| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | One Acre Fund Seedlings Program | Kenya | Burundi | Rwanda | Malawi | Ethiopia | ||||||||||||||
2 | Scenario | Costs: 3 year base, benefits: 15 years | Costs: faster growth, benefits 15 years | Costs: 3 year base, benefits: 10 years | Costs: 3 year base, benefits: 15 years | Costs: faster growth, benefits 15 years | Costs: 3 year base, benefits: 10 years | Costs: 3 year base, benefits: 15 years | Costs: faster growth, benefits 15 years | Costs: 3 year base, benefits: 10 years | Costs: 3 year base, benefits: 15 years | Costs: faster growth, benefits 15 years | Costs: 3 year base, benefits: 10 years | Costs: 3 year base, benefits: 15 years | Costs: faster growth, benefits 15 years | Costs: 3 year base, benefits: 10 years | ||||
3 | ||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Number of farmers enrolled with a hypothetical donation | |||||||||||||||||||
5 | ||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Arbitrary donation size | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | ||||
7 | Estimated cost per adopting farmer | $4.59 | $4.56 | $4.59 | $9.08 | $7.85 | $9.08 | $1.83 | $1.81 | $1.83 | $9.31 | $7.56 | $9.31 | $20.66 | $17.49 | $20.66 | ||||
8 | Total number of farmers enrolled with hypothetical donation of $100,000 | 21,797 | 21,931 | 21,797 | 11,008 | 12,747 | 11,008 | 54,751 | 55,228 | 54,751 | 10,738 | 13,227 | 10,738 | 4,841 | 5,718 | 4,841 | ||||
9 | ||||||||||||||||||||
10 | Income/consumption effects from training | |||||||||||||||||||
11 | ||||||||||||||||||||
12 | Present value of change in ln(income) due to program among compliers (LATE) over 15 or 10 years | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.12 | 0.31 | 0.31 | 0.30 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.02 | -0.03 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | ||||
13 | Adjustment to acount for seedlings dying after year 1 | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | 96% | ||||
14 | Farmer selection into treatment | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | ||||
15 | Quality of evidence adjustment | 70% | 70% | 70% | 60% | 60% | 60% | 60% | 60% | 60% | 70% | 70% | 70% | 70% | 70% | 70% | ||||
16 | Internal validity adjustment - total | 64% | 64% | 64% | 55% | 55% | 55% | 55% | 55% | 55% | 64% | 64% | 64% | 64% | 64% | 64% | ||||
17 | Additional external validity concerns | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | 95% | ||||
18 | Intuition check - total adjustment (excluding substitution effects) | 61% | 61% | 61% | 52% | 52% | 52% | 52% | 52% | 52% | 61% | 61% | 61% | 61% | 61% | 61% | ||||
19 | Adjusted benefits per farmer in terms of ln(consumption) over 15 or 10 years | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | -0.02 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 | ||||
20 | ||||||||||||||||||||
21 | Results before leverage / funging adjustment | |||||||||||||||||||
22 | ||||||||||||||||||||
23 | Value assigned to increasing ln(consumption) by one unit for one person for one year | 1.44 | 1.44 | 1.44 | 1.44 | 1.44 | 1.44 | 1.44 | 1.44 | 1.44 | 1.44 | 1.44 | 1.44 | 1.44 | 1.44 | 1.44 | ||||
24 | Units of value generated by the program | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 | -0.03 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | ||||
25 | Total units of value generated with hypothetical donation ($100,000) | 2,802 | 2,819 | 2,361 | 2,571 | 2,977 | 2,501 | 3,475 | 3,505 | 1,671 | 154 | 190 | -285 | 393 | 464 | 393 | ||||
26 | ||||||||||||||||||||
27 | Cost-effectiveness in multiples of cash transfers, before adjustments | 8.4 | 8.4 | 7.0 | 7.7 | 8.9 | 7.5 | 10.4 | 10.5 | 5.0 | 0.5 | 0.6 | -0.9 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.2 | ||||
28 | ||||||||||||||||||||
29 | Adjustments for effects excluded from our core model | |||||||||||||||||||
30 | Environmental benefits | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.5% | ||||
31 | Benefits for other crops | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | ||||
32 | Year-to-year spillovers | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | ||||
33 | Spillovers to non-participants | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | ||||
34 | ||||||||||||||||||||
35 | Total adjustment factor for excluded effects | 1.055 | 1.055 | 1.055 | 1.055 | 1.055 | 1.055 | 1.055 | 1.055 | 1.055 | 1.055 | 1.055 | 1.055 | 1.055 | 1.055 | 1.055 | ||||
36 | ||||||||||||||||||||
37 | Results after adjustments for excluded effects | |||||||||||||||||||
38 | ||||||||||||||||||||
39 | Total units of value generated, before accounting for leverage/funging | 2,956 | 2,974 | 2,491 | 2,712 | 3,141 | 2,639 | 3,666 | 3,698 | 1,763 | 163 | 201 | -269 | 414 | 490 | 414 | ||||
40 | Units of value generated per dollar spent, before accounting for leverage/funging | 0.030 | 0.030 | 0.025 | 0.027 | 0.031 | 0.026 | 0.037 | 0.037 | 0.018 | 0.002 | 0.002 | -0.003 | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.004 | ||||
41 | Cost-effectiveness in multiples of cash transfers, before accounting for leverage/funging | 8.8 | 8.9 | 7.4 | 8.1 | 9.4 | 7.9 | 10.9 | 11.0 | 5.3 | 0.5 | 0.6 | -0.8 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.2 | ||||
42 | ||||||||||||||||||||
43 | Leverage/Funging adjustment | |||||||||||||||||||
44 | ||||||||||||||||||||
45 | Total expenditure attributable to different actors: | |||||||||||||||||||
46 | NGO | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | ||||
47 | Other philanthropic actors | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||
48 | Domestic government | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||
49 | Total expenditure | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | ||||
50 | ||||||||||||||||||||
51 | Upstream / downstream expenditure | |||||||||||||||||||
52 | Expenditure causally upstream of our donation | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | ||||
53 | Expenditure causally downstream of our donation | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||
54 | ||||||||||||||||||||
55 | Counterfactual value of spending from non-philanthropic actors (units of value per dollar) | |||||||||||||||||||
56 | Domestic government | 0.0027 | 0.0027 | 0.0027 | 0.0027 | 0.0027 | 0.0027 | 0.0027 | 0.0027 | 0.0027 | 0.0027 | 0.0027 | 0.0027 | 0.0027 | 0.0027 | 0.0027 | ||||
57 | Other philanthropic actors | 0.0167 | 0.0167 | 0.0167 | 0.0167 | 0.0167 | 0.0167 | 0.0167 | 0.0167 | 0.0167 | 0.0167 | 0.0167 | 0.0167 | 0.0167 | 0.0167 | 0.0167 | ||||
58 | ||||||||||||||||||||
59 | Probability of scenarios in absence of philanthropic funding | |||||||||||||||||||
60 | Scenario 1: Government costs would replace philanthropic costs | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||||
61 | Scenario 2: Other philanthropic actors would replace philanthropic costs | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | ||||
62 | Scenario 3: Program would go unfunded | 85% | 85% | 85% | 85% | 85% | 85% | 85% | 85% | 85% | 85% | 85% | 85% | 85% | 85% | 85% | ||||
63 | ||||||||||||||||||||
64 | What fraction of the program would still happen? | |||||||||||||||||||
65 | Scenario 1: Government costs would replace philanthropic costs | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | ||||
66 | Scenario 2: Other philanthropic actors would replace philanthropic costs | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | ||||
67 | Scenario 3: Program would go unfunded | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||||
68 | ||||||||||||||||||||
69 | Expected change in amount of funding spent on Community Health Program by other actors in absence of philanthropic spending | |||||||||||||||||||
70 | Scenario 1: Government costs would replace philanthropic costs | |||||||||||||||||||
71 | Other philanthropic actors | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||
72 | Government financial costs | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | ||||
73 | Government in-kind costs | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||
74 | ||||||||||||||||||||
75 | Scenario 2: Other philanthropic actors would replace philanthropic costs | |||||||||||||||||||
76 | Other philanthropic actors | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 | ||||
77 | Government financial costs | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||
78 | Government in-kind costs | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||
79 | ||||||||||||||||||||
80 | Scenario 3: Program would go unfunded | |||||||||||||||||||
81 | Other philanthropic actors | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||
82 | Government financial costs | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||
83 | Government in-kind costs | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||
84 | ||||||||||||||||||||
85 | Units of value generated by changes in amount of funding spent on Community Health Program by other actors in absence of philanthropic spending | |||||||||||||||||||
86 | Scenario 1: Government costs would replace philanthropic costs | |||||||||||||||||||
87 | Other philanthropic actors | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
88 | Government financial costs | 2,956 | 2,974 | 2,491 | 2,712 | 3,141 | 2,639 | 3,666 | 3,698 | 1,763 | 163 | 201 | -269 | 414 | 490 | 414 | ||||
89 | Government in-kind costs | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
90 | ||||||||||||||||||||
91 | Scenario 2: Other philanthropic actors would replace philanthropic costs | |||||||||||||||||||
92 | Other philanthropic actors | 2,956 | 2,974 | 2,491 | 2,712 | 3,141 | 2,639 | 3,666 | 3,698 | 1,763 | 163 | 201 | -269 | 414 | 490 | 414 | ||||
93 | Government financial costs | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
94 | Government in-kind costs | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
95 | ||||||||||||||||||||
96 | Scenario 3: Program would go unfunded | |||||||||||||||||||
97 | Other philanthropic actors | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
98 | Government financial costs | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
99 | Government in-kind costs | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
100 | ||||||||||||||||||||