In the below sections, bold lines are numbers that are referenced in the summary table above

To calculate drug costs, we focus on the data we have available, primarily purchases by Crown Agents as part of the ICOSA program funded by DFID. Note, we use the same value for all programs, though the price has increased over the last 10 years.

SCI stated that 20 pence per treatment, which lines up with our analysis when excluding wastage, is a reasonable estimate. "Praziquantel leaving the factory gate was as low as 7 cents per tablet 10 years ago. Now it is 10 cents per tablet. That is cents not pence. With insurance and shipping the cost at the receiving country is about 12 cents - or taking a 1.66 exchange rate say 8 pence per tablet = 20 pence per child at 2.5 tablets on average." Alan Fenwick, SCI Director, email to GiveWell, October 23, 2014

Crown Agents Total ICOSA Procurement Spend (updated 2014)

The units in the source file are not labelled. We have assumed the figures are in GBP.

SCI ICOSA Mid-Year Report 2014, Pg 12 (Table 3).

This includes a large number of tablets held in reserve and not yet delivered as of March 2014.

For reference, today this is about: $0.11.

This is the percentage of drugs we assume are wasted. We do not have data on actual wastage so are intuitively hypothesizing what seems reasonable. We note that a similar assumption was discussed in an paper we found (Utroska et al. 1989), though this is quite dated and we do not know how the authors arrived at 10%.

GiveWell calculation.

SCI ICOSA Mid-Year Report 2014, Pg 12.

This is consistent with a variety of other sources.

GiveWell calculation.

For all of our analysis, we use a uniform percentage of total costs to estimate the share of the costs that the government incurs.

Sources and notes: See "Shortcomings on our analysis" section section of review on SCI: http://www.givewell.org/node/2365#Shortcomingsofouranalysis

Time period: First five years of program (October 2010 through March 2015). See notes for exceptions.

Programs included: for full time period- Cote d'Ivoire, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Niger, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zanzibar; starting in 2014- Ethiopia and DRC

GiveWell calculation.

For simplicity, taking the simple average of yearly average GBP/USD rate from 2011 through 2013 (for FY1-FY4 spending).

SCI report to DFID (September 2015), Pgs 12-13.

We believe this number does not include about 3 million treatments in both Ethiopia and Mozambique that were planned for FY5 (2014/2015) but were slightly delayed into the next year.

GiveWell summary of SCI coverage surveys

Median adjustment factor for reported data

GiveWell calculation

SCI advisory board financial report (June 2014), Slide 3

£10.5 million is reinforced by other documents. For example, see SCI ICOSA Mid-Year Report 2014, Page 4.

SCI advisory board financial report (June 2014), Slide 11

This appears to be the amount of the first DFID grant award that has not been spent as of May 2014. SCI ICOSA Mid-Year Report 2014 does not report total actual spending. We are unsure what "Approx £2 million remaining" (Slide 8 of same source) refers to.

This is the implied amount of the £10.5 million grant from DFID that SCI had spent as of May 2014. Ideally, we would exclude April and May 2014 from this figure.

GiveWell summary of SCI finances (October 2014), Sheet Combined with previous updates. GiveWell calculated the total from each of the 9 original program lines for each of the 3 time periods November 2011 through March 2014 and then converted from USD to GBP (for comparison with DFID spending).

We ignore unrestricted funds spent prior to November 2011, which we believe to be small (see details on unrestricted funding in SCI review).

GiveWell summary of SCI finances (October 2014), Sheet Combined with previous updates. GiveWell calculated the total from the "operating costs" line item for each of the 3 time periods November 2011 through March 2014 and then converted from USD to GBP (for comparison with DFID spending).

It is possible that operating costs are just one part of HQ costs, but we don't know of other line items that clearly make sense to include.

GiveWell summary of SCI finances (October 2014), Sheet Combined with previous updates. GiveWell calculated the total from the "total spending" line for each of the 3 time periods November 2011 through March 2014 and then converted from USD to GBP (for comparison with DFID spending).

For context, a large amount of the remaining 70% of unrestricted spending was spent in Ethiopia (about £1 million).

Allocating HQ costs to ICOSA under rough assumption that every £ of unrestricted (non-HQ) spending requires the same amount of HQ support.

It is possible this includes some drug purchases, which we'd ideally exclude here to avoid double counting. We expect it is unlikely any unrestricted funds have been used for this purpose given that DFID has allocated additional funding for drug purchases.

SCI advisory board financial report (June 2014), Slide 3

Vitol funded mapping in Cote d'Ivoire; we use "Expended (incl. commitments)" since (according to the same source) this mapping has been completed (so we don't expect there are outstanding commitments). Other than this, we are not aware of any other sources of funding going towards these programs.

SCI financial statement 2013/14 and 2014/15 (revised October 2015), sheet Revised Fin Statement. Sum of relevant programs 2013/2014 total program expenditures

We believe this to be the most accurate source for these data. As a check, we had previously reported about GBP 900,000 spending of unrestricted funding in Ethiopia from Nov 2011 - March 2014, GiveWell summary of SCI finances (October 2014)

SCI financial statement 2013/14 and 2014/15 (revised October 2015), sheet Revised Fin Statement.

SCI financial statement 2013/14 and 2014/15 (revised October 2015), sheet Revised Fin Statement.

Allocating central expenditures under rough assumption that every £ of country expenditure requires the same amount of central support.

We are unsure but expect that spending in these two programs prior to FY4 was relatively small.

SCI shared detailed monthly expenses with us (GiveWell analysis of SCI expense details 16 June 2014 (unpublished)), which show totals of £8.5 and £8.7 million spent in original nine ICOSA countries through April 2014. It is not clear to us what explains the difference compared to the ~£7 million we calculate here (excluding Ethiopia/DRC). However, it appears that a spreadsheet error double counts some line items, and correcting this reduces the total to £7.9 million (of which 0.1 million is in April 2014, which we'd exclude for comparison). If these inferences are incorrect and we are actually missing ~£1 million in costs, our cost per treatment is too low by about $0.06. Either way, the details give us some confidence that large buckets (e.g. of SCI salaries and spending through sub-contracts) are not excluded from our analysis. Note, It is possible that some of the difference includes costs we would want to exclude here (e.g. drug purchases, or research programs unrelated to these treatments).

SCI financial statement 2013/14 and 2014/15 (revised October 2015), sheet Revised Fin Statement. Sum of relevant programs 2014/2015 total program expenditures

Using this report to update the previous reports on FY1-4 spending.

SCI financial statement 2013/14 and 2014/15 (revised October 2015), sheet Revised Fin Statement.

We are not certain but believe that this spending does not include any drug costs (if it does, this cost is over-stated since drug costs are accounted for separately in this spreadsheet).

SCI financial statement 2013/14 and 2014/15 (revised October 2015), sheet Revised Fin Statement.

Allocating central expenditures to ICOSA under rough assumption that every £ of country expenditure requires the same amount of central support.

We are uncertain if these figures result in an accurate total of FY1-5 spending. It is possible that some spending is missing or double counted.

GiveWell estimate, informed by GiveWell's non-verbatim summary of a conversation with Wendy Harrison and Najwa Al Abdallah on September 8, 2015

This is a rough estimate. Imperial College supports SCI, for example, covering some legal and administrative expenses. These are not included in SCI's reported spending. SCI told us that 6% of it's DFID grant was allocated to this but that it received more than that covered, so 10% seemed like a plausible estimate.

GiveWell calculation

For reference, SCI reported £0.40 per treatment (which we believe includes little or no drug costs) on the first three years of the ICOSA program (with ~12 million treatments delivered at that point): "This gives a direct financial cost per treatment of 40 pence. These figures are broadly representative of other implementation projects in SCI but do not include funds allocated to advocacy and fundraising." SCI report to GiveWell (September 2013), Pg 1.

During the ICOSA programs, there has been additional spending for operational research. We are not certain that these expenses did not lead to some of the treatments counted in the ICOSA programs (either directly, as part of the research projects, or indirectly through improved operations due to the research), so we look at these as possible additional costs to get a more conservative estimate.

SCI advisory board financial report (June 2014), Slides 5, 17, 21. Sum of "actual spend" for SCORE and CIFF funding (from bar charts on slides 17 and 21) and "expended (incl. commitments)" (from table on slide 5) for Comic Relief (we did not have an estimate of how much of this was committed but not yet spent).

For reference, using current exchange rates this is about $1.5 million. We exclude the "Control of Cysticercosis" grant as it seems unlikely it led to deworming treatments. SCORE studies are in Niger and Mozambique, CIFF grant is in Liberia and Uganda, and Comic Relief funding is in Malawi.

We do not include any research costs for FY5 since we have not seen data for these.

GiveWell calculation

GiveWell calculated the total from country figures in SCI advisory board financial report (June 2014), Slide 8.

We are not confident in this estimate (it seems likely that some of the funds were transferred to the country but not yet spent such that it is over-stating the actual cost) and see an alternative that would be substantially different (explained in rest of note), but this is simply used to look at breakdown between program and HQ buckets and does not affect overall cost per treatment. SCI ICOSA Mid-Year Report 2014 shows "direct financial cost per treatment" data by program, which implies a total of £2.7 million spent through March 2014 (details in unpublished SCI cost per treatment (October 2014) (internal 2015 revisions) using data from Pgs 8-9 (for treatments by country) and Pg 18 (for costs per treatment by country)). This suggests this number might be overstated by GBP2.1 million.

This includes all of the "other funding" category.

For comparison, SCI reported to us in 2013 that HQ costs were about 48% of their total costs. See http://www.givewell.org/node/2365#BreakdownofSCIsspending

This estimate relies primarily on: SCI, Summary sheet of treatments instigated and overseen by SCI.

http://www.givewell.org/files/DWDA%202009/SCI/SCI%20country%20table.xls

Time period: It shows data from 2003 (roughly the start of SCI programs) through about 2009 (the end date isn't explicit). We are assuming that SCI is reporting consistent funding and treatment data (i.e. that this funding, and only this funding, was spent to deliver these treatments).

Programs included: Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cote D'Ivoire, Ghana, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Yemen, Zambia, and Zanzibar.

SCI Summary sheet of treatments instigated and overseen by SCI

We are not including treatments "for all NTDs." Potentially should include 24 million additional treatments. See review for further explanation.

SCI Summary sheet of treatments instigated and overseen by SCI

We assume all of the "funding invested in country" was spent to deliver the treatments that are reported. If some was transferred to country for treatments that had not yet been reported, then our costs are overstated.

SCI Summary sheet of treatments instigated and overseen by SCI

We assume all of the "funding invested in country" was spent to deliver the treatments that are reported. If some was transferred to country for treatments that had not yet been reported, then our costs are overstated.

SCI Summary sheet of treatments instigated and overseen by SCI

We assume all of the "funding invested in country" was spent to deliver the treatments that are reported. If some was transferred to country for treatments that had not yet been reported, then our costs are overstated.

SCI Summary sheet of treatments instigated and overseen by SCI

It is possible (though we believe unlikely) that these managements costs are a subset of the "funding invested in country" counted above. We would be double-counting these if that were the case.

SCI Summary sheet of treatments instigated and overseen by SCI

It is possible (though we believe unlikely) that these managements costs are a subset of the "funding invested in country" counted above. We would be double-counting these if that were the case.

SCI Summary sheet of treatments instigated and overseen by SCI

It is possible (though we believe unlikely) that these managements costs are a subset of the "funding invested in country" counted above. We would be double-counting these if that were the case.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI data: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?cu

Inflation-adjusted from 2002 USD. Gates Foundation funding appears to have largely granted in 2002: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2002/06/OPP13122. Some funding from the Gates Foundation appears to have been granted in 2006 (see http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/schistosomiasis-control-initiative#Largegrants; we don't see this listed on the Gates Foundation's website). For the inflation adjustment we assume that all the funding was granted in 2003, since we would guess the Gates Foundation's large initial grants in 2003 make up a large proportion of this funding.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI data: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?cu

Inflation-adjusted from 2006 USD. USAID funding initiated in 2006. See http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/schistosomiasis-control-initiative#Largegrants.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI data: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?cu

SCI received $6 million in 2006, $650,000 in 2003, and $55,000 in 2009, SCI Summary sheet of treatments instigated and overseen by SCI. Inflation adjusted by year.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI data: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?cu

Inflation-adjusted from 2002 USD. Gates Foundation funding appears to have largely granted in 2002: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2002/06/OPP13122. Some funding from the Gates Foundation appears to have been granted in 2006 (see http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/schistosomiasis-control-initiative#Largegrants; we don't see this listed on the Gates Foundation's website). For the inflation adjustment we assume that all the funding was granted in 2003, since we would guess the Gates Foundation's large initial grants in 2003 make up a large proportion of this funding.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI data: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?cu

Inflation-adjusted from 2006 USD. USAID funding initiated in 2006. See http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/schistosomiasis-control-initiative#Largegrants.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI data: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?cu

Inflation-adjusted from 2006 USD. SCI appears to have recieved most funding from Geneva Global and others in 2006, SCI Summary sheet of treatments instigated and overseen by SCI