 |
|
State Report Cards:
Alabama
|
From Governing’s
February 2001 issue 
THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT
Grading the States 2001
By Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene
Two years isn’t very long in the life of a state or in the evolution of public policy. And yet a surprising amount has changed across the country since the first installment of the Government Performance Project appeared in the pages of this magazine and on Governing.com in February of 1999.
States that seemed scarcely to know what work-force planning was two years ago are starting to practice it with confidence and skill. States that seemed at the forefront of technological advancement in 1999 have struggled to keep their momentum, and others are emerging to set the pace of innovation. And states that seemed hopeless in almost every category the last time are boasting of their commitment to modernization.
Alabama had the worst grades among the fifty states in 1999, with a D average. Its newly elected governor vowed there would be improvement — and there has been. Alabama’s grade in the current survey rose in four of the five areas the GPP covers. True, the state still weighs in with a C- average — hardly a candidate for the dean’s list — but the important thing is the movement.
Four states led the nation in 1999 with average grades of A-. They were Missouri, Utah, Virginia and Washington. Missouri and Virginia slipped a bit, but Utah and Washington remain at the top of the list — and Michigan has joined them there.
Given the simple fact that even the best-managed states receive some level of criticism in the pages that follow, the reporters at Governing and scholars at Maxwell were gratified by the level of cooperation the states provided. Forty-eight of the 50 completed lengthy survey instruments for all five areas covered — financial management, capital management, human resources, managing for results and information technology. Officials from all 50 states participated in a series of lengthy interviews, providing the bulk of the information in the pages that follow.
Governing reporters conducted nearly 1,000 interviews over the past several months, with sources both inside and outside government, including budget officers, managers in personnel, information technology, capital management — in both facilities and transportation — auditors, academics, legislative aides and representatives of government research groups. Individual states sent in boxloads of documents, which were evaluated by graduate students at Maxwell, and that information was added to the mix. The expanding use of the Internet by states also made more information available.
One warning: Changes in grades do not necessarily represent an absolute rise or fall in level of performance. Several other factors weighed in, including the following:
In 1999, for example, only a few states were doing serious work-force planning. Those that did it stood out from the pack in human resources. This year, far more states are involved in the effort, so a state doing precisely the same thing it did in 1999 could receive less credit.
Ever since the Government Performance Project began, its staff has attempted — not always successfully — to make the point that we are not fixing praise or blame on any single institution or player in state government. In a number of states, the local press corps seems intent on attributing bad grades to the governor — despite clear indications that the fault belongs more to the legislative branch, or the citizenry. This year, we even held God somewhat responsible for management problems in North Carolina.
And performance in one subject area frequently has its impact on the grade in another. Financial management grades suffer when information technology is inadequate. The same is true for grades in human resources and capital management. Similarly, states that do a terrific job at managing for results often do better in managing their finances and planning for their work force. And the interplay between financial management and capital management is inescapable. If a state has an unsustainable debt burden, that impacts the financial management side. But if the debt generally came from too much building, capital management takes a hit as well.
Finally, upon re-reading the 1999 GPP issue, there are two paragraphs that hold every bit as true now as then. It seems worthwhile repeating them, as they speak well to the underlying philosophy for this whole project:
“Despite our best efforts and intentions,” we wrote, “there’s little doubt that some states haven’t gotten the grades they deserve — in one direction or the other. The academic and journalistic resources devoted to this project were enormous, but they were not infinite and we would never claim that the judgments are perfect. The whole process is a mixture of science and art, and the best one can genuinely claim for the result is cautious optimism. Improvements will be made. Lessons will be learned.
“And all of us on both sides will be held accountable.”
Copyright © 2001, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Reproduction without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited. Governing, City & State and Governing.com are registered trademarks of Congressional Quarterly, Inc. |
 |
