States have continued progressing toward greater government spending transparency over the past year. Nearly all states now have online transparency portals that allow citizens to view spending information, with several states launching new transparency websites or significantly improving existing ones. However, many state transparency websites still lack comprehensive information and easy searchability. Additional improvements are needed for states to achieve "Transparency 2.0" standards of being a one-stop, one-click resource for monitoring all government expenditures.

1. Following the Money 2012
How the 50 States Rate in Providing
Online Access to Government Spending Data

2. Following the Money 2012
How the 50 States Rate in Providing
Online Access to Government Spending Data
Benjamin Davis,
Frontier Group
Phineas Baxandall and Ryan Pierannunzi,
U.S. PIRG Education Fund
March 2012

3. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the following individuals for providing analysis, editorial as-
sistance, and review for this report: Gavin Baker, Federal Information Policy Analyst of OMB
Watch; Deirdre Cummings, Legislative Director of MASSPIRG; Melissa Duscha, Ph.D. stu-
dent 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, Charlotte; and Francisca Rojas, Research Director for Transparency Policy
Project at the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard’s Kennedy
School of Government. A special thank you is extended to Philip Mattera, Research Director
of Good Jobs First, who gave detailed feedback about our findings on economic development
subsidies. We wish to additionally thank the public officials from the 47 states who took time
to provide feedback on our initial inventory of the functions on the transparency websites they
manage. Thanks also to Pedro Morillas, Legislative Director of CALPIRG for contributing to
the content of this report, and to Tony Dutzik and Elizabeth Ridlington 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.
Copyright 2012 U.S. PIRG Education Fund
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) organization, 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 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: Monitor, Mbortolino/iStockphoto.com; Coins, Ventura69/iStockphoto.com
Layout: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design

4. Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 7
Transparency 2.0 Websites Empower Citizens to
Track Government Spending 9
On the March Toward Greater Transparency:
A Comparison Between 2010 and 2012 16
States Have Continued Progress Toward Transparency 2.0 18
Making the Grade: Scoring States’ Progress
Toward Transparency 2.0 28
States Innovate with New Cutting-Edge
Transparency Features 37
State Officials Face Obstacles and Challenges in
Operating Transparency 2.0 Websites 42
Continuing the Momentum Toward Greater Transparency:
How States Can Improve their Transparency 2.0 Websites 45
Appendix A: Transparency Scorecard 48
Appendix B: Methodology 50
Appendix C: List of Questions Posed to
Transparency Website Officials 62
Appendix D: Agencies or Departments Responsible
for Administering Transparency Websites by State 64
Notes 66

6. Executive Summary
T
he ability to see how government uses progress toward “Transparency 2.0”—a
the public purse is fundamental to new standard of comprehensive, one-stop,
democracy. Transparency in govern- one-click budget accountability and acces-
ment spending promotes fiscal respon- sibility. The past year has seen continued
sibility, checks corruption, and bolsters progress, with new states providing online
public confidence. access to government spending informa-
tion and several states pioneering new
In the past few years, state govern- tools to further expand citizens’ access to
ments across the country have made their spending information and engagement
checkbooks transparent by creating on- with government.
line transparency portals.1 These govern-
ment-operated websites allow visitors to In 2011, eight states created new trans-
view the government’s checkbook—who parency websites and several others made
receives state money, how much, and for significant improvements to sites already
what purposes. Most of these websites are launched.
also searchable, making it easier for resi-
dents to follow the money and monitor • Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
government spending of many sorts. To- Massachusetts, Mississippi, New
day almost every state operates a transpar- Mexico, North Dakota, and West
ency website with the state’s checkbook Virginia launched new checkbook-
accessible to the public. level transparency websites. Among
the highlights:
Over the past two years, the num-
ber of states that give citizens access to o Connecticut’s website excels in
their state’s checkbook has increased searchability, one of the most impor-
from 32 to 46. tant elements of Transparency 2.0.
The specific payments made to ven-
This report is U.S. PIRG Education dors can be found through searches
Fund’s third annual ranking of states’ by vendor, paying agency, short
Executive Summary

7. Figure ES-1: How the 50 States Rank in Providing Online Access to Government
Spending Data
Grade
A B C D F
description of the good or service, quasi-public agencies, and track the
year or amount. state’s economic recovery.
o Delaware’s website brings a new • At least seven other states notably
level of transparency to the state improved their transparency websites.
by posting spending data, such as
county government expenditures, o Michigan linked its transparency
not covered in the state’s checkbook site to an interactive map that tracks
expenditure data. economic development incentives,
allowing residents to learn about
o Massachusetts’ new checkbook tool government-funded projects in
gives users the ability to monitor their county, information about how
state spending in almost real-time specific companies will spend the
because the data are updated nightly. funds, and the estimated number of
jobs to be created.
o West Virginia’s website has been
upgraded to become a leader in o Washington officials launched
Transparency 2.0. The site allows the state’s online checkbook after
residents to browse payments to they developed a system to remove
vendors, research some of the state’s data deemed private by the Health
Following the Money 2012

8. Transparency 2.0 Is Comprehensive, One-Stop,
One-Click Budget Accountability and Accessibility
Transparency 1.0 Transparency 2.0
Scattered: Determined residents who One-Stop: Residents can search all
visit numerous agency websites or make government expenditures on a single
public record requests may be able to website.
gather information on government
expenditures.
Tool for Informed Insiders: Researchers One-Click Searchable and Downloadable:
who know what they are looking Residents can search data with a
for and already understand the single query or browse common-sense
bureaucratic structure of government categories. Residents can sort data on
programs can dig through reports government spending by recipient,
for data buried beneath layers of amount, legislative district, granting
subcategories and jurisdictions. agency, purpose or keyword. Residents
can also download data to conduct
detailed off-line analyses.
Incomplete: Residents have access to Comprehensive: A user-friendly Web
only limited information about public portal provides residents the ability
expenditures. Information about to search detailed information about
contracts, subsidies, or tax expenditures government contracts, spending,
is not disclosed online and often not subsidies, and tax expenditures for all
collected at all. government entities.
Confirmation of Findings with State Officials
U.S. PIRG Education Fund researchers sent initial assessments and a list of ques-
tions to transparency website officials in all states and received feedback from such
officials in 47 states to ensure that information was accurate and up-to-date. Website
officials were given the opportunity to alert us to possible errors, clarify their online
features, and discuss the benefits and challenges to achieving best practices in their
state. Their comments on the challenges are discussed in the section entitled “State
Officials Face Obstacles and Challenges in Operating Transparency 2.0 Websites.”
For a list of the questions posed to state officials, please see Appendix C.
Executive Summary

9. Insurance Portability and Account- information on city and county spend-
ability Act (HIPAA) and the Family ing, and tax expenditure data—than
Educational Rights and Privacy Leading or Advancing states.
Act (FERPA), bringing an unprec-
edented level of transparency to • Lagging states (“D” range): Ten
Washington’s spending. states’ online checkbooks are diffi-
cult to use. Their sites rarely provide
In order to assess states’ progress to- spending details for off-budget agen-
ward the standards of Transparency 2.0, cies, post information on state revenue
each state’s transparency website was ana- forgone through tax expenditures, or
lyzed and assigned a grade from zero to link to city and county expenditure
100, based on 13 scoring criteria measur- sites.
ing searchability and the breadth of infor-
mation provided. (See Figure ES-1 and • Failing states (“F”): Five states are
Table ES-1.) Assigning these numbers to failing in online transparency. Most
more familiar “A” to “F” grades makes it Failing states have not posted their
possible to describe five types of states. checkbooks online or provided other
important information that allows
• Leading states (“A” range): Seven residents to monitor state spending.
states have established user-friendly
transparency portals that contain Government spending transparency is
comprehensive information on gov- not a partisan cause. As was the case at the
ernment expenditures. Citizens and outset of 2010 and 2011, Democratic and
watchdog groups can use the sites to Republican-leaning states perform equally
monitor government spending quickly well when it comes to transparency this
and easily. Among the most distinctive year. The average score for a Democratic-
features of Leading states’ transpar- leaning state (determined by political
ency websites is the ability to compare party of the current governor) was 70.2,
state expenditures over time. while that of a Republican-leaning state
was 68.9, a difference of less than two
• Advancing states (“B” range): points. Among the seven states that scored
Fourteen states have established an “A” or “A-” , 3 have Democratic gover-
websites that are user-friendly and nors and four have Republican governors.
searchable, but lack the breadth of in- Among the five states that received an F,
formation characteristic of the Leading two have Democratic governors and three
states. Eleven Advancing states provide have Republican governors.
only limited information on the goods
or services purchased because they Some states have gone above and be-
do not provide copies of all contracts, yond standard Transparency 2.0 features.
while eight do not provide descriptions They have developed new tools and post-
on grants and economic development ed new sets of information on government
incentives administered by the state. expenditures, giving residents the unprec-
edented ability to monitor and influence
• Emerging states (“C” range): how their government allocates resources.
Fourteen states’ websites have
checkbook-level detail and are easily • Performance trackers: Louisiana’s
searchable, but are far less compre- Performance Accountability System
hensive—in terms of checkbook detail, has taken the lead on providing
Following the Money 2012

10. Table ES-1. How the 50 States Rate in Providing Online Access to Government
Spending Data
STATE GRADE SCORE STATE GRADE SCORE
Texas A 98 Oklahoma C+ 78
Kentucky A 96 Maryland C+ 75
Indiana A- 93 New Mexico C+ 75
Louisiana A- 92 Hawaii C 73
Massachusetts A- 92 Missouri C 72.5
West Virginia A- 91 Nevada C 70
Arizona A- 90 Colorado C- 69
New York B+ 89 Kansas C- 68
North Carolina B+ 87 South Carolina C- 66.5
Oregon B+ 87 North Dakota C- 66
Utah B+ 87 Florida D 59
Connecticut B 85 Ohio D 55
Washington B 85 Maine D- 54
Michigan B 83 Tennessee D- 51
Nebraska B 83 Vermont D- 51
South Dakota B 83 Wisconsin D- 50
Pennsylvania B- 82 Alaska D- 49
Delaware B- 81 California D- 49
Illinois B- 81 Rhode Island D- 49
Virginia B- 81 New Hampshire D- 48
Mississippi B- 80 Wyoming F 44
Georgia C+ 79 Iowa F 19
Alabama C+ 78 Arkansas F 8
Minnesota C+ 78 Montana F 7
New Jersey C+ 78 Idaho F 6
detailed performance evaluations of state benefit from government
government agencies by listing spe- spending by providing an interactive
cific agencies’ yearly objectives (e.g., mapping tool with the exact locations
“increase the annual number of visi- of state-funded construction projects.
tors served by the state park system • Statement of the checkbook’s
to at least 2,500,000 by the end of fis- comprehensiveness: Some states,
cal year 2012-2013”), along with their such as Massachusetts, show how
actual performance. much spending is not included in
• Mapping: Washington allows the their transparency sites or how much
public to see how specific areas of the activity is contracted out.
Executive Summary

11. • Integration with local government the purpose of each expenditure
transparency: Some states create program. In addition, only 24 states
programs to actively encourage great- provide tax expenditure reports that
er transparency by recognizing local include expenditure information for
government transparency efforts or all of the significant major tax types
sharing platforms. (sales, income and property) that may
All states, including Leading states, be affected by tax expenditures.
have many opportunities to improve their
transparency websites. • Only 26 states include any informa-
tion about expenditures or revenue
• Only one state—Illinois—provides collected by quasi-public agencies or
information on both the projected public-private partnerships.
benefits and the actual benefits cre-
ated from economic development • Only 20 states provide access to any
subsidies. level of information about city and
county spending, and rarely is this
• Only six states provide visitors with information checkbook-level.
copies of all contracts between a ven-
dor and the state. • Four states—Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa,
and Montana—have yet to post their
• Only six states provide copies of tax checkbooks online.
expenditure reports that include
Following the Money 2012

12. Introduction
G
overnment budgets are the most the entity receiving the payment and the
concrete expression of public val- payment amount.2
ues and priorities—articulated in
dollars and cents. As states grapple with Soon after the federal spending website
difficult decisions to make budgetary ends was launched in December 2007, public
meet, opening the state checkbook to the interest advocacy groups, citizens and state
public provides an important tool that decision-makers across the country started
allows both citizens and civil servants to asking why the states didn’t have similar
make informed choices. websites to show state payments made to
vendors.3 If information technology had
Up until a few years ago, most citizens advanced to the point where people could
were in the dark about how the govern- download their personal checkbooks, pay
ment spent taxpayer dollars. Journalists, bills electronically, and purchase products
watchdog groups, and the most persis- on their smart phones, why shouldn’t peo-
tent citizens could find expenditure data ple be able to use the internet to view how
through official information requests or the state spends their tax dollars?
by exploring the nooks and crannies of
certain government websites, but for the In response, states one by one began
most part, Americans’ knowledge of gov- opening their online checkbooks to the
ernment spending was limited to what public. These pioneer states created a
they heard on the news. standard for online government spending—
sometimes called Transparency 2.0—that
Then in 2006, Congress passed the set the benchmark for states’ online check-
Federal Funding Accountability and book sites to be comprehensive, one-stop
Transparency Act (FFATA), which in- and one-click searchable.
structed the Office of Management and
Budget to shine a light on federal spend- In 2009, federal laws further pushed
ing by creating a single searchable website Transparency 2.0 forward by requiring
of federal awards, including the name of every state to place American Recovery
Introduction

13. and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) spending important pieces of government spending.
online, including contract and subcontract
expenditures. These laws gave states re- This is the third annual report in U.S.
sources to develop spending transparency PIRG Education Fund’s series that assesses
platforms, as well as personnel expertise each state’s online transparency. While
and an orientation toward ratcheting up many states have made progress in the
transparency. past year, such as launching their transpar-
ency websites for the first time, additional
Since then, online transparency has con- progress still needs to be made, such as
tinued to grow. From 2010 to 2012, the expanding spending data to include off-
number of states disclosing their check- budget expenditures. This report reviews
books online increased from 32 to 46. In both the progress made over the past year
addition, states have made their transparen- and the road ahead in expanding online
cy websites user-friendly and posted other government transparency.
Following the Money 2012

14. Transparency 2.0 Websites
Empower Citizens to Track
Government Spending
P
ractically speaking, public informa- broad and detailed. In contrast to states
tion isn’t truly accessible unless it’s with “Transparency 1.0” levels of disclosure
online. Government spending trans- and public access—which may offer only
parency websites that meet the standard of partial information about government
“Transparency 2.0” give citizens and gov- contracts online—leading Transparency
ernment officials the ability to monitor 2.0 states provide user-friendly searches
many aspects of state spending—saving on a comprehensive range of current and
money, preventing corruption, and en- historical government expenditures, in-
couraging the achievement of a wide vari- cluding detailed information about gov-
ety of public policy goals. ernment contracts with private entities,
subsidies, spending through the tax code,
and transactions by quasi-public agencies:
• Contracts with private companies:
Some government agencies spend
well over half their budgets on out-
Transparency 2.0 Websites side contractors.4 These contractors
Give Users Detailed are generally subject to fewer public
Information on accountability rules, such as sunshine
laws, civil service reporting require-
Government Expenditures ments, and freedom of information
Websites that meet Transparency 2.0 stan- laws. To monitor spending on contrac-
dards offer information on government tors, it is important that states provide
expenditures that is comprehensive, one- comprehensive online transparency for
stop and one-click. all contract spending.
Comprehensive • Subsidies: State subsidies take the
Transparency websites in the leading states form of grants, economic develop-
offer spending information that is both ment incentives, and other spending
Transparency 2.0 Websites Empower Citizens

15. through the tax code.5 Unmeasured, to perform a particular service or a
the performance of subsidies remains set of public functions. They operate
unmanaged and unaccountable. When on the federal, state and local levels,
it comes to economic development providing services such as waste man-
subsidies, state and local governments agement, toll roads, water treatment,
allocate an estimated $50 billion each community development programs
year to specific entities with the intent and pension management. Quasi-
to create jobs and spur growth, yet public agencies have extraordinary
most governments still don’t disclose control over their budgets and are not
full information on these expendi- directly governed by elected officials.
tures and their outcomes.6 Leading Because quasi-public agencies typi-
states allow citizens to measure the cally collect fees or some other form
performance of these incentives by of their own revenue, they do not rely
listing the companies or organizations solely, or often even significantly, on
that receive economic development an annual appropriation from the leg-
subsidies and explaining what public islature. Their expenditures therefore
benefits companies were expected to fall outside the “official” state budget,
provide and delivered.7 “Tax expen- so the public can only occasionally
ditures” is the more general term for scrutinize their expenditures. A Mas-
subsidies bestowed through the tax sachusetts study, for instance, identi-
code in the form of special tax ex- fied 42 such off-budget agencies in
emptions, credits, deferments and the state with annual revenues equal
preferences. Tax expenditures have to roughly a third of the entire official
the same bottom-line effect on state state budget.9 Leading states post
budgets as direct state spending, since spending information about revenues
they must be offset by cuts to other and expenditures by quasi-public
programs or by raising other taxes. agencies.
Once created, tax expenditures often
escape oversight because they do not • Leases and concessions to private
appear as state budget line items and companies: States have sometimes
rarely require legislative approval to sold or leased to private companies
renew. For these reasons, spending the right to construct or operate a
through the tax code is in particular public asset or service in return for
need of disclosure. Leading states the right to collect and retain user fees
provide transparency and account- from the public. These arrangements
ability for tax expenditures, usually are most common for toll roads,
by linking their transparency portal garages, prisons, parking meters and
to a tax expenditure report, which is water systems. They have also become
a detailed list of the state’s tax credits, more common at state parks and in
deductions and exemptions with the the operation of fee-collecting ser-
resulting revenue loss from each. vices such as motor vehicle licensing.
In these “public-private partnerships,”
• Quasi-public agencies: Over time transparency mechanisms can en-
quasi-public agencies have delivered hance public scrutiny in lieu of other
a growing share of public functions.8 standard public protections such as
Quasi-public agencies are independent civil service, conflict-of-interest, and
government corporations that are freedom of information rules.10
created through enabling legislation
10 Following the Money 2012

16. One-Stop loans, equity investments, contributions
Transparency websites in leading states of property or infrastructure, reductions
offer a single website from which citizens or deferrals of taxes or fees, guarantees of
can search all government expenditures. loans or leases, and preferential use of gov-
With one-stop transparency, residents ernment facilities—and are administered
as well as local and state officials can ac- by a variety of government agencies.
cess comprehensive information on direct
spending, contracts, tax expenditures and Placing all data about government
other subsidies in a single location. subsidies on a single website can uncover
waste and highlight opportunities for sav-
One-stop transparency is particularly ings. For example, when Minnesota began
important for public oversight of subsi- to require agencies to submit reports on the
dies. Subsidies come in a dizzying variation performance of subsidized projects, the re-
of forms—including direct cash transfers, ports revealed that numerous projects were
Transparency 2.0 Is Comprehensive, One-Stop,
One-Click Budget Accountability and Accessibility
Transparency 1.0 Transparency 2.0
Scattered: Determined residents who One-Stop: Residents can search all
visit numerous agency websites or make government expenditures on a single
public record requests may be able to website.
gather information on government
expenditures.
Tool for Informed Insiders: Researchers One-Click Searchable and Downloadable:
who know what they are looking Residents can search data with a
for and already understand the single query or browse common-sense
bureaucratic structure of government categories. Residents can sort data on
programs can dig through reports government spending by recipient,
for data buried beneath layers of amount, legislative district, granting
subcategories and jurisdictions. agency, purpose or keyword. Residents
can also download data to conduct
detailed off-line analyses.
Incomplete: Residents have access to Comprehensive: A user-friendly Web
only limited information about public portal provides residents the ability
expenditures. Information about to search detailed information about
contracts, subsidies, or tax expenditures government contracts, spending,
is not disclosed online and often not subsidies, and tax expenditures for all
collected at all. government entities.
Transparency 2.0 Websites Empower Citizens 11

17. receiving assistance from two or more
funding sources—that is, Minnesota tax-
Transparency 2.0 Makes
payers were sometimes double- and triple- Government More Effective
paying for the creation of the same jobs. and Accountable
After the centralized publication of those States with good transparency websites
reports, the double-dipping stopped.11 have found that these sites result in a wide
variety of benefits for state residents and
One-Click Searchable and the government. Transparency websites
Downloadable have helped governments find ways to
Transparent information is only as useful save money and meet other public policy
as it is easily accessible, which means eas- goals.
ily searchable. Transparency websites in
the leading states offer a range of search Transparency websites save money. Trans-
and sort functions that allow residents to parency 2.0 states tend to realize signifi-
navigate complex expenditure data with a cant financial returns on their investment.
single click of the mouse. In Transparency The savings come from sources big and
1.0 states, residents who don’t already small—more efficient government admin-
know what they are searching for or where istration, less staff time spent on infor-
to look will tend to get stymied by inscru- mation requests, and more competitive
table layers of subcategories, jurisdictions bidding for public projects, to name just a
and data that can’t be readily compared. few—and can add up to millions of dollars.
Transparency 2.0 states, by contrast, allow The biggest savings may be the hardest
residents to browse information by recipi- to measure: the potential abuse or waste
ent or category, and to make directed key- that is avoided because government of-
word and field searches. ficials, contractors and subsidy recipients
know the public will be looking over their
Citizens who want to dig deeper into shoulder.
government spending typically need to
download and analyze the data in a spread- Transparency websites often help states
sheet or other form. Downloading data- realize significant benefits by identifying
sets can also give residents the ability to and eliminating inefficient spending:
aggregate expenditures—for a particular
company, agency or date, for instance—to • In Texas, the Comptroller was able
see patterns or understand total spending to utilize the transparency website in
amounts that might otherwise be lost in a its first two years to save $4.8 million
sea of unrelated data. Leading states en- from more efficient administration.12
able citizens to download most or all of
the most important information on their • Once South Dakota’s new transparency
transparency websites. website was launched, an emboldened
reporter requested additional informa-
tion on subsidies that led legislators
to save about $19 million per year by
eliminating redundancies in their eco-
nomic development program.13
• Once Utah’s transparency website
revealed that the state government was
spending $294,000 on bottled water
12 Following the Money 2012

18. every year, the state reduced its annual • Since the launch of Delaware’s trans-
bottled water expenditure to approxi- parency website, the Department of
mately $85,000.14 Finance has reported a “significant
reduction” in Freedom of Information
Transparency websites also save mil- Act (FOIA) requests, saving valuable
lions by reducing the number of costly staff time.19
information requests from residents,
watchdog groups, government bodies and Transparency websites also save states
companies: money by increasing the number of com-
peting bidders for public projects. For ex-
• Massachusetts’ procurement web- ample, in 2011, Massachusetts reported
site has saved the state $3 million by that by posting information on state con-
eliminating paper, postage and print- tracts and bidding opportunities through
ing costs associated with information the state’s checkbook-level procurement
requests by state agencies and paper- website, Comm-Pass, bids for transpor-
work from vendors. Massachusetts has tation projects funded by Recovery Act
saved money by reducing staff time for funds came in 15-20 percent below the
public record management, retention, state’s initial estimate.20
provision, archiving and document
destruction.15 Transparency websites also save states
money by enabling them to identify oppor-
• In Utah, the State Office of Education tunities to cut costs by renegotiating con-
and the Utah Tax Commission save tracts. For example, Texas was able to re-
about $15,000 a year from reduced negotiate its copier machine lease to save
information requests. These are only $33 million over three years. The state
two of the more than 300 govern- was also able to negotiate prison food
ment agencies in the state, suggesting contracts to save $15.2 million.21
that Utah’s total savings are likely far
greater.16 Online transparency offers increased support
for a range of other public policy goals, including
• South Carolina has seen one-third as promotion of community investment and affir-
many open records requests as it had mative action goals. Governments often stum-
prior to the creation of its transparency ble when trying to meet community invest-
website, significantly reducing staff ment and affirmative action goals because
time and saving an estimated tens of managers struggle to benchmark agencies,
thousands of dollars. spread best practices, or identify contractors
who advance these goals. Online transpar-
• Every information request resolved by ency portals allow states to better measure
Mississippi’s transparency website rather and manage the progress of such programs.
than by a state employee saves the state For example, transparency websites allow
approximately $750 in staff time.17 agencies to identify minority- or woman-
owned companies that have done business
• It is estimated that Kentucky’s website with other agencies across the state. Other
eliminates 40 percent of the adminis- agencies can then look to those contractors
trative costs of procurement assistance in helping to meet their own goals.
requests, and could reduce the costs as-
sociated with open records requests by Online transparency costs little. The ben-
as much as 10 percent.18 efits of transparency websites have come
Transparency 2.0 Websites Empower Citizens 13

19. with a surprisingly low price tag, both their existing budgets. For websites that
for creating and maintaining the web- required a special appropriation or ear-
sites. Several states—including Delaware, mark, the cost is usually beneath $300,000
Georgia, Ohio, and Oregon—created and to create the website and even less to keep
update their websites with funds from it updated. (See Table 1.)
14 Following the Money 2012

20. Table 1: Cost to Create and Maintain a Transparency Website22
State Start-Up Costs Annual Operating Costs
Alabama $125,000 Less than $12,000
Alaska $5,000 “Nominal”
Arizona $72,000, $90,000
plus existing staff time
California $21,000
Colorado $200,000 $169,400 from existing budget
from existing budget,
plus existing staff time
Connecticut $13,000 Existing budget
Delaware Existing budget Existing budget
Florida Existing budget
Georgia Existing budget Existing budget
Iowa Less than $75,000 $6,000
Kansas $150,000 Existing budget
from existing budget
Kentucky $150,000
Louisiana $325,000 “Minimal”
Maryland $65,000 $5,000
Massachusetts $540,00023
Michigan Existing budget
Minnesota Existing budget
Mississippi $2,200,00024 $400,000 (including
operation of ARRA website)
Missouri $293,140
from existing budget
Nebraska $30,000-$60,000 $10,800
Nevada $78,000 $30,000
New Mexico $230,000 $125,000
New York Existing budget
North Carolina $624,000 $80,600
for both transparency
and ARRA websites
North Dakota $231,000 $30,000
Ohio Existing budget Existing budget
Oklahoma $8,000,
plus existing staff time
Oregon Existing budget Existing budget
Pennsylvania $372,000
Rhode Island Existing budget
South Carolina $30,000 in existing staff time Existing staff time
South Dakota Not tracked (nominal) Existing budget
Tennessee Existing budget
Texas $310,000 Existing budget
Utah $192,800, $133,400
plus existing staff time ($100,000)
Virginia $500,000 $400,000
Washington $300,000
West Virginia Existing budget
Wyoming $1,600
Note: Some costs are approximations; many “Annual Operating Costs” are blank because costs are minimal; funds for many websites for
which states provided specific costs (as opposed to “existing budget”) came from the existing budget as opposed to an separate appro-
priation; to see a list of agencies or departments responsible for administering the transparency website in each state, see Appendix D.
Transparency 2.0 Websites Empower Citizens 15

21. On the March Toward
Greater Transparency:
A Comparison Between 2010 and 2012
T
ransparency is on the march. From unprecedented transparency to state
Washington to Mississippi to Maine, expenditures. From the beginning of 2010
states are improving their transpar- to the beginning of 2012, the number
ency websites to allow citizens to search of states that provide each transparency
and view checkbook-level data on govern- feature highlighted in this report has
ment expenditures quickly and easily. grown substantially. The number of states
that provide some features, such as data
These improvements, combined on municipal spending, has doubled. (See
with the progress made in 2010, bring Figure 1.)
Figure 1: The Number of States that Provide Transparency 2.0 Features Has Grown Rapidly25
Note: the feature names in the graph are shortened names of the criteria in the scorecard: “Checkbook”
refers to “Checkbook-Level Website”; “Searchable” refers to both “Search by Vendor” and “Search by
Keyword or Activity”; “Subsidies refers to “Grants and Economic Development Incentives” awarded
to private entities; “Tax Spending” refers to “Tax Expenditure Reports”; “Quasis” refer to quasi-public
agencies, assessed in the “Off-Budget Agencies” criterion; “Local Budgets” refers to “City and County
Budgets”; “ARRA Funding” is listed in the scorecard as “ARRA Funding.” For explanation of the grading
criteria, see Appendix B. Also note that 21 websites considered “searchable” in 2010 does not include New
Jersey because the website was not checkbook-level in 2010.
16 Following the Money 2012

22. Figure 2: Top 10 Most Improved Transparency
Websites from 2011 to 2012 26
S everal states dramatically improved their online budget transparency in the
past year. The states with the largest gains either created new transparency
portals or made major improvements to their existing ones. Washington and
West Virginia both saw the largest improvement of 63 points. In order, the states
with the highest increase in score from last year are as follows:
Note: although all these states made improvements to their websites, in some cases the
increase in grade also reflects changes in the grading criteria. (See page 30.)
On the March Toward Greater Transparency 17

23. States Have Continued Progress
Toward Transparency 2.0
O
ver the past year, eight states cre- governor in June 2010, it instructed the
ated new transparency websites and Office of Fiscal Analysis to make state ex-
several others improved their trans- penditures, including contracts and grants,
parency sites by consolidating important available online by mid-2011.29
spending information, posting new data-
sets on government spending, or making A year and a half after the passage of
the site more user-friendly. Public Act No. 10-155, the Office of Fis-
cal Analysis has created an intuitive and
user-friendly transparency website. The
layout is understandable to an ordinary
Connecticut citizen—visitors do not need
to be tech-savvy budget experts to navi-
Eight States Launch New gate the site. The left side of the screen
Transparency Websites includes clear links for the various kinds of
Over the past year, Connecticut, Delaware, payments made by the state (e.g., “Con-
Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New tracts,” “Grants,” “Compensation”) and
Mexico, North Dakota and West Virginia the right side prompts users with simple
launched new transparency websites. search criteria (e.g., “2010” or “2011”) to
begin searching through Connecticut’s ex-
penditures and payments. (See Figure 3.)
Connecticut Launches
User-Friendly Website The Office of Fiscal Analysis has been
In mid-2010, the Connecticut state legis- proficient in making the data searchable,
lature passed a bill to create their state’s one of the most important elements of
first ever transparency website, transparency. Transparency 2.0. On transparency.CT.gov,
CT.gov.27 The law, Public Act No. 10-155, the specific payments made to vendors can
passed with unanimous consent from be found by searching for the vendor, the
both Democrats and Republicans in both paying agency, the category of the good or
the Senate and House.28 Signed by the service, the year or the amount.
18 Following the Money 2012

24. Figure 3: Connecticut’s Transparency Website is Understandable to the Ordinary
Connecticut Citizen
In 2012, the Office of Fiscal Analysis gave visitors the ability to browse state
should build on the momentum created by payments to vendors from executive agen-
the site’s launch and provide more detailed cies, but it fell short of many other Trans-
information on the goods and services pur- parency 2.0 benchmarks, leaving visitors
chased. Residents are currently in the dark unable to learn about local government
over the specific nature of goods or services spending, tax expenditures, economic in-
purchased because the website uses vague centives, and recovery spending.
descriptions, such as “Client Services-
General” and “Equipment Lease/Rental- Transparency Resources brings a new level
Other” to describe the payments made to of transparency to Delaware by providing
vendors. To provide greater transparency, expenditure data previously unavailable
the website should be upgraded to provide through the pre-existing online checkbook
detailed descriptions and complete copies platform. Transparency Resources’ inventory
of contracts. of datasets and tools catalogs many differ-
ent aspects of state spending, and allows
users to monitor and comment on gov-
Delaware Gives Residents a
ernment proceedings as well as research
One-Stop Place to Find State pertinent laws and legal issues.
Spending Data
Over the past year, Delaware created a Transparency Resources brings together
new site called Transparency Resources, information from many sources, giving
and incorporated the state’s pre-existing residents a one-stop place to find public
online checkbook into the new site. Del- spending information. The online check-
aware’s pre-existing online checkbook book and state budget proposal come from
States Have Continued Progress Toward Transparency 2.0 19

25. the Office of Management and Budget; the website provides timely and detailed state
procurement data from Government Sup- spending information to Massachusetts
port Services; and county financial reports residents. The checkbook tool gives us-
from county governments. ers the ability to monitor state spending
in almost real-time because the data are
updated nightly. Also, while residents last
Maine Opens the State’s year could only monitor state spending
Checkbook for Some Past Years through the limited procurement website,
In the past year, Maine’s Office of the State Comm-PASS, the new website gives users
Comptroller took some initiative to open the ability to monitor and review spend-
Maine’s checkbook to the public. In prior ing from many different departments and
years, information on Maine’s spending agencies including the legislature, judi-
was only available to registered vendors ciary, governor’s office, attorney general,
doing business with the state. Then in treasurer, district attorney, sheriff and
January 2012, the Comptroller’s office many agencies within the Department
compiled datasets and reports already in of Transportation. In addition, the Open
existence into a portion of their website Checkbook provides advanced tools to en-
built to share data with the public. able instant drill downs for more detailed
information, allows for complex searches
Although visitors can now view some and sorts across the entire database, and
state spending data, they are limited and offers a “hover over” feature that explains
difficult to access. The most recent ven- terminology, context and spending.
dor-specific data are from 2009, and all
spending data can be accessed only by Massachusetts Transparency also posts
downloading an Excel spreadsheet. In Tax Expenditure Budgets dating back to
2012, Maine should make spending data 2000, allowing residents to monitor the
more comprehensive by compiling and government revenue lost through tax
posting the vendor-specific expenditures expenditures over time.
from 2010, 2011 and 2012, and Maine
should make the data more accessible by Mississippi Diversifies Its Online
introducing search tools. State Spending Data
Over the past year, Mississippi launched
a new transparency website called Trans-
Massachusetts Expands Its parency Mississippi, operated by the De-
Checkbook-Level Expenditures partment of Finance and Administration.
Available to the Public Transparency Mississippi incorporates the
In December 2011, Massachusetts Gover- high level of detail on vendor payments
nor Deval Patrick, Treasurer Steve Gross- (Mississippi is one of six states that provide
man and Comptroller Martin Benison copies of all contracts) previously available
launched Open Checkbook, a comprehen- through Merlin­—the website graded in last
sive, easy-to-use online checkbook, and an year’s Following the Money report—into a
addition to the new Massachusetts Trans- user-friendly portal that includes a variety
parency website. The Open Checkbook tool of other spending data.
was in part a result of the legislature’s pas-
sage of online transparency requirements For visitors, Transparency Mississippi is
included in the FY2011 state budget.30 easy-to-use, intuitive and comprehensive.
The self-explanatory icons link to interac-
Now, the Massachusetts Transparency tive tools that prompt users to begin their
20 Following the Money 2012

26. search. Users can browse through the website was a contract database that, al-
state’s spending, budget, leases and more. though it had checkbook-level detail, was
not designed to be accessed by the greater
One addition from last year is infor- public to shed light on the state spending.
mation on grants. Although the “Grants” For example, expenditure data were not
tool lists only grants exchanged between searchable by purchasing agency. Sunshine
government entities, the “Expenditure” Portal boosts New Mexico’s online trans-
tool lists the payments made to vendors parency by catering to the general public
through a variety of grant types—Forestry and making more spending information
Resources Grants, Law Enforcement As- available.
sistance Grants, grants from the Depart-
ment of Human Services, and others. A highlight of New Mexico’s checkbook
is that it is designed for both the average
In the next year, the Department of New Mexico citizen who wants to peruse
Finance and Administration should improve government spending, and for the com-
the transparency website to make even pany, government official, or watchdog
more data available to Mississippi residents. group searching for a specific payment.
Currently Mississippians cannot use the The average New Mexican can search by
transparency portal as a tool to monitor and companies’ names, government depart-
assess the effectiveness of tax breaks and ments, or easy-to-understand categories
other economic development incentives. (e.g., “animals,” “Medical Services,” and
To upgrade Transparency Mississippi, the “Grants to Individuals”), while the com-
Department of Finance and Administration pany, government official or watchdog
should include reports on tax expenditures, group can search by the identification
which the state already produces, and numbers for the vendor, contract or pur-
reports on public benefits achieved as a chase order.
result of development incentives.
Although Sunshine Portal makes infor-
mation available on the state’s payments to
New Mexico Makes Its New vendors through contracts and purchase
Website Accessible to the orders, the site does not make available in-
General Public formation on the state’s spending through
This past year, New Mexico launched a tax exemptions, credits and deductions.
new transparency website called Sunshine Making tax expenditure data accessible
Portal that is comprehensive and designed in New Mexico is important to the state’s
to be accessed by the public. Sunshine transparency efforts because the state’s 300
Portal is welcoming and user-friendly. In- tax expenditures cost the government $1.3
structions on the main page explain the billion annually—7 percent of the state’s
purpose of Sunshine Portal and prompt budget.31 Tax expenditure data are not
users to search through the government’s available on Sunshine Portal in part because
finances. Most pages have a sidebar on the the government does not produce regular
left that explains the page, provides a glos- tax expenditure reports, one of only sev-
sary for ambiguous terms, and offers help- en states that fail to do so.32 However,
ful links. in August 2011, New Mexico Governor
Susana Martinez ordered a review of the
When New Mexico’s online transpar- state’s tax incentives to produce the state’s
ency was assessed previously in Following first tax expenditure report.33 To empower
the Money 2011, the state’s “transparency” citizens with the ability to monitor state
States Have Continued Progress Toward Transparency 2.0 21

27. spending on tax expenditures, the execu- (See Figure 4.) TransparencyWV brings
tive branch should carry out the executive a new level of transparency to govern-
order in a timely manner and make the re- ment finances and has pushed West Vir-
port accessible on Sunshine Portal. ginia to become a leader in Transparency
2.0. TransparencyWV allows residents to
North Dakota Opens the browse the payments West Virginia has
given to vendors, research some quasi-
State’s Checkbook public agencies, and track the state’s use of
In 2009, North Dakota’s Legislative As- federal economic recovery funds.
sembly passed a bill calling for the state’s
first-ever transparency website, and in Before the launch of TransparencyWV,
March 2011, under the auspices of the Of- West Virginians had to rely on the Depart-
fice of Management and Budget, the site ment of Administration’s Purchasing
went live.34 The website brings an unprec- Division site for information on state
edented level of transparency to North spending. The goal of the Purchasing
Dakota by posting the state’s checkbook. Division’s site was to connect state agen-
However, the site has room for improve- cies with companies that would supply
ment because it still lacks several features them with goods or services for a pre-
common in Transparency 2.0. determined price, not to shine a light on
state spending. For example, if a school
The highlight of the website is its district needed to rent a van for a field
checkbook. Visitors can browse the pay- trip, they would use the Purchasing Di-
ments made to vendors based on the ven- vision’s site to determine that they could
dor’s name, purchasing agency or govern- rent a 12-passenger van from Hertz for
ment account. The checkbook is updated $74 per day.36 The site did not give West
monthly, and even though the site is new, Virginia residents checkbook-level details
the administrators have posted expendi- over the payments made to vendors, but
ture information back to July 2007.35 rather the cost of certain goods and ser-
vices a state agency could purchase with
Beyond the website’s checkbook, the site prior approval.
lacks many other Transparency 2.0 features,
giving North Dakota residents a limited A notable feature of TransparencyWV
view of government spending. Visitors are is the detailed information it contains on
in the dark on the funds spent on tax expen- economic development incentives. The
ditures, the effectiveness of economic devel- site links to the state’s Tax Credit Review
opment subsidies, and funds spent at the city and Accountability Reports, which provide
and county level. Over the next year, North details on manufacturing, research and
Dakota should build on the momentum cre- other credits. For example, residents can
ated by the site’s launch and expand its trans- learn that from 2003 to 2006, 272 tax-
parency site to enable residents to view all filing entities claimed the Manufacturing
aspects of government spending. Investment Tax Credit, designed to build
new industries and expand and revitalize
West Virginia Becomes a Leader existing ones, which cost the state $2.4
in Transparency 2.0 million and, according to the state, created
In August 2011, the State Auditor’s office 2,000 new jobs.37 Although the data
launched TransparencyWV, a new site de- contained within the Tax Credit Review
signed to educate the public about the gov- and Accountability Reports allow citizens
ernment’s revenue, budget, and spending. to view these state tallies about entire tax
22 Following the Money 2012

28. Figure 4: West Virginia Becomes a Leader in Transparency 2.0 with New Website38
credit programs, they do not yet provide
citizens with the ability to scrutinize
Several States Made
claims on job creation or other benefits for Improvements and
specific companies receiving tax credits. Additions to Their
The next iteration of the report should
provide company-specific information—
Existing Websites
the subsidy amount, intended number of Several states have made sizable improve-
jobs created, and actual number of jobs ments to their websites in 2011. Some
created—so citizens can better evaluate states—such as Michigan, New Hamp-
the effectiveness of companies using the shire, and Washington—created new tools
incentives to grow the economy. to open the books on different aspects of
state spending. Other states—such as Illi-
Despite the greater level of transpar- nois, Nebraska, New York and Utah—have
ency the website brings to West Virginia’s improved their websites by consolidating
spending, state officials should further important spending information from dif-
open the state’s checkbook to the public by ferent state agency websites.
posting contracts for all goods and servic-
es purchased. Currently, the website does
Michigan Provides Details on
not provide a detailed description of the
goods and services purchased, and as long Economic Development Incentives
as this information remains unavailable, In the past year, Michigan linked an inter-
citizens will be unable to assess whether a active map tool to its transparency web-
certain procured good or service is worth site to allow users to monitor economic
the cost. development incentives. During Governor
States Have Continued Progress Toward Transparency 2.0 23

29. Figure 5: Michigan Tracks Economic Development Incentives with Interactive Map46
Jennifer Granholm’s administration, the Despite these many beneficial features,
state awarded more than $3.5 billion in the map can and should still be improved.
subsidies to 508 companies.43 Many of In order to enable residents to assess the
these were specifically targeted to grow actual effectiveness of the incentives in
the economy and create jobs. For exam- growing the economy, the tool should be
ple, in 2006, Michigan gave Ford Motor upgraded to disclose the number of actual
Company $151 million in tax credits to in- jobs produced from particular projects.
vest in various facilities across the state.44 The data available throughout the website
However, up until recently, taxpayers should also be made downloadable.
lacked the tools to determine which com-
panies received the funds, the value of the
subsidies, and the intended results from New Hampshire Opens the
individual investments. In 2011, state of- State’s Checkbook
ficials boosted transparency by linking In the past year, New Hampshire unveiled
Michigan’s transparency site to an inter- the state’s checkbook on its transparency
active map that tracks economic develop- website, TransparencyNH. The checkbook
ment incentives. (See Figure 5.) Residents tool—called the State Expenditure Regis-
can now learn which government-funded ter—enables users to view the payments
projects are in their county, how specific to vendors from 53 departments, agencies,
companies will spend the funds, and the universities and other government entities
estimated number of jobs intended to be dating back to July 2008.47 The check-
created. The mapping tool makes it easy book is updated monthly, giving residents,
to see where these projects are located watchdog groups and government officials
around the state.45 the ability to monitor state spending in a
24 Following the Money 2012

30. Fading Sunshine in the Golden State
California Takes a Big Step Backwards from Transparency 2.0
By Pedro Morillas, CALPIRG Education Fund
C alifornia has consistently been a little behind the curve when it comes to making its spending
data available and accessible online. Between 2009 and 2011 California had a transparency
website, called Reporting Transparency in Government,that was a central searchable location for
much of the state’s spending information. It wasn’t highly user-friendly and there were major
gaps in the information available, but it stood as a foundation that could be built upon.
Unfortunately, in November 2011, Governor Jerry Brown shut down the site, effectively up-
rooting California’s transparency efforts.39 The practical effect of taking down the site is that
California’s spending picture is more obscured. The reason offered by Brown’s administration
for removing the site was that they wanted users to go to the primary sources of the informa-
tion.40 This is a little bit like saying that people ought to use the internet without Google or other
search engines. While state spending information may technically still be available online or by
request under California’s Open Records Act, it is not truly accessible because the data are once
again scattered across multiple agency websites, each with different formats and locations for the
information, or require an official records request.41 (See Figure 6.)
The downgrade is problematic for a couple of reasons. First, the public’s interest in the state
budget and how public dollars are spent increases with every program cut and with ongoing state
deficits. Making it more difficult to follow the money at a time when demand to see the state’s
checkbook is rising further undermines the public’s faith in government. Second, despite saving
$21,000 a year by dismantling the transparency site, this move could end up costing the state
more money.42 From fewer requests for information to added scrutiny of potentially wasteful
spending, transparency websites can result in significant savings. (See Section “Transparency 2.0
Makes Government More Effective and Accountable” on page 12.)
California is home to the tech giants of the world—Google, Facebook, Twitter, and dozens of
other technology companies that are leading the way when it comes to searching for and find-
ing information online. When Californians can summon a satellite image of the capitol building
from a cell phone in a matter of seconds, it is reasonable to expect that they should also be able
to see what’s happening inside the building just as easily. It is disappointing and embarrassing
that Sacramento is not only lagging behind, but actively moving in the opposite direction when
it comes to keeping pace with current standards.
The obvious first step to improve the transparency of California’s budget spending is to
restore the transparency website. Without a central location for the data, the state simply lacks
the digital infrastructure to build upon. Once California retraces its steps, transparency should
be improved by making data available on economic development incentives and revenue lost
from tax expenditures.
States Have Continued Progress Toward Transparency 2.0 25

31. Figure 6: California’s Expenditure Data Is Now Scattered Across Multiple Agency
Websites
timely manner.48 While the checkbook is an unprecedented level of transparency to
comprehensive, website administrators Washington’s spending.
still need to make it more accessible to us-
ers. Visitors on the website find it difficult The LEAP Committee and OFM had
to navigate the checkbook and find spe- intended to put the checkbook-level data
cific payments because the tool currently online for more than a year. However the
lacks any search functions. raw, vendor-specific data could not be
posted online because it contained infor-
mation deemed private under the Health
Washington Overcomes Barriers Insurance Portability and Accountability
and Opens the State’s Checkbook Act (HIPAA) and the Family Educational
In 2008, the Washington state legislature Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). To make
passed Senate Bill 6818, which mandated the checkbook feature live, the website of-
that the Legislative Evaluation and Ac- ficials first needed to develop a system to
countability Program (LEAP) Committee remove the private HIPAA and FERPA
and the Office of Financial Management data—a process that was not completed
(OFM) create a transparency website with for more than a year.50
state expenditure, revenue and budget
information.49 Soon after, the site went The checkbook-level feature is easy to
live—but it lacked checkbook-level expen- use and its data are downloadable, but the
diture data, and although the site posted information provided is limited. Visitors
an icon linking to the state’s checkbook, can browse expenditure information by
the link was inactive. Then, in January the name of the vendor, type of good or
2012, the checkbook went live, bringing service, or purchasing agency. They can
26 Following the Money 2012

32. then download the expenditure informa- updating their transparency sites to make the
tion into a variety of data processing files. reports available has made the information
However, as of our evaluation of the site, it far more accessible to the general public.
does not provide details on the goods and
services purchased through vendor pay- • Illinois Tax Expenditure Report
ments or provide copies of the contracts provides details on the state’s 238 tax
that would enable Washington residents breaks, totaling approximately
to determine whether the purchase was $6.6 billion in lost revenue.52
necessary or worth the cost. In addition,
the disclosed data do not include expendi- • Nebraska’s Tax Expenditure
tures prior to December 2011, preventing Reports allow residents to browse
visitors from monitoring whether some details on the revenue lost from sales,
companies are historically favored over income (both personal and corporate),
others and whether the state is paying a and property tax expenditures dating
comparably higher amount for the goods back to 2000.
and services purchased in a certain year.
• New York’s Annual Report on State
Tax Expenditures posts detailed
Illinois, Nebraska, New York
information on breaks in income taxes,
and Utah Add Online bank taxes, sales taxes, petroleum taxes,
Tax Expenditure Data real estate taxes and many others, dat-
Many states improved their transparency ing back to 2003.
websites by posting information on tax ex-
penditures. Tax expenditures—in the form • Although the Utah Tax Commis-
of tax exemptions, credits, deferrals and sion’s Annual Report is primarily a
preferences—affect state budgets in the municipal listing of tax revenue, it also
same way as direct spending because they includes data on sales tax exemptions
must be offset by cuts to other programs for economic development, economic
or by raising other taxes. Every year, states efficiency, governmental, social service,
spend tens of billions of dollars on these health and charitable purposes.
expenditures; however these costs often
escape oversight because they do not ap- To provide the greatest use to the pub-
pear as state budget line items and rarely lic, tax expenditure reports should include
require legislative approval to renew.51 the cost of each tax expenditure program,
be posted annually with data for several
Over the past year, many states have years, and include the stated purpose of
linked transparency sites to their tax ex- each expenditure program. Although the
penditure reports, which include detailed tax expenditure reports of Illinois, Nebraska,
lists of the state’s forgone revenue from New York, and Utah fulfill most of these
each program or policy granting tax cred- standards, they all fail to explain the pur-
its, deductions and exemptions. pose of each expenditure program, leaving
citizens unable to assess the importance or
Although some states’ tax expenditure performance of programs relative to their
reports have existed for several years, cost.
States Have Continued Progress Toward Transparency 2.0 27

33. Making the Grade: Scoring States’
Progress Toward Transparency 2.0
E
ach state’s transparency website was states. The average score for a Democratic-
analyzed and assigned a grade based leaning state (determined by political party
on its searchability and the breadth of of the current governor) was 70.2, while
information provided. (See Appendix A for that of a Republican-leaning state was 68.9,
the complete scorecard, and Appendix B for a difference of less than two points. Among
a full explanation of the methodology and the seven states that scored an ”A” or “A-”,
explanations of how the scoring system was 3 have Democratic governors and four have
applied to each state’s specific website.) An Republican governors. Among the five states
initial inventory of each state’s website and a that received an “F,” two have Democratic
set of questions were first sent to the admin- governors and three have Republican gover-
istrative offices believed to be responsible nors. In fact, no clear pattern of Republican
for operating each state’s website. (For a list or Democratic superiority in Transparency
of questions sent to state officials, see Ap- 2.0 is apparent regardless of how the political
pendix C.) Follow up e-mails, and—if nec- leanings of a state are measured. Comparing
essary—phone calls were made to these of- states by the party of their U.S. Senators, the
fices, and notices were sent to the governor’s party controlling the state legislature or the
office in each state. Officials from 47 states last presidential vote similarly all yield nearly
responded with substantive information, identical average transparency scores.53
clarifying or confirming information about
their websites. In some cases, our research Based on the grades assigned to each
team adjusted scores based on this clarifying website, states can be broken into five cat-
feedback. Only Idaho, Wisconsin and Ver- egories: Leading states, Advancing states,
mont did not respond to our inquiries. Emerging states, Lagging states and Fail-
ing states. (See Table 2 and Figure 7.)
Government transparency does not fol-
low any regional or partisan pattern. As was The following sections summarize com-
the case in 2010 and 2011, higher levels of mon traits shared by the states in each of
transparency are not a characteristic of ei- these categories to highlight their strengths
ther Democratic- or Republican-leaning and weaknesses.
28 Following the Money 2012

34. Table 2: Leading, Advancing, Emerging, Lagging and Failing States
Category Grade States
Leading states A Kentucky, Texas
A- Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
West Virginia
Advancing states B+ New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah
B Connecticut, Michigan, Nebraska, South Dakota,
Washington
B- Delaware, Illinois, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Virginia
Emerging states C+ Alabama, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota,
New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma
C Hawaii, Missouri, Nevada
C- Colorado, Kansas, North Dakota, South Carolina
Lagging states D+ No state received a D+
D Florida, Ohio
D- Alaska, California, Maine, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Wisconsin
Failing states F Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Wyoming
Figure 7: How the 50 States Rank in Providing Online Access to Government
Spending Data
Grade
A B C D F
Making the Grade 29

35. Changes to the Grading Criteria from 2011
R
eflecting rising standards for government transparency, the grading criteria
changed slightly from the 2011 Following the Money report, resulting in chang-
es in grades for some websites whose content has not changed since 2011.54 For
example, Kansas’ score fell from a 73 to a 68 due to more rigorous scoring criteria
and no significant improvements on the state’s transparency website in the past year.
By contrast, although North Carolina made no improvements to their website, the
state’s grade improved slightly from 85 to 87 because the site already included crite-
ria newly assessed this year. Changes in the criteria were:
• The searchability criteria (“Search by Vendor,” “Search by Keyword or Activ-
ity” and “Search by Agency or Department”) were tightened so that points were
no longer awarded unless this searchability applied to checkbook-level spend-
ing. Points were no longer awarded if a database of pre-purchase orders was
searchable. (Pre-purchase orders are contracts between the government and a
vendor that establish a pre-negotiated price for a good or service. Pre-purchase
orders allow citizens to monitor whether or not a government department is
overpaying for a certain good or service. However, pre-purchase orders are not
checkbook-level because they do not allow citizens to learn how much the gov-
ernment paid the vendor.)
• “Search by Agency or Department” was added as a criterion to reflect how the
ability for users to find payments made to vendors by searching by the payer
increases functionality.
• The “Contract or Summary Information Available” criterion was tightened so
that full credit is only awarded for providing copies of all contracts, as opposed
to providing copies of all pre-purchase orders. Also, states can no longer receive
partial credit for having a vague description of the general category of good or
service purchased (partial credit is still awarded for having a detailed description).
(continued on page 31)
Table 3: Leading “A” States
Leading “A” States
These seven states have established user-
State Grade
friendly transparency portals that contain
comprehensive information on govern- Texas 98
ment expenditures. In a testament to the Kentucky 96
rapidly advancing standards for online Indiana 93
transparency, almost all of this year’s Louisiana 92
Leading state sites would have been the Massachusetts 92
top scorer only two years ago. Citizens West Virginia 91
Arizona 90
30 Following the Money 2012