Glossary of Key Terms

In order to provide easier access to key ideas in our work, this page lists concepts we use frequently. We provide a brief explanation for each concept, as well as a link or links to additional information. If you have other questions about GiveWell's work, see our FAQ page.

All Grants Fund. This giving fund makes grants on a rolling basis to the most impactful grant opportunities we've identified, regardless of program or location. We recommend the All Grants Fund to donors who wish to support a wide range of grantmaking, including funding opportunities more uncertain or riskier than our Top Charities.

cash transfers. See conditional cash transfers and unconditional cash transfers.

conditional cash transfers. Conditional cash transfers are transfers tied to specific actions recipients take, with the goal of incentivizing those actions. For example, one of GiveWell's Top Charities, New Incentives, offers small cash incentives to increase coverage of routine childhood vaccination in northern Nigeria.

cost to save a life. GiveWell makes grants to fund some of the most cost-effective programs we’ve found at saving lives. The initial outputs of these grants are often quite inexpensive (for example, it costs about $7 to distribute preventive malaria treatment to a child through one malaria season). However, the ultimate cost to avert a death using that treatment is much higher (typically an average of between $3,000 and $5,500), as we explain on this page.

cost-effectiveness. GiveWell research is focused on how much good can be achieved by giving money to a certain program. We try to answer that question by building cost-effectiveness models that allow us to compare one program to another. We currently benchmark the cost-effectiveness of programs we evaluate against the value of unconditional cash transfers as a way to standardize those comparisons. Our bottom-line estimates are always uncertain, but they allow us to direct funding where we believe it will have the greatest impact. More information about our approach to cost-effectiveness can be found here and here.

cost-effectiveness models. GiveWell research is focused on how much good can be achieved by giving money to a certain program—that is, the program's cost-effectiveness. To try to answer that question, we build models that incorporate the cost per person reached and the outcomes of the program (based on the burden of the problem and the program's effect size). We then make a number of adjustments to account for concerns about internal validity and external validity, funging and leverage, and much more. Our bottom-line estimates are always uncertain, but they allow us to compare one program to another so that we can direct funding where we believe it will have the greatest impact. For more detail, see this page.

cost-effectiveness threshold. GiveWell research is focused on how much good can be achieved by giving money to a certain program. We answer that question by building cost-effectiveness models that benchmark programs against the value of unconditional cash transfers. We maintain a minimum cost-effectiveness threshold, or bar, that helps us decide whether to direct funding to a program. See this page for information on our current cost-effectiveness threshold.

counterfactual. The situation that would have occurred had we not taken action. For example, rather than estimating the total number of children reached by a program or the total number of deaths averted, we estimate the counterfactual impact: the number of children who will be reached by an intervention who would not have been reached without our funding, or the number of deaths averted that would not have been averted without our funding. See here for an example.

criteria for grantmaking. GiveWell makes grants to support cost-effective programs that save and improve lives. We assess opportunities based on evidence of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, room for more funding, and transparency. More information about these criteria can be found on this page.

criteria for top charities. The Top Charities that we recommend meet the criteria we use for all of our grantmaking, as well as additional criteria, such as whether we've seen the program operate effectively over time and whether we think there's a high likelihood of substantial impact from funding this program. More information about the additional criteria can be found here.

cross-cutting research. One of GiveWell's research subteams focuses on research questions that are important to how we think about our research more generally. For example, the cross-cutting team has looked at how GiveWell approaches uncertainty and has furthered our approach to moral weights.

development effects. See later-life income effects.

disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). This measure converts the burdens imposed by health issues, such as injuries or premature death, into a consistent unit that can be used to compare across diseases or interventions. We use DALYs in our assessment of a few programs we have funded, such as MiracleFeet's clubfoot treatment program, but it does not play a central role in most of our analyses. For more information, see this blog post.

donations. You can support the organizations GiveWell recommends by using our donation portal (we take no fees). There you can donate to one of GiveWell's giving funds or donate directly to one of the organizations we recommend. For more information about donating, see this page.

effective giving. Not all donations have the same impact. Some programs don't succeed at carrying out the activities they say they will. Others carry out the activities, but they don't make much of a difference. GiveWell's research team spends more than 50,000 hours each year looking for evidence-backed, cost-effective funding opportunities that have a large impact.

evidence. GiveWell's criteria for grantmaking include evidence of effectiveness. We seek out programs that have been studied rigorously and ideally repeatedly, and whose benefits we can reasonably expect to generalize to large populations. Sometimes we find a program that seems promising but has a comparatively thin base of evidence supporting its effectiveness; in some of these cases, we fund research (including randomized controlled trials) to learn more. For more about our approach to evidence, see this page.

expected value. Expected value is calculated by multiplying the probability of each potential outcome by its value, then adding these results together to get the average result of an action. We use expected value to calculate the potential outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the programs we investigate. We make a number of subjective judgments about the probability of various outcomes, such as whether the implementation of a particular program will transition to the local government, and multiply those probabilities by the value of the outcome, such as the cost-effectiveness of our funding if that transition takes place. For more on expected value, see this blog post.

external validity. External validity refers to how well evidence generated by studying one context generalizes to other settings, including variations in program implementation and the contexts where a program is delivered. We make external validity adjustments to our cost-effectiveness models based on how closely we think the evidence base applies to the settings and programs we are considering.

forecasts. For many of our grants, we record the implicit predictions that inform our decisions. We expect to look back to evaluate how well-calibrated and accurate those predictions were. See this grant page for an example of the kinds of forecasts we track. For more information, see this page.

funding bar. See cost-effectiveness threshold.

funding opportunities. GiveWell makes decisions about where to make grants based on cost-effectiveness estimates of specific funding opportunities rather than the cost-effectiveness of a program in general. This is because the same program can vary widely in cost-effectiveness across locations (based mostly on the burden of the disease in a particular area, as well as some other factors). For more information, see this blog post.

funging. Donations from one source can reduce funding from other sources by crowding out funding that would have happened otherwise. What we call "funging" (from fungibility) refers to the effect of crowding out funding that would have otherwise come from other sources. Contrast with "leverage." We account for these effects in our models. For more on funging and leverage, see this blog post.

giving fund. GiveWell has three giving funds for donors with different preferences. By donating to one of the giving funds (All Grants Fund, Top Charities Fund, and Unrestricted Fund), you take advantage of our ongoing research and analysis, ensuring that your gift is allocated to the highest-impact giving opportunities that we’ve identified.

grantmaking. In addition to publishing research and recommending promising programs, GiveWell makes grants to organizations from its giving funds. In 2022, GiveWell recommended grants totaling more than $400 million. For a list of grants that GiveWell has made, see this page, which includes links to the pages we've published about each grant.

history of GiveWell research. GiveWell was founded in 2007. Since then, we have grown, learned, and changed. The history of our research process can be found here.

impact. GiveWell is dedicated to having a substantial impact and funding impactful programs. We describe here how we estimate the impact of the programs we recommend, and we describe GiveWell's impact as an organization here.

insecticide-treated net (ITN). ITNs are nets that 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. We recommend the Against Malaria Foundation, which distributes ITNs, as one of our Top Charities. For more information about the mass distribution of ITNs, see our nets intervention report. For a list of grants GiveWell has recommended for nets, see this list.

internal validity. Internal validity refers to the quality of a research study—that is, the extent to which we can trust that the results of the study are unbiased and accurately reflect the true effect of the program in the population being studied. We make adjustments to our cost-effectiveness models based on our assessment of the internal validity of the studies we're using in our analysis.

judgment calls. GiveWell seeks to recommend funding to cost-effective and impactful programs. We use various types of evidence to evaluate the impact and cost-effectiveness of programs, but the available evidence never answers a question with certainty. As a result, our decision making requires making judgment calls in the face of incomplete information. For more about our use of judgment calls, see this blog post.

later-life income effects. Our best guess is that many interventions that provide health benefits to children lead to small income gains in adulthood, which we call "later-life income effects" (we previously called them "development effects"). We are very uncertain about this benefit but model it in many of our cost-effectiveness analyses. For more information about our approach, see this document.

leverage. Donations from one source can increase funding from other sources by crowding in additional donors. Leverage refers to GiveWell's funding influencing others to provide additional funding. Contrast with funging. We account for these effects in our models. For more on funging and leverage, see this blog post.

livelihoods. One of GiveWell's research subteams focuses on programs that aim to improve household income or consumption, rather than aiming primarily to improve health. We call these "livelihoods" programs.

low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Much of our funding goes to health programs, especially programs that reduce deaths from infectious diseases among young children living in low-income countries. We’ve found donations can often make a much larger impact in low-income countries than in high-income countries.

malaria. Malaria, which is transmitted by infected mosquitoes, killed over 600,000 people in 2022. Malaria is particularly fatal for children under five, who account for approximately three quarters of all malaria deaths worldwide. We have made more than $630 million in grants to malaria prevention programs, and two of GiveWell's Top Charities focus on preventing malaria.

moral weights. In order to compare programs against each other, we need a way to value the outcomes that the programs generate. These subjective valuations—such as the value of averting the death of a five-year-old or doubling an adult's consumption for a year—enable us to assess the relative effectiveness of different programs. For more information about our approach, see this document.

new areas. One of GiveWell's research subteams focuses on researching new areas (that is, areas that aren't covered by our other research subteams). For example, we funded a program that distributes oral rehydration solution and zinc for diarrhea treatment, and have made grants for syphilis screening and treatment (see here and here).

nutrition. Improving nutrition can often be a cost-effective strategy for improving people's well-being. GiveWell has investigated several nutrition-related programs, such as community-based management of acute malnutrition and iron fortification, and we have made several grants for these programs. One of GiveWell's research subteams focuses on nutrition.

official records. As part of our value of transparency, we aim to share as much information as we reasonably can about our organization. This includes audited financial records, official policies, records of all board meetings (including meeting agendas, minutes, and documents discussed at the meetings). These materials can be found on this page.

output versus outcome. GiveWell often funds programs that generate a relatively low-cost output, such as the distribution of an insecticide-treated net or preventive malaria medication. Outputs refer to the measurable activities a donation generates. These outputs lead to outcomes, which are the ultimate impact of the donation, such as saving a life. For more on how GiveWell measures these outputs and outcomes to assess a program's impact, see this page.

program reviews. Our research process operates like a funnel: We conduct short, shallow reviews of a large number of programs, then prioritize more intensive reviews for programs that seem more promising based on our criteria. We write up reviews of the programs we've examined, which can be found here.

randomized controlled trial (RCT). GiveWell's criteria for grantmaking include evidence of effectiveness. Randomized controlled trials are a particularly good method for determining how effective a given program is. In their simplest form, potential participants are randomly assigned either to receive an intervention or not, then researchers measure the differences between the two groups after the intervention is complete. While RCTs are a good way to assess the effectiveness of a program, they are not the only kind of evidence we use. For more on our approach to evidence, see this blog post.

red-teaming. GiveWell is committed to the value of truth-seeking. We want to make the best funding recommendations we can. In order to achieve this, we seek outside critiques of our work, and we also engage in intensive internal peer review. As part of that process, we carry out "red-teaming" exercises in which a group of GiveWell researchers who were not involved in a particular investigation dig into the details of a GiveWell program investigation and try to poke holes in its findings.

repetitive saving. This refers to the possibility that the programs we fund may be averting the deaths of the same high-risk children over and over. If this is the case, we may be overestimating the cost-effectiveness of those programs. Our best guess is that we're only overstating the total lives saved by our Top Charities by around 10%. See this page for a detailed analysis.

research conversations. Our research process involves talking with nonprofit representatives, subject matter experts, and other stakeholders to learn more about potentially promising programs and funding opportunities. We have often published notes summarizing the main points from these conversations; links to those notes can be found here.

research events. We put a lot of effort into making our research process and reasoning transparent. GiveWell holds periodic events throughout the year to answer questions and discuss our research, progress, and plans. Recordings and transcripts of the events are on this page.

research process. GiveWell's research process starts by identifying promising programs and conducting short, shallow reviews. We engage in more intensive reviews for programs that seem more promising, then identify organizations that effectively implement the most promising ones. Details about our full research process can be found on this page.

room for more funding. When we consider directing funding to a program, we ask what activities additional funds to the organization would enable and what the value of those activities would be. We call the amount of funding that an organization could use cost-effectively as its "room for more funding." For more on our approach, see this page.

seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC). SMC involves giving children monthly courses of antimalarial medicines during the high malaria season (in places where malaria is seasonal). It is one of the most promising programs we have identified in recent years. We recommend Malaria Consortium's SMC program as one of our Top Charities. For more information, see our SMC intervention report. For a list of grants GiveWell has recommended for SMC, see this list.

site visits. As part of our research process, we conduct extensive interviews with staff from potential grantee organizations and may visit them to see their work in action. See this page for notes and other information from these site visits.

Top Charities. GiveWell makes recommendations for grants to a range of programs to improve global health and well-being. We identify the programs we have the highest confidence in as "Top Charities." In addition to meeting the criteria we use for all of our grantmaking, our Top Charities must meet additional criteria.

Top Charities Fund. This giving fund makes quarterly grants to support cost-effective funding opportunities at our top charities. We recommend the Top Charities Fund to donors who want to give to high-impact work that GiveWell has a high degree of confidence in.

transparency. Transparency is one of GiveWell's core values. We want readers to be able to understand our reasoning and evaluate it. We also share information about our grantmaking process, feedback we've received, and other information about our organization. For information about our approach to transparency and the information we publish, see this page.

uncertainty. Our research and recommendations inevitably require making judgments with limited information. We have received critiques of our approach to address this. This page responds to those critiques and describes our approach to uncertainty.

unconditional cash transfers. Unconditional cash transfers are cash grants to poor people in low-income countries given without requiring recipients to take any specific action. We use this program as a benchmark for comparing the cost-effectiveness of different funding opportunities.

Unrestricted Fund. This giving fund can be used for any GiveWell priority, including grantmaking and our own operating expenses. The Unrestricted Fund is the maximally flexible way to support GiveWell and our recommendations, and is the best option for donors who want to both support the full spectrum of GiveWell’s grantmaking and underwrite our ability to continue doing what we do.

vaccines. One of GiveWell's research subteams focuses on vaccines. Routine vaccines are effective at reducing childhood mortality, and promoting vaccination can be cost-effective. We have made a number of grants to promote vaccination, and one of our Top Charities, New Incentives, provides incentives to increase coverage of routine childhood vaccination in Nigeria.

values. GiveWell's core values are maximizing global well-being, truth-seeking, transparency, and emphasizing considerateness. More here.

vitamin A supplementation (VAS). VAS is the mass distribution of vitamin A capsules to preschool-age children to reduce child mortality. It is one of the most promising programs we have identified in recent years. We recommend Helen Keller International's VAS program as one of our Top Charities, and we have also made grants to Nutrition International for VAS. For more information, see our VAS intervention report. For a list of grants GiveWell has recommended for VAS, see this list.

water. Waterborne disease is a common cause of diarrhea and death in children in low-income settings. GiveWell has investigated and has made a number of grants for promising programs that aim to reduce the risk of waterborne disease. One of GiveWell's research subteams focuses on water programs; see an overview of the subteam's work here.