Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

U.S. PIRG Following the Money Report

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia. Contact our team to suggest an update.


Budget Policy Logo on Ballotpedia.png
State tax policy
Personal income tax
Sales tax
Corporate income tax
Excise tax
Public Policy Logo-one line.png

The U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer-focused nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C., releases an annual report on state transparency websites. This report judges how transparent and accountable state websites are with regard to state government spending.[1] State governments throughout the country have created transparency websites that provide information on government spending, displaying the payments made to individual companies as well as details about the purchased goods, services, or other public benefits in a particular state. According to the report, states have made varying levels of progress toward improved spending transparency online.[1]

2016 report

According to the 2016 report, several states have adopted new measures to increase transparency in government spending information. However, five states were still classified as either failing or lagging. The chart below contains more information on those states.

The following nine states were identified by PIRG as having refined or created websites that aid in providing state government spending transparency:

  1. Michigan
  2. West Virginia
  3. Utah
  4. Arizona
  5. Indiana
  6. Minnesota
  7. Nebraska
  8. New Hampshire
  9. Washington

The report categorized each state according to an A-F scale (for more information on methodology, see below):

  • 18 states received a grade of A, which was four more than in 2015,
  • 17 states received a grade of B, the same as in 2015,
  • 10 states received a grade of C, which was three less than in 2015,
  • 2 states received a grade of D, the same as in 2015, and
  • 3 states received a grade of F, the same as in 2015.

Complete rankings

2015 report

According to the 2015 report, several states have adopted new measures to increase transparency in government spending information. However, five states were still classified as either failing or lagging. The chart below contains more information on those states.

The following seven states were identified by PIRG as having refined or created websites that aid in providing state government spending transparency:

  1. Colorado
  2. Kansas
  3. Massachusetts
  4. Montana
  5. Nevada
  6. North Dakota
  7. Ohio

The report categorized each state according to an A-F scale (for more information on methodology, see below):

  • 14 states received a grade of A, which was six more than in 2014,
  • 17 states received a grade of B, which was three more than in 2014,
  • 13 states received a grade of C, which was three more than in 2014,
  • 2 states received a grade of D, which was seven fewer than in 2014, and
  • 3 states received a grade of F, which was the same as in 2014.

Complete rankings

2014 report

According to the report, throughout 2014, new states opened the books on public spending and several states adopted new practices to further expand citizens’ access to spending information. Other states, however, lagged in providing residents and users with state spending information in an easily navigable format.

The report categorized each state according to an A-F scale (for more information on methodology, see below):

  • 8 states received a grade of A
  • 20 states received a grade of B
  • 10 states received a grade of C
  • 9 states received a grade of D
  • 3 states received a grade of F

Complete rankings

Methodology

Evaluation criteria

The report evaluated state websites based on how comprehensive, "one-stop," and searchable/downloadable the website's content was.[2]

  • Comprehensive: This criterion measured whether the website was user-friendly and enabled residents to look at detailed information about state government contracts, subsidies, spending, and tax revenue for all state government entities.
  • One-Stop: A state's website was "one-stop" if users could access all government expenditures on a single website.
  • One-Click, Searchable and Downloadable: This criterion measured how easily users could search data and browse categories. It also measured whether users could easily download the available data.

Explanation of grades

Points were assigned to states based on the websites that provided information on that state's government spending. These points were tallied into both a numerical score and a letter grade.[2] A single website was graded for each state. If any states had a designated website for transparency, that website was graded. If a state had more than one transparency website, U.S. PIRG graded the transparency website that earned the highest score. If states lacked a designated transparency website, the state website with the highest possible score was used.[2]

  • States in top-line quality and transparency (“A” range): These states were leaders in online spending transparency. They were user-friendly and accessible, and they contained data that were easily downloaded.
  • States advancing in quality and transparency (“B” range): These states were "advancing" to a higher level of transparency. They contained spending information that was easy to access but less detailed than "A" states. Most advancing states were searchable.
  • States with average quality and transparency (“C” range): These states were middling in online spending transparency. They contained comprehensive information and were user-friendly, but some information—including subsidies and off-budget items—was limited.
  • States lagging in quality and transparency (“D” range): These states were less accessible to users than higher-level states. While these states had searchable websites, users could not download the data.
  • States failing in quality and transparency (“F” range): These states failed to meet several of U.S. PIRG's standards for online spending transparency. For example, the spending data for these states were not searchable online.

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 U.S. Public Interest Research Group, "Following the Money 2014 Report," accessed April 15, 2014
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 U.S. Public Interest Research Group, "Following the Money 2014 Full Report," accessed April 15, 2014
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=U.S._PIRG_Following_the_Money_Report&oldid=10215293"