Comparative Analysis - Grading the State

When assessing the viability of the devolved units in the US, state government performance is essential. Information, money, people, and infrastructure are the four essential elements that primarily determine the condition of governance, even if there are many factors that affect how effectively state governments are managed. In 2008, the Washington, DC-based Pew Charitable Trust Organization undertook a Governance Performance Project in an effort to assess each state according to the aforementioned four criteria. The researchers graded each state according to its performance, and the overall average for information, resources, and infrastructures was a B-. The area of people management had an average grade of C+.  The objective of this study is to compare and analyze the performance index of three states; Washington, New York and New Hampshire that scored A-, B- and D+ respectively (Barrett & Greene, 2008).

The performance of a high, middle and low performing states concerning the management information, money, people and infrastructures shows clear differences on the policies of governance applied across the US states. An analytic comparisons enables people to see the practices, legislation, and policies that derail, push and accelerate progress. New York is a vital middle performer to this study because it is an economic hub not only for the US but the entire world. While there are other high performing states, choosing Washington creates a geographical balance given the state is from the West while New Hampshire and New York are Eastern. As the only low performing state in the report, New Hampshire is automatically relevant to this analysis (Barrett & Greene, 2008).

Washington is the leading state in the US in creating, developing and sharing information. The state’s Government Management Accountability and Performance (GMAP) program is responsible for the quality information management which improves other areas of performance. For example, under GMAP, Washington holds regular public forums, town hall meeting and workshops where leaders meet citizens to relay information on projects while collecting view and grievances. For a long time, New York implemented budget without a rigorous performance measure until in 2008, when the new government put information policy to allow monitoring and reporting of performance. However, New York has a robust online information system where online tools such as wiki seek public views on various issues. New York is weak on budgeting for performance but strong in IT-policies for auditing and evaluation. New Hampshire has inferior information relaying mechanisms as is evident in the state’s use of antiquated technology that produces unexplained raw data. Furthermore, the system of governance has complicated decision-making processes since a policy must get approval from five members of various committees (Barrett & Greene, 2008).

Washington also leads in money management due to the effectiveness of GMAP. The office of Financial Management creates budgets for both short term and long term goals, which sustains accountability. The state's financial manager also demands financial data for critical projects which enables the government to control budget processes and relay financial reports. Just like Washington, New York has excellent financial control and reporting mechanisms. New York government introduced revenue-estimating procedures under the office of the comptroller which eases money control and reporting. However, the state is weak in the process of budget creation, structural balance and long-term outlook. New Hampshire is low-quality money management systems. With a grade of C- in money matters, the state has old fashioned financial practices and lengthy business processes. Just like New York, New Hampshire is not long-term goals oriented, and the budget is structurally imbalanced (Barrett & Greene, 2008).

On people management, Washington, New York and New Hampshire have respective scores of A-, C and D. GMAP has permeated most agencies in Washington which eases human resource management. The state has a rigorous process of confirming human resource so that managers can hire on merit and reward accordingly. New York’s civil service is squeezed and the state has limited options for recruitment. The state has mid-level policies for people management such as a statewide learning-management system that keeps records of employee skills and performance. Thus, hiring and retention of employees are average. New Hampshire does not have a strategic plan for training, hiring and implementing a permanent workforce. Inadequate financial and information management translate into inefficient human resource agencies. However, the state compares to New York in employee retention (Barrett & Greene, 2008).

Washington has a B+ grade in infrastructure which is relatively high compared to New York and New Hampshire. The GMAP program coupled with the excellent communication channels allow intergovernmental coordination and capital planning. However, the state’s lack of activity-based accounting derails project monitoring and maintenance. Like Washington, New York is active in capital planning and intergovernmental coordination. Project monitoring is average while project maintenance is low in New York. In fact, the business-oriented city is at the same level as New Hampshire in both project maintenance and internal coordination in infrastructural development policies. Poor structures of information and money management derail decisions such that capital planning takes time in New Hampshire. Consequently, there is low infrastructural development (Barrett & Greene, 2008).

Recommendation of Best Practices

This study submits that the processes and policies of communication, information transference and money management are essential for success in people management and infrastructural development. Technology is one the best platforms that states can exploit to implement effective communication medium that ensures coordination of state policies between agencies. For example, New York’s wiki program allows the public to present views to the state instead of holding workshops and town hall meetings (Barrett & Greene, 2008). Further, according to the World Economic Forum, governments can only succeed in the digital era if they are proactive in engaging the citizenry, which is achieved only through the use of technology devices (Kumar, 2015). Given that each state has individual challenges that may curtail successful implementation of universal measures such as technology, governance program tailor-made for each state are practical tools for information and money management. For example, Washington’s GMAP program is arguably the most valuable policy that makes all other variables of governance easy to implement and manage (Barrett & Greene, 2008). When the state agencies implement GMAP, the hiring and rewarding of state employees is based on merit and by the guidelines of the program. A human resource culture of hiring competent professionals enables the state to manage performances as well as audit the work of all employees. Clear auditing translates into accurate monitoring of funds and budget implementation which ultimately leads to infrastructural developments. Therefore, states should determine the needs of their people and do a SWOT analysis which can inform the creation of programs such as GMAP for effective governance.

From the analysis, it is evident that one of the reasons for low infrastructural development is a lack of future-oriented planning and budgeting. States like New York that attract business forums from around the world should use fiscal planning tools that implement a development plan and keep track of the resources in use. States that enforce budgetary planning tools when determining the budget allocation for various projects are doing better on the performance index compared to those that cannot even have a successful budget negotiation. For instance, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, Connecticut uses ten fiscal tools in the budget process while New Jersey does not have a clear budgetary stewardship program (Mcnichol, Palacios & Johnson, 2014). Consequently, the performance index shows that Connecticut had a B- grade in money management compared to New Jersey’s C-. Fiscal tools such as multi-year forecast of revenues and spending enable proper management of both money and the human resource. The above measures are crucial for the overall progress of the state but they are mainly helpful when fostering economic and infrastructural development. For instance, Washington has a Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) that implements the GMAP program to promote economic growth in the grassroots ("Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB)," 2017).

The above measures of managing information, money, people and infrastructure must be implemented through a holistic approach and not distinctively. The systems and processes of governance are interrelated and the success of one variable automatically renders another effective. Thus, how well a state manages information transference determines the relationships in human resource. Also, the success of the economy and infrastructure in a state are dependent on the effectiveness of money management policies. For instance, the antiquated communication processes of New Hampshire render the working force unmotivated and it is hard to make quick decisions. Washington’s working programs of money management and communication, as well as New York's use of technology, allows the governments to succeed in intergovernmental coordination.

Conclusion

State governments have numerous aspects that determine how effective they are in management, but four fundamental areas that primarily determine the state of governance are information, money, people and infrastructure. Some states like Washington have invested well in programs, policies and practices that ease communication so that the human resource is well interconnected to foster governance holistically. Other states have appropriate but ineffective strategies while a few lag behind in overall performance. It is evident that the variables of measuring a state’s level of governance are interconnected and effectiveness in one area can foster success in another. Still, states should implement measures that cater to the needs of the citizenry according to the individual abilities of the resources.



References

Barrett, K., & Greene, R. (2008). Measuring Performance: The State Management Report Card for 2008 M. The Pew Charitable Trusts. Retrieved from [www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/governmeperformance/gradingthestates2008pdf.pdf].

Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB). (2017). Washington State Department of Commerce. Retrieved from [www.commerce.wa.gov/building-infrastructure/communityeconomic-revitalization-board/].

Kumar, R. (2015). 5 ways to improve communication for governance. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from [www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/08/5-ways-to-improve-communication for-governance/].

Mcnichol, E., Palacios, V., & Johnson, N. (2014). Budgeting for the Future: Fiscal PlanningTools Can Show the Way. Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from [www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/budgeting-for-the-future-fiscal-planningtools-can-show-the-way].