The Centre for Social Justice this week published a report entitled Outcome-based Government: How to improve spending decisions across government.
In what should be essential reading for anyone in the business of producing evidence and analysis for policy, the report sets out how both local and national government needs to up their game when it comes to applying the principles of evidence-based policy. As an example of the failure of government to use evidence and analysis adequately, it quotes the Public Accounts Committee as observing: ‘The Government spends £1.2 billion a year on measures aimed at tackling problem drug use, yet does not know what overall effect this spending is having.’
The report provides an excellent analysis of why evidence has not been applied consistently to the development and evaluation of policy. One observation has particular resonance for anyone who has worked in government research:
‘The late involvement of analysts in policy development led one civil servant to describe the process as “policy-led evidence making”, with the methodology often used to support ministerial initiatives rather than appraise policy options.’
As with any good analysis, the report offers a menu of practical solutions to the problem. Top of the list comes the need for government to articulate a specific set of outcomes that define its priorities. It’s all very reminiscent of the line argued in this blog of the value for local and national government of having a clear theory of change for policy interventions. Having robust empirical evidence for links between outputs and outcomes is an essential pre-requisite to effective monitoring and evaluation.
Whilst the report recognises the value of methods described in the Treasury’s Green Book, it notes that in too many cases, the guidance is not followed consistently. As anyone who has discussed the ROAMEF model with policy makers will know, in cases where its principles are applied, it is often too late after key policy decisions have been made.
Among the twenty, very practicable, recommendations the report makes, perhaps the most standout (for a right of centre think tank) is the establishment of a new, independent body to scrutinise the extent to which policy decisions in local and national government are adequately informed by robust analysis. The proposed new body, The Office of Spending Effectiveness (OSE), would be responsible for setting standards of decision making, ensuring policy was adequately informed by evidence-based business cases, and evaluated through the collection and analysis of robust cost and outcome data. Such a scrutiny function could potentially make great strides towards delivering evidence-based policy.
Whilst you may not agree with all of the proposals made in the report, it certainly reads like a refreshing new approach to the perennial problem of how to get evidence consistently integrated into the process of government, both locally and nationally. A valuable contribution to the debate?