That’s the name of the most recent (and very rare) charity recommended by Giving What We Can, the Oxford-based organisation that researches charity efficacy to help guide the donations of its members, who pledge to tithe throughout their lifetime. (Proud disclosure: I’m a member). Here’s the latest in a recent blog post on why PHC could be special:
While the problem of malnutrition in underdeveloped countries may be severe, micronutrients fortification has high and immediate payback. Vitamin and mineral deficiencies (VMD) productivity [sic], and put burdens on health-care systems. It is estimated by the Micronutrient Initiative and the UN that these deficiencies cause a loss of 2% of GDP in affected countries. On the other hand, the cost for a fortification program is below 30 cents per person per year […]
We recommend PHC because their work influencing government policy may be very cost-efficient. It is conceivable that 140 DALYs from anemia can be averted for each $1,000 spent, which would lead to a higher impact than The Against Malaria Foundation and SCI (Schistosomiasis Control Initiative).
I’m going to give some serious thought to shifting, or at least splitting, my donations.
By the way – for the most accurate and illuminating media coverage of the Effective Altruism movement yet, look no further than Dylan Matthews’s piece from the other month in The Washington Post:
Jason Trigg went into finance because he is after money — as much as he can earn […]
Why this compulsion? It’s not for fast cars or fancy houses. Trigg makes money just to give it away. His logic is simple: The more he makes, the more good he can do.