At Summer Camp We Stress Tested Policy Assumptions So You Can Lead the Talent Show
Even the best-designed policy rests on assumptions about who will staff it, how it will be funded, whether the responsible institutions have ever coordinated, and if the goals are achievable. Those assumptions usually go unchecked until a program is already struggling, stalled by capacity bottlenecks, overlapping authorities, and other predictable implementation problems.
To dig into these questions and start to better prepare the policy design field for delivery, the FAS Center for Regulatory Ingenuity launched State Capacity Summer Camp, a workshop series that tests our assumptions about how policy gets implemented, where it breaks down, and what it takes to get from bill signing to on-the-ground results. Through tabletop simulations and interactive discussions, participants work through the most common implementation failure points: unclear outcomes and accountability; thin institutional capacity; policy design risk; empty chairs in drafting, execution, and evaluation; fragile trust; complex hand-off points; and weak feedback loops. Participants build the habit of deeply integrating implementation considerations from a wide range of perspectives into policy design and leave with practical tools for tackling unforeseen capacity and coordination challenges. And of course, there’s ice cream.
We developed a toolkit for asking these questions about any policy before it launches: the Pre-Implementation Stress Test Checklist. And now, we’re sharing it with you – to test, to tailor, to play with, and to build habits that integrate delivery considerations as soon as you have a policy idea.
Who is this checklist for?
Anyone who’s written a policy, program, or regulation and can still change it before it launches — or is at an inflection point where the direction or details of implementation can be changed. This checklist is designed for any level of governance (city, state, or federal – certainly tailor it for your use) and any policy that assumes implementation actions will take place, particularly out of sight or control of the drafter.
What is this for?
To test the assumptions, transitions, and expectations most likely to impact or break policy delivery across seven categories, and to focus scarce time on what’s manageable:
- Outcomes and Accountability: Is there a specific, evidence-based outcome this policy is meant to achieve — not just a process to complete? Is there a named owner who faces real consequences if that outcome isn’t reached?
- Institutional Capacity Assumptions: Does this policy assume institutions have the capacity, coordination, and willingness to deliver it? Have those assumptions actually been tested — or are they just being taken on faith?
- Policy Design Risk: Does the policy’s text or policy relationships create risk, through ambiguity, specificity, red tape, or outside veto exposure?
- Empty Chairs: Is there a group affected by this policy who wasn’t consulted in its design — and who might know something the drafters don’t?
- Trust and Legitimacy: Do the people and institutions affected by this policy trust that it’s fair — both how it was designed and how it’s being carried out?
- Hand-off Points: Are there points where authority, information, or responsibility transfer between institutions? If so, is each one set up to work — clear ownership, functioning information flow, no legal barriers in the way?
- Feedback and Learning: Is there a mechanism that will show, within the first 60-90 days, whether this is on track? Is there someone who is empowered to act on what it shows?
How to use it?
The checklist helps you identify key stakeholders and institutions, work through a policy deep dive, and understand spheres of influence.
Explore the Pre-Implementation Stress Test Checklist here. And tell us what you think!
Interested in learning more about State Capacity Summer Camp? We’re gathering around the campfire again this fall to continue learning and sharing best practices. Email us!
Even the best-designed policy rests on assumptions about who will staff it, how it will be funded, whether the responsible institutions have ever coordinated, and if the goals are achievable. Those assumptions usually go unchecked until a program is already struggling, stalled by capacity bottlenecks, overlapping authorities, and other predictable implementation problems. To dig into […]
Congress should establish a Modeling, Analysis, and Technical Talent for Energy Regulation Hub (MATTER Hub) within the Department of Energy (DOE).
The potential implication of these evidence gaps becomes more consequential when you look at how institutions actually make decisions day to day.
Every new institution inherits something – existing incentives, existing staff, decades of prior investment that shaped what’s possible.