I haven't seen explicit cost-effectiveness analyses, but hospice programs for the terminally ill in low-income countries aren't designed to save human lives or increase income. I suppose they might have a small, incidental life-prolonging effect.
I've been pondering this question for a while and have managed to find a neartermist intervention which actually has positive flow-through effects on animal welfare!
Family Planning:
How do you factor in the possibility that family planning = smaller families & greater family economic resources = more meat consumption in that family?
Wow, that's not something I had completely considered. Do you have any thoughts on how to address this flow-through effect/estimate it's impact?
Some examples: GiveDirectly, Deworming (Deworm The World, Unlimit Health…), LEEP, Teaching at the Right Level Africa. See https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/donate/organizations for more details
Edit: I missunderstood the question and replied thinking only about charities that do not save lives.
The meat-eater problem is often overlooked in discussions of effective neartermist charities. If one takes the concern seriously and cares about animal welfare, saving human lives or increasing income in developing countries (e.g. bed nets) could be net-negative and create net (animal) suffering.
What are the most effective charities that (1) alleviate human suffering* and (2) don't have the meat-eater problem?
*I realize animal welfare charities would fit this description, but I want a "more normal" neartermist charity that I can easily recommend to non-EA-pilled people. That is, one that I can recommend to the average person without having to convince them of any non-standard moral arguments (e.g. longermism)?
Written very quickly, please interpret charitably.
Plenty of mental health charities are likely to directly improve human suffering for people whose lives they don’t save. It’s less clear how many lives they directly save (some screen out suicidal participants completely), but we know that the number of suicides is relatively low in most countries (India records around 200k suicides per year out of a 1.4b population).
EA mental health charities (in LMICs) include StrongMinds, Vida Plena, and Kaya Guides.
Depression and other mental-health conditions often have a significant impact on productivity and income, though. This suggests that programs that alleviate them may have a significant effect on income (and thus meat consumption).
While I generally do not weigh the meat-eater problem much in evaluating global health charities, I think the indirect income-promoting effect would be of concern to some people.
With that criteria, you would be extremely hard pressed to find any global health charities that avoid the meat-eater problem (or, for that matter, any GCR charities, since those would save the lives of rich people).
However, I would suggest a focus on culturally vegetarian countries such as India could still meet that criteria. Kaya Guides operate there currently.
Yes, at some moral weights, it would be very hard to recommend ~any global-health charities, and perhaps any GCR ones. We don't know how much incidental effect on meat consumption the OP is willing to accept. So I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the answer to her question is ~none.