Show Notes
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.
Elie and Adam discuss: The surprising source of global health data: In many countries where GiveWell works, basic health metrics like child mortality rates aren’t comprehensively tracked in official registries. The DHS program fills this data gap by conducting 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. Why good data is difficult to get: The DHS is resource-intensive, costing tens of millions of dollars per year to administer in-person, house-to-house surveys across more than 50 countries. Enumerators must travel to remote areas where unreliable internet and postal systems necessitate this approach. The logistical complexity and high cost are primary reasons the surveys in any given country often happen only once every five years. GiveWell’s approach to repairing data gaps: With USAID funding discontinued, GiveWell is considering whether to support these surveys directly, coordinating with other global health partners who share similar interests. GiveWell is also funding targeted data collection to address questions the DHS doesn’t cover, such as bed net durability or how people in low-income countries value consumption versus health gains.
The loss of funding for DHS creates a significant gap in global health infrastructure that affects decision-making across the sector. GiveWell is working with other global health organizations to explore sustainable solutions, while considering the trade-off between funding programs that help people now and funding research that guides future effective giving.
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 August 13, 2025 and represents our best understanding at that time.
More from GiveWell Conversations
In an effort to direct substantially more funding to the most cost-effective opportunities we can find to help people, GiveWell’s research is expanding in two directions at once: going broader, to cover more areas of global health and development, and going deeper, to improve the inputs that inform our decision-making.
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.
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.
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.
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.