What is the key characteristic that distinguishes a 'policy impact assessment' from a simple policy evaluation?

The key characteristic distinguishing a policy impact assessment from a simple policy evaluation lies in their primary purpose and scope. A *policy evaluation* primarily assesses whether a policy achieved its stated objectives and how effectively it did so. It focuses on *outcomes*, which are the direct results of a policy’s implementation. For example, a policy evaluation of a job training program might measure the percentage of participants who found employment within six months of completing the program. It asks: 'Did the program work as intended?' Evaluations often use methods like comparing outcomes for participants versus a control group (those who didn't receive the training) to determine if the policy caused the observed changes. They typically look backward, analyzing what happened *after* the policy was implemented.

A *policy impact assessment*, however, goes beyond simply measuring outcomes. It aims to predict and analyze the broader, often indirect, and sometimes unintended *consequences* of a policy *before* or early in its implementation. It considers a wider range of effects, including economic, social, environmental, and distributional impacts, across different groups and sectors. It asks: 'What will happen as a result of this policy, both good and bad, and for whom?' Impact assessments are prospective, meaning they look forward. They use modeling techniques, stakeholder consultations, and expert judgment to estimate these potential effects. For instance, an impact assessment of a carbon tax might not only examine its effect on carbon emissions (an outcome, and also something an evaluation would assess) but also its potential impact on household energy bills, the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries, and the overall national economy. It would consider who benefits and who bears the costs.

Crucially, while an evaluation *confirms* what happened, an impact assessment *projects* what *might* happen. Both use evidence, but impact assessments rely more heavily on forecasting and scenario planning due to the inherent uncertainty of predicting future events. An evaluation might use historical data to compare program performance across different years; an impact assessment might use economic models to simulate the effects of a new regulation on various sectors of the economy. Therefore, the focus on prospective analysis and broader consequences differentiates a policy impact assessment from a policy evaluation, which is primarily retrospective and outcome-focused.