We read the evidence so you do not have to: cost per life saved, cost per year of schooling, cost per ton of carbon. Every figure is cited and dated. No charity pays us.
Global health leads on hard evidence. Lead removal and mental health look cheaper on paper but rest on models. Climate and animal welfare win on expected value with wide error bars. The full ranking, with the numbers and the caveats.
Animal Charity Evaluators recommends ten groups, most working on farmed animals. Its August 2026 fund round shows where the money went and what it bought.
Disaster appeals raise the most money in the first days, for the phase that is usually best funded. A short guide to giving that actually reaches the people affected.
Giving USA 2026 shows record giving, driven by bequests and the stock market. The split by cause says a lot about where the marginal dollar is scarce.
Kenya's 200-village basic income study found more income, more savings and no drop in work. Lump sums beat monthly payments. Cash is the benchmark everything else is measured against, and that is its problem.
The evaluator now funds programs estimated at six times its benchmark, down from eight in November 2025. It means more money is available relative to the very best opportunities, and more programs qualify.
Deep dives into cost-effectiveness by cause area.
Kenya's 200-village basic income study found more income, more savings and no drop in work. Lump sums beat monthly payments. Cash is the benchmark everything else is measured against, and that is its problem.
A 2022 meta-analysis found water treatment cut under-5 deaths by about a quarter. GiveWell's own read is roughly half that, and it still funds the program at scale. Why the gap, and why both numbers are good news.
Carbon offsets often deliver little. Policy advocacy groups are estimated at under a dollar per ton avoided, in expectation. Here is the case, the caveats, and where the money went in 2025.
What changed in effective giving, and why it matters for your dollar.
Giving USA 2026 shows record giving, driven by bequests and the stock market. The split by cause says a lot about where the marginal dollar is scarce.
The evaluator now funds programs estimated at six times its benchmark, down from eight in November 2025. It means more money is available relative to the very best opportunities, and more programs qualify.
US aid is projected to fall 56% from 2023 to 2026, with the UK, Germany and France cutting too. The gap is far bigger than private giving can fill, which is exactly why where you give now matters more.
How to judge a charity before you give.
Disaster appeals raise the most money in the first days, for the phase that is usually best funded. A short guide to giving that actually reaches the people affected.
Money invested for decades can fund far more later. That argument is real. So is the fact that the cheapest life-saving programs have open gaps this year. How to split the difference.
Five questions, in order, that separate programs with evidence from programs with brochures. No spreadsheets required.
The cause areas and programs with the best evidence per dollar.
Global health leads on hard evidence. Lead removal and mental health look cheaper on paper but rest on models. Climate and animal welfare win on expected value with wide error bars. The full ranking, with the numbers and the caveats.
Animal Charity Evaluators recommends ten groups, most working on farmed animals. Its August 2026 fund round shows where the money went and what it bought.