{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01753155680224404, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0007012622720897616, 'mean_word_length': 5.286343612334802, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions

Students of implementation repeatedly argue that implementation problems should be considered when policies are made. Better policies would result, we are told, if policymakers would think about whether their decisions could be implemented before they settle on a course of action. The argument is often made in an accusatory way, as if policymakers were somehow deficient for not routinely and systematically thinking about implementation problems. Yet when one looks to the implementation literature for guidance, there is not much to be found. Implementation research is long on description and short on prescription. Most implementation research is case studies. This fact, by itself, is neither good nor bad. But it does present special problems when it comes to translating research into useful guidance for policymakers. Cases, if they are well written, focus on a particular sequence of events and a specific set of causes and consequences. When drawing conclusions from their data, case writers are characteristically and honestly cautious. They are typically careful not to generalize more than a step or two beyond their data, and they do that very apologetically. Thus, when we look to the most influential implementation studies for guidance about how to anticipate implementation problems, we find advice that is desultory and strategically vague.1