Table 4

Sample means of the annual expenditure, coverage, project age and annual rent paid by target group and agency, from the Andhra Pradesh financial dataset (N = 78) (range)



Target group*
"Agency": Management agency at recruitment of NGO & batch of recruitment **




Total
Non-vulnerable
Vulnerable
t test, p value
APSACS1
APSACS2
HHP
SMA1
SMA2
ANOVA p value

Total expenditure INR 000s
689.2 (40.85–1,581)
663.8 (40.85–1,581)
746.3 (528.1–1,246.9)
0.9375
677.1 (40.9–1,457.3)
639.2 (418.3–1,581)
822.2 (474.4–1,091)
767.3 (467.5–1,247)
695.0 (528.1–1,046)
0.185
No. of people reached
5,647 (675–24,111)
6,809 (993–24,111)
3,034 (675–14,871)
0.0004^^^
6,611 (993–13,955)
6,064 (1,027–17,614)
18,624 (14,390–24,111)
3,479 (1,555–14,871)
2,525 (675–7,099)
0.255
Expenditure per person reached, INR
224.5 (11.6–939.1
143.0 (11.6–592.6)
408.0 (74.3–939.1)
1.000
139.5 (11.6–529.0)
147.7 (35.4–592.6)
46.8 (27.3–75.8)
314.8 (74.3–748.4)
466.0 (107.0–939.1)
0.000^^^
Project age, yrs***
2.72 (2.1–5.6)
2.60 (2.1–5.6)
3 (2.1–3.92)
0.9724
2.5 (0)
2.25 (0)
5.59 (0)
3.92 (0)
2.08 (0)
n/a
Rent, INR
48,480 (0–90,338)
44,937 (0–71,540)
56,452 (31,399–90,338)
0.997
44,542 (0–61,891)
45,057 (19,905–65,388)
48,699 (29,680–71,541)
56,164 (31,281–72,677)
53,664 (43,059–90,338)
0.168
Sample size
78
54
24

22
26
3
14
13


*"Vulnerable group" projects include those for commercial sex workers (CSW), street children (SC), transgenders (TG) and men who have sex with men (MSM); "Non vulnerable group" projects are those for truckers, mobile populations and slum dwellers. ** Prior to 2001, the targeted interventions were funded and managed by 3 different projects – Andhra Pradesh State AIDS Control Society (APSACS); Department for International Development UK (DFID) supported Healthy Highways Project (HHP); and the DFID supported State Management Agency (SMA). The dummies represent these 3 different projects and that both APSACS and SMA recruited NGOs in 2 separate batches.***Projects started at the same time within each "agency" group. ^^^significant at the 99% confidence level; ^^significant at the 95% confidence level; ^significant at the 90% confidence level.

Guinness et al. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2007 5:13   doi:10.1186/1478-7547-5-13