Opportunities
Where can help reduce suffering?
Explore what a donation could prevent or relieve, with the costs, assumptions and funding status behind each estimate.
Our first provisional funding estimate focuses on malaria prevention. This list is being expanded as we find opportunities with usable evidence.
Provisional funding estimate
Malaria prevention with AMF
Mosquito nets can prevent painful illness and deaths. This first estimate uses a recent campaign model to explore what future support could achieve.
Funding need reported by AMF
Checked 11 October 2026. Future countries and dates are unassigned.
Our central scenario reduces the reference effect by 25%. All scenarios make the cost, effectiveness and illness choices visible.
Explore the AMF estimate →Acute-malaria USU averted
≈100per $1,000 donated · Central scenario
≈16episodes prevented
≈0.086direct deaths prevented
Young-child benefits only. Three scenarios: about 17, 96 and 373 USU. Provisional WSI judgments, not statistical bounds or a verified return on a particular donation.
Two worked examples
What $1,000 in delivery costs could prevent
The two examples below use full delivery costs before final grant adjustments. The AMF funding estimate above uses a different cost basis and includes future-program assumptions. Read each on its own terms.
Young children’s acute malaria suffering, using the same USU assumptions. Each program uses its full modeled delivery costs. Deaths prevented are a separate outcome.
| Program | Period and population | USU averted per $1,000 | Episodes prevented | Direct deaths prevented | Funding status | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seasonal malaria medicineChad | 2026–27Seasonal rounds Ages 3–59 months | ≈170 | ≈28 | ≈0.17 | Funded grantWorked example | Read → |
| Insecticide-treated netsDR Congo | 2027–29 distributionsThree-year benefit model Under-five population | ≈160 | ≈25 | ≈0.14 | Funded grantSome repeat campaigns conditional | Read → |
All three outcomes are per $1,000. These are modeled program benchmarks, not observed results or verified effects of a new donation. Gross acute-malaria benefit; adverse effects and longer-term effects are unestimated. Headlines use two significant figures.
What the comparison tells us
Similar estimates,
different programs
The central estimates are in the same broad range: approximately 170 USU for Chad and 160 for DR Congo per $1,000 of modeled delivery costs. The available evidence does not establish a reliable winner.
With the same illness courses, the USU comparison mostly follows the number of acute malaria episodes prevented. The value of a common suffering unit becomes more distinct when we compare experiences with different durations or intensities.
Death prevention remains visible alongside USU. The table does not assign USU to lost life years or capture every reason a program might be valuable.
One USU uses a stipulated six-hour kidney-stone pain reference totaling 47.25 intensity-hours. This reference defines the unit; the malaria intensity assignments remain provisional. About the unit
What to check before choosing between programs
Who benefits?
The SMC model targets children aged 3–59 months. The net model covers an under-five population, using a mortality rate for ages 1–59 months. We retain these source definitions rather than make an unsupported age adjustment.
Nets also protect older children and adults. This first comparison charges the full net-program cost while leaving those benefits out. It is a child-focused comparison, not total program value.
For how long, and at what cost?
SMC costs buy a seasonal round. Net benefits accumulate over three years after a distribution, potentially beyond 2029. Both rows count the modeled benefit purchased by $1,000; neither is an annualized score.
Cost estimates come from 2025 and 2026 source models and are not inflation-standardized. Disease risk, coverage and program baselines also differ. The difference between these two scores should not be read as a measured treatment advantage.
Both rows use core program-model outcomes before final grant-level adjustments for monitoring, other funders and supplemental effects. Those choices make the calculation traceable, but they do not establish the impact of marginal funding today.
Test the shared assumptions
Change the illness course for both programs
The same lower, central or higher course is applied to both rows. Program costs and episodes prevented stay fixed.
Chad · Seasonal medicine173USU per $1,000
DR Congo · Mosquito nets155USU per $1,000
Central: nonfatal course, 4 days at intensity 3; fatal course, 4 days at intensity 5.
Rounded to the nearest USU here so you can inspect the calculation. These scenarios only vary the USU mapping.
| Assumptions | Nonfatal days × intensity | Fatal days × intensity | Chad USU | DR Congo USU |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | 2 days × 2 | 2 days × 3 | 58 | 52 |
| Central | 4 days × 3 | 4 days × 5 | 173 | 155 |
| Higher | 7 days × 4 | 7 days × 7 | 405 | 362 |
These are sensitivity scenarios, not confidence intervals or full uncertainty bounds. Changing the same illness assumptions does not test differences in disease burden, costs or real-world effectiveness between the two programs.