Quantify policy compliance risk with evidence-based weighted scoring. Benchmark weak controls, exceptions, and risky access. Prioritize fixes using clear thresholds, trends, and audit signals.
Enter observed compliance, controls, access, and response data for your review period. Results will appear above this form after you submit.
Use this example as a baseline for monthly or quarterly policy risk reviews.
| Checks | Violations | Severity | Control Coverage | Training | Audit Score | Risk Score | Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,000 | 70 | 3.2 | 82.0% | 88.0% | 85.0% | 20.39 | Low |
The calculator converts each policy risk signal into a normalized 0–100 component score, then applies a weighted average.
Violation Rate % = (Violations / Checks Sampled) × 100Violation Rate Score = min(100, Violation Rate % × 1.5)Severity Score = ((Average Severity - 1) / 4) × 100Repeat Score = (Repeat Violations / Violations) × 100Exception Pressure = ((Open Exceptions / Total Policies) × 60) + min(Exception Age,50) × 0.8Control Gap = 100 - Control Coverage %Training Gap = 100 - Training Completion %Audit Gap = 100 - Audit Score %Access Exposure = (Privileged Ratio × 60) + (Third-Party Ratio × 40)Data Handling Gap = 100 - Data Handling Accuracy %Detection Latency Score = (Detection Hours / 72) × 100Closure Delay Score = (Closure Days / 30) × 100Final Risk Score = Σ(Component Score × Weight%)Thresholds: Low (<35), Moderate (35–54.99), High (55–74.99), Critical (75+).
Policy violation risk scoring works best when governance teams combine incident counts, control coverage, policy review status, and user behavior signals in one model. This calculator standardizes those inputs into a 0-100 risk score so leaders can compare periods consistently. Define the review window, policy scope, and sampling method first. Stable scope prevents false trend changes caused by incomplete audits, reorganized inventories, or shifting checkpoints across departments during monthly and quarterly reviews.
Input quality drives output quality. Count only confirmed violations, not duplicate alerts, and apply a documented severity scale to every record. Repeat violations should use a consistent lookback rule, such as ninety days, so recurrence rates remain comparable. Training completion, audit scores, and control coverage should come from the same reporting date. Exception age should be measured from approval to reveal stale risk acceptances that need review before policy exceptions are renewed.
Leadership reporting should never stop at the composite score. The weighted breakdown explains which drivers are raising exposure, including control gaps, exception pressure, weak audit performance, or access concentration. A moderate violation rate may still produce high risk if privileged access is broad and exceptions are old. Present top drivers with confidence indicators so executives understand whether to fund immediate remediation or expand sampling before major decisions in board and committee meetings.
Remediation planning becomes faster when teams map actions to risk bands. Critical results should trigger a seven-day plan with named owners, temporary controls, and daily checkpoints. High scores usually fit a thirty-day sprint focused on repeated violations and control enforcement. Moderate scores support quarterly hardening, overdue review cleanup, and targeted training. Low scores still need monitoring because staffing changes, new vendors, or shadow IT can quickly increase exposure without early warning metrics.
Continuous improvement depends on trend discipline. Run the calculator monthly or quarterly, then compare score movement, top drivers, and closure speed after each remediation cycle. Confirm that lower violations are not caused by reduced sampling, and verify that shrinking exceptions do not disrupt operations. Mature programs pair this score with incident severity outcomes, audit findings, and access recertification results to prove compliance gains are durable and operationally practical for audit and regulators.
The score estimates policy violation exposure on a 0 to 100 scale using weighted signals such as violations, severity, exceptions, controls, training, audits, access, and response speed.
Most teams run it monthly for operational monitoring and quarterly for leadership reporting. Use the same reporting window each cycle so trend comparisons remain meaningful.
No. It is a decision-support metric, not a substitute for audits. Use it to prioritize reviews, remediation, and resource allocation between formal assessment cycles.
High risk can come from weak control coverage, old exceptions, poor audit results, or broad privileged access. The weighted component table shows which drivers increased the score.
Larger sample sizes, accurate policy counts, consistent severity scoring, and reliable access data improve confidence. Clean inputs reduce false swings and make trend decisions easier.
Share the composite score, risk level, top drivers, and remediation actions together. Export the CSV or PDF after calculation to support audit, compliance, and leadership discussions.
Important Note: All the Calculators listed in this site are for educational purpose only and we do not guarentee the accuracy of results. Please do consult with other sources as well.