Integrating policy evaluations as a central element of the policy cycle is essential, as such evaluations can offer valuable insights into effectiveness and guide informed decision making. They also contribute towards demonstrating how public resources are being used to deliver intended outcomes for citizens. Public policy evaluations in turn become a valuable source of evidence for others, shedding light on what works, why, for whom, and under what circumstances. Strengthening the use of evidence and improving communication about how it underlies policy decisions – and clarifying those policies impact on citizens’ lives – could improve public perceptions of government and institutional trustworthiness (see Section 2.4 on “Dignity” in Chapter 2).
Although all 31 OECD countries that responded to the 2023 Survey on Public Policy Evaluation had at least some form of evaluation in place, systematically conducting and using policy evaluations remains challenging for many governments. To tackle this, the 2022 OECD Recommendation on Public Policy Evaluation calls on countries to “establish robust institutions and practices that promote the use of public policy evaluations”. The recommendation is structured around three pillars that aim to improve the use of public policy evaluations and their institutionalisation, quality and impact (OECD, 2022).
The majority of OECD countries with data available (26 out of 31, 84%) have at least one institution with a formal mandate to centrally co-ordinate public policy evaluations across government. These designated “evaluation champions” co-ordinate evaluations across institutions and advise on best practices to promote their quality and use (Figure 5.4). In parallel, evaluations are also often conducted inside line ministries. A majority of OECD countries (22 out of 31, 71%) have dedicated evaluation units in some or most line ministries but only Canada, Mexico, the Netherlands and Spain report having dedicated units in all line ministries (Figure 5.5).
Mechanisms to ensure the quality and impact of evaluations could be further improved. The most common approach to ensuring the quality and consistency of evaluations is to provide central guidelines. Most surveyed countries have at least one set of guidelines for policy evaluation (24 out of 31 countries, 77%). Most also have evaluation clauses included in laws (24 out of 31 countries, 77%). These aim to ensure that evaluations will take place and will be planned in advance. However, in nearly all of these countries (23 out of 24, 96%), these clauses apply only to some policies. Only a minority of countries have adopted professional competence standards or requirements for those conducting evaluations inside the government (7 out of 31 countries, 23%). Moreover, the quality of evaluations is rarely subject to systematic external scrutiny through peer review. Only New Zealand subjects all evaluations to peer review, while 39% (12 out of 31 countries) only use peer reviews for some evaluations (Table 5.1).
For evaluations to have an impact, their findings must be communicated effectively. Countries could do more to embed and communicate the results of evaluations. Overall, transparency and the publication of evaluations are widely acknowledged as important. In 2023, most OECD countries (19 out of 31, 61%) published evaluation results by default. However, around one-third of countries (9 out of 31, 29%) lack follow-up mechanisms to ensure that evaluation results are implemented and monitored at the level of line ministries. Only a few (7 out of 31, 23%) have follow-up mechanisms in place for all evaluations (Table 5.1).
