Yes, sorting the anonymous grants by size reveals that the significant majority were 30K or less. (But much more of the dollar amount of anonymous grants was in the above 30K bracket.)
I think most would-be donors would understand that earmarking funds away from a disfavored expenditure type, when enough of a charity’s funds are unrestricted, is unlikely to have any real-world impact. Unless almost everyone earmarked, a donation of $X (whether earmarked or not) would be expected to increase non-anon grants by $Y and anonymous ones by $Z.
I think most would-be donors would understand that earmarking funds away from a disfavored expenditure type, when enough of a charity’s funds are unrestricted, is unlikely to have any real-world impact.
Hmm, I assumed people’s largest objections aren’t ultimately consequentialist in nature, though it’s hard to know without a more concrete survey. At least the last few times I’ve had discussions with people about this, I had a strong purity/”didn’t want to be a sucker” vibe from my interlocutors, though admittedly they didn’t seem very likely to be prospective donors.
Unless almost everyone earmarked, a donation of $X (whether earmarked or not) would be expected to increase non-anon grants by $Y and anonymous ones by $Z.
I expect you’ll see effects way before “almost everyone earmarked.” Eg say ~10% is currently anonymous. If 80% of donations are earmarked for non-anonymity, then the remaining 20% of donors* would face the prospect of having ~half of their donations be anonymous, which I assume is not an enticing offer.
*assuming for simplicity that there are not systematic differences in donation amounts of donors who are okay with anonymity and not.
Yes, sorting the anonymous grants by size reveals that the significant majority were 30K or less. (But much more of the dollar amount of anonymous grants was in the above 30K bracket.)
I think most would-be donors would understand that earmarking funds away from a disfavored expenditure type, when enough of a charity’s funds are unrestricted, is unlikely to have any real-world impact. Unless almost everyone earmarked, a donation of $X (whether earmarked or not) would be expected to increase non-anon grants by $Y and anonymous ones by $Z.
Hmm, I assumed people’s largest objections aren’t ultimately consequentialist in nature, though it’s hard to know without a more concrete survey. At least the last few times I’ve had discussions with people about this, I had a strong purity/”didn’t want to be a sucker” vibe from my interlocutors, though admittedly they didn’t seem very likely to be prospective donors.
I expect you’ll see effects way before “almost everyone earmarked.” Eg say ~10% is currently anonymous. If 80% of donations are earmarked for non-anonymity, then the remaining 20% of donors* would face the prospect of having ~half of their donations be anonymous, which I assume is not an enticing offer.
*assuming for simplicity that there are not systematic differences in donation amounts of donors who are okay with anonymity and not.