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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
Hours To Execute (basic)
Hours to Execute (full)
Estd No of Collaborators
Financial Potential
Impact Breadth
Impact Depth
Impact Positivity
Impact Duration
Uniqueness
Implementability
Plausibility
Replicability
Market Timing
Project Type
Service