EA claims to be utilitarian by urging giving to the most downtrodden, for example, low-income people in Africa. My definition of utilitarian is very different: "What will end up doing the most good for humankind.? And that would, for example, prioritize donating to SENG, which helps troubled intellectually gifted kids in developed nations to live up to their potential. Those kids are thus more likely to develop cures for diseases, develop helpful yet ethical uses of artificial intelligence, and become wiser, more ethical leaders, which benefits the world's humankind more than EA-touted causes.
Interesting. I agree that second or third-order effects such that as the good done later by people you have helped are an important consideration. Maximising such effects could be an underexplored effective giving strategy, and this organization you refer to looks like a group of people trying to do that. However, to really assess an organization's effectiveness, epecially if it focuses in educational or social interventions, some empirical evidence is needed.