GiveWell Conversations

In September 2025, we created a livelihoods research subteam to specifically focus on programs that increase the economic well-being of people in extreme poverty. While we have evaluated and funded livelihoods programs throughout GiveWell’s history, we now have a dedicated program officer overseeing this portfolio, which has allowed us to build on and deepen that work. Historically, GiveWell has predominantly focused on health-related programs. Diseases like malaria, diarrhea, and pneumonia can be prevented fairly cheaply, and the evidence for health programs is often strong relative to other areas. As our research team has grown, we’ve been building capacity to explore programs that increase people’s incomes, where the long-term impact is often more challenging to measure and effectiveness differs from context to context. In this episode, GiveWell co-founder and CEO Elie Hassenfeld speaks with Senior Program Officer Adam Salisbury about GiveWell’s expanding work on livelihoods programs, which programs might be the most cost-effective, and research we’re funding to help answer some key questions. Elie and Adam discuss:Testing variations of cash transfers: GiveDirectly’s flagship cash transfer program currently falls below our cost-effectiveness threshold for livelihoods interventions, but it has a proven ability to scale. We funded three pilots to test whether specific program adaptations could improve cost-effectiveness enough to meet our threshold: (1) pairing small grants to local businesses with household cash transfers so vendors can stock up to meet new demand, (2) timing cash transfers to coincide with the construction of a new footbridge so recipients can access markets more easily, and (3) targeting cash transfers to the poorest young adults, who may be at a stage in their lives where a large lump sum transfer might be especially impactful.Exploring poverty graduation programs: Poverty graduation programs provide extremely poor households with a tool to generate income, such as a sewing machine, along with training and small amounts of money or food so that families have what they need without selling the asset. Evidence shows that these programs increase incomes over the first couple of years, and more recent evidence suggests these effects can persist for five years or longer. We are considering grants for research to assess which program designs are most cost-effective, whether income increases hold up over even longer time periods, and whether the programs can be implemented effectively at scale. Because around two-thirds of poverty graduation programs are now delivered by governments rather than NGOs, we are also exploring opportunities to support these programs by providing technical assistance to governments. Funding research to address key uncertainties: By funding research directly tied to programs we are considering supporting, we aim to make better funding decisions and increase donors’ impact. For example, we had a consultant scrutinize the original data from a randomized controlled trial of GiveDirectly’s flagship program in Kenya that showed positive economic effects in the broader community—and the research held up. We’re now funding other research to assess whether the results can be generalized and considering studies to learn whether their effects persist beyond a few years.GiveWell is expanding our search for highly cost-effective ways to help people in new areas this year by hiring for new research positions, including a senior livelihoods researcher. As the livelihoods team grows, we aim to evaluate more of the areas in the space, including expanding financial access, improving agricultural activity, and looking at humanitarian response efforts—to make better-informed decisions about where donor funding can do the most 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 May 26, 2026 and represents our best understanding at that time.

GiveWell’s research doesn’t end once we’ve made a grant. We evaluate a subset of completed grants, comparing what we thought would happen to what actually took place, then try to use what we learn to improve our future funding decisions. Over the past year, we’ve formalized and expanded this work, publishing comprehensive “lookbacks” for select grants.A recent lookback on grants GiveWell made to fund insecticide-treated net distributions supported by the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) illustrates the growing capacity of GiveWell’s research team. We drew on multiple independent data sources, funded qualitative interviews to gather more information, and conducted a novel empirical analysis to deepen our confidence.In this episode, based on a conversation originally aired on GiveWell’s internal podcast for staff, GiveWell’s co-founder and CEO Elie Hassenfeld provides additional context while GiveWell’s Chief Research and Program Officer Teryn Mattox dives deep into the details with Program Director Alex Cohen and Researcher Steven Brownstone, examining how we conducted the lookback, what we found, and how what we learned may shape our future nets grantmaking. Elie, Teryn, Alex, and Steven discuss:A more expansive and rigorous approach to evaluating past grants. This lookback draws on three independent quantitative sources—AMF’s monitoring data, a recent Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) conducted in the DRC, and an original survey commissioned by GiveWell—alongside qualitative research involving in-depth interviews with people involved in DRC’s net distribution system, from health zone administrators to village focus groups. Conducting a novel mortality analysis using DHS microdata. Because net campaigns roll out on staggered schedules across DRC’s provinces, we were able to use the timing of children’s births relative to the date of local net campaigns as a natural experiment. We compared mortality risk for children based on when they were born, and thus the length of time they had protection from a net, and found that the net campaigns reduced the risk of death by around a quarter. That finding provides additional support for the mortality effect estimate we use in our cost-effectiveness models.What qualitative research revealed. Interviewers asked people across five provinces in DRC whether households received nets and whether households were using nets—and in cases where they either didn’t receive nets or weren’t using them, why not. Although we heard some anecdotes of misuse or diversion of nets, the data suggested overall that the nets are highly valued by the communities receiving them. How durability data could inform campaign design. Our analysis of DHS data confirmed earlier research indicating that nets in DRC degrade before they are replaced through new distributions. As a result, it’s possible that changes in DRC like more frequent campaigns or increased support of routine net distribution through other channels may increase protection. If you’re interested in learning more about grant lookbacks like this one—and how they’re improving our research and shaping our future funding decisions—we invite you to join our next webinar on June 9. Alex Cohen, who was featured in this episode, and Program Director Julie Faller will walk through our lookback process, what we’re learning, and how we’re applying those lessons to help more people. Learn more and register here.This episode was recorded on April 22, 2026 and represents our best understanding at that time.--GlossaryBecause the conversation in this episode first aired as part of GiveWell’s internal podcast for staff, there are a number of names, acronyms, and other terms that are not explained. To make it easier to follow along, we’ve provided a glossary below. all-cause mortality. All-cause mortality measures the total number of deaths from any cause in a specific group of people over a specific period of time. AMF. The Against Malaria Foundation, one of GiveWell’s Top Charities, collaborates with national malaria programs and other partner organizations in low- and middle-income countries to distribute insecticide-treated nets. CEA. We build cost-effectiveness analyses to assess how much good can be achieved by giving money to a certain program. Cox proportional hazards model. The Cox proportional hazards model is used to estimate how much different factors, such as time since an insecticide-treated net campaign, speed up or slow down the time to death. It assigns each factor a “hazard ratio,” which is a multiplier of the baseline risk of dying: a hazard ratio of 2 for smoking means that smokers face double the risk of death at any given moment compared to nonsmokers, all else equal. DHS. Demographic and Health Surveys are vast, in-person surveys that ask women to recall their children’s birth and survival histories. This method provides the primary data for mortality estimates in low- and middle-income countries.funging. What we call “funging” (from fungibility) refers to the effect of crowding out funding that would have otherwise come from other sources. insecticide-treated nets. These nets have been treated with insecticide to deter and kill the mosquitoes that transmit malaria. Distributing insecticide-treated nets, which are then hung over sleeping spaces, can be a cost-effective way of preventing malaria.lookbacks. Lookbacks are reviews of past grants published on the GiveWell website that assess how well they’ve met our initial estimates and what we can learn from them.Marakuja. Marakuja Kivu Research is a nonprofit organization in DRC that we have contracted with to conduct quantitative and qualitative surveys. M&E. GiveWell asks organizations that we fund to share detailed monitoring and evaluation data on their programs to assess the quality of program implementation and whether it is reaching recipients as intended. net durability. Insecticide-treated nets decay over time, both through loss of insecticide and physical wear.nets team. In internal conversations, this is what we sometimes call our vector control team (see below for definition). OnFrontiers. OnFrontiers is a company that sets up interviews with subject matter experts around the world. PDM....

Vitamin A supplementation is one of the programs GiveWell has supported the longest, and we’re currently funding it in many African countries. The program has an unusually strong evidence base for reducing child mortality, with multiple randomized controlled trials. Yet, as is the case for most global health programs, the evidence for vitamin A supplementation has complex, unresolved questions, such as how well findings from decades-old trials apply today and the extent to which existing research has been influenced by publication bias. As GiveWell’s research team has grown over the last several years, we have expanded our capacity to carefully research these questions. In this episode, GiveWell CEO and co-founder Elie Hassenfeld speaks with Senior Researcher Stephan Guyenet about the evidence base for vitamin A supplementation, the complications in applying that evidence to our funding decisions, and how GiveWell has improved our cost-effectiveness estimates for the program.Elie and Stephan discuss:The evidence base for vitamin A supplementation: Evidence from rigorous trials shows that vitamin A supplementation can significantly reduce child mortality. However, most of these trials were conducted 30 to 40 years ago, when infectious disease rates and vitamin A deficiency were more prevalent, and a more recent large trial in India found a much smaller effect. As a result, we worked to resolve our uncertainties about the effect of vitamin A supplementation in the contexts where we’re supporting it today. How GiveWell worked through the complications: To address our questions about the existing evidence, we engaged in further research. This included an analysis focused on the specific diseases for which vitamin A supplementation reduces mortality, a novel dosing-frequency analysis conducted in consultation with an outside statistician, and an assessment of possible publication bias. What all of this means for grantmaking: While the trials report that vitamin A supplementation reduces the risk of death by 19% on average in children 6 to 59 months old, we estimate that the impact in the modern settings we model is smaller: a 1% to 11% lower risk of death. Nevertheless, we still think vitamin A supplementation can be highly cost-effective. Using our updated cost-effectiveness analysis, we estimate our most recent grant for vitamin A supplementation to Helen Keller Intl is 25 times more cost-effective than our benchmark. This change reflects our more precise, location-specific analyses that allows us to direct funding to places where vitamin A supplementation is likely to be the most cost-effective. GiveWell continues to scrutinize the programs we fund, including those we have supported for years. In this case, years of rigorous research have largely held up the case for vitamin A supplementation. We will continue to review the program, funding new research to address remaining uncertainties and exploring whether a new randomized trial might be feasible. By doing so, we’ll continue to increase our confidence and refine our funding decisions to target the most cost-effective locations and do the most good we can with donors’ funds.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 March 25, 2026 and represents our best understanding at that time.

GiveWell aims to find and fund programs that will do the most good per dollar. To do this, we carefully evaluate potential grants before making them—assessing academic evidence, building cost-effectiveness models, and talking to people in the sector who know the program well. But our work doesn’t stop there. When a program we’ve supported nears the end of their funding, we also regularly evaluate its results to decide whether to continue our support. This typically involves gathering and analyzing extensive monitoring data. In most cases, the results are consistent with what we expected, and we renew the programs’ support. But sometimes we decide that, even if a program is doing a lot of good, it may not be having the impact we expected. In that case, we decide not to renew our support and instead direct those funds to where we think they’ll do much more good for people in need. In this episode, GiveWell CEO and co-founder Elie Hassenfeld speaks with Senior Program Officer Erin Crossett about the research that led GiveWell not to renew support for Evidence Action’s Dispensers for Safe Water—a program that installs chlorine dispensers at rural water points so that households can treat their drinking water and reduce waterborne disease—in Malawi and Uganda.Elie and Erin discuss:How independent data revealed a significant gap in program reach: Early signals from a separate GiveWell-funded study and Evidence Action’s own internal review of the program in Kenya suggested chlorination rates were far lower than routine monitoring indicated. GiveWell then commissioned an independent survey in Uganda and Malawi to find out whether the same was true there. The survey found that only about a third as many people were using dispensers as previously estimated: roughly 2 million rather than 5 million. Potential reasons for the data discrepancy: We believe that no single error drove the discrepancy. Instead, there were five or six contributing issues that together caused the differences in estimated usage. For example, chlorine was measured by matching a test result to a color wheel, which can be subjective and affected by lighting. This data was collected by Evidence Action’s own staff, which may have led them to interpret the color wheel results more favorably. What GiveWell learned and its effect on future grantmaking: We believe that approving the initial grant in 2022 was the right decision, given what we knew at the time. We also think that we could have done better by, for example, investing earlier in independent verification. We now apply these lessons to our current grantmaking. For instance, our recent portfolio of safe water grants includes external surveys for all grants. As we've developed and grown our research team over the past several years, we’ve become increasingly able to support additional data collection, analyze and learn from our grants, and reallocate resources to the most cost-effective global health and development needs we find. Getting things right requires both honest self-assessment and grantee partners willing to open themselves to scrutiny, and we are grateful for Evidence Action’s partnership in identifying the discrepancy in usage rates. Evidence Action is now reducing its footprint in Uganda and Kenya, and winding down the program in Malawi, with a 24-month transition to help support communities and turn over operations to the governments where possible. Dispensers for Safe Water is still a program that helps people, and our grant provided clean water to millions. GiveWell’s decision not to renew reflects our mission to direct donor funds to where they will do the most good—not to fund everything that does good. We are continuing to support chlorine dispensers in contexts where we believe they will be highly cost-effective. For instance, we are currently considering a grant to Evidence Action to pilot variations of the program in northern Nigeria, where disease burden is much higher than the countries where we had been funding the program—and therefore the impact per dollar might pass our high bar for funding. 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 February 20, 2026 and represents our best understanding at that time.

Seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC)—a program that provides preventive antimalarial medication to young children during the months when malaria is mostly likely to be transmitted—is one of the most cost-effective programs GiveWell has identified. Malaria Consortium’s SMC program has been one of our Top Charities since 2016, and we’ve recommended more than $500 million in grants to the program.Most of our funding to date has supported programs in West Africa, where strong evidence gives us confidence in the effectiveness of the drug combination used. In eastern and southern Africa, malaria chemoprevention programs could potentially help many more children, but we have substantial uncertainties about drug effectiveness in that region.In this episode, GiveWell CEO and co-founder Elie Hassenfeld speaks with Senior Researcher John Macke about the CHAMP trial, a randomized controlled trial of chemoprevention drugs we’re supporting in Malawi, and how it could shape our malaria grantmaking.This research is one example of how GiveWell is building for the future: investing in research now that could substantially expand our ability to direct funding cost-effectively in the years ahead.Elie and John discuss:Why eastern and southern Africa present different challenges: One of the drugs used in seasonal chemoprevention shows widespread resistance in the region, and existing trial evidence about the effectiveness of chemoprevention there has limitations. While we’ve supported SMC in parts of Uganda and Mozambique, we’ve been cautious about scaling up without stronger evidence on which drug combinations work and whether using certain drugs could increase resistance.What this trial will tell us: The trial will test three drugs alone and in different combinations across roughly 7,000 children in Malawi, making it the largest individually randomized trial of chemoprevention drugs ever conducted. We’ll learn about the efficacy of the two drugs currently used in SMC, as well as an additional drug that had previously shown resistance but might now be effective again. The trial will look at the effect of the drugs on both malaria infections and hospitalizations caused by malaria.How the results could affect our grantmaking: Depending on what we learn, this trial could open up more than $100 million in cost-effective funding opportunities for chemoprevention programs each year in eastern and southern Africa. The trial results will also provide a knowledge base for other funders and implementers to improve the cost-effectiveness of malaria programming. We expect initial results in mid- to late 2027, with the potential for resulting grants to provide medication to children in 2028-2029.Visit our Top Charities Fund and All Grants 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 January 22, 2026 and represents our best understanding at that time.

GiveWell has built its reputation on rigorous research—analyzing randomized controlled trials, building cost-effectiveness models, and reviewing monitoring data to identify cost‑effective ways to save and improve lives.In an effort to supplement this desk research and make better decisions, we’ve been working to gather more information directly from the people who live and work in the countries where we fund programs.In this episode, GiveWell CEO and co-founder Elie Hassenfeld speaks with Principal Researcher Alex Cohen about GiveWell’s work to gather local insights to check our assumptions and figure out what we might be missing.Elie and Alex discuss:Testing key hypotheses about the data GiveWell relies on: We’re working to improve the inputs in our decision making. This includes checks on coverage data, more information about how programs work in practice, and assessing whether estimated program effects are plausible. These efforts have already identified discrepancies between coverage surveys and other areas for improvement.Addressing the limitations of global health data: GiveWell depends on credible data for its research, yet global health and development data is quite limited. For example, basic measurements like child mortality rates rely on household surveys conducted only every five years. We’re employing multiple approaches to address these limits: funding independent survey firms; conducting site visits; hiring local consultants; and strengthening networks with government officials, implementing organizations, and other funders.Balancing the trade-offs between local work and desk research: Desk research will continue to make up the vast majority of our work. We believe that complementing that research with additional information we gather from local sources could meaningfully improve our grantmaking. We expect to dedicate around 5% of our research team’s time and around 1% of our total grantmaking to these efforts, which we believe will have an outsized impact.By prioritizing efforts to learn from people in the places where we fund programs, we hope to better understand how programs are being implemented, identify bottlenecks, and more. We believe that incorporating this information will improve our decision-making and our work to help people as much as we can. It provides checks on our primary models, increases confidence in our conclusions, and could highlight where we might be missing something important.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 December 23, 2025 and represents our best understanding at that time.

On Thursday, December 4, 2025, GiveWell hosted a live webinar titled “Growing Needs, Shrinking Aid: Cost-Effective Action in a Year of Funding Cuts.” Major cuts to foreign aid this year created deep uncertainty for global health programs. In this live-recorded discussion, co-founder and CEO Elie Hassenfeld moderates a panel of GiveWell researchers to discuss the effects of these cuts and how GiveWell is leveraging its nearly two decades of experience in cost-effectiveness research and analysis to identify opportunities for exceptional donor impact.The panelists—Rosie Bettle (Program Officer, Malaria), Alex Bowles (Program Officer, Malaria), Meika Ball (Senior Research Associate, New Areas), and Dilhan Perera (Senior Research Associate, New Areas)—answered questions selected live by attendees and shared their insights. They discussed the challenges of understanding the cuts’ impacts, how GiveWell adapted its grantmaking approach to fund time-sensitive opportunities, the trade-offs the research team had to make in the face of uncertainty, and new areas that might have cost-effective funding gaps. The conversation explores what the research team has learned so far, along with their predictions and uncertainties about the future. We expect needs to continue growing in the years ahead as the effects of current and future cuts accumulate. In this context of growing need, it’s increasingly important that resources are used as effectively as possible. Check out this blog post to learn more about our response to this year’s aid cuts, visit the 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 December 4, 2025 and represents our best understanding at that time.

Despite significant progress over the past several decades, malaria remains a leading cause of death globally for children under five. This year’s cuts to foreign aid funding disrupted highly effective programs to prevent malaria, such as seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC). SMC provides antimalarial medication to children under the age of five during the rainy season when malaria transmission is highest, reducing their risk of dying from the disease. Malaria Consortium’s SMC program, which is one of the most cost-effective programs our researchers have identified, has been one of GiveWell’s Top Charities since 2016, and we’ve recommended more than $500 million in grants for the program since that time. SMC is only delivered during a specific period each year when malaria transmission is highest. The campaigns require careful planning and preparation on a specified timeline to ensure that the drugs are ready to distribute during that window. The funding freeze that started in January jeopardized 2025 SMC campaigns in several countries because of the disruption to funding for these time-sensitive pre-campaign activities. In this episode, GiveWell CEO and co-founder Elie Hassenfeld speaks with Program Officer Natalie Crispin about how GiveWell responded quickly and flexibly to ensure that SMC campaigns moved forward this year.Elie and Natalie discuss:Planning for SMC campaigns: Prior to carrying out SMC campaigns, implementing organizations engage in an intensive and time-sensitive planning process to ensure that drug distributors are fully trained, the right quantity of preventive drugs is shipped to each community, and people are informed about upcoming campaigns. GiveWell’s response to keep SMC campaigns on track: GiveWell considered funding for SMC in 11 countries where it had been funded by the US government, talked with stakeholders in 10, and ultimately provided funding guarantees for SMC planning activities in six countries. These grants ensured funding for pre-campaign activities if US government funds didn’t return—enabling implementing organizations to move forward with timely preparations while their funding was uncertain.Challenges, reflections, and lessons learned: While the work required for us to decide whether, when, and how to provide funding was more time-consuming than many of our grants, it strengthened our networks among SMC implementers and funders, and we believe our funding guarantees made a difference in ensuring that the campaigns were able to be carried out.GiveWell has a long history of finding and funding highly cost-effective malaria programs. Our prior work on SMC enabled us to move quickly to protect lifesaving programs and keep campaigns on track until US government funding was restored. Visit our Foreign Aid Funding Cuts webpage to learn more about our response and how you can help, and listen or subscribe to our podcast for our latest updates.This episode was recorded on November 17, 2025 and represents our best understanding at that time.

Our Beyond the Spreadsheets mini-series lets you ride along with our leadership team on their recent weeklong site visit to Malawi. Recorded daily during the trip, the series shares the behind-the-scenes experience of a GiveWell site visit through real-time reflections and clips of conversations. On day four, the GiveWell team visited community projects funded by Spark Microgrants, including a maize mill and a sunflower oil mill, and spoke with residents about their impact. New to the series? Start with day one here. Throughout the week, the team visited health clinics, schools, and local villages to speak with healthcare workers and community members who shared a glimpse into their lives. This new mini-series offers a candid, day-by-day account of our learning process and some of the new insights and questions that will inform our future research. We invite you to listen, subscribe, and follow along!This episode was recorded on August 2, 2025 during GiveWell's site visit to Malawi and represents our best understanding at that time.

Our Beyond the Spreadsheets mini-series lets you ride along with our leadership team on their recent weeklong site visit to Malawi. Recorded daily during the trip, the series shares the behind-the-scenes experience of a GiveWell site visit through real-time reflections and clips of conversations. On day two, the GiveWell team met with district health officials to learn about the impact of foreign aid funding cuts and visited a local hospital to review health data. Listen to day one here. Throughout the week, the team visited health clinics, schools, and local villages to speak with healthcare workers and community members who shared a glimpse into their lives. This new mini-series offers a candid, day-by-day account of our learning process and some of the new insights and questions that will inform our future research. We invite you to listen, subscribe, and follow along!This episode was recorded on July 31, 2025 during GiveWell's site visit to Malawi and represents our best understanding at that time.

Foreign aid funding cuts are reshaping the global health landscape, creating urgent funding gaps and forcing difficult prioritization decisions across health systems worldwide. To understand the real-world effects, it’s essential to hear from the organizations working on the front lines with government partners to navigate the funding crisis. The Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) is a large global health nonprofit and an important GiveWell partner in this work.In this episode, GiveWell CEO and co-founder Elie Hassenfeld speaks with CHAI CEO Dr. Neil Buddy Shah about how the aid cuts are affecting vital health programs and what it takes to build a strategic response. They discuss the hidden complexities of the funding landscape, the difficult choices governments are being forced to make, and what this pivotal moment could mean for the future of global health.Elie and Buddy discuss:The “gap identification” challenge: In many countries, a significant portion of the national health budget comes from foreign aid, and the funding cuts revealed a surprising vulnerability—many national health ministries don’t have a comprehensive map of who funds what within their own systems. The first step needed was a complex data-gathering exercise to identify where the gaps emerged.A strategic response to the crisis: CHAI is helping governments implement a three-pronged response. This includes (1) driving efficiencies to make existing funds go further, (2) reprioritizing budgets to protect the most essential services, and (3) advocating for increased domestic health funding.The long-term view: While the cuts are already causing significant drops in areas like HIV testing, the most severe health consequences are expected to hit in the coming years. The crisis represents a major shakeup of the funding and delivery system that has defined global health for 20 years, creating a critical opportunity to rethink what should come next.The conversation reveals both the immediate crisis and long-term transformation occurring in global health. While governments are working to maintain some vital services through improved efficiency and reprioritization, these measures cannot compensate for the scale of funding reductions. GiveWell is working closely with partners like CHAI to understand the complexities of this new funding landscape and direct funding where our research shows it can have the greatest impact.Visit our Foreign Aid Funding Cuts webpage to learn more about our response and how you can help, and listen or subscribe to our podcast for our latest updates.This episode was recorded on August 20, 2025 and represents our best understanding at that time.

As GiveWell’s research team grows, that increased capacity and expertise allows us to evaluate a wider range of programs to find the most cost-effective opportunities to help people. Over the past year and a half, we’ve been investigating a new research area—family planning services that help people decide whether and when to have children. Family planning programs have particularly complex challenges around targeting, logistics, and ensuring informed and voluntary choice. However, GiveWell's increasing research capacity now positions us to take on new and complex investigations like this. We’ve been reviewing evidence, consulting with experts, modeling the benefits of contraception, and conducting initial grant investigations, focusing on programs that aim to increase access to and use of modern contraception. This work is especially timely as anticipated cuts to foreign assistance could significantly reduce existing family planning support, creating substantial new funding gaps.In this episode, GiveWell CEO and co-founder Elie Hassenfeld speaks with Senior Research Associate Dilhan Perera about the complexity of evaluating family planning programs. They explore the types of programs GiveWell is considering, the unique challenges this area presents, and key questions we’re working to answer.Elie and Dilhan discuss:Types of family planning programs: GiveWell is investigating several approaches, including direct service delivery to underserved communities, programs that provide counseling, and supply chain interventions that work with health facilities to prevent stockouts of contraceptives.The complexity of evaluation: Unlike programs such as malaria prevention that target a well-defined population and try to maximize coverage, family planning programs must account for individual preferences and avoid coercing people into using contraception they don’t want. This requires more sophisticated monitoring systems to prevent coercion, which raises the overall cost and complexity of effective program delivery.Operational challenges and trade-offs: Programs must often choose between reaching the most underserved communities (which are often remote and expensive to reach) and working within existing health facilities. The challenges in either approach include making sure people are accurately informed about their family planning options and navigating supply chain issues like stockouts. We’re actively considering a handful of funding opportunities in family planning. Our goal is to make initial grants that will not only have a direct impact but also help us learn more about this type of intervention, helping us better compare these programs against other funding opportunities.Visit our All Grants Fund webpage 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 24, 2025 and represents our best understanding at that time.

GiveWell has long grappled with fundamental questions about how to value different positive impacts and make funding decisions across diverse programs. In particular, how much more valuable it is to save a life than to substantially improve it? And how can we prioritize between programs that achieve those outcomes in different measures when there’s no “right” answer to that question?In this episode, GiveWell CEO and co-founder Elie Hassenfeld speaks with Senior Program Officer Julie Faller about why GiveWell is dedicating more capacity to researching livelihoods programs that aim to increase people's incomes. They discuss how we're building on existing work, searching for new cost-effective opportunities, and exploring more of the impactful programs we've long cared about.Elie and Julie discuss:A new funding threshold: GiveWell uses a framework of “moral weights” to compare different outcomes across interventions, but they are a necessary tool and not an absolute truth. To account for this, we’re using a different cost-effectiveness threshold for our expanded livelihoods portfolio. This enables us to evaluate and fund programs that would appear as cost-effective as our standard recommendations to a donor who values income gains twice as much as our standard model.How we’re expanding our livelihoods work: GiveWell is hiring a dedicated Livelihoods Program Officer to lead a more focused search for impactful livelihoods programs. This increased capacity will allow us to develop a long-term livelihoods strategy, build an expert network, and collaborate directly with implementing organizations to find and co-create promising programs. Some areas we plan to explore more deeply: Promising areas for investigation include programs that create positive economic “spillover” benefits for entire communities and community-driven development projects. We’ll also analyze results from our previously funded research on interventions like footbridges and eyeglasses to understand the potential impact these programs could have if scaled. Our new program officer will lead the search for livelihoods opportunities over the next year that meet our high bar for funding, and we plan to keep growing this research if it proves successful. We’re excited that this expansion of our research team will allow us to explore more of the impactful opportunities that we—and our donors—have long cared about.Visit our All Grants Fund webpage 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 25, 2025 and represents our best understanding at that time.