Phase 3: Design with best advice - tasks

The policy objectives set out the aim of the policy. Hence, it is crucial that the policy objectives are clear and understood in the same way by all stakeholders. This will support robust design and implementation, the avoidance of scope creep and, if new legislation is required to implement the policy, it will support the effective development of that legislation.

Supporting design and implementation

Most journeys start with a destination. So it is with policy. To design, fund, and implement services and schemes on time and within budget, it is essential that we clearly articulate the purpose of all of this activity. Equally, we can only assess the effectiveness of alternative designs or policy options against a clear statement of purpose. Officials should, therefore, try to set clear objectives, that articulate the purpose of the policy and meet the SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) criteria.

Avoiding scope creep

You may need to refine the identified objectives a number of times as you gather feedback and uncover new perspectives and priorities. This will make sure that policy design aligns with the central objective while considering potential conflicts with existing policies. In doing this, it is also important to be clear on what the policy is not intended to address. Oftentimes, ‘good’ policy is criticised for not being ‘perfect’. This can be because there are many issues to be addressed in most policy areas. A policy issue that is designed to address one issue can be criticised for not addressing other related issues of concern. For example, a policy initiative to expand pension cover can be criticised for not resolving gender pension gaps. Unless policy practitioners and decision makers are clear on the primary policy objective, this type of criticism can lead, during the design phase, to muddled thinking and ‘scope creep’ which undermines the primary policy objective.

Informing legislative provision

To implement some policies, it may require a change in legislation. Drafting legislation and supporting the various stages of the legislative process is a key task of many policy practitioners. The legislative process, by necessity, is a long and detailed process which is conducted in association with, and subject to the approval of, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (OPC). (10)

(10) More information on the legislative process is available online at Oireachtas.ie - How laws are made.

It is important to be as specific as possible regarding the policy intention in order to draft effective legislation and reduce the risk of an extended legislative process. Clarity on the policy objectives helps prevent unintended amendments during the legislative process and unforeseen consequences after the legislation is enacted.

You need to consider different available options when addressing a particular issue or problem. These options represent a range of strategies and interventions. When examining options, you should consider the different types of policy interventions or ‘policy levers’ which can be used by Government. It is also important to actively involve any departments, teams, or agencies that may play a role in delivering a policy option.

There is a vast range of policy levers available of which the most commonly used are direct provision of a service, regulation of services, or economic activities, economic incentives, and public information and education.

Directly providing a service

For some areas, the government will directly provide a service. This typically happens where the service wouldn’t be effectively provided in the free market, known as “market failure”. The market failure could be due to:

• the size and scope of the service required (for example, public water supply), or
• because the government is the main or only client for a service (for example: the defence services and regulatory bodies)

In any of these situations, it may be appropriate for the government to either directly implement or contract a service from a third-party provider.

Sometimes, a mix of direct implementation and contracting is used, especially in health services. Whatever approach is taken, the key defining feature is that the State is directly responsible and accountable for performance of the service.

Regulation

In other areas of activity policy goals can be achieved through introducing laws to require specific behaviours or actions aligned with the desired policy objective. Two examples of how a regulatory approach achieved their respective policy aims are:

• the Deposit Return Scheme which led to an uptake of recycling of qualifying containers, and
• the Plastic Bag Environmental levy which led to a significant reduction in the use of plastic bags

Economic incentives

Introducing financial incentives whether in the form of subsidies, penalties, or fines can encourage action in line with a policy objective. For example, grants to businesses and households for energy efficient power and heating systems, such as solar panels, can support the achievement of carbon reduction targets.

Oversight and governance

When using regulations or incentives, there’s often a need for a compliance and audit role. This typically involves conducting inspections to check if regulations are being followed or if people and organisations who receive incentives are meeting the necessary conditions. For example, the Department of Agriculture inspects food producers to ensure compliance with the standards necessary for certification and receipt of agricultural grants. The Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) monitors the safety and quality of the healthcare and social care systems on behalf of the government.

Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)

A regulatory impact assessment is a systematic evaluation of the potential effects of proposed policy changes. It should inform policy officials by analysing the economic, social, and environmental impacts of new regulations. RIAs should also consider cost benefit analysis, potential risks, and the regulatory alternative available to achieve desired outcomes. The goal of RIAs is to ensure that regulation changes due to policy development are effective, efficient, and achievable without imposing unnecessary burdens. A link to RIA guidance is listed in Appendix A.

Public education

Often a policy objective requires a behavioural change by individuals and households. In many cases, this might not be legitimately achievable through the use of regulatory methods or economic incentives. In such instances public information and education campaigns can help to achieve the policy objective. Common information campaigns might focus on encouraging healthier lifestyles (to reduce health or social care costs, improve quality of life, and prevent chronic illness) or holidaying in Ireland (to promote tourism, and boost local economies). During the period of the COVID-19 pandemic there was a very heavy reliance on public information and education as a means of changing behaviours to minimise the spread of infection.

Involving delivery teams and agencies (joined-up policy)

Ideally, we should involve the teams and agencies responsible for implementing the policy in all stages of the policy development process – from understanding the demand right through to delivery. However, while it may not be possible to engage as much as we would like in the early stages of policy development, it is critically important that they are fully involved in the process of selecting and evaluating policy options. A key part in analysing the options is to ensure that the people who will ultimately be responsible for delivering any of the options are consulted and that their input is considered. This is critical to establish if the options under consideration are feasible. In addition, it will help to determine the costs, organisation, system and other resources required to deliver different policy options. It will also help to identify any trade-offs with other priorities and the potential timelines for implementation.

Engagement with delivery teams and agencies will also help us assess the likely impact of a policy initiative. In other words, they can help us understand how effective the initiative will be in achieving our desired policy objectives. Real-world experience can be extremely valuable and provide much richer insights than any “top-down” research.

In doing all of this, it is important to recognise that a policy objective will often require the use of a number of policy levers working together. So it is important to consult with all delivery units and agencies to ensure a joined up approach to the assessment, development, and implementation of a policy solution.

For example, to achieve the policy objective of increasing the use of seatbelts, the government, via the Department of Transport, introduced legislation to make the use of seatbelts compulsory (regulation). It also introduced penalty points and fines for anyone caught driving without a seatbelt (incentives). This required collaboration with An Garda Siochana and the wider justice system (joined-up policy). In addition, the Road Safety Authority (RSA) was established as a state agency with the mandate to promote road safety in Ireland (direct provision of a service for the State). The RSA subsequently introduced the National Car Test to make sure all vehicles met safety standards, including provision of working seatbelts (audit and compliance). It also launched numerous education campaigns, including TV and radio ads, to promote wearing seatbelts (communication and education).

Among the various policy options, it is important to evaluate the consequences of the ‘do nothing option’, that is, an option where officials choose not to put in place any new policy or to maintain the status quo.

This option is often considered:

• when the severity of the problem is considered to be low
• the source of the issue and the potential impacts of interventions are uncertain, or
• when the costs and risks of implementing a new policy outweigh the expected benefits

Even if it is not chosen, the consequences of the ‘do nothing’ option need to be documented and its costs and benefits estimated as the “counterfactual” case against which other options can be evaluated.

Officials must carefully weigh the implications of each option, including the potential trade-offs and long-term effects, to make well-informed decisions that align with the overall policy objectives and societal interests. When canvassing various policy options, we must consider whether they are proportionate in terms of the scale of the problem, the intrusiveness of the intervention, the feasibility of implementation, the units and agencies that will be involved in their implementation and their costs and benefits (see further below on costs and benefits).

We need to analyse existing laws and regulations, both domestically and internationally important to make sure that the proposed policy is in line with applicable legal frameworks. It involves identifying potential conflicts, legal barriers, and constitutional considerations that may arise from implementing the policy.

Accordingly, you should consult with any internal legal advisors within your agency or department and, where appropriate, with the Office of the Attorney General to make sure the policy complies with all applicable laws, to identify and mitigate any risks of legal challenges and to assess if any new legislative provision is required to give effect to the policy initiative. Addressing legal implications at the outset:

• makes sure that the policy remains enforceable
• respects individual rights, and
• operates within the boundaries of the legal system

This process should also highlight if, and where, legislative changes will be required to implement the policy.

Task 2 and 3 together can help to narrow down policy options to those that are considered feasible. Once that is done it is important to move onto the next task – engaging with stakeholders.

As noted previously, when considering policy options, we must include those who will be involved in the implementation of the policy. This helps both to confirm/check the feasibility of different options being considered and to establish legitimacy If the policy change is substantial, or the issue being addressed is complex or sensitive we may need to conduct a formal public consultation.

There are a wide variety of ways in which a consultation or engagement process can be conducted.

Traditionally, complex or policy issues were often approached through a two-phased process of formal consultation.

Initially, officials would publish a ‘Green Paper’ setting out the policy issue and identifying a range of potential approaches and seeking input and feedback from interested stakeholders.

This input and feedback would then be published and used to inform a specific policy approach which would be set out in a greater level of detail in a ‘White Paper’ which would also be published and to which feedback would be invited.

Following this process of engagement, a final selection would be made and submitted to Government for approval.

While the terms “Green Paper” and “White Paper” have largely disappeared, and methods of engagement and feedback have moved from formal written submission to a more interactive format, the general approach is still valid and should still be considered as a model for consultation. The approach can be adapted and ‘modernised’, for example:

• we could hold a consultative forum (for example, a hybrid in-person and online format) to set out the parameters of an issue, share evidence and analysis, outline potential approaches, and invite open discussion with feedback captured in real-time
• we could then use smaller ‘focus-group’ discussions to focus on specific issues in greater detail. During these discussions, options can be shared to gather the opinions of the group
• we could address specific concerns and issues in bi-lateral meetings with key stakeholders

Collating and interpreting ideas and feedback can be difficult if an issue is discussed in general or abstract terms. For that reason, even if we haven’t followed a 'green paper/ white paper’ type approach, it is sometimes useful to create a ‘strawman’ document to crystalise key issues and provide a concrete basis for critique.

Engagement with the Oireachtas

Green/White papers or other consultative methods usually also involve engagement with the relevant Oireachtas Committees. These engagements typically involve a briefing by officials after which the Oireachtas Committee may decide to hold hearings or meetings with interested stakeholders. The Committee will then typically produce a report setting out its views on the matter. Engagement with Oireachtas Committees can be extremely useful. They can help us to identify gaps in potential solutions, explore alternative solutions, and assess or establish the legitimacy of policy options.

At this stage, we need to estimate the resource requirements and costs and benefits of the proposed interventions. This involves doing a thorough cost-benefit analysis, considering direct and indirect financial costs and benefits, while also taking care to incorporate our best estimates of non-financial costs and benefits.

For example, in a decision to establish a new embassy the costs that could be valued might include:

Set-up costs including overseas travel to investigate potential sites for the new embassy, the cost of purchasing or renting an embassy site, furnishing the new embassy, installation of IT and other systems, as well as removal and relocation expenses.

Operational costs including ongoing costs of running the operation including staff costs, utility costs, necessary licences.

Financial benefits might include savings from stopping the use of consular services provided by other countries and savings from reassigning staff who used to provide services for that location remotely.

Indirect/non-financial benefits might include increased trade and tourism revenues and increased foreign investment. Another benefit might be closer political ties and greater support for Ireland’s position in international fora. These indirect benefits should, where possible, be “shadow priced” based, for example, on evidence from previous examples of consular expansion.

Indirect/opportunity costs might also arise. As we do not have an infinite budget, when you put resources into one purpose, this in turn prevents you from using those resources for another purpose. Indirect or opportunity costs are the costs associated with what you are no longer able to do. For example, allocation of staff to a new embassy might mean that staffing levels at international bodies such as the OECD or the UN to would have to be restricted.

To conduct a robust cost-benefit analysis you should consider all of these types of costs and benefits for each policy option under consideration and estimate them as best as you can. You can then compare the overall costs and benefits of each policy initiative against the situation if the policy initiative was not taken.

We should also conduct scenario and sensitivity analysis which help us to assess how our policy outcomes could be affected if certain risks happen. These risks might relate to general economic or social conditions such as lower levels of economic growth, higher interest rates, or higher levels of migration. There could also be project specific risks such as an increase in the prices of key inputs or a delay in legislative approvals. Both scenario analysis and sensitivity analysis consider the impact of risks but with a different focus.

Scenario analysis

Scenario analysis involves assessing the impact of changes across a mix of key factors. For example, we may look at a scenario where there is both lower economic growth and higher costs. By exploring different scenarios, we can understand how variations in these factors affect the overall impact of the policy initiative.

Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis focuses on the effect of specific individual factors. For instance, we might analyse how a 5% percentage increase in prices affects the net benefit. This helps us understand the sensitivity of the outcome to changes in specific factors.

An example of the use of sensitivity analysis was the stress-testing of assumptions regarding the roll-out of water charges. One of the key assumptions was the gap in expectations regarding levels of payment and non-payment by the public. This emerged as a key difference between the Irish authorities and Eurostat.

Overall scenario and sensitivity analysis help us to evaluate risks and uncertainties, allowing decision-makers to make informed choices.

Useful resource: Public Spending Code (PSC)

The Public Spending Code outlines value-for-money criteria for evaluating, planning, and managing public investment projects in Ireland. The Code applies to all public bodies and organisations receiving Exchequer capital funding. Each department is responsible for making sure that they and related agencies establish sector-specific procedures aligned with the Code for evaluating, planning, and managing public investments.

The Code emphasises obtaining maximum value for money by following disciplined project evaluation, preparation, and implementation processes. It is based on principles of public financial management. It offers sufficient detail to enhance decision-making and value for money, while remaining broad enough to cover the broad diversity of investment areas in the public capital programme. A link to the Public Spending Code is listed in Appendix A.

Having completed Tasks 1 – 5, you should then be in a position to bring forward clear recommendations. Policy development involves creating well-grounded policy recommendations on how the proposed intervention will achieve the desired objectives, together with the costs, benefits, and consequences of the proposed intervention compared to other options considered, including the ‘do nothing’ option. You must present a logical and evidence-based argument for each recommendation, explaining how the recommended intervention is expected to bring about the desired change. This includes referencing relevant research, data, any analysis conducted as part of Tasks 1 – 5, and expert opinions to support the feasibility and effectiveness of the policy. You should also outline potential risks and limitations, any assumptions made in formulating the recommendations, and any consequences or trade-offs identified from your analysis in terms of costs, resources required, and impact on other government policy areas. (11)

(11) Each proposal brought to Government for a decision must set out if, and if so how, the proposal impacts Exchequer Costs, North-South and East-West Relations, Gender Equality, Jobs, Poverty Proofing, People with Disabilities, Competitiveness and Industry Costs, Quality Regulation and Rural Communities.

By providing clear evidence, you can:

• gain support from stakeholders
• build public trust, and
• create a solid foundation for successful policy implementation

Support from dedicated commissions/review groups

When making recommendations, especially where there are strong but diverse opinions regarding potential solutions, it can be helpful to draw on the findings of an expert group or commission. This is a group established who are gathered together to analyse the issues and provide balanced and objective recommendations.

Examples of such Commissions include the Future of Media Commission, the Commission on Tax and Welfare, and the Commission on Pensions. Commission members consisted of policy experts from academia and the public service together with representatives of stakeholder groups. They worked, with the support of secretariats provided by the civil service, to fully understand the issues in question (Deepen Understanding), and then to evaluate options and potential solutions (Design with Best Advice) up to the point of making recommendations as to best options. The consideration of these options then became a matter for Government.

Policy practitioners should always be open to involving external experts in the form of a Commission or otherwise to help develop recommendations for action. This approach can help to build legitimacy with stakeholders, to avoid perceptions that solutions are ‘pre-cooked’ with a particular bias, and to strengthen the hand of Government when it comes to selecting a policy option.

Ultimately, however, the civil service policy practitioner must take responsibility for, and own, the recommendation that is brought to Ministers and the government. This may mean taking a different view to that of an expert panel. As a policy practitioner you should be ready for this and be prepared to back up your recommendation with solid analysis.