Cost Benefit Analysis Template
This template is a way of organising whatever information you have in a consistent and systematic way. It should be relevant for all
initiatives. The level of detail required depends on the size of the initiative and the information available. Impacts should be quantified
where possible, but the template can also be used to analyse descriptive, unquantified impacts.
The CBAx tool and database can help you estimate a dollar value for quantified impacts. The CBAx tool and supporting information
is available on http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/guidance/planning/costbenefitanalysis/cbax. Contact CBAx@treasury.govt.nz
for support.
The Treasury’s Cost Benefit Analysis Guidance has more information on how to do cost benefit analysis (CBA).
Public sector agencies should use this CBA Template to meet the CBA requirements as set out in the Budget guidance. Please refer
to the Budget guidance and contact your Treasury Vote Analyst if you have questions about the template or how much detail to
include. This template has been updated to be consistent with the CBAx Tool User Guidance, especially the illustrative example. The
information required is unchanged.
Section A
Descriptive Information
Vote
[Must match CFISnet entry, if a Budget initiative]
Responsible Minister
[Must match CFISnet entry, if a Budget initiative]
Initiative title
[Must match CFISnet entry, if a Budget initiative]
Funding Sought ($m)
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2019/20 &
outyears
2018/19
TOTAL
Operating
-
-
-
-
-
-
Capital
-
-
-
-
-
-
Problem Definition
Please describe the problem or opportunity that this proposal seeks to address and the counterfactual (what would happen if
the proposal doesn’t go ahead). Be specific about who the problem affects and how it affects them.
Initiative Description
Please describe what the initiative will provide or produce, and how this will address the problem or opportunity identified.
This description can be more detailed than the description provided in Budget documentation.
Alternative Options Considered
What alternative options did you consider and why did you choose your preferred option?
1 | Cost Benefit Analysis Template: October 2015
Section B
Impact Analysis
Impact Analysis
Discuss all of the impacts (costs and benefits) that the proposal will have on New Zealanders and the government.
-
Describe the impacts (including financial, social and environmental impacts) that you can identify, whether or not
they can be quantified. Be specific about which individuals or groups will be affected, how and when.
-
Include primary and flow-on (secondary) impacts. For instance, a proposal to train individuals to get employment
may increase their income, and also have a secondary impact on their use of health services.
-
Quantify these impacts if possible. For instance, ‘number of emergency visits avoided’, or ‘client waiting times
reduced by x hours’. If you can, also monetise the impacts by converting them into a dollar value, e.g. ‘money
saved from reduced emergency visits’. Ranges may also be used, with wider ranges indicating more uncertainty.
-
The CBAx spreadsheet tool can help you estimate the dollar value impacts of policy changes, drawing from a
common database of impact values.
-
The impacts presented should be the additional positive and negative impact of the proposal, compared to what
would happen if the proposal doesn’t go ahead (the counterfactual).
-
Discuss the assumptions and evidence informing your analysis of these impacts. Assess how strong the evidence
is, and how well the results can be applied to this proposal. Be specific about how effective the policy is assumed to
be across different groups (e.g. is there a positive impact for all students on a training programme, or only the ones
who complete the course?). Discuss which assumptions have the greatest impact on the results of your analysis.
-
Discount Rates. For comparative purposes, all initiatives should use the 8% real discount rate as a default, and do
a sensitivity analysis with a 4% real discount rate (the rounded risk free rate). A project-specific rate can also be
added where this is warranted (talk to your Vote Analyst if you want to add another discount rate).
1
Impact Summary Table
Fill out the table below to summarise the costs and benefits of the proposal.
Start by including the estimated impact on key outcomes. This should be the biggest, most immediate impact. If this impact
can be converted into monetary values, include these values in the next part of the table (government/wider society benefits
and costs). Also include unquantified impacts on people or the government, and the fiscal cost of the initiative. In the example
below, the key impact is on employment outcomes, which creates benefits for the government (reduced welfare spending)
and individuals (higher income), as well as unquantified impacts on mental health and education.
Present any monetary impacts (including the fiscal cost) in present value (PV) terms using the discount rates above. This
converts future cash flows into today’s dollar terms and enables comparison between initiatives with different patterns of
costs and benefits over time. Treasury’s CBA guide explains PV and how to calculate it in more detail. The CBAx
spreadsheet tool also has a simple calculator you can use to convert your initiative cost into a PV.
Summarise the assumptions and evidence that inform your assessment of each impact.
You can include an additional option or scenario to show how impacts change with different assumptions or policy settings.
Calculate the net present value (NPV) of your initiative using all the monetised benefits and costs set out in the Impact
Summary Table below. This NPV calculation won’t include unquantified benefits and costs, so the figure isn’t the final word
on whether a proposal should be funded. You can discuss how unquantified impacts affect your assessment in the
conclusions section. Agencies should use a time period for their NPV calculation that corresponds with the time period over
which the costs and benefits will be realised.
1
List of Treasury recommended discount rates:
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/guidance/planning/costbenefitanalysis/currentdiscountrates
Cost Benefit Analysis Template: October 2015 | 2
Impact Summary Table (with illustrative fictional example using the CBAx tool and database for NPVs)
Impacts - Identify and list
$m present value,
for monetised impacts
Option/scenario
1
2
Assumptions and evidence
(quantify if possible, and use ranges where appropriate)
Certainty
Expect 36% of participants to get into work after one year and
another 36% of participants to get into work after two years. This is
relative to counterfactual of no employment for the individuals. The
success rate is based on international experiences, with New
Zealand context to be assessed. Assumes only 25% of income for
Medium
Estimated impact on key outcomes
Increased employment
outcomes
72
percent
points
-
3
displacement etc effects. Assumes the employment is ongoing 50
years (length is over-optimistic and to be refined).
Cost of the Initiative
Fiscal operating and capital
(10.8)
-
40 participants per year for 5 year pilot. Annual operating
expenditure of $1.2 million for 5 years, and $6 million one-off.
High
Additional tax revenue
(adjusted to 25%)
1.7
-
Assumes 36% of participants move from benefit to earning the
minimum weekly wage and another 36% earn an average wage for
someone with a level 4-6 trade, with 25% adjustment. Marginal tax
impact relative to tax on the Jobseeker Support benefit.
Medium
Reduction in Jobseeker
Support benefit
15.4
-
Assumes an on-going reduction in benefit payments for 72% of the
participants.
Medium
Reduction in health and
justice sector costs
1.1
-
Provides proxy for flow-on reduction in health and justice sector
costs. Assumes for all participants: emergency department visits are
reduced from 3 to 2 visits annually for 50 years, and police hours are
reduced from 5 to 3 hours annually for 20 years.
Low
18.2
-
The main assumptions relate to employment outcomes, and the
length of these.
Medium
8.5
-
Assumes 36% of participants move from benefit to earning the
minimum weekly wage and another 36% earn an average wage for
someone with a level 4-6 trade, with 25% adjustment.
Low
(Small)
-
There are short term costs to individuals of attending.
Low
Large
-
International evidence finds that moving into work can improve
mental health outcomes. Limited New Zealand e10vidence.
Low
Modest
-
Having parents who are unemployed for more than 2 years makes
children 30% less likely to pass NCEA 2. Intergenerational impacts.
Medium
8.5
-
Wider societal impacts arise mainly from employment assumptions:
income/mental health and impacts for participants’ children.
Low
15.9
-
costs of the initiative
4
Government Benefits/(Costs)
Total Quantified
Government Impact
Wider Societal Benefits/(Costs)
Extra personal income
generated (after tax, and
adjusted to 25%)
Costs of attending
Mental health improvements
Improved education
outcomes for children
Total Quantified Wider
Societal Impact
Net Present Value of Total
Quantified Societal Impacts
2
3
4
Medium
Rate your level of confidence in the assumptions and evidence as high (green) if based on significant research and evaluations that is applicable,
medium (amber) if based on reasonable evidence and data, or low (red) if there is little relevant evidence. Colour the rating box for each impact.
Only 25% of the income generated is counted to reflect displacement effects and opportunity costs from individuals going from unemployment to
employment. See Guide to Social Cost Benefit Analysis and CBAx Tool User Guidance (page 15).
This present value of the initiative costs, including both operating and where relevant capital spending, should be included for all initiatives. Other
fiscal flow-on costs and benefits that are not included in the initiative costs are to be set out in a separate row.
3 | Cost Benefit Analysis Template: October 2015
2
Section C
Conclusions
Conclusions
Considering quantified and unquantified impacts, does the analysis suggest that the benefits of the proposal exceed the
costs, and to what extent? What is your level of confidence about this result, and what are the key sensitivities and
assumptions that could change your conclusion?
If the impacts are predominantly unquantified and unmonetised, or based on little evidence, another way to approach the
impact conclusion and make an overall judgements is to base this judgement on the known fiscal initiative costs and assess
how effective the policy would need to be for the benefits to exceed the initiative’s costs, and to assess how likely that
success rate is. In the illustrative example, this judgement could consider what proportion of participants would need to find
employment and not receive benefit payments for the initiative’s overall benefits to outweigh the $10.8 million initiative costs.
Summary of monetised results [only fill this out if you have monetised costs and benefits]
Fill this table out with the NPV, benefit cost ratio and return on investment for your initiative. These can all be calculated with
the information you included in the summary table above, and is available in the CBAx Output Summary (NB totals can vary
due to rounding). We ask you to present all these measures, because they each provide a different perspective on the costs
and benefits of an initiative.
Use ranges for values where appropriate
8% real (default)
Discount Rate
4% real (sensitivity)
Net Present Value (NPV)
5
$15.9
-
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
6
2.56 (2.56 = $27.7m / $10.8m)
-
2.56 (2.56 = $27.7m / $10.8m)
-
1.7 (1.8 = $18.2m / $10.8m)
-
Return on Investment (ROI) – Societal Total
Return on Investment (ROI) – Government
8
7
Supporting Evidence
To substantiate assumptions and certainty ratings, please include links to supporting analysis or evidence here. This should
include references to the research, evaluation and data sources that informed your assumptions, for instance about the
effectiveness rate of your initiative and the counterfactual.
This would set out the New Zealand and international evidence for the assumptions.
This could set out the evaluation options linked to the initiative assumptions, especially if the evidence is limited.
5
6
7
8
Net Present Value (NPV) - The NPV is the sum of the discounted benefits, less the sum of the discounted costs (relative to the counterfactual).
This gives a dollar value representing the marginal impact on the collective living standards of all New Zealanders of the initiative, in today’s
dollar terms.
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) - The BCR is the ratio of total discounted benefits to the total discounted costs. A proposal with a BCR greater than 1.0
has a positive impact, because the benefits exceed the costs. The BCR is the same as the Return on Investment Societal Total, unless there are
negative impacts in addition to the fiscal cost of the initiative. All negative impacts are included in the denominator for the BCR measure. For
example, the BCR measure would reduce if the private cost to people of attending was monetised for the illustrative example and therefore
included in the denominator for the BCR calculation.
Return on Investment (ROI) - Societal Total - Calculate the ROI by dividing the discounted net change in wider societal impact, including
benefits to government, by the discounted cost of the initiative. This can be interpreted as the impact on New Zealanders per dollar the
government spends on the initiative, as an example for every $1 the government spends on this programme, New Zealanders receive benefits of
$3.
Return on Investment (ROI) – Government – Calculate the ROI by dividing the discounted net change in impact for the government by the
discounted cost of the initiative. This measures the discounted net marginal (fiscal) benefits to the government.
Cost Benefit Analysis Template: October 2015 | 4