disease that has Against Malaria Foundation serious consequences for can provide an insecticide treated school attendance, but the bednet for under $8. Schistosomiasis Control Initiative 1,386 can provide a child with treatment for less than $2. members in total $10,500,000 reported by members

Treating parasitic worms is one of Vitamin and mineral deficiencies can the most effective ways to improve have serious health consequences and school retention, and the lead to learning difficulties, butProject Deworm The World Initiative Healthy Children can deworm children for under $2. provides technical assistance to help $533,000,000 governments create micronutrient fortification programmes that only cost pledged by members a few cents per person per year. 4 5 OUR TEAM The Giving What We Can Team: A Plan For Growth Over the last year we’ve seen engagement, and improved the for attracting and retaining new strong member growth. We’ve usability of and access to the members, and by increasing our been building our capacity as an Giving What We Can Trust. Our depth of knowledge in extremely organisation, and testing how recent Giving Review highlight- promising areas such as climate well different kinds of outreach ed that the Trust has been very change, in order to ensure that Current Staff work. Even using very conser- popular with our UK donors, our research is as credible, vative assumptions about our suggesting that creating similar thorough and transparent as impact, we think we’re making a systems for international donors possible. significant contribution to grow- will be high impact. ing the number of people giving This means expanding our staff, more regularly, and giving more We hired a full-time Director of bringing in new skills and experi- effectively. We think that we’ve Research, which has given us ence, and giving us more people got plenty of room to grow, and more in-depth knowledge of to take on projects that we just we’re confident that we have the most cost-effective interven- don’t have time for with the cur- good product-market fit. tions, and a thorough overview rent staff numbers. of the alleviation sphere Dr Michelle Hutchinson Jonathan Courtney We’ve developed and test- as a whole. You can read more about our Executive Director Director of Outreach ed ways to proactively set up plans for what a bigger team Sets the strategy for Giving What Responsible for Giving What We new chapters, continued to Now we want to capitalise on means for us below, starting on We Can. Manages team members Can’s Outreach strategy. Focus- test reaching out individual- our growth, by scaling up some page 8. and evaluates progress. Has a PhD es on supporting chapters and ly to people to increase their of the most promising avenues from Oxford University and was encouraging new chapters to recently named a Global Shaper. develop.

Incoming Staff

Larissa Rowe Dr Marinella Capriati James Snowden Chapters & Communications Research & Growth Research & Growth Has a background in sales, events Holds a PhD in political philosophy Has a background in strategy and marketing. Runs an Effective from Oxford. Part-time Postdoctor- consulting. Currently working for chapter in Brighton. Has al Research Fellow on Politics of WHO-CHOICE, while also helping Alison Woodman Dr Hauke Hillebrandt Sam Deere run Giving What We Can’s social West Papua while doing outreach to set up a charitable foundation. Director of Community Director of Research Director of Communications media as a volunteer. for Giving What We Can. First point of contact for new Researches the effectiveness of our Handles communications and members; keeps established mem- current top charities and looks for media appearances. Previously Subject to funding, see page 20 bers engaged. Organises events & new interventions to recommend. a political adviser and comms manages the Trust. Has worked for Holds a PhD in Neuroscience from director for several high-profile Advisory Board charities in India & Mongolia. UCL and was a Harvard fellow. Australian politicians.

Luke Ding Catriona Mackay Mark Barnes Founders Investor Civil Servant Investor

Dr Assoc. Prof. Will MacAskill Dr Anke Hoeffler Founder and President Co-founder and Vice President Development Economist

6 Want more info? Check out www.givingwhatwecan.org/team 7 WHAT WE DO

Overview: A Community of Givers

Giving What We Can is a com- choosing for a limited period of is crucial to achieving our full munity of effective givers, united time, to see how achievable it is. potential: it enables members by our ongoing commitment to to share information about how donate a portion of our income We research and recommend and where to give, helps them to to the world’s most effective the charities we believe to be stick to their commit- charities. Our goals are to inspire the most effective, focusing on ments and allows them to stand people to donate generously poverty relief in the developing together to change the culture and effectively, and to make it world. Members are not bound around giving. as easy as possible for them to to follow our recommendations, do so. and can decide for themselves Over the next year, our main which charities make the most focus will be on the set of steps To join us, members take a difference. We also run the that lead people to join our public pledge to donate at least Giving What We Can Trust, which community, from first hearing 10% of their gross income to the helps both our members and about us to making a commit- world’s most effective charities, the general public to manage ment. Understanding this will for the rest of their working lives. recurring donations and give help us to provide assistance People who are interested but to non-domestic charities in a and support at appropriate not yet ready to commit can tax-efficient manner. stages, and allow us to create a sign up for Try Giving, in which clearer pathway to joining. We they give a proportion of their Members are part of a commu- aim to have 2,000 members by nity, the functioning of which the middle of 2016. Sam and Alison hard at work at Giving What We Can’s offices in Oxford (Image: Giving What We Can) 8 9 WHAT WE DO (Image: Shutterstock.com)

Alison Woodman Growing a Valuable Community Director of Community

The primary way we assess our if members actually follow The community is facilitated in this way. These conversa- impact is by reference to the through on them. both locally, through regional tions often lead to improved number of community mem- Chapters (see “What We Do” connections not only between bers, the amount they have do- This is one of the great advan- on page 18), and centrally. members and the central team, nated already and the amount tages of the community: people Central office organises a num- but also within the community, they have pledged for the future: tend to find it much easier to act ber of events each year: we as we often follow up by intro- if they’re acting with a group. recently passed half a billion ducing these people to other • We currently have over 1,300 Our community provides us with dollars pledged and plan to members as well as Chapters members. some benevolent peer pres- host a celebratory party in early and staff. These meetings also • Our members have donated sure, so we can help each other 2016 to remind members of the give us a better insight into the just over $10,000,000. stay committed (for example, good they are doing and the places people first hear about through our ‘My Giving’ dash- • The average member pledges extent to which the community effective giving and the reasons boards where we encourage around $360,000 across their is growing. why they join. members to report their giving). lifetime. It also means that there are We also reach out to new mem- We plan to continue with these This gives a total of more than people around to answer ques- bers, offering them a Skype conversations, and extend them $500 million pledged. tions and discuss the best ways conversation with a member of to people who start Try Giving. to give. staff: over the past year we have However, we are well aware that spoken to almost 200 members these pledges are only valuable

10 11 WHAT WE DO

Workers distributing mosquito nets on behalf of the Against Malaria Foundation in Malawi (Image: Against Malaria Foundation)

Dr Hauke Hillebrandt Producing High-Quality Research Director of Research

Since our members are now and, most importantly, ensure research position. There are answer questions on the results Granted that Givewell, another time to the issue. The distinctive consistently donating millions of that we always recommend three reasons for wanting to of their research; while this is evaluator, has become feature of the effective altru- dollars to effective charities each the most effective charities to increase our research capacity. excellent for our profile, it does increasingly professionalized, we ism community is that we use year, it is crucial that we contin- our members. It is vital for us to First, due to increasing interest place strain on our capacity. still think that it is important to evidence and analysis to come ue to increase our in-house ex- stay abreast of relevant findings in from the have at least one other organi- to decisions on where to donate; pertise on charity effectiveness. coming from both academic and public, the media and poten- Secondly, as Giving What We sation conducting research and we cannot afford to leave seri- We must continually inform and non-academic sources, and to tial members, we receive an Can grows and moves more keeping up with the literature on ous gaps simply because of the fact-check our outreach and communicate these findings to increasing volume of questions money, our responsibility as charity effectiveness. time commitment required to marketing, represent Giving our audience in an accurate and about charity effectiveness, stewards of donations becomes look into them. What We Can at scientific con- accessible manner. and these need to be answered greater: we need to remain Finally, the community as a ferences and meetings, talk to swiftly and competently. There confident in the charities we whole has blind spots on topics other key players in the devel- We are planning on hiring for is also increasing demand for recommend and scale up our such as , and it opment sector on eye-level, one more full time equivalent our researchers to give talks and research capacity accordingly. is imperative that we dedicate

12 13 WHAT WE DO (Image: Shutterstock.com)

Making it Easier to Donate

Beyond making recommenda- debit and specify that when our this year we have automated tions about where our members recommendations change, the much of the operational side of should donate, it is important to destination of their donations running the Trust, minimising make it as easy as possible for will change accordingly. the amount of staff time taken them to do so, allowing them to up. However, in the new year we take advantage of aid and We have moved more money will seriously consider outsourc- similar schemes and lose as little through the Trust than initially ing some of the operations to money as possible on fees. expected, with over 1,500 people further decrease the staff time donating through it. The total involved. To that end, the Giving What We donated in 2014 was $681,000, Can Trust was launched at the and the total during the first Next year we plan to look into beginning of 2014 to facilitate three quarters of 2015 was over options which could replicate tax-efficient donations to top $1 million. Around two thirds of the success of the Giving What charities. It provides donors the total donations come from We Can Trust in the US. This is a with the convenience of a single donors visiting our main web- good time to research options platform from which to donate site, with most of the remaining since we now have a US branch to multiple charities, and allows donations coming from donors of CEA, which may be able to tax-deductibility for donations directed to our donation form facilitate, and because our share from UK donors to top charities from GiveWell’s site. of US members compared with not registered in the UK. It also UK members is increasing as we allows people to set up a direct The Trust is currently run by staff grow. at Giving What We Can. Over

14 15 WHAT WE DO

A child is given an Albendazole tablet at a ‘Deworming Day’ in Delhi, India. (Image: Evidence Action)

Sam Deere Reaching Potential Members Director of Communications

This year has seen strong growth open rates typically doubling various messages through the existing projects, as we would people, we reach out individu- 9 pledges, 1 Try Giving and 13 in the number of people inter- the industry average for the website and our email newslet- like. This has been mitigated ally to people who have shown newsletter signups. acting with Giving What We Can non-profit sector (~48% open ter, and improving email auto- somewhat by some exceptional interest in our work, or are likely through our website and social rate, vs. ~22% for all non-profits). mation (e.g. a series of emails volunteers who assist with man- to sympathise with our goals. Over the next year, we would like media. We have also seen Giving welcoming new members agement of our social media These include: people who to scale up this individual out- What We Can mentioned fairly Our biggest communications and ensuring they have useful and blog. However the addi- have engaged with us on social reach, and hire the equivalent of regularly in traditional media, in project so far has been an over- information, or reminders as tion of new staff members with media, like Facebook or Twitter; a full-time staff member to focus particular linked to publicity sur- haul of Giving What We Can’s people get near to ending their marketing and communications people who have mentioned us on it. We will continue engaging rounding Will MacAskill’s book front-facing website. The chang- Try Giving periods). In future, skills will be extremely valuable, as a reason to donate to char- with people via email and on and Peter es have significantly improved we’d like to start tailoring emails and mean we can iterate much ities (in particular, the Against social media, and will explore Singer’s The Most Good You Can the website’s uptime, loading to members’ interaction with faster towards public outreach Malaria Foundation); effective other possible strategies. In Do. times, performance on mobile features like My Giving (e.g. peo- that leads to more exposure of altruists (for instance, those who particular, we would like to find devices, accessibility, security, ple who haven’t used My Giving Giving What We Can and more participated to Effective Altruism ways to encourage members to Over the period November 2014 and usability for content manag- for a while will be automatically people taking the pledge. Global conferences). take an even more active role in to November 2015, the web- ers. The project has focused on a reminded to fill out their giving informing others about Giving site has seen a 41% increase in ‘lean’, rapid prototyping model, details prior to tax time in their Pledging to donate 10% of your So far, our main strategy to con- What We Can. We think this is traffic, with 38% more users, and which means that the impact country). income to the most effective nect with these groups has been likely to be a promising strate- 32% more page views. of changes on visitor behaviour charities for the rest of your life to contact them individually via gy, because a recent review of can be tested easily (using ana- Many communications projects is a significant commitment. As emails or Facebook messages. conversations with new mem- Over the same period, our lytics tools like Optimizely), and are relatively time-intensive, such, we expect many or even Over the past year and a half bers showed that friends are the Facebook reach has improved changes to the codebase can be and current staff are time-con- most people to need some we have put a relatively small single most common way they by 270%, and average likes per tested and shipped quickly. strained — consequently, we personal engagement before amount of time into this, and initially heard about Giving What post have more than doubled. have not been able to undertake they become ready to make that yet the results suggest this is We Can. Our regular newsletters have Over the next few months, the as many communications proj- commitment. Therefore, as well an high-impact activity: around also been performing well, with focus will shift to A/B testing ects, or learn as much from our as producing content to attract 100 hours of work has led to

16 17 WHAT WE DO

Jonathan Courtney Building a Network of Chapters Director of Outreach

Giving What We Can’s chapters successful fundraisers for effec- to ask if they are interested in contact to make sure we are are local networks of mem- tive charities. Therefore, setting setting up a chapter. This takes providing what chapters need). bers and supporters, which up and supporting chapters around 10 hours per location; We would also like to expand to work both to assist our existing appears to be of potentially high out of approximately 200 loca- producing physical promotional community, helping existing value. tions targeted so far, around 15 resources and distributing them members to keep their pledges, have started chapters. to all chapters, as well as putting and to grow the community, by We support existing chapters by time into improving and scaling reaching out to encourage more establishing a system of men- The growth in the number of up chapter seeding in order to people to join. Over the last year, tors, organising regular Skype chapters creates both oppor- increase the number of chap- we have increased the number calls and providing resources. tunities and challenges. There ters. In order to accomplish this, of chapters by 50%, taking the We facilitate the setting up are some large economies of we would like to hire a second total to 45. We estimate that to of chapters both by reaching scale to be made (for example, person to work alongside the date, each chapter has brought out through effective altruist in providing online resources). Director of Outreach. in an average of 5 new members; networks and by ‘chapter seed- However in some ways, we will in addition, many chapters hold ing’: writing to professors and need to put in more time (for Members of Giving What We Can-affiliated Chapters student leaders at universities example, maintaining individual from across the UK come together to learn from each other’s experiences at a Chapter Day in Oxford (Image: Giving What We Can) 18 19 Target: Expenses Summary BUDGET £475,000 Item Amount (£)

2016 budget 475,000 Funding Already Pledged - 193,000 Giving What We Can’s budget for 2016 is £475,000. gap: Total £ 282,000 £282,000 The largest share of this is staff. If we raise less than that but more We seem to have found effective than £325,000, we will likely need to outreach strategies for growing our fundraise again in the summer. community which can be scaled and 2016 Budget have received excellent applications If we raise less than £325,000, we will for our roles, so we think that cut back on our plans. In particular, Already Item Cost (£) expanding our team is extremely we will likely not hire two of the peo- valuable. ple we would otherwise hire. pledged: Employee pay/tax/other (9 staff members) 270,000 £193,000 If we raised £475,000 we would end Of the £475,000, we already have Communications & Outreach, including materials and travel 10,000 the year with around 10 months £193,000 pledged, which means we of reserves, and would not have to need to raise an additional £282,000 Member & Trust administration 12,000 fundraise again until next December. to meet our goal. Training and equipment 5,000

Internship support expenses 5,000

GWWC share of CEA expenses 130,000

10% contingency 43,000

Total 475,000

Giving What We Can share of CEA expenses

Giving What We Can is part of the Centre for Effective Altruism, which allows us to benefit from shared HR, office costs, services, staff benefits etc.

Item Cost (£)

Employees 77,000

Office 21,000

Services (recruitment, fundraising, intern accommodation) 12,000 A heath worker gives a child a praziquantel tablet during a mass drug administration coordinated by the Sundries (including financial and legal costs, lunches, technical, training) 20,000 Schistosomiasis Control Initiative Total 130,000 (Image: Schistosomiasis Control Initiative) 20 21 IMPACT

Member growth over time Reported donations to AMF ($USD)

Year Members Year Total donations Total Members New Members (cumulative) Cumulative donations Donations 1500 2.5m 09-10 $3,249

1200 2009 32 2m 10-11 $25,073

900 1.5m 11-12 $288,892 66 600 2010 1m 12-13 $498,402 300 500k 2011 166 13-14 $659,964 0 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 14-15 $1,352,626 2012 267

Member growth is one of our most time discounted). The rate of new The Against Malaria Foundation self-reported donations are a concrete indication of mon- important metrics for evaluating members joining has continued to 2013 386 are particularly proactive at track- conservative estimate of the ey moved which would not our impact. We estimate that, rise over the past few years, with a ing donor referrals, and informing money we have moved, since not have been donated to AMF on average, each new member mean of 10 members per month us about donors we have re- all members record their dona- without the work of Giving 2014 802 of Giving What We Can results in 2013, 35 per month in 2014 and ferred. There will be some over- tions with us, and some people What We Can. To date, in an additional $70,000 going 53 per month up to the end of lap with donations self-reported donate due to Giving What We AMF have credited us with to the most effective charities November 2015. 2015 1386 by members of Giving What We Can without becoming members. referring over $2 million in (counterfactually adjusted and Can. However, we believe that The data from AMF offers a more donations.

Donation growth over time ($USD) This graph shows money all donations to the Centre Year Counterfactually Donation to top Total donations donated by members of for Effective Altruism and adjusted donations to charities top charities (ex. CEA) (ex. CEA) 8m Total donations Giving What We Can. donations which we expect 7m Donations to top charities only (ex. CEA) would have been made Giving What We Can’s mem- 2009 $11,628 $22,800 $24,238 6m Counterfactually adjusted donations anyway), total $1,513,000. ber base has grown rapidly 5m to top charities only (ex. CEA) 2010 $42,330 $83,000 $113,234 4m over the past 6 years, and These figures do not alongside this we’ve seen include any additional 3m 2011 $151,062 $296,200 $755,766 2m a rapid increase in dona- donations recorded outside 1m tions. The graph shows that of My Giving, nor do they 2012 $295,800 $580,000 $1,213,607 0 members’ total donations factor in money that would 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 increased from $24,000 in have been donated some- 2013 $463,284 $908,400 $2,129,333 Donations Cumulative donations 2009 to over $7,063,000 by where, but that was direct- the end of 2014. Donations ed to a top charity because 2014 $677,790 $1,329,000 $2,827,622 to top charities (excluding of our work.

22 23 IMPACT CALCULATIONS

Hemastix used by the Schistosomiasis Control initiative for rapid sample diagnostics. (Image: Schistosomiasis Control Initiative)

About our Impact Calculations Lower bound 6:1 (and Some Caveats) The lower bound calculation uses conservative or pessimistic assumptions, and considers only These calculations examine the impact of Giving What We Can’s work past donations (in effect assuming that members all stopped giving after 2014). This calculation up to the end of 2014, and compare this to our costs. This yields shows that even if all our members stopped giving several estimates of our average impact per dollar spent. now — rather than fulfilling their lifelong pledge — we move around $6 to top charities for every $1 in However, whilst we monitor our grow. We do not see this as a These calculations build upon costs. Therefore, we think that this represents an impact relative to our spending problem, since we predict that the impact evaluation we re- absolute worst-case scenario for our impact. as a broad sanity check of our increasing our costs is neces- leased earlier in 2015. They effectiveness, these estimates sary for increasing our long-run, update the calculations with We can be confident that for every $1 spent by should not be overempha- absolute impact. previously-unavailable data from Giving What We Can, at least $6 will be moved to sized, or taken as projections of 2014, and modify some of the top charities our future leveraging ratio on We would therefore encourage calculations’ assumptions based donations. potential donors to look at our on this new information. growth (in terms of both mem- Our realistic scenario impact bers and money moved so far There is a flowchart that rep- calculation suggests that we — see page 20), and our plans resents these calculations visual- Realistic 104:1 have created value equivalent for how we intend to use future ly on the following pages. to moving $104 to top charities donations (outlined throughout The realistic scenario uses detailed information which otherwise would not have the What We Do section starting For a thorough explanation of about what we expect members to pledge into the been donated, per dollar of on page 18), and weigh these the methodology behind these future, and provides what we consider to be the spending up to the end of 2014; more heavily than these calcula- calculations, or to compare them most realistic estimate of our effectiveness. in effect giving us a leveraging tions when making a judgement to our previous impact evalua- Information for 2009-2014 indicates we should ratio of 104:1 for those years. about whether Giving What We tion, please visit expect that, for every $1 spent by Giving What We Can is a worthwhile cause to www.givingwhatwecan.org/ Can, around $104 (counterfactually adjusted and We expect this ratio to decrease fund. impact from 2015 onwards, as our costs time-discounted) will be moved to top charities

24 25 Realistic calculation 104:1 IMPACT Total pledged 2009-2014: Our costs (2009-2014): $344,310,000 $515,000 CALCULATIONS Rate of leavers: 0.017 + Rate of going silent, 0.031 and not giving: Total cost of maintaining Accounting for leavers and These flowcharts represent the methodology For a thorough explanation of the methodology ↓ membership retention Membership silent members: at current levels behind the impact calculations presented on the behind these calculations, or to compare them to 0.048 attrition rate $146,855,273 previous page. our previous impact evaluation, please visit $48,000 www.givingwhatwecan.org/impact Discount rate for 0.035 future donations: After discounting: Total costs: $93,973,503 Percentage members $563,000 11.03 pledged to give: Lower bound calculation 6:1 ↓ Percentage members Accounting for how much 12.92 actually give: people actually donate Member + community ↓ compared to their pledge: Ratio of actual donations to Proportion of people who donations 1.17 $110,075,944 pledged donations say we’ve affected their $7,173,000 choice of charity – 0.66 Member donations to Donations that would not have Donations that would have been non-top charities Outgoings 2009-14 been made otherwise: made anyway: Counter-factual and -$3,853,000 £208,000 0.51 $56,138,731 $53,937,213 = donation rate Donations to top + charities Money that would have otherwise 2009-14 volunteer time Estimate for money that would not have $3,320,000 (if paid as salary) been donated, and that we’ve been donated and went to top charities: affected the destination of Counterfactual Fraction of money 0.51 £124,000 0.46 $25,823,816 donation rate given to top charities $35,598,560 = Counterfactual + donations to top Total costs Value of us affecting the charities only Top-charity equivalent value of money that £332,000 would not have been donated, and does not go destination of donations that $1,693,000 = to top charities: would have been made otherwise + Additional donations by High Net Effectiveness ratio 0.5 $15,157,458 $17,799,280 Worth member to top charities Total costs in USD (2014 dollars) $1,346,000 = $515,000 Total value of donations that would not have gone to charity otherwise Total additional donations (top- $40,981,274 charity-equivalent 2014 dollars) $3,039,000 Total money we expect to move (top-charity-equivalent 2014 dollars) divide by total costs $58,780,554

divide by total costs Impact ($563,000)

$6 donated for every $1 spent Want to try out your own assumptions? Impact Use the spreadsheet at $104 donated for every $1 spent www.givingwhatwecan.org/impact 26 27 SUPPORTERS

Giving What We Can is incredibly We’d like to take the opportunity grateful for the continued to say thanks to everyone who support of our donors, without has joined with us as we try to do whom we wouldn’t be able to do the most good we can! what we do.

2015 Donors

Luke Ding Becky Cotton-Barratt Amanda Cohn

Mark Barnes Rossa O’Keeffe-O’Donavan James Hudspeth

Fred Mulder Andrew Schultz Keith Foster

Julia Wise Michael Peyton Jones Dana Stokes

Jeff Kaufman Joshua Greene Cate Hall

Andrew Sutton Jack Sennett Elissa Fleming

Ross Reason George Georgiadis Maja Z

Robert Collins Michael Dello John Bachelor

Lyndsey Pickup Robbie Shade John Halstead

Stephanie Crampin Daniel Robinson Rachel Payne

Derek Parfit Alexander Barry Taymon Beal

Janet Radcliffe Richards George Marshall Oliver Bray

Alex Gordon-Brown Peter W Joeri Kooimans

Denise Melchin Fabian Schomerus Evan Dawson-Baglien

Prof Jonathan Barry Philip Hazelden Daniel Selwyn

Joe Mela Jessica Chung Schoolchildren line up for a mass drug administration coordinated by Deworm the World Initiative in Kisii, Kenya (Image: Evidence Action) 28 Giving What We Can is an international society of people committed to donating at least 10% of their income to the most effective charities in the world. By donating to Giving What We Can, you aren’t just supporting a charity – you’re supporting donors all over the world to make the biggest difference they possibly can. Find out more inside...

Want to support Giving What We Can? Go to givingwhatwecan.org/fundraising to donate

© 2015