BK logo

Giving Project: Announcing 2022 Winners

At Butler Kahn, we believe in giving back. This is the fifth year in which we have donated $100,000 to the top charities as ranked by GiveWell, an independent nonprofit “dedicated to finding outstanding giving opportunities and publishing the full details of its analysis to help donors decide where to give.”

This year, Buter Kahn’s $100,000 will be distributed as follows:

  • $50,000 to GiveWell’s Top Charities Fund.
  • $20,000 to the Against Malaria Foundation
  • $20,000 to Helen Keller International
  • $10,000 to the Malaria Consortium

To learn more about GiveWell’s Top Charities, follow this link.

GiveWell’s Top Charities Fund

We are donating $50,000 to GiveWell’s Top Charities Fund, which recommends charities each quarter based on the organization’s latest research that are expected to do the most good. The organization determines which charities have the highest priority funding needs each quarter by considering factors such as which funding gaps they expect to be filled and unfilled, each charity’s plan for additional funding, and the cost-effectiveness of each funding gap. GiveWell does not take any fees from charitable contributions it receives.

Against Malaria Foundation

The Against Malaria Foundation is a GiveWell top-rated charity. It provides funding for long-lasting insecticide-treated net distributions to protect against malaria. The cost for one of these nets is approximately $4.95. There is strong evidence that these distributions reduce child mortality and the number of malaria cases. GiveWell’s research also shows that the nets have reached their intended destinations and stay in good condition for a significant period of time after distribution. Because the Against Malaria Foundation shares significant information about its work with GiveWell, GiveWell is able to closely follow and understand its work. Butler Kahn is proud to donate $20,000 to the Against Malaria Foundation this year.

Helen Keller International

We are also donating $20,000 to Helen Keller International, an organization that partners with communities that are striving to overcome longstanding cycles of poverty. By delivering the essential building blocks of good health, sound nutrition, and clear vision, Helen Keller helps millions of people in more than 20 countries create lasting change in their own lives and reach their true potential. Our donation will go directly to Helen Keller’s evidence-based and cost-effective vitamin A work, which builds millions of children’s immune systems. Vitamin A saves children’s lives, develops clear vision, and builds robust immunity.

Malaria Consortium

We are donating $10,000 to Malaria Consortium.  Like the Against Malaria Foundation, Malaria Consortium focuses on a major health risk in sub-Saharan Africa but instead of distributing nets, Malaria Consortium distributes preventative medicine.  The medicine is delivered during the rainy season when mosquitoes are most active and when malaria infection rates are correspondingly high.  According to GiveWell’s calculations, Malaria Consortium is able to protect one child from malaria at a cost of about $7.  GiveWell notes that “many high-quality studies of seasonal malaria chemoprevention have consistently found strong impact” and notes that Malaria Consortium conducts high-quality monitoring of its programs as they are ongoing, contributing to confidence in this charity.


Frequently Asked Questions

Why is your firm doing this?

We want to help people. It’s why we got into this business in the first place.

Today, the opportunities to help others are unparalleled. That is because although the problems that people face in the developing world are very serious, many of them have simple and inexpensive solutions. Polluted water causes fatal diseases that minimal filtration could prevent. Parasitic flies cause blindness that simple, inexpensive surgery could cure.  Malaria causes deaths that $5 mosquito nets could stop.

We have the opportunity to do something about it. Organizations like the Gates Foundation and Georgia’s own Carter Center have provided insight into what the biggest problems are and how they might be solved. Charity evaluators like GiveWell allow us to give money wisely, where the money will be most effective and have alleviated concerns over fraudulent charities. We live in a time, more than any other, in which everyone has the opportunity to make a meaningful difference. You don’t have to give like Bill Gates—an extra $5 buys another net that even the Gates Foundation, with all its millions, didn’t buy.

This is too good an opportunity to miss.

We help our clients every day, and that is a deeply rewarding experience. By also giving philanthropically—and doing so wisely, with a focus on results—we see an opportunity to double down.

Why aren’t you giving this money away to local charities, or your law schools, or political candidates who will help us right here in the United States?

We do give to those causes, although not in this amount. The reason that this money will probably go to the developing world is that we’re trying to get the most bang for our buck.

Money given to assist people in abject poverty can go a long, long way. In other words, it is the most cost-effective way to make a positive difference. Generally, seeking the maximum return for your dollar means giving money overseas because, for all of the serious problems we have in the United States, the problems in the developing world are more severe and comparatively cheaper to solve. Rampant malnutrition, river blindness, famine, and murderous civil wars are not common in the United States. In other places, they are.

Money goes further in the developing world because the problems are worse.  To use Peter Singer’s example, it costs about $40,000 to acquire a seeing-eye dog, train the dog, match the dog with a blind person in the United States, and train the person to work with the dog.  Helping to provide seeing-eye dogs to blind people is good, of course.  But we have to also think about what else could be done with the money.  In developing countries where people suffer from river blindness or trachoma, blindness can be cured for about $50.   So if you’re looking to donate $40,000, you can either provide one blind person in the developed world with a seeing-eye dog or cure fifty blind people in the developing world.  Here is how Singer makes the point:

In his book The Life You Can Save, Singer argues that you can save a life in the developing world for $1,000 or less. We don’t mean to diminish the importance of domestic giving, but when it comes to our firm’s big give, we think we can do the most good for the most people by giving abroad. In parts of the developing world, a $5 mosquito net can be the difference between life and death.

I know you, and this is a surprise—are you really so wealthy that you don’t have anything else to do with this money?

LOL no.

We are comfortable, in that all five of the people who work at our firm have roofs over their heads, food on their tables, and no crushing needs. We also have mortgages or rent payments, and some of us have children to take care of. But an income of over $32,400 per year puts us in the top 1% of earners globally, and we think that statistic speaks volumes about the needs of others, particularly in developing countries. Somewhere, a mother is watching her child starve—if we can prevent that, we should.

Next time I see you, are you going to judge me for driving a nice car or buying Starbucks coffee?

Nope. We aren’t claiming to be icons of charity or moralistic philosophers, because we’re not.

We are trying to take a step in the right direction. The bottom line is that when we turn eighty and take a hard look in the mirror, we want to see somebody who made the world a better place. It won’t matter then whether we drove Ferraris or stayed in five-star resorts, but it will matter that we took our responsibilities as humans seriously.

Why are you trying to save lives when overpopulation is already a problem?

We think lots of people have this question but are afraid to ask it. We think it’s a reasonable question.

First, studies have shown that the best way to reduce population growth rates is by educating women in developing countries, where birth rates tend to be highest. (Click here for Singer’s explanation from his book The Life You Can Save, beginning at the word “Nevertheless . . .”) That is most definitely a type of giving that we would consider with this money.

Second, charities that address health conditions—such as those that address malnutrition, or work to prevent malaria—contribute indirectly to the advancement of education and society as a whole. On the most basic level, that’s because women don’t spend time in classrooms if their children are starving or dying of malaria. So you have to address problems like malnutrition or malaria before you can do meaningful work on education or social structure, which in turn leads to lower birth rates.

Third, some of the charitable causes that we’d consider—such as curing river blindness or repairing obstetric fistulae—don’t save lives directly, but do help people move from being nonproductive members of their communities to being productive members. That helps their communities and societies as a whole. That, in turn, is a good thing from a population perspective because more advanced, more sophisticated societies tend to have lower birthrates.

Wouldn’t it be better to give your time, not your money?

This is another question that we think lots of people have, but sometimes don’t ask because they don’t want to be impolite. We think it’s a good question.

We do give some time to charitable causes, as noted on our Community page, but we spend far more time practicing law. We think that’s a good decision because we’re better at practicing law than running charities, and by doing what we’re best at, we’re able to generate money that we can donate to people who are best at running charities. Those people can use the money efficiently and can accomplish more good than we could if we tried to do their jobs.

Peter Singer explained this really well starting at this point in his TED talk (this clip begins at 8 minutes, 38 seconds):


Get a Free Consultation

Free Consultation

"*" indicates required fields

Agree To Terms*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Contact Us Now For Legal Help
car fire
$150 Million Landmark Wrongful Death Verdict

Butler Kahn secured a $150 million jury verdict against Chrysler for the family of a 4-year-old boy who was killed in a devastating crash in Georgia. Our firm held the giant automaker accountable for Remington Walden’s death and for failing to warn the public about dangers associated with its Jeep Grand Cherokee. Learn More