Washington, DC (PRWEB) January 31, 2005
Indiana is struggling to erase a budget deficit caused by its failure to cut spending in response to the 2001 recession and has too little information about how much its services cost. A state task force created to find ways of boosting government efficiency was unable to complete its work because many departments couldnÂt tell it how much they were spending.
These conclusions are based on research released today by The Government Performance Project (GPP), the nationÂs only comprehensive, independent analysis of how well each state government is managed. The project is funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts.
Overall, Indiana got a C+ grade on a scale of A-F for its management of money, people, infrastructure and information. It shared that rating with 15 other states including Arkansas, Illinois and Massachusetts, for its management of Money, People, Infrastructure and Information. All 50 states received grades in the GPP report, which can be found at http://results.gpponline.org/Indiana and in the February issue of Governing magazine.
According to GPP Director Susan Tompkins, the quality of management performance by state governments is often critical to the success of a stateÂs programs and policies. ÂThe last few years have seen the biggest financial crisis for state governments in 50 years,Â said Tompkins. ÂThe way Indiana has reacted to this crisis managerially has had a big impact on citizens in this state and will for years to come.Â
GPP researchers found that Indiana has become heavily reliant on one-time funding devices to pay its bills. It has cut payments to its Public Deposit Insurance Fund by $30 million, and withdrawn $380 million from its Pension Stabilization Fund. The Teachers Retirement Plan is severely under-funded.
Indiana gets a C for money management; researchers identified the long-term outlook, structural balance and financial controls/reporting as areas of weakness. It shares the grade with five other states including Alabama, Alaska and Hawaii.
In the area of people management, Indiana was given a C grade; the GPP identified weakness in strategic workforce planning, hiring, training and development, and managing employee performance.
On infrastructure, the state received a B-, a mark elevated by the transportation departmentÂs good record of prioritizing projects. The department takes advantage of public input, and experiments with new ways to get road projects completed more quickly, the report said.
Indiana was awarded a C in the category of information management Â how the state gathers, analyzes, uses and shares information; its budgeting for performance and program evaluation sub-categories were seen as weak. The state has also failed to set unified performance standards for its agencies, the report said. Agencies must determine on their own how their goals and objectives fit the public good.
Some agencies such as Corrections and Health and Human Services do an excellent job of setting performance targets, but the state has not been much involved in that process, the report said.
The GPP report, the result of a year of research by a team of academics and journalists, is designed to allow state leaders to identify their stateÂs strengths and weaknesses, and to compare the performance of their state to others.
The GPP used data from different sources: (1) an online survey filled out by designated state managers; (2) a systematic analysis of public documents; (3) interviews with legislators and executive officials, independent citizen groups and academics. (Note to journalists: please see methodology below for detailed information on process.)
To view the complete report on Indiana and to compare its performance to the other 49 states, see http://results.gpponline.org/Indiana. The February issue of Governing magazine also reports on the state grades at http://www.governing.com.
The Pew Charitable Trusts (http://www.pewtrusts.com) serve 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.
ÂGrading the States 2005Â 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:
Â· Grading against criteria. The GPP graded the states against criteria, not against each other. The teamÂs analysts began by carefully identifying the four management areas Â Information, Infrastructure, Money, and People Â 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.
Â· Refining the criteria. The GPPÂs 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.
Â· Collecting the most important information on the criteria and subcriteria. The GPPÂs 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.
Â· 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.
Â· Conducting the process in transparent fashion. From the very beginning, the GPP committed to a process of transparency. The projectÂs 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:
Â· 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.
Â· 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.