The Cost of NOT
$19.1 Trillion
The economic cost of violence in 2023, about 13.5% of world GDP, or roughly $2,380 for every person alive. A philanthropic raise of this kind is made on the cost of inaction as much as on the upside, and prevention is a fraction of the price of response.
Source: Institute for Economics and Peace, Global Peace Index 2024
The Problem, Sized
The dimensions of the opportunity, each attributed
Every figure below is an external institutional figure with its source named inline. Where an exact number is not yet sourced, the row is tagged pending and no precise figure is published. Million Peacemakers’ own budget figures, stated elsewhere, are in euros; the macro world figures here are reported in their original USD.
| Dimension | Figure | Source | Why it matters here |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Cost of Violence | |||
| Economic impact of violence | ~$19.1 trillion / year | Institute for Economics and Peace, Global Peace Index 2024 | About 13.5% of world GDP, roughly $2,380 per person. This is the cost of inaction the raise is set against. |
| Containment of violence as a share of GDP | ~13.5% of world GDP | Institute for Economics and Peace, Global Peace Index 2024 | The scale of the burden the world already carries. Prevention-stage giving works against this denominator. |
| How the World Spends Against It | |||
| Global military expenditure | ~$2.44 trillion / year | SIPRI, 2024 | The world spends this much responding to and deterring conflict each year. Prevention is a fraction of it. |
| Conflict-prevention savings | ~$5 billion to ~$70 billion / year | World Bank and United Nations, Pathways for Peace, 2018 | What effective prevention could save annually. The leverage case for funding the method early sits here. |
| Peacebuilding as a share of global spending | A small fraction of the cost of violence and of military spendingPending source verification | Exact figure pending a named source | The field is funded far below the scale of the problem. That gap is the opportunity this raise speaks to. |
| The Generation in Reach | |||
| Young people aged 10 to 24 | ~1.8 billion | UNFPA | The largest youth generation in history, and the universe the method is built to reach before conflict hardens. |
| Youth not in education, employment or training (NEET) | A large share of the global youth populationPending source verification | Source from ILO before publish | Disengagement carries a measurable economic cost and marks where prevention-stage work is most needed. |
Sourcing note
The macro world figures on this page are attributed to their institutions and stated in USD. Each is confirmed to that institution’s latest edition before public launch. Rows tagged pending source verification are not published as precise numbers until a named source is attached. Figures reflect the current plan and are subject to confirmation.
The Leverage
A method installed into networks that together reach more than 200 million young people every year
200M+
Reached per year by the coalition’s founding-partner networks
Borrowed, never owned. Each partner controls its own deployment.
~1.8B
Young people aged 10 to 24, the universe to reach
UNFPA. The largest youth generation in history.
Prevention
Is a fraction of the cost of response
~$2.44T spent on military each year; prevention could save billions.
This is a giving-leverage story, not a market to capture. The asset is the right to install a verified method into reach that already exists, set against a generation of 1.8 billion young people, at a moment when prevention costs a fraction of what the world already spends responding to conflict.
The Burden, at a Glance
Four figures that frame the stakes
Cost of violence
~$19.1T
Institute for Economics and Peace, 2024
Share of world GDP
~13.5%
Institute for Economics and Peace, 2024
Global military spend
~$2.44T
SIPRI, 2024
Young people 10 to 24
~1.8B
UNFPA
All four figures are external institutional figures in USD, attributed to their institutions and confirmed to the latest edition before public launch. Figures reflect the current plan and are subject to confirmation.
The Youth Dividend
Why now
Three moments converge. A generation large enough to matter, a coalition aligned for the first time, and a technology that makes a quarter-century method scalable.
01
The generation
The largest youth generation in history
About 1.8 billion young people are aged 10 to 24 (UNFPA). Reaching them before conflict hardens is a prevention-stage intervention, and prevention is a fraction of the cost of response.
UNFPA
02
The coalition
Five of the world’s largest youth networks, aligned
For the first time, founding partners whose networks together reach more than 200 million young people a year are aligned behind one method. The rails are real and already organized; the coalition installs into reach that exists.
Verified reach, borrowed through partner networks
03
The technology
A method that can finally scale
A quarter-century peacemaking method, distributed through digital tools, can reach facilitators and young people at a scale that was not possible before. The technology moment is what turns a proven method into a generational one.
Qualitative; figures pending the financial model
The Reach Audit
The honest number, side by side with the stated one
Different materials state different numbers for the same organizations. This page picks one set and never blends the two. The audit puts both columns side by side so the conservative, verified figures can be read with confidence. Every figure below belongs to a coalition partner, not to Million Peacemakers, and becomes accessible only once a partner chooses to deploy a coalition tool into its own network.
| Organization | As stated elsewhere | Verified / published | The note |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFRC / Red Cross | 14M volunteers, 191 countries | 160M people reached per yearBorrowed network reach | 80M members and volunteers across 191 national societies. Here the verified figure is larger than the stated one, not smaller. The honest number and the most impressive number are the same. |
| World YMCA | 64M members, 120+ countries | 40M+ people served per yearBorrowed network reach | 120 countries, 10,000+ local associations. The published figure is people served, not a self-reported membership count. The gap is the difference between a historical membership claim and an independently confirmable served figure. |
| JA Worldwide | 20M youth per year, 100+ countries | 23M+ students per yearBorrowed network reach | 100+ countries, 790K volunteers. The stated figure slightly understates the verified one. Either is defensible; the published figure is the verified 23M+. |
| Family Enterprise Foundation | Multinational (no number stated) | Described by role, no reach figureDescribed by role | No verified reach figure is published, and none is invented. Described by its function: a multinational family-enterprise network and the Founding-Family channel into the coalition. |
| Million Peacemakers (direct) | 2.5M trained | MPP's own figure, attributedAttributed claim | Million Peacemakers' own direct reach is small relative to the coalition. The 2.5M trained figure is its own claim, used only as such and never folded into the network total. |
Borrowed network reach
Where the published 200M+ comes from
The proportions show how the founding-partner networks combine to the verified 200M+ figure, with the Red Cross and IFRC the dominant share. This is the conservative, published column from the audit above, never the higher partner-stated set. Each slice belongs to a partner, not to Million Peacemakers, and becomes accessible only once that partner deploys a coalition tool into its own network.
- IFRC / Red Cross160M a year
- World YMCA40M a year
- JA Worldwide23M a year
- Combined, published framing200M+ a year
Verified / published reach figures, framed as borrowed network reach. Accessible only on each partner’s own deployment decision; not a present count of people Million Peacemakers reached. Figures reflect the current plan and are subject to confirmation.
Hazard one
Borrowed, not owned
Every verified figure belongs to a coalition partner, not to Million Peacemakers. The reach becomes accessible only once a partner is signed and that partner chooses to deploy a coalition tool into its own network. Each founding partner holds independent decision rights over what deploys. Until a partner deploys, the reach is a prospect, not an audience. Stating this plainly is a credibility asset, not a hedge.
Hazard two
Goal, not reach
The headline 250 million by 2035 is a target on a ten-year trajectory that runs from a 2026 baseline of 200 facilitators and 40,000 reach. The modeled 254.7M cumulative is the destination, not today’s number. Presenting either as current reach is the most likely single error to break trust with a family office that can check. It is labeled a 2035 goal everywhere.
The trajectory, stated as a forward model
These waypoints are modeled outputs, not realized reach. They are published only as a forward model, clearly labeled. The single sensitivity is the coalition’s deployment rate: move the scenario to scale the 2035 cumulative goal between the conservative and ambitious bands.
| Year | Facilitators | Cumulative reach | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 (baseline) | 200 | 40,000 | Baseline |
| 2030 | Scaling | 6M annual | Modeled |
| 2032 | Scaling | 35M annual | Modeled |
| 2034 | Scaling | 70M annual | Modeled |
| 2035 (goal) | 130,000 | 254.7M cumulative | Modeled goal |
The 2035 cumulative figure scales with the base deployment case; the interim annual waypoints are the base-case model. Figures reflect the current plan and are subject to confirmation.
Million Peacemakers is the catalyst of a coalition whose founding partners together reach verified networks of well over 200 million people a year, the Red Cross and IFRC alone reaching roughly 160 million annually across 191 national societies. The goal is to train 250 million young peacemakers by 2035. That figure is the destination, not today’s number.
200M+
People a year reached by the coalition's founding-partner networks, the safe-to-publish framing this raise uses for scale.
Borrowed reach, accessible only on each partner's own deployment decision. Subject to confirmation.
250M
Young peacemakers the coalition aims to train by 2035, the 3.5% threshold at which social norms tip.
A 2035 goal on a modeled trajectory, never current reach. Subject to confirmation.
The Evidence Base
The 3.5% threshold: what the research says, and what it does not
The 3.5% threshold is the analytical spine of the pitch. It is real research, and it is frequently misquoted. This page cites it for exactly what it says and nothing more. A reviewer who knows this literature will probe the boundaries, so the page respects them.
What the research is
The observed regularity
The work is associated with Dr. Erica Chenoweth (Harvard Kennedy School) and Maria J. Stephan, drawn from their study of historical mass campaigns. The empirical claim, stated precisely:
No campaign in the dataset that achieved the active, sustained participation of at least 3.5% of the population failed to bring about change. Nonviolent campaigns succeeded at a markedly higher rate than violent ones.
Cite the specific edition and page in the data-room evidence brief before the figure is published as a precise claim.
What it does NOT say
The discipline that protects the page
- It is a historical regularity, not a guaranteed mechanism.No campaign that reached 3.5% failed. That is not a law that reaching 3.5% causes change, nor that 3.5% triggers an automatic tip. The page never writes "at 3.5% norms tip automatically."
- It is active participation, not trained individuals.The 3.5% is peak active participation in a movement. Equating "250M trained in a method" with "3.5% actively participating in a campaign" is an analogy, not an identity. The threshold is the inspiration and north star, not a mechanical claim.
- The dataset is resistance campaigns, not peace education.It studies campaigns against regimes or occupations, not youth programs or skills training. The structural fit to a youth peacemaking coalition is an argued analogy, presented as such.
- 3.5% of what population.The original is 3.5% of a national population during a campaign. The 250M goal names its denominator explicitly, or it invites a "3.5% of what?" challenge.
The safe-to-publish line
The coalition’s 250-million goal is anchored in the research of Dr. Erica Chenoweth (Harvard), whose study of historical mass movements found that no campaign reaching the active, sustained participation of 3.5% of a population failed to achieve its aim. Million Peacemakers takes that threshold as its north star, a generational substrate of conflict-resolution capacity at roughly that scale, while recognizing the research describes participation in movements rather than guaranteeing a mechanical tipping point.
Published as framed once the denominator and primary-source citation are confirmed in the data-room evidence brief.
Where It Sits
Comparable initiatives and the honest benchmark read
A family office will want to know where this sits among large youth, peace, and education efforts. The discipline here is to cite only what can be reasoned about with confidence and to mark everything else as needing confirmation. The figures below are positioning context, not page copy, until a sourcing pass confirms them.
| Category | Scale and nature | Why it matters here | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Global youth-serving federationsYMCA, Scouting, the WAGGGS movements | Tens of millions of young people across 100+ countries each | These are the distribution rails the coalition rides. They prove that networks at this scale are real and already organized, which de-risks the distribution thesis. | Verified |
| Large education-access philanthropiesMajor youth-skills and education funders | Hundreds of millions to low billions in cumulative giving | Establishes that family-office and foundation capital already flows to youth-scale education at the size the coalition seeks. No specific budget is cited without a source. | Pending source verification |
| Peacebuilding and conflict-resolution NGOsThe established field | Single-digit to low-tens of millions in annual budget; reach in program participants | Most actors in this field build their own programs. A coalition-distribution model is unusual here, which is a differentiation point framed carefully. | Pending source verification |
| Large single-donor peace commitmentsMajor philanthropic family commitments | Eight- to nine-figure commitments exist in the record | The Founding Family ask sits well inside, and below, the ceiling of what major families commit to youth and peace causes. The ask is modest relative to the comparable giving universe. | Pending source verification |
The networks are real and verified
The distribution rails are real and confirmable. The coalition is not promising to build reach; it is promising to install a method into reach that already exists.
The ask is small relative to the goal
A small Phase 2 budget against a 250-million-person ambition is, on its face, an extraordinary leverage ratio. The precise cost-per-life-touched figure is a financial-model deliverable, not yet a stated number.
The rarity is the four-in-combination
A 25-year method, verified distribution at scale, credibility anchored at IFRC headquarters, and an analytical foundation. Presented as the coalition’s own characterization, not an independently audited fact.
How to read this raise
The cost of inaction compounds for decades. This is charitable giving, not a securities offering.
The economic cost of violence runs to trillions of dollars a year, and the cost of a generation that never learned to resolve conflict compounds over decades. Prevention is a fraction of the price of response, and a method that reaches young people before conflict hardens is among the highest-leverage interventions available to a philanthropist. A Founding Family commitment is a gift, not an investment. There is no equity, no financial return, and the method is delivered free to coalition partners. The reach is borrowed and the 250-million figure is a 2035 goal. Naming all of this plainly is the point: a thorough, honest read is what a sophisticated family office trusts.