Public Policy Analysis and Formulation Training Course

Participants can construct a precise, evidence-based statement of the public problem requiring action.

• Problem trees separate symptoms, immediate causes, root causes and effects
• Boundary statements specify affected population, geography, timeframe and statutory remit
• Baseline conditions establish the scale, severity and distribution of harm
• Causal hypotheses distinguish correlation, mechanism, contributing factors and assumptions
• Problem statements test urgency, governmental responsibility and scope for intervention
• Framing choices reveal how language changes priorities, options and beneficiaries

Participants can assess and assemble evidence appropriate to a policy decision.

• Evidence hierarchies compare administrative data, surveys, evaluations and systematic reviews
• Source appraisal tests relevance, reliability, timeliness, bias and methodological limits
• Descriptive statistics establish trends, disparities, rates, distributions and service demand
• Causal evidence identifies whether an intervention produced observed outcomes
• Triangulation combines quantitative data, qualitative findings and operational intelligence
• Evidence registers record source, finding, confidence level, limitation and policy implication

Participants can analyse stakeholders and institutional incentives affecting policy feasibility.

• Stakeholder maps classify interest, influence, legitimacy, position and likely response
• Power-interest grids identify engagement priorities and potential sources of resistance
• Institutional analysis examines mandates, veto points, accountability and coordination failures
• Incentive mapping identifies benefits, costs, risks and behavioural responses
• Political feasibility tests timing, coalition support, media salience and public acceptability
• Engagement strategies differentiate inform, consult, involve, collaborate and negotiate

Participants can translate a policy problem into measurable objectives and a credible Theory of Change.

• Policy goals state the intended public condition and strategic direction
• SMART objectives define measurable results, deadlines, targets and accountable owners
• Theory of Change links inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts
• Assumptions identify external conditions required for causal pathways to hold
• Causal chains expose missing links between proposed actions and desired results
• Equity objectives specify which groups should benefit and why

Participants can select policy instruments suited to the problem, target groups and delivery context.

• NATO framework compares nodality, authority, treasure and organisational instruments
• Regulatory instruments include standards, licensing, prohibitions, permits and enforcement
• Economic instruments use taxes, subsidies, grants, charges and tradable permits
• Information instruments shape choices through disclosure, campaigns, labels and guidance
• Service instruments provide direct delivery, vouchers, contracts and public procurement
• Behavioural insights test defaults, reminders, simplification and choice architecture

Participants can generate a credible longlist of distinct policy options, including a baseline option.

• Option generation separates policy objectives from predetermined preferred solutions
• Do-nothing baselines establish likely outcomes without additional government intervention
• Option bundles combine instruments, sequencing, targeting and delivery channels
• International benchmarking identifies transferable designs, conditions and implementation lessons
• Design parameters define eligibility, coverage, intensity, duration and compliance requirements
• Longlists retain plausible alternatives before formal screening and appraisal

Participants can screen options transparently using weighted criteria and documented judgements.

• Screening criteria test effectiveness, legality, affordability, equity and deliverability
• Multi-criteria analysis compares options where benefits resist monetary valuation
• Weighting methods make decision priorities explicit and open to challenge
• Scoring rubrics define evidence thresholds for consistent option assessment
• Sensitivity analysis tests whether rankings change under alternative weights
• Decision matrices document trade-offs, uncertainty and reasons for recommendations

Participants can estimate and compare policy costs and benefits using proportionate economic appraisal.

• Cost-benefit analysis identifies incremental costs, benefits and affected parties
• Cost categories include capital, operating, compliance, enforcement and opportunity costs
• Benefit valuation uses market prices, avoided costs, willingness-to-pay and proxies
• Discounting converts future streams into present values using stated rates
• Net present value compares discounted benefits and costs over time
• Distributional analysis identifies who bears costs and receives policy benefits

Participants can prepare proportionate regulatory impact analysis for proposed rules and obligations.

• Regulatory impact analysis defines the regulatory failure and intended correction
• Compliance-cost assessment estimates reporting, training, system and administrative burdens
• Administrative burden measurement separates information obligations from substantive compliance costs
• Small-business tests identify disproportionate effects on smaller regulated entities
• Enforcement models specify inspection, sanctions, guidance, appeals and corrective action
• Regulatory alternatives compare self-regulation, co-regulation, standards and mandatory rules

Participants can identify distributional effects and incorporate equity safeguards into policy design.

• Equality impact assessment identifies differential effects among protected and underserved groups
• Disaggregated data reveals disparities by income, gender, age, disability and location
• Access barriers include cost, language, documentation, digital exclusion and distance
• Human rights principles test participation, non-discrimination, accountability and transparency
• Targeting approaches compare universal, categorical, means-tested and place-based provision
• Mitigation measures address unintended exclusion, stigma, burdens and unequal outcomes

Participants can design a consultation process that obtains usable evidence and demonstrates procedural fairness.

• Consultation objectives distinguish evidence gathering, legitimacy building and conflict management
• Stakeholder segmentation tailors channels, materials, timing and accessibility arrangements
• Consultation questions test assumptions, impacts, options and implementation conditions
• Participation methods include hearings, focus groups, surveys, workshops and written submissions
• Response analysis codes themes, evidence, objections, proposals and affected groups
• Consultation reports explain input received, decisions made and unresolved concerns

Participants can write concise policy advice that supports a clear and accountable decision.

• Decision briefs state the decision sought, recommendation and required authority
• Executive summaries present the issue, evidence, options, risks and preferred action
• Options sections compare consequences, costs, trade-offs and implementation implications
• Recommendation rationales link the preferred option to appraisal criteria and evidence
• Clear drafting separates facts, assumptions, analysis, judgement and ministerial choice
• Annexes retain technical evidence without obscuring the central decision

Participants can convert an approved policy option into a workable implementation plan.

• Implementation plans sequence legal, financial, operational and communication activities
• Delivery models allocate responsibilities among central, local, contracted and community actors
• RACI matrices clarify responsible, accountable, consulted and informed parties
• Resource plans identify staffing, systems, procurement, training and budget requirements
• Readiness assessments test operational capacity before launch and scale-up
• Communications plans align messages, messengers, audiences, channels and feedback routes

Participants can establish risk controls, performance indicators and evaluation arrangements for a policy.

• Risk registers record causes, events, consequences, controls, owners and ratings
• Risk matrices prioritise threats by likelihood, impact and control effectiveness
• Performance indicators distinguish inputs, outputs, outcomes, quality and equity measures
• Indicator specifications define formula, source, frequency, baseline and accountable owner
• Monitoring plans establish reporting cycles, data assurance and escalation thresholds
• Evaluation designs compare process, outcome, impact, economic and equity questions

Participants can build, review and present a complete evidence-based policy proposal for decision.

• Problem definition establishes the policy issue, baseline and affected groups
• Evidence synthesis supports causal diagnosis, urgency and intervention rationale
• Options appraisal compares instruments, costs, benefits, equity and feasibility
• Preferred option specifies design features, rationale, trade-offs and safeguards
• Implementation plan assigns governance, resources, risks, milestones and indicators
• Peer review tests analytical quality, decision clarity and presentation readiness