Every month we send an email newsletter to our supporters sharing recent updates from our work. We publish selected portions of the newsletter on our blog to make this news more accessible to people who visit our website. For key updates from the latest installment, please see below!
If you’d like to receive the complete newsletter in your inbox each month, you can subscribe here.
As you may have heard on a recent episode of our podcast, we’re launching an experiment: focusing more attention on programs that increase the economic well-being of people in extreme poverty. We are in the process of completing a search for a new program officer to lead an expanded livelihoods research team, and we plan to allocate up to $10 million for granting to cost-effective programs we find in the first year. Depending on the outcome of these efforts, we may hire additional researchers to focus on livelihoods.
GiveWell has historically directed most of its funding toward health interventions that avert death and disease, but those are not the only positive outcomes our grants target. We have long grappled with questions about how to value different positive impacts relative to each other. In particular, how much more valuable it is to save a life than to substantially increase someone’s economic well-being? Our expanded research into programs that improve lives will help us better reflect the diversity of relevant perspectives on that question in our grantmaking.
Our standard moral weights—that is, the values we assign to different outcomes—assume that saving a life is about 100 times more valuable (depending on age) than doubling a person’s income for a year (see our recent blog post on moral weights to learn more). This assumption has meant income-focused programs have been less likely than health-focused programs to meet our cost-effectiveness threshold.
But our moral weights are a necessary tool, not an absolute truth. Some GiveWell donors and staff, as well as some of the people affected by the programs we fund, place a higher value on income-increasing programs. To account for this, we’ll be funding livelihoods programs that would appear as cost-effective as our standard recommendations to a donor who values income gains twice as much as our standard moral weights.
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 Buddy Shah about how the aid cuts are affecting 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.
Every month we send an email newsletter to our supporters sharing recent updates from our work. We publish selected portions of the newsletter on our blog to make this news more accessible to people who visit our website. For key updates from the latest installment, please see below!
If you’d like to receive the complete newsletter in your inbox each month, you can subscribe here.
GiveWell’s ability to find and fund highly cost-effective health programs relies on a foundation of credible data. A key source of that data, the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), recently had its primary funding from USAID discontinued. This creates the potential of a significant challenge for GiveWell’s research—and for evidence-based grantmaking across the global health sector.
In this episode, GiveWell CEO and co-founder Elie Hassenfeld speaks with Senior Researcher Adam Salisbury to explore the implications of this funding gap. They discuss how the DHS program works, why it’s essential for informed decision-making, and how GiveWell is responding to the growing limitations of public health data.
Thanks to the generosity of more than 30,000 donors, GiveWell raised $415 million and directed $397 million to cost-effective programs in metrics year 2024 (February 2024 to January 2025). We approved 55 grants to 34 organizations working in 22 countries. We estimate that the programs supported by these grants will help around 34 million people who would not otherwise have been reached and will save an additional 74,000 lives.
We’re incredibly grateful to our donors for the trust they place in our research and for their partnership in trying to do the most good we can together. See this blog post and our full 2024 metrics report for more details behind the money we raised, the funds we directed, operational expenses, donor metrics, and the impact we had last year.