Peter Singer was nice enough to write a piece for the Washington Post essentially saying you should obviously only give to the most efficient charities that can save lives. Regarding the money spent for Batkid he says this:
Yet we can still ask if these emotions are the best guide to what we ought to do. According to Make-A-Wish, the average cost of realizing the wish of a child with a life-threatening illness is $7,500. That sum, if donated to the Against Malaria Foundation and used to provide bed nets to families in malaria-prone regions, could save the lives of at least two or three children (and that’s a conservative estimate). If donated to the Fistula Foundation, it could pay for surgeries for approximately 17 young mothers who, without that assistance, will be unable to prevent their bodily wastes from leaking through their vaginas and hence are likely to be outcasts for the rest of their lives. If donated to the Seva Foundation to treat trachoma and other common causes of blindness in developing countries, it could protect 100 children from losing their sight as they grow older.
Keep that in mind. Unless you are to be judged harshly for giving to a lesser charity, it looks to me like the only charity you “should” give to or as he says “ought” to give to is
1. SCHISTOSOMIASIS CONTROL INITIATIVE / DEWORM THE WORLD
Against Malaria and the Fistula Foundation do make the top 10, buy you oughtn’t give to number 3 when number 1 is right there in front of you. No, I don’t care if you like animals, or feel connected to flood or cancer victims, or if you believe that by working to save the environment, in the big picture you will save the most lives, you only ought to give to save lives right now. Now you know what you ought to do. Your Welcome.
Oops, it turns out that Peter Singer created the list.
What about this list?