Governments often struggle to assess the effectiveness of their policies due to limited in-house evaluation capacity. This leads to reliance on external consultants or academic researchers, who may lack deep institutional knowledge, face data access issues, and operate on timelines misaligned with government priorities. Without robust evaluation capabilities, governments miss opportunities to refine policies, allocate resources efficiently, and demonstrate accountability—especially for complex, long-term initiatives like climate or education reforms.

A Dedicated In-House Evaluation Team

One way to address this gap could be to establish a dedicated in-house evaluation team within government departments, starting with a small pilot group. This team could:

• Conduct real-time evaluations by embedding evaluators within policy teams to assess interventions during implementation.
• Develop standardized metrics to measure policy success consistently across departments.
• Train policymakers in basic evaluation skills to foster evidence-based decision-making.
• Centralize past evaluations in a repository to avoid redundant studies and share best practices.

The pilot could begin with 5-10 evaluators in one department, scaling up based on impact. Over time, it might evolve into a cross-government office similar to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), but focused specifically on policy effectiveness.

Stakeholder Incentives and Execution

Key beneficiaries include policymakers (who gain actionable insights), civil servants (who build new skills), taxpayers (who benefit from efficient fund allocation), and researchers (who could collaborate on studies). Government leadership might support this to reduce reliance on costly consultants, while department heads could be incentivized by tying funding to evaluation participation.

Execution could follow three phases:

1. Pilot: Secure funding, hire a multidisciplinary team, and partner with one policy team to evaluate an ongoing initiative.
2. Scale: Expand to additional departments, develop training modules, and launch a public dashboard of findings.
3. Institutionalize: Advocate for mandates requiring evaluations for major policies and establish a central coordinating office.

Comparison with Existing Approaches

Unlike consulting firms (expensive and episodic) or academic partnerships (slow and narrow in scope), an in-house team could offer cost-effective, continuous, and context-aware evaluations. While audit institutions like the GAO focus on retrospective compliance, this approach would embed evaluators earlier in the policy lifecycle for real-time improvements.

Potential challenges—such as bureaucratic resistance or politicization—could be mitigated by framing evaluations as learning tools, ensuring transparency, and involving stakeholders in metric design. Over time, reduced outsourcing costs or grants could sustain the initiative, while public dashboards would maintain accountability.