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 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Malaria Consortium | Malaria Consortium | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Burkina Faso | Chad | DRC | DRC | DRC | DRC | Mozambique | Nigeria | Nigeria | Nigeria | Nigeria | Nigeria | Nigeria | Nigeria | Nigeria | Nigeria | Togo | Uganda | ||||||||||
3 | Supplemental calculations for the leverage/funging adjustment | unit | type | Overall | Haut-Katanga | Haut-Lomami | Lualaba | Tanganyika | Nampula | Bauchi | Borno | FCT (Abuja) | Kebbi | Kogi | Nasarawa | Oyo | Plateau | Sokoto | Karamoja | |||||||||
4 | Final cost-effectiveness estimate (pulled from "Main calcs" sheet for visibility) | xcash | main | - | 17.9 | 8.0 | 7.8 | 9.2 | 9.0 | 12.5 | 11.4 | 21.1 | 17.9 | 16.0 | 29.2 | 20.9 | 22.2 | 24.2 | 15.9 | 29.6 | 10.5 | 10.3 | ||||||
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 | - | 89% | 89% | 89% | 89% | 89% | 89% | 89% | 86% | 86% | 86% | 86% | 86% | 86% | 86% | 86% | 86% | 87% | 89% | ||||||
12 | Percentage of total costs covered by other philanthropic actors | % | input | - | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 2% | 0% | ||||||
13 | Percentage of total costs covered by domestic governments | % | input | - | 10% | 11% | 11% | 11% | 11% | 11% | 11% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 11% | ||||||
14 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | Total costs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
16 | Total spending by all contributors | $ | main | - | $1,127,124 | $1,118,119 | $1,118,119 | $1,118,119 | $1,118,119 | $1,118,119 | $1,118,119 | $1,162,185 | $1,162,185 | $1,162,185 | $1,162,185 | $1,162,185 | $1,162,185 | $1,162,185 | $1,162,185 | $1,162,185 | $1,144,056 | $1,118,119 | ||||||
17 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 | Total spending attributable to different actors | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
19 | 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 | ||||||
20 | Total spending contributed by other philanthropic actors | $ | main | - | $9,161 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $44,631 | $44,631 | $44,631 | $44,631 | $44,631 | $44,631 | $44,631 | $44,631 | $44,631 | $27,990 | $0 | ||||||
21 | Total spending contributed by domestic governments | $ | main | - | $117,963 | $118,119 | $118,119 | $118,119 | $118,119 | $118,119 | $118,119 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $116,067 | $118,119 | ||||||
22 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 | Upstream / downstream spending | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24 | Total spending causally upstream of donations to grantee | $ | main | - | $1,009,161 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,044,631 | $1,044,631 | $1,044,631 | $1,044,631 | $1,044,631 | $1,044,631 | $1,044,631 | $1,044,631 | $1,044,631 | $1,027,990 | $1,000,000 | ||||||
25 | Total spending causally downstream of donations to grantee | $ | main | - | $117,963 | $118,119 | $118,119 | $118,119 | $118,119 | $118,119 | $118,119 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $116,067 | $118,119 | ||||||
26 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 | Counterfactual funding scenarios | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
29 | Probability of scenarios in the absence of philanthropic funding | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 | Scenario 1: Domestic governments would replace the grantee's costs | % | input | - | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||||||
31 | Scenario 2: Global Fund and/or PMI would replace the grantee's costs | % | input | - | 50% | 45% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 20% | 20% | 10% | 10% | 20% | 10% | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% | 65% | 30% | ||||||
32 | Scenario 3: Other actors' upstream costs would stay the same (downstream costs would shrink in proportion to the total size of the program) | % | input | - | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||||||
33 | Scenario 4: Distributions would go unfunded | % | calc | - | 50% | 55% | 85% | 85% | 85% | 85% | 80% | 80% | 90% | 90% | 80% | 90% | 80% | 80% | 80% | 80% | 35% | 70% | ||||||
34 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
35 | Proportion of the program that would still occur in each scenario | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
36 | Scenario 1: Domestic governments would replace the grantee's costs | % | input | 100% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||
37 | Scenario 2: Global Fund and/or PMI would replace the grantee's costs | % | input | 100% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||
38 | Scenario 3: Other actors' upstream costs would stay the same (downstream costs would shrink in proportion to the total size of the program) | % | calc | - | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 3% | 0% | ||||||
39 | Scenario 4: Distributions would go unfunded | % | input | 0% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||
40 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
41 | Value of spending | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
42 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
43 | Cost-effectiveness of the program (before leverage and funging) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
44 | Units of value generated per dollar (before final adjustments) | UoV | main | - | 0.096 | 0.032 | 0.024 | 0.029 | 0.028 | 0.040 | 0.038 | 0.069 | 0.053 | 0.047 | 0.097 | 0.062 | 0.073 | 0.079 | 0.051 | 0.098 | 0.061 | 0.037 | ||||||
45 | Total supplemental grantee-level adjustment | % | main | -8% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||
46 | Total supplemental intervention-level adjustment | % | main | - | 19% | 24% | 28% | 28% | 28% | 28% | 28% | 34% | 34% | 34% | 34% | 34% | 34% | 34% | 34% | 34% | 29% | 28% | ||||||
47 | Units of value generated per dollar donated to grantee (after supplemental adjustments) | UoV | calc | - | 0.105 | 0.037 | 0.029 | 0.034 | 0.034 | 0.047 | 0.045 | 0.085 | 0.066 | 0.058 | 0.119 | 0.077 | 0.090 | 0.098 | 0.064 | 0.121 | 0.072 | 0.043 | ||||||
48 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
49 | Lives saved by the program (before leverage and funging) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
50 | Total lives saved (before final adjustments) | # | main | - | 716 | 210 | 171 | 203 | 201 | 302 | 296 | 487 | 354 | 323 | 643 | 430 | 479 | 494 | 341 | 687 | 371 | 277 | ||||||
51 | Total supplemental grantee-level adjustment | % | main | -8% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||
52 | Total supplemental intervention-level adjustment affecting lives saved | % | main | - | -20% | -15% | -11% | -11% | -11% | -11% | -11% | -5% | -5% | -5% | -5% | -5% | -5% | -5% | -5% | -5% | -10% | -11% | ||||||
53 | Total lives saved (after supplemental adjustments) | # | calc | - | 528 | 164 | 140 | 166 | 165 | 248 | 243 | 426 | 310 | 283 | 564 | 376 | 419 | 433 | 299 | 602 | 308 | 227 | ||||||
54 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
55 | Counterfactual value of spending from non-philanthropic actors | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
56 | Counterfactual value per dollar spent by domestic governments | UoV | input | 0.005 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||
57 | Counterfactual value per dollar spent by the Global Fund or PMI | UoV | input | 0.015 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||
58 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
59 | Value generated across different counterfactual scenarios | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
60 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61 | Scenario 1: Domestic governments would replace philanthropic spending | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62 | Hypothetical impact of shifting government spending | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63 | 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 | ||||||
64 | Value generated by shifting government spending to the grantee program | UoV | calc | - | 105,160 | 36,523 | 28,636 | 34,097 | 33,529 | 47,132 | 44,590 | 85,119 | 65,578 | 58,438 | 119,231 | 76,757 | 89,682 | 98,010 | 63,527 | 120,916 | 72,469 | 43,271 | ||||||
65 | 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 | ||||||
66 | Net value generated by shifting government spending to the grantee program | UoV | calc | - | 100,103 | 31,466 | 23,579 | 29,040 | 28,472 | 42,075 | 39,533 | 80,062 | 60,521 | 53,381 | 114,174 | 71,700 | 84,625 | 92,953 | 58,470 | 115,859 | 67,412 | 38,214 | ||||||
67 | Change in value generated by the grantee program if this scenario represented the true counterfactual | UoV | calc | - | -100,103 | -31,466 | -23,579 | -29,040 | -28,472 | -42,075 | -39,533 | -80,062 | -60,521 | -53,381 | -114,174 | -71,700 | -84,625 | -92,953 | -58,470 | -115,859 | -67,412 | -38,214 | ||||||
68 | Probability of this scenario representing the true counterfactual | % | feed | - | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||||||
69 | Expected change in value generated by the grantee program | UoV | calc | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
70 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
71 | Scenario 2: The Global Fund and/or PMI would replace philanthropic spending | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72 | Hypothetical impact of shifting Global Fund and/or PMI spending | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73 | Amount of spending Global Fund and/or PMI 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 | ||||||
74 | Value generated by shifting Global Fund and/or PMI spending to the grantee program | UoV | calc | - | 105,160 | 36,523 | 28,636 | 34,097 | 33,529 | 47,132 | 44,590 | 85,119 | 65,578 | 58,438 | 119,231 | 76,757 | 89,682 | 98,010 | 63,527 | 120,916 | 72,469 | 43,271 | ||||||
75 | Value lost by shifting spending away from programs the Global Fund and/or PMI would otherwise have funded | UoV | calc | - | 15,433 | 15,433 | 15,433 | 15,433 | 15,433 | 15,433 | 15,433 | 15,433 | 15,433 | 15,433 | 15,433 | 15,433 | 15,433 | 15,433 | 15,433 | 15,433 | 15,433 | 15,433 | ||||||
76 | Net value generated by shifting Global Fund and/or PMI spending to the grantee program | UoV | calc | - | 89,727 | 21,090 | 13,203 | 18,664 | 18,096 | 31,699 | 29,157 | 69,686 | 50,145 | 43,005 | 103,798 | 61,324 | 74,249 | 82,577 | 48,094 | 105,483 | 57,036 | 27,838 | ||||||
77 | Change in value generated by the grantee program if this scenario represented the true counterfactual | UoV | calc | - | -89,727 | -21,090 | -13,203 | -18,664 | -18,096 | -31,699 | -29,157 | -69,686 | -50,145 | -43,005 | -103,798 | -61,324 | -74,249 | -82,577 | -48,094 | -105,483 | -57,036 | -27,838 | ||||||
78 | Probability of this scenario representing the true counterfactual | % | feed | - | 50% | 45% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 20% | 20% | 10% | 10% | 20% | 10% | 20% | 20% | 20% | 20% | 65% | 30% | ||||||
79 | Expected change in value generated by the grantee program | UoV | calc | - | -44,863 | -9,490 | -1,980 | -2,800 | -2,714 | -4,755 | -5,831 | -13,937 | -5,015 | -4,300 | -20,760 | -6,132 | -14,850 | -16,515 | -9,619 | -21,097 | -37,074 | -8,351 | ||||||
80 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
81 | Scenario 3: The government would spend the same amount and the program would be smaller | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
82 | Hypothetical impact of shifting government spending | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
83 | Amount of spending domestic governments would shift away from the grantee program | $ | calc | - | $116,892 | $118,119 | $118,119 | $118,119 | $118,119 | $118,119 | $118,119 | $112,531 | $112,531 | $112,531 | $112,531 | $112,531 | $112,531 | $112,531 | $112,531 | $112,531 | $112,906 | $118,119 | ||||||
84 | Value generated by shifting spending toward programs domestic governments would otherwise have supported | UoV | calc | - | 591 | 597 | 597 | 597 | 597 | 597 | 597 | 569 | 569 | 569 | 569 | 569 | 569 | 569 | 569 | 569 | 571 | 597 | ||||||
85 | 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 | ||||||
86 | Net value generated by shifting government spending away from the grantee program | UoV | calc | - | 591 | 597 | 597 | 597 | 597 | 597 | 597 | 569 | 569 | 569 | 569 | 569 | 569 | 569 | 569 | 569 | 571 | 597 | ||||||
87 | Change in value generated by the grantee program if this scenario represented the true counterfactual | UoV | calc | - | -591 | -597 | -597 | -597 | -597 | -597 | -597 | -569 | -569 | -569 | -569 | -569 | -569 | -569 | -569 | -569 | -571 | -597 | ||||||
88 | Probability of this scenario representing the true counterfactual | % | feed | - | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||||||
89 | Expected change in value generated by the program | UoV | calc | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
90 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
91 | Scenario 4: The grantee program would go unfunded | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
92 | Hypothetical impact of shifting government spending | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
93 | Amount of spending domestic governments would shift away from the grantee program | $ | calc | - | $117,963 | $118,119 | $118,119 | $118,119 | $118,119 | $118,119 | $118,119 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $117,553 | $116,067 | $118,119 | ||||||
94 | Value generated by shifting spending to programs domestic governments would otherwise have funded | UoV | calc | - | 597 | 597 | 597 | 597 | 597 | 597 | 597 | 594 | 594 | 594 | 594 | 594 | 594 | 594 | 594 | 594 | 587 | 597 | ||||||
95 | 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 | ||||||
96 | Net value generated by shifting government spending away from the grantee program | UoV | calc | - | 597 | 597 | 597 | 597 | 597 | 597 | 597 | 594 | 594 | 594 | 594 | 594 | 594 | 594 | 594 | 594 | 587 | 597 | ||||||
97 | Change in value generated by the grantee program if this scenario represented the true counterfactual | UoV | calc | - | -597 | -597 | -597 | -597 | -597 | -597 | -597 | -594 | -594 | -594 | -594 | -594 | -594 | -594 | -594 | -594 | -587 | -597 | ||||||
98 | Probability of this scenario representing the true counterfactual | % | feed | - | 50% | 55% | 85% | 85% | 85% | 85% | 80% | 80% | 90% | 90% | 80% | 90% | 80% | 80% | 80% | 80% | 35% | 70% | ||||||
99 | Expected change in value generated by the program | UoV | calc | - | -298 | -329 | -508 | -508 | -508 | -508 | -478 | -476 | -535 | -535 | -476 | -535 | -476 | -476 | -476 | -476 | -205 | -418 | ||||||
100 |