august 2004 ; 12 years ago august 2004 founder rob mather purpose preventing malaria location london united kingdom area served sub saharan africa key people rob mather sean good andrew garner peter sherratt 1 website www.againstmalaria.com the against malaria foundation amf is a united kingdom based charity 2 that provides long lasting insecticidal nets llins to populations at high risk of malaria primarily in africa . as of july 2016 update the foundation has raised 86.6 million 3 and distributed or committed to fund 19.3 million llins 4 since its founding in 2004 . amf estimates that as of july 2016 update the average cost of an llin is 2.50 5 which does not include distribution costs ; givewell s estimates include this cost . llins are distributed through partnerships with the international red cross the malaria consortium and others with partners responsible for all costs of distribution . distributions include malaria education for the local population and they are documented through reports photos and video . 6 post distribution check ups are carried out 6 12 18 24 and 30 months after the initial distribution to assess net usage and conditions . 7 4 amf has eight trustees and an advisory committee drawn from leading malaria experts around the world . 8 the charity is registered in the united kingdom and governed by the laws of england and wales . it is also registered in the usa germany canada japan and other countries . 9 givewell an independent charity evaluator named amf its top rated charity worldwide in 2011 and 2012 10 but removed it from its list of charities in november 2013 due to room for more funding related issues . it was once again recommended by givewell in 2014 . 11 in 2015 givewell again listed amf as a top charity recommended a 22.8 million grant from good ventures to amf and identified an additional funding gap of 75.4 million for the organization of which 27.5 million would be needed for the organization s planned activities for the coming year . they identified amf s funding gap as the most critical of the funding gaps of all their top charities and their recommended allocation to donors was to give all their donation to amf . 12 the status was reaffirmed in the mid 2016 top charities refresh with updates to the estimated funding gap . 13 contents 1 history 2 approach 3 partners and supporters 4 givewell review 4.1 cost per life saved estimates 4.2 2016 mid year review 4.3 2015 review and continued inclusion in top charity list 4.4 2014 review and reinstatement to top charity status 4.5 2013 review update and removal from list of top charities 4.6 2012 review and top charity status 4.7 2011 review and top charity status 4.8 2010 review and silver medal status 5 other external reviews 5.1 giving what we can 5.2 the life you can save 6 references 7 external links history edit the against malaria foundation was set up in august 2004 14 with the purpose of handling money raised through the world swim against malaria a global fundraising event scheduled for december 3 2005 . more than 250 000 people participated in the swim which raised 1.3 million to buy mosquito nets . the money was used to buy 270 000 nets which were distributed to protect an estimated 540 000 people from the risk of mosquito borne malaria infection . 15 the world swim against malaria was the brainchild of rob mather a london based strategy consultant . mather had earlier organized a swim to raise money for a 2 year old girl who was badly burned in a house fire . held in december 2003 the swim for terri 16 started as a three person fundraiser and grew to include 10 000 swimmers in 73 countries . in 2012 amf did not undertake all planned distributions due to safety concerns in mali and concerns about transparency with potential partners in malawi and togo . 17 in may 2016 amf began accepting bitcoins for donations . 18 approach edit one hundred percent of funds raised through amf s website are used to purchase bednets according to the foundation s founders . 19 distribution and education costs are covered by distribution partners . administrative costs are covered by the charity s trustees and a small group of private donors . the foundation also benefits from in kind contributions of services from lawyers accountants advertising agencies professional translators web technologists and others . 20 in 2010 amf took in 1.3 million and spent 1.6 million with 1.4 million going directly to charitable activities . 2 the sequence for each distribution is as follows 21 a distribution partner submits to amf a proposal to distribute mosquito nets in a targeted high risk area . amf s malaria advisory group reviews the proposal with requests for further information if necessary . the group approves amends or rejects the proposal based on available funding and the needs of the target area . amf and the distribution partner sign a contract laying out each party s obligations . amf raises the funds for the nets and purchases them directly from the manufacturer while the distribution partner covers all non net costs . the nets constitute the majority of the distribution s costs . in some cases the partner will raise funds through amf s website in which case all funds raised are ring fenced for the partner s proposed distribution . all details of each distribution are made available to the public on dedicated distribution pages . after sufficient funds have been raised the distribution partner arranges the distribution logistics with the targeted community and pays for the nets to be shipped and stored nearby . the distribution partner distributes the nets in the targeted community and offers education on proper usage of the nets as well as general malaria education . as per the agreement with amf the partner documents the distribution via reports photo and video . the distribution partner files a post distribution report with amf . the partner carries out post distribution surveys 6 18 30 and 42 months after the distribution to monitor net usage and conditions . the partner collects malaria case rate data on a quarterly basis and emails the information to amf . partners and supporters edit amf is supported by more than 100 corporations . 22 amf s principal partners are pwc citigroup speedo microsoft allen & overy attenda vestergaard frandsen and sumitomo chemical . speedo also partnered with amf s precursor organization world swim against malaria and continues to raise money for bednets through swimming events . 23 amf s principal distribution partners are population services international the malaria consortium partners in health the red cross world vision and concern universal . 24 sixty organizations fundraise for bednets using amf s website or their own . 25 givewell review edit charity evaluator givewell listed amf as its top rated charity in 2011 and 2012 removed it from the top rated charity list in november 2013 26 and reinstated it as a top rated charity in 2014 . givewell s reviews and recommendations of amf have been cited in the new york times 27 and the chronicle of philanthropy . 26 details of givewell s reviews are below . cost per life saved estimates edit givewell s estimate of the cost per life saved for amf has varied over the years . the estimates are summarized below . 28 review date estimated cost per long lasting insecticide net distributed estimated cost per life saved june 2016 29 4.47 for distributions being considered in the near future 3 500 november 2015 30 5.31 but possibly higher for some distributions 2 838 assuming the 5.31 figure november 2014 31 5.80 averaged across different distribution types 3 340 32 33 november 2013 34 6.13 3 400 november 2012 35 5.15 marginal 5.54 total 2 300 using marginal cost 2 500 using total cost 36 november 2011 37 5.15 marginal 5.54 total 1 600 using marginal cost 1 700 using total cost 2016 mid year review edit in june 2016 givewell published an updated review of amf 29 and published an update to its top charity list based on that . 13 amf was in the list of top charities and givewell recommended to donors to allocate all their money to amf whose funding gap givewell considered most pressing . 13 using its room for more funding philosophy givewell identified the following funding gaps for amf note that totals may not exactly match due to rounding . level meaning additional funding gap cumulative funding gap execution level 1 more than 50 % chance of not being funding bottlenecked over the coming year 11.3 million 11.3 million execution level 2 more than 80 % chance of not being funding bottlenecked over the coming year 7.3 million 18.6 million execution level 3 more than 95 % chance of not being funding bottlenecked over the coming year 10.5 million 29.1 million 2015 review and continued inclusion in top charity list edit in november 2015 givewell updated its review of amf 30 and published an updated list of its top charities along with grant recommendations made to good ventures for these top charities . amf was in the top charity list and givewell recommended a 22.8 million grant to the organization . moreover givewell recommended that individual donors who wished to follow its recommended allocation donate all their marginal funds to amf since it had the largest clear funding gap after accounting for the grants being made by good ventures . 12 using its room for more funding philosophy givewell identified the following funding gaps for amf note that totals may not exactly match due to rounding . level funding gap part of funding gap covered by good ventures cumulative funding gap part of cumulative funding gap covered by good ventures part of cumulative funding gap left for other donors capacity relevant crucial for the organization s development and success ; if they don t get this their future is in jeopardy 6.5 million 6.5 million 100 % 6.5 million 6.5 million 100 % 0 execution level 1 the amount over and above the capacity relevant amount that the charity would need to execute projects in the coming year 43.8 million 16.3 million 37 % 50.3 million 22.8 million 45.3 % 27.5 million givewell considers this funding gap the most important of all its top charity funding gaps this year and does not expect the full funding gap to be closed . hence it recommends all donations be directed to amf . execution level 2 if the organization has this amount over and above execution level 1 there is a 80 % chance they will not be bottlenecked for funding 24 million 0 0 % 74.2 million 22.8 million 30.7 % 51.4 million execution level 3 if the organization has this amount over and above execution level 2 there is a 95 % chance they will not be bottlenecked for funding 24 million 0 0 % 98.2 million 22.8 million 23.2 % 75.4 million 2014 review and reinstatement to top charity status edit in november 2014 givewell published an updated review of amf . 31 based on this in december 2014 givewell reinstated against malaria foundation as one of four top charities citing the fact that amf had successfully committed the bulk of its current funds to distributions of long lasting insecticidal nets an expectation that amf s programmes would continue to be exceptionally cost effective and amf s willingness to transparently communicate its successes and failures . 11 givewell also named deworm the world initiative givedirectly and schistosomiasis control initiative as top charities stating that reasonable people could reach a very wide variety of conclusions regarding which charity accomplishes the most good per dollar . based on givewell s recommendation good ventures donated 5 million to amf . taking