| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | AA | AB | AC | AD | AE | AF | AG | AH | AI | AJ | AK | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Helen Keller International | Helen Keller International | Helen Keller International | Nutrition International | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Burkina Faso | Cameroon | Côte d'Ivoire | DRC | Guinea | Kenya | Madagascar | Mali | Niger | Nigeria | Nigeria | Nigeria | Nigeria | Nigeria | Nigeria | Nigeria | Nigeria | Nigeria | Nigeria | Nigeria | Nigeria | Nigeria | Nigeria | Nigeria | Angola | Chad | Togo | Uganda | ||||||||||
3 | Supplemental calculations for the leverage/funging adjustment | unit | type | Overall | Adamawa | Akwa Ibom | Anambra | Benue | Delta | Ebonyi | Edo | Ekiti | Imo | Kogi | Nasarawa | Ogun | Osun | Rivers | Taraba | |||||||||||||||||||
4 | Final cost-effectiveness estimate (pulled from "Main calcs" sheet for visibility) | xbenchmark | main | - | 22.6 | 15.9 | 8.5 | 16.9 | 10.9 | 4.8 | 15.9 | 32.8 | 59.3 | 21.5 | 4.4 | 2.3 | 9.5 | 5.2 | 13.5 | 3.8 | 5.9 | 3.2 | 4.2 | 12.0 | 4.8 | 2.3 | 7.7 | 29.0 | 5.6 | 20.1 | 14.9 | 6.3 | ||||||
5 | Costs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | GiveWell costs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | Grant size | $ | input | $1,000,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||
9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | Cost breakdown | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | Percentage of total costs covered by the grantee | % | input | - | 43% | 64% | 47% | 47% | 55% | 47% | 60% | 43% | 36% | 47% | 47% | 47% | 47% | 47% | 47% | 47% | 47% | 47% | 47% | 47% | 47% | 47% | 47% | 47% | 70% | 70% | 70% | 70% | ||||||
12 | Percentage of total costs covered by Nutrition International (vitamin A capsule procurement) | % | input | - | 6% | 6% | 7% | 7% | 5% | 7% | 7% | 8% | 8% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||||||
13 | Percentage of total costs covered by other philanthropic actors | % | input | - | 6% | 0% | 13% | 13% | 10% | 13% | 0% | 18% | 26% | 13% | 13% | 13% | 13% | 13% | 13% | 13% | 13% | 13% | 13% | 13% | 13% | 13% | 13% | 13% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||||||
14 | Percentage of total costs covered by domestic governments (financial contributions) | % | input | - | 15% | 0% | 3% | 3% | 0% | 3% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||||||
15 | Percentage of total costs covered by domestic governments (in-kind contributions) | % | input | - | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | 30% | ||||||
16 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
17 | Total costs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 | Total spending by all contributors | $ | main | - | $2,319,842 | $1,561,670 | $2,145,967 | $2,145,967 | $1,809,082 | $2,145,967 | $1,671,375 | $2,312,317 | $2,764,820 | $2,145,967 | $2,145,967 | $2,145,967 | $2,145,967 | $2,145,967 | $2,145,967 | $2,145,967 | $2,145,967 | $2,145,967 | $2,145,967 | $2,145,967 | $2,145,967 | $2,145,967 | $2,145,967 | $2,145,967 | $1,428,571 | $1,428,571 | $1,428,571 | $1,428,571 | ||||||
19 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20 | Total spending attributable to different actors | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 | Total spending contributed by grantee | $ | main | - | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | ||||||
22 | Total spending contributed by Nutrition International (vitamin A capsule procurement) | $ | main | - | $148,960 | $93,169 | $149,591 | $149,591 | $88,034 | $149,591 | $116,508 | $195,582 | $218,092 | $149,591 | $149,591 | $149,591 | $149,591 | $149,591 | $149,591 | $149,591 | $149,591 | $149,591 | $149,591 | $149,591 | $149,591 | $149,591 | $149,591 | $149,591 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||
23 | Total spending contributed by other philanthropic actors | $ | main | - | $131,162 | $0 | $283,953 | $283,953 | $178,323 | $283,953 | $0 | $423,039 | $717,282 | $283,953 | $283,953 | $283,953 | $283,953 | $283,953 | $283,953 | $283,953 | $283,953 | $283,953 | $283,953 | $283,953 | $283,953 | $283,953 | $283,953 | $283,953 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||
24 | Total spending contributed by domestic governments (financial contributions) | $ | main | - | $343,768 | $0 | $68,633 | $68,633 | $0 | $68,633 | $53,454 | $0 | $0 | $68,633 | $68,633 | $68,633 | $68,633 | $68,633 | $68,633 | $68,633 | $68,633 | $68,633 | $68,633 | $68,633 | $68,633 | $68,633 | $68,633 | $68,633 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||
25 | Total spending contributed by domestic governments (in-kind contributions) | $ | main | - | $695,953 | $468,501 | $643,790 | $643,790 | $542,725 | $643,790 | $501,412 | $693,695 | $829,446 | $643,790 | $643,790 | $643,790 | $643,790 | $643,790 | $643,790 | $643,790 | $643,790 | $643,790 | $643,790 | $643,790 | $643,790 | $643,790 | $643,790 | $643,790 | $428,571 | $428,571 | $428,571 | $428,571 | ||||||
26 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 | Upstream / downstream spending | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 | Total spending causally upstream of donations to grantee | $ | main | - | $1,474,930 | $1,000,000 | $1,352,586 | $1,352,586 | $1,178,323 | $1,352,586 | $1,053,454 | $1,423,039 | $1,717,282 | $1,352,586 | $1,352,586 | $1,352,586 | $1,352,586 | $1,352,586 | $1,352,586 | $1,352,586 | $1,352,586 | $1,352,586 | $1,352,586 | $1,352,586 | $1,352,586 | $1,352,586 | $1,352,586 | $1,352,586 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | ||||||
29 | Total spending causally downstream of donations to grantee | $ | main | - | $844,913 | $561,670 | $793,381 | $793,381 | $630,759 | $793,381 | $617,920 | $889,277 | $1,047,538 | $793,381 | $793,381 | $793,381 | $793,381 | $793,381 | $793,381 | $793,381 | $793,381 | $793,381 | $793,381 | $793,381 | $793,381 | $793,381 | $793,381 | $793,381 | $428,571 | $428,571 | $428,571 | $428,571 | ||||||
30 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 | Counterfactual funding scenarios | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
32 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
33 | Probability of scenarios in the absence of philanthropic funding | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
34 | Scenario 1: Domestic governments would replace the grantee's costs | % | input | - | 10% | 5% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 5% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | ||||||
35 | Scenario 2: Other philanthropic actors would replace the grantee's costs | % | input | - | 20% | 33% | 35% | 10% | 35% | 25% | 20% | 25% | 20% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 30% | 40% | 30% | 30% | ||||||
36 | Scenario 3: Other actors' upstream costs would stay the same (downstream costs would shrink in proportion to the total size of the program) | % | input | - | 70% | 62% | 55% | 80% | 55% | 65% | 75% | 65% | 70% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 60% | 50% | 60% | 60% | ||||||
37 | Scenario 4: Distributions would go unfunded | % | calc | - | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||||||
38 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
39 | Proportion of the program that would still occur in each scenario | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40 | Scenario 1: Domestic governments would replace the grantee's costs | % | input | 100% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||
41 | Scenario 2: Other philanthropic actors would replace the grantee's costs | % | input | 100% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||
42 | Scenario 3: Other actors' upstream costs would stay the same (downstream costs would shrink in proportion to the total size of the program) | % | calc | - | 32% | 0% | 26% | 26% | 15% | 26% | 5% | 30% | 42% | 26% | 26% | 26% | 26% | 26% | 26% | 26% | 26% | 26% | 26% | 26% | 26% | 26% | 26% | 26% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||||||
43 | Scenario 4: Distributions would go unfunded | % | input | 0% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||
44 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
45 | Value of spending | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
47 | Cost-effectiveness of the program (before leverage and funging) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
48 | Units of value generated per dollar spent (before final adjustments) | UoV | main | - | 0.082 | 0.063 | 0.035 | 0.055 | 0.046 | 0.019 | 0.054 | 0.130 | 0.218 | 0.074 | 0.016 | 0.009 | 0.034 | 0.019 | 0.047 | 0.014 | 0.021 | 0.012 | 0.015 | 0.042 | 0.017 | 0.009 | 0.027 | 0.100 | 0.021 | 0.099 | 0.062 | 0.026 | ||||||
49 | Total supplemental grantee-level adjustment | % | main | - | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -24% | -24% | -24% | -24% | ||||||
50 | Total supplemental intervention-level adjustment | % | main | - | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | 67% | ||||||
51 | Units of value generated per dollar donated to grantee (after supplemental adjustments) | UoV | calc | - | 0.106 | 0.081 | 0.046 | 0.071 | 0.060 | 0.025 | 0.070 | 0.168 | 0.283 | 0.097 | 0.021 | 0.011 | 0.044 | 0.024 | 0.061 | 0.018 | 0.027 | 0.015 | 0.020 | 0.054 | 0.023 | 0.012 | 0.035 | 0.130 | 0.026 | 0.125 | 0.078 | 0.034 | ||||||
52 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
53 | Lives saved by the program (before leverage and funging) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
54 | Total lives saved (before final adjustments) | # | main | - | 553 | 424 | 239 | 371 | 313 | 128 | 365 | 878 | 1,475 | 503 | 108 | 60 | 227 | 127 | 319 | 95 | 143 | 79 | 103 | 283 | 118 | 60 | 184 | 676 | 141 | 670 | 416 | 179 | ||||||
55 | Total supplemental grantee-level adjustment | % | calc | - | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -22% | -24% | -24% | -24% | -24% | ||||||
56 | Total supplemental intervention-level adjustment affecting lives saved | % | main | - | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | ||||||
57 | Total lives saved (after supplemental adjustments) | # | calc | - | 438 | 336 | 190 | 294 | 248 | 102 | 289 | 695 | 1167 | 398 | 86 | 47 | 180 | 100 | 253 | 75 | 113 | 63 | 82 | 224 | 93 | 48 | 146 | 535 | 109 | 517 | 321 | 138 | ||||||
58 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
59 | Counterfactual value of spending from non-philanthropic actors | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
60 | Counterfactual value per dollar spent by domestic governments on VAS programs | UoV | input | 0.005 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||
61 | Counterfactual value per dollar spent by Nutrition International | UoV | input | 0.006 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||
62 | Counterfactual value per dollar spent by other philanthropic actors supporting VAS campaigns | UoV | input | - | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.006 | 0.012 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.006 | ||||||
63 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
64 | Value generated across different counterfactual scenarios | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
65 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
66 | Scenario 1: Domestic governments would replace the grantee's spending | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
67 | Hypothetical impact of shifting government spending | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
68 | Amount of spending domestic governments would shift to the grantee program | $ | calc | - | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | ||||||
69 | Value generated by shifting government spending to the grantee program | UoV | calc | - | 106,247 | 81,376 | 45,978 | 71,267 | 60,187 | 24,661 | 70,064 | 168,488 | 283,130 | 96,595 | 20,826 | 11,468 | 43,536 | 24,308 | 61,254 | 18,157 | 27,403 | 15,241 | 19,824 | 54,404 | 22,666 | 11,567 | 35,356 | 129,817 | 26,403 | 125,336 | 77,833 | 33,529 | ||||||
70 | Value lost by shifting spending away from programs domestic governments would otherwise have funded | UoV | calc | - | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | 5,057 | ||||||
71 | Net value generated by shifting government spending to the grantee program | UoV | calc | - | 101,190 | 76,319 | 40,921 | 66,210 | 55,130 | 19,604 | 65,007 | 163,431 | 278,073 | 91,538 | 15,769 | 6,411 | 38,479 | 19,251 | 56,197 | 13,100 | 22,346 | 10,184 | 14,767 | 49,347 | 17,609 | 6,510 | 30,299 | 124,760 | 21,346 | 120,279 | 72,776 | 28,472 | ||||||
72 | Change in value generated by the grantee program if this scenario represented the true counterfactual | UoV | calc | - | -101,190 | -76,319 | -40,921 | -66,210 | -55,130 | -19,604 | -65,007 | -163,431 | -278,073 | -91,538 | -15,769 | -6,411 | -38,479 | -19,251 | -56,197 | -13,100 | -22,346 | -10,184 | -14,767 | -49,347 | -17,609 | -6,510 | -30,299 | -124,760 | -21,346 | -120,279 | -72,776 | -28,472 | ||||||
73 | Probability of this scenario representing the true counterfactual | % | feed | - | 10% | 5% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 5% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | ||||||
74 | Expected change in value generated by the grantee program | UoV | calc | - | -10,119 | -3,816 | -4,092 | -6,621 | -5,513 | -1,960 | -3,250 | -16,343 | -27,807 | -9,154 | -1,577 | -641 | -3,848 | -1,925 | -5,620 | -1,310 | -2,235 | -1,018 | -1,477 | -4,935 | -1,761 | -651 | -3,030 | -12,476 | -2,135 | -12,028 | -7,278 | -2,847 | ||||||
75 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
76 | Scenario 2: Other philanthropic actors would replace the grantee's spending | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
77 | Hypothetical impact of shifting other philanthropic actors' spending | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
78 | Amount of spending other philanthropic actors would shift to the grantee program | $ | calc | - | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | ||||||
79 | Value generated by shifting other philanthropic actors' spending to the grantee program | UoV | calc | - | 106,247 | 81,376 | 45,978 | 71,267 | 60,187 | 24,661 | 70,064 | 168,488 | 283,130 | 96,595 | 20,826 | 11,468 | 43,536 | 24,308 | 61,254 | 18,157 | 27,403 | 15,241 | 19,824 | 54,404 | 22,666 | 11,567 | 35,356 | 129,817 | 26,403 | 125,336 | 77,833 | 33,529 | ||||||
80 | Value lost by shifting spending away from programs the other philanthropic actors would otherwise have funded | UoV | calc | - | 12,310 | 12,310 | 12,310 | 12,310 | 12,310 | 5,639 | 12,310 | 5,639 | 5,639 | 5,639 | 5,639 | 5,639 | 5,639 | 5,639 | 5,639 | 5,639 | 5,639 | 5,639 | 5,639 | 5,639 | 5,639 | 5,639 | 5,639 | 5,639 | 12,310 | 12,310 | 12,310 | 5,639 | ||||||
81 | Net value generated by shifting other philanthropic actors' spending to the grantee program | UoV | calc | - | 93,937 | 69,066 | 33,668 | 58,957 | 47,877 | 19,022 | 57,754 | 162,849 | 277,491 | 90,956 | 15,187 | 5,829 | 37,897 | 18,669 | 55,615 | 12,517 | 21,763 | 9,602 | 14,185 | 48,764 | 17,027 | 5,928 | 29,717 | 124,178 | 14,093 | 113,026 | 65,523 | 27,890 | ||||||
82 | Change in value generated by the grantee program if this scenario represented the true counterfactual | UoV | calc | - | -93,937 | -69,066 | -33,668 | -58,957 | -47,877 | -19,022 | -57,754 | -162,849 | -277,491 | -90,956 | -15,187 | -5,829 | -37,897 | -18,669 | -55,615 | -12,517 | -21,763 | -9,602 | -14,185 | -48,764 | -17,027 | -5,928 | -29,717 | -124,178 | -14,093 | -113,026 | -65,523 | -27,890 | ||||||
83 | Probability of this scenario representing the true counterfactual | % | feed | - | 20% | 33% | 35% | 10% | 35% | 25% | 20% | 25% | 20% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 30% | 40% | 30% | 30% | ||||||
84 | Expected change in value generated by the grantee program | UoV | calc | - | -18,787 | -22,792 | -11,784 | -5,896 | -16,757 | -4,756 | -11,551 | -40,712 | -55,498 | -13,643 | -2,278 | -874 | -5,685 | -2,800 | -8,342 | -1,878 | -3,265 | -1,440 | -2,128 | -7,315 | -2,554 | -889 | -4,457 | -18,627 | -4,228 | -45,210 | -19,657 | -8,367 | ||||||
85 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
86 | Scenario 3: Other actors would spend the same amount and the program would be smaller | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
87 | Hypothetical impact of shifting government spending | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
88 | Amount of spending domestic governments would shift away from the grantee program | $ | calc | - | $471,855 | $468,501 | $475,970 | $475,970 | $460,591 | $475,970 | $475,970 | $487,474 | $482,999 | $475,970 | $475,970 | $475,970 | $475,970 | $475,970 | $475,970 | $475,970 | $475,970 | $475,970 | $475,970 | $475,970 | $475,970 | $475,970 | $475,970 | $475,970 | $428,571 | $428,571 | $428,571 | $428,571 | ||||||
89 | Value generated by shifting spending toward programs domestic governments would otherwise have supported | UoV | calc | - | 2,386 | 2,369 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,329 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,465 | 2,443 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,167 | 2,167 | 2,167 | 2,167 | ||||||
90 | Value lost by shifting government spending away from the grantee program | UoV | calc | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
91 | Net value generated by shifting government spending away from the grantee program | UoV | calc | - | 2,386 | 2,369 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,329 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,465 | 2,443 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,407 | 2,167 | 2,167 | 2,167 | 2,167 | ||||||
92 | Hypothetical impact of shifting Nutrition International's spending | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
93 | Amount of spending Nutrition International would shift away from the grantee program | $ | calc | - | $100,995 | $93,169 | $110,596 | $110,596 | $74,712 | $110,596 | $110,596 | $137,440 | $126,998 | $110,596 | $110,596 | $110,596 | $110,596 | $110,596 | $110,596 | $110,596 | $110,596 | $110,596 | $110,596 | $110,596 | $110,596 | $110,596 | $110,596 | $110,596 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||||||
94 | Value generated by shifting spending toward programs Nutrition International would otherwise have supported | UoV | calc | - | 570 | 525 | 624 | 624 | 421 | 624 | 624 | 775 | 716 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
95 | Value lost by shifting Nutrition International's spending away from the grantee program | UoV | calc | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
96 | Net value generated by shifting Nutrition International's spending away from the grantee program | UoV | calc | - | 570 | 525 | 624 | 624 | 421 | 624 | 624 | 775 | 716 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 624 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
97 | Overall impact of shifting spending | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
98 | Change in value generated by the grantee program if this scenario represented the true counterfactual | UoV | calc | - | -2,956 | -2,895 | -3,031 | -3,031 | -2,751 | -3,031 | -3,031 | -3,240 | -3,159 | -3,031 | -3,031 | -3,031 | -3,031 | -3,031 | -3,031 | -3,031 | -3,031 | -3,031 | -3,031 | -3,031 | -3,031 | -3,031 | -3,031 | -3,031 | -2,167 | -2,167 | -2,167 | -2,167 | ||||||
99 | Probability of this scenario representing the true counterfactual | % | feed | - | 70% | 62% | 55% | 80% | 55% | 65% | 75% | 65% | 70% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 75% | 60% | 50% | 60% | 60% | ||||||
100 | Expected change in value generated by the program | UoV | calc | - | -2,069 | -1,795 | -1,667 | -2,425 | -1,513 | -1,970 | -2,273 | -2,106 | -2,211 | -2,273 | -2,273 | -2,273 | -2,273 | -2,273 | -2,273 | -2,273 | -2,273 | -2,273 | -2,273 | -2,273 | -2,273 | -2,273 | -2,273 | -2,273 | -1,300 | -1,084 | -1,300 | -1,300 | ||||||