Yes. Before I do that, I'd love to quantify some of the numbers I gave you earlier.
When we started looking inward at the water units we were buying, we were paying about $50 for a unit. When we did it ourselves by buying in bulk and leveraging volunteers, we were down to about $10.50. We were able to push out four to four and a half times more. While some arguments will be made that you have to double the amount of aid you're giving, I'm saying to you that you can actually quadruple the amount of aid you're giving by being more efficient with the money you're spending. With the systems we're using, we're able to push out much more aid than we ever did before, simply by changing some supply chain methods. If I look at 2018-19, year over year, we're up 95% in beneficiaries and deliverables with only a 35% increase. It's a very good multiple.
Coming to the point you're asking about, those specific reviews talk about how our aid is not focused. We don't understand why we're giving certain amounts to different countries. It's not based on KPIs. It's very slow to respond and then it's not programmed quickly. If you look at the comment I gave you about 2018, when we promised $900 million for innovative aid projects, that's a beautiful-sounding thing. Then we spent $120,000 on it. It's very hard for us in the sector to take you seriously as a nation when you fail to deliver on that. The Auditor General...your own government's folks are saying what the problems are, and then they don't get fixed.
I'll be very frank; I was in a meeting, in Chatham House rules, where I heard senior officials talk about the Auditor General and their findings. They downplayed it. They said, look, this is not so bad. As an external participant, as somebody coming in and hearing all these bad things or opportunities to improve for us as an agency, I would take them very seriously. They're right there. I recommend that you take a hard look at these. The guidance to improve is right in there. It would have a significant impact.