The government’s approach to launching independent policy reviews is too ad hoc, inefficient and inconsistent, a new Institute for Government report warns.
Reviewing reviews: Lessons from past independent policy reviews points out that, in Labour’s nine months in office, it has set up more than a dozen reviews examining policy areas from social care to housing – “even though the prime minister has now expressed scepticism about whether it is right for ministers to ‘outsource’ policy thinking in this way”.
“Strikingly, there is no guidance for when to establish a review, or how to set up and run them,” the newly-published report says.
Ben Paxton, an IfG researcher and author of the report, said this means reviewers and review teams "too often have to start from scratch in a way that wastes time and effort”.
The report, published today, says: "While the lack of standardisation in the UK means there are few constraints on how reviews are conducted, it means additional time and resource is often spent getting to grips with the set-up and running of the review rather than the topic at hand... It also risks reviews repeating mistakes of the past, and not being as effective in producing useful findings and recommendations for government."
Drawing on interviews with former lead reviewers and a study of past reviews, the report calls on the Cabinet Office to provide guidance for those commissioned by government to carry out policy reviews.
It includes a series of recommendations on when and how it might be beneficial for government to commission reviews, how reviews should be run, and how to ensure the findings have a meaningful impact.
Echoing commentary from former DHSC perm sec Una O'Brien about the “gaps between the recommendations of public inquiries and their implementation”, the IfG report says that “many reviews have simply been consigned to sit on a shelf”. This might be because of “a lack of political will to take action… or because the commissioning politicians have moved on”.
To address this, the IfG suggests those carrying out reviews should make sure government is “not surprised” by the final recommendations. This is particularly the case where cost is a factor in implementation, meaning “the Treasury is a key stakeholder”.
“Prepare the ground with officials and politicians, ensuring that no one who would make decisions as a result of the review is surprised by its outcome,” the report says. It adds that reviewers need to make sure that government “follows through” by promoting recommendations after publication and by checking progress.
“Consider reporting 6-12 months after the review on whether recommendations have been put into practice,” the thinktank says.
The report also says that capacity and capability are an important factor for review teams: under-resourcing “can be a tactic used by departments to frustrate reviews”.
Further recommendations include being “realistic about the time and effort involved” and agreeing a “feasible timetable from the start”. The report found that, based on a sample of 66 independent reviews commissioned between 2010 and 2024, over half of the reviews (38) took less than a year from commission to publication, while two reviews lasted over four years.
Paxton said reviews “should be part of this government's plans for reform” but there are important lessons to be learned from both the successes and failures of past reviews.
IfG senior fellow and report co-author Jill Rutter said policy reviews “done well, can break logjams on really difficult questions”. They also give ministers the benefit of “a fresh look at hard questions” and should be regarded as “a useful way of making policy”, she added.
Rutter is hosting an IfG panel event today, featuring Ed Balls, Dame Carol Black, Dame Tracey Crouch, and Sir Howard Davies, which will explore how the government can best use reviews.