What this is: Rough BOTEC to estimate value of evaluation grant. This tab provides a summary of calculations. Details are in the "Detailed Calculations" tab.

Guess. We guess there's a 20% chance the study identifies approaches that increase cost-effectiveness by 10%, so we use a best guess of 20% * 10% = 2%.

If we didn't fund the evaluation, we would use our current best guess of cost-effectiveness and recommend funding to areas that are above the cost-effectiveness of the counterfactual program. See "Detailed Calculations" tab for details.

This is our current best guess of the cost-effectiveness of IRD gaps we would recommend funding. See "Detailed Calculations" tab for details.

Guess. We guess there's a 65% chance we'd put substantial weight on the results and a 25% chance that these results would provide a negative update on cost-effectiveness. This gets us to roughly 15% (65% x 25%).

If the evaluation provides a negative update on cost-effectiveness, we would reduce the amount we recommend to IRD since there would be fewer gaps that are above the bar. See "Detailed Calculations" tab for details.

This is the cost-effectiveness we would expect for IRD gaps we would recommend funding, conditional on getting a negative update. This also incorporates any increase in cost-effectiveness from the evaluation itself. See "Detailed Calculations" tab for details.

The increase in units of value for this scenario comes from reallocating funding away from IRD’s program and toward counterfactual funding opportunities. In this case, we learn that $4 million in funding gaps to IRD are below our cost-effectiveness threshold of 5x and reallocate that funding to opportunities that are 5x. There is also a benefit of the evaluation increasing cost-effectiveness directly so that even if funding were not reallocated, any funding to IRD’s program would achieve more units of value for the same dollar amount. See “Detailed Calculations” tab for calculations.

Guess. We guess there's a 65% chance we'd put substantial weight on the results and a 25% chance that these results would provide a positive update on cost-effectiveness. This gets us to roughly 15% (65% x 25%).

If the evaluation provides a positive update on cost-effectiveness, we would increase the amount we recommend to IRD since there would be more gaps that are above the bar. See "Detailed Calculations" tab for details.

This is the cost-effectiveness we would expect for IRD gaps we would recommend funding, conditional on getting a positive update. This also incorporates any increase in cost-effectiveness from the evaluation itself. See "Detailed Calculations" tab for details.

The increase in units of value from this scenario comes from reallocating funding toward IRD’s program and away from counterfactual funding opportunities. In this case, we learn that $11 million in funding gaps to IRD are above our cost-effectiveness threshold of 5x and reallocate that funding away from opportunities that are 5x. There is also a benefit of the evaluation increasing cost-effectiveness directly so that even if funding were not reallocated, any funding to IRD’s program would achieve more units of value for the same dollar amount. See “Detailed Calculations” tab for calculations.

Scenario 3: Evaluation results do not provide an update (e.g., results are similar to best guess, study provides less information on effectiveness)

If the evaluation provides no update on cost-effectiveness, we would not change the amount we recommend to IRD since there would be no change in the gaps that are above the bar. See "Detailed Calculations" tab for details.

This is the cost-effectiveness we would expect for IRD gaps we would recommend funding, conditional on getting no update. This also incorporates any increase in cost-effectiveness from the evaluation itself. See "Detailed Calculations" tab for details.

In this scenario, the increase in units of value comes purely from the benefit of evaluation increasing cost-effectiveness. See “Detailed Calculations” tab for calculations.