We concentrate on causes where donations can have outsized impact per dollar, especially for people facing extreme disadvantage.

Our current focus areas include global health and public health, extreme poverty alleviation, and environmental restoration and sustainability.

These areas were chosen because they affect large numbers of people or ecosystems, include interventions with strong empirical support, and are often underfunded relative to their importance.

We prioritize charities whose core programs are supported by credible evidence, such as randomized controlled trials, large-scale program evaluations, peer-reviewed research, and longstanding real-world track records.

Examples of strong evidence include:

• Insecticide-treated bed nets to prevent malaria
• Direct cash transfers to people in extreme poverty
• Vitamin A supplementation to reduce child mortality
• Incentives that increase vaccination and prenatal care uptake

We favor interventions that are proven to work, not just well-intentioned.

We consider how much impact a charity can deliver per dollar donated.

This does not mean we chase precise numbers at all costs. Instead, we ask:

• Whether a charity can achieve meaningful outcomes at relatively low cost
• Whether additional funding can scale their impact further
• Whether there is room for more funding or if programs are already saturated

Charities that can turn modest donations into large, measurable benefits are prioritized.

Beyond impact, we evaluate whether an organization is well run and trustworthy.

We look for:

• A clear mission and strategy
• Strong leadership and governance
• Publicly available financial information
• A willingness to share data and evaluation results
• A track record of delivering programs responsibly

As a baseline, we select U.S.-registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations that meet high standards of transparency and accountability, including a Platinum rating on Candid (GuideStar) and/or a four-star rating on Charity Navigator. We avoid organizations that make vague or unverifiable impact claims, lack basic financial transparency, or rely primarily on marketing rather than outcomes.

Where possible, we rely on independent third-party evaluators and established research organizations, including global health researchers, charity evaluation groups, and academic and policy literature.

Several of the charities we support are also recommended by well-known effective giving organizations. While we do not outsource our judgment entirely, external validation plays an important role in our decision-making.

For environmental charities, we apply additional scrutiny. This includes:

• Clarity about what activities actually occur on the ground
• Transparency about outcomes such as trees planted and survival rates where available
• Avoidance of exaggerated or misleading claims

We recognize that environmental impact can be harder to measure precisely, and we account for this uncertainty when making recommendations.

Charities are not selected permanently.

We aim to periodically review supported charities, reassess programs as new evidence becomes available, and update or remove charities if standards are no longer met. Our recommendations reflect our best judgment based on current information, not guarantees of future performance.

We believe it is important to be clear about what we do not do:

• We do not evaluate every charity in existence
• We do not claim our list represents the only good charities
• We cannot eliminate all uncertainty from impact estimates

Our role is to narrow the field to a small set of high-confidence options, not to replace individual judgment.

Trust matters in philanthropy.

By sharing our methodology, we invite questions, critiques, and suggestions for improvement. We believe donors deserve to understand how decisions are made, not just what decisions are made.