South Carolina Indicators: Charting South Carolina’s Progress

 

Edwin C. Thomas

 

You pick the measure—SAT scores, dropout rates, illiteracy, whatever—and the Palmetto State is in the running for dead last.[1]

Michael Graham, The Free Times

 

Introduction

 

Whatever one’s particular views about political commentator, columnist and humorist Michael Graham, comments like his on the allegedly dismal relative performance of the Palmetto State are widely reported and believed. Indeed, experience tells us that during political campaigns—for instance—candidates are typically well-armed with the “truth” about the “state of the state,” which they invariably cite to support their particular view or agenda.  The opposition, of course, can be counted on to present a competing set of facts to support their own version of the truth. In the end, thoughtful citizens are left to sort out fact from fiction in this clash or “war” of competing statistics. 

 

Take our public schools as an example. How should we measure the performance of our school systems? Are we making progress or “falling behind?”  One widely used measure of school performance is the “dropout rate.” What is it in South Carolina? How do we compare with other states?

 

Let’s look at the statewide average for dropouts and, more specifically, the average for Allendale County to illustrate the point. According to S.C. Kids Count,[2] the South Carolina average rate of dropouts for the years 2000-2002 was 31.9%. Additionally, the Allendale County dropout average for the years 2000-2002 was 53.6%. However, according to the S.C. Department of Education in its “2002 Rankings of Counties and School Districts in South Carolina,” the state average dropout rate was 3.2%, while the Allendale average rate was 8.5%.[3]

 

Thus, in this instance, one person could claim that in Allendale County, 53.6% of the students dropout. Another could claim that the actual number is 8.5%.

 

In his 2005 State of the State address, Governor Mark Sanford noted “we are 49^th in the nation in the percentage of kids that don’t make their way through high school.”[4] But if one looks at the Annie E. Casey Foundation Kids Count data, it shows that South Carolina ranks 15^th in the nation for the percentage of teens, ages 16-19, who are high school dropouts. (Interestingly, this report also shows that Georgia, Mississippi, and North Carolina ranked 45^th in the nation.)[5]

 

So what is the actual dropout rate? How does South Carolina really rank on this measure?  The fact of the matter is that each of these indicators is correct. But the definitions and methodology (what we are actually measuring and how we are measuring it) differ. And the differences are critically important. But those who cite these indicators and rankings do not always tell us the source of their data. Of importance, there is rarely any detail provided about definitions and methodology. As such, we are often comparing “apples and oranges.”

 

A recent report by the Education Trust, entitled “Getting Honest about Grad Rates: How States Play the Numbers and Students Lose,” points out that “in almost every state, those who are committed to student success are working in the absence of accurate data on high school graduation rates.”[6] [7]

 

While this is not a paper about high school dropouts, the wildly differing statistics that are often cited about our dropout rate are illustrative of the larger problem of knowing how South Carolina is actually performing in virtually every policy area. Further complicating the issue is the reality that, while much data are collected by government agencies, it is often difficult and time-consuming to access it—even if one knows where to look. Absent valid and reliable data, accountability is an illusive goal.

 

In an attempt to address this issue the staff of the University of South Carolina’s Institute for Public Service and Policy Research undertook the development of a comprehensive key indicators system for South Carolina which we call the South Carolina Indicators (SCI) project. The SCI is designed to provide policy makers, citizens, and students of government one place to look for valid, reliable and comparable data on how South Carolina is performing in key policy areas. 

 

Developing a Key Indicator System

 

One of the goals of the SCI project is to learn about and keep track of what other countries, states, regions, and local governments are doing to develop and maintain performance indicator systems and to share lessons they have learned. The starting point for learning from others was a November 2004 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled Informing Our Nation: Improving How to Understand and Assess USA’s Position and Progress.[8] This report describes the need for a national comprehensive key indicator system. Toward that end, the GAO studied 29 key indicator systems that were local, regional or statewide in scope and that had been in operation for at least two years. The GAO also looked at three national level indicator systems outside the United States.[9]

 

The report includes some useful definitions. An indicator is a “quantitative measure that depicts a condition over time.” An indicator system is a “structured assemblage of measurements or indices that show the position and progress of some condition or jurisdiction.” A comprehensive key indicator system is defined as a “structured measurement system that concentrates on an aggregate of indices that fall within broad areas.”[10]  

 

In addition to looking at the current state of practice in the use of indicator systems, the GAO report cited lessons learned about the development of an indicator system.  Among the key project design lessons cited were the importance of:

 

• Establishing a clear purpose and defining target audiences and needs;
• Ensuring independence and accountability;
• Creating a broad-based government structure and actively involving stakeholders;
• Securing stable and diversified funding sources;
• Designing effective development and implementation processes;
• Identifying and obtaining needed indicators and data;
• Attracting and retaining staff with appropriate skills;
• Implementing marketing and communications strategies for target audiences; and,
• Acquiring and leveraging information technologies.

 

The SCI project team also reviewed state, local, and regional indicator systems such as Minnesota Milestones, Oregon Benchmarks, Baltimore’s Vital Signs, and Buffalo-Niagara’s State of the Region.[11] It is important to note that these systems were typically established as a part of an overall statewide, local or regional goal setting and performance measurement process initiated by key policy makers. Goals are set in various major policy areas such as education, economy, and the environment. To continue with the school dropout example, a statewide goal may be established to lower the high school dropout rate to a particular targeted level. The indicator system lets policy makers track progress toward that goal. Informed, data-based decisions can then be made about the effectiveness of particular strategies as a means to achieve the stated goal, including decisions affecting funding. In short, they can hold themselves as well as others accountable. 

 

Based on what was learned from these projects, the SCI team identified the following policy areas for measurement:

 

• Education
• Economy
• Environment
• Health
• Social
• Public Safety
• Culture and Recreation
• Government Administration

 

These areas are similar to those used in other states and certainly encompass the major policy spheres of concern to all state governments.

 

Research teams were formed for the eight policy areas. Each team then engaged in a systematic search for statistical indicators for their policy area. The goal at this stage was to learn what data were available, where it resides, how often it was collected and reported, and the methodology used. Given the amount of data collected by various government agencies about the policy areas, it was necessary to go through a deliberative process of selecting key or critical indicators that could be used to track progress over time and to make state, regional and national comparisons of relative performance. Once reliable data sources were identified, key data elements were collected and organized.  The project teams used a number of criteria as they gathered data including:

 

• Comparability - the goal was to collect data that could be used to compare South Carolina’s performance with other states, the southeast, and the nation over time, to the extent possible.
• Reliability, validity and objectivity – data were to be collected from reliable, predominantly government agency sources. Each element incorporated in the system was required to include information about source, methodology, definition of terms, and links to original data. Data were not collected from advocacy or lobbyist groups or other organizations that were established for the pursuit of specific policy purposes.
• Public interest – indicators were sought that addressed areas that are of enduring interest to policy makers and the public, e.g., the unemployment rate, water quality, crime rates, and similar indicators.

 

The Indicators

 

The project currently includes 91 indicators, organized into 30 categories, within the eight key policy areas stated earlier. Specifically, the indicators are as follows:

 

Education

 

• National assessment of educational progress, reading, grades 4 and 8
• National assessment of educational progress, mathematics, grade 4 and 8
• Average SAT scores

• Per pupil K-12 expenditures
• Percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunch

• Student/teacher ratio
• Average teacher salary

• Annual dropout rate
• Average tuition
• Per student state support for higher education

 

Economy 

 

• Annual average unemployment rate for the civilian labor force
• Percent of people 16 years and over in labor force including Armed Forces
• Percent non-farm employment in manufacturing

• Per capita personal income
• Poverty rate
• Median household income
• Average annual pay

• Gross state product
• Annual payroll
• Annual non-farm job growth

• Homeownership

 

Environment

 

• Hazardous waste generation
• Number of Superfund sites
• Toxic chemical releases
• Municipal solid waste
• Recycling rates

• Emissions of toxic chemicals
• People living in areas with high ozone levels

• Community water systems with health violations
• Number of impaired waters

• Emissions from electric power generation (by type)
• Total megawatt hours produced by nuclear power plants

 

Public Safety

 

• State and local government expenditures per capita for police protection
• Violent crime rate
• Property crime rate
• Violent crime arrest rate for adults and juveniles
• Property crime arrest rates for adults and juveniles
• State and local government expenditures per capita for correctional services
• Rate of adults under correctional facilities
• Incarceration rate
• Number of inmates per correctional officer
• Percentage of offenders successfully completing supervision
• Total expenditures per state-owned road mile
• Percentage of state-controlled roads in highway system
• Mileage fatality rate
• Seat belt usage

• Fire death rate

 

Health

 

• Life expectancy
• Infant mortality
• Leading causes of death
• Birth rates among teenagers aged 15-19

• Percent of low birth-weights
• Percent of children vaccinated

• Percent of persons not covered by health insurance

Social

 

• Assaults between intimates
• Domestic homicides committed by family member
• Children in single-parent households
• Population receiving temporary assistance to needy families (TANF)
• Food stamp recipients
• Child support collections

• Children living in poverty
• Substantiated reports of child neglect or abuse
• Child fatalities due to child neglect or abuse

• Senior citizens living in poverty

 

Culture and Recreation

 

• Per capita arts agencies legislative appropriations
• Number of professional, not-for-profit, tax exempt theater groups

• National and state park land in acres
• Visits to national and state parks
• Number of national historic sites

• Percent of population not physically active
• Boat registrations
• Participants in wildlife-related recreation

• Libraries per 10,000 residents
• Circulation transactions per capita
• Library visits per capita
• Book and serial volumes per capita
• Total operating expenditures per capita

 

Government Administration

 

• Per capita state tax collections
• Per capita state total expenditures
• State government revenue sources

• Full-time state employment per 10,000 population
• Number of local governments
• State legislative membership

 

It is important to emphasize that the current collection of indicators is just the starting point. As new and useful indicators are found, they will be added to the system. Others may be deleted as better measures are identified. 

 

The SCI Website

 

SCI is primarily a Web-based project, though it will involve other products over time, including papers and forums. The SCI Website is available to the public at www.ipspr.sc.edu/scip/default.asp.

 

The SCI Website is designed to be easy to use, read, and navigate. Each of the policy areas starts with an “At-a-Glance” page that lists the key indicators and rankings for that area. By clicking on the indicator categories, the user is is taken to a more detailed treatment of the indicators that includes tables, graphs and charts that display performance over time in comparison with southeastern and national averages. This section also provides comparative state rankings, data definitions, explanations of the significance of the indicators, and detailed notes and analysis of the data as appropriate. Also included are hyperlinks to the original data sources and other relevant resources.

 

In addition to the indicators, the site includes an extensive collection of Web links organized by policy area that should serve as a valuable research resource. The site also includes reviews of and linkages to a growing collection of major state and regional indicator projects.

 

The Future of SCI

 

SCI is envisioned as an ongoing project of the Institute. Project staff will be regularly adding indicators to the system as well as updating existing indicators as new data become available.

 

One of the primary purposes of the project, of course, is the development of a comprehensive key indicator system for the state. While the current collection of indicators is interesting and important, the system is not yet comprehensive and the current indicators may not be the final measures to be included in the system. What are the best and most appropriate measures of our economy or the environment? How can we most meaningfully measure and benchmark government adminstration? Toward this end the project envisions convening a series of forums for policy makers and policy experts to foster discussion about how best to measure performance in each of the eight policy areas. 

 

Ultimately, the project team envisions a system that can foster and support statewide goal setting and accountability. While SCI is already proving to be a significant resource for policy makers, researchers, and citizens, it is just a start.  In order to realize its ultimate goals, project staff will be working to secure a reliable funding stream to continue the effort. In the meantime we encourage you to visit the project Website and we welcome your comments and suggestions.

 

For further information about SCI, contact Ed Thomas at ed-thomas@sc.edu.

 

 

References

 

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2005). Retrieved October 18, 2005 from http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/sld/compare_results.jsp?i=440.

 

Government Accountability Office. (2004, November). Informing our nation: improving how to understand and assess the USA’s position and progress. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved October 18, 2005 at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d051.pdf.

 

Graham, M. (n/d). You can’t handle the truth. The Free Times.  Retrieved October 18, 2005 from http://www.free-times.com/Usual_Suspects/Suspects_Archive/suspects021605.html. 

 

Hall, D. (2005, June). Getting honest about grad rates: how states play the numbers and students lose. Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Retrieved October 18, 2005 from http://www2.edtrust.org/edtrust.

 

Sanford, M. (2005, January 26). 2005 State of the state. Address to the S.C. General Assembly. Retrieved October 18, 2005 from http://www.scgovernor.com/uploads/upload/StateoftheStateAddress-2005.pdf.

 

S.C. Department of Education. (2002, September). Retrieved October 18, 2005 from http://www.myscschools.com/offices/research/01ListofTbls.DOC.

 

S.C. Kids Count. (2005). Retrieved October 18, 2005 from http://www.sckidscount.org/.

 

 

About the Author

 

Edwin C. Thomas, B.S., M.Ed., M.P.A. is the director of the Governmental Research and Service unit at the University of South Carolina’s Institute for Public Service and Policy Research. Mr. Thomas received his Bachelor of Science, Master of Education, and Master of Public Administration degrees from the University of South Carolina. He can be reached at ed-thomas@sc.edu.