One for the World
Builds a community around a 1% giving commitment, with campus and workplace organizing and regranting to selected charities.
90% of weighted axes reviewed. A mechanism hypothesis, not proven effectiveness or a donation recommendation.
Who this work enables
Tools & support for charities: Campus/workplace organizer support and giving infrastructure that help fund partner charities.
Humanity’s Checklist source match
Status — editorial, partial alignment.
Visible commitments and community organizing can help make generosity a social norm, a partial status-source match. It is not evidence of the checklist’s specific status product or additional giving.
Explicit checklist adoption: not verified. A mechanism match is not an affiliation, endorsement, evidence of effectiveness or a scoring bonus. Read the practice.
Focus classification: 2026-10-27. Based on the organization’s dated official sources below; earlier axis-review dates are unchanged.
Compare alternatives for a funder →
The proposed pathway
Giving commitments and organizer capacity for recurring charitable funding
Six dimensions, with rationale
Structural depth
3 / 4Recurring giving commitments and organizing practices target social norms and resource allocation rather than only a one-time transfer.
Institutional reach
3 / 4Campus and workplace organizing provide a multi-community pathway; donor totals do not demonstrate population-level benefit.
Durability
2 / 4Giving habits and organizer skills may persist, but pledges can lapse and regranting requires continuing administration.
Scalability
3 / 4Replicable organizer programs and giving infrastructure can spread, while recruitment, donor support and recipient diligence retain costs.
Funding additionality
UnreviewedUnknown: current marginal funding, delivery capacity, displacement and a credible counterfactual have not been audited.
Community agency
UnreviewedUnknown: stated values, participation, consultation or contributor governance do not establish audited consequential decision rights for affected communities.
Evidence and selection
Organization reported; current primary mechanism sources inspected
Illustrative inclusion to examine this mechanism. Inclusion is not an external recommendation or a verified comparative ranking.
A testable next question
Do participants sustain additional giving beyond their counterfactual behavior, and do recipient allocations produce more benefit after administration, displacement and delivery constraints are considered?
Review confidence: Moderate for documented design; low for systemic attribution. Giving-norm, organizer and regranting design of the US nonprofit, with its separate UK charity identified; not a second rating of recipient charities’ health interventions.
What remains uncertain
The website’s lives-saved calculator and giving totals were not independently audited or converted into this profile’s score. Pledges, received funds, regrants and attributable welfare are different quantities. Recipient evaluator recommendations do not independently validate the intermediary’s own additionality.
Sources to inspect
- One for the World — pledge, organizer programs, nonprofit identities and partner scope ↗
official · checked 2026-10-27
Propose a sourced correction →
Axis review: 2026-10-27 · weighting method v0.2 (2026-10-26) · Method, conflicts and coverage