the Against Malaria Foundation

What AMF actually is

The Against Malaria Foundation does one thing: it funds long-lasting insecticidal nets and gets them to malaria-endemic regions, where they reduce the bites that transmit the disease.² It is a pure intervention-funder. It does not run a sprawling programme portfolio, and it does not need to, because the intervention it backs is one of the most studied and most cost-effective in global health.

This single-mindedness is why AMF looks so different from a UK household-name charity on paper. It employs around 13 people and is supported by a small number of volunteers, overseen by 7 trustees.¹ It has been registered since 2004.¹ The tiny headcount is the point: AMF buys nets and verifies they are used, and outsources the parts it does not need to own.

Where the money actually goes

For the financial year ending 30 June 2025, AMF reported income of £113.9m and spending of £137.2m.¹ At first glance, spending above income looks like a warning sign. For AMF it is not. It raises money and disburses it for net-distribution campaigns on different cycles, so in any single year the disbursement total can run ahead of, or behind, the money raised that year. The mismatch is timing, not insolvency.

The economics that matter are per-net and per-life. AMF’s own reporting puts the cost of a net at roughly $2, and it states more than 370 million nets funded to date.² GiveWell’s independent estimate is broadly consistent, placing nets at roughly $4 to $6 once distribution and overheads are included, and the all-in cost to avert a death at roughly $3,000 to $8,000.³ Whichever figure you use, this is impact that is measured rather than asserted.

How effective is it

The case for AMF is unusually clean. It is one of four current GiveWell top charities, a list GiveWell maintains precisely to flag the most cost-effective giving opportunities it can find.⁴ The evidence base for insecticide-treated nets is large, and AMF follows up to check nets are distributed and used rather than simply shipped.²

There are honest uncertainties, and GiveWell names them: net durability, how long protection lasts, and insecticide resistance in some regions.³ These temper the precision of the cost-per-life figure, but they do not move AMF out of the top tier. The whole point of the GiveWell process is to price those uncertainties in and still find AMF among the best available.

The bottom line

If your goal is the most measurable good per pound, AMF is close to the benchmark. It is independently verified, almost overhead-free by design, and works on an intervention with strong evidence behind it.³⁴ The spending-above-income line is a cycle artefact, not a red flag.¹

Give with confidence. This is what high-impact giving looks like.