« Deliberation vs. participation in blogs | Main | The Joy of Bike Racing -- A Photo Essay with a Scary Video at the End »

Rating the Performance of the 50 State Governments

pierrepic.jpg

Governing Magazine and the Pew Center on the States have just issued “efficiency and effectivenes” ratings of the 50 state governments. And the winners are … Utah, Virginia, and Washington, each with an overall grade of A-.

The ratings assess each state government in four key areas.

(1) Money: How states manage fiscal resources, including budgeting, forecasting, accounting and financial reporting, procurement, contracting, investments, and debt.

(2) People: What states are doing to recruit and retain strong professionals and to offer development and recognition for top-level service.

(3) Infrastructure: How states maintain, improve, and plan for future physical infrastructure needs, including roads, bridges and buildings.

(4) Information: How effectively states apply data and technology to measure the effectiveness of services, make decisions, and communicate with the public.

The state governments were graded — in dog-show fashion — against a set of criteria rather than directly against one another. Feeding into these assessments were data from “over 12,000 different sources—including surveys, written documents and interviews.”

Some of the state ratings should cause raised eyebrows — at least they raised mine. For example, Louisiana gets an overall grade of B and Kentucky a B-. These above-average and average grades, respectively, certainly cut against the grain of popular conceptions of the way those two states are run, and lead me to suspect that grade inflation isn’t confined to academia.

Anyway, how did your state do? To find out, click here. Does that seem about right to you? Do the raters know something you don’t know?

(By the way, the building pictured above is the State Capitol of South Dakota, in Pierre (pronounced “Peer,” of course, not “Pee-air”).

Comments

It does seem a little strange that New Hampshire garners all of a D+ while Louisiana is at a grade of B. I have never been a great fan of the Granite State, but I suspect that the ratings must be importantly driven by various tax and revenue variables and "political professionalism" variables, on all of which the state would do poorly. On the other hand, if one were measuring the "connect" between voters and leaders in terms of the latter delivering desired public goods and services to the former, I suspect that it would be among the most highly rated. Sigh....

Texas gets a B-plus? I don't think so.

I was wondering the same thing. Louisiana is know for its corruption and cronyism... Isn't that the platform Jindal ran on? Getting rid of the corruption/cronyism that is. Perhaps perceptions aren't reality...

California is given a rightful C I think because we are always tipping the scales of recession and extreme prosperity, we can never seem to level off and when we try, our governors love to strip the education budget.

Seems right (Washington). There is a level of progressivism among residents that is well-reflected in state government priorities. Recruitment and retention seems right up there, too, from what I recall (the phrase "land a state job" was often stated with reverence). Curious: were "A's withheld for any particular reason?

I firmly believe the rating system produced very accurate and fair results...the fact that I am a former employee of the great State of Utah has nothing to do with my very unbiased opinion.