RE: Q5 - sorry, just to clarify, I was interested in a breakdown of the $170 figure (or the 109 / 134/ 79 figure in the cost-per-patient graph). What does it consist of?
StrongMinds records the average cost of providing treatment to an additional person (i.e. total annual expenses / no. treated) and has shared the most recent figures for each programme with us.
But I’m interested in something more fine-grained than “total annual expenses, or even “program service expenses” (per tax returns). e.g.: $A to train lay counsellors $B / hour for facilitators * number of hours $C operating costs for StrongMinds (SM) $D for outreach to SM partners $E for SM partner operating costs etc
I’m mindful this is asking a lot of info, sorry! I just assumed it’d be readily available, but it looks like you’ve just deferred to SM here.
I had a very brief look through the tax returns—per the tax returns you linked, the total expenses for 2021 come to 5,186,778. Per the quarterly report you linked, the total clients reached in 2021 was 42482. This means the $ per client figure should be $122? But that’s not the $134 figure reported, so I’m probably doing something wrong here.
Also, ~48% of clients were treated through partners in 2021, but does the methodology of working out cost effectiveness by dividing clients reached by SM expenses include expenses and operating costs of the partners? Q2 results (pg 2)suggest StrongMinds is on track for ~79% of clients treated through partners in 2022. If the expenses of the partners aren’t covered by SM but the clients reached are then this will make SM look more cost-effective than it is.
I also saw in the HLI report that SM defines treated patients treated here as “attending more than six sessions (out of 12) for face-to-face modes”—is this also the definition for the treatment? i.e. how did the pilot assess the effectiveness of SM for people who attended 7 sessions and then dropped out?
Do you know the answers to the other Qs too? If so, I’d be interested in your take as well! But also no worries if you prefer to leave it to Sean (I’ve edited the comment above to incorporate these Qs).
Sorry if I missed it, I just ctrl+F’ed 170 in the forum post you linked which didn’t give me a result, so I skimmed section 5 in the full HLI report. I also looked at the Q report and the tax returns but it doesn’t quite answer the question.
But I’m interested in something more fine-grained than “total annual expenses, or even “program service expenses” (per tax returns). e.g.: $A to train lay counsellors $B / hour for facilitators * number of hours $C operating costs for StrongMinds (SM) $D for outreach to SM partners $E for SM partner operating costs etc
Unfortunately, I don’t know if I can share any information beyond the pie chart I shared above. So I’ll leave that for StrongMinds.
Also, ~48% of clients were treated through partners in 2021, but does the methodology of working out cost effectiveness by dividing clients reached by SM expenses include expenses and operating costs of the partners?
We did our analysis before they shifted models, so we hadn’t incorporated this. I don’t think StrongMinds includes partner costs. This will be something we revisit when we update our StrongMinds CEA (expected in 2023).
I see this as more of a concern for counterfactual impact. Where I see it as “StrongMinds got these organizations to do IPT-g, how much better is this than what they’d otherwise be doing?” But maybe I’m thinking about this wrong.
Thanks for this Joel!
RE: Q5 - sorry, just to clarify, I was interested in a breakdown of the $170 figure (or the 109 / 134/ 79 figure in the cost-per-patient graph). What does it consist of?
On skimming the HLI report it says: [1]
But I’m interested in something more fine-grained than “total annual expenses, or even “program service expenses” (per tax returns). e.g.:
$A to train lay counsellors
$B / hour for facilitators * number of hours
$C operating costs for StrongMinds (SM)
$D for outreach to SM partners
$E for SM partner operating costs
etc
I’m mindful this is asking a lot of info, sorry! I just assumed it’d be readily available, but it looks like you’ve just deferred to SM here.
I had a very brief look through the tax returns—per the tax returns you linked, the total expenses for 2021 come to 5,186,778. Per the quarterly report you linked, the total clients reached in 2021 was 42482. This means the $ per client figure should be $122? But that’s not the $134 figure reported, so I’m probably doing something wrong here.
Also, ~48% of clients were treated through partners in 2021, but does the methodology of working out cost effectiveness by dividing clients reached by SM expenses include expenses and operating costs of the partners? Q2 results (pg 2) suggest StrongMinds is on track for ~79% of clients treated through partners in 2022. If the expenses of the partners aren’t covered by SM but the clients reached are then this will make SM look more cost-effective than it is.
I also saw in the HLI report that SM defines treated patients treated here as “attending more than six sessions (out of 12) for face-to-face modes”—is this also the definition for the treatment? i.e. how did the pilot assess the effectiveness of SM for people who attended 7 sessions and then dropped out?
Do you know the answers to the other Qs too? If so, I’d be interested in your take as well! But also no worries if you prefer to leave it to Sean (I’ve edited the comment above to incorporate these Qs).
Sorry if I missed it, I just ctrl+F’ed 170 in the forum post you linked which didn’t give me a result, so I skimmed section 5 in the full HLI report. I also looked at the Q report and the tax returns but it doesn’t quite answer the question.
Unfortunately, I don’t know if I can share any information beyond the pie chart I shared above. So I’ll leave that for StrongMinds.
We did our analysis before they shifted models, so we hadn’t incorporated this. I don’t think StrongMinds includes partner costs. This will be something we revisit when we update our StrongMinds CEA (expected in 2023).
I see this as more of a concern for counterfactual impact. Where I see it as “StrongMinds got these organizations to do IPT-g, how much better is this than what they’d otherwise be doing?” But maybe I’m thinking about this wrong.