Effective Altruism at Work: Rating Charities

Most people want their giving to make a difference, but a growing number of donors take this desire to an extreme: Their goal is to achieve the greatest possible good with each donated dollar.

In a recent TED talk, Peter Singer, the Princeton University philosophy professor, presented an idea designed to jolt conventional American donors into reconsidering how they give.

Americans concerned about blindness might consider donating $40,000 to cover the full cost of providing a guide dog, including training for the dog and its owner, he noted. Or they could use that money to provide antibiotics to prevent trachoma, which is the leading cause of infectious blindness worldwide. Such treatments can cost as little as $20, according to Mr. Singer.

“You get one guide dog for one blind American, or you could cure between 400 and 2,000 people of blindness,” Mr. Singer said. “I think it’s clear what is the better thing to do.”

GiveWell, a group that tries to identify the world’s most effective charities, currently recommends just three—and none work in America. One reason: GiveWell found that it costs more to improve a life for a U.S. resident than it does to save a life in Africa. In a blog post, GiveWell contrasted the Against Malaria Foundation, its top-ranked charity, with two American charities that it considers “standout organizations.”