Methodology

Grades for the State Asset Development Report Card were calculated as described here. Please also see the section Rationale and Raw Data later in this document.

Asset Outcomes Index

1. Raw data were collected for the 30 measures.
2. Each state was individually ranked in every measure based on the raw data obtained. The best state was ranked 1st, and the worst was ranked 50th.
3. The ranks for each measure in the index were added so that each measure contributed equally to the overall index grade.
4. The sum of the ranks produced an overall score for each state. The lower the score, the better the state’s overall performance.
5. The score was ranked and a grade assigned to each state. Again, the best rank was 1st, and the worst rank was 50th.
6. States that ranked from 1st to 10th earned an A; 11th to 20th earned a B; 21st to 35th earned a C; 36th to 45th earned a D; 46th to 50th earned an F.

Asset Policy Index

1. Raw data were collected for the 36 measures.
2. Each policy measure with a quantitative value was given a rank based on the raw data obtained. The best rank was 1st, and the worst rank was 50th.
3. Each measure with a qualitative answer—such as a “yes/no” or categorical response—was transformed into a quantitative outcome as follows:


1. All qualitative measures were scored on a scale from 0 to 1. The best score was 1, and the worst score was 0.
2. For measures with a series of thresholds or a categorical-type answer, each threshold met earned a partial point. If all criteria were satisfied, a “perfect” score was obtained, and the state received a total score of 1. The partial points awarded within a measure depended on how many thresholds were contained in the measure. For example, the evaluation of IDA policy consisted of three thresholds: 1) Is support for IDAs at least $1 million? 2) Are IDAs included as part of the state TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) plan? 3) Is there a state IDA program either in development or in operation? For this measure, if a state satisfied none of the thresholds it earned 0, if it met one it earned 0.33, if it met two it earned 0.67, and if it met all three it earned 1.
3. Measures that yielded a “yes/no” response were transformed into a 0-to-1 scale in a similar fashion. If the state had the designated policy, it earned a 1. If the state did not have the policy, it earned 0 points. For example, in the state minimum wage law measure, states that had a law that exceeded the federal minimum wage scored 1 point, while states that did not have such a law scored none.
4. The points for all qualitative measures (“yes/no” and categorical responses) in the index were summed and a total obtained.
5. The sums were then ranked—the higher the figure, the better the performance. The best rank was 1st, and the worst rank was 50th.
6. The single ranking of the qualitative measures was weighted to account for the number of these measures in relation to the total number of measures in the index, so that all measures weighed in equally for the overall grade.
4. The single qualitative rank was added to the ranks of the quantitative measures in the index to obtain an overall index score. This total value for the index was then ranked. The best rank was 1st, and the worst rank was 50th.
5. States that ranked from 1st to 10th earned an A; 11th to 20th earned a B; 21st to 35th earned a C; 36th to 45th earned a D; 46th to 50th earned an F.

Tax Policy and Accountability Index

While not part of the formal framework and, thus, not graded, the tax policy and accountability commentary for the 50 states was calculated as follows:

1. Each measure was given one point for a positive response. For measures with a series of thresholds, each threshold met was given a partial point that would total one if all criteria were satisfied (as described for the qualitative measures evaluated for the Asset Policy Index).
2. The points for the two measures were added, and scores were obtained for each state. Scores were categorized, with 2 being the best and 0 being the worst.
3. States were not ranked because of the low number of measures in this index.

Important Notes

Missing data were accounted for by shifting the weight of the rank onto the other measures in the index. Therefore, a state was not punished due to a lack of data availability. As a result, the remaining measures in the index weighed more heavily in the state’s grade than they did for a state that had data available for all measures.

When a tie occurred, each state received the same rank, and the next performing state was ranked as if the tie had not occurred. For example, if two states had the best score, each was ranked 1st, and the next state was ranked 3rd.