DOCSLIB.ORG

Fundraising Prospectus Winter 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fundraising Prospectus Winter 2015 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 Malaria Foundation 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 donations 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 poverty 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 Altruism 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 Toby Ord 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 donation 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Whether and Where to Give1 (Forthcoming in Philosophy and Public Affairs)
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by St Andrews Research Repository 1 Whether and Where to Give1 (Forthcoming in Philosophy and Public Affairs) Theron Pummer University of St Andrews 1. The Ethics of Giving and Effective Altruism The ethics of giving has traditionally focused on whether, and how much, to give to charities helping people in extreme poverty.2 In more recent years, the discussion has increasingly focused on where to give, spurred by an appreciation of the substantial differences in cost- effectiveness between charities. According to a commonly cited example, $40,000 can be used either to help 1 blind person by training a seeing-eye dog in the United States or to help 2,000 blind people by providing surgeries reversing the effects of trachoma in Africa.3 Effective altruists recommend that we give large sums to charity, but by far their more central message is that we give effectively, i.e., to whatever charities would do the most good per dollar donated.4 In this paper, I’ll assume that it’s not wrong not to give bigger, but will explore to what extent it may well nonetheless be wrong not to give better. The main claim I’ll argue for here is that in many cases it would be wrong of you to give a sum of money to charities that do less good than others you could have given to instead, even if 1 I am extremely grateful to Derek Parfit, Roger Crisp, Jeff McMahan, and Peter Singer for extremely helpful feedback and encouragement.
    [Show full text]
  • Against 'Effective Altruism'
    Against ‘Effective Altruism’ Alice Crary Effective Altruism (EA) is a programme for rationalising for the most part adopt the attitude that they have no charitable giving, positioning individuals to do the ‘most serious critics and that sceptics ought to be content with good’ per expenditure of money or time. It was first for- their ongoing attempts to fine-tune their practice. mulated – by two Oxford philosophers just over a decade It is a posture belied by the existence of formidable ago–as an application of the moral theory consequential- critical resources both inside and outside the philosoph- ism, and from the outset one of its distinctions within ical tradition in which EA originates. In light of the undis- the philanthropic world was expansion of the class of puted impact of EA, and its success in attracting idealistic charity-recipients to include non-human animals. EA young people, it is important to forcefully make the case has been the target of a fair bit of grumbling, and even that it owes its success primarily not to the – question- some mockery, from activists and critics on the left, who able – value of its moral theory but to its compatibility associate consequentialism with depoliticising tenden- with political and economic institutions responsible for cies of welfarism. But EA has mostly gotten a pass, with some of the very harms it addresses. The sincere ded- many detractors concluding that, however misguided, its ication of many individual adherents notwithstanding, efforts to get bankers, tech entrepreneurs and the like to reflection on EA reveals a straightforward example of give away their money cost-effectively does no serious moral corruption.
    [Show full text]
  • The Definition of Effective Altruism
    OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/08/19, SPi 1 The Definition of Effective Altruism William MacAskill There are many problems in the world today. Over 750 million people live on less than $1.90 per day (at purchasing power parity).1 Around 6 million children die each year of easily preventable causes such as malaria, diarrhea, or pneumonia.2 Climate change is set to wreak environmental havoc and cost the economy tril- lions of dollars.3 A third of women worldwide have suffered from sexual or other physical violence in their lives.4 More than 3,000 nuclear warheads are in high-alert ready-to-launch status around the globe.5 Bacteria are becoming antibiotic- resistant.6 Partisanship is increasing, and democracy may be in decline.7 Given that the world has so many problems, and that these problems are so severe, surely we have a responsibility to do something about them. But what? There are countless problems that we could be addressing, and many different ways of addressing each of those problems. Moreover, our resources are scarce, so as individuals and even as a globe we can’t solve all these problems at once. So we must make decisions about how to allocate the resources we have. But on what basis should we make such decisions? The effective altruism movement has pioneered one approach. Those in this movement try to figure out, of all the different uses of our resources, which uses will do the most good, impartially considered. This movement is gathering con- siderable steam. There are now thousands of people around the world who have chosen
    [Show full text]
  • Generous U Grant Application
    Generous U Grant Application Ajeya Cotra Jake Straus Kimberly Huynh Madeleine Nemchek Matthew Borchardt Rohin Shah March 11, 2016 EFFECTIVE ALTRUISTS OF BERKELEY GENEROUS UAPPLICATION Background Information Effective Altruists of Berkeley (EAB) is a registered student organization at the University of California, Berkeley, whose mission is to empower students to give more and give smarter. We represent a diverse worldwide community of thousands of effective altruists who strive to combine rationality and empiricism with a broad and deep sense of compassion. Details about our club can be found below: EA Berkeley Contact Matthew Borchardt: Group Advisor Deepak Sharma: Website http://eab.berkeley.edu Student Org Listing https://callink.berkeley.edu/organization/EAB Through outreach, discussions, and a student-led course, we educate UC Berkeley students on the principles of high-impact giving. Our teaching guides students on a path of increasing commit- ment, culminating in a lifetime giving pledge. Our present budget of approximately per semester, or per year, drives our multi-level outreach, education, and pledge drive efforts. We would leverage the Generous U grant both to continue our present activities for another year and to try new methods to increase our reach and boost pledge-taking rates. Who We Serve Research so far indicates our donations can make a much bigger difference abroad, often giving beneficiaries huge health and income benefits that we take for granted in the developed world.1 For example, one of our supported charities is the DeWorm the World Initiative, which advocates and provides technical assistance to school-based deworming programs in Kenya and India.
    [Show full text]
  • Rationality Spring 2020, Tues & Thurs 1:30-2:45 Harvard University
    General Education 1066: Rationality Spring 2020, Tues & Thurs 1:30-2:45 Harvard University Description: The nature, psychology, and applications of rationality. Rationality is, or ought to be, the basis of everything we think and do. Yet in an era with unprecedented scientific sophistication, we are buffeted by fake news, quack cures, conspiracy theories, and “post-truth” rhetoric. How should we reason about reason? Rationality has long been a foundational topic in the academy, including philosophy, psychology, AI, economics, mathematics, and government. Recently, discoveries on how people reason have earned three Nobel Prizes, and many applied fields are being revolutionized by rational, evidence-based, and effective approaches. Part I: The nature of rationality. Tools of reason, including logic, statistical decision theory, Bayesian inference, rational choice, game theory, critical thinking, and common fallacies. Part II: The cognitive science of rationality, including classic research by psychologists and behavioral economists. Is Homo sapiens a “rational animal”? Could our irrational heuristics and biases be evolutionary adaptations to a natural information environment? Could beliefs that are factually irrational be socially rational in a drive for individual status or tribal solidarity? Can people be cured of their irrationality? Part III: Rationality in the world. How can our opinions, policies, and practices be made more rational? Can rational analyses offer more effective means of improving the world? Examples will include journalism, climate change, sports, crime, government, medicine, political protest, social change, philanthropy, and other forms of effective altruism. These topics will be presented by guest lecturers, many of them well-known authors and public figures. For the capstone project, students will select a major national or global problem, justify the choice, and lay out the most rational means to mitigate or solve it.
    [Show full text]
  • Giving What We Can Six Month Review
    Giving What We Can SIX-MONTH REVIEW, DECEMBER 2013 GIVING WHAT WE CAN SIX MONTH REVIEW Michelle Hutchinson Andreas Mogensen December 2013 Giving What We Can December 2013 | 1 Giving What We Can SIX-MONTH REVIEW, DECEMBER 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 2 - OUR CURRENT STRATEGY AND PATHWAY TO MEMBERSHIP 6 2.1 - ATTRACTING INTEREST 7 2.2 - INCREASING ENGAGEMENT 11 2.3 - MEMBERS 13 3 - ONGOING PROJECTS 16 STAFF Executive Director Michelle Hutchinson Deputy Director Andreas Mogensen Director of Research Andreas Mogensen (previously Rob Wiblin) Director of Communication Steph Crampin (previously Joe Mitchell) Director of Community Ben Clifford Volunteers Blog Manager Krisztina Csortea Webmaster Jacob Hilton Social Media Elissa Fleming Summer Interns Peter Hurford (Blog, Research), Michael Jarvis (Events), Nick Robinson (Events, Chapters, Research), Callum Calvert (Market Research), Thomas Clausen (CRM, Member Retention) Centre for Effective Altruism Trustee Toby Ord Trustee Will MacAskill Trustee Nick Beckstead Executive Director Rob Wiblin Director of Operations Tom Ash Director of Development Haydn Belfield Office Manager Lucas Zamprogno, followed by Holly Morgan Giving What We Can December 2013 | 2 Giving What We Can SIX-MONTH REVIEW, DECEMBER 2013 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Our vision is a world without extreme poverty - we aim to achieve this by inspiring donations to the most effective charities. We think the best way we can do that is by increasing our membership of people giving at least 10% of their income to the most effective charities. Our key metric is therefore member growth. Progress July-December 2013 From July to December 2013, we went from 324 members to 407.
    [Show full text]
  • Are We Living at the Hinge of History?
    Are we living at the hinge of history? William MacAskill Global Priorities Institute | September 2020 GPI Working Paper No. 12-2020 Are We Living At The Hinge Of History? 0. Introduction In the final pages of On What Matters, Volume II (2011), Derek Parfit made the following comments: We live during the hinge of history. Given the scientific and technological discoveries of the last two centuries, the world has never changed as fast. We shall soon have even greater powers to transform, not only our surroundings, but ourselves and our successors. If we act wisely in the next few centuries, humanity will survive its most dangerous and decisive period. Our descendants could, if necessary, go elsewhere, spreading through this galaxy.1 These comments hark back to a statement he made twenty-seven years earlier in Reasons and Persons (1984): the part of our moral theory... that covers how we affect future generations... is the most important part of our moral theory, since the next few centuries will be the most important in human history.2 He also subsequently made the same claim in even stronger terms during a talk sponsored by Giving What We Can at the Oxford Union in June 2015: I think that we are living now at the most critical part of human history. The twentieth century I think was the best and worst of all centuries so far, but it now seems fairly likely that there are no intelligent beings anywhere else in the observable universe. Now, if that’s true, we may be living in the most critical part of the history of the universe… [The reason] why this may be the critical period in the history of the universe is if we are the only rational intelligent beings, it’s only we who might provide the origin of what would then become a galaxy-wide civilisation, which lasted for billions of years, and in which life was much better than it is for most human beings.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tim Ferriss Show Transcripts Episode 120: William Macaskill Show Notes and Links at Tim.Blog/Podcast
    The Tim Ferriss Show Transcripts Episode 120: William MacAskill Show notes and links at tim.blog/podcast Tim Ferriss: Hello, ladies and germs, this is Tim Ferriss, and welcome to another episode of the Tim Ferriss Show. I am looking out over a highway from a hotel next to JFK because I forgot my passport in California and missed my flight. In any case, on this show, it is always my job to try to deconstruct world-class performers and identify the routines, the habits, the decisions that help them to become who they are. In this episode, we have a really fun guest, Will MacAskill. Will MacAskill is an Associate Professor in Philosophy at Lincoln College, which is at Oxford. He is 28 years old, which makes him likely the youngest associate, in other words, tenured professor of philosophy in the world. He is co- founder of the Effective Altruism Movement, which I’m a huge supporter of, and author of Doing Good Better. He has pledged to donate everything he earns over 36k, roughly per year, to whatever charities he believes will be most effective. He has cofounded two well-known nonprofits, 80,000 Hours and Giving What We Can. And we’ll get into both of those. But more important, we will talk about the lessons he’s learned, how to evaluate doing good, how to hack doing good, as you would in business. And he has been exposed to business. He is one of the few nonprofit founders who have gone through Y Combinator, which is effectively the Harvard Navy Seal equivalent for startup incubators based in Silicon Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Making It Easy for Non-Professional (Most!) Donors to Give Well: Borrowing Other People’S Homework
    Making It Easy For Non-Professional (Most!) Donors To Give Well: Borrowing Other People’s Homework Concept Note For Discussion Caroline Fiennes May 2015 This paper describes an idea we are considering. We are consulting our ‘friends and family’ about it. Your comments are welcome: please address them to [email protected] Please do not circulate or quote this document. Version 1.0 The opportunity: the innovation and why it’s needed Charities1 vary hugely in how good they are: their results can vary by “We (the UK gov’t Nudge Unit) 10%, 100%, even 1,000%. Clearly beneficiaries are best served if donors have two team mantras: back the good ones. You can’t make evidence-based decisions without evidence Most £s donated in the UK (and $ donated in the US; the pattern is pretty If you want to encourage some ubiquitous) come from ‘retail’ donors, in gifts of <£100. The problem is activity, make it easy.” that it’s currently prohibitively hard for these donors to identify the good charities: information about charities’ performance may not exist, may Professor Richard Thaler, author exist but not be public, may be unclear and/or poor quality. of Nudge, in the New York Times We’re exploring creating a mechanism to enable time-poor donors (=most of them) to find good charities. Some donors find their way to independent charity analysts such as GiveWell, Giving What We Can or The Life You Can Save. Those analysts are great but they collectively recommend only about 15 charities in the whole world: all in international development, mainly health.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Altruism: How Big Should the Tent Be? Amy Berg – Rhode Island College Forthcoming in Public Affairs Quarterly, 2018
    Effective Altruism: How Big Should the Tent Be? Amy Berg – Rhode Island College forthcoming in Public Affairs Quarterly, 2018 The effective altruism movement (EA) is one of the most influential philosophically savvy movements to emerge in recent years. Effective Altruism has historically been dedicated to finding out what charitable giving is the most overall-effective, that is, the most effective at promoting or maximizing the impartial good. But some members of EA want the movement to be more inclusive, allowing its members to give in the way that most effectively promotes their values, even when doing so isn’t overall- effective. When we examine what it means to give according to one’s values, I argue, we will see that this is both inconsistent with what EA is like now and inconsistent with its central philosophical commitment to an objective standard that can be used to critically analyze one’s giving. While EA is not merely synonymous with act utilitarianism, it cannot be much more inclusive than it is right now. Introduction The effective altruism movement (EA) is one of the most influential philosophically savvy movements to emerge in recent years. Members of the movement, who often refer to themselves as EAs, have done a great deal to get philosophers and the general public to think about how much they can do to help others. But EA is at something of a crossroads. As it grows beyond its beginnings at Oxford and in the work of Peter Singer, its members must decide what kind of movement they want to have.
    [Show full text]
  • The Institutional Critique of Effective Altruism
    Forthcoming in Utilitas The Institutional Critique of Effective Altruism BRIAN BERKEY University of Pennsylvania In recent years, the effective altruism movement has generated much discussion about the ways in which we can most effectively improve the lives of the global poor, and pursue other morally important goals. One of the most common criticisms of the movement is that it has unjustifiably neglected issues related to institutional change that could address the root causes of poverty, and instead focused its attention on encouraging individuals to direct resources to organizations that directly aid people living in poverty. In this paper, I discuss and assess this “institutional critique.” I argue that if we understand the core commitments of effective altruism in a way that is suggested by much of the work of its proponents, and also independently plausible, there is no way to understand the institutional critique such that it represents a view that is both independently plausible and inconsistent with the core commitments of effective altruism. In recent years, the effective altruism movement has generated a great deal of discussion about the ways in which we (that is, at least those of us who are at least reasonably well off) can most effectively improve the lives of the global poor, and pursue other morally important goals (for example, reducing the suffering of non-human animals, or achieving criminal justice reform in the United States).1 Two of the movement’s most prominent members, Peter Singer and William MacAskill, have each produced a popular book aimed at broad audiences.2 These books, and the efforts of the movement that they represent, have in turn generated a significant amount of critical discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • 32 Title of Case Study: Giving What We Ca
    Impact case study (REF3b) Institution: University of Oxford Unit of Assessment: 32 Title of case study: Giving What We Can: the Fight Against Poverty in the Developing World 1. Summary of the impact (indicative maximum 100 words) Dr Toby Ord is the founder of an international organisation called Giving What We Can. This organization is dedicated to the fight against poverty in the developing world. Its members pledge to give at least 10% of their income to aid and to direct their giving to the organisations that have a demonstrated ability to use their incomes most efficiently. The impetus for the founding of the organization was provided by Dr Ord’s early work in ethics. He subsequently undertook additional research into how his ethical ideas could be put into practice. The fruits both of this research and of related research by other Oxford philosophers appear on the organisation’s website, where, through a combination of pure and applied philosophy, the ethical case for making the pledge is urged. The arguments advanced have proved to be extremely persuasive: many people have been moved by them, and to great effect. The organisation has over 326 members, from seventeen countries, who together have pledged to give over US $130,000,000 to charity. 2. Underpinning research (indicative maximum 500 words) In his article ‘How to be a Consequentialist About Everything’, an early version of which was written in 2006, Dr Ord explored some issues about the fundamental nature and structure of consequentialism. This work convinced him that the most important objects of assessment, within a consequentialist framework, are not individual acts, but long-term commitments.
    [Show full text]