Monday, July 10, 2017

2017’s Best- & Worst-Run Cities in America

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 RunArtwork 2016 Best & Worst Run Cities v3

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 Terry Clower 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 Sylvia Gonzalez-Gorman 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 Steven G. Koven 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 Jason Sorens 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 Benoy Jacob 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
at

No comments:

Post a Comment