Posted by: Richie Bernardo

Running a city is a tall order. The larger the city, the more complex it becomes to manage. In addition to representing the residents, local leaders must balance the public’s diverse interests with the city’s limited resources. That often means not everyone’s needs can or will be met. Leaders must carefully consider which services are most essential, which agencies’ budgets to cut or boost and whether and how much to raise taxes, among other decisions.

But how do we measure the effectiveness of local leadership? One way is by determining a city’s operating efficiency. In other words, we can learn how well city officials manage and spend public funds by comparing the quality of services residents receive against the city’s total budget.

Using that approach, WalletHub compared the operating efficiency of 150 of the largest U.S. cities to reveal which among them are managed best. We constructed a “Quality of Services” score made up of 35 metrics grouped into six service categories, which we then measured against the city’s per-capita budget. Read on for our findings, expert insight and a full description of our methodology.

1. Main Findings
2. Detailed Breakdown by City
3. Ask the Experts
4. Methodology

Main Findings

Embed on your website<iframe src="//d2e70e9yced57e.cloudfront.net/wallethub/embed/22869/geochart-bestrun.html" width="556" height="347" frameBorder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <div style="width:556px;font-size:12px;color:#888;">Source: <a href="https://ift.tt/2NySGcG>  

Best-Run Cities in America

Overall Rank (1=Best)	City	‘Quality of City Services’ Rank	‘Total Budget per Capita’ Rank
1	Nampa, ID	70	1
2	Provo, UT	9	2
3	Boise, ID	5	3
4	Lexington-Fayette, KY	63	4
5	Missoula, MT	80	5
6	Sioux Falls, SD	4	18
7	Durham, NC	26	12
8	Lewiston, ME	38	8
9	Nashua, NH	2	30
10	Oklahoma City, OK	66	9
11	Las Cruces, NM	85	6
12	Greensboro, NC	32	15
13	Cedar Rapids, IA	22	21
14	Huntington Beach, CA	1	52
15	Billings, MT	49	14
16	Raleigh, NC	20	28
17	Rapid City, SD	73	11
18	Fort Wayne, IN	59	13
19	Fargo, ND	7	40
20	Virginia Beach, VA	3	46
21	Aurora, IL	28	31
22	Bismarck, ND	6	53
23	Lincoln, NE	12	47
24	Columbus, GA	121	7
25	Arlington, TX	53	23
26	Manchester, NH	33	34
27	Mesa, AZ	57	22
28	Salem, OR	56	24
29	Chesapeake, VA	24	44
30	Louisville, KY	86	19
31	Albuquerque, NM	123	10
32	Warwick, RI	39	36
33	Madison, WI	10	59
34	Salt Lake City, UT	31	41
35	Warren, MI	91	20
36	Grand Rapids, MI	42	43
37	Phoenix, AZ	43	42
38	Huntington, WV	120	16
39	Tucson, AZ	104	27
40	El Paso, TX	44	51
41	Portland, ME	17	67
42	St. Petersburg, FL	69	48
43	Tulsa, OK	111	26
44	Topeka, KS	115	25
45	Fort Worth, TX	60	53
46	Charleston, SC	23	68
47	Corpus Christi, TX	81	49
48	Mobile, AL	116	32
49	Aurora, CO	37	63
50	Worcester, MA	61	58
51	Reno, NV	101	39
52	Wichita, KS	124	33
53	Santa Ana, CA	35	69
54	Des Moines, IA	46	64
55	Spokane, WA	55	62
56	Little Rock, AR	119	37
57	Fort Smith, AR	128	35
58	Portland, OR	19	91
59	Eugene, OR	41	75
60	Las Vegas, NV	77	66
61	Gary, IN	142	17
62	San Diego, CA	15	93
63	Rutland, VT	25	83
64	Dover, DE	103	57
65	St. Paul, MN	27	87
66	Frederick, MD	14	99
67	Columbia, SC	122	55
68	Fremont, CA	11	102
69	Springfield, MA	108	60
70	Columbus, OH	84	70
71	Fairbanks, AK	96	65
72	Montgomery, AL	131	45
73	Austin, TX	8	107
74	Charleston, WV	125	56
75	Anchorage, AK	54	78
76	Houston, TX	89	71
77	Baton Rouge, LA	139	38
78	Dayton, OH	94	72
79	Casper, WY	50	83
80	Omaha, NE	58	81
81	Boston, MA	16	106
82	Tallahassee, FL	64	92
83	Hialeah, FL	92	79
84	San Jose, CA	13	117
85	Indianapolis, IN	110	76
86	Norfolk, VA	113	77
87	Anaheim, CA	30	109
88	Akron, OH	95	82
89	Orlando, FL	52	104
90	Minneapolis, MN	34	108
91	Shreveport, LA	143	50
92	Jacksonville, FL	99	88
93	Miami, FL	71	100
94	Colorado Springs, CO	62	105
95	Dallas, TX	83	97
96	Kansas City, MO	93	94
97	Bridgeport, CT	117	80
98	Tampa, FL	45	114
99	San Antonio, TX	48	111
100	Providence, RI	130	73
101	Jackson, MS	149	29
102	Milwaukee, WI	114	85
103	Bakersfield, CA	106	96
104	Pittsburgh, PA	68	113
105	Seattle, WA	18	130
106	Toledo, OH	145	61
107	Charlotte, NC	29	129
108	Lubbock, TX	107	98
109	Burlington, VT	40	124
110	Fort Lauderdale, FL	67	120
111	Nashville, TN	102	101
112	Garland, TX	78	115
113	New Orleans, LA	126	95
114	Fresno, CA	134	86
115	Birmingham, AL	135	90
116	Riverside, CA	75	127
117	Cincinnati, OH	98	119
118	Buffalo, NY	88	125
119	Stockton, CA	146	74
120	Richmond, VA	112	118
121	Sacramento, CA	82	131
122	Kansas City, KS	127	112
123	Modesto, CA	109	123
124	New Haven, CT	136	103
125	Knoxville, TN	76	134
126	Syracuse, NY	100	132
127	Rochester, NY	74	135
128	Wilmington, DE	132	116
129	Long Beach, CA	51	140
130	Baltimore, MD	140	110
131	Denver, CO	65	139
132	Cheyenne, WY	79	138
133	Yonkers, NY	47	143
134	Philadelphia, PA	138	125
135	Memphis, TN	141	122
136	St. Louis, MO	148	89
137	Atlanta, GA	105	137
138	Los Angeles, CA	72	144
139	Tacoma, WA	97	141
140	Chicago, IL	137	136
141	Hartford, CT	129	142
142	Cleveland, OH	144	133
143	Flint, MI	147	128
144	Chattanooga, TN	118	146
145	Oakland, CA	87	147
146	Gulfport, MS	133	145
147	San Francisco, CA	21	149
148	New York, NY	36	148
149	Detroit, MI	150	121
150	Washington, DC	90	150

*No. 1 = Best Run

Detailed Breakdown by City

‘Quality of City Services’ Rank* (Score)	City	‘Financial Stability’ Rank	‘Education’ Rank	‘Health’ Rank	‘Safety’ Rank	‘Economy’ Rank	‘Infrastructure & Pollution’ Rank
1 (71.19)	Huntington Beach, CA	28	1	6	19	8	137
2 (67.39)	Nashua, NH	43	25	17	2	12	108
3 (66.68)	Virginia Beach, VA	10	29	61	6	29	65
4 (66.59)	Sioux Falls, SD	26	17	19	28	4	69
5 (66.50)	Boise, ID	13	75	25	8	6	54
6 (66.48)	Bismarck, ND	20	64	9	23	9	41
7 (66.17)	Fargo, ND	49	11	23	14	11	27
8 (66.09)	Austin, TX	30	4	21	60	2	43
9 (65.91)	Provo, UT	16	37	63	7	25	57
10 (65.07)	Madison, WI	7	45	37	15	46	73
11 (64.98)	Fremont, CA	98	3	14	18	1	126
12 (63.69)	Lincoln, NE	14	71	30	12	32	93
13 (63.42)	San Jose, CA	69	30	3	40	3	119
14 (63.42)	Frederick, MD	38	5	31	21	61	117
15 (63.29)	San Diego, CA	90	8	12	34	47	28
16 (63.19)	Boston, MA	4	147	38	13	67	18
17 (62.98)	Portland, ME	35	36	55	17	73	16
18 (62.89)	Seattle, WA	34	48	10	88	16	31
19 (62.64)	Portland, OR	24	77	24	77	42	4
20 (62.23)	Raleigh, NC	15	63	45	37	27	50
21 (62.17)	San Francisco, CA	57	83	1	95	20	22
22 (62.05)	Cedar Rapids, IA	31	57	56	46	14	70
23 (61.99)	Charleston, SC	22	65	44	57	50	24
24 (61.36)	Chesapeake, VA	19	35	106	20	15	115
25 (61.07)	Rutland, VT	11	22	26	11	108	5
26 (60.82)	Durham, NC	6	62	35	72	51	118
27 (60.73)	St. Paul, MN	29	133	57	22	70	26
28 (60.28)	Aurora, IL	64	20	32	4	92	123
29 (60.14)	Charlotte, NC	17	21	80	71	28	104
30 (59.68)	Anaheim, CA	99	14	4	32	68	141
31 (59.65)	Salt Lake City, UT	12	101	43	135	7	33
32 (59.50)	Greensboro, NC	5	13	126	61	81	92
33 (59.39)	Manchester, NH	100	76	15	31	59	71
34 (58.94)	Minneapolis, MN	59	139	28	66	58	6
35 (58.73)	Santa Ana, CA	81	19	5	30	72	142
36 (58.50)	New York, NY	119	118	20	5	123	14
37 (58.29)	Aurora, CO	46	114	34	39	17	131
38 (58.24)	Lewiston, ME	61	113	75	26	65	29
39 (58.11)	Warwick, RI	112	93	68	3	33	110
40 (58.11)	Burlington, VT	131	59	2	9	88	11
41 (58.04)	Eugene, OR	27	140	58	84	76	2
42 (57.99)	Grand Rapids, MI	72	78	73	27	69	80
43 (57.92)	Phoenix, AZ	44	98	51	82	34	64
44 (57.76)	El Paso, TX	74	42	33	16	82	109
45 (57.68)	Tampa, FL	36	112	105	65	31	40
46 (57.49)	Des Moines, IA	60	38	108	56	35	90
47 (57.46)	Yonkers, NY	134	46	8	1	114	105
48 (57.28)	San Antonio, TX	37	15	84	115	36	88
49 (57.05)	Billings, MT	48	95	97	83	22	39
50 (56.95)	Casper, WY	1	132	101	10	39	51
51 (56.92)	Long Beach, CA	78	58	13	68	64	127
52 (56.77)	Orlando, FL	52	88	59	111	37	49
53 (56.66)	Arlington, TX	71	31	79	41	45	140
54 (56.52)	Anchorage, AK	62	44	83	98	10	97
55 (56.48)	Spokane, WA	56	54	42	103	86	63
56 (56.33)	Salem, OR	108	118	46	64	44	13
57 (56.33)	Mesa, AZ	68	96	54	45	30	136
58 (56.29)	Omaha, NE	89	49	107	36	56	86
59 (56.22)	Fort Wayne, IN	25	27	123	48	53	139
60 (56.13)	Fort Worth, TX	122	12	65	44	18	130
61 (55.94)	Worcester, MA	92	52	67	42	112	74
62 (55.93)	Colorado Springs, CO	94	120	60	47	5	122
63 (55.91)	Lexington-Fayette, KY	54	53	49	63	78	129
64 (55.86)	Tallahassee, FL	84	23	66	120	96	7
65 (55.82)	Denver, CO	57	149	36	51	24	83
66 (55.81)	Oklahoma City, OK	8	32	121	79	23	149
67 (55.74)	Fort Lauderdale, FL	45	115	27	119	84	32
68 (55.70)	Pittsburgh, PA	132	7	64	38	91	42
69 (55.68)	St. Petersburg, FL	51	110	94	112	19	48
70 (55.54)	Nampa, ID	75	123	96	54	43	35
71 (55.39)	Miami, FL	116	47	18	97	134	10
72 (55.36)	Los Angeles, CA	105	100	16	74	90	91
73 (55.23)	Rapid City, SD	88	99	22	81	71	66
74 (54.92)	Rochester, NY	83	92	76	53	143	1
75 (54.81)	Riverside, CA	87	41	39	90	38	144
76 (54.80)	Knoxville, TN	39	24	104	126	105	38
77 (54.62)	Las Vegas, NV	101	126	85	93	60	8
78 (54.41)	Garland, TX	141	9	70	43	21	135
79 (54.26)	Cheyenne, WY	9	124	82	75	13	78
80 (54.15)	Missoula, MT	125	2	50	128	79	45
81 (54.10)	Corpus Christi, TX	82	28	95	101	48	116
82 (53.99)	Sacramento, CA	107	108	62	85	55	77
83 (53.88)	Dallas, TX	136	6	52	73	62	72
84 (53.83)	Columbus, OH	91	72	115	52	74	79
85 (53.61)	Las Cruces, NM	41	90	113	70	119	59
86 (53.53)	Louisville, KY	42	106	112	89	77	96
87 (53.36)	Oakland, CA	113	60	11	141	40	112
88 (53.04)	Buffalo, NY	118	97	91	69	126	12
89 (53.02)	Houston, TX	123	16	71	106	97	60
90 (52.92)	Washington, DC	96	136	124	78	94	3
91 (52.72)	Warren, MI	40	116	89	25	100	120
92 (52.50)	Hialeah, FL	148	67	29	24	128	103
93 (52.46)	Kansas City, MO	86	18	87	138	63	114
94 (52.37)	Dayton, OH	55	89	90	110	141	19
95 (51.86)	Akron, OH	109	68	111	59	129	61
96 (51.83)	Fairbanks, AK	3	73	69	76	98	145
97 (51.76)	Tacoma, WA	111	87	40	133	57	111
98 (51.32)	Cincinnati, OH	93	125	132	86	116	15
99 (51.26)	Jacksonville, FL	103	105	136	91	54	52
100 (51.18)	Syracuse, NY	126	111	78	33	136	23
101 (50.98)	Reno, NV	130	86	109	55	41	95
102 (50.97)	Nashville, TN	119	91	125	100	26	58
103 (50.74)	Dover, DE	85	56	99	139	85	84
104 (50.70)	Tucson, AZ	110	122	47	116	113	76
105 (50.69)	Atlanta, GA	96	102	93	121	87	81
106 (50.29)	Bakersfield, CA	80	82	98	104	52	146
107 (50.03)	Lubbock, TX	77	33	103	142	66	133
108 (49.97)	Springfield, MA	124	128	53	62	133	62
109 (49.87)	Modesto, CA	114	79	81	134	49	121
110 (49.64)	Indianapolis, IN	21	142	134	123	101	89
111 (49.46)	Tulsa, OK	32	50	127	129	93	147
112 (49.43)	Richmond, VA	76	144	135	49	111	94
113 (49.41)	Norfolk, VA	73	137	142	50	107	100
114 (49.35)	Milwaukee, WI	121	69	92	113	117	87
115 (49.27)	Topeka, KS	106	107	133	114	75	44
116 (49.24)	Mobile, AL	53	43	146	124	122	30
117 (49.22)	Bridgeport, CT	144	61	7	29	146	98
118 (49.20)	Chattanooga, TN	102	40	110	127	80	56
119 (49.19)	Little Rock, AR	33	130	102	149	99	46
120 (48.95)	Huntington, WV	2	103	128	80	132	21
121 (48.82)	Columbus, GA	47	66	149	96	124	55
122 (48.75)	Columbia, SC	95	143	86	130	104	53
123 (48.73)	Albuquerque, NM	63	148	100	144	95	36
124 (48.70)	Wichita, KS	66	85	130	118	83	134
125 (47.83)	Charleston, WV	50	74	120	148	102	82
126 (47.36)	New Orleans, LA	140	10	117	122	135	9
127 (47.22)	Kansas City, KS	104	141	122	99	106	101
128 (46.99)	Fort Smith, AR	127	34	119	131	89	68
129 (46.90)	Hartford, CT	135	109	48	102	145	25
130 (46.22)	Providence, RI	142	117	77	35	142	17
131 (45.64)	Montgomery, AL	117	84	148	94	120	67
132 (45.36)	Wilmington, DE	79	55	118	146	144	113
133 (44.94)	Gulfport, MS	128	51	138	107	109	99
134 (44.83)	Fresno, CA	139	70	72	108	127	138
135 (44.79)	Birmingham, AL	115	26	129	147	131	106
136 (44.42)	New Haven, CT	143	104	41	105	139	47
137 (44.40)	Chicago, IL	149	39	88	67	115	34
138 (44.27)	Philadelphia, PA	138	146	143	58	125	20
139 (43.58)	Baton Rouge, LA	70	131	141	117	137	132
140 (43.27)	Baltimore, MD	65	145	150	136	118	75
141 (43.16)	Memphis, TN	67	121	139	145	121	125
142 (41.13)	Gary, IN	23	80	137	92	147	148
143 (41.13)	Shreveport, LA	137	81	140	109	140	107
144 (40.72)	Cleveland, OH	133	138	116	125	148	85
145 (40.41)	Toledo, OH	129	150	114	87	130	143
146 (39.45)	Stockton, CA	145	94	74	140	110	150
147 (37.96)	Flint, MI	18	134	147	132	149	102
148 (35.76)	St. Louis, MO	146	135	145	150	103	37
149 (35.28)	Jackson, MS	147	127	131	137	137	124
150 (27.79)	Detroit, MI	150	129	144	143	150	128

*No. 1 = Best Run  

Ask the Experts

A well-run city isn’t just the product of efficient budgeting or lots of resources. It is the fruit of countless other decisions, too. For more insight into why some cities perform better than others, we turned to a panel of local-government, economic and diversity experts. Click on the panelists’ profiles to read their bios and thoughts on the following key questions:

1. In your opinion, what are the most important issues facing U.S. cities today?
2. Why are some cities better run than others?
3. What can citizens do to increase the transparency and accountability of local government?
4. Are some forms of city government — a strong mayor versus a strong city council, for instance — more effective than others?
5. In evaluating how well a city is run, what are the top five indicators?
6. How can local policymakers reduce racial tensions in the wake of recent movements?

< >

• Ivis García Ph.D., AICP, Assistant Professor at the Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, The University of Utah
• Randall A. Cantrell Assistant Professor, Department of Family, Youth and Community Sciences, Housing & Community Development, University of Florida
• Mary E. Guy Professor, School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver
• Roland V. Anglin Dean and Professor, Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University

Ivis García Ph.D., AICP, Assistant Professor at the Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, The University of Utah

In your opinion, what are the most important issues facing US cities today?

U.S. demographics are changing profoundly. The forces behind these changes are multifaceted and well documented. These forces include immigration, aging, decreasing housing affordability, among others. Exemplifying the change in U.S. demographics is the projection that more than half of people living in the U.S. will be persons of color by the middle of the twentieth century. However, people of color or nonwhites-that is, African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, Alaska Natives, American Indians and other multiracial/ethnic groups-remain underrepresented in decision making nationwide despite their population growth. Everyone, regardless of ethnicity or race, wants a decent quality of life. Planners, elected officials and decision makers have an enormous responsibility to work with the public, private and nonprofit sectors to create communities that support livability.

Why are some cities better run than others?

U.S. cities are becoming more diverse. City managers must plan for an increasing number of individuals and families of color. This is a challenge but also an opportunity. Decision makers can have a positive impact by providing people of color access to opportunity in education, transportation, employment and other domains of life. Most importantly, government staff and officials can rectify some of the harmful effects of racism, xenophobia, and discrimination in this way. However, city managers need to be aware of their implicit biases in order to understand the consequences of color blind practices. Recognizing inherent biases is not an easy task. We develop blind spots because of our background, our experiences, as well as larger societal narratives. Implicit biases are unintentional.

A lot of cities are starting to offer cultural competency training. Cultural competency is a set of skills that enables planners to engage, communicate and plan more effectively, respectfully and compassionately with communities of color. Building cultural competency is central to planning neighborhoods and cities that serve the needs of diverse groups and people. However, learning and practicing cultural competency is not central to all of city management. Most city managers learn about cultural competency through interacting with others in their workplaces and their everyday life. City managers and staff must actively seek to understand their implicit biases (positive or negative) and engage with individuals and groups different than them to build cultural competence. The cities that are able to take cultural competency seriously will be better run and more livable for citizens than those who don’t.

What can citizens do to increase the transparency and accountability of local government?

Citizens should be involved. They should develop partnerships with government officials. This is important to create inclusive places. Citizens should recognize policymakers as allies to achieve goals and vice versa. People of color are more likely to advocate for smart growth initiatives, such as mixed use, transit oriented and walkable development. Policymakers should not use citizens for their own selfish purposes but rather listen to people and recognize their values.

Are some forms of city government -- e.g., strong Mayor versus a strong city council -- more effective than others?

I believe that it depends on who’s the mayor.

How can local policymakers reduce racial tensions in the wake of recent movements?

Creating inclusive places is an enduring challenge for policymakers. People of color have been historically excluded from the planning and decision-making process. Barriers leading to exclusion include racial and ethnic discrimination and poverty. Policymakers are responsible for providing access to amenities in the built environment. Given that this is the case; policymakers should aim to practice intentional inclusiveness in making decisions about the built environment.

Immigrants and people of color often experience barriers that prevent them from participating in community activities. Common barriers include lack of transportation, childcare, money, time, information, language, literacy and trust. Planners can help to overcome these barriers in various ways. One strategy is to locate participatory activities near transit in places that are meaningful to target communities. Another strategy is to speak simply and clearly to community members in their own language and to use techniques that are fun, engaging and accessible to people with low English language literacy. Policymakers should also draw on local knowledge in choosing a time and a place that works for community members and aim to build partnerships with community leaders as a way to build lasting trust.

In evaluating how well a city is run, what are the top 5 indicators?

I would say to be inclusive of people of color. People of color also are more likely to embrace and support smart growth initiatives such as mixed use, transit oriented and walkable development. Thus, communities of color may be allies for planners attempting to bring about smart growth. A more efficient and equitable practice would be to provide further access to transit dependent communities instead of promoting new development that may result in the displacement of people of color from areas of high opportunity to areas of low opportunity-as defined by access to transit and employment and affordable housing. Overall, the higher likelihood of people of color and immigrants to embrace progressive planning-meaning affordable housing, public transit and other policies that reduce inequality-offers a tremendous space for planners to improve neighborhoods, cities and regions for everyone, not just people of color.

Randall A. Cantrell Assistant Professor, Department of Family, Youth and Community Sciences, Housing & Community Development, University of Florida

In your opinion, what are the most important issues facing US cities today?

Decent, affordable housing; safe places for youth to play; integrated transportation methods providing public and private options.

Why are some cities better run than others?

“Better” is obviously a loose term, but an overall sense of fairness and inclusiveness are a couple items that come to mind for making a successful setting within a city. All segments of the population need to feel heard and represented by the actions of the city government. When this type of action is traceable and acknowledged, all segments seem to feel a sense of equity.

What can citizens do to increase the transparency and accountability of local government?

It is imperative to attend local school board meeting and council meeting and any other open government meeting. All public votes must be made available to constituents on a routine basis so the public knows when there are discrepancies between campaign promises and topical voting issues.

In evaluating how well a city is run, what are the top 5 indicators?

I am sure this is published in some sort if format. It seems to me a city should have:

• A nice blend of elected officials that have been in office for several years while several of them continue to be relatively newly elected and from all walks of life.
• A nice blend of diverse public speakers that have visited and successfully been able to deliver their message without interruption from outside, paid factions.
• External dollars infused into the economy from outside sources that have been purposefully recruited to spend money within the city, which is then retained and re-spent within the city creating an economic multiplier effect.
• Crime stats that reduce, especially where youth offenders are involved.

Mary E. Guy Professor, School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver

In your opinion, what are the most important issues facing US cities today?

• Funding services that citizens want.
• Integrating diverse constituencies while celebrating the differences between them.
• Creating and maintaining a sense of belongingness for all residents.
• Ensuring that safety net services are well managed (police, fire, housing for the homeless, emergency preparedness, healthcare for the medically indigent).
• Maintaining a public school system that residents are proud of.

Why are some cities better run than others?

There are as many reasons for this as there are histories for (and conflicts within) each city. The quality of city management results from a blend of past leadership, integrity and community-mindedness on the part of current leaders, a sense of place among urban residents, partnership between the business community and government, effective branding of the city, a vital civic culture, a willingness of citizens to pay sufficient taxes to fund the city, a civic-minded philanthropic community, leadership that stays closely connected with neighborhoods while nudging them forward, publically sponsored leisure events that build pride in the city (jazz festivals, Fourth of July events, ethnic festivals, sports events, etc.) No city can achieve all these all the time, but those that achieve a good number of them do best. The best city managers in the world cannot turn around a city whose populace don’t care about their environment, aren’t willing to tax themselves enough to cover costs, and are disengaged from any sense of community.

What can citizens do to increase the transparency and accountability of local government?

Local news outlets are quite effective at spreading the word about transparency and accountability, or the lack of either. To the degree that citizens support local media, they can exert more pressure. Community organizing is also effective, in terms of mobilizing neighborhoods to exert pressure on city officials. Political campaigns also offer windows of opportunity for demanding greater accountability. Additionally, citizens’ councils and city websites can be constructed in such a way that they become vehicles for city officials to make information accessible.

Are some forms of city government -- e.g., strong Mayor versus a strong city council -- more effective than others?

Both systems have been tried and found wanting because city management is hard. After years of a strong mayor system, some cities try switching to a strong city council system. Similarly, after years of a strong city council, it is not unusual for cities to try a strong mayor system. Both systems have their failings and their successes. In theory, a council - manager system (which implies a weak mayor who is primarily an ambassador for the city) is thought to provide more skilled management, while a strong mayor is thought to bring a unified vision. That which works best in some places does not work so well in others. And whatever works well for a while ultimately stubs its toe and gives rise to calls for the other. If there is any rule of thumb, it is that a strong Mayor works better in large cities (think Chicago, New York, Los Angeles) while the council - manager system works well in moderate-sized cities.

How can local policymakers reduce racial tensions in the wake of recent movements?

This is a hugely important question that municipalities are grappling with. Neighborhood representatives and local police have to sit at the same table and talk about what divides them. Dialogue, discourse, shared formation of policies and procedures, and accurate, rapid reporting of incidents are essential. Many city police departments are currently reaching out to neighborhood representatives to initiate dialogue. This is an uphill climb but it has to happen.

In evaluating how well a city is run, what are the top 5 indicators?

Any number of indicators can be used, depending on how “well run” is defined (financially, culturally, politically). Here are a few:

• Unemployment rate
• Population growth
• Crime rate
• High school graduation rates
• Citizen satisfaction scores
• Business growth
• Per capita income

Roland V. Anglin Dean and Professor, Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University

In your opinion, what are the most important issues facing US cities today?

America’s cities face many challenges.

Finding the “new, new thing” that will produce jobs is the key challenge. Many cities are on a quest to find strategies that will produce jobs. But the numbers show that postsecondary attainment is the new economic development. Possessing a credential (not just a BA) increases the possibility of employment and higher earnings over a lifetime. The facts also show that today’s companies put a premium on access to a large pool of educated workers. Many cities, to their credit, are getting serious about improving and articulating their K-postsecondary credential pipeline through dedicated strategies to provide support and guidance along the path.

The second major challenge is the continued need to refurbish or replace deteriorating infrastructure. Clearly, this challenge falls mainly on urban cities (big cities), but I include in that urban category formerly first-ringed suburbs with populations of 50k. While population loss has slowed, it still continues for many cities. With population loss comes higher taxes to maintain a civic infrastructure built for more people. Many cities are filled with buildings, such as schools, built to accommodate a larger population and now lie fallow. Lastly, youth unemployment remains a significant challenge — especially among minority youth. We have to find ways to bring youth earlier into the world of work through apprenticeship and other types of training programs.

Why are some cities better run than others?

I hesitate to say cities can be measured along the lines of better or worse - though I know that some measure of the kind can be found. City vibrancy in governance education, economic development, and other such important areas is dependent on leadership, resources, and talent to address challenges. You don’t get this equation satisfied across cities at the same time. What you are left with are cities that run well at any given time period, but that can change rapidly with a change of administration, a recession, etc. Today’s well-run city is tomorrow’s basket case.

What can citizens do to increase the transparency and accountability of local government?

Most larger and mid-sized cities have improved dramatically in terms of transparency. Information technology is a key component here. Cities now place a lot of information online including videotaped council meetings for later viewing. All this reduces the friction costs of democracy. With all this information available, there is still the age-old challenge of collective action for accountability. In other worlds, transparent government does not mean more participation. It may mean more ease and access to city services and resolve of daily problems. That is a good thing. But accountability, even in the information age, means good old fashioned shoe leather, pounding the pavements to organize neighborhoods if something is wrong on your block, your community, or your city.

Are some forms of city government -- e.g., strong Mayor versus a strong city council -- more effective than others?

All forms of urban governance are fraught with limitations and none are superior to the next. Urban governance works well when there are leaders possessing important analytical and political skills in roles such as city manager, mayor, and city council. By nature, conflict is part of the process; good leadership will find ways to overcome built in conflict and then move toward cooperation and a functioning city.

How can local policymakers reduce racial tensions in the wake of recent movements?

Back to the Future! Many years ago, “human relations committees/councils” were a big part of promoting conversations between different groups in cities. They were never panaceas, but they were organized ways to manage difficult conversations. We need modern day, standing committees that take group relations seriously all year round and not when there is a police involved shooting. Mind you, many human relations committees still exist but they have become too much a part of managing out conflict instead of promoting understanding and dialogue. I think we need safe spaces for actual people to talk and deliberate America’s thorniest legacy.

In evaluating how well a city is run, what are the top 5 indicators?

I hesitate in answering this question. There are no empirical indicators that you can use to define a well-run city. Running a city is an art because the variables that go into governing are so many and often random. I will say there are effective building blocks, precursors, for a well-run city. Number one is a diverse economic base. Second and no less important is an active civic life that promotes cross generational, cross ethnic, cross class, cross everything discussions and collaborations. Third, good schools that not only educate for success in the workplace but are a helpmate to success in civic life. Fourth, a sense of civic spirit or culture that is the glue for the city. Sports teams are an important ingredient (but not the only one) in creating a sense of civic spirit; cultural amenities (a vibrant, local arts scene) are another binding element. Fifth, a governance community (the private, public and non-profit community) that embraces innovation and change. If all of these are in place in a city, all else will work itself out.

Methodology

In order to determine the best- and worst-run cities in America, WalletHub compared 150 of the most populated cities across six key categories: 1) Financial Stability, 2) Education, 3) Health, 4) Safety, 5) Economy and 6) Infrastructure & Pollution.

We evaluated those dimensions using 35 relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing the highest quality of service.

Next, we calculated an overall “Quality of City Services” score for each city based on its weighted average across all the metrics. Finally, for each city, we divided the Quality of City Services score by the “Total Budget per Capita” (dollar amount) in order to construct a “Score per Dollar Spent” index — displayed as “Overall Rank” in the Main Findings table above — which we then used to rank-order the cities in our sample.

The metrics used do not create a disadvantage for DC, despite its unusual status as a city/state, with the exception of the Long-Term Debt Outstanding per Capita metric. However, even with that metric removed, DC still ranks last. Thus, the District was included in this report.

Financial Stability – Total Points: 16.67

• Moody’s City Credit Rating: Triple Weight (~12.50 Points)
• Long-Term Debt Outstanding per Capita: Full Weight (~4.17 Points)

Education – Total Points: 16.67

• K–12 School-System Quality: Full Weight (~8.33 Points)Note: This metric measures the share of public schools rated by GreatSchools.org with above average score.
• High School Graduation Rate: Full Weight (~8.33 Points)

Health – Total Points: 16.67

• Infant Mortality Rate: Quadruple Weight (~6.67 Points)
• Average Life Expectancy (in Years): Quadruple Weight (~6.67 Points)
• Hospital Beds per Capita: Full Weight (~1.67 Points)
• Quality of Public Hospital System: Full Weight (~1.67 Points)Note: This metric is based on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ ranking of public hospital systems.

Safety – Total Points: 16.67

• Violent Crime Rate: Double Weight (~5.56 Points)
• Property Crime Rate: Double Weight (~5.56 Points)
• Motor Vehicle Fatalities per Capita: Full Weight (~2.78 Points)
• Percentage of Sheltered Homeless Persons: Full Weight (~2.78 Points)

Economy – Total Points: 16.67

• Unemployment Rate: Triple Weight (~2.38 Points)
• Underemployment Rate: Full Weight (~0.79 Points)
• Median Annual Household Income (Adjusted for Cost of Living): Quadruple Weight (~3.17 Points)
• Median Annual Income Growth Rate: Double Weight (~1.59 Points)Note: Growth compares the rate in 2016 versus in 2015.
• Annual Job Growth Rate (Adjusted for Population Growth): Double Weight (~1.59 Points)
• Share of Population Living Below Poverty Level: Triple Weight (~2.38 Points)
• Economic Mobility: Double Weight (~1.59 Points)
• Growth in Number of Businesses: Full Weight (~0.79 Points)Note: Growth compares the number in 2016 versus in 2015.
• Change in Housing Prices: Full Weight (~0.79 Points)Note: Change compares the price in 2017 versus in 2010.
• Zillow Home Value 1-year Forecast: Full Weight (~0.79 Points)Note: The Zillow Home Value Forecast is Zillow's prediction of what the Zillow Home Value Index will be one year from now.
• Building-Permit Growth: Full Weight (~0.79 Points)Note: Growth spans 2015 to 2017.

Infrastructure & Pollution – Total Points: 16.67

• Quality of Roads: Triple Weight (~2.50 Points)Note: This metric measures the share of pavements in poor condition.
• Average Commute Time (in Minutes): Full Weight (~0.83 Points)
• Transit Access Shed: Full Weight (~0.83 Points)Note: “Transit Access Shed” is the total area of land that is easily accessible from any point via public transportation.
• Traffic Congestion: Full Weight (~0.83 Points)
• Walk Score: Double Weight (~1.67 Points)Note: “Walk Score” measures pedestrian friendliness by analyzing population density and road metrics such as block length and intersection density.
• Bike Score: Full Weight (~0.83 Points)Note: “Bike Score” measures whether an area is good for biking. The Bike Score is calculated by measuring bike infrastructure (lanes, trails, etc.), hills, destinations and road connectivity, and the number of bike commuters.
• Transit Score: Full Weight (~0.83 Points)Note: “Transit Score” is a patented measure of how well a location is served by public transit.
• Recreation-Friendliness: Quadruple Weight (~3.33 Points)Note: This metric is based on WalletHub’s “Best & Worst Cities for Recreation” ranking.
• Water Quality: Full Weight (~0.83 Points)
• Air Pollution: Full Weight (~0.83 Points)
• Greenhouse-Gas Emissions per Capita: Full Weight (~0.83 Points)
• Share of Parkland: Triple Weight (~2.50 Points)

 

Sources:Data used to create this ranking were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Council for Community and Economic Research, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Moody's Investors Service, GreatSchools.org, County Health Rankings, Health Resources and Services Administration, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Chmura Economics & Analytics, Zillow, The Equality of Opportunity Project, The Road Information Program, Center for Neighborhood Technology, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Walk Score, The Trust for Public Land, INRIX, U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development and WalletHub research.

from Wallet HubWallet Hub


via Finance Xpress