The previous page considered some of the cost differences between charities working in the United States and the developing world. But even charities working in the developing world can have dramatically different cost-effectiveness, depending on the type of intervention they're working on.
Even among the programs we recommend, we estimate a range of cost-effectiveness that varies by 10x or more, although these estimates are subject to substantial uncertainty.
We believe that the END Fund's work on deworming may be roughly 5 times as cost-effective—in terms of improving or saving someone's life—compared to GiveDirectly's distribution of unconditional cash transfers. We look for giving opportunities in that range or better, which means that we don't have cost-effectiveness estimates for programs that are likely to be significantly worse. The table below compares the cost-effectiveness of our top-recommended charities, based on our most recent cost-effectiveness model.1 Click here to learn more about our approach to estimating cost-effectiveness.
| Program estimated cost-effectiveness (relative to cash transfers) | |
|---|---|
| GiveDirectly | Baseline |
| Against Malaria Foundation | ~14x |
| The END Fund | ~5x |
| Evidence Action's Deworm the World Initiative | ~29x |
| Helen Keller International | ~19x |
| Malaria Consortium | ~16x |
| SCI Foundation (formerly known as Schistosomiasis Control Initiative) | ~11x |
| Sightsavers | ~7x |
Your choice of which program to support can make a huge difference to the impact you ultimately achieve with your donation. More information is available on our impact page.
Donate
- 1. The figures in the table can be found on the "Results" tab of our most recent cost-effectiveness model.
