Table 2 |
|||
|
Variables used to represent cost, coverage and prices as well as contextual factors influencing the cost of the projects. |
|||
| Representation in sample (N) |
|||
|
|
|||
| Variable |
Definition |
Andhra Pradesh financial dataset (n = 78) |
Case studies (n = 16) |
|
|
|||
| Total cost |
Total annual cost of the project |
Annual expenditure of the project for financial year 2001/02 at the NGO level (Source:
expenditure statements submitted to the unit managing all NGO projects) |
Total annual economic cost including costs incurred at the funding agency level (training,
monitoring, other managerial support, supply of educational materials) and value of
volunteer time and other donated inputs (Source: primary data collection at NGOs and
funding agencies, see also [28]). |
| Coverage |
Number of people within the target community reached by the project in the year of
study |
Source: postal survey of all projects |
Source: NGO monitoring reports |
| Rent |
Annual rent for buildings paid by the NGO for the project |
Annual expenditure on rent by the project for the year 2001/02 |
Annual equivalent market value of building space used by the project. |
| Target group |
High risk group at which project is targeted |
Commercial sex workers (n = 17); Men who have sex with men (n = 2); Street children
(n = 4); Transgenders (n = 1); Truckers (n = 17); Slum populations (n = 37) |
Commercial sex workers (n = 16) |
| Vulnerable groups |
Focus on smaller, relatively static populations allowing for more intensive interactions
with the individuals over time |
Commercial sex workers (n = 17); Men who have sex with men (n = 2); Street children
(n = 4); Transgenders (n = 1) |
n/a |
| Non-vulnerable groups |
Focus on larger more mobile populations that are still high risk (i.e. warranting
the targeted intervention) so that repeat contacts with individuals are less likely |
Truckers (n = 17); Slum populations (n = 37) |
n/a |
| Funding agency (AP financial dataset) |
Donor that funded initial recruitment of NGO |
Department of International Development (UK) – DFID (n = 30); Andhra Pradesh State
AIDS Control Society – APSACS (n = 48) |
n/a |
| Funding agency (case study dataset) |
Donor that is currently funding the project |
n/a |
Tamil Nadu State AIDS Control Society – TNSACS (n = 4); Chennai Corporation AIDS Prevention
and Control Society – CAPACS(n = 2);Christian Council for Rural Development and Research
– CCOORR (n = 2); APSACS (n = 9) |
| Agency |
Agency that managed initial recruitment of NGO and start up of project, grouped by
batch of recruitment to programme |
APSACS1 (n = 22); APSACS2 (n = 26); HHP (n = 3); SMA1 (n = 14); SMA2 (n = 13) |
n/a |
| State |
Indian state in which project is located |
n/a |
Andhra Pradesh – AP (n = 9); Tamil Nadu – TN (n = 7) |
| Age |
No. of years the project has been operating |
Source: postal survey of all projects |
Source: case study analysis |
|
|
|||
|
n/a = not applicable; APSACS1 = Andhra Pradesh State AIDS Control Society (APSACS) NGO recruitment batch 1; APSACS2 = APSACS recruitment batch 2; HHP = Department of International Development (UK) (DFID) Healthy Highways Project; SMA1 = DFID State Management Agency (SMA) recruitment batch 1; SMA2 = DFID SMA NGO recruitment batch 2 |
|||
|
Guinness et al. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2007 5:13 doi:10.1186/1478-7547-5-13 |
|||
