Policy Quality Framework

Standards for quality policy advice #

The Policy Quality Framework sets out sixteen elements of quality policy advice, shown in the diagram below. These elements are organised under four standards:

Context
Analysis
Advice
Action

These standards have been developed to ensure consistency of advice to support decisions by ministers and Cabinet. All agencies use these standards to assess and report each year on the quality of their advice. Depending on the issue and the nature of advice, sometimes not all elements of this Framework will apply.

Context #

– explains why the decision maker is getting this and where it fits

Purpose, context, priorities, and connections across government are clear#

The paper: 

• clearly explains its purpose
• makes clear
  • why the decision maker is receiving the advice now
  • what the decision maker needs to do
• is set in the context of the decision maker’s priorities, perspectives and current understanding of the issue
• is informed by a strategic view about what is important in the medium to long term (i.e. takes a stewardship perspective)
• makes connections, so decision makers receive a whole-of-government perspective
• specifies who else needs to be involved in decision making (other ministers, Cabinet).

Outlines previous advice and history of the issue#

The paper: 

• includes or references previous decisions
• summarises key points in previous advice and the history of the issue (including impacts of previous decisions).

Analysis #

– is logical, clearly defined, and informed by evidence

Clearly defines the problem or opportunity, rationale for intervention, and policy objectives#

The analysis: 

• clearly identifies nature, scale and immediacy of any problem or opportunity (including who or what is adversely affected or may benefit, where, how much, and trends over time)
• explains the impacts of current policy settings (the status quo)
• explains the problem’s root causes (the what, why, and how) to the extent that they are understood
• clearly identifies what has given rise to any opportunities, their scale, and how they can be leveraged
• provides a clear rationale for whether the government should intervene or not
• clearly identifies policy objectives and outcomes that flow logically from the problem or opportunity definition.

Uses relevant analytical frameworks and methodologies#

The analysis: 

• identifies the analytical frameworks, tools, or methodologies used and their relevance
• makes any underlying assumptions or limitations of the chosen frameworks or methodologies clear
• is proportionate to the scale and importance of the policy issue.

Incorporates Treaty and Te Ao Māori analysis#

Where relevant, the analysis:

• explains Māori concepts in an informed and understandable way
• identifies approaches to the issue or opportunity that are based on Te Ao Māori or would benefit Māori
• identifies how the problem or opportunity and policy options could affect Māori, uphold the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles, and affect Māori Crown relationships
• highlights relevant Treaty claims, settlement negotiations and commitments, Treaty jurisprudence and any litigation risks.

Is informed by relevant research and evidence#

The analysis:

• is well informed by up-to-date data, evidence, knowledge, experience, and research from New Zealand and overseas including monitoring and evaluation results
• is unbiased and does not skew the data to make a particular course of action seem more or less attractive.

Assesses options to make impacts clear and reveal workable solutions #

The analysis: 

• scopes a range of options for meeting the policy objectives including:
  • regulatory and non-regulatory options, and doing nothing
  • opportunities for partnership approaches (e.g. with Māori, business, and non-governmental organisations)
• explains why these are the options, why others have been excluded, and the consequences of these choices
• logically describes how each option would achieve the policy objectives
• identifies relevant criteria, their relative weighting, and assesses the options against these (e.g. effectiveness, efficiency, equity)
• identifies the potential impacts of each option on which people, organisations, and resources (at a local and regional level as well as a national level) by assessing the likely scale and distribution of:
  • benefits, costs, risks, and opportunities
  • economic, fiscal, social, cultural and environmental impacts
  • direct and indirect impacts
• identifies what’s required for successful implementation and delivery (e.g. resourcing, legislation and regulation, staff training, IT, procurement)
• considers relevant international obligations or comparisons
• identifies any trade-offs between options (e.g. cost versus ease of implementation).

Makes any limitations of the analysis and advice clear #

The analysis describes limitations, including:

• any known limitations of the analytical framework or methodology used
• the level and quality of information and evidence available
• the level of engagement undertaken with stakeholders or consultation processes used
• the amount of time available to undertake the analysis.

Sets out the range of different views, experiences, and insights#

The analysis:

• clearly identifies who has interests in the issue and who is impacted (e.g. the public, Māori as the Treaty partner, specific population or other groups and communities, users or regulated parties, delivery agencies)
• explains what engagement was undertaken and what approach was used (e.g. public meetings, hui, co-design workshops, online surveys, submissions)
• identifies the views, experiences, and insights of different communities and stakeholders.

Advice #

– presents a clear position and makes a recommendation

Enables a clear and informed decision or next steps#

The advice: 

• identifies a preferred option or options, and explains that choice and how it relates to the policy objectives and potential outcomes
• provides the information needed to make a decision or take next steps
• where relevant, reflects and responds to the views of other agencies, communities, stakeholders, and Māori as Treaty partner
• identifies the key judgements the decision maker needs to make
• demonstrates awareness of the political context of the decision maker and wider environment, without straying into political advice
• makes clear, stand-alone and action-oriented recommendations.

Is communicated in a clear, concise and compelling way#

The advice:

• clearly sets out the purpose and key messages
• is presented in the most appropriate format that best fits the situation (e.g. aide memoire, briefing paper, A3, slide pack, draft Cabinet paper)
• is easy to read with simple sentences and short paragraphs
• uses tables, graphs and pictures, where these enhance communication
• is free from grammar, punctuation and spelling errors
• meets all relevant legal and process requirements (e.g. from Cabinet Office or the Treasury).

Is free and frank#

The advice:

• reflects an understanding of both what has been requested and what is required
• focuses on the decision maker’s objectives, and is frank, honest, apolitical and constructive about the best way to achieve them (even if this means challenging the decision maker’s understanding and initial preference)
• ensures decision makers are alerted to the possible consequences of different choices.

Outlines risks and mitigations#

The advice: 

• identifies the risks of the options (e.g. not cost effective, implementation difficulties, cost escalation, not acceptable to key stakeholders)
• identifies the probability that a given risk will eventuate, and assesses the size of the impact if it does
• sets out how risks will be managed or mitigated (e.g. communications, monitoring trials, evaluation, exit)
• is not unduly risk-averse and reflects that taking calculated risks may realise opportunities.

Action #

– identifies next steps, implementation, and monitoring

Sets out the next steps in the decision-making process#

The paper:

• identifies next steps in the decision process (e.g. Cabinet processes, Parliamentary process, regulations, financial/Budget proposals) and their timeframes
• identifies any further engagement required with other decision makers (e.g. other ministers, Cabinet), iwi/Māori or other stakeholders, and explains why.

Enables effective implementation and delivery#

The paper sets out key activities and timeframes for implementation and delivery, including:

• legislative process
• delivery steps for new programme
• upcoming public communications
• how delivery will be managed and governed
• what needs to be done, how it will be done, and who by.

Explains how the outcomes will be monitored and evaluated#

Where relevant, the paper: 

• describes how monitoring will be undertaken (by whom and when)
• notes how the monitored data will be reported on and how this will inform future decision making
• identifies which indicators will be monitored to show how well the solution is working (including progress, activity, outcome and impact measures)
• describes whether and how evaluation will be undertaken (by whom and when)
• notes how the evaluation will be reported and how results will inform future decision making.