A policy brief is a concise, evidence-based document written to inform a specific audience of non-academic decision-makers about a policy problem and to recommend action. Unlike a research paper, which communicates findings to academic peers and emphasises methods and theoretical contribution, a policy brief communicates to policymakers, legislators, government officials, NGO staff, or journalists who need to understand an issue and make decisions about it quickly.
Policy briefs have become increasingly important for academic researchers in an era where research impact is evaluated beyond citation counts. Funders including the Wellcome Trust, NIH, and UKRI now assess societal and policy impact as part of grant and evaluation criteria. Journals increasingly expect evidence of knowledge translation. And many funding agencies require policy briefs as research deliverables alongside academic papers.
Despite this, most researchers receive little formal training in writing them. This guide provides a reusable template and five annotated examples across different sectors to show exactly how the template applies in practice.
| Core Principle A policy brief is not a summary of your research paper. It is a targeted, action-oriented document written for a specific audience with a specific decision to make. Every sentence should contribute directly to convincing that audience of the urgency of the problem and the value of your recommended solution. |
The Standard Policy Brief Template
While there is no single universal format, the following structure is accepted across academic institutions, government bodies, international organisations, and think tanks. It adapts to any discipline or sector.
1. Title (10-15 words)
State the policy problem or recommendation in clear, direct language. Solution-focused titles outperform question-format titles. Avoid jargon. The title should be understandable to any educated non-specialist.
Strong: Reducing Hospital Readmissions Through Same-Day Discharge Follow-Up: Evidence and Recommendations
Weak: An Examination of Discharge Processes and Their Relationship to Readmission Outcomes
2. Key Messages / Executive Summary (150-250 words)
This is the most-read section of any policy brief. Many policymakers read nothing else. It should contain: the specific problem and why it matters now, the scale or severity (with a striking statistic), your key recommendation, and the evidence underpinning it. Write this last but place it first.
3. The Problem (250-400 words)
Define the policy problem clearly and specifically. Establish the gap between current policy or practice and what the evidence indicates should be happening. Use data to demonstrate scale and urgency. Reference current policy where relevant so the reader understands the existing landscape. Avoid academic framing. Write for someone who knows the policy area but does not read research literature.
4. The Evidence (300-500 words)
Summarise the research evidence supporting your analysis. Prioritise the highest-quality evidence (systematic reviews, well-powered trials, robust population studies). Include any contradictory evidence and acknowledge its existence. For a policy brief based on your own research, position your findings within the broader evidence base rather than presenting only your own results. Use plain language, short sentences, and visual elements (tables, graphs, infographics) where they clarify rather than decorate.
5. Policy Options and Analysis (200-350 words)
Present two to four realistic policy options, including any status quo or do-nothing option. For each option, briefly assess feasibility, cost, likely impact, and trade-offs. This section demonstrates analytical rigour and builds credibility with readers who are sceptical of single-recommendation documents.
6. Recommendations (150-250 words)
State your recommended course of action clearly and specifically. Use numbered recommendations for ease of reference. Each recommendation should specify who should do what by when. Recommendations must be feasible, actionable within the decision-making authority of your audience, and directly supported by the evidence presented. Avoid vague language like stakeholders should consider or further research is needed as the primary recommendation.
7. About the Research / Author Note (50-100 words)
Provide a one- to two-sentence description of the research or project that produced the evidence in this brief. Include institutional affiliation, any relevant funding disclosure, and contact information. This establishes credibility and allows interested readers to request further information.
Format Guidelines
- Length: 2 to 4 pages is standard; 6 pages for complex policy topics
- Use headings, subheadings, bullet points, and call-out boxes liberally
- Avoid footnotes; use in-text hyperlinks or a brief reference list instead
- Visualise key data where possible: one well-chosen chart beats three paragraphs
- Use plain language throughout; aim for a reading level accessible to a generalist
- Remove academic hedging (it may be argued that, findings suggest) wherever possible and replace with direct statements supported by evidence
5 Annotated Examples Across Disciplines
First Example: Reducing Sugar Consumption in School Canteens Sector: Public Health / Nutrition
| Title: Reducing Child Sugar Consumption Through School Canteen Procurement Standards: Evidence and a 3-Point Action Plan |
| Key Messages: Children in England consume 40% more sugar per day than the government’s recommended maximum. School canteens account for up to 30% of daily intake for regular attendees. Three enforceable procurement standards, implemented at local authority level, could reduce school-hour intake by an estimated 18%. Cost to implement: minimal. Cost of inaction: significant downstream health expenditure. |
| Evidence Summary: Draws on a systematic review of 14 RCTs examining school food environment interventions, two UK national dietary surveys, and the author’s own observational study across 22 primary schools in the West Midlands. |
| Policy Options Shown: (1) Voluntary guidelines only [status quo], (2) Mandatory procurement standards with annual audit, (3) Financial incentives for compliant schools. Recommendation: Option 2. |
| Why This Works: The brief is addressed to a specific decision-maker (local authority catering leads), uses a measurable claim (18% reduction), and gives a specific action rather than a general direction. |
Second Example: Closing the Digital Skills Gap Sector: Education Policy / Workforce Development
| Title: Bridging the Digital Workforce Gap: Why Further Education Colleges Need Mandatory Industry-Validated Curricula by 2026 |
| Key Messages: Employers in high-demand sectors report that 62% of recent FE graduates lack job-ready digital skills. Current curriculum frameworks have not been updated to reflect AI, data literacy, or cloud computing competencies. Without intervention, the UK faces a shortfall of 700,000 digitally skilled workers by 2027. A phased curriculum validation requirement, co-designed with industry, can close this gap at low marginal cost. |
| Audience: Written for the Department for Education skills policy team and FE college principals. |
| Evidence Summary: Employer survey data (n=1,200 firms), Labour Force Survey analysis, and benchmarking against German dual-system vocational training outcomes. |
| Why This Works: Specific numbers, a clear timeline, a named gap, and a solution that references an existing successful model (Germany) rather than an abstract proposal. |
Third Example: Urban Heat Mortality Sector: Environmental Science / Climate Policy
| Title: Preventing Heat-Related Deaths in UK Cities: Why Green Infrastructure Investment Must Be Part of Local Climate Plans |
| Key Messages: The 2022 UK heatwave caused an estimated 2,800 excess deaths. Modelling shows urban tree canopy cover of 30% or above reduces ambient temperatures by 2-4 degrees Celsius. Only 12% of UK cities currently meet or exceed this threshold. Incorporating green infrastructure minimum standards into local climate plans is technically feasible, cost-effective, and time-critical as urban temperatures continue to rise. |
| Evidence Summary: UKHSA excess mortality data, remote sensing analysis of urban canopy cover across 42 UK cities, and a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing green infrastructure against air conditioning subsidies. |
| Policy Options Shown: (1) No change, (2) Voluntary green space guidance only, (3) Mandatory 30% canopy cover threshold in climate plans by 2027, (4) Financial incentives only. Recommendation: Option 3, phased over 3 years. |
| Why This Works: Uses recent real-world mortality data to establish urgency, quantifies the intervention’s expected effect, and ties recommendations to an existing planning mechanism (local climate plans). |
Fourth Example: Mental Health in the Criminal Justice System Sector: Criminology / Public Health
| Title: Diversion, Not Detention: The Case for Mental Health Courts in England and Wales |
| Key Messages: 58% of people entering the prison system in England and Wales have a diagnosable mental health condition. Mental health courts, operating in 10 pilot sites in the US and 2 in England, have demonstrated 32% reductions in reoffending compared to standard processing. Scaling the pilot programme nationally would cost 48 million pounds over five years while avoiding an estimated 380 million in incarceration and healthcare costs. |
| Audience: Ministry of Justice officials, Crown Prosecution Service leadership, and NHS England mental health commissioners. |
| Evidence Summary: Cochrane systematic review of mental health court effectiveness, Home Office pilot evaluation data, and an original cost-benefit analysis using NICE modelling frameworks. |
| Why This Works: The cost-benefit framing speaks directly to the financial concerns of government audiences. The pilot evidence reduces perceived implementation risk. The ‘Diversion, Not Detention’ title signals a clear value proposition. |
Fifth Example: Research Commercialisation Policy Sector: Higher Education / Innovation Policy
| Title: Accelerating University Research Commercialisation: Five Regulatory Changes That Would Double Spinout Formation Rates |
| Key Messages: UK universities produce world-leading research but commercialise it at half the rate of comparable US institutions. The primary barrier is not research quality but regulatory friction: equity split defaults, restrictive IP policies, and slow technology transfer office processes. Five targeted regulatory changes, costing nothing to implement, could double spinout formation rates within three years based on evidence from comparable reforms in Germany and the Netherlands. |
| Audience: DSIT policy officials, UKRI leadership, and university technology transfer office leads. |
| Evidence Summary: Cross-national comparison of spinout formation rates across 8 countries, interviews with 45 founders, and analysis of IP policy changes in Germany (2002) and the Netherlands (2018). |
| Why This Works: The ‘five changes, zero cost’ framing immediately signals political feasibility. Comparative international evidence reduces the perceived risk of change by showing it has worked elsewhere. |
Common Policy Brief Writing Mistakes
- Writing for academic peers, not decision-makers: A policy brief that reads like a journal article introduction will not be read. Replace passive constructions, hedged claims, and methodological detail with direct statements, clear evidence, and specific action.
- Burying the recommendation: Decision-makers read from the top. If your recommendation is in paragraph 8 of section 4, most of your audience will not reach it. State your key recommendation in the executive summary, then develop the evidence for it below.
- Vague recommendations: Government should invest in mental health is not a recommendation. The Department of Health and Social Care should allocate 50 million pounds from the NHS capital budget to expand crisis resolution and home treatment teams in the 20 local authority areas with the highest psychiatric admission rates by April 2026 is a recommendation.
- Ignoring feasibility: The best recommendation your audience cannot implement is useless. Always ground recommendations in what is within the authority, budget, and political context of your specific audience.
- Treating the brief as an abstract of your paper: A policy brief is not a summary of your methods, results, and discussion. It is a fresh document that uses your research as evidence in service of a specific policy argument.
Conclusion
A well-written policy brief translates years of research into an argument that a policymaker can read in fifteen minutes and act on immediately. It is one of the most high-impact forms of research communication available to academic researchers, and one of the most neglected.
The template and examples in this guide provide a starting framework. Adapt the structure to your audience and sector. Keep the language direct. Ground every claim in evidence. Make your recommendation specific. And never forget that the person reading your brief is trying to make a decision under time pressure, not evaluate your research design.
If you need support preparing your research for wider dissemination, or help translating your academic manuscript into formats that reach broader audiences, Mars Publications provides comprehensive publication support services.
| Get Your Research in Front of Policymakers .Mars Publications helps researchers translate academic findings into published outputs that reach the right audiences. From manuscript editing to Scopus journal submission, we support every stage of your research impact journey. Explore Publication Support |