Recommended Charities

Your choice of charity is very important. By choosing carefully you can get much more impact from your donation and thereby help many more people. Indeed, it is not even a matter of some charities being 10 or 100 times as effective: even restricted to the field of health programs in developing countries, research shows that some are up to 10,000 times as effective as others.1

It can be very difficult to compare charities when they focus on different things, and it is impossible to find a single 'best' charity. However, we have spent a large amount of time researching the issue, and have made considerable progress. We share this research in depth in our section on charity comparison, but have created this page for those who are want a direct recommendation.

The five charities that we would most highly recommend are:

Schistosomiasis Control Initiative

website   ⋅   donations page

What is SCI?

SCI was founded in 2002 and was originally focused on the control of schistosomiasis. Since then it has expanded its program in order to treat the seven most prevalent neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). These are a collection of serious diseases that are cheap to treat or prevent, but have not attracted the attention of donors and are thus chronically underfunded. Six of the seven diseases are caused by parasitic worms that live inside the body and cause symptoms ranging from general malaise through to kidney damage, intestinal damage, disfiguration of the limbs, blindness, and death.

SCI focus on the treatment of NTDs through the use of rapid impact packages, a combination package of four or five drugs. Generally, this involves supplying schools with the drugs, and training teachers in how to administer them. This is so cheap and effective that it has often been called the 'best buy in public health'. SCI currently works in Burkina Faso, Burundi, Mali, Niger, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. With additional funding, they aim to expand coverage to other areas in Africa.

Why choose SCI?

There are comparatively few charities that incorporate treatment of NTDs into their programs and even when they do, it is often just as a small part of their operations. For example, Helen Keller International, and the Carter Center both operate programs that focus on NTDs, but they also run many other programs, some of which are likely to be considerably less cost-effective.

There are only two donor-fundable charities that focus exclusively on NTDs: SCI and Deworm the World. We highly recommend both of these charities, and offer a special comparison page for those looking to choose between them.

Independently of how good the cause is, the SCI website could be a model for other charities: it has significant amounts of detailed information, on the charity itself, how they are funded, as well as detailed descriptions of their programs in different countries. We were also able to have a personal meeting with Professor Alan Fenwick, the director of SCI. Some of the reasons that we recommend SCI for this intervention-type include:

• They focus solely on the developing world, and on administering Rapid Impact Packages.
• They undertake impact-assessments of the work that they do, and publish their results on the web. This is very rare among charities, and is to be encouraged: moreover, it suggests that they have good knowledge, learnt from experience, about the best ways to implement programs.
• The people who work there are experts in their field, leading some of the academic research on neglected tropical diseases.

Deworm the World

website   ⋅   donations page

What is Deworm the World?

Deworm the World was founded as an initiative of the Young Global Leaders at the 2007 World Economic Forum, after an influential study by Michael Kremer and Edward Miguel demonstrated the remarkable educational benefits of deworming.2 They focus on the four neglected tropical diseases: schistosomiasis and the three soil-transmitted helminths. Deworm the World’s primary activity is to provide substantial technical assistance to help Kenya and India’s governments implement deworming programs. They also encourage governments in South America, Asia and Africa to adopt deworming programs and facilitate the provision of donated medications and technical assistance. They work in over 26 countries across the world.

Why choose Deworm the World?

There are comparatively few charities that incorporate treatment of NTDs into their programs and even when they do, it is often just as a small part of their operations. For example, Helen Keller International, and the Carter Center both operate programs that focus on NTDs, but they also run many other programs, some of which are likely to be considerably less cost-effective.

There are only two donor-fundable charities that focus exclusively on NTDs: SCI and Deworm the World. We highly recommend both of these charities, and offer a special comparison page for those looking to choose between them.

Some of the reasons that we recommend Deworm the World for this intervention-type include:

• They focus solely on the developing world, and on the four NTDs that can be treated most cost-effectively.
• They have strong connections to the Poverty Action Lab, a research institute known for its dedication to the rigorous evaluation of aid programs.

Stop TB Partnership

website   ⋅   donations page

What Is Stop TB Partnership?

The Stop TB Partnership was established in 1998. Primarily it runs the Global Drug Facility which provides government health programs and NGOs with drugs for curing tuberculosis as part of a highly effective treatment program called DOTS. As well as granting TB drugs, the Global Drug Facility also assists in negotiations to lower drug prices for purchasers. It is closely affiliated with the World Health Organisation, which houses the Stop TB Partnership and provides policy guidance. The Global Drug Facility is primarily funded by UNITAID and The Global Fund; it provides drugs to 93 countries worldwide, mainly in Africa and South Asia.

Why choose Stop TB Partnership?

Many charities include tuberculosis treatment as part of their mission; fewer focus solely on tuberculosis treatment.

MDCF provides comprehensive care for TB sufferers. However, by their own estimates, this is not in the same order of magnitude of cost-effectiveness as charities that focus purely on the DOTS program.

TB Alert works on the treatment of TB, but does not focus solely on the developing world: it is also involved in treatment in the UK. This is likely to be much less cost-effective than focusing on poorer countries; and so the overall cost-effectiveness will be somewhat lower, meaning fewer lives saved or cases treated for your donation.

Notable attractive features of Stop TB Partnership include:

• They focus solely on the developing world; and focus solely on the highly effective DOTS program.
• They demonstrate thorough self-assessment and impact evaluation. They had a recent, encouraging, external evaluation performed by McKinsey. They audit all recipients of grants, and withdraw funding if the recipients do not meet the conditions imposed by Stop TB Partnership.
• They provide a specific cost-effectiveness assessment, of $22.40 per person treated; this is in concord with their listed income and number of people treated.
• They are rated as one of the two most highly recommended charities by GiveWell, another charity evaluator. GiveWell ranks Stop TB Partnership as ‘strong’ for transparency and proven impact; and ‘excellent’ for cost-effectiveness and monitoring and evaluation.

Against Malaria Foundation (AMF)

website   ⋅   donations page

What Is AMF?

Against Malaria Foundation was founded in 2005 and focuses solely on distributing long-lasting insecticide-treated mosquito nets in order to prevent malarial infection in 35 countries across Africa, Asia and South America.

AMF receives and reviews proposals from charities that need bed nets; when a proposal is approved it purchases and ships nets for the charity. It then publishes pre-distribution and post-distribution reports on its website.

Why choose AMF?

Notable attractive features of AMF include:

• They use long-lasting insecticide treated nets, which do not require re-treatment. This means that they are likely to exceed the cost-effectiveness figures we cited on the malaria page.3
• They are committed to transparency and self-monitoring. On their website, they publish figures regarding their total income and total number of distributed nets and for each distribution they publish details of the program, including 10-40 post-distribution photos.
• Their estimate for the total cost of distributing a net is about $6.40 —$4.30 for the cost of the net and $2.07 for all other costs (including distribution and monitoring). This is around $2 cheaper than the typical cost of net distribution to other charities.
• They are rated as one of the six most highly recommended charities by GiveWell, another charity evaluator. GiveWell rates AMF as ‘strong’ for monitoring and evaluation and ‘excellent’ for transparency and cost-effectiveness.

In sum, Against Malaria Foundation is very good at what it does, and we consider it to be the best charity that we know of that focuses on fighting malaria. However, donors should bear in mind that there are causes, such as neglected tropical diseases and tuberculosis, that seem to be even more important in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN)

website   ⋅    donations page

What Is GAIN?

GAIN was founded in 2002 to help provide people living in extreme poverty with essential micronutrients. It does this by providing grants to fund the best proposals that other organisations have for micronutrient projects. The projects are most often fortification programmes, which add vitamins or minerals to basic foodstuffs like flour or salt. Due to economies of scale, this is an incredibly efficient way to prevent certain types of malnutrition. GAIN also works with businesses, encouraging and advising them on how to improve the nutrition of those most in need. GAIN works in many countries worldwide, especially in Asia and Africa, and plans ultimately to aid 1 billion people.

Why choose GAIN?

Few charities advertise that they use micronutrient treatments as part of their programs. Helen Keller International is an exception, but does not focus solely on micronutrients. Micronutrient Initiative focuses solely on micronutrient treatments, but cannot be funded by individual donors. The only charity that we have found that focuses solely on micronutrients and can be funded by individuals, is GAIN.

Reasons that GAIN is attractive include:

• It provides extensive self-assessment and evaluation; both of their own organisation, and of the programs that they fund. This suggests that they fund only the best micronutrient programs.
• It is one of the only charities that we have witnessed that gives a $/DALY estimate, at $13-$17 / DALY. Though this is only a quarter as cost-effective as the estimates of the treatment of neglected tropical diseases, it is still in the top tier of effectiveness and the economic benefits of micronutrient fortification may far exceed the health benefits (as mentioned in our page on micronutrients).
• It provide useful information about its activities on its exceptionally clear and informative website.

We do, however, have two concerns about GAIN:

• Firstly, only 39% of their expenditure goes on fortification programs and it is less clear how effective the other programs are.
• Secondly, their programs aid both middle and lower income countries, rather than solely the very poorest.

Despite these concerns, we would recommend GAIN as the best donor-fundable charity for micronutrient interventions.