"Once a policy is adopted, consequences and
costs begin to flow. It is therefore fundamental to achieving good
value for money that the standard of proof applied in Impact
Assessments is high.
Ministers need to be advised
on the range of consequences and risks implied as fully as possible
before they take their decisions. This means that departments
need to strive for high quality in the Impact Assessments they
produce. Although progress is being made, there is more to
do.”
Amyas Morse, head of the National
Audit Office, 1 July 2010
Impact Assessments, used to assess the need for and the likely
impact of proposed government policy interventions, do not yet
consistently provide a sound basis for assessing the relative
merits of different policy proposals. Further improvement in the
quality and use of Impact Assessments is needed in order to achieve
value for money.
According to a report published today by the National Audit
Office, some Impact Assessments are of a high standard, but wide
variation remains between the best and worst.
Eighteen per cent of the NAO’s sample were assessed as ‘red’
because they may not provide sufficient evidence to convince the
reader that the right conclusion has been reached. Over half had
weaknesses with only 28 per cent fully meeting reasonable quality
standards.
The number of policy options considered has improved, but is
still too limited, with almost half of the assessments considering
only one option, or one option plus a “do nothing” option. In
addition, Impact Assessments for interventions originating from
European Union decisions are often produced only after a decision
has been made at European Union level.
The use of quantification in analysis for Impact Assessments is
improving, with 86 per cent of those reviewed by the NAO containing
some quantification of the costs of their preferred option and 60
per cent containing some quantification of benefits. However,
10 per cent of the assessments had not quantified either the costs
or the benefits.
Departments have increased the resources that they allocate to
preparing Impact Assessments and internal scrutiny has improved.
Some Impact Assessments have altered the course of some policy
development, yet only half of policy staff felt that they were
useful in the policy process.
Publication details:
HC: 185, 2010-2011
ISBN: 9780102965315