The Government Performance Project Grades the 50 States: Has the Budget Crisis Hurt Citizens Who Depend on the Services of State Governments
Government Performance Project releases “Grading the States 2005,” the nation’s only comprehensive, independent analysis of how well each state is managed.
Washington, DC (PRWEB) January 31, 2005 -- State governments have shown mixed
success in weathering the worst financial storm since World War II in which
plunging revenues have coincided with surging costs. Some states have been
successful in figuring out how to deal with the crisis while others have
struggled.
This conclusion is based on research released today in the
Government Performance Project’s (GPP) “Grading the States 2005,” the nation’s
only comprehensive, independent analysis of how well each state is managed. The
new GPP report provides state-by-state information, analysis and tools to
compare each state. All 50 states received grades in the GPP’s report, which can
be found on http://results.gpponline.org and in the February issue of
Governing magazine. The project is funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts.
The report grades the states in four categories – Money, People,
Infrastructure, and Information – on a scale of A through F. It is designed to
show leaders how to identify their state’s strengths and weaknesses and how to
compare their performance with other states.
Because management and
outcomes are linked, the management of state government is especially important
in tight fiscal times. And since the states are taking a larger role in
executing domestic policy, neglecting sound management practices may affect the
delivery of vital services to citizens, the report said.
According to GPP
Director Susan Tompkins, the quality of management performance by state
governments is often critical to the success of a state’s programs and policies.
“The last few years have seen the biggest financial crisis for state governments
in 50 years,” said Tompkins. “The way a state has reacted to this crisis
managerially has had a big impact on citizens and will for years to
come.”
The project, the result of more than a year of research by a team
of academics and journalists, found that states are trying to balance their
books with a range of spending cuts, efficiency measures, borrowing and
revenue-boosting strategies, but are still faced with structural
deficits.
Despite the financial constraints, there are many positive
initiatives in state government, the report said. It highlighted Virginia’s
excellent financial management, Georgia’s ground-breaking human resources
policies, and Utah’s continuing success in maintaining its
infrastructure.
In its research, the project used an extensive online
survey (http://results.gpponline.org) filled out by designated state
managers; a systematic analysis of public documents, and interviews with
legislators and executive officials, independent citizen groups and academics.
The assessment criteria were updated from previous surveys to reflect the
results of good management, not simply a dedication to process. (Note to
journalists: please see methodology below for detailed information on
process).
In managing their money, most states have tried to balance the
books by cutting funding to government in ways that risk long term damage. The
report went on to say that many have tried hard to avoid using accounting
gimmicks.
Several states, however, used stop-gap measures to square their
books, the GPP found. New Jersey borrowed $1.9 billion to balance a $28 billion
budget last summer, a tactic that prompted the State Supreme Court to rule that
the state may not do it again. Tennessee’s governor transferred 9 percent of the
state’s highway money to the general fund and deferred its
replenishment.
The GPP found that states vary widely in their approach to
long-term financial planning. Virginia decided in 2002 that having six-year
budget forecasts was so important that the state mandated doing so. But
Massachusetts has a $3 billion structural budget gap because it cut taxes in
reaction to an unsustainable spike in revenue during the
1990s.
Massachusetts might have been able to avoid the problem if it had
a formal long-term planning mechanism that would recognize when revenues are not
liable to recur, the report said.
The most serious challenge states face
in managing people is the approaching retirement of many employees, an event for
which some states are ill-prepared.
In more than half the states, one in
five employees will be retiring over the next five years. In Tennessee, the
proportion is 40 percent, and Maine and Nebraska are close to that, researchers
found.
Some states are taking the problem more seriously than others. In
Georgia, which the report said may be the best-managed human-resources operation
in the country, agencies’ personnel plans are included with their strategic and
budget plans, and reported to state leaders in the budget process.
Staff
retention is an issue in states where salaries are low or stagnant, and has been
exacerbated by an anti-government ethos in some parts of the country that seeks
to belittle the value of the work done by state employees, the report said.
Researchers found that to boost morale, it’s possible to express
appreciation of employees even if there’s no money for bonuses. In Michigan,
select groups of employees who deserve recognition are invited to cabinet
meetings where members stand in their honor. The GPP’s assessment of
infrastructure management also yielded mixed results.
Nebraska has
created a six-year plan for all construction and major maintenance projects. But
in New Mexico, the governor, the House and the Senate are allowed to spend their
non-transportation capital budgets independently of any statewide needs. “Not
surprisingly, projects are frequently under-funded and delayed,” the report
said.
Overall, the biggest infrastructure challenge is under funded
maintenance, the GPP found. Oklahoma budgeted no money for facilities
maintenance last year while California has shifted funds from maintenance to
balance its general fund for the last two years. The repeated deferral of
maintenance will eventually result in higher repair bills, the report
warned.
The GPP also urged states to work closely with their neighbors to
coordinate infrastructure policy. The report praised the cooperation between
Florida and Georgia to cope with extra highway traffic resulting from last
year’s hurricanes.
On information management (IT), the states are
entering a new era in which technology is playing a central role in government
to gather, analyze, and disseminate information.
Michigan is in the
forefront of the technological revolution and is now aligning its IT initiatives
with government and business initiatives.
The GPP found states have taken
“e-government” to a higher level, offering online versions of a range of
services including drivers’ licenses, income tax forms, and benefits
applications. More states are now gathering data to create useful performance
information.
Some agencies are using web-based performance information to
improve their work, the GPP found. New York’s Department of Environmental
Conservation can now capture data about air quality with technology that didn’t
previously exist.
To view the complete report on all 50 states and to
compare one state’s performance to the other 49 states, see
results.gpponline.org. The February issue of Governing magazine also reports on
the state grades at www.governing.com.
The Pew Charitable Trusts (www.pewtrusts.com) serves the
public interest by providing information, policy solutions and support for civic
life. Based in Philadelphia, with an office in Washington, D.C., the Trusts make
investments to provide organizations and citizens with fact-based research and
practical solutions for challenging issues. With approximately $4.1 billion in
dedicated assets, in 2003 the Trusts committed more than $143 million to 151
nonprofit organizations.
The Methodology
“Grading the States
2005” builds on a rich lode of information about performance. The Government
Performance Project has collected thousands of pieces of data which, put
together, paint a detailed portrait of state government performance.
The
grading process for GPP 2005 built on the following
steps:
· Grading against criteria. The GPP graded the
states against criteria, not against each other. The team’s analysts began by
carefully identifying the four management areas – Information, Infrastructure,
Money, and People – that are most important in achieving policy goals. In each
management area, they then identified the characteristics of effectively managed
governments. These criteria, defined by the best research in the field,
established the grading standards.
· Refining the
criteria. The GPP’s research team then identified the components (that is, the
subcriteria) that make up each criterion. For example, a state that manages its
Money well would maintain structural balance by making limited use of one-time
revenues; a state that manages its People well would retain a skilled workforce
by maintaining productive relations with its employees. These subcriteria
defined each of the criteria.
· Collecting the most
important information on the criteria and subcriteria. The GPP’s research team
then collected the data that provided the best information about the criteria
and subcriteria. Researchers assembled much of the data from existing sources,
including information posted on state websites and published in government
reports. Some of the information came from an innovative web-based survey, in
which state officials completed information requested by the GPP. And some of
the information came from interviews conducted by the team of reporters from
Governing magazine.
· Analyzing the information through
a collaborative process. The research team of scholars and journalists then
jointly analyzed and discussed the data and its implications. They combined
their information and jointly assigned the grades.
·
Conducting the process in transparent fashion. From the very beginning, the GPP
committed to a process of transparency. The project’s researchers and reporters
consulted extensively with state officials before defining the criteria. The GPP
published the criteria and subcriteria before launching data collection. Along
the way, regular electronic newsletters kept state officials, as well as others
interested in the project, on its progress. When the GPP published the grades in
Governing, it provided extensive explanation of the grades and of the
information used to produce them. In addition to the narratives published in the
magazine, the GPP website contains deeper explanation. In the coming months,
more and more data and analysis from the project will be made available on the
website as well. The result is an unprecedented repository of information about
state government management, which will be available without charge to anyone
interested in reviewing it.
This is the third time that the Government
Performance Project has graded the states. The grades in this version are not
comparable with the grades in the previous phases of the project, for several
reasons:
· Number of management categories graded. In
the past, the GPP graded five management areas. In this version, the research
team redefined all of the criteria and combined some of them. As a result, the
five categories graded in previous versions do not match the four in this
version.
· Emphasis on results. Previous versions of
the GPP focused on the processes of state government. In this phase, the GPP
focused far more on the ability of state governments to produce results. For
example, in this version of the GPP, it is not enough for a state to demonstrate
that it collects information about the performance of its programs. The GPP
grades states on how they use that information to improve
results.
Because of these two important changes, grades in this version
of the GPP are not comparable with previous grades. Such comparisons should not
be made; if they are made, they are certain to be misleading and inaccurate.
The grades assess the capacity of state governments, as a whole, to
produce results. The grades do not represent a judgment of any individual within
state government, or of any branch of state government. Many things go into the
assessments, including state legal and constitutional processes, the structure
of state policies and programs, the relationships among elements of the state
government, and the relationship between government and its citizens.
# #
#
Source: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/1/prweb202479.htm