|
|
Grading the States introduction THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT
From the Publisher:
By and large, they tell a very positive story. The quality of the management effort has been improving for some time, and it has continued to improve since the first time we published state grades two years ago. Almost half the states received higher overall grades this time, while only 11 slipped. And that is despite the fact that in some key areas, the bar was raised a bit. Even an improved effort might not raise a grade because so many others were improving, too.
Surely the overall progress is, in part, the result of a robust economy, but there is more to it than that. As they continue to assume more responsibility, state governments undeniably are improving the quality of management. The purpose of this journalistic-academic program to measure management capacity in state and local government — known as the Government Performance Project — was to help promote that improvement. Clearly, it is having the desired impact.
I admit to having mixed feelings about grades. They tend to dominate everyone’s interest, largely because the local press emphasizes them. But what’s important is the research and reporting on what actually is happening in every state in each of the five management areas we concentrate on, and then the resulting comparison each state can make with the others. Grades should be secondary, but we all know that — just like in high school or college — they aren’t.
Two states stand out in my mind this time around: Michigan, for moving up into the A category, and Alabama, for moving from failing to passing status. In such a short time, that is considerable progress.
Only two of the 50 states — Connecticut and Florida — did not cooperate in completing the entire survey instrument we sent out to start the evaluation process. But high-level officials from all the states participated in lengthy interviews that are critical to gathering the information we need to make judgments. In all, our reporters conducted almost 1,000 interviews — and that doesn’t even include the fact-checking process. We are grateful to those on the other end of the line, and especially to the state budget officers, who bore the heaviest burden in providing information.
Thanks to all those both at the magazine and at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, our academic partner in this endeavor, who have labored diligently for the past year to produce this one issue. Their names are listed on page 22. My special gratitude goes to the dynamic duo that leads our reporting effort, Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene, who know more about state and local government and write about it more crisply and clearly than any journalists on the planet. This year, they had help from a strong rookie with great promise, Michele Mariani.
Now it’s on to the counties.
Peter A. Harkness
|
 |
The second round of management report cards for the states is published here, and you probably already have zipped through them to find out how yours fared. But please, I beg you not to stop there, because the introduction tells you an enormous amount about the current status of management in America’s 50 states. These are among the most important pages that we’ll print and post online all year.