Which type of cost analysis is generally the most feasible for evaluating social service programs?

Cost-effectiveness analysis is often the most feasible method for evaluating social service programs because it allows for the comparison of the relative costs and outcomes of different interventions without requiring monetization of benefits. In many social services, particularly those in which outcomes are difficult to quantify in monetary terms—such as improvements in quality of life, psychological well-being, or social functioning—cost-effectiveness analysis provides a practical approach.

This method typically expresses the outcomes in natural units, such as lives saved, years of life added, or units of service delivered, making it easier for policymakers and program managers to understand and apply the results in decision-making. When evaluating programs that may not have clearly defined financial outcomes, the emphasis on effectiveness relative to the cost helps determine which interventions yield the best results for the investment made.

In contrast, other types of analyses, like cost-benefit analysis, require benefits to be expressed in monetary terms, which may not always be feasible or appropriate in social work contexts. Cost-utility analysis, while important in health-related fields, focuses on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), which may not directly apply to all social service programs. Cost-minimization analysis is applicable only when comparing interventions that yield equivalent outcomes, which is often not