Evidence-Based Public Sector Decision Making Training Course

Participants can define a decision problem, scope it appropriately and identify the decision to be made.

• Problem statements separating symptoms, causes, affected groups and consequences
• Problem trees identifying immediate, underlying and structural causes
• Decision questions framed by population, intervention, comparator and outcome
• Boundary setting for geographic scope, time horizon and institutional mandate
• Distinguishing policy problems from implementation failures and information gaps
• Decision criteria agreed before evidence collection and option development

Participants can analyse stakeholder interests and political factors that affect decision feasibility.

• Stakeholder mapping by influence, interest, incentives and affected status
• Power analysis identifying formal authority, informal influence and veto players
• Political economy analysis of rents, incentives, institutions and contestation
• Consultation plans distinguishing information gathering from decision participation
• Managing conflicts of interest in evidence commissioning and advisory processes
• Distributional effects identified across regions, groups and service users

Participants can construct a theory of change that makes intervention assumptions testable.

• Theory of change linking inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts
• Causal pathways distinguished from implementation steps and contextual conditions
• Assumptions stated as testable propositions within each causal pathway
• External factors identified through context analysis and risk assessment
• Outcome indicators selected for each intended change and target group
• Contribution analysis questions used to test plausible causal claims

Participants can identify and document relevant evidence sources for a defined decision question.

• Evidence hierarchy matched to causal, descriptive, implementation and contextual questions
• Search protocols specifying databases, keywords, inclusion criteria and publication dates
• Systematic reviews, evidence syntheses and meta-analyses assessed for relevance
• Administrative records evaluated as evidence for service use and performance
• Grey literature located through government, donor and research repositories
• Evidence maps used to identify gaps, clusters and transferable findings

Participants can assess whether quantitative findings support credible causal and descriptive claims.

• Research questions matched with experimental, quasi-experimental and observational designs
• Randomised controlled trials assessed for allocation, attrition and external validity
• Difference-in-differences designs examined for parallel trends and comparison groups
• Selection bias, confounding and measurement error identified in study findings
• Confidence intervals interpreted alongside effect sizes and statistical significance
• Results tables checked for denominator changes, missing data and subgroup effects

Participants can assess qualitative evidence for credibility, relevance and explanatory value.

• Qualitative questions suited to mechanisms, experiences, barriers and implementation conditions
• Sampling strategies assessed for diversity, saturation and participant relevance
• Interview, focus group and observation methods examined for data quality
• Coding approaches reviewed for transparency, triangulation and contradictory findings
• Researcher positionality and reflexivity considered when interpreting participant accounts
• Qualitative findings integrated with quantitative patterns and administrative records

Participants can assess administrative data quality and produce decision-relevant descriptive analysis.

• Administrative data lineage traced from collection point to management report
• Data quality checks covering completeness, timeliness, consistency and uniqueness
• Disaggregation by sex, age, disability, location and socioeconomic status
• Rates, ratios and denominators selected for meaningful service performance comparisons
• Trend analysis separating seasonal variation from possible programme effects
• Dashboards assessed for indicator definitions, refresh cycles and decision utility

Participants can communicate uncertainty, evidence limitations and risks without obscuring decisions.

• Uncertainty sources classified as sampling, measurement, model and contextual uncertainty
• Sensitivity analysis tests how assumptions change option rankings and costs
• Scenario planning compares plausible futures, trigger events and response choices
• Risk registers distinguish likelihood, impact, ownership and mitigation actions
• Confidence statements calibrated to evidence quality, consistency and directness
• Decision thresholds specified where precautionary action is justified

Participants can assess how decision options affect equity, inclusion and rights-holders.

• Equity analysis identifies unequal access, outcomes, burdens and decision influence
• Intersectional analysis examines overlapping disadvantages affecting programme participation
• Distributional incidence considers who receives benefits and bears implementation costs
• Rights-based criteria applied to availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality
• Accessibility requirements identified for persons with disabilities and older people
• Do-no-harm screening identifies protection, exclusion and conflict risks

Participants can develop distinct, feasible options rather than presenting a preferred solution alone.

• Option generation separates intervention design choices from delivery mechanism choices
• Status quo, incremental reform and transformational options defined explicitly
• International evidence adapted through context, capacity and institutional fit tests
• Feasibility screening covers legal authority, workforce, systems and procurement
• Implementation pathways identify sequencing, dependencies and critical decision points
• Non-intervention options considered where information or safeguards remain insufficient

Participants can compare options transparently using weighted criteria and documented judgments.

• Multi-criteria decision analysis structures choices with explicit scoring criteria
• Criteria weights elicited from decision-makers using transparent preference methods
• Scoring scales define observable performance levels for each option
• Evidence confidence recorded separately from option performance scores
• Sensitivity testing identifies weights that change the preferred option
• Decision matrices document trade-offs, dissenting views and final rationale

Participants can apply proportionate economic analysis to compare public spending options.

• Cost analysis distinguishes financial, economic, fixed and variable costs
• Unit costs calculated per beneficiary, service episode or outcome achieved
• Cost-effectiveness analysis compares incremental costs against measurable outcome differences
• Cost-benefit analysis values benefits using transparent assumptions and discount rates
• Budget impact analysis estimates affordability within annual expenditure ceilings
• Distributional costs and benefits considered alongside aggregate efficiency results

Participants can select an evaluation approach that answers the decision need within constraints.

• Evaluation questions aligned with relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability
• OECD DAC evaluation criteria applied to programme review questions
• Process evaluations investigate implementation fidelity, reach and operational bottlenecks
• Outcome evaluations assess changes plausibly associated with programme activities
• Terms of reference specify scope, methods, governance and deliverables
• Evaluation commissioning plans protect independence while maintaining decision relevance

Participants can build monitoring arrangements that support timely management action and learning.

• Results frameworks connect strategic objectives, outcomes, outputs and indicators
• SMART indicators defined with clear numerators, denominators and data sources
• Baselines, targets and milestones set using credible historical or comparative data
• Data collection responsibilities assigned through monitoring workflow and reporting calendar
• Learning agendas prioritise uncertainties requiring structured inquiry and review
• Adaptive management triggers specify evidence thresholds and authorised responses

Participants can write concise decision papers that connect evidence, options and recommended action.

• Executive summaries state the decision required, recommendation and material trade-offs
• Evidence briefs distinguish findings, interpretation, assumptions and professional judgment
• Options tables compare expected results, costs, risks and implementation requirements
• Data visualisation selects charts that answer a specific decision question
• Plain-language writing removes technical ambiguity without overstating certainty
• Ministerial submissions identify approval points, fiscal implications and legal considerations

Participants can communicate evidence credibly when stakeholders challenge findings or recommendations.

• Audience analysis identifies decision-makers, technical reviewers, citizens and affected groups
• Message framing connects evidence with public value, mandate and decision criteria
• Briefing techniques answer challenge questions without overstating causal certainty
• Evidence disputes separated from value disagreements and institutional interests
• Facilitated decision meetings document agreements, reservations and follow-up actions
• Public communication plans address transparency, confidentiality and misinformation risks

Participants can translate a recommended option into an accountable implementation and review plan.

• Implementation plans sequence actions, owners, resources, dependencies and decision gates
• RACI matrices clarify responsibility, accountability, consultation and information flows
• Readiness assessments test workforce, systems, finance and partner capacity
• Procurement timelines aligned with market analysis, specifications and contract management
• Escalation routes defined for delivery risks, exceptions and policy changes
• Review cycles connect monitoring findings with formal management decisions

Participants can identify ethical, privacy and safeguarding requirements affecting evidence use.

• Ethical review requirements identified for research involving human participants
• Informed consent assessed for voluntary participation, comprehension and withdrawal rights
• Data minimisation limits collection to information necessary for stated purposes
• Confidentiality controls cover access, storage, transfer and retention periods
• Safeguarding protocols address disclosure, referral and participant protection risks
• Algorithmic decision tools assessed for bias, explainability and accountability

Participants can build, review and present a complete evidence-informed decision package for a public sector issue.

• Decision problem defined with scope, affected groups and approval requirements
• Theory of change maps causal pathways, assumptions and measurable outcomes
• Evidence portfolio appraised for quality, relevance, consistency and limitations
• Options assessed using feasibility, equity, cost, risk and expected outcomes
• Recommendation paper specifies preferred action, implementation plan and monitoring triggers
• Peer review tests logic, evidence claims, trade-offs and presentation clarity