Policy Brief Template (Problem, Options, Recommendation)

Two-page decision brief: decision needed, recommendation, problem, options on the same criteria, evidence strength, risks, plain language check

公共部門標準Practice; ISO 24495-1:2023 plain language principles (cited only)policy brief更新 2026/10/29

エディタで開く.mdをダウンロード

使い方: Use it when a minister, senior official or board must decide one policy question by a set date. Write the decision needed and the recommendation first, then compare real options including doing nothing. The main pitfall is a brief with one viable option, which reads as advocacy rather than advice.

プレビュー

Policy Brief: [Issue in a few words]

A policy brief gives a decision maker, usually a minister, senior official or board, what they need to decide on one issue: the problem, the options, a recommendation, the evidence behind it and the risks. It follows common public-sector practice and is written to the plain language principles of ISO 24495-1:2023 (relevant, findable, understandable, usable). Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example. Keep the main brief to two pages; put detail in annexes.

Brief control

Field	Value
Brief ID	[PB-2026-001]
To	[Decision maker]
From	[Team, author]
Cleared by	[@senior-official], [@legal], [@finance]
Date	YYYY-MM-DD
Decision needed by	YYYY-MM-DD, [reason for the date]
Classification	[Official / Official-sensitive]
Version	[0.1]

1. Decision needed and recommendation

Decision needed: [What the decision maker is asked to agree, in one sentence.]

Recommendation: [Option n, with the key condition.]

Why:

[Main reason, with a number]
[Second reason]
[Main risk and how it is managed]

Example: Decision needed: whether to give municipalities a legal power to close streets outside primary schools to motor traffic at drop-off and pick-up times. Recommendation: option 2, a permissive power with national guidance, reviewed after two years. Why: pilots in 14 schools cut traffic outside the gate by 70% at a low cost per school; municipalities keep local choice; the main risk, displaced traffic, stayed within agreed limits in 12 of the 14 pilots.

2. The problem

[Two or three short paragraphs: the issue, its scale, the cause and the trend. Cite each figure.]

Example: about 1 in 5 children in Veldmark's primary schools are driven the last few hundred metres to the gate. Peak-time traffic outside schools raises collision risk and air pollution where children gather. Municipalities report that they cannot close streets for short periods without a full traffic order, which takes months.

3. Options

Criterion	Option 0: Do nothing	Option 1: Guidance only	Option 2: Permissive power and guidance	Option 3: Duty on all municipalities
Meets the objective	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Cost to the public sector	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Cost to others	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Time to implement	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Legal or delivery risk	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Public and stakeholder support	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]

Example ratings: option 2 meets the objective where municipalities want it, needs a short amendment to primary legislation and costs about 8k per school in signs and staff time; option 3 reaches all schools but imposes closures where streets cannot absorb displaced traffic.

4. Evidence

Evidence ID	Source	Date	Finding	Strength
EV-01 (Example)	Evaluation of 14 pilot school streets	YYYY	Traffic at the gate down 70% on average	Moderate, before-and-after without control group
EV-02 (Example)	Survey of parents at pilot schools	YYYY	64% support continuing	Moderate, self-selected sample
EV-03 (Example)	Traffic counts on surrounding streets	YYYY	Increase within agreed limits at 12 of 14 sites	Good
[EV-nn]	[Source]	YYYY	[Finding]	[Strong / Moderate / Weak]

Evidence gaps: [what is not known and how it will be filled].

5. Risks and mitigations

Risk	Likelihood	Impact	Mitigation	Owner
[Risk]	[Low / Medium / High]	[Low / Medium / High]	[Action]	[@name]
Displaced traffic on nearby streets (Example)	Medium	Medium	Guidance requires traffic monitoring and a local review after 6 months	Municipality
Access for disabled residents and carers (Example)	Medium	High	Exemptions by permit in guidance; equality assessment	Ministry

6. Stakeholders and handling

Stakeholder	Position	Main concern	Handling
[Group]	[Support / Oppose / Mixed]	[Concern]	[Action]

7. Next steps

Step	Owner	Date
[Consultation on draft guidance]	[@name]	YYYY-MM-DD
[Legislative vehicle identified]	[@name]	YYYY-MM-DD
[Review point]	[@name]	YYYY-MM-DD

8. Plain language check

Principle (ISO 24495-1:2023)	Check	Yes / No
Relevant	The decision maker's question is answered in section 1; nothing is included only because it was available	[ ]
Findable	Headings say what follows; the recommendation is on the first page	[ ]
Understandable	Short sentences, everyday words, abbreviations defined, numbers with units and dates	[ ]
Usable	The decision maker can decide and act without asking for more information	[ ]

References

Reference	Edition or date	Use
ISO 24495-1:2023, Plain language, Part 1: Governing principles and guidelines	2023, first edition	The four principles used in section 8, cited by name only
[Evidence source]	YYYY	[Section]

Standard and licence note

Structure aligned with common public-sector briefing practice, and the plain language check is aligned with ISO 24495-1:2023, cited by name, edition and principle names only; no wording from the standard is reproduced. Official text: ISO, purchase or licensed access: https://www.iso.org/standard/78907.html, also available from national standards bodies. Check the current edition before use. The template text and example are original.

Template licence: MIT.