Posted by: Richie Bernardo

Running a city is a tall order. The governments of large cities, especially, can be more complex and difficult to manage than entire countries. In addition to representing the residents they serve, local leaders must balance the public’s diverse interests with the city’s limited resources. Consequently, 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, whether and how high to raise taxes, among other important decisions that affect the daily lives of city dwellers.

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’s analysts compared the operating efficiency of 150 of the largest U.S. cities to reveal which among them are managed best. More specifically, we constructed a “Quality of Services” score comprising 33 key performance indicators 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="http://ift.tt/2tFfP3t;  

Best- & Worst-Run Cities in America

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

*No. 1 = Best Run

Detailed Breakdown by City

 

‘Overall City Services’ Rank* (Score)	City	‘Financial Stability’ Rank	‘Education’ Rank	‘Health’ Rank	‘Safety’ Rank	‘Economy’ Rank	‘Infrastructure & Pollution’ Rank
1 (76.38)	Huntington Beach, CA	27	1	5	8	7	143
2 (76.18)	Bismarck, ND	19	33	34	9	1	10
3 (74.06)	Provo, UT	13	7	31	5	31	63
4 (72.51)	Virginia Beach, VA	8	11	61	3	20	62
5 (72.39)	Fremont, CA	94	2	12	2	2	125
6 (71.85)	Boise, ID	15	55	15	11	10	54
7 (71.60)	Austin, TX	22	4	18	62	6	49
8 (70.55)	Sioux Falls, SD	56	21	21	34	9	19
9 (70.03)	Fargo, ND	46	27	53	14	24	11
10 (69.73)	Nashua, NH	39	80	29	4	15	88
11 (69.64)	Cedar Rapids, IA	31	46	32	16	43	66
12 (69.60)	Frederick, MD	41	3	14	26	68	136
13 (69.43)	Madison, WI	6	52	30	20	33	84
14 (69.04)	Charleston, SC	30	15	51	52	16	15
15 (69.04)	San Jose, CA	69	17	1	15	17	123
16 (68.95)	Seattle, WA	37	26	6	84	14	39
17 (68.77)	Portland, OR	24	73	26	27	30	3
18 (68.70)	San Diego, CA	90	24	11	18	40	35
19 (67.90)	Portland, ME	36	62	36	21	84	9
20 (67.63)	Nampa, ID	16	77	65	44	44	41
21 (67.31)	Lincoln, NE	18	48	52	29	34	78
22 (67.28)	Aurora, IL	74	12	16	7	74	124
23 (66.36)	Raleigh, NC	12	44	58	57	36	56
24 (66.34)	Rutland, VT	10	22	46	65	60	1
25 (66.25)	Boston, MA	2	139	38	23	65	25
26 (65.50)	Warwick, RI	110	63	98	1	11	95
27 (65.35)	Charlotte, NC	20	23	70	73	28	86
28 (65.08)	El Paso, TX	83	42	27	13	57	89
29 (64.27)	San Francisco, CA	101	118	7	101	8	29
30 (64.08)	Eugene, OR	25	72	71	80	91	6
31 (63.83)	Chesapeake, VA	21	28	118	24	29	103
32 (63.51)	Santa Ana, CA	106	38	3	17	79	145
33 (63.30)	Durham, NC	9	58	44	86	50	117
34 (63.25)	New York, NY	101	107	24	10	118	23
35 (63.16)	Burlington, VT	138	14	10	22	92	5
36 (62.83)	Las Cruces, NM	38	78	45	59	109	64
37 (62.69)	Salt Lake City, UT	14	90	23	142	5	50
38 (62.24)	Cheyenne, WY	11	106	119	42	3	65
39 (62.20)	Anaheim, CA	129	38	2	19	52	141
40 (62.16)	Mesa, AZ	68	68	39	35	26	129
41 (62.13)	Lewiston, ME	60	125	115	12	59	2
42 (62.08)	Arlington, TX	62	45	84	47	42	97
43 (62.06)	Grand Rapids, MI	70	66	63	63	64	81
44 (62.05)	Billings, MT	43	67	117	83	4	52
45 (62.03)	Greensboro, NC	3	18	107	78	106	112
46 (61.87)	Riverside, CA	92	51	20	49	19	142
47 (61.82)	Aurora, CO	80	87	22	30	25	134
48 (61.74)	San Antonio, TX	42	31	82	95	27	92
49 (61.69)	Yonkers, NY	134	79	4	6	121	116
50 (61.63)	Los Angeles, CA	105	92	19	32	100	87
51 (61.53)	Minneapolis, MN	63	130	33	85	76	13
52 (61.40)	Salem, OR	109	103	50	54	37	22
53 (61.27)	Colorado Springs, CO	73	82	40	41	12	131
54 (61.03)	Phoenix, AZ	49	117	41	70	55	76
55 (60.93)	Lexington-Fayette, KY	55	37	80	45	71	127
56 (60.68)	Des Moines, IA	61	108	60	71	66	61
57 (60.60)	Fort Worth, TX	97	20	73	55	41	128
58 (60.57)	Manchester, NH	96	131	25	60	58	73
59 (60.34)	Long Beach, CA	71	92	13	39	110	137
60 (60.17)	Casper, WY	1	96	116	50	35	33
61 (60.14)	Anchorage, AK	54	60	96	107	13	71
62 (60.04)	St. Paul, MN	26	148	68	40	86	55
63 (60.04)	Missoula, MT	123	6	87	93	80	28
64 (60.02)	Fort Lauderdale, FL	48	99	37	111	78	47
65 (59.97)	Pittsburgh, PA	133	18	69	43	70	53
66 (59.74)	Worcester, MA	84	74	55	67	105	83
67 (59.56)	Spokane, WA	50	40	78	115	102	77
68 (59.50)	Omaha, NE	79	61	85	64	51	101
69 (59.30)	Fort Wayne, IN	81	47	103	33	39	135
70 (59.18)	Tampa, FL	40	104	110	72	72	58
71 (59.02)	Garland, TX	144	29	64	28	22	138
72 (58.71)	Warren, MI	59	81	83	31	94	118
73 (58.65)	Las Vegas, NV	88	120	77	88	73	20
74 (58.59)	Sacramento, CA	116	84	48	76	61	82
75 (58.44)	Oklahoma City, OK	5	32	106	97	21	150
76 (58.43)	Orlando, FL	52	71	54	131	83	59
77 (58.38)	Rapid City, SD	91	95	89	102	23	26
78 (58.34)	St. Petersburg, FL	51	94	91	116	46	51
79 (57.99)	Oakland, CA	117	9	9	139	54	108
80 (57.94)	Dallas, TX	137	25	59	69	63	69
81 (57.91)	Columbus, OH	86	86	92	58	75	93
82 (57.87)	Denver, CO	67	147	81	66	18	85
83 (57.80)	Rochester, NY	78	98	76	77	144	4
84 (57.70)	Tallahassee, FL	85	8	94	126	137	7
85 (57.68)	Topeka, KS	99	85	104	82	88	16
86 (57.53)	Knoxville, TN	44	13	123	132	99	45
87 (57.49)	Louisville, KY	34	89	108	91	53	121
88 (57.41)	Houston, TX	121	35	57	104	96	74
89 (57.35)	Corpus Christi, TX	76	49	126	68	56	120
90 (57.16)	Lubbock, TX	72	43	43	129	47	130
91 (56.69)	Miami, FL	126	68	17	123	130	14
92 (56.69)	Albuquerque, NM	29	136	49	130	97	68
93 (56.59)	Bridgeport, CT	128	116	8	25	142	115
94 (56.57)	Chattanooga, TN	35	88	97	137	89	46
95 (56.56)	Modesto, CA	113	65	79	108	49	100
96 (56.42)	Akron, OH	107	75	111	51	126	72
97 (56.38)	Reno, NV	135	82	66	53	48	91
98 (56.22)	Fairbanks, AK	7	109	120	56	89	106
99 (56.05)	Kansas City, MO	82	34	74	140	38	122
100 (55.51)	Hialeah, FL	148	68	28	37	136	119
101 (55.40)	Tulsa, OK	28	10	101	128	67	147
102 (55.08)	Washington, DC	101	140	135	105	69	8
103 (55.01)	Tucson, AZ	108	112	35	118	113	79
104 (54.56)	Mobile, AL	53	54	131	113	127	42
105 (54.41)	Fort Smith, AR	131	40	112	100	93	67
106 (54.24)	Dover, DE	47	59	143	127	81	57
107 (54.19)	Gulfport, MS	118	16	129	87	116	104
108 (54.13)	Nashville, TN	87	113	121	117	32	70
109 (54.08)	Jacksonville, FL	112	96	134	98	85	31
110 (53.97)	Syracuse, NY	127	132	47	75	138	21
111 (53.64)	Tacoma, WA	124	91	67	122	62	102
112 (53.52)	Norfolk, VA	89	129	132	46	111	96
113 (53.46)	Buffalo, NY	119	101	95	99	133	32
114 (53.41)	Milwaukee, WI	95	5	90	134	131	99
115 (53.37)	Wilmington, DE	77	36	93	144	101	113
116 (53.25)	Wichita, KS	65	127	86	120	77	126
117 (53.02)	Indianapolis, IN	23	122	128	135	82	111
118 (52.80)	Dayton, OH	57	126	100	119	145	24
119 (52.69)	Atlanta, GA	101	118	99	136	87	80
120 (52.55)	Cincinnati, OH	98	114	125	110	123	37
121 (52.22)	New Orleans, LA	139	29	113	112	124	17
122 (52.21)	Columbia, SC	93	110	114	125	114	30
123 (52.11)	Columbus, GA	45	63	150	89	120	38
124 (51.95)	Providence, RI	142	133	72	36	134	27
125 (51.67)	Bakersfield, CA	111	76	109	94	95	146
126 (51.38)	Little Rock, AR	31	138	122	146	45	40
127 (50.46)	Springfield, MA	122	145	75	90	140	75
128 (49.93)	Charleston, WV	114	57	144	145	104	12
129 (49.65)	Chicago, IL	149	50	62	61	115	44
130 (48.90)	Baton Rouge, LA	58	124	147	103	98	132
131 (48.86)	Richmond, VA	75	143	149	48	112	107
132 (48.66)	Kansas City, KS	100	146	133	106	107	94
133 (47.39)	Fresno, CA	136	102	105	79	139	140
134 (47.24)	Montgomery, AL	115	135	146	96	122	43
135 (47.11)	Huntington, WV	4	105	139	150	128	18
136 (46.99)	New Haven, CT	143	115	56	74	143	60
137 (46.49)	Shreveport, LA	125	111	138	121	117	105
138 (45.94)	Baltimore, MD	64	142	148	138	125	90
139 (45.17)	Philadelphia, PA	140	149	141	81	132	34
140 (45.15)	Birmingham, AL	120	53	124	148	141	109
141 (44.52)	Hartford, CT	146	121	42	109	146	36
142 (43.85)	Gary, IN	33	134	127	92	148	149
143 (43.43)	Memphis, TN	66	137	136	147	129	133
144 (42.47)	Toledo, OH	130	150	102	114	119	144
145 (42.17)	Flint, MI	17	128	142	124	149	98
146 (40.72)	Cleveland, OH	132	144	140	38	147	110
147 (40.28)	St. Louis, MO	141	123	137	149	103	48
148 (40.06)	Stockton, CA	147	100	88	141	108	148
149 (38.51)	Jackson, MS	145	141	130	133	135	114
150 (28.58)	Detroit, MI	150	56	145	143	150	139

*No. 1 = Best Run  

Ask the Experts

A well-run city isn’t just the product of efficient budgeting or well-supplied coffers. It is the fruit of countless other decisions, financial or otherwise, that are made on behalf of the public’s best interest. But all cities work according to different models, and some therefore will perform far more optimally than others. To help underperforming cities overcome challenges, we turned to a panel of local-government, economic and diversity experts for guidance. 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?

< >

• Terry Clower Northern Virginia Chair and Professor of Public Policy & Director of the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University
• Sylvia Gonzalez-Gorman Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley
• Steven G. Koven Professor in the Department of Urban and Public Affairs at the University of Louisville
• Jason Sorens Lecturer in the Department of Government and Program Director of the Political Economy Project at Dartmouth College
• Benoy Jacob Associate Professor in the School of Public Policy and Leadership & Program Coordinator for the Urban Leadership Program at the University of Nevada Las Vegas

Terry Clower Northern Virginia Chair and Professor of Public Policy & Director of the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University In your opinion, what are the most important issues facing US cities today? Addressing skills gaps in the workforce, and promoting economic resiliency in a rapidly changing world. Why are some cities better run than others? There are many factors that influence how well a city is run. More importantly, it matters which type of activity you are considering in judging how well a city is run. For example, a city can be run very well administratively, but fall short in economic development planning. A city could be very efficient at addressing business issues, while maybe not being as effective for neighborhoods. The key factor in all of this is leadership: having the right kind of leaders in place when needed. For example, at times, a city needs excellent administrators, while having someone who can bring disparate groups together to address common, big challenges is key when there is a crisis. Addressing an economic issue, such as rapid industrial change, requires different leadership than needed when a community loses faith in local institutions regarding social justice. Successful cities seem to be able to identify and put in place the kind of leaders they need for a given set of circumstances. What can citizens do to increase the transparency and accountability of local government? Vote -- if we insist on transparency and accountability, and back this up with behavior in the voting booth, then those who hold office, or want to hold office, will be more transparent and accountable. If we vote on broad ideology, or based on words instead of actions, then we can’t complain if we get promises instead of results. Are some forms of city government--e.g., strong Mayor versus a strong city council--more effective than others? The form of government matters less than the leadership qualities of those who govern. Forms of government just provide a framework for leading. In evaluating how well a city is run, what are the top 5 indicators?

• Economic performance (opportunities for good paying jobs);

• An economy that adapts to changes in industry;

• Growing/stable tax base;

• Education system (often separate from city) that meets current employer needs, but also prepares students for the future;

• Being a place where people want to live.

Sylvia Gonzalez-Gorman Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley In your opinion, what are the most important issues facing US cities today? Limited water resources has to be one of the most important issues facing cities today. With an increase in hotter temperatures and sustained droughts in various regions of the U.S., the availability of water becomes problematic for local cities. Cities such as Los Angeles, California and Austin, Texas continue to maintain large populations and/or continued growth, and typically rely on limited resources. Los Angeles relies on snowpack in reservoirs, and when there is little to no snow, the city relies on limited ground water. On the other hand, Austin has a single water source, the Colorado River. With increased droughts impacting the Colorado River and as Austin continues to grow, there is significant stress placed on the availability of water. Not to mention cities in more rural areas that rely on single water sources, and/or have to pay to have water “pumped” into their area. In the panhandle of Texas, the transporting of water to customers is accomplished via high water fees passed on to citizens. For example, Lubbock, Texas charges customers a monthly base and volume rate. The monthly base ranges from $16 to $1,226 added to each monthly bill, plus the volume of water used. Moreover, these fees do not include sewer charges. From a fiscal perspective -- how to fund existing and new programs. Local governments rely on monies from the state and federal government, and when funding is reduced at one or both levels, it becomes challenging to meet the demands for basic needs. With reduced funding, cities will have to continue to offer reduced services with a limited workforce. What can citizens do to increase the transparency and accountability of local government? Advocate for open public meetings/forums, where citizens can discuss city initiatives, strategic plans, or anything relevant to the city. Citizens have to demand accountability and transparency, and open forums is one way to keep local governments accountable. Technology is another way to keep local governments accountable and transparent. By updating city web portals to include links to agendas, strategic plans, and online access to live streaming meetings, citizens can stay connected and up-to-date on what local governments are doing. For accountability and transparency to work, there has to be a venue (e.g., public forum or online) where dialogue between elected officials and citizens is exchanged. Numerous studies show that elected officials that are responsive to their constituents are more likely to be reelected. Steven G. Koven Professor in the Department of Urban and Public Affairs at the University of Louisville In your opinion, what are the most important issues facing US cities today? In my opinion, cities today face a large number of massive problems. Big issues include scarcity of middle class jobs, income and wealth disparity, alienation of those who feel they are not succeeding in line with their expectations, rise in drug abuse, and questions about the ability to climb an economic ladder of success. Abuse of opioids in my home state of Kentucky has gained a lot of local attention, as well as a rise in the number of murders in Louisville. Why are some cities better run than others? Hard to say why some cities seem to operate better than other cities. An ethos of professionalism, commitment to the common good, tradition of relative honesty, and objectivity in hiring, firing and promoting may play a role. Leaders may set a tone. Traditions of corruption or abuse of power can negatively affect all levels of city workers. Cities that reduce the role of personal favoritism and strive for transparency in contracting should be able to make better use of tax revenue. What can citizens do to increase the transparency and accountability of local government? Citizens can take a stronger interest in knowing what their elected officials are doing. If dissatisfied, they can vote people out of office. Citizens can submit opinions to local newspapers, or write to their local officials. Are some forms of city government--e.g., strong Mayor versus a strong city council--more effective than others? City manager-type places may run more efficiently than strong mayor cities. As appointed officials, city managers strive for neutral competence and decision-making, based on objective assessments. Since voters elect mayors, mayors must curry favor with constituents. Providing more and more benefits to blocks of voters may be electorally popular, but may not be efficient in terms of maximizing the use of scarce resources. The accountability of city managers is not time bound by the election cycle. How can local policymakers reduce racial tensions in the wake of recent protests? Policymakers can reduce racial tensions by clearly assessing whether problems exist in the delivery of essential services, such as police protection. If abuses are prevalent, cities should take immediate steps, such as terminating problem employees. Police departments can provide better training in rules of engagement. Greater dialogue between neighborhood residents and police representatives may be beneficial. Policymakers might hold public meetings for citizens to voice their concerns. Policymakers should then consider concerns, when assessing alterations in standard operating procedures. In evaluating how well a city is run, what are the top 5 indicators? Indicators can include crime rate, high school graduation rate, per capita tax rate, per capita expenditures, and per capita numbers of employees. Jason Sorens Lecturer in the Department of Government and Program Director of the Political Economy Project at Dartmouth College In your opinion, what are the most important issues facing US cities today? The most important issues facing cities include long-term solvency in light of pension liabilities, reconciling demand for housing in the most desirable cities with political pressures to restrict supply, and improving local services, especially schools and public safety. Why are some cities better run than others? The most important factor in how well-run a city is seems to be the consistent engagement of a well-educated, ideologically moderate electorate. Cities where the leaders are responsive to both urban and suburban voters tend to do better than those where leaders are essentially little autocrats, or where city boundaries encompass only the most urban areas. On the other hand, you don’t want cities that are too big: evidence suggests that metropolitan areas with more local governments have more efficient governance, presumably because of competition. What can citizens do to increase the transparency and accountability of local government? Two factors significantly drive accountability. The first is the ability of local governments to handle a wide range of issues, combined with a responsibility to depend on their own taxpayers’ revenue to do so. The second is ease of turnout in local elections. If local governments depend on the state government for financial support, they have little incentive to spend wisely, and it is hard for voters to determine who is ultimately accountable for performance. If local governments hold elections midweek in March (say), only insiders show up, and they often have incentives to overspend, especially on wages and pensions of local employees. Are some forms of city government--e.g., strong Mayor versus a strong city council--more effective than others? There is very little evidence that form of local government makes a big difference to outcomes. The exceptions are direct democracy, which seems to reduce taxes and spending, and mayoral or city council control of school budgeting, which also reduces school spending and taxes, compared to the school board model. How can local policymakers reduce racial tensions in the wake of recent protests? Police need better training to differentiate true threats from nonthreats, and to deescalate situations. Local policymakers can call on state legislatures to decriminalize minor victimless crimes, like marijuana possession, to reduce the number of potentially conflictual encounters. In evaluating how well a city is run, what are the top 5 indicators? One must distinguish outcomes from local government performance. Employment, income growth and crime rates are not under the direct control of local governments. Some possible indicators of true local government performance might include:

• School spending per high school graduate (lower numbers are better, indicating better efficiency);

• Percentage of poor-rated local bridges;

• Percentage of reported violent and property crimes resulting in conviction;

• Businesses subsidies and tax exemptions per capita (lower is better);

• Local employee unfunded pension liabilities per capita (lower is better);

• Median housing price above marginal cost of new construction (lower is better, see Ed Glaeser’s work and that of others).

Benoy Jacob Associate Professor in the School of Public Policy and Leadership & Program Coordinator for the Urban Leadership Program at the University of Nevada Las Vegas In your opinion, what are the most important issues facing US cities today? Looking “inward” the contemporary American city will need to address a host of pressing issues -- namely, an ageing infrastructure, improving access to opportunities through public transit, the development of affordable housing, and the amelioration of inequity, more generally. Of course, this is unlikely to be news to any casual observer of American cities. These issues have been on the local public agenda for some time. The challenge for cities, however, is to find innovative solutions to these existing problems. The issue, then, is really about developing the organizational infrastructure to develop innovative policies and programs. We see cities already developing this capacity with innovation officers, teams and departments. It is also worth noting that these long-standing issues are, more recently, being joined by a host of new issues. With continued Federal gridlock, “big” policy issues of sustainability, immigration reform, and gun control are new issues that local governments are confronting head-on. Why are some cities better run than others? Let’s first consider what it means to be “run better.” A well-run city, I suspect, would accomplish a few things. It would be responsive to citizen demands. It would provide these demands in a cost-effective and efficient manner, and it would be able to address the current demands of its citizens while being cognizant of future needs (i.e., it would be sustainable). So a well-run city is responsive, effective and sustainable. Cities that are able to accomplish these ends better than others have a few things at their disposal. First, they have a process of ongoing community engagement. Second, they have the resources -- financial capital and human capital -- to offer and array of programs and deliver them effectively. Finally, cities have slack resources to draw upon when times are tough. What can citizens do to increase the transparency and accountability of local government? Be engaged. I have yet to meet a city official -- elected or otherwise -- that does not want to hear from its constituents. Of course, a large part of the responsibility here lies with the city itself. Public meetings need to be well-advertised, and meetings need to be structured to solicit genuine public engagement. That said, if citizens don’t take the time or effort to understand and engage their community, then no participatory process is going to be effective. Transparency and accountability are ultimately about an effective partnership between government and its citizens. Are some forms of city government--e.g., strong Mayor versus a strong city council--more effective than others? Generally speaking, there is a strong sense that manager-council forms of government are more efficient and effective than other forms of government. However, more recently, these sorts of “ideal forms” of government have started to disappear. Rather, cities have started to “cherry pick” the best of the other. Ultimately, effective city governments are going to have a good balance of democratic representation -- through elected officials and participatory processes --, as well as strong organizational management -- through professional managers. How can local policymakers reduce racial tensions in the wake of recent protests? While racial inequity has gained some recent attention, it is a long-standing issue in American cities. There are some fundamental things that cities can do to improve the opportunities of racial minorities, like improving the economic opportunities for these groups, and supporting early childhood education in minority communities. That said, my current research explores the idea of trust in local communities. So my answer -- which is really a working hypothesis -- is that policies, programs and practices that foster positive interactions between diverse groups will help decrease racial tensions. In evaluating how well a city is run, what are the top 5 indicators? American cities are so different from one another, that I would hate to hold up a set of indicators and suggest that all cities should be measured and evaluated against these. But we can think about categories of indicators that all cities should probably evaluate themselves by. That is, how well are cities doing in the following broad categories:

• Fiscal performance;

• Effective delivery of programs;

• Citizen well-being;

• Economic Development;

• Sustainability.

Methodology

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 33 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.

Financial Stability – Total Points: 16.66

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

Education – Total Points: 16.66

• GreatSchools Score: Full Weight (~8.33 Points)
• High School Graduation Rate: Full Weight (~8.33 Points)

Health – Total Points: 16.66

• 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: 16.66

• Violent Crime Rate: Double Weight (~6.67 Points)
• Property Crime Rate: Double Weight (~6.67 Points)
• Fatalities per Capita: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)

Economy – Total Points: 16.66

• Unemployment Rate: Triple Weight (~2.50 Points)
• Underemployment Rate: Full Weight (~0.83 Points)
• Average Annual Household Income (Adjusted for Cost of Living): Quadruple Weight (~3.33 Points)
• Annual Income Growth Rate: Double Weight (~1.67 Points)Note: Growth compares the rate in 2015 versus in 2014.
• Annual Job Growth Rate (Adjusted for Population Growth): Double Weight (~1.67 Points)
• Share of Population Living Below Poverty Level: Triple Weight (~2.50 Points)
• Economic Mobility: Double Weight (~1.67 Points)
• Growth in Number of Businesses: Full Weight Full Weight (~0.83 Points)Note: Growth compares the number in 2014 versus in 2013.
• Change in Housing Prices: Full Weight (~0.83 Points)Note: Change compares the price in 2016 versus in 2015.
• Building-Permit Growth: Full Weight Full Weight (~0.83 Points)Note: Growth spans 2014 to 2016.

Infrastructure & Pollution – Total Points: 16.66

• 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 (~0.83 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, Equality of Opportunity Project, The Road Information Program, Center for Neighborhood Technology, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Environmental Protection Agency, Walk Score, The Trust for Public Land and WalletHub research.

from Wallet HubWallet Hub


via Finance Xpress