ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAA
1
Key results
Key to colours used in the CEA
2
Cost effectiveness $3.8Charity cost ($) per DALY avertedInput
3
Benefit cost ratio629Ratio of benefit delivered to total charity cost over 10 years Calculation
4
Subjective judgement
5
What scenario did we model here?
Variable imported input from another tab/sheet (mostly used when data input varies based on country chosen)
6
We modeled a conservative scenario where our charity influences the replacement of at least 1 less effective welfare promise with a more effective cash transfer program
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Why did we model this particular scenario?
23
While our real-world work includes a range of policy improvements - many more effective than cash transfers - we chose to model this more modest scenario for 3 main reasons:
24
25
A strong test case Cash transfers are relatively straightforward reform -if such a change proves challenging, more complex reforms are less likely to work
26
27
28
A conservative starting estimate If even this small change in effectiveness can result in large impact, it is a good signal that the other ideas our charity advocates for would yield similar or better cost effectiveness
29
30
31
Wide-spread, low-hanging opportunityMany welfare programs in India are less effective than cash transfers and the country has a well-functioning cash transfer system with low leakages and corruption.
32
33
34
35
CEA robustness
36
VariableEstimated value (model)Extremely conservative estimate Conservative cost/DALY
37
% Social sector expenditure spent on top welfare promises 33%15%$8.5
38
Effectiveness of initial program compared to a cash transfer 73%90%$10.2
39
Probability of advocacy success 10%5%$7.6
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100