Following the Money 2013 How the 50 States Rate in Providing Online Access to Government Spending Data Following the Money 2013
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Following the Money 2013 How the 50 States Rate in Providing Online Access to Government Spending Data Following the Money 2013 How the 50 States Rate in Providing Online Access to Government Spending Data Written by: Benjamin Davis, Frontier Group Phineas Baxandall and Ryan Pierannunzi, U.S. PIRG Education Fund March 2013 Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Philip Mattera, Research Director of Good Jobs First, for providing analysis, editorial assistance, and review for this report. We wish to ad- ditionally thank the public officials from the 48 states who took the time to answer our survey questions and provide feedback on our evaluation of the transparency websites they manage. Previous years’ versions of this report benefited from comments provided by: Gavin Baker, Open Government Policy Analyst of OMB Watch (now Center for Ef- fective Government); Melissa Duscha, Ph.D. student of Public Policy at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte; Suzanne Leland, Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and Public Administration at the University of North Carolina, Char- lotte; and Francisca Rojas, Research Director for the Transparency Policy Project at the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Thanks also to Tony Dutzik and Travis Madsen at Frontier Group for their editorial assistance. This report is made possible through the generous support of the Ford Foundation. The authors bear any responsibility for factual errors. The recommendations are those of U.S. PIRG Education Fund. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review. 2013 U.S. PIRG Education Fund. Some Rights Reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 3.0 Unported License. To view the terms of this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0. With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuing their own narrow agendas, U.S. PIRG Education Fund offers an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest. U.S. PIRG Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) organiza- tion, works to protect consumers and promote good government. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public and offer Americans meaningful opportunities for civic participation. For more information, please visit our website at www.uspirgedfund.org. Frontier Group conducts research and policy analysis to support a cleaner, healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate information and compelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and federal levels. For more information about Frontier Group, please visit our website at www.frontiergroup.org. Cover Photos: Alex Nikada Photography Layout: To the Point Publications, www.tothepointpublications.com Table of Contents Executive Summary . 4 Introduction ............................................................9 Transparency 2.0 Websites Empower Citizens to Track Government Spending . 10 New Transparency Websites Open the Books on Spending .........................18 Making the Grade: Scoring States’ Progress toward Transparency 2.0 .................25 States Innovate with Cutting-Edge Features . 33 State Officials Face Obstacles and Challenges in Operating Transparency 2.0 Websites ....36 Continuing the Momentum Toward Greater Transparency: How States Can Improve their Transparency 2.0 Websites .............................................40 Appendix A: Methodology. 43 Appendix B: Transparency Scorecard .........................................52 Appendix C: Understanding States’ Scores. 56 Appendix D: List of Questions Posed to Transparency Website Officials ................70 Appendix E: Agencies or Departments Responsible for Administering Transparency Websites by State .......................................................71 Notes ................................................................74 Executive Summary very year, state governments spend In 2013, for the first time, all 50 tens of billions of dollars through states provide some checkbook-level Econtracts with private entities for information on state spending via the goods and services, subsidies to encour- Internet. In 48 states – all except Cali- age economic development, grants, and fornia and Vermont – this information other forms of spending. Accountability is now searchable. Just four years ago, and public scrutiny are necessary to en- only 32 states provided checkbook-level sure that state funds are well spent. information on state spending online, and In recent years, state governments only 29 states provided that information across the country have created trans- in searchable form. parency websites that provide check- This report, U.S. PIRG Education book-level information on government Fund’s fourth annual evaluation of state spending – meaning that users can transparency websites, finds that states view the payments made to individual are closer than ever before to meeting companies and details about the goods the standards of “Transparency 2.0” or services purchased. These websites – encompassing, one-stop, one-click allow residents and watchdog groups to checkbook transparency and account- ensure that taxpayers get their money’s ability. Over the past year, new states have worth from deals the state makes with opened the books on public spending and companies. several states have pioneered new tools 4 Following the Money 2013 Figure ES-1: How the 50 States Rate in Providing Online Access to Government Spending Data Grade A B C D F to further expand citizens’ access to criti- view and download recipient-specific cal spending information. Many states, state expenditure information. The however, still have a long way to go to website also contains information provide taxpayers with the information on the state’s tax expenditures, as they need to ensure that government is well as financial information on local spending their money effectively. governments. Since the beginning of 2012, at least States have made varying levels six states have created new transpar- of progress toward improved online ency websites. For example: spending transparency. (See Figure • In January 2013, Maine launched its ES-1 and Table ES-1.) website, opening the books on $7 • Leading States (“A” range): Seven billion of expenditures in fiscal year states are leading in online spend- 2012. The checkbook is searchable ing transparency and have created by 103 state agencies and offices, 43 user-friendly websites that provide spending categories, 33 purchasing visitors with an array of checkbook- funds and more than 58,000 vendors. level information about expendi- • In January 2013, Idaho launched a tures. In each of these states, users new website that enables users to can monitor the payments made to Executive Summary 5 Confirmation of Findings with State Officials To ensure that the information presented here is accurate and up-to-date, U.S. PIRG Education Fund researchers sent initial assessments and a list of questions to transparency website officials in all 50 states and received feedback from such officials in 48 states. Website officials were given the opportunity to alert us to possible errors, clarify their online features, discuss the benefits of transparency best practices in their states, and identify obstacles and challenges that they face. For a list of the questions posed to state officials, please see Appendix D. Transparency 2.0 Is Encompassing, One-Stop, One-Click Budget Accountability and Accessibility Transparency 1.0 Transparency 2.0 Incomplete: Residents only have access Encompassing: A user-friendly web portal to limited information about public provides residents the ability to search expenditures. Information about contracts, detailed information about government subsidies or tax expenditures is not disclosed contracts, spending, subsidies and tax online and often not collected at all. expenditures for all government entities. Scattered: Determined residents who visit One-Stop: Residents can search all numerous agency websites or make public government expenditures on a single records requests may be able to gather website. information on government expenditures. Tool for Informed Insiders: Researchers One-Click Searchable and Downloadable: who already know what they are looking for Residents can search data with a single and understand the bureaucratic structure query or browse common-sense categories. of government programs can dig through Residents can sort data on government reports for data buried beneath layers of spending by recipient, amount, legislative subcategories and jurisdictions. district, granting agency, purpose or keyword. Residents can also download data to conduct detailed off-line analyses. vendors through contracts, grants, goods or services the government tax credits and other discretionary pays companies to provide. spending. All spending in these states • Advancing States (“B” range): – with the exception of subsidies Nine states are advancing in online in Texas – is accessible in a search- spending transparency, with check- able database. All Leading States books that are easy to access and – except Florida – also provide users cover many of each state’s expendi- with copies of contracts, allowing tures. With the exception of spend- residents to uncover details about the ing on economic development tax 6 Following