What this is: Rough back-of-the-envelope calculation (BOTEC) to estimate value of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) grant.

This assumes that cost effectiveness of opportunities decays over 10-year period. Using similar value to other value of information BOTECs. The value here is subjective. This could also incorporate probability of fundamental changes that render the program ineffective (i.e., temporal uncertainty).

Assumption based on internal data provided by MiracleFeet. If we didn't fund the evaluation, we would only fund a portion of the gaps we estimate to be above 10x.

This is our current best guess of the cost-effectiveness of MiracleFeet funding gaps above our bar of 10x cash.

Guess. Assumes that it is equally likely that the evaluation will cause us to update positively, negatively, or with no change to our cost-effectiveness estimate but a reduction in variance.

Assumes that only funding gaps which are above 12x cash in our current best guess would be above 10x cash in the event of a negative update.

Guess. Assumes that with a negative update our estimate of opportunities above the 10x bar would decrease by 20%

The increase in units of value for this scenario comes from reallocating funding away from MiracleFeet’s program and toward counterfactual funding opportunities.

Guess. Assumes that it is equally likely that the evaluation will cause us to update positively, negatively, or with no change to our cost-effectiveness estimate but a reduction in variance.

Guess. Assumes funding gaps estimated to be 8x cash in our current best guess are actually at 10x cash in the event of a positive update.

Guess. Assumes that with a positive update, all opportunities we currently estimate at above the 8x bar would increase in cost effectiveness by 20%. (Note: This calculation assumes that the positive update applies to the entire portfolio and so begins with our weighted average CE of all opportunities above the 8x threshold, which is approximately 11.6x)

The increase in units of value for this scenario comes from reallocating funding toward MiracleFeet’s program and away from counterfactual funding opportunities.

Guess. Assumes that it is equally likely that the evaluation will cause us to update positively, negatively, or with no change to our cost-effectiveness estimate but a reduction in variance.

If the evaluation provides no update on cost-effectiveness, we would fund those gaps we currently estimate to be above 10x (as in scenario 0).

This is our current best guess of the cost-effectiveness of MiracleFeet funding gaps above our bar of 10x cash.

This is calculated here in the cost-effectiveness analysis for the MiracleFeet implementation grant.

Calculation; the amount of the implementation grant can be found here.