Effective Giving
Loading expected effects…
What it is
Donating a meaningful percentage of income – typically between 1% and 10%, with the Giving What We Can 10% pledge as a structured lifetime commitment – to charities identified as exceptionally cost-effective by independent evaluators such as GiveWell, Animal Charity Evaluators, and Open Philanthropy. The defining feature is that giving decisions are made on the basis of evidence about marginal impact per dollar, rather than on emotional salience, brand familiarity, or personal connection. This is what separates effective giving from ordinary charitable donation: the same dollars routed through evaluator-recommended interventions can produce substantially more measurable good than dollars given through default channels, because the most effective health interventions are 100x more cost-effective than the average within their cause area.
Sources and key statistics
- Donating a meaningful percentage of income (typically 1–10%) on a regular schedule to charities identified as exceptionally cost-effective by independent evaluators – distinct from ad hoc giving in that the percentage and the recipient list are decided in advance using published evidence, not chosen reactively
- GiveWell’s cost-effectiveness analyses estimate their top charities save a life for roughly $5,000 (Against Malaria Foundation) or generate equivalent welfare gains – orders of magnitude more efficient than typical donations within global health
- Research on charitable cost-effectiveness finds the best interventions in a cause area are commonly 100x more cost-effective than the median, meaning the choice of where to give matters at least as much as how much
- Dunn, Aknin, and Norton (2008) found that spending money on others rather than oneself produces measurable gains in self-reported happiness, with the effect replicating across cultures and income levels
- Giving What We Can pledge data shows over 9,000 active members have collectively donated more than $400 million; median lifetime adherence among multi-year pledgers exceeds 90%, indicating the structured commitment format produces durable behaviour change rather than short-lived bursts
Cost
- Upfront cost: $0
- Ongoing cost: $100/month
- Upfront time: 3 hours
- Ongoing time: 0.5 hours/month
Personalise these costs
Override the population estimates with your own. Saved to your profile and used to recalculate Time and Money EROIs.
per
per
How to do it
- Choose a percentage of pre-tax income that is meaningful but sustainable – common starting points are 1% (the Trial Pledge for those new to giving), 3–5% as an intermediate level, or 10% as the standard Giving What We Can pledge. The amount should sting a little but not destabilise your finances; a public commitment, even informal, substantially increases follow-through
- Set up the donation as an automatic monthly transfer rather than an annual lump sum – automated giving removes the recurring decision point at which most donors quietly defer, and it smooths the cash-flow impact across the year
- Direct the money to charities recommended by independent evaluators rather than chosen ad hoc. GiveWell’s top charities cover global health and poverty (e.g. Against Malaria Foundation, Helen Keller International’s vitamin A supplementation, GiveDirectly); Animal Charity Evaluators covers animal welfare; Founders Pledge and Open Philanthropy publish recommendations across longer-term causes. Tax-deductible giving vehicles are available in most jurisdictions through intermediaries such as Giving What We Can, EA Funds, or local donor-advised funds
- Track giving annually rather than per donation – review at year-end whether the percentage held up against actual income, whether the recipient charities are still top-rated, and whether to increase the pledge percentage as income grows. A simple spreadsheet or the Giving What We Can dashboard is sufficient
What success looks like
- You give a consistent percentage of income each year – not a fluctuating dollar figure that quietly shrinks when expenses rise – and the percentage is large enough that you notice it in your budget
- The recipient charities are recommended by an independent evaluator with a published methodology, not chosen because of a personal request, news story, or workplace fundraiser
- Year-on-year, your giving keeps pace with income growth rather than staying frozen at the dollar amount you started with – the percentage is the constant
Common pitfalls
- Giving sporadically in response to appeals or emotional triggers (disasters, viral campaigns, end-of-year guilt) – this typically routes money toward less cost-effective charities and produces a smaller, more variable total than a percentage commitment would
- Pledging a high percentage at a moment of enthusiasm and then quietly abandoning it when finances tighten – a 3% sustained pledge produces more impact and more identity reinforcement than a 10% pledge that lasts six months
- Conflating giving with virtue signalling – choosing visible local causes over evaluator-recommended ones because the former produces social credit, even when the impact differential is large; the discipline of effective giving is precisely to override this pull where evidence supports doing so
Prerequisites
- Sufficient and reasonably stable income to commit a meaningful percentage without compromising essential expenses or emergency savings – the intervention assumes basic financial security is in place first
- Access to online banking and a giving vehicle that operates in your jurisdiction (Giving What We Can, EA Funds, donor-advised funds, or equivalent local intermediaries); an internet connection for evaluator research
- Basic numeracy to calculate and track a percentage of income, and willingness to engage with cost-effectiveness evidence rather than choosing recipients on emotional grounds
Expected effects across life areas
| Life area | Value | PBS | ISR | UAR | Confidence | Baseline (population percentile) | EBS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global Impact | Impartiality | 8 | 80% | 35% | high | 35th | … |
| Global Impact | Sustainability | 9 | 75% | 35% | high | 35th | … |
| Global Impact | Fulfilment | 6 | 70% | 35% | medium | 35th | … |
| Global Impact | Passion | 5 | 55% | 35% | low | 35th | … |
| Ethics | Practical guidance | 6 | 65% | 35% | medium | 35th | … |
| Ethics | Philosophical depth | 4 | 55% | 35% | low | 35th | … |
| Value System | Practical decision-making | 5 | 65% | 35% | medium | 35th | … |
| Mental Health | Flourishing | 5 | 60% | 35% | medium | 35th | … |
| Community Contribution | Fulfilment | 4 | 55% | 35% | low | 35th | … |
Detailed Scoring
Scoring uses a logarithmic scale from 0 to 10, where each unit increase represents roughly double the impact. Learn more about ROI calculations.
Global Impact – Impartiality
Anchor: Change in how well resources are directed toward causes based on evidence of impact
Logarithmic Scale:
- Score 10: Transformative gain in impartial, evidence-led giving
- Score 8: Major gain in impartial, evidence-led giving
- Score 6: Meaningful gain in impartial, evidence-led giving
- Score 4: Modest gain in impartial, evidence-led giving
- Score 2: Slight, barely noticeable gain in impartial, evidence-led giving
- Score -2: Slight, barely noticeable reduction in impartial, evidence-led giving
- Score -4: Modest reduction in impartial, evidence-led giving
- Score -6: Meaningful reduction in impartial, evidence-led giving
- Score -8: Major reduction in impartial, evidence-led giving
- Score -10: Severe damage to impartial, evidence-led giving
Potential Benefit Score (PBS):
8
Intervention Success Rate (ISR):
80%
User Adherence Rate (UAR):
35%
Expected Benefit Score (EBS):
Loading...
Global Impact – Sustainability
Anchor: Percentage of income donated annually to charitable causes, sustained over time
Logarithmic Scale:
- Score 10: 10%+ of income given annually with lifetime giving plan
- Score 8: 2.5% of income given annually with formal commitment
- Score 6: 0.6% of income given annually as a regular practice
- Score 4: 0.15% of income given sporadically
- Score 2: 0.04% of income given or less
- Score -2: ~0.04% of income given annually lost
- Score -4: ~0.15% of income given annually lost
- Score -6: ~0.6% of income given annually lost
- Score -8: ~2.5% of income given annually lost
- Score -10: 10%+ of income given annually lost
Potential Benefit Score (PBS):
9
Intervention Success Rate (ISR):
75%
User Adherence Rate (UAR):
35%
Expected Benefit Score (EBS):
Loading...
Global Impact – Fulfilment
Anchor: Change in personal satisfaction from making a positive difference globally
Logarithmic Scale:
- Score 10: Transformative gain in fulfilment from global impact
- Score 8: Major gain in fulfilment from global impact
- Score 6: Meaningful gain in fulfilment from global impact
- Score 4: Modest gain in fulfilment from global impact
- Score 2: Slight, barely noticeable gain in fulfilment from global impact
- Score -2: Slight, barely noticeable reduction in fulfilment from global impact
- Score -4: Modest reduction in fulfilment from global impact
- Score -6: Meaningful reduction in fulfilment from global impact
- Score -8: Major reduction in fulfilment from global impact
- Score -10: Severe damage to fulfilment from global impact
Potential Benefit Score (PBS):
6
Intervention Success Rate (ISR):
70%
User Adherence Rate (UAR):
35%
Expected Benefit Score (EBS):
Loading...
Global Impact – Passion
Anchor: Change in sustained, personally meaningful commitment to causes
Logarithmic Scale:
- Score 10: Transformative gain in passion for chosen causes
- Score 8: Major gain in passion for chosen causes
- Score 6: Meaningful gain in passion for chosen causes
- Score 4: Modest gain in passion for chosen causes
- Score 2: Slight, barely noticeable gain in passion for chosen causes
- Score -2: Slight, barely noticeable reduction in passion for chosen causes
- Score -4: Modest reduction in passion for chosen causes
- Score -6: Meaningful reduction in passion for chosen causes
- Score -8: Major reduction in passion for chosen causes
- Score -10: Severe damage to passion for chosen causes
Potential Benefit Score (PBS):
5
Intervention Success Rate (ISR):
55%
User Adherence Rate (UAR):
35%
Expected Benefit Score (EBS):
Loading...
Ethics – Practical guidance
Anchor: Change in reliability and consistency of ethical decision-making across real-world situations
Logarithmic Scale:
- Score 10: Transformative gain in practical ethical decision-making
- Score 8: Major gain in practical ethical decision-making
- Score 6: Meaningful gain in practical ethical decision-making
- Score 4: Modest gain in practical ethical decision-making
- Score 2: Slight, barely noticeable gain in practical ethical decision-making
- Score -2: Slight, barely noticeable reduction in practical ethical decision-making
- Score -4: Modest reduction in practical ethical decision-making
- Score -6: Meaningful reduction in practical ethical decision-making
- Score -8: Major reduction in practical ethical decision-making
- Score -10: Severe damage to practical ethical decision-making
Potential Benefit Score (PBS):
6
Intervention Success Rate (ISR):
65%
User Adherence Rate (UAR):
35%
Expected Benefit Score (EBS):
Loading...
Ethics – Philosophical depth
Anchor: Change in sophistication of understanding across ethical theories
Logarithmic Scale:
- Score 10: Transformative gain in philosophical ethical understanding
- Score 8: Major gain in philosophical ethical understanding
- Score 6: Meaningful gain in philosophical ethical understanding
- Score 4: Modest gain in philosophical ethical understanding
- Score 2: Slight, barely noticeable gain in philosophical ethical understanding
- Score -2: Slight, barely noticeable reduction in philosophical ethical understanding
- Score -4: Modest reduction in philosophical ethical understanding
- Score -6: Meaningful reduction in philosophical ethical understanding
- Score -8: Major reduction in philosophical ethical understanding
- Score -10: Severe damage to philosophical ethical understanding
Potential Benefit Score (PBS):
4
Intervention Success Rate (ISR):
55%
User Adherence Rate (UAR):
35%
Expected Benefit Score (EBS):
Loading...
Value System – Practical decision-making
Anchor: Change in how much values actively guide daily choices and major life decisions
Logarithmic Scale:
- Score 10: Transformative gain in values-driven decision-making
- Score 8: Major gain in values-driven decision-making
- Score 6: Meaningful gain in values-driven decision-making
- Score 4: Modest gain in values-driven decision-making
- Score 2: Slight, barely noticeable gain in values-driven decision-making
- Score -2: Slight, barely noticeable reduction in values-driven decision-making
- Score -4: Modest reduction in values-driven decision-making
- Score -6: Meaningful reduction in values-driven decision-making
- Score -8: Major reduction in values-driven decision-making
- Score -10: Severe damage to values-driven decision-making
Potential Benefit Score (PBS):
5
Intervention Success Rate (ISR):
65%
User Adherence Rate (UAR):
35%
Expected Benefit Score (EBS):
Loading...
Mental Health – Flourishing
Anchor: Change in depth and frequency of joy, meaning, and life satisfaction
Logarithmic Scale:
- Score 10: Transformative gain in life satisfaction and meaning
- Score 8: Major gain in frequency of positive emotions and meaningful engagement
- Score 6: Meaningful gain in satisfaction and sense of meaning
- Score 4: Modest gain in positive affect and fulfilment
- Score 2: Slight, barely noticeable gain in moments of satisfaction
- Score -2: Slight, barely noticeable reduction in positive affect
- Score -4: Modest reduction in satisfaction and meaning
- Score -6: Meaningful reduction in fulfilment and positive emotion
- Score -8: Major reduction in flourishing (rare satisfaction, growing emptiness)
- Score -10: Severe damage to flourishing (persistent emptiness)
Potential Benefit Score (PBS):
5
Intervention Success Rate (ISR):
60%
User Adherence Rate (UAR):
35%
Expected Benefit Score (EBS):
Loading...
Community Contribution – Fulfilment
Anchor: Change in personal satisfaction from contributing to community life
Logarithmic Scale:
- Score 10: Transformative gain in fulfilment from community contribution
- Score 8: Major gain in fulfilment from community contribution
- Score 6: Meaningful gain in fulfilment from community contribution
- Score 4: Modest gain in fulfilment from community contribution
- Score 2: Slight, barely noticeable gain in fulfilment from community contribution
- Score -2: Slight, barely noticeable reduction in fulfilment from community contribution
- Score -4: Modest reduction in fulfilment from community contribution
- Score -6: Meaningful reduction in fulfilment from community contribution
- Score -8: Major reduction in fulfilment from community contribution
- Score -10: Severe damage to fulfilment from community contribution
Potential Benefit Score (PBS):
4
Intervention Success Rate (ISR):
55%
User Adherence Rate (UAR):
35%
Expected Benefit Score (EBS):
Loading...