Cost-Benefit Analysis Versus Cost-Consequences Analysis

Cost-consequences analysts Kaufman and Watkins (1996) have proposed cost-consequences analysis (CCA) as a means for leaders and decision-makers to estimate whether the value of results obtained is worth the investment. They argue that CCA offers a “coarse-grain” estimate of return-on-investment when there is not the necessity nor time and/or resources available for a complete determination of all of the variables that actually go into a return-on-investment analysis. They further contend that CCA differs from other evaluation tools in that it emphasizes outcomes, whereas the other tools utilize incomplete measures of both costs and returns. This paper contends, after assessing the theoretical underpinnings of cost-benefit analysis (CBA), together with its use in practice, that there is no substantive difference between CCA and CBA. In other words, CCA does not add anything new to the evaluation tools available to program evaluators. In arguing this, the paper also addresses some issues of what is required for good program evaluation, no matter which tool is used.