To make a persuasive case for policy reform, it’s not enough to point out and contextualize the issues, problems, or challenges you’ve uncovered during your research. You must also show your readers what is supposed to be happening, why the issue you uncovered exists in the first place, and what the future might be like if the reader followed your guidance (or, what might happen if they don’t).
In this explainer on the Four Elements of a Persuasive Policy Recommendation, we will be discussing how to use an analytical framework based on the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS), which were developed by the U.S. Government Accountability Office to ensure policy findings and subsequent recommendations for reform are as logical, transparent, and persuasive as possible. Whether you are interested in working for the government, a non-profit organization, or a private consulting firm, this analytical framework will be invaluable to you.
Let’s first lay out and define each of the Four Elements of a Persuasive Policy Recommendation:
1. Status: What’s happening?
Policy analysis and communication depend on a sense of shared reality: an ability to say that certain things are happening and that certain words can accurately describe what those things are. The status, in turn, aims to define, explain, and document that reality. What is happening? How did we get into this mess in the first place? How do we know what we know? What makes it persuasive to us? Is there anything we don’t know yet?
Characterizing the status is one of the toughest jobs you’ll have as a policy analyst. You must be able to synthesize data, evidence, and information in such a way that readers will want to know more. Doing so often requires discerning vocabulary choices, and it requires an appreciation for context. Is the program you’re evaluating fragmented? Or differentiated? Do programs work at cross purposes? Are you finding a lack of coordination? Or are you finding a lack of collaboration?
Note: A descriptive policy answer needs only a status (and maybe some outlook) because a descriptive policy answer should not result in a policy recommendation. Evaluative and prescriptive policy solutions, on the other hand, require you to include all four elements of a policy finding if you want to persuade your reader to implement your policy recommendation.
2. Criteria: What should be happening?
It’s simply not enough to point out a problem, issue, or challenge. To persuade your reader that what you found was in fact problematic, you’ll have to clarify what should be happening as a benchmark against which you can measure the status.
According to GAGAS, we can find criteria in “laws, regulations, contracts, grant agreements, standards, measures, expected performance, defined business practices.” In essence, “criteria identify the required or desired state or expectation with respect to the program or operation” and “provide a context for evaluating evidence and understanding the findings, conclusions, and recommendations.”
The criteria you select should be reasonable, attainable, and relevant to the matters being analyzed, whether “GAGAS approved” or based on your reader’s strategic goals common sense. Above all else, remember that policy analysis requires choice, and choice requires criteria based on preferences.
3. Interpretation: Why is the status happening?
To be persuaded by your recommendations for reform, your reader will need to feel confident that you have the best explanation for what’s causing the status. After all, if you don’t know what is causing the disparity between the status and the criteria, how can you persuasively argue that your recommendation will have any effect?
The best explanation can be distinguished from other explanations and is not compatible with these other explanations. Statistical reasoning has its place but only when integrated into an overall narrative or best explanation.
Feel free to think in terms of association or contributing factors or correlation, depending on the study design, method, and results you use in your work. Just keep in mind that it’s important to explain to your reader whatever the casual language you use actually means. Many readers, after all, don’t have a nuanced understanding of the language policy analysts use to communicate cause and effect, and we don’t want to risk being misinterpreted.
Evidence-based policy recommendations are based on research and analysis of available data. That doesn’t mean, however, that there won’t be gaps in knowledge or areas where research is inconclusive. Identifying these knowledge gaps is important because it can guide future research and help policymakers make more informed decisions. Moreover, when policy communicators acknowledge what they do not know (and their assumptions), that transparency can help build trust with stakeholders and promote accountability.
Don’t forget about qualitative data! American policymaking can be best understood by braiding (1) the more systemic analyses conducted by economists, political scientists, sociologists, historians, and others with the expertise to study policymaking at scale with (2) the direct, on-the-ground insights that can be gleaned from government officials, advocates, politicians, and the affected public.
4. Outlook: What will likely happen next?
The outlook portion of your policy answer looks to the future: What will likely happen if the cause of the status is addressed so that it moves closer to the criteria? In other words, what might the world be like if the reader took your advice? What might it be like if they don’t? If they prioritize something else? If you want readers to take your policy recommendations seriously, you must make sure the outlook—either positive or negative—convincingly shows that action needs to be taken.
You can frame the outlook positively for your readers: here’s the benefit they can expect to receive (or a negative consequence they can expect to avoid). Or you can frame things negatively by telling readers that if they don’t follow the recommendation, they can expect more poor outcomes (or miss out on some benefit).
Your readers, impatient for solutions to its pressing concerns, sometimes reward those who offer simple analyses leading to simple, unequivocal policy recommendations. Such incentives make it tempting for policy analysts and communicators to maintain assumptions far stronger than they can persuasively defend, all so they can draw strong conclusions. This must be avoided at all costs. In public policy analysis, transparency is key. In all elements of your policy narrative, be honest about what you know, what you don’t, and what you’re assuming to be true.
If your analysis is credible and coherent and communicated clearly and concisely, you’ve done all you can as a writer to advance your ideas. The next step requires the reader to take action. That doesn’t always happen, even with the best analysis communicated flawlessly. Different people and groups will make different assessments and arrive at different decisions, and often there will be no objectively right answer to address the status we’ve identified. Even when society agrees on what it wants and what it believes, there is never an optimal decision—at most there are various reasonable ones. The best we can do is try to make our reasonable one as attractive to the reader as possible.
Let’s take a deeper dive with a case study on USAID…
