About Us

Charity Recommendations

Recommendations

Our Community

Giving Effectively

Effective Giving

Giving Pledges

Pledge

Pledge Partnerships

Donation Platform

Donate

Pledge Pin

, and donors to maximise the impact of charitable giving.

. Their expertise informs us about high-impact programs, helping us guide donors to make the most meaningful impact with their contributions. We use this research to help us to decide which programs to support and recommend to donors and our funding partners.

We collaborate with funding partners that are registered charities in their respective countries. Each funding partner runs the Giving What We Can activities in their region. They use our website and brand to build a local effective giving community and raise funds for mutually supported programs. They provide a localised experience for our donors and members. This helps ensure that donations made through our donation platform are not only high-impact but also, to the extent possible, tax-efficient and available to donors in their local currency and language.

This means that when you donate through the Giving What We Can platform, your donation is received by one of our funding partners, and that funding partner also receives your allocation and uses it when making grants to the organisations that carry out these mutually-supported, high-impact programs.

After receiving donations, our funding partners legally control and oversee the use of funds to ensure they are used for the intended purpose in a manner that aligns with their charitable purposes and follows relevant local laws.

Our donation platform principally supports two kinds of programs (we call these our "supported programs"):

Our team works with charity evaluators to identify specific high-impact projects (e.g. distributing bed nets to prevent malaria). These programs are delivered by organisations with a strong track record of delivering cost-effective outcomes, such as the Against Malaria Foundation. We recommend these projects to our funding partners who, after conducting their own due diligence, use our donation platform to raise and grant funds for these programs. Finally, we work with the funding partners and charity evaluators to conduct ongoing monitoring and evaluation.

We collaborate with expert grantmakers to identify promising broad areas of work (e.g. improving animal welfare) and recommend these to our funding partners. Our funding partners then raise a pool of funds from donors under this program restriction. Based on our advice, the advice of our grantmakers, and their own due diligence, our funding partners then make grants to funding opportunities from these pools of funds. After grants are made, we then work with the funding partners and grantmakers to conduct ongoing monitoring and evaluation.

Our funding partners usually follow the preferred allocation for your donation, but legally, must retain final discretion over whether or not to do so. Should an issue arise where the intended allocation will not be followed, we coordinate with our funding partners and trusted evaluators to identify a comparable project that aligns with the original intent of your donation. (This is relatively rare but could happen if, for example, the program no longer aligns with our funding partners’ charitable purpose, the program we were supporting wraps up, government sanctions prevent us from granting, etc.)

. Should you have any questions about the status of your donation, you can contact Giving What We Can, our funding partners, or the organisations that deliver our supported programs. If you provide any of them with your payment reference, they will be able to confirm the status of your donation.

We think funds are the best option for most donors, and have created our new 

 to make it easy for donors who are having trouble deciding between the various top-rated options. These funds make it easy to support high-impact donation opportunities within a particular cause area(s) without having to stay up to date with the latest recommendations. Your donation is allocated based on the latest research by our research team, which includes consulting with the evaluators and grantmakers they think are best suited to maximise impact.

Of course, some donors will prefer to either choose the fund of a specific evaluator or grantmaker that they feel particularly aligns with their priorities, or they might feel most comfortable donating to individual charities (in which case, they can read more about each of our recommendations and decide which ones best align with their values). Interested donors can also 

check out our team’s reports on the charity evaluators and grantmakers

In any of these cases, the first step to deciding which charities or funds to support is to determine which cause area(s) best align with your values. To help you decide, let’s consider what you might get with a $5,000 donation to a charity or fund working in each cause area. (Note that these are just examples of the type of work you might fund; the actual outcome will vary depending on where you donate.)

If you donate $5,000 to a charity/fund working on global health and wellbeing, this could:

Save a life. The charity evaluator GiveWell estimates that 

$4,000 – $5,500 donated to charities like the Against Malaria Foundation or Helen Keller International

 is enough to concretely save a child’s life.

If you donate $5,000 to a charity/fund working on improving farmed animal welfare through corporate campaigns, this could:

Improve the lives of at least 50,000 chickens through furthering 

 commitments from industry. This is based on an 

 by the charity evaluator Founders Pledge (using data from 2016, 2018, and 2019) showing that for every $1 donated to highly effective corporate campaign work (such as the type engaged in by The Humane League) the living conditions of 10–160 chickens are significantly improved. We’ve taken the lower end of that range given the estimates are a couple of years old and early campaigns were particularly cost-effective.

If you donate $5,000 to a charity/fund working on reducing global catastrophic risks, this could:

Fund about a week of research into problems like AI alignment, nuclear security, or biosecurity. For instance, you could help fund improved 

 before they are released to the general public, or support 

the search for effective policy interventions to mitigate nuclear risk

. A week of research in these areas could be hugely impactful — perhaps the researcher stumbles upon a breakthrough or uncovers a key concept — or it might not be impactful at all. But the more funding for this type of research, the greater the odds of finding and implementing solutions to some of the biggest threats to humanity’s future.

So what are the takeaways here? The cause(s) you support depend on a variety of value judgements, and you might want to think about factors like:

Your comfort level with uncertainty vs. how much you value concrete outcomes

The weight you place on the number of lives affected

How you value human lives compared to nonhuman animal lives

How concerned you are about suffering right now versus in the future

These are difficult factors to think through. If you’re having trouble deciding, you’re not alone. Many people in our community have told us that decision paralysis about where to give initially prevented them from giving at all. If that’s you, we recommend simply splitting your donation among these high-impact cause areas via our All Causes bundle (either equally or with your preferred allocation). You can also choose to donate to individual funds or charities within each cause area, if you prefer.


Overall, just remember that sometimes the goal of maximising (searching for 

) can prevent us from taking action at all, and if we take no action, we’re 

The bottom line is that all of these cause areas are highly impactful and no matter which one(s) you choose to support, you’ll be doing a lot of good.

Giving What We Can is operated by a global network of funding partners. These partners are essential in promoting high-impact projects by raising awareness and funds, and also allow the Giving What We Can platform to support tax-efficient, impactful donations in many locations. Read more about funding partners on our 

 are collaborations between the 10% Pledge and trusted organisations in the effective giving community who share the values behind the Pledge and wish to promote it to their audiences. These partnerships create focused Pledge communities (“

”) around specific cause areas or geographies, helping pledgers connect with others who share their interests and values. Partners provide additional support, resources, and opportunities to their members while maintaining the core commitment to effective giving.

You can find our current list of pledge partners on our Pledge Partnerships page. If you haven't taken the pledge yet, you can join the pledge club of any partner by choosing the “Pledge through [Partner Name]” option within each partner’s listing.

If you're already a pledger, simply sign in to your account, visit the list of pledge partners, and click the "Join Pledge Club" button for any clubs you’d like to join.

Yes! You're welcome to join as many clubs as you'd like. Each pledge club offers unique perspectives and opportunities to engage with different aspects of effective giving.

When you join a pledge club, we share your name, email address and pledge information with the partner organisation so they can keep you informed about relevant opportunities and events. Your donation reporting remains private unless you explicitly choose to share it.

Giving What We Can’s research team determines our annual recommendations based on thousands of hours of research from impact-focused third-party charity evaluators. The evaluators we use focus on:

How cost-effective that is to support (loosely, how far your dollar goes when you donate).

We believe these are more accurate evaluative tools than relying solely on metrics like overhead (

which isn’t actually a great indicator of impact

Since there are many impact-focused evaluators in the effective giving space, we determined that our research team could add additional value by 

more deeply investigating the research and approach of each of the evaluators whose research we rely on, or might rely on in the future.

 This allows us to better distinguish between their recommendations and advise donors which ones to follow based on their particular values and worldview. Our list of recommendations is based on the research of the evaluators we’ve looked into as part of our new research and found to be best-suited to helping you maximise the impact of your donations.


However, since this is a large undertaking, 

we have not yet looked into all of the evaluators whose research we’ve previously used, or that we expect to use in the future

 Therefore, if you don’t see a charity on our list that used to be there, this does not necessarily mean we have changed our opinion of it. You can still support these programmes and others via our 

, which lists a range of organisations that broadly fit within our charitable purpose of doing promising work in a high-impact cause area, and we expect to add more recommendations soon. 

That said, we are particularly confident in the impact of the organisations we’ve included on our recommendations list since these are based on the research of impact-focused evaluators that 

 for which we have good reasons to believe they can do a lot of good with the resources they have. Read our 

 to find out how we choose which charities to include on our donation platform. 

 to be highly effective by trusted charity evaluators and grantmakers. We conduct due dilligence on all charities added to our donation platform.

In addition, many of the charities we recommend are highly transparent, which means they provide a lot of information about how they use donations. This allows donors to see how their money is being used and to make an informed decision about whether they want to continue supporting the charity.

If your organisation is interested in becoming a pledge partner, we'd love to hear from you. We look for partners who:

Have a demonstrated commitment to effective giving

Share our vision for creating positive change

Can provide valuable support and resources to pledgers

Read our detailed document and book a call →

We review all applications carefully to ensure alignment with our mission and values.

Giving What We Can will use your personal information consistent with our privacy policy including to contact you about Giving What We Can related matters or to provide you with information that you have requested.

For donors in the UK we may link your data with donations so that we can claim Gift Aid on it. Donors may also elect to share their information with the recipient funds, nonprofits, or charities, in which case we share names and email addresses. Members who take a public giving pledge will have their full name and dated pledge made available on 

We may also use anonymised, aggregated data about donations in our public materials, in order to display information on how the community is donating.

For more information about how we use your personal information, please review our 

 generally identifies particular types of charities that are likely to be highly effective through 

, and then does a deep evaluation of the charities that seem particularly promising (because of track record, approach, or something else) within that already narrowed scope. As such, the final list of top-rated charities will be shorter.

We believe the recommendations on our best charities list are considerably more impactful than average donation opportunities, but this doesn’t mean that these are the 

 be more impactful than average. Impact-focused charity evaluators generally 

can’t evaluate every charity that exists

; they have to use reasoning and evidence to identify areas where it’s likely that charities could have considerable impact, and then evaluate a handful of promising charities in that area to see which ones meet their (typically quite high) impact and cost-effectiveness criteria.

If you are interested in donating to a charity not on this list, and want some clues about how its impact might rank compared to other giving opportunities, we recommend checking out our 

. That said, we think the best way to ensure your donations have impact is to follow the recommendations of impact-focused charity evaluators (

and note that not all charity evaluators are impact-focused

"What is the difference between your top rated charity list and a list like Charity Navigator's?"

Our current list of recommendations is also shorter than we expect it to be in future years because we’ve based it on our 

, which is not yet complete. As such, we are only recommending charities from evaluators we’ve recently researched (see 

"How do you decide which charities to recommend"

We’re always interested to hear feedback from donors. Got some thoughts about our recommendations or don’t like what you see? 

Many donors can receive tax benefits for donations made with Giving What We Can. Read our latest information about tax benefits and processes:

Tax deductibility of donations by country

We are currently in the process of more deeply investigating each of the third-party evaluators whose research has informed our recommendations in previous years, or whose research we could consider using in the future (see 

). We based this year’s recommendations on our evaluations of the evaluators we've so-far investigated and decided to rely on. This decision has some consequences for our best charities list, including:

We are not including recommendations from evaluators we haven’t yet looked into. 

For example, we haven’t yet looked into Giving Green's research.

We haven’t included recommendations for cause areas that we think could be impactful but have not yet investigated. 

For example, we haven’t included any recommendations for climate change or organisations working on “meta” effective giving (such as effective giving outreach or fundraising, or effective charity incubation).

Our evaluations of evaluators have some limitations.

Because of this, we've decided to highlight a few 

 in each cause area, based on our research team’s preliminary impression that they are promising alternatives to our recommendations and of interest to donors who want to investigate further. For example, we highlighted:

A selection of Founders Pledge’s recommendations in a range of cause areas

StrongMinds and some of Animal Charity Evaluators’ recommendations 

A selection of recommendations from other cause areas, like the EA Infrastructure Fund and Founders Pledge’s Climate Fund

This is not meant to be a comprehensive list of all promising programmes, nor a strong claim about the impact of supporting the highlighted supported programmes; it’s rather a spotlight on some of the many projects you can support via our platform that, for various reasons, are not on our recommendations list. We share more information about each of these programmes on their individual programme pages — we encourage donors to read these, and the resources they link to, before making a choice about where to give.

That's fine! We encourage everyone to research and make their own decisions about which charities to support.

We also recognise that people have different opinions about what is effective and what is not. What matters most to us is that you are thoughtful and intentional about your giving, and that you are trying to have as much positive impact as possible.

We also welcome feedback (it’s how we get better!) and encourage you to 

 if you have any specific feedback you’d like to provide.

The payment methods available to you will depend on where you're donating from, and how much you're donating (for example we don't offer check/manual bank transfers for amounts under 100 GBP/USD/EUR).

Credit/debit cards (securely processed by Stripe)

Bank direct debit (securely processed by GoCardless, UK only)

While our list of the best charities to support have been thoroughly researched and vetted as 

 opportunities for impact, our donation platform also supports a number of other programmes that broadly align with our principles — in other words, all of these programmes are addressing a pressing problem and taking a reasonably promising approach. This means that you can support these organisations (which we call “other supported programmes”) through our donation platform, but that we either a) don’t (yet) have enough data to justify recommending them, or b) know that they don’t meet our current criteria for being recommended. We think these other supported programmes likely have varying degrees of impact; some could be more impactful than our current recommendations but simply have yet to be evaluated by one of our impact-focused evaluators; others were previously recommended by one of our impact-focused evaluators, but due to 

 are not currently recommended; and still others are likely significantly less impactful than our current recommendations, but are still doing work in a high-impact cause area. You can learn more about each programme on its individual programme page.


We base our giving recommendations on the research of impact-focused charity evaluators. In 2023, we decided to more deeply investigate the evaluators whose research we’ve relied on in the past, as well as new evaluators whose research we may rely on in the future. We are doing this primarily because we think we are well-positioned to help connect evaluators and donors in the effective giving space in a more effective and efficient way. Organisations that rely on the research of charity evaluators implicitly evaluate evaluators by including some evaluators’ recommendations and not others’. We think this process could be both more standardised and more transparent, and hope our “

” initiative could be the beginning of what becomes a critical institution within the effective giving space — leading to better recommendations, greater transparency, and ultimately more impact.

We do want to emphasise that — even prior to 2023 — we chose the evaluators that have informed our past recommendations for good reason; while each evaluator had slightly different criteria for their top recommendations, they tended to share our belief that good charities should be:

 Are the charity’s programmes making a difference rather than doing nothing, or even doing harm?

 Does your dollar go far when you donate to it? If you can achieve the same outcome by donating $100 to Charity A than you could with $1,000 to Charity B, we think most donors should choose Charity A.

Driven by evidence and/or careful reasoning: 

Is the programme a charity operates evidence-backed, or in cases where evidence isn’t practical to obtain — like global catastrophic risk reduction and other initiatives to safeguard the long-term future — does expert reasoning and analysis provide a strong case for support?

However, we think it’s valuable to do a deeper investigation of the specific methodologies, criteria, and decision-making process of each charity evaluator, along with its worldview, in order to:

Maintain a strong and recent research basis for the choice of which evaluators should inform our recommendations.

Better tailor our donation recommendations to individual donor values and worldviews by more transparently distinguishing between similar donation options (such as two funds, each managed by a different impact-focused evaluator, granting to organisations in the same cause area).

Uphold our value of continuously self-reflecting and updating our views should new data or evidence come to light.

Previously, we recommended several different top-rated funds for each of the 

 we believe to be particularly impactful. However, donors often weren’t sure how to choose among them. Giving What We Can cause area funds were created to help solve this problem, providing donors with a single, high-impact fund option for each cause area (along with the All Causes Bundle, which allows donors to support organisations in all three of our high-impact cause areas).

If you choose to donate to one of our cause area funds, your money will be pooled with donations from other donors and then allocated to high-impact charities working within that cause area. The Giving What We Can research team allocates the donations based on their latest research on where impact is most maximised, in consultation with the recommendations of vetted evaluators within the cause area. Thus, Giving What We Can cause area funds allow donors to set up one donation, knowing that it will always reflect the current recommendations of the Giving What We Can research team.

If you donate using a bank transfer, there are no associated fees, but the process is more time-consuming (you will need to instruct your bank to make the payment).

If you donate by credit, direct debit, or debit card, the payment fees are set by our third-party payment gateways (e.g. Stripe and GoCardless). We do our best to keep these fees as low as possible.

We (Giving What We Can) do not charge any additional payment processing or handling fees.

Before you complete your payment, we estimate your fees based on what we think the payment gateway will charge. Once you have completed your payment, the fees displayed will reflect what the payment gateway actually charged.

When thinking about how to donate most effectively there is some discussion about whether you should donate only to the one thing that you think on balance will do the most good or whether you should split your donation. When it comes to splitting between charities one attempt to solve this dilemma is to donate to a charitable fund instead (that will pool people's money together and have experts figure out the optimal allocation).

But what about choosing whether to donate 100% of your money to one cause area or split it across multiple?

On the one hand, if you think one cause area has the highest expected value (the amount of good that can be achieved multiplied by the probability of achieving that good) then there are strong arguments for only donating to that one area because you think that is where the highest positive impact can be achieved. 

 goes into greater depth on expected value and why it's important.

On the other hand, it could be that different cause areas act as multipliers on each other meaning it is important to maximise all areas. For example, it could be important to both ensure the continuation of our species by 

 but also to make sure that future is favourable by 

 it may be important to donate at least a small amount to all the different cause areas as a way to reduce the biases we have to different cause areas perhaps because we identify with particular communities or identities (such as being vegan) or don't want to lose status associated with changing our minds.

How you think about these different arguments may affect how (and if) you split your donations between the different cause areas but it is an important area to think about before you donate.

There is no shortage of problems in the world, and they all deserve attention. However, we believe that because resources are limited, it’s important to triage when determining what to tackle first. Some problems are both

, and we think resources should be directed to these until they’re no longer “low-hanging fruit.”

Consider this metaphor: With so much suffering in the world, each of us who wants to help is akin to a firefighter — with multiple fires burning all around them. Some are very large (affecting many people) and some are smaller (affecting fewer people). Some are easy to fight and some just seem to spread and spread no matter what you do. Given this difficult reality, which fire would you fight first?

Easy to fight; affecting a great many people

Hard to fight; affecting a great many people

Most people would likely agree that it makes sense to choose C — a large fire that is also easy to fight — before you tackle the others. If you instead begin by fighting a small and difficult to fight fire, you might use up all your resources and not actually do very much good. All the fires would continue to burn, and the people you could have helped by putting your resources towards Fire C would instead be consumed by flames while you unsuccessfully fought fire B.

Usually, people are motivated to donate to a particular cause because of something in their personal experience, something heard through a friend or the media, or in-depth knowledge about a particular subject. While it’s natural and admirable to want to do something about the problems we hear about, it’s also important to recognise that for every issue we hear about, there are countless more that we might not. Yet suffering is still happening just the same. The fires are still burning, and the ones we tend to hear about the most aren’t necessarily those where we can make the biggest difference. Consider that issues like global poverty have ceased to become newsworthy — despite the fact that 

15,000 children still die every day from diseases that can be prevented

(but perpetually underfunded) interventions.

We try to work on the fires where we can have the most impact (though they may not always be quite as straightforward as Fire C).

 are organisations that use donations effectively to achieve their goals. That is, they are able to accomplish a lot with the resources they have. There are many factors that go into determining whether a charity is effective, including how well it is run, how efficiently it uses donations, how much good it does per dollar donated, and more.

Some charities aim to improve lives directly, for example through medical aid or public health projects. Some do so indirectly, for example by researching the best charities to give to, or helping students find more effective careers. Some do so by advocacy work such as lobbying for nuclear weapons safety or corporate farming reforms.

By focusing our donations on some of the most effective organisations that have proven themselves most effective, we can achieve much more with our donations and encourage charities to become more effective to receive our donations.

 that helps people identify the most effective charities in the world. We want to make sure that donations are having the biggest possible impact, so we only recommend charities that we believe are doing a lot of good with the resources they have. If you'd like more guidance, you can 

Charity Navigator assesses the cost-effectiveness for some charities on its site through its 

 beacon. However, there are several things to keep in mind:

A charity can receive a perfect score (100, 4-star) without any impact data on file.

A charity can be rated “highly cost-effective” even if its programme is 

, which grants scholarships to military personnel in high-income countries, and the Against Malaria Foundation, which provides bed nets to protect people from malaria in low-income countries, were both granted a perfect score of 100 and deemed “highly cost-effective” by Charity Navigator even though the good done per dollar is dramatically different. 

In the Navy Seal case, $2,670 increases income for a scholarship recipient by $3,892 (based on Charity Navigator’s analysis). In the Against Malaria Foundation case, $2670 would provide 534 bednets, which would protect over 1000 people from malaria, a disease that currently kills around 600,000 people per year (based on GiveWell’s analysis).

Charity Navigator’s metric for Navy Seal: 

Impact scores of postsecondary scholarship programs are based on income generated relative to cost. Programs receive an Impact score of 100 if they increase income for a recipient by more than $1.25 for every $1 spent and a score of 80 if income increases by more than $0.80 for every $1 spent. 

This would not be considered highly cost-effective by our research team, since there are many programs in need of funding where each donated dollar achieves much more than the roughly 25-cent gain implied by this benchmark.

A charity’s impact is not heavily weighted. 

A charity can receive a perfect score even without any information on its impact. When data exists for all four of Charity Navigator’s metrics (“beacons”), the 

These differences reflect a broader methodological distinction. Charity Navigator groups charities into program types and sets a cost-effectiveness benchmark for each type. This approach doesn’t account for the vast variation in impact that arises from 

 you choose to support. As a result, hundreds of charities with dramatically different levels of cost-effectiveness can all receive “top” ratings.

 (like the ones our research team reviews and vets) use 

 prioritisation to narrow down the millions of charities that exist in order to find those likely to do the most good per dollar donated. This allows donors to direct their giving to where the evidence suggests it will go the furthest.

There is no single answer to this question as it depends on your personal circumstances and motivations. The most common amount members of Giving What We Can report giving is 10% of their income and we think that this is generally a good standard, especially for most people in high-income countries.

However, some other suggested standards for giving include giving what you can afford, giving what you won't miss, giving at an average level, or giving generously. Whatever you decide, it is important to also 

We write more about the different ways to approach deciding how much to give in our article: 

"How much money should we donate to charity?"

If the recurring donation was charged via credit card 

 3, 5 and 7 days after the scheduled date. For example, if there were insufficient funds on the card at the scheduled time, you can just add funds to the card and wait a few days. If all retries fail, your recurring donation will be cancelled.

If your card has expired, or is about to expire, you should instead 

Our contact details are kept up-to-date on our 

You can see your recurring donations by accessing your 

. You can cancel these by clicking on the "Cancel" link.

If, for some reason, that should not work, 

If you're already donating 10% of your income, taking a giving pledge might feel unnecessary. After all, you're already doing the thing. But in practice, pledging itself results in an 

increase in both the amount and efficiency of donations

, even for people who are already committed givers.

 A pledge turns good intentions into a durable commitment. Psychologists call this a pre-commitment: by making a clear promise, you make it harder for your future self to quietly drift away from your values when life gets busy, finances feel tighter, or priorities shift. Giving stops being something you "try to keep up" and becomes a core part of your identity. Research on pledges suggests this kind of commitment increases both the likelihood that people keep giving and the total amount they give over time.

 Taking a pledge doesn't just reinforce how much you give—it sharpens how you give. When you've pre-committed a certain amount, you tend to view that more strategically and critically. Like your investments, you want to get the most "bang for your buck." Pledgers are more likely to reflect regularly on where their donations do the most good, learn from others, and update their choices as new evidence emerges. Being part of a community focused on effectiveness makes it easier to reason well about impact rather than defaulting to habit, convenience, or emotional pull. Even people who already care deeply about effectiveness tend to make better decisions when they've locked in.

It helps create a cultural norm of serious giving.

 Perhaps most importantly, pledging helps change what's considered "normal." We are strongly influenced by what we see others doing. When giving (especially significant, effective giving) stays private and informal, it can feel unusual or exceptional. Public pledges counteract that. By adding your name to a growing list of pledgers, you help signal that donating a meaningful share of income is both achievable and expected for those who can afford it. You don't need to talk publicly about your pledge to have this effect—simply being part of the movement adds credibility and momentum. It's easier to join a movement of 10,000 than 100. Those small signals compound into real cultural change, and that change leads to more giving, by more people, over time.

In short: even if you're already giving 10%, pledging tends to lock in your commitment, improve the quality of your giving, and amplify your impact by helping generosity become the norm rather than the exception.

 is a public commitment to donate at least 10% of your lifetime income to the organisations that can most effectively use it to improve the lives of others, with an option to also factor in your 

 If you take a pledge prior to retirement, then your pledge is considered fulfilled when you retire; however, many of our members — especially those who factor in their wealth — plan to continue to donate in line with their pledge for the rest of their life. The language of the pledge "for the rest of my life or until the day I retire" leaves this decision open, and it is up to you to decide which option you feel most comfortable with. (

What if I'm already retired when I take the pledge

In addition to the 🔸10% Pledge, we have three other giving pledges:

: Donate at least 1% of your income for any period you choose

: Donate all of your income above a specified living allowance

: Donate at least 10% of your company’s profits

Frequently Asked Questions