In-line Chlorination CEA (Evidence Action, India), 2023 (public)

	A	C	E	F
1	Guide to interpreting this cost-effectiveness analysis

2	Sheet descriptions
3
4			Simple CEA	This sheet contains a simplified version of the CEA that is designed to be comparable to our CEAs of other programs.
5			Main CEA	This sheet contains the primary calculations that result in final cost-effectiveness estimates. This sheet draws on inputs from the "Inputs" sheet and inputs calculated in the other supplemental sheets listed below. The sheet is structured into four distinct benefit streams: 1. Direct benefit of the grant we are funding to support scale-up of ILC in Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh 2. Direct benefit of a future grant we may fund to continue supporting scale-up of ILC in Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh 3. Indirect benefit that grants to support scale-up of ILC in Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh may have on independent government scale-up of ILC in other states 4. Direct benefit of future grants we may fund to support scale-up of ILC in other states See a full breakdown and explanation of the calculations on the sheet.
6			Program reach	This sheet contains calculations estimating the number of additional people that we expect will be reached with water treatment due to this grant, split up across the four benefit streams detailed above.
7			Program costs	This sheet contains calculations estimating programmatic costs, again split up across the benefit streams detailed above (excluding benefit stream #3, for which no additional costs are incurred).
8			ILC benefits	This sheet contains calculations estimating the benefits that receiving ILC has on averting mortality and morbidity (among individuals under and over 5 years) and increasing the long-term earnings of children under 15 (via improved development).
9			Inputs	This sheet contains all of the manually entered input values informing the CEA, along with the sources and reasoning supporting them. This sheet also contains inputs sourced from the "Source data" sheet.
10			Source data	This sheet contains datasets downloaded from the Institute of Health Metrics (IHME)'s Global Burden of Disease (GBD) project, and from Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) databases.
11
12	Terminology key
13
14		Terms specific to this CEA
15			ILC	This acronym refers to "in-line chlorination" devices installed onto water tanks, which automatically dispense chlorine into the water.
16			JJM	This acronym refers to the "Jal Jeevan Mission," a scheme initiated by the Indian government to expand access to safe water among rural households in India. JJM is the entity responsible for installing piped water infrastructure, on top of which ILC devices supported by Evidence Action's program will be installed.
17			SVS	This refers to the "single-village-scheme" JJM designation, which are the sites where we expect Evidence Action's program will support ILC device installation and maintenance.
18			MVS	This refers to the "multi-village-scheme" JJM designation. These are not sites in which we expect the current grant to support ILC device installation and maintenance, though we think it's plausible that device rollout in SVS sites could influence wider rollout in MVS sites.
19			Person-year of effective coverage	We use "effective coverage" to refer to a level of protection equivalent to the protection provided in the studies of water chlorination we rely on. A "person-year" refers to the equivalent of one person receiving one year of effective coverage.
20
21		Terms used across GiveWell's CEAs
22			Internal validity	Describes an adjustment we make to the treatment effect of an intervention to account for the possibility that the treatment effects found in studies may not represent the true effect the intervention had on the populations studied.
23			External validity	Describes an adjustment we make to the treatment effect of an intervention to account for differences in the program implementation or populations treated in studies from the program implementation or populations treated by grantee programs.
24			Leverage	Describes a situation where a grantee's spending on a program causes other organizations or governments to contribute more to the program than they otherwise would have. In most cases, accounting for leverage increases cost-effectiveness.
25			Funging	Describes a situation where a grantee's spending on a program causes other organizations or governments to contribute less to the program than they otherwise would have. In most cases, accounting for funging decreases cost-effectiveness.
26			Counterfactual	In most cases, describes the state of the world that would exist if we did not provide funding to a grantee for a program. When discussing the "counterfactual value of other actors' spending," we are referring to how much benefit another organization's or government's spending would generate if it were spent on something other than the grantee program.
27			Moral weights	To compare cost-effectiveness across different programs, we use ‘moral weights’ to quantify the benefits of different program impacts (e.g., increased income vs reduced deaths). We benchmark the value of each benefit to a value of 1, which we define as the value of doubling someone’s consumption for one year.
28			Philanthropic actors	Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) providing funding to philanthropic programs.
29
30	Unit and source key
31
32		Unit labels used in the CEA
33			#	Number
34			per 1k	Rate per 1,000
35			per 100k	Rate per 100,000
36			$	U.S. dollars
37			%	Percentage
38			ppt	Percentage points
39			UoV	Units of value: an arbitrary unit GiveWell uses to compare the moral value of different types of outcomes, such as saving lives or increasing income
40			xcash	Cost-effectiveness in terms of multiples of GiveDirectly's unconditional cash transfer program
41
42		Source labels used in the CEA
43
44			input	A value pulled from the "Inputs" sheet
45			calc	A value calculated using other values in the same sheet
46			supp	A value pulled from one of the sheets hosting supplemental calculations
47			main	A value pulled fom the "Main CEA" sheet
48			feed	A value pulled from a different section within the same sheet
49
50	GiveWell analyses informing this model
51
52		Analyses specific to this CEA
53			GW's analysis of the effect of water chlorination
54			GW's water quality cost-effectiveness analysis
55			GiveWell, Report on possible IHME misclassification of enteric infection mortality
56			GiveWell, Water quality in selected Indian states vs. chlorination RCTs (unpublished)
57			GW's development effects estimation model for ILC in India
58
59		Analyses referenced across GiveWell's CEAs
60			GW's moral weights and discount rate
61			GW's supplemental intervention-level adjustments
62			GW's analysis of the counterfactual value of Global Fund spending
63