GiveWell Conversations

GiveWell works to continually improve our research so we can make better grant decisions and direct donations where we believe they can do the most good. GiveWell’s Cross-Cutting research subteam is an important part of that effort—it investigates the impact of the programs we fund, works to resolve our largest uncertainties, and aims to improve our research. As GiveWell’s grantmaking grows, the Cross-Cutting subteam is strengthening our data collection and analysis to support that growth. 
In this episode, GiveWell co-founder and CEO Elie Hassenfeld speaks with Program Director Alex Cohen, who leads the Cross-Cutting subteam, about how better data can improve our decision-making, our work to gather stronger evidence, and the ways we’ve tested AI as a tool to increase our research capacity and quality.

Elie and Alex discuss:
Triangulating multiple data sources to check impact: Directing donations to programs we believe will do the most good requires understanding the impact of the programs we support. Organizations provide us with monitoring data, but we know there are many ways that, despite the best intentions, this data can be biased or incomplete. To address this, we are investing in additional sources and types of data to improve the accuracy of our estimates. For example, in Burkina Faso we’re funding dried-blood tests to better understand whether caregivers are completing the second and third at-home doses of seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC), which provides preventive malaria medication. We think this will improve our understanding of how accurate self-reported data is and whether funding to boost coverage of second and third doses of the medication could cost-effectively help people.
Setting quality standards for survey data: GiveWell often collects survey data at the end of a program to better understand its impact and answer our open questions, but survey data is prone to error. For example, GiveWell researchers shadowed surveyors in Uganda and Nigeria who worked long days under time pressure, creating conditions where hard-to-access households were more likely to be skipped. Because those households may also be the ones programs are most likely to miss, this could lead to overestimating coverage. We’re working to reduce these errors by investing in more independent data checks, and we’ve developed survey guidelines that include practices like GPS tracking and verifying whether a random sample of households was surveyed.
Using AI to critique our work: GiveWell is experimenting with AI tools to increase our research capacity and improve its quality. Our cost-effectiveness models are an important part of our funding decisions, and we carefully vet them to reduce the chance of mistakes. We’ve developed and trained an AI model that, with human oversight, can catch errors that previously required tedious staff review, opening up some capacity for those reviewers to support the team in other ways. We're also experimenting with using AI to critique and identify weaknesses in our research, though we’ve had more limited success with this strategy.  

By investing in more and better data and experimenting with new tools, we’re working to expand our research capacity while strengthening the rigor of our work as our grantmaking scales. 
Growing our research team is central to these goals, and GiveWell is actively hiring researchers and program officers. New members of our research team typically start on the Cross-Cutting subteam as part of their onboarding and training. If someone you know might be a good fit, please share our open roles!
Visit our All Grants Fund page to learn more about how you can support this work, and listen or subscribe to our podcast for our latest updates.
This episode was recorded on August 21, 2026, and represents our best understanding at that time.

GiveWell, with co-funding from Coefficient Giving, recently made our largest grant to date: $276 million to the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) to support the procurement and distribution of 92 million nets in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) from 2027 through 2029. We estimate that the nets, 46 million of which we think would not otherwise be distributed, will avert roughly 67,000 deaths. We have supported AMF’s work for more than 15 years, and the insecticide-treated nets it procures and distributes remain one of the most cost-effective ways we've found to save lives. 

This grant, which involved a more rigorous investigation process than most, is part of a larger story about scaling our team and systems to handle substantially more funding while deepening our research rigor. Last year, we directed more than $400 million to highly cost-effective programs to save and improve lives and, this year, we expect our grantmaking to approach, and possibly exceed, $1 billion. This increase in grantmaking aims to meet global needs faster and more effectively.
In this episode, GiveWell co-founder and CEO Elie Hassenfeld speaks with Senior Program Officer Alex Bowles about the questions the team set out to answer during the grant investigation.
Elie and Alex discuss:
Assessing the impact of insecticide-treated nets in DRC: GiveWell usually estimates a program’s cost-effectiveness and impact by analyzing academic evidence, particularly randomized trials, and making a number of adjustments. Because of our growing capacity, we were able to do something new for this grant: We tested our assumptions about DRC’s past net campaigns by drawing on two new, independent lines of evidence. First, we analyzed a recent national survey, which showed a reduction in malaria infections close to what we had predicted. Second, we commissioned a firm based in DRC to interview households and community leaders. Those interviews confirmed records about nets received and provided information about the challenges of conducting net campaigns in DRC. Taken together, this more robust approach increased our confidence that nets work well and are likely to reach intended households in the locations funded by this grant.
Planning and coordinating at scale: This grant is nearly three times the size of our previous largest grant (also to AMF) and is concentrated in one country rather than being spread across several. The grant commits funds at the beginning of a multi-year planning cycle, which we think will make these campaigns easier to plan. It also aims to ensure that campaigns happen across all 26 of DRC’s provinces, in some cases on an expedited timeline. This shift in our funding approach makes close coordination with AMF and other partners—including the Global Fund, which is funding much of the net distribution, and the national malaria program—even more important than before.
Rethinking how often nets are distributed: In most countries, nets are distributed every three years, but evidence shows that nets wear out more quickly in DRC, in part because of the climate. Our analysis of national survey data, net durability studies, and AMF’s post-distribution monitoring suggests that nets in DRC last roughly 18 to 24 months. DRC had already shortened its campaign cycle, aiming to distribute nets every 30 months. With the support of the government, GiveWell is supporting net campaigns every 24 months in several provinces with high rates of malaria transmission, and funding evidence gathering so we can learn whether more frequent net campaigns is a cost-effective strategy for further reducing malaria rates. We think this approach will help further prevent malaria and potentially save more lives.
A larger, more experienced team enabled us to investigate this grant more deeply than we could have even two years ago—looking back at past grants to assess their estimated impact and asking important questions about the challenges of implementing such a large program. The same capacity that allowed us to research this grant, which we expect to save tens of thousands of lives, is also helping us look ahead to newer strategies that could save even more lives in the future.
Visit our All Grants Fund and Top Charities Fund pages to learn more about how you can support this work, and listen or subscribe to our podcast for our latest updates.

This episode was recorded on August 14, 2026, and represents our best understanding at that time.

When GiveWell investigates a new cause area, we’re often focused on two priorities: directing funding where we think it can help people most and generating evidence to inform larger investments later. Family planning is a clear example. Recent foreign aid cuts—including reductions from the US, UK, and Dutch governments—deepened an already substantial need and opened up new cost-effective funding opportunities.

When we published our last podcast episode on family planning, GiveWell had made only a couple of small grants. Since then, we’ve made a number of additional grants totaling around $20 million, exemplifying how our growing research capacity and expertise enable us to expand into new areas. By doing so, we aim to move more donor funding faster to global health programs where it can do extraordinary good.

In this episode, GiveWell co-founder and CEO Elie Hassenfeld speaks with Senior Program Officer Dilhan Perera about the family planning programming we’ve funded over the past year, how we’ve structured our grant portfolio, and what we’re hoping to learn.

Elie and Dilhan discuss:
Funding across the family planning system: Providing people with family planning resources requires a three-tiered system: (1) purchasing contraceptives, (2) moving them through the supply chain to health facilities, and (3) delivering services to clients. We have made grants at all three levels. For example, we recommended a grant for contraceptive procurement through UNFPA Supplies, which works in dozens of countries, addressing a chronic shortfall that deepened after US government cuts. We also approved a one-year grant to MSI Reproductive Choices to help move supplies from national warehouses to local health facilities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malawi, and Zambia. By funding across all three levels rather than at a single point, GiveWell aims to identify the areas of greatest need where additional funding could do the most good.
Reaching people with limited access: Many people in low- and middle-income countries have limited access to modern contraception. GiveWell has made two grants aiming to increase access at the local level, each taking a different approach. The first supports MSI Reproductive Choices’ mobile outreach program, which we are funding in Nigeria and Sierra Leone. Small teams, typically two nurses and a driver, travel to communities identified as having limited access to services. The nurses offer a group information session and individual counseling, after which people who are interested can obtain a range of contraceptive methods, including long-acting options like implants and IUDs that health workers at nearby facilities often aren’t trained to administer. The second supports Lafiya, which operates in northern Nigeria, where modern contraceptive use is among the lowest in the world. Lafiya trains nurses, midwives, and community health workers who already live in these communities to provide family planning counselling, short-term contraceptives, and referrals for other methods. By funding both approaches, we hope to learn more about differing strategies for delivering family planning and the programs’ cost-effectiveness, potentially leading to opportunities to help people in need even more. 
Building evidence alongside the grants: There are relatively few randomized trials of family planning programs and limited rigorous evidence on the specific programs we’re funding. As a result, we have a number of uncertainties. We’re particularly interested in getting better answers to the following questions: Does providing family planning commodities actually increase use, or does it substitute for what people would’ve gotten another way? Do the commodities we help procure actually reach facilities? And to what extent are people making informed choices about whether or not they want to take up contraception? We’ve built learning opportunities into all of our family planning grants, including, for example, separately funding Innovations for Poverty Action to conduct independent surveys of clients and households in the areas where MSI’s mobile outreach program works. 

GiveWell’s research and grantmaking for family planning programs is still in its early stages, but it reflects a strategy across many of our newer grantmaking areas: directing donations to help people now, while generating the evidence needed to direct more funding to highly cost-effective programs in the future. 
Read more about how we're thinking about family planning mobile outreach, visit our All Grants Fund page to learn how you can support this work, and listen or subscribe to our podcast for our latest updates.
This episode was recorded on July 22, 2026, and represents our best understanding at that time.

Diarrhea is one of the leading causes of death for children under five, killing more than 400,000 children every year. GiveWell has funded several programs to prevent and treat diarrhea, and we recently expanded our work by making a grant to support the implementation and evaluation of WASHmobile in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and South Sudan. The program, which was developed by Johns Hopkins University, delivers water treatment supplies and hygiene messaging to households at the highest risk of diarrheal disease. It has shown promising results in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but hasn’t yet been implemented at scale in the challenging settings where the need is greatest.

In this episode, GiveWell co-founder and CEO Elie Hassenfeld speaks with Senior Program Officer Erin Crossett, who leads GiveWell’s water research subteam, about the grant. They discuss how the program works, what prior research tells us about its potential, the significant uncertainties involved, and what GiveWell expects to learn.

Elie and Erin discuss:
How WASHmobile works: When someone in a household has diarrheal disease, others in the household are at much higher risk. To reduce this risk, WASHmobile first identifies children who have been hospitalized with severe diarrhea. A health worker visits their family to provide handwashing supplies and chlorine tablets to disinfect water, then follows up with phone reminders about safe water practices. Because household members often share the same water source and live in close quarters, treating water and improving hygiene during this critical window can prevent further infections and deaths. Trials of more intensive versions of this program found reductions in diarrheal disease of roughly 60%. Our grant also includes a second, lower-cost component that sends SMS alerts and digital chlorine vouchers to people living near detected outbreaks. 
Navigating uncertainty in fragile contexts: WASHmobile is being implemented in South Kivu (DRC) and Jonglei State (South Sudan) by Tearfund, which is partnering closely with the countries’ ministries of health. Because of active armed conflict, severe flooding, and large displaced populations, these areas are challenging for health program implementation. GiveWell is funding a version of the program that is less intensive than the one studied in trials, with shorter duration and less intensive follow-up, and we have discounted expected effects accordingly. Even with those adjustments and a substantial probability of program failure built into our modeling, we estimate the program could be highly cost-effective because disease burden in these areas is so high. 
Building learning into the grant: Roughly half of the grant funds implementation, and half is dedicated to evaluation and data collection. In DRC, GiveWell is funding Johns Hopkins University, in partnership with Catholic University of Bukavu, to conduct a randomized controlled trial alongside implementation to measure the program’s effect on hospital admissions for diarrhea among children under five. The trial will also help test one of the key assumptions in our cost-effectiveness model: that the families this program targets are actually at higher mortality risk than the general population. In South Sudan, where a full trial wasn’t feasible, we’re funding mortality surveys and operational monitoring to better understand baseline mortality and whether the program is being implemented as intended.

This grant reflects how GiveWell’s growing team capacity allows us to do more than scale up proven programs; it also enables us to investigate new, cost-effective ways to save and improve lives beyond our traditional grantmaking portfolio. In addition, our growing capacity means we’re increasingly able to help bridge the gap between academic research and real-world implementation—funding promising programs alongside the rigorous evaluation needed to determine whether they should be scaled further. 

Visit our All Grants Fund page to learn more about how you can support this work, and listen or subscribe to our podcast for our latest updates.
This episode was recorded on June 10, 2026, and represents our best understanding at that time.

GiveWell tends to be known for its work in areas like malaria prevention, water treatment, and nutrition. But as our research team has grown, so has our ability to search for cost-effective programs across a much wider range of issues.

Serious health problems, such as lack of medical oxygen and stockouts of essential medicines at health facilities, affect millions of people in low-income countries. There may be highly cost-effective solutions to these problems that haven’t been thoroughly evaluated or adequately funded. One of the ways GiveWell is searching for these solutions is through the new areas research subteam, which investigates programs in cause areas GiveWell hasn’t historically focused on.
In this episode, GiveWell co-founder and CEO Elie Hassenfeld speaks with Senior Program Officer Dan Brown about GiveWell’s new areas research subteam and three grants that illustrate the team’s work.

Elie and Dan discuss:
Evaluating whether electronic tracking can improve access to health supplies: In many low- and middle-income countries, health facilities track their medicine supplies on paper, with stock counted roughly once a month for only a subset of products. As a result, staff may be less able to accurately predict inventory levels. This can lead to stockouts, making it more difficult for people to access the treatment they need, or to surplus commodities, which could result in expired medicines. GiveWell is funding the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), mSupply Foundation, and University of California, Berkeley to implement an electronic supply chain management system in health facilities in Laos and conduct a randomized controlled trial measuring whether the system reduces stockouts and improves patients’ access to the treatments they need. If we learn that more people are able to access treatment as a result, funding the rollout of this type of software in countries facing higher burdens of disease could be a cost-effective strategy for reducing mortality. 
Supporting a new approach to medical oxygen production: Medical oxygen is essential for treating severe pneumonia, malaria, and many other health conditions—yet access in low-income countries remains limited. GiveWell is funding PATH to assess the market viability of a recently developed oxygen-producing device that appears to require far less maintenance than existing technology. This is an early-stage investment focused on understanding manufacturing costs and potential demand. PATH’s work will run concurrently with research funded by other organizations assessing whether the device works effectively in real-world conditions in low-income countries. We’re also investigating other opportunities to improve the ability to diagnose low oxygen and increase access to a reliable oxygen supply in health facilities. 
Investigating a caregiver training program for newborn health: Noora Health’s Care Companion Program trains family members in practices that support maternal and newborn health, including skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding techniques, and how to recognize illness warning signs. The existing evidence base for these practices is limited to one study without a control group (making it difficult to assess if the practices actually caused the results), so GiveWell is funding two studies in India: a pilot study assessing intermediate health outcomes like sepsis and umbilical cord infections that are linked to newborn mortality, and a larger randomized controlled trial measuring the program’s effect on neonatal mortality. We expect that these studies will provide additional evidence needed to assess whether to fund the program at scale, potentially reducing childhood deaths.

These grants reflect just a few of the ways GiveWell’s research is expanding to identify more high-impact opportunities to help people. GiveWell is hiring to expand our research team further—including positions on the new areas subteam—so we can cover more ground and ultimately direct more donor funding faster to programs where it can do extraordinary good.

Visit our All Grants Fund page to learn more about how you can support this work, and listen or subscribe to our podcast for our latest updates.
This episode was recorded on June 12, 2026, and represents our best understanding at that time.