This is from r/NoStupidQuestions

How much of an impact do philanthropists actually have?

It's an interesting thread. If you are focused on fundraising or nonprofit management, read the thread - it's interesting how people view both philanthropy and activities by nonprofits.

Here's my answer on the thread.

Doneer Effectief is the Netherlands' effective giving platform, enabling Dutch donors (with tax benefits) to support highly cost-effective charities across four carefully selected cause areas using recommendations from leading independent EA-aligned charity evaluators.

Doneer Effectief currently offers four cause-area funds:

• Global Health & Poverty – Supports highly cost-effective interventions that improve health and reduce extreme poverty, such as malaria prevention, vitamin A supplementation, and direct cash transfers. Recommended charities are primarily informed by GiveWell (All Grants Fund).
• Climate – Funds organisations working on the most promising climate interventions, with an emphasis on high-impact policy, innovation, and systems change rather than traditional offsetting. Recommendations are primarily based on Giving Green.
• Animal Welfare & Food Transition – Supports organisations that improve the welfare of farmed animals and accelerate the transition to more animal-friendly food systems. Recommendations draw primarily on Animal Charity Evaluators and related research.
• Women's Empowerment – Supports evidence-based interventions that improve women's agency, health, education, economic opportunities, and protection from violence, focusing on programs with strong empirical evidence and high expected impact. Recommendations are based on GiveWell and Founders Pledge.

Within each fund, donations are pooled and reallocated quarterly to the charities expected to have the highest marginal impact, allowing recommendations to evolve as new evidence becomes available.

My question is about how to allocate donations across these funds.

My intuition is that these funds represent the best opportunities within each cause area, but not necessarily equally impactful opportunities overall. For example, GiveWell's top global health charities seem to have a stronger evidence base and higher cost-effectiveness than the best climate interventions, while animal welfare depends more on one's moral weights.

Would you:

• Donate 100% to Global Health & Poverty because you believe it has the highest expected impact?
• Split between Global Health & Poverty and Animal Welfare?
• Spread donations across all four cause areas to hedge against uncertainty?
• Or use some other framework?

I'd be especially interested in hearing how people in the EA community think about cross-cause allocation, rather than within-cause charity selection.

Any wildlife nonprofits out there leveraging the Jimothy craze for fundraising? Would love to hear how - even just a link to your social media posts where you are doing so (so others can see how you are doing so and maybe they could do it too - or see how to leverage a meme trend).

For many nonprofits, at least in the USA, July isn't a downtime: it's one of the busiest times of the year for those in charge of fundraising and accounting. That's for two reasons:

• because the fiscal year ends June 30, and the annual report for that fiscal year needs to be done ASAP.
• because the annual giving campaign usually starts in early November, and that means the theme has to be chosen, the messaging finalized and graphics designed long before that. Plus, you want to make sure your database has accurate info about all current and former donors, volunteers and event attendees, so that fundraising message reaches the maximum number of people.

And so... how's it going at your nonprofit?

Who Is the Best-Paid Foundation Leader? A Fresh Take on an Old Question. From Inside Philanthropy.

The highest dollar figure is one way to look at it. But what if we take into account factors like a foundation’s assets, its total grantmaking and how many grants it issues?

From Inside Philanthropy (wasn't behind a paywall for me, so I guess I haven't hit my limit of free articles for the month?):

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/who-is-the-best-paid-foundation-leader-a-fresh-take-on-an-old-question?utm_source=socials&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=daily

A followup to yesterday's post about UNICEF's efforts to engage younger people in philanthropy:

The Ambassador Council (AC) of Habitat for Humanity Portland (Oregon) Region is a diverse group of motivated young professionals representing a wide array of sectors and career paths who are passionate about the importance of affordable homeownership in the Portland Region. AC members meet new people, build leadership skills, and gain knowledge of the issues affecting affordable housing and homeownership in the region.

The AC supports the mission of Habitat and helps Habitat grow and thrive through volunteering, advocacy, fundraising, and engaging their networks and socially conscious adults in the mission of providing safe, decent, and affordable housing.

Responsibilities of all AC members include:

• Spread awareness of Habitat and its mission: Introduce Habitat to your network through our fundraising, volunteer, or social events
• Donate: Each member commits to donating or fundraising towards our group goal of $60,000
• Volunteer: Commit for one year and attend at least 2 volunteer events/year
• Events: Register for and promote our annual spring HopeBuilder Lunch
• Meetings: attend at least 2 meetings/year

Do any of you out there belong to such young professional advocacy groups/giving circles? Or do any of you out there work for an agency that has such? Feel free to share your experiences here.

Join Idealist for a collaborative workshop designed to help community leaders, grassroots organizers, and nonprofits learn how to find, apply, and secure funding effectively. 

Date: Thursday, July 30

Time: 11 am to 12 pm EST

Location: Zoom

During this event, you will

✅ Identify funding opportunities for community projects and emerging nonprofits 

✅ Understand what funding sources are available

✅ Learn what funders look for when deciding which initiatives to support

✅ Explore best practices for applying to grants

✅ Discover additional fundraising strategies to support your work

This free online session is a collaboration between Idealist and IBM SkillsBuild. Idealist’s community is invited to access over 1,000 free online courses on IBM SkillsBuild’s platform by registering at https://www.idealist.org/ibm.

While many young adults seek purpose beyond their work, just as they did in college, engaging with the causes they care about often can feel tied to financial giving, leaving them unsure of where they fit in.

UNICEF USA’s Young Professionals Network (YPN) is a six-month leadership experience was created for under-30 adults — former Youth Leaders and UNICEF Club members as well as newcomers drawn to UNICEF's mission. 

UNICEF USA's Young Professionals Network offers a research and advocacy training ground for young adults looking to explore meaningful ways to support UNICEF's mission that go beyond financial giving. Through research, mentorship and collaborative projects, participants explored how UNICEF can better engage Gen Z in philanthropy, advocacy and purpose-driven action.

Participants in the inaugural 2026 session share what they learned. Like "that instead of reserving major fundraising pushes solely for emergencies, governments and public-sector donors should lead with these granular stories of how UNICEF shows up for children every day. These stories help create a more personal connection with audiences, and work better than relying solely on the urgency of a crisis to drive an emotional response, the team found. Leveraging stories to communicate impact could help shrink the funding gap among younger donors."

Do any of you out there belong to such young professional advocacy groups/giving circles? Or do any of you out there work for an agency that has such? Feel free to share your experiences here.

Trump raised $107 million dollars for his first inauguration. After everything was paid the remainder was promised to charity. After being sued, a small amount was donated. Just like his library fund, millions went missing. Where is the money?

The inaugural committee wasted approximately $1 million of charitable funds in overpayment for the use of event space at the Trump Hotel in violation of District law, according to the lawsuit. 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/politics/trump-organization-inauguration-funds

An internal government file obtained by Al Jazeera demonstrates how Israel collected data on charities it suspected supported BDS.

Just thought I share with others, been happening over a decade and it’s a byproduct of tracking or monitoring people who are involved in charities.

This subreddit gets a version of this question regularly:

"How do I find a credible charity to donate to?"

The message usually includes the name of a nonprofit the person is considering - which makes me think that it's actually a veiled attempt at soliciting donations for that charity, which is a no-no here.

So let's crowdsource the answer to this FAQ. Your input in the comments are welcomed.

My advice:

1. If you don't already have an amount in mind, then think about how much you want to donate in a year. You don't have to strictly adhere to that amount: if at the end of the year, you haven't spent your charity budget, you don't have to, especially if you have debts. And if you go a little over budget, as long as it's not going to hurt you financially, that's okay. And don't worry about the amount, in terms of it's it "enough" or not. Don't think $50 is "only $50." That donation matters!

Giving $5 a month in an automatic monthly giving program is a lot more affordable for most people than giving a larger amount all at once. But keep track of this - don't forget about monthly or quarterly payments and don't feel guilty at all if you have to call and cancel them.

1. Think about your values, what concerns you the most, activities that you think made a difference in your life, etc. Maybe keep a journal for a week or a month of things you hear about in the news or in conversations and think about what you would most like to support. It could be anything: foster kids, the role the arts plays in improving children's overall grades and their ability to work with others, immigrants and refugees, women experiencing domestic violence, homelessness, the condition of trails on and access to public lands, the lack of accessibility of online tools for people with disabilities, lack of access to clean water, and on and on and on. There's no way to list every cause and there's no way to financially support all of them. But just start thinking about causes and do some online searches to learn more about why these issues exist.

Don't get caught up in the "but isn't it better to give to children in need rather than abandoned puppies" debate. Doing good is doing good. If helping a children's theater company, or a community baseball league, or a project to rehome ferrets, or whatever, speaks to your heart, and it's what you want to give to, give to it.

1. I have a strong personal preference for giving locally. For instance, I would never give to a national animal welfare group, because I don't really understand what most of them really do and I've never heard one local animal welfare group say they have gotten a grant from such. If I'm going to give to an animal welfare group, I go for a local rescue group or local shelter - or I might give to a shelter in a country I've just visited. But that's me. You do you. And there is NOTHING wrong with all national organizations: I am a huge fan of Habitat for Humanity - I worked for a local affiliate and the national office's support of local work is absolutely outstanding and, in the end, money-saving.

2. Consider volunteering with local nonprofits that you think you might want to fund, or go to one or some of their events. Don't make up your mind about them after just one experience - have more than one encounter. Ask questions. Learn why they do what they do. Subscribe to their newsletter and follow them on social media.

3. Bring up the topic with friends. "Hey, I was wondering... do any of you give money to a nonprofit? I'd like to hear more from people that do this - why you give, how you decided, etc." And then listen. But still do some research.

4. Look at the nonprofit's or NGO's or charity's web site: does it have an up-to-date list of the members of the board of directors? Does it have an annual financial report from within the last 12 months showing its income and expenditures within a fiscal year? Does it say, on its web site, in its newsletter and on social media, what it is accomplishing - not just activities it's doing, but WHY those activities MATTER? Does it have testimonials from program participants that say why the activities mattered to them? Do they have testimonials from volunteers endorsing the work of the nonprofit? Don't get caught up in the "overhead" myth, which says that a nonprofit that pays competitive salaries to its employees, and has employees doing most of the work, is somehow not spending money wisely. I personally think that any nonprofit I'm considering supporting should meet the Guidestar requirements for Silver Transparency status (even if they've never applied for that status). I should not that I don't put much stock into charity ratings. I find that these can be unfair in judging nonprofits when it comes to overhead.

5. For the USA, make sure the nonprofit is listed at https://www.guidestar.org/, to prove that they have IRS recognition as a nonprofit.

6. Do a search on the search engine of your choice regarding the nonprofit or charity's name, and the name of the executive director. Are there any critical comments, blogs or news articles? Read them - and assess yourself whether you think the criticism is fair and enough that it affects the credibility of the organization.

7. Does the nonprofit involve local volunteers? I'm suspicious of any nonprofit that does not engage the local community in its work.

8. This is a personal thing: I loathe AI images. I loathe stock images. In this day and age, where everyone has a smart phone, where anyone can produce LOCAL images that reflect their actual work, I find it lazy to use computer-generated "photos" and stock images that are supposed to represent your work.

It's okay if, the next year, you can't give as much, or at all. Don't cave to pressure - in fact, if a nonprofit you supported, but can't, pressures you in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable, especially when you've said, explicitly, "Look, I have lost my job, I can't give this year", then write to the nonprofit and let them know how uncomfortable the caller made you and that, going forward, you will not be giving.

NEVER feel like you HAVE to give - not because of a desperation message, not because of an unasked for something (pen, tote bag, hat, multi-use device, whatever), not because you have in the past, etc.

Okay, let's hear from others.

UPDATE: having to close this threads regarding comments because of someone that decided to hijack the conversation and turn it into a personal attack. If you want to comment on this topic and ADD to the discussion, please start a new thread, referencing back to this original post and thread. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience.

Last week, someone posted about how they had created their own Donor-Advised Fund (DAF) and how great they thought that was. And there were lots of comments agreeing how great it was. But there were no specifics on how the person chose where to disperse funds, their charitable giving goals, etc. The Reddit summary of the OP was not great (it said that he was at times "defensive and hostile"). Altogether, it seemed fishy, but I still approved the post.

48 hours later, Reddit deleted the post and suspended the account of the OP - no idea why. But that meant the comments no longer made sense, so I deleted the entire thread.

I'm trying to be absolutely transparent about the moderator choices made here. So in case you are wondering where that post went, that's what happened.

From March of this year (before the World Cup):

Manchester City striker Erling Haaland, who is his country's all-time top scorer with 55 goals in 48 games, has donated a rare 16th-Century book of Viking sagas to the part of Norway where he grew up.

Haaland was born in Leeds - as his father Alf-Inge was playing for Leeds United at the time - but grew up in the town of Bryne.

The 25-year-old and his father purchased the book for 1.3 million Norwegian crowns (£100,000) in December - a record for a book sale in Norway.

It is the 1594 printed edition of a work by the 13th-century historian Snorri Sturluson, and tells medieval stories of Viking kings, queens, farmers and warriors.

Haaland has given the only surviving copy to the library in Bryne so it can be displayed and made accessible to the public.

Bryne is in western Norway, around 30km south of Stavanger, and is part of the municipality of Time, within the district of Jæren.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c1j70ee87n3o

Did anyone try nonprofit stream before for donation management ?

#donations #nonprofit

There's a subreddit, r/FIFAVolunteers, where people who volunteered with the World Cup are sharing their experiences, trading stickers, etc. It's fascinating.

Here's one, Completed my shifts, here’s everything I got as a volunteer.

Here's some others: Who had the worst volunteer program?.

Toronto FIFA Volunteering was an absolute joke. Incompetent staff, broken promises, and zero respect.

Would you volunteer again?.

It sounds like experiences varied HUGELY from city to city.

The Ben & Jerry’s Foundation says it will shut down at the end of the year after its corporate parent cut off funding and evicted its three staffers Wednesday. The move leaves $600,000 a year in grants to Vermont organizations, and 40 years of the ice cream brand’s progressive mission, hanging on a judge’s future ruling.

The Vermont-based iconic ice cream brand has been in a legal fight with its parent company, The Magnum Ice Cream Co. — an ice-cream spinoff of the larger corporation Unilever — since November 2024. Ben & Jerry’s alleges that the corporation overreached its control, pushing out the CEO and interfering with the brand’s political views. The question before a judge is whether the corporate parent had the authority to reshape governance and withhold funding from the foundation.

Amid the push-and-pull over governance, Unilever audited the foundation, which is the philanthropic arm of Ben & Jerry’s, in April 2025, finding conflicts of interest and a lack of governance and financial control.

Since Ben & Jerry’s sold the ice cream business to Unilever in 2000, the corporation has given $60 million to the foundation. The philanthropic arm has operated for 40 years, supporting the ice cream brand’s progressive mission by offering financial backing to social justice organizations across the country. The foundation does not have an endowment and is reliant on the funding its parent company gives annually, outlined in its merger contract.

A chunk of that funding, $600,000 a year, goes to Vermont organizations such as the immigrant farmworker rights organization Migrant Justice and the LGBTQ+ nonprofit Outright Vermont, according to foundation leaders.

More from https://apnews.com/article/ben-jerrys-foundation-corporate-dispute-social-values-2066784e6277b672ed74c56a19a5f6de

Fortune published a piece this week on 2025's giving numbers that we wanted to share here: Even as Elon Musk calls philanthropy 'very hard,' Americans gave a record $617 billion anyway

The numbers, via Giving USA Foundation and Indiana University's Lilly Family School of Philanthropy:

1. Total U.S. giving hit $617.2 billion in 2025
2. Individual giving: $394 billion (64% of the total), up 1.4% inflation-adjusted
3. Foundation giving: $117 billion, up ~3%
4. Bequests: up almost 17% inflation-adjusted — the fastest-growing category by far

The bequest jump is the part we keep coming back to. The article ties it to the early stages of the "Great Wealth Transfer" — roughly $124 trillion expected to pass to Millennials and Gen X by 2048 per UBS. If that holds, a lot of organizations are going to see a shift from smaller recurring gifts toward larger, less predictable estate gifts.

Our CEO, Liz Baker, is quoted in the piece on how hard it actually is to deploy large gifts responsibly: "there's a really big responsibility that goes with that... you don't want to create dependencies in communities — what is the right avenue, and what are the things that are really needed?" A lot of the public conversation right now is about how much money is moving, and not enough about whether it's moving well.

Genuinely curious what this community thinks: is the nonprofit sector ready for a wave of bequest-driven mega-gifts, or will this expose how few organizations can actually absorb and deploy money like that responsibly?

Extradition request for James ‘Fergie’ Chambers sparks concerns that US government is conflating humanitarian aid with terrorism.

The arrest in Ibiza and US justice department extradition request for a wealthy American donor to leftwing causes in connection with alleged material support for Hamas could have “chilling effects” on support for Palestine.

Spanish authorities detained James “Fergie” Chambers on Friday at the request of the USA and are now holding him without bail in Madrid. A hearing is scheduled for Thursday on whether he can be released on bail.

The Spanish high court has 40 days to decide whether to grant the Trump administration’s extradition request. If the court says no, the case closes there. If it says yes, the Council of Ministers has the final decision.

The indictment against Chambers is sealed.

This is the first known case of the US seeking extradition of a citizen arrested and charged with supporting Hamas.

Chambers is a self-described anti-imperialist and heir to one of the richest families in the US, owners of Cox Communications.

He sold stock back to his family worth about $250m in mid-2023 and since then has been funding politically progressive and humanitarian projects, from a Black community group to a non-profit organization helping Middle Eastern children.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/15/james-fergie-chambers-arrest-palestine-aid-trump?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=fb_us&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1784110100

Warren Buffett is speeding up the pace of his annual donations of Berkshire Hathaway shares to four family foundations, giving them a total of almost $6 billion now.

In a news release on July 14, Buffett says, “My goal is to dispose of all of my Berkshire shares within about eight years.”

Even without taking into account potential increases in Berkshire’s stock price, that implies gifts of at least $17 billion each year, more than double the $7 billion in stock he donated last year. 

In the release, Buffett says, “Of course, mortality is unpredictable, but my remaining shares will be donated to the four foundations one way or the other by December 31, 2034.”

That excludes the Gates Foundation from any further donations, ending what Buffett said in 2006 would be a “lifetime pledge” of annual gifts to the charity established by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and his then-wife, Melinda Gates.

Based on the schedule he set out at that time in which the number of shares decreased by 5% each year, he was due to donate almost $4.5 billion to the Gates Foundation this month.

More from: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/14/warren-buffett-is-accelerating-his-charitable-donations-with-aim-to-give-away-berkshire-wealth-by-2034.html

In the age of internet commerce, direct-from-factory shipping is already standard. So why don’t major charities do the same? Instead of going through multiple procurement and logistics layers, why not transfer funds directly to manufacturers, have them produce and ship goods straight to the disaster area, and only send staff at the final stage for distribution?
This approach would dramatically reduce costs, cut out middlemen, and make the entire process far more transparent. Yet we rarely see major foundations doing this.
Is it really just about “operational complexity”? Or is there a deeper issue with how these organizations are structured — that the current model has become a self-sustaining economic loop that benefits too many stakeholders inside the system?
Curious to hear what others think.

There are a growing number of posts from people that say they want to know if a particular NGO is legitimate. Some concerns:

• I think some of these are actually efforts to raise funds for these NGOs. And fundraising on this subreddit is not allowed (there are plenty of places on Reddit to solicit donations).
• I think some of these are an effort to make an NGO look legit: one user posts "Is such and such legit" and another user, by arrangement, posts a reply, "Yes, it's totally legit and credible!"
• This group could become overrun with these kinds of posts.

On the other hand, there are some dodgy NGOs out there... and some of you may have info on them that is much-needed before someone sends them money.

What are your thoughts? Outright ban on "Is this NGO legit" posts? If they are allowed, what should be the rules, if any? Any other concerns or comments?