I don’t have a particular citation for this right now, but in conversations I’ve had with others about the future of earning to give, it’s come up individual marginal donors keep up earning to give to fund the unusually good opportunities that arise. That is, major foundations like Open Phil and other committed donors could cover most funding needs of existing organizations. So, those of us left earning to give might be best to keep our money as flexible as possible to fund new projects to small to be on the radar of bigger and major funders in the first place.
This consideration seems to disfavour making future commitments, because it would prevent keeping funds as flexible as possible. That stated, this can’t be a complete reason not to make future commitments. We shouldn’t think as though new excellent projects will magically pop up unpredictably, and so the only way we can be prepared for the opportunity to fund them is to have stacks of uncommitted cash. If we have no expectation of what the next new and promising projects will be or look like, this says more about how we learn more about the areas we’re prioritizing than about how we should allocate funds.
Still, this isn’t a completely solved problem. How should the above consideration impact of how much of our future donations we fixedly commit?
If you think you have a comparative advantage as a donor that you have the time and inclination to look into small giving opportunities that might otherwise be missed, it makes sense to play to that. (I don’t think that will apply to everyone who is earning to give.)
Even with small projects, you might consider whether future commitments are a helpful tool in offering them funding. This would increase your ability to fund opportunities with smaller amounts of cash on hand, which in turn might make you more comfortable about making commitments now.
I don’t have a particular citation for this right now, but in conversations I’ve had with others about the future of earning to give, it’s come up individual marginal donors keep up earning to give to fund the unusually good opportunities that arise. That is, major foundations like Open Phil and other committed donors could cover most funding needs of existing organizations. So, those of us left earning to give might be best to keep our money as flexible as possible to fund new projects to small to be on the radar of bigger and major funders in the first place.
This consideration seems to disfavour making future commitments, because it would prevent keeping funds as flexible as possible. That stated, this can’t be a complete reason not to make future commitments. We shouldn’t think as though new excellent projects will magically pop up unpredictably, and so the only way we can be prepared for the opportunity to fund them is to have stacks of uncommitted cash. If we have no expectation of what the next new and promising projects will be or look like, this says more about how we learn more about the areas we’re prioritizing than about how we should allocate funds.
Still, this isn’t a completely solved problem. How should the above consideration impact of how much of our future donations we fixedly commit?
If you think you have a comparative advantage as a donor that you have the time and inclination to look into small giving opportunities that might otherwise be missed, it makes sense to play to that. (I don’t think that will apply to everyone who is earning to give.)
Even with small projects, you might consider whether future commitments are a helpful tool in offering them funding. This would increase your ability to fund opportunities with smaller amounts of cash on hand, which in turn might make you more comfortable about making commitments now.