Find out more about how we evaluate our work in relation to our rules and wider effectiveness, and how this evaluation is a critical part of getting our interventions right and helping us improve our performance.
For our rules, the Rule Review Framework[1] sets out the 3 types of review we may undertake. These are:
- impact evaluations
- evidence assessments
- post-implementation reviews
Impact evaluations
Impact evaluations focus on quantifying the impact of our interventions after they have been implemented. They seek to assess what would have happened if we hadn’t intervened and take into account other external factors that have created changes in the business environment of the relevant sectors. These evaluations assess whether our intended outcomes have been achieved. They also look at what has worked and what hasn’t – and if not, why not. Where possible, we make comparisons to our expected impact before intervening[2].
The Annex to our Rule Review Framework[3] outlines how and why we intend to use impact evaluation to assess the impact of our interventions on consumers, firms and markets.
Here are the impact evaluations we have published so far:
- EP18/1: An evaluation of our guaranteed asset protection intervention[4]
- EP18/2: An evaluation of bringing additional benchmarks into the regulatory and supervisory regime[5]
- EP18/3: An evaluation of reducing barriers to entry into the UK banking sector[6]
- EP19/1: An evaluation of our general insurance renewal transparency intervention[7]
- EP20/1: An evaluation of our rent-to-own price cap[8]
- EP23/1: An evaluation of our 2019 overdrafts intervention[9]
Evidence assessments
An evidence assessment aims to collate and analyse any data that indicate whether the key intended outcomes of a rule or policy intervention are being, or are on course to be, met.
We will typically undertake an evidence assessment where evidence, primarily from monitoring or stakeholder feedback, indicates that a rule may not be working as intended.
Post-implementation reviews
A post implementation review (PIR) aims to establish whether the implementation of a rule has been successful, as measured by key changes, outcomes and discussions with stakeholders.
We may carry out a post implementation review where an evidence assessment indicates the need for a more in-depth review, or it may be planned in advance where the rule meets a set of criteria, as explained in the Rule Review Framework.
Other evaluation-related work
As well as evaluating our rules, we undertake or commission research to better understand the public value generated by our activities:
This research quantifies the deterrence effects of FCA authorisations activities and examines how firms seeking authorisation respond to the requirements of the process.
The research finds that the deterrence effects of authorisations are larger than its direct effects, thus providing confidence that the authorisations process deters poor firms from operating in financial services markets while improving the behaviour of firms operating in financial services.
These reports identify the benefits from our enforcement and policy activities over a 3-year period and compare them to the overall cost of running the FCA in the same period.