2017’s States with the Best & Worst Taxpayer ROI

Tax Day can be a painful reminder of our large investment in the operation of federal, state and local governments, though many of us are unaware of their precise roles in everyday life. As a result, this creates a disconnect in the minds of taxpayers between the amount of money we should fork over every April and how much we ultimately deserve in return from our government.

Perhaps that’s why nearly three out of five U.S. adults feel they pay too much in taxes and why Americans estimate that Uncle Sam wastes slightly more than half of every tax dollar — higher than what they approximate state and local governments squander. We do know, however, that taxpayer return on investment, or ROI, varies significantly based on simple geography. Federal income-tax rates are uniform across the nation, yet some states receive far more federal funding than others. But federal taxes and support are only part of the story.

Ideological differences regarding the role of local taxation have resulted in dramatically different tax burdens. This begs the question of whether people in high-tax states benefit from expectedly superior government services or if low-tax states are more efficient or receive correspondingly low-quality services. In short, where do taxpayers get the most and least bang for their buck?

WalletHub sought to answer that question by contrasting state and local tax collections with the quality of the services residents receive in each of the 50 states within five categories: Education, Health, Safety, Economy, and Infrastructure & Pollution. Our data set includes a total of 23 key metrics. Read on for our findings, methodology and commentary from a panel of experts.

Main Findings

*“Per Capita” includes the population aged 18 and older.
 

Red States vs. Blue States

Detailed Breakdown by State

Ask the Experts: Turning Taxes Into an Investment

For more insight into how taxpayer funds are ultimately turned into government services as well as how taxpayers can measure the efficiency with which their money is used, we turned to a panel of economics and public-policy experts. You can check out their bios and responses to the following questions below.

1. Do states with high tax burdens provide better government services?
2. How can state and local governments use tax revenue more efficiently?
3. How can average citizens assess the ROI of their local tax dollars?
4. What's the most common way local governments waste taxpayer dollars?

• Mattia Landoni Assistant Professor of Finance at Southern Methodist University
• Nicholas Luke Fowler Assistant Professor of Public Policy & Administration at Boise State University
• Keith Boeckelman Chair & Professor of Political Science at Western Illinois University
• Gregory Jackson Instructor of Public Policy and Administration in the Department of Political Science at Northeastern Illinois University
• Lori Riverstone-Newell Associate Professor of Politics and Government at Illinois State University
• Peter Burchard Adjunct Professor at Northern Illinois University and President of Peter Burchard, LLC
• Raymond C. Scheppach Professor of Public Policy at University of Virginia
• Rick Funderburg Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Administration and Visiting Scholar at the Institute of Government & Public Affairs at University of Illinois - Springfield

Mattia Landoni

Assistant Professor of Finance at Southern Methodist University

Do states with high tax burdens provide better government services?

Not necessarily. State A could have a higher tax burden than State B either because it spends more, or because it has a high debt service commitment (i.e., it spent more in the past). In either case, it depends what the money was spent on:

• State A could have spent more by having, e.g., better schools. In this case, the answer is clearly yes.

• State A could have spent more by having more generous welfare programs. In this case, the answer is, well, it depends on whether you found yourself on the receiving side of it. For instance, Medicaid is a very important determinant of differences in total state spending, and therefore taxation. Having benefited from Medicaid in New York State during my PhD program, for me the answer was at the time a resounding yes, but I see how others could take exception to that.

• State A could have spent more because it has a big crime problem and it must pay the salary of twice as many cops per person as State B. In this case the answer is no, if you look at people's perception of the crime situation, but yes, if you think about the alternative -- what if State A were to fire half of its cops and slash taxes?

• State A may actually have spent the same, but received lower tax revenues than State B, because of large populations that use services of State A while paying taxes to State B. Thus, State A has to levy higher tax rates on those who remain to pay taxes.

For instance, under certain metrics, New Jersey and Connecticut schools rank higher than New York's, whose taxes are higher; but the reason for this is a mix of all the above reasons. Most government services are provided in response to market failures, and this is why it's really hard to even say what the "quality" of "government services" is.

How can state and local governments use tax revenue more efficiently?

This one is perhaps the hardest question to answer without stating platitudes. Efficiency is not a main goal of government spending. Money should be spent effectively in accordance with priorities set by the state or local government chosen by the people. In my experience, most government officials (at least the ones who make decisions) are competent and honest. Since public spending (like everything else) has decreasing marginal returns, a good rule of thumb would be to be very fiscally conservative, thus ensuring that only the projects with the highest bang for the buck get funded.

One particular inefficiency that I can speak competently about is the borrowing process. Small municipal issuers often pay extremely high fees on the issuance of bonds, because they have no bargaining power, and the interest rate on the bonds is also too high, because their bonds are obscure and illiquid. States can help smaller local borrowers to achieve better borrowing terms, e.g., by borrowing on their behalf.

How can average citizens assess the ROI of their local tax dollars?

One way is to look at real estate prices. If a state or local government uses taxpayer dollars well, even with high taxes, real estate will appreciate because people want to move into that jurisdiction. Of course, good government is not the only reason why real estate prices are high; but unlike climate or geographic amenities, it is more likely to change in ways that are visible in the medium run.

Nicholas Luke Fowler

Assistant Professor of Public Policy & Administration at Boise State University

Do states with high tax burdens provide better government services?

No. There tends to be a non-linear relationship between spending and performance outcomes. A study from the later 1990's found that environmental outcomes were connected more to socio-economics and politics than to spending levels. Similar studies have found the highest spending levels tend to be in the worst schools, but that's because the task of educating students in those schools is the most intensive. On the other hand, providing adequate resources to a program is always a predictor of success.

Nevertheless, it's not the level of tax burden that matters but where that money is going and how much "capacity" the state has that determines the quality of services. A state with a lot of money can foolishly spend it, while another state with lower resources can be much more economically and get better outcomes.

How can state and local governments use tax revenue more efficiently?

I think the whole concept of capacity is a key one here in creating efficiency. Capacity comes from having high functioning bureaucrats with institutions flexible enough to allow them to pursue better outcomes but rigid enough to create accountability, and politicians that are more concerned about policy than power. Some states have done a great job of creating capacity by reforming their civil services and political institutions in the last few decades to better match the pressure of the 21st century. Other states are still operating the same system from a century ago and struggle to do their jobs regardless of resources.

From personal experience, I can say money is less important than institutional support when it comes to being successful at your job. If state and local governments want to be more efficient, they are going to have to come into the modern age of governance with new approaches to new problems, rather than sticking with the same old way of doing things.

How can average citizens assess the ROI of their local tax dollars?

There really is no easy way to do it. I think the best way would be to become involved in local politics. Go to city council or local board meetings. Hear what they're talking about. Start asking questions. From this you'll create accountability for your government, but you'll also start understanding the problems the government is facing. From there, you'll have a good idea if they're "good" at their jobs or not.

What's the most common way local governments waste taxpayer dollars?

The most common way is probably through contract management. Especially at the local level, there tends to be a lot of no-bid contracts or contracts not overseen well. In many of these cases, the government keeps paying even when the services aren't being provided efficiently, effectively or economically. Sometimes this is due to a lack of capacity or competence; other times it is due to corruption where contracts are awarded through the "ol' boys" network and there's little or no accountability. There's plenty of examples of these kind of things, particularly out of places like Chicago. Local governments tend to have little accountability when it comes to contracts, so it's easy to follow the path of least resistance rather than find the "best" contract for taxpayers.

Keith Boeckelman

Chair & Professor of Political Science at Western Illinois University

Do states with high tax burdens provide better government services?

It really depends on the state. Some states, like Minnesota, have high taxes, but also provide excellent services. Other states with lower quality government may have relatively high taxes, but provide less in return. Here in Illinois, reformers sometimes refer to the idea of a "corruption tax," meaning that some tax dollars go to support practices that provide little benefit to taxpayers. Examples would include things like overpaying government contractors due to "pay to play" politics, or hiring workers on a patronage basis who may not be effective at their jobs.

There is a theory in political science, developed by the late Daniel Elazar, that states fall into one of three "political cultures." Moralistic political cultures (e.g., much of New England, Minnesota, Oregon) have relatively costly governments, but operate in the public good, so taxpayers get relatively high value. Individualistic cultures (e.g., New Jersey, Illinois) provide less taxpayer value, due to high levels of corruption and waste. Traditionalistic cultures (most of the southern states) have low taxes, but provide little in the way of public services.

How can state and local government use tax revenue more efficiently?

There has been a trend towards contracting out what were formerly government-provided services for a long time now, and in many cases, this can be less costly for taxpayers. However, managing contracts requires expertise among government employees to make sure that they are administered effectively to save taxpayers money. Sometimes state and local governments cut corners in this area, mitigating possible savings from contracting out, so I would say try to avoid this to use tax revenue efficiently.

How can average citizens assess the ROI of their local tax dollars?

I think this is pretty difficult for the average citizen to assess, especially at the local level, where budget documents may vary a lot in their availability/transparency. Also, ROI may vary a lot depending on the life cycle, etc. For example, parents with children in public schools probably get a fairly high ROI on their property taxes when their children are under 18, but less so when they are grown, so taking factors like this into account further complicates matters.

As a proxy, I think citizens might look at whether a state or local government engages in honest/transparent budgeting and contracting practices, whether it uses debt responsibly, etc., but to get an exact ROI is probably going to be pretty tough. As another example, your ROI on the fire department is a lot higher if your house catches on fire than if it doesn't, but it's still good to have the fire department there, even if your house doesn't catch fire.

What's the most common way local governments waste taxpayer dollars?

Non-competitive contracting can be a problem. Also, there has been a lot of attention to pension costs lately. I wouldn't say pensions are inherently a waste of money, as they are clearly a part of public employee compensation, but I think there is a concern that some local governments are pushing costs into the future, putting a high burden on future taxpayers and potentially reducing services they might receive or increasing their tax burden. How extensive this problem is depends on state laws governing this, as well as local practices relating to fiscal responsibility.

Gregory Jackson

Instructor of Public Policy and Administration in the Department of Political Science at Northeastern Illinois University

What’s the most common way local governments waste taxpayer dollars?

“People are our most important asset” is a familiar refrain, and in local government the words “and expensive” can be added. This is not to say that all public sector employees are over compensated. I wish to merely point out that in local government a significant portion of revenues are applied to human resource expenditures including retirement liabilities. In the United States, we have approximately 90,000 units of local government delivering public goods and services on a daily basis. Of these entities, 43% are general purpose, 42% special districts and 15% independent school districts. These units employ 14.3 million with just over 11.0 million of full-time equivalent status. Each of these individuals are, no matter how many layers removed from direct public contact, responsible for the efficient and effective implementation of public programs.

Critical to efficiency and effectiveness is the recruiting, qualifying, selecting, training and development of public personnel. This being said, we continue to see budget balancing tactics that include significant reductions in employee training, thereby providing a reduction of workforce development. I call this a pay me now or pay me later proposition. No matter the sector, better tools and skills pave the way for greater efficiency and effectiveness. The difference is that public sector’s business is funded with taxpayer dollars. My students have come to learn that the success of an organization is dependent of the right person in the right position not only performing, but performing well.

How can state and local governments use tax revenue more efficiently?

The growth of government can be attributed in significant part to adopted policies and their programs. These programs are government’s vehicle for the delivery of goods and services in response to a public demand. The public interest is best served when government is at its apex of efficiency and effectiveness. Yet, for reasons generally fiscal, political or both programs are often implemented without the adequate allocation of resources for evaluation. Is the program doing what was expected? If not, why not? Simply stated tax revenue can be utilized more efficiently when program processes and outcomes are accurately assessed. Not driven by profit government has appeared more inclined to throw good money after bad.

Rational decision making has to be based on good data. Decision makers must have the ability to conduct accurate cost benefit analysis and then modify or eliminate programs, no matter how well intended, prior to future appropriations. We must remember that the public trust is inclusive of how tax dollars are allocated.

How can average citizens assess the ROI on their local tax dollars?

Illinois, where the prospect of a statewide freeze on property taxes continues to be debated, is a great case study for ROI and local tax dollars. A number higher than any other state, Illinois has 6,963 units of local government. Within the state, there are areas taxed by as many as 16 separate units of government including simultaneously by three general purpose units despite redundancies in service.

In a theory developed some 60 years ago, Charles Tiebout saw taxpayers as consumers shopping for a mix of taxes and public goods and services prior to making locational choice. Over the years, scholars have found flaws with this theory and one flaw I will note is banking on the consumer being adequately educated or aware. Do they know their individual taxing bodies, what goods and services they receive through those units or for that matter, their respective tax rates? Return on investment begins with knowing where you have invested and what you have invested in.

Lori Riverstone-Newell

Associate Professor of Politics and Government at Illinois State University

Do states with high tax burdens provide better government services?

Not necessarily. High tax burdens can be the result of lower populations (each person having to bear a greater load), debt service from past bonds, the need to repair long-neglected infrastructure or essential services (education, for example), waste, etc.

How can state and local governments use tax revenue more efficiently?

Well, first off, having good financial managers is key. Also, investing funds that are not in play, like rainy day funds, rather than letting it sit there. Having said that, the word "efficient," indicates getting the most bang for each buck. Do you mean effectively? Assuming efficiency is the question, aside from what I've already suggested, I think you have to start with an integrated budget and, for localities, a rolling five-year plan. This plan would include goals and achievements, as well as projections for future needs.

I don't think that efficiency can be achieved without a long-term plan, codified for all to reference, that details the path forward. Then, of course, it should be taken seriously enough for decision-makers to be held accountable to that document.

How can average citizens assess the ROI of their local tax dollars?

Average citizens aren't good with assessing the ROI of their tax dollars. First is what political scientists call the "tax-service paradox" which is, put simply, the widespread condition of citizens wanting more and better services, but not higher taxes. So I would begin with a public education effort that would make clear, perhaps with an info-graphic, where their tax dollar goes. This is the responsibility of government, to be transparent and forthcoming. Unfortunately, that's not the norm. One city that is doing a great job is Portland. But then citizens have to engage, too.

Assuming that we want to make it as easy as possible for citizens to assess the utility of their tax contribution, governments need to get the information before the people in a comprehensible way. That said, most cities and all states post their budget documents online and the majority include performance measures. That's a starting point for those who are truly interested.

What’s the most common way local governments waste taxpayer dollars?

I don't know about most common -- all localities are different -- but we regularly see duplication of services, investment in economic opportunities that do not "fit" local conditions, offering incentives to bring a business to the city without ensuring a commitment from that business that it will do what it promises (create X jobs; stay for at least X years; employ from within the jurisdiction, etc.). I also believe that the proliferation of localities in the U.S. is a great source of wasted taxpayer dollars. Operating two small, contiguous localities is much more expensive that operating one that is medium sized.

Economies of scale suggests that it is cheaper to provide one police department than two, for example. Also, these localities will compete with one another for residents and businesses. Competition for businesses, in particular, can lead to a wasteful incentive war wherein each offers more and better perks to "win" the business. These incentives can be land gifts, tax abatements, infrastructure development. If these localities worked together on a shared development plan, or consolidated, then reduced competition would add value (in both revenue and power) back to the community.

Peter Burchard

Adjunct Professor at Northern Illinois University and President of Peter Burchard, LLC

Do states with high tax burdens provide better government services?

More dollars for better government services: Better has become a matter for the marketing department -- an art of selling and not measuring. Every city thinks it's the best with best services. Political governments are ego driven governments.

How can state and local governments use tax revenue more efficiently?

Use tax revenue more efficiently: Government is skilled at maintaining the status quo while calling their work innovative. What constitutes an efficiency? What measures are they using? Local and state governments need to rethink service levels. We often innovate to maintain the status quo. If disruptive innovation is measured by deep cost savings and managing toward lower service levels (which I think it should), governments can become more efficient.

What’s the most common way local governments waste taxpayer dollars?

The setting for waste and inefficiency is in the obsession for best services -- government services staffed and budgeted at a level that few citizen ever need. Many local governments are obsessed with "best practice," when good enough will work. The folks at Deloitte have written some wise articles and books on this idea. The clamor for being the best without reducing costs or service levels is costly and unnecessary. I also think that many local government employees don't have the business acumen needed to run modern/complex organizations. Finally, I think the social pressure to “be nice” restricts risk takers at work.

As a general rule, state and local governments will become more efficient only when they have to. Otherwise, the inherent urge is to protect or increase current service levels. Self-initiated efficiency is rare when times are good. For example, following the 2008 recession, governments were forced to layoff tens of thousands of employees and cut back on programs. The lesson is that external forces can cause governments to cut costs and consider program changes they otherwise wouldn't have.

Government officials are ego driven -- they want to be the speaker at the national conference -- to brag about being the best. Other governments sit in the audience and feel they're falling behind. So they join the race to the top. In reality, residents don't need best practices. They need logic, reasoning and a fair price.

Raymond C. Scheppach

Professor of Public Policy at University of Virginia

Do states with high tax burdens provide better government services?

Not necessarily, as it really depends on where they are spending their funds. The highest ROI is from spending on elementary and secondary education, especially if the state funds help to equalize funding between low income and high income schools. There is also a fairly high ROI for higher education mostly for community colleges but also four year institutions.

Where community colleges are linked to training and the graduates receive a high quality certificate in addition to a two-year degree are especially effective. The rates of return for education will only grow dramatically over the next decade based on what we already know in terms of the changing skill mix for occupations. Those states that provide so called merit based scholarships for college receive a very low rate of return as most of those students have ample funds for higher education. These are just windfalls to higher income families.

How can state and local governments use tax revenue more efficiently?

While there are clearly major efficiency and accountability problems on the spending side, there are far larger problems on the tax side. Few people look at these, but virtually every state has an obsolete tax systems built for manufacturing economies in the 1950’s not for a high technology service oriented economy of the 21st century. For example, most state sales taxes apply only to goods and not services, so it discriminates against goods and subsidizes services. There are also huge distortions regarding the many organizations that do not pay sales taxes. It is also true if you combine sales and income taxes you will find that most state taxes are quite regressive.

By far, however, the greatest inefficiencies and lack of accountability are found in the personal income and corporate income taxes due to all of the so called “tax expenditures” or deductions and credits. Many of these are in the federal definitions that states adopt, but states often add many more. Items such as tax credits for the film industry or for locating a new firm in the state are seldom cost effective. By far the biggest problem is that once they are in the tax system, they are seldom reviewed and often stay for 15-20 years. At least a direct subsidy on the spending side requires a state appropriation and is reviewed at least every two years.

How can average citizens assess the ROI of their local tax dollars?

It is very difficult as it takes both a lot of work and requires an in depth understanding of spending and taxes. Most states and many local governments do publish performance measures for most major accounts, which is valuable information that could be used. Citizens should first make sure that all budget information is available to the public-full transparency. Citizens should then get together with a small regional foundation to fund an independent, non-partisan entity with a couple of good analysts who would evaluate the budget and tax systems and post the information on an easily accessible website.

What’s the most common way local governments waste taxpayer dollars?

The biggest problem is the tax credits and deductions in the tax systems. Medicaid funding is also a significant problem.

Rick Funderburg

Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Administration and Visiting Scholar at the Institute of Government & Public Affairs at University of Illinois - Springfield

Do states with high tax burdens provide better government services?

Consideration of whether a service is “better,” depends on the circumstances of the individual receiving the service. In general, property owners would prefer greater emphasis on productive expenditures that generate higher incomes, higher house values, and other economic growth, while recipients of public assistance would prefer higher quality redistributive services.

States with high tax burdens tend to have the greatest inequality of wealth and income and also provide more nonproductive government services as a percentage of all government spending. Productive services are expenditures that contribute positively to the state’s economic performance, including spending on education, infrastructure and health. Nonproductive expenditures include payments with a redistributive purpose.

Population size correlates positively with diversity, implying that smaller governments can satisfy homogenous preferences easier than larger governments can accommodate diverse demands. Hence, populous states must depend more on local governments, particularly single purpose governments, for the efficient delivery of government services.

How can state and local governments use tax revenue more efficiently?

U.S. state and local governments can employ evidence-based budgeting practices to spend tax revenue more efficiently. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy, in partnership with Pew Charitable Trusts and the MacArthur Foundation, translated policy impacts estimated from over 150 national studies into costs and benefits. All but 7 states are following Washington State’s lead and these 43 states and the District of Columbia have made some progress implementing evidence-based policymaking. The Budgeting for Results Commission heads our effort here in Illinois, where we are developing efficiency measures for several state programs.

Budgets provide the critical mechanism to plan, manage and control expenditure of tax revenue. Evidence-based budgeting improves planning at the outset with information on program outcomes to prioritize the use of scarce resources. It likewise improves management with better information for developing and implementing strategies in pursuit of the policy goals. We can then hold programs accountable for results based on clear goals and strategies that assure better control and a more efficient use of tax dollars.

How can average citizens assess the ROI of their local tax dollars?

Citizens possess limited ability to quantify benefits received from public services despite easily counting their costs in the form of taxes. Homeowners at best may attribute some of a house’s value to their return on investment in local taxes. Local public services desired by homeowners increase house prices, while local taxes constrain home values in a process of capitalization.

In some theories, home values capitalize the full differences in local property taxes and the value of desired services including good schools, police and fire protection, infrastructure, and utilities. Homeowners under full capitalization may be maximally aware of the ROI after comparing prices of their own home and similar houses in a nearby community that has substantially better or worse service value per tax dollar. Renters’ assessment of ROI is hampered by the possibility that landlords shift some of the local taxes in the form of higher rents and the inability to recover differentials through sale of the property. Tenants accept some of the burden in higher property taxes in exchange for higher quality services financed with the taxes. Hence, they may be able to estimate their tax contributions as the difference in rents among similar rentals in different communities and learn from homeowners or other sources about possible monetary values of services.

The explanation above seems complicated because monetary assessment of ROI is complex. The easiest way to assess ROI is nonmonetary. Try sampling a few different communities before purchasing a home in the preferred community. Try the various services firsthand and ask residents about their experiences with them. Sampling will help ensure you choose a community with a high ROI in the first place.

What’s the most common way local governments waste taxpayer dollars?

Local governments commonly waste taxpayer dollars competing for private investment. My 2013 research on the impact of marginal business taxes estimates that a doubling of incentives may return as low as 12 percent of the public’s investment. Private developers conceal their intentions, hoping to receive generous incentive offers. Local government officials believe the subsidy will land the investment. In reality, businesses choose locations based on access to markets, labor force quality, and local costs of capital, labor, energy and materials, a list of factors among which taxes rank low in surveys of businesses.

A bigger problem for local government inefficiency occurs when one government subsidizes development in its jurisdiction using another government’s resources, as is allowed with tax increment financing. Spending other people’s money gives rise to a well-known moral hazard. The scarcity mechanism is weakened that would otherwise encourage local governments to avoid risky subsidies and ensure public benefit from the projects they support.

Methodology

In order to determine which states yield the best and worst return on investment (ROI) for taxpayers, WalletHub’s analysts compared the quality of government services received by residents to the total state and local taxes they pay in each of the 50 states.

First, we analyzed each state across five key government-service categories: 1) Education, 2) Health, 3) Safety, 4) Economy and 5) Infrastructure & Pollution. The categories were further broken down into 23 relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing the best quality of government service.

We then calculated the “Overall Government Services Score” for each state based on its weighted average across all 23 metrics.

Finally, we constructed the Taxpayer ROI ranking by comparing each state’s “Overall Government Services Score” to its “Total Taxes Paid per Capita.” “Per Capita” includes the population aged 18 and older.

Education – Total Points: 20

• Quality of Public University System: Full Weight (~6.67 Points)
  Note: Based on data from U.S. News & World Report’s National Universities Rankings
• Public High-School Graduation Rate: Full Weight (~6.67 Points)
• Quality of School System: Full Weight (~6.67 Points)
  Note: Based on data from WalletHub’s States with the Best & Worst School Systems ranking

Health – Total Points: 20

• Hospital Beds per 1,000 Residents: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
• Quality of Public Hospitals: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
  Note: Based on data from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
• Average Life Expectancy at Birth (in years): Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
• Infant-Mortality Rate per 1,000 Live Births: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
• Average Health-Insurance Premium: Half Weight (~3.33 Points)
• Quality of Health Care: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
  Note: Based on data from WalletHub’s States with the Best & Worst Health Care ranking

Safety – Total Points: 20

• Violent-Crime Rate per Capita: Double Weight (~10.00 Points)
• Property-Crime Rate per Capita: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)
• Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)

Economy – Total Points: 20

• Median Annual Household Income: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
  Note: Adjusted for cost of living
• Annual Job-Growth Rate: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
  Note: Adjusted for population growth
• Share of Residents Living Below Poverty Line: Double Weight (~3.33 Points)
• Economic Mobility: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
• Unemployment Rate: Double Weight (~3.33 Points)
• Underemployment Rate: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)

Infrastructure & Pollution – Total Points: 20

• Quality of Roads & Bridges: Full Weight (~4.00 Points)
• Average Commute Time (in minutes): Full Weight (~4.00 Points)
• Parks & Recreation Expenses per Capita: Full Weight (~4.00 Points)
• Water Quality: Full Weight (~4.00 Points)
• Air Pollution: Full Weight (~4.00 Points)

Sources: Data used to create this ranking were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Center for Education Statistics, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Commonwealth Fund, United Health Foundation, Council for Community and Economic Research, Road Information Program, The Equality of Opportunity Project, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Health Resources and Services Administration, Social Science Research Council, County Health Rankings., U.S. News & World Report and WalletHub research.