Cost-effectiveness analysis: Was the PfR cost-effective? | |
Prize amounts paid as a proportion of costs of prize amounts paid, project design, management and verification [FS] | Nigeria: Less than 30 percent was spent on prize award with evidence of development impact. 28% of expenses were spent the prize, in large part owing to high management and verification costs Kenya: Majority of the expenditure was on prizes but with no evidence of development impact. 82% of expenses were spent on the prize Uganda: 0% was spent on the prize Zambia: 20% was spent on the prize |
Cost per persons reached, volumes traded | Nigeria:$134 cost per smallholder farmer adopting Aflasafe as a result of PfR Kenya: $39 cost per smallholder farmer adopting improved on farmer storage as a result of PfR Uganda: N/A Zambia: N/A |
Cost per unit of ‘result’ (“R” in PfR) achieved | Nigeria: $34 cost per MT of Aflasafe-treated maize aggregated Kenya: $26 cost per added MT of storage capacity sold Uganda: N/A Zambia: N/A |
Costs per unit of final outcomes measured | Nigeria: The program cost was $85 per $100 increase in smallholder incomes, not counting the health benefits that smallholder families would have experienced Kenya: No impact found Uganda: N/A Zambia: N/A |