The State

Leadership
2025 Index

@RedStatesLead
stateleadership.org
1
A defining trait of the American tradition is the recognition that our
states are not administrative subdivisions of Washington. They are sov-
ereign communities, with their own traditions, their own institutions,
and their own destinies. Yet too often, even in red states, governance
has come to mirror the habits of the federal leviathan: bloated bureau-
cracies, ideological drift, economic fragility, and cultural decay.

We must ask a critical question: are our states actually leading? The
State Leadership Initiative—a rising force for conservative governance
at the state level—has taken up that question. Their new State Leader-
ship Index is a pioneering step toward answering it.

This Index is not a typical scorecard. It doesn’t rate governors or grade

legislation in isolation. Instead, it evaluates entire states as governing
entities—institutional systems with economic, cultural, and bureau-
cratic structures that either serve the public or subvert it. This holistic
approach is rare, and urgently needed. Too often, red states tout their
ideological credentials while mimicking the machinery of failed blue
governance. The State Leadership Index lays bare that contradiction—
and points the way toward something better.

I commend the State Leadership Initiative for setting a new standard.

Their insightful work gives leaders, donors, and citizens the tools to
take pride in—and take responsibility for—the direction of their states.
We must treat our states not as subsidiaries of a distant capital, but as
self-governing communities capable of shaping a freer, stronger, and
more rooted American future.

Nate Fischer
Co-Founder and Board Member
Table of Contents
Letter from the President 1
Executive Summary 2
State Leadership Index 3
Governance Summary 4
State Governance Index 5
Economic Vitality Summary 7
State Economy Index 8
Cultural Strength Summary 9
State Culture Index 10
Call to Action 11

Governance Graphics
% of State Revenue from Federal Funding 13
State Employees per 100K Residents 14
Net Number of ESG Oppositions 15
Teacher Share of K–12 Staff 16
University Employees per 100K Residents 17
Educational Spend per Student ($) 18

Economic Graphics
State Budget Growth per Capita (’19–’24) 19
Regulation Count (thousands) 20
State-Chartered Bank Assets per Capita 21
Change in Industrial Share of State GDP (’19–’24) 22
Industrial Facilities per 100K Residents 23
% of Population on SNAP 24
% of Population on TANF 25

Culture Graphics
Native Retention Rate 26
% of Prime-Aged Adults Married 27
Total Fertility Rate 28
% of Teens Raised Intact 29
Violent Crimes per 100K Residents 30
% of Violent Crimes Solved 31
Median Homebuyer Age 32

Appendix 33
State Color Tagging 37

3
Letter from the President
One of my mentors, Cleta Mitchell, discusses a phenomenon that places conservatives at great disadvantage when
they govern. As she describes it, “conservatives focus on policy, progressives focus on process.” That is nowhere
more true than in state government. When I founded State Leadership Initiative earlier this year, we began looking
at how state governments are actually run, and the results are shocking.

I make a bold claim when discussing the problem SLI aims to solve. That is: Red States are just Blue States with
lower taxes. As you’ll see in this report, the data resoundingly backs up that claim. Whether its state bureaucracy
employees per capita, ratio of teacher to non-teacher public school staff, regulation count, etc., you see a very similar
governance structure between states led by self-professed conservatives and those governed by the left.

But why is that? I think Cleta’s claim is precisely right: conservatives have focused on implementing their (correct)
ideas of what will improve government, while looking the other way as the left grabs hold of institutions—and in
doing so—gains an unchecked ability to implement their ideas through the back door of government. The left ends
up controlling how the schools are run, how medicaid programs are implemented, how industries are regulated;
ultimately, this means they enshrine their work as ‘best practices’ that we end up accepting and rarely question.

Conservatives content themselves with changing policies and have shown tremendous success on that front. There
is zero question that, for example, a Texan has a far greater liberty to exercise their constitutional freedoms than an
Illinoisan. However, the consequence of not focusing on process is serious. Texans live in a state that has a roughly
equal number of state regulations as Illinois, has a larger state bureaucracy per capita, and fewer teachers as a per-
centage of public school employees than Illinois—not to mention higher violent crime rates and lower percentages
of those crimes getting solved.

SLI was founded to tackle those problems and help build an inspiring vision for the future that can only come from
embracing both process and policy. We are also inspired that for virtually every metric we examine, there are states
already successfully addressing those problems. Idaho, for instance, has cut or simplified 95% of all their state regu-
lations and is the lowest regulated state in America—and it is booming. They also lead the way with nearly 60% of all
public school employees as teachers—a standard-setter on this key metric of tackling bureaucracy. We also admire
Utah’s approach to ensuring a low dependence on the federal government to fund state operations and Florida’s
ability to run world-class universities while maintaining strong controls over university bureaucracies.

Our goal at SLI is to do the hard work of supporting state reforms while cultivating the civil society necessary to lead
them forward. This report is a first iteration—we aim to expand and grow this as a tool to support state change. We
welcome feedback as we build our index for 2026. For instance, we believe corporate welfare is a major problem plagu-
ing states, directing the resources of its citizens more often than not to woke multinational corporations, but there
wasn’t an apples-to-apples dataset that exists to incorporate that into our analysis this year. We aim to change that.

We welcome your feedback. Our goal is to partner with the many outstanding organizations working to tackle
parallel problems. Thank you for reading this report and for your interest in our work.

Founder and President, with special thanks to Thomas Murray in assembling this report.

1
Executive Summary FINDINGS
• Federal dependency is rampant. 7 of the 10 most
federally dependent states are red.
Red states are failing to lead. Despite the rhetoric of
conservative governance — limited government, effi- • Regulation is just as bad in red states as in blue
cient bureaucracies, light touch regulation, & public states (and in many cases worse).
safety — most red states remain deeply entangled in • Bureaucracy per capita is virtually indistinguish-
the same bureaucratic bloat, cultural drift, and eco- able in red vs blue states. Even states celebrated
nomic stagnation that afflict their blue counterparts. for lean government — like Utah — rank high in
Yes, there are meaningful policy differences — lower government staffing per resident.
taxes, more permissive gun laws, pro-life protections • Education bureaucracies are bloated. In both
— but these often operate within a framework that red and blue states, fewer than half of public K–12
remains fundamentally unchanged. The administra- employees are classroom teachers; the majority are
tive machinery, the institutional priorities, and the administrators and support staff.
underlying assumptions are often indistinguishable.
• University payrolls are worse in red states. Many
These are conservative policies layered atop a pro-
red states have more university bureaucrats per cap-
gressive foundation. ita than deep-blue states — often employed to push
The State Leadership Index (SLI) offers the most com- ideological agendas alien to local values.
prehensive evaluation to date of how well each state is • Crime is higher in red states. And the clearance
actually living up to conservative principles — not just rates (i.e., solved cases) are lower. Six of the top nine
rhetorically, but institutionally. It does this by measur- most violent states are red. Red states have let their
ing performance across three core areas: urban cores fall into progressive misrule.
• Family stability is crumbling. Even where mar-
1. Governance Quality: Are institutions lean, re- riage and fertility are higher, most red states have
sponsive, and aligned with citizen values? fewer than 50% of teens raised in intact families.
2. Economic Vitality: Is the state materially strong
Yet we also find signs of promise:
and resilient? Does it foster productive industry
and independence from federal largesse? • States like Florida and Utah deliver top-tier educa-
3. Cultural Strength: Are states achieving what con- tion outcomes at very low per-student spending.
servative values are supposed to deliver? • Some states are building real industrial capacity,
with new manufacturing plants driving growth.
This is not about celebrating marginal wins. It is about • ESG resistance is growing, with legislation and ex-
identifying which states are truly building the con- ecutive orders taking aim at ideological compliance
ditions for a flourishing, sovereign, American life — in finance and procurement.
and which are coasting on legacy reputations while
their institutions rot. But isolated victories are not enough. Conservative
governance must not aim to imitate blue-state decline
We find that while red states often outperform blue
more slowly. It must build something better. That
states on surface-level policy — taxes, guns, abortion
means streamlining institutions, cutting ideological
laws — they remain deeply exposed to the same bureau-
bloat, restoring order in cities, reviving the family, and
cratic drift, institutional bloat, and ideological capture
building economic foundations that actually serve
that afflicts progressive jurisdictions. In many cases, the
people — not just GDP charts.
skeleton of the regime is the same as blue states.
This report is not a celebration. It is a roadmap — a
guide to something better. If red states want to lead,
they must govern accordingly.

2
State Leadership Index

3
Governance ucation employees (K–12) are actual classroom teachers
— this is an absurdly low percent that no system can
justify; having more than half of education employees
Summary in tertiary roles is a sure sign of overemployment by the
government and massive bureaucracy bloat. It bears
repeating: more than half of our education system is
WHAT THIS METRIC CAPTURES composed of administrative apparatchiks and other fill-
The governance sub-index measures the effectiveness er-roles that distract from the actual mission: education
and ideological alignment of a state’s bureaucracy. It and formation. Red states need to prioritize reforming
tracks how much control elected officials have, how their education bureaucracies and get back to teaching.
bloated administrative structures are, and how resis-
tant the system is to progressive institutional capture. Bureaucracy per capita
On this front, red states are again virtually indistinct
METRICS INCLUDED from their blue peers. Even states celebrated for lean
government — like Utah — rank high in government
• % of revenue from federal funding: High federal
staffing per resident. The instinct to govern efficiently
dependence weakens state sovereignty and skews
appears, at best, inconsistently applied.
policy priorities.
• % of executive FTEs appointed: Indicates how much
University bloat
control governors have over the bureaucracy — more
appointments means more accountability. The divergence becomes even more pronounced in
higher education. Red states consistently rank worse
• State and university employees per 100K resi-
than blue states in university staffing bloat, particularly
dents: Measures the size of state bureaucracies and
in administrative and support roles. These roles too of-
potential for ideological drift.
ten house ideological activists who do not merely mis-
• Net number of ESG oppositions: Reflects active understand their communities — but actively oppose
resistance to progressive financial mandates and their values. The irony is glaring: voters fund institu-
ideological compliance. tions that seek to reshape or erase their way of life. Re-
• Teacher share of K–12 staff: Captures whether form is not just a budgetary necessity but a cultural one.
public education systems are focused on instruction
vs. administration. Educational spend per student
• Educational spend per student: A proxy for effi- Red states perform admirably here. States like Florida
ciency — higher spending isn’t always better; frugal and Utah deliver strong educational outcomes while
states often outperform (e.g., Florida and Utah). spending as little as $10,000 per pupil. These states
demonstrate that frugality, far from harming educa-
FINDINGS tion, may in fact sharpen it — freeing up funds for
teachers and shielding students from ideological drift.
Federal dependency is alarming
7 of the 10 most federally dependent states are red. In ESG opposition
states like Mississippi and West Virginia, federal dol-
Red states have made notable strides in formally op-
lars make up nearly 40% of state budgets. This is not
posing ESG mandates. Executive orders and legislation
sovereignty; it is soft capture. North Dakota stands out
across states like Texas, Florida, and Utah signal growing
with just 19% dependency — proof that independence
awareness. But the persistence of ESG-aligned practices
is possible with political will.
in public finance, pensions, and procurement under-
scores the depth of institutional capture. Statutes alone
Education bureaucracy are not enough; without personnel change and structur-
Across red and blue states alike, just 48% of public ed- al reform, the machinery continues to run in place.

4
State Governance Index

5
Economic Vitality WHY INDUSTRIAL METRICS MATTER
Americans overwhelmingly support reindustrializa-
Summary tion: a 2025 Cato poll showed that 80% of Americans
support greater manufacturing in the US. This is not
nostalgia; it is common sense. Industrial strength pro-
WHAT THIS METRIC CAPTURES vides stable, upwardly mobile jobs for working-class
Americans, especially those without college degrees.
The economic sub-index measures whether a state is
It roots value creation in place, strengthens communi-
advancing material prosperity and building a sustain-
ties, and undergirds a self-sufficient middle class.
able foundation for long-term strength. It goes beyond
short-term economic activity or flashy topline num- But reindustrialization is not just about economics. It
bers to assess whether the state is fostering productive is a matter of strategic necessity. Industrial capacity
capacity and financial resilience. safeguards national resilience—across supply chains,
energy systems, and defense production. A state that
METRICS INCLUDED cannot make what it needs is not sovereign.

• State budget growth per capita (’19–’24): Rapid ex- Critically, the collapse of American industry was not
pansion of state budgets often reflects government inevitable. It was not caused solely—or even primar-
sprawl, not economic strength. True prosperity em- ily—by free trade deals in the 1990s. It was first un-
powers families and businesses, not bureaucracies. dermined by an explosion in regulation in the 1970s:
environmental rules, permitting regimes, labor man-
• Regulation count: Excessive regulatory burdens dates, zoning restrictions, and liability law distortions.
are a silent tax on growth, often disproportionately While our competitors streamlined, we strangled our-
harming small businesses and industrial expansion. selves. When free trade arrived, it merely revealed the
• State-chartered bank assets per capita: Measures extent of our self-inflicted wounds.
a state’s financial self-reliance. States with strong
networks of locally chartered banks keep capital an- Red states cannot lead if they remain economically de-
chored in their communities, supporting small busi- pendent and structurally deindustrialized. True state
ness, industry, and local investment. High per-cap- leadership means building—factories, logistics hubs,
ita assets signal a healthy financial backbone — less energy capacity, and the vocational ecosystem to sup-
captured by ideologically captured megabanks, port them. Reindustrialization is not a partisan slo-
more aligned with the real economy. This is a key gan. It is the precondition for economic independence,
indicator of durable, ground-up economic strength. political sovereignty, and human dignity in a world
where strength still matters.
• Change in industrial share of GDP (’19–’24): Prior-
itizes growth in sectors that generate real, tradable
value — like manufacturing, energy, and logistics — FINDINGS
over consumption- or government-led growth.
Overregulation persists.
• Industrial facilities per 100K residents: This is a
The Mercatus data reveal that red states are still heav-
measure of latent capacity. A state with more fac-
ily burdened by regulatory code volume; excluding
tories, warehouses, and processing plants is better
outliers, there is hardly a difference between the av-
positioned to attract investment, support reshoring,
erage number of regulations in red states vs blue ones.
and employ working-class citizens.
Idaho, with just 41,000 restrictions, should be the ceil-
• % of population on SNAP / TANF: Signals eco- ing. Yet Oklahoma has over 136,000 and Texas exceeds
nomic fragility. While safety nets are important, 270,000. Even Florida clocks in at 170,000. Excess reg-
overuse suggests a lack of opportunity and produc- ulation is neither a vestige of blue governance nor a
tive employment. genuine attempt to protect consumers or the environ-

6
ment — it’s a bipartisan practice of incumbent protec- Welfare reliance shows modest gains.
tion and a failure to adhere to professed values. Red states generally outperform blue ones on depen-
dency metrics like SNAP and TANF. TANF participa-
State budget growth (per capita) is comparable tion is also lower, often by half. While this is a bright
between Red and Blue states. spot, it is not a ceiling. States should be aiming to build
This is not a differentiating factor, which points to robust, opportunity-rich economies where public as-
the similarity in government conduct and attitude sistance is minimal because it is unnecessary.
between red and blue states. And several notable red
states — such as Utah and Tennessee — posted partic-
ularly explosive budget expansions. This risks creating
bloated governments that feed rather than constrain
the administrative state.

Industrial strength in red states is fragmented

and inadequate.
On the surface, some red states — such as Indiana, Ne-
braska, and South Dakota — have posted strong recent
growth in industrial GDP, suggesting momentum to-
ward reindustrialization. However, the majority of red
states have seen a decline in industrial GDP as a share
of total GDP over the last 5 years. Moreover, there is a
notable lack of broad-based industrial capacity in red
states. Red states have lower industrial facilities per
capita than blue states (87 vs. 92). National leaders in
industrial facilities per capita — states like Vermont,
Wisconsin, and Minnesota — are blue. Without ex-
panding the industrial base itself — not just posting
short-term GDP spikes — red states will remain de-
pendent, vulnerable, and economically subordinate.
This is not simply an economic issue; it is a strategic
and civilizational one. A sovereign people build. A
captured people import. Red states must decide which
they intend to be.

Financial sovereignty is fragile and concentrated.

Most red states lag dramatically in state-chartered bank
assets per capita, an indicator of local financial resil-
ience and capital autonomy. Delaware and Utah are
standouts, with Delaware’s per-capita assets 17x the red-
state average. But the broader picture is bleak: the red-
state average is just $30 per capita compared to a blue-
state average of $27 — both low and dependent on a few
outliers. A robust network of community-anchored fi-
nancial institutions is essential to insulating state econ-
omies from the distortions of megabanks and global
finance. For many red states, that ecosystem is frail.

7
State Economy Index

8
Cultural Strength deeper picture is more sobering. In most red states,
fewer than half of teenagers are raised in intact fami-
lies. Shockingly, red states have a lower share of intact
Summary families than blue states). Family stability is disinte-
grating, and no amount of higher fertility can com-
pensate for a culture where children grow up without
WHAT THIS METRIC CAPTURES both parents. A revival of family formation must be a
The cultural sub-index evaluates the health and resil- deliberate priority of red state policy.
ience of communities. It reflects how well states are
preserving family structures, civic order, and the root- Crime & Enforcement
edness that defines a stable, flourishing society. Red states suffer from higher rates of violent crime
and lower clearance rates than blue states. Six of the
METRICS INCLUDED top nine most violent states are red; twelve of the four-
teen worst for solving crimes are red. This cannot be
• % of prime-aged adults married / Total fertility blamed on poverty alone — states like Nebraska and
rate: Core indicators of family formation and long- Wyoming are proof that safety is possible without
term demographic vitality. wealth. The pattern instead reveals a deeper dysfunc-
• % teens raised intact: A direct measure of family tion: Republican-led states surrendering their cities to
durability — whether children are being raised by left-wing governance. The idea that blue cities should
both biological parents. be autonomous enclaves within red states must be re-
jected. Governors must take the reins and ensure safe-
• Violent crimes per 100K residents / % of violent
ty and accountability, even in their urban centers.
crimes solved: Reflects both public safety and state
capacity to enforce order.
Homeownership & Affordability
• Median homebuyer age: Younger buyers indicate
economic openness and intergenerational mobility. The median age of first-time homebuyers is lower in
red states, a hopeful signal of economic mobility. Yet
• Native retention rate: Captures how rooted a popu-
this statistic is buoyed by rural states with inexpensive
lation is. High out-migration weakens civic cohesion.
land. In major red states with urban sprawl — Texas,
Georgia, Florida — homebuying is just as delayed and
FINDINGS burdensome as in blue states. Artificial scarcity caused
by factors such as restrictive zoning, aggressive per-
Rootedness (Native Retention) mitting, and minimum lot sizes is driving up costs.
Red and blue states are nearly indistinguishable in the Red states must clear the path to homeownership for
percentage of native-born residents still living in-state. young families.
This is deeply troubling. If the conservative movement
values place, continuity, and generational belonging,
then it must reckon with the fact that its strongholds
are not delivering. States like West Virginia, where
misguided regulations have hollowed out industry
and drained communities, must reclaim economic vi-
ability — not just through energy production, but by
becoming places worth staying in.

Marriage & Fertility

Red states outperform blue ones on marriage rates and
fertility, reflecting healthier cultural baselines. But the

9
State Culture Index

10
Call to Action Expand the scope of politically appointed roles across
state agencies.

This report reveals a hard truth: most red states are not Cut education admin bloat.
leading. They have adopted progressive governance — In many states, fewer than half of K–12 staff are teach-
just with lower taxes and slightly different slogans. ers. That’s indefensible. Cap administrative hiring,
Bureaucratic sprawl, administrative drift, ideological redirect funds to classrooms, and follow lean models
capture, economic dependency, and cultural decay like Florida and Utah—where streamlined systems de-
persist across Republican-controlled states. A conser- liver top-tier outcomes.
vative bumper sticker is not conservative governance.

If red states want to reverse their institutional decay Audit the universities.
and build models worthy of emulation, they must pur- Universities are often the most bloated and ideologi-
sue bold, structural reform — not just policy tweaks, cally hostile bureaucracies in red states. Hiring freezes
but deep realignment. Below is a policy agenda to for administrative and DEI roles are a starting point—
match the scale of the challenge. but not sufficient. Focus instead on outcome-orient-
ed metrics: how many instructors per student? How
1. LEGISLATE WITH AN EXPIRATION much is being spent on instruction vs bureaucracy?
Where there is rot, cut it. And claw back the funds.
DATE: SUNSET PROVISIONS &
OVERSIGHT COMMISSIONS
3. RESTORE LAW & ORDER —
Implement mandatory sunset provisions.
ESPECIALLY IN BLUE CITIES
Every statute and agency rule should come with a
built-in expiration — forcing legislators to revisit and Assert state authority.
reauthorize programs rather than let them expand un- Crime in urban cores is not a mystery—it’s a policy
checked. States should follow the lead of Arizona and choice. Cities like Dallas and Virginia Beach show that
Idaho in defaulting to 5–10 year sunsets; states can find decisive investment in policing and technology works.
ready material for this in ALEC’s model legislation. But many red states still treat their blue cities as im-
mune to oversight and consequence for failure to tack-
Create or empower a Sunset Advisory le violent crime. That must end.
Commission.
Modeled after Texas’s approach, these bodies system- Tie funding to safety.
atically review agencies for relevance, efficiency, and Make public safety a condition of state support. If a
ideological neutrality. Expand their authority to rec- city cannot enforce the law or protect its residents, it
ommend abolition, merger, or reform — and bind leg- should not expect full funding.
islatures to take action on recommendations within a
fixed time window. Restructure prosecution.
Soros-aligned DAs have created safe havens for crime.
2. SHRINK & ALIGN THE States should empower AGs or statewide prosecutors
BUREAUCRACY to step in where local officials refuse to act. The goal
for states needs to be ensuring their metro areas are
Expand executive appointments.
livable & a desirable place for businesses to headquar-
The light-touch model of bureaucratic oversight has ter. Many states are failing, and it's costing them a
failed. Unaccountable agencies inevitably drift left. competitive edge.
Governors must exert political control—starting with
personnel. Cap the civil servant-to-appointee ratio.

11
4. REBUILD INDUSTRY & ECONOMIC Ban exclusionary zoning and excessive minimum lot
SOVEREIGNTY sizes. Fast-track approvals for multi-bedroom starter
homes. Make ownership — not renting — the policy aim.
Attract industrial firms.
Red states must become the easiest places in America to IN CONCLUSION
build. That means fast-track permitting, tax and regula-
tory certainty, and stable political conditions. This report is a warning, but with clear paths to suc-
cess. Red states are not guaranteed to lead simply by
Cut regulation volume. being red. Without aggressive institutional reform and
principled policymaking, they will follow the same
Follow Florida’s DOGE initiative and mandate a “2- trajectory as their blue peers. Yet the opportunity for
for-1” rule: for every new rule introduced, two must be course correction is real. The time for half-measures is
removed. Require departments to meet annual page- over. If states want to win the future, they must govern
count reduction targets or forfeit budget growth. like they mean it.

5. REFORM WELFARE TO RESTORE

DIGNITY
Institute strict work requirements for Medicaid
and food stamps.
These programs should be stepping stones — not
permanent subsidies. Exemptions only for the elder-
ly, disabled, and caregivers of infants. Leverage 1115
waivers aggressively.

Eliminate marriage penalties in welfare.

Reform eligibility formulas so couples aren’t punished
for marrying. Build default family-friendly structures
into every benefit program.

Audit and publish welfare dependency rates by

county.
Make welfare transparency a matter of public record
to build pressure for local reform.

6. BUILD FOR ROOTEDNESS &

FAMILY STRENGTH
Make family policy a central economic agenda.
Prioritize fertility and family stability as key indi-
cators in budget scoring, program design, and state
growth strategies. Set up task forces to remove gov-
ernment policy that makes it harder to have a family.

Protect housing access for families.

12
% of State Revenue from Federal Funding

13
State Employees per 100k Residents

14
Net Number of ESG Oppositions

15
Teacher Share of K–12 Staff

16
University Employees per 100K Residents

17
Educational Spend per Student ($)

18
State Budget Growth per Capita (’19–’24)

19
Regulation Count (thousands)

20
State Chartered Bank Assets per Capita

21
Change in Industrial Share of State GDP (’19’24)

22
Industrial Facilities per 100K Residents

23
% of Population on SNAP

24
% of Population on TANF

25
Native Retention Rate

26
% of Prime-Aged Adults Married

27
Total Fertility Rate

28
% of Teens Raised Intact

29
Violent Crimes per 100K Residents

30
% of Violent Crimes Solved

31
Median Homebuyer Age

32
Appendix 4. RED VS. BLUE STATE
To produce summary comparisons between “red”
Each state’s overall score on the State Leadership Index and “blue” states, we calculate the average index score
is derived from a weighted aggregation of its perfor- across each group. Red/blue designations are based on
mance across a series of metrics categorized into three a combination of:
sub-indices: governance, economic, and cultural. The
• Recent behavior in national elections (e.g., presi-
methodology consists of four key steps:
dential vote)
• Partisan control of state government (governor and
1. PERCENTILE NORMALIZATION state legislature)
For each individual metric, states are assigned a percen-
tile score ranging from 0 to 100. This score is calculat- METRICS USED
ed based on the full distribution of values across all 50
states, with either the minimum or maximum value set Governance
to 0, depending on the directionality of the metric: 1. % of state revenue from federal funding
• Description: Measures what share of a state’s total gov-
• Descending metrics: Higher values are preferable; ernment revenue comes from the federal government.
the maximum value receives a score of 100, the • Weight / direction: 10.0 / Ascending
minimum a score of 0.
• Notes: 2022 data
• Ascending metrics: Lower values are preferable; • Source: US Census 2022 State & Local Government
the minimum value receives a score of 100, the Finance: https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2022/
maximum a score of 0. econ/local/public-use-datasets.html
• Rationale: A high federal funding share can reduce
This approach ensures that metrics are normed across state autonomy and make governance less accountable
states while preserving directional meaning. to local voters. States overly reliant on federal dollars
may sacrifice self-determination and long-term stabili-
ty. Lower is better.
2. WEIGHTED INDEX CALCULATION
Once percentile scores are assigned, a state’s index 2. % of exec FTEs appointed
score is calculated by taking the weighted average of its • Description: Measures what percentage of full-time
normalized scores. Specifically, we use a sum-product executive branch employees are appointed (as opposed
to civil servants). Excludes legislature and judiciary.
approach, multiplying each metric’s percentile by its
pre-assigned weight (ranging from 1–10), then dividing • Weight / direction: 7.0 / Descending
the total by the sum of all weights. • Notes: 2024 data
• Source: US Census Annual Survey of Public Employ-
Each sub-index (governance, economic, cultural) is ment & Payroll: https://www.census.gov/programs-sur-
calculated using the same procedure, restricted to the veys/apes.html
metrics within that category. • Rationale: Higher share of appointed FTEs indicates
greater gubernatorial control, aligning the bureaucracy
with electoral accountability. Descending direction
3. MISSING DATA HANDLING (more appointed is better). Strong weight due to clear
relevance for governance quality.
In cases where state-level data is unavailable for a par-
ticular metric, the state is assigned a neutral score of
50 for that metric. This approach ensures that the ab- 3. Teacher share of K–12 staff
sence of data does not unduly advantage or penalize • Description: The percentage of all public K–12 employ-
any state in the composite index. ees who are classroom teachers (not administrators or

33
 support staff). tremely low investment is a red flag. Low weight due to
• Weight / direction: 6.0 / Descending complex tradeoffs and goal of balance.
• Notes: 2023 data
• Source: NCES Digest of Education Statistics, table 7. Net number of ESG oppositions
213.20 • Description: Count of state-level executive orders, ordi-
• Rationale: This gauges administrative bloat in educa- nances, or legislation that is anti-ESG (positive count)
tion. A higher share of teachers reflects a leaner, more or pro-ESG (negative count). Pending & past/inactive
instruction-focused system. Important, but one of legislation are included.
several overlapping education efficiency metrics, so • Weight / direction: 7.0 / Descending
weighted modestly.
• Notes: 2025 data
• Source: Ropes Gray ESG Tracker: https://www.
4. State employees per 100K residents ropesgray.com/en/sites/navigating-state-regula-
• Description: Total number of state government employ- tion-of-esg
ees per 100,000 residents. • Rationale: Indicates ideological direction of state
• Weight / direction: 10.0 / Ascending government. More ESG opposition is better. Modest
weight to balance signaling vs. impact.
• Notes: 2024 data
• Source: US Census Annual Survey of Public Employ-
ment & Payroll: https://www.census.gov/programs-sur- Economic
veys/apes.html 1. State budget growth per capita (‘19–24)
• Rationale: Captures size of state bureaucracy. Fewer • Description: Measures the percentage increase in total
is better, direction is ascending. Weighted heavily due state budget expenditures from 2019 to 2024.
to strong salience, fiscal implications, and ideological
clarity. • Weight / direction: 9.0 / Ascending
• Notes: 2024 data
• Source: NASBO: https://account.nasbo.org/commerce/
5. University employees per 100K residents
datasets
• Description: Number of public university system em-
• Rationale: Captures how fast a state’s government has
ployees per 100,000 residents.
expanded per resident. Moderate growth is expected,
• Weight / direction: 6.0 / Ascending but sharp increases may reflect fiscal excess. Ascending
• Notes: 2023 data direction rewards smaller increases. High weight for
fiscal relevance.
• Source: NCES IPEDS: https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/
TrendGenerator/app/trend-table/5/30?trending=-
column&rid=6 2. Change in industrial share of GDP (‘19–24)
• Rationale: Captures university system bloat. High • Description: Change in industrial sectors’ share (man-
numbers suggest ideological capture and inefficiency. ufacturing, construction, energy, logistics, agriculture,
Ascending direction captures fewer as better. Lower and mining) of GDP from 2019 to 2024.
weight due to thematic overlap with other education
metrics. • Weight / direction: 7.0 / Descending
• Notes: 2024 data
• Source: BEA: https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-industry
6. Educational spend per student
• Rationale: Measures whether industrial activity is ex-
• Description: The total amount of public education
panding or declining as a share of state GDP. Growing
funding spent per K–12 student annually.
share is preferable. Moderate weight due to directional
• Weight / direction: 5.0 / Ascending importance but lagging nature.
• Notes: 2025 data
• Source: Education Data Initiative: https://educationda- 3. Industrial facilities per 100K residents
ta.org/public-education-spending-statistics
• Description: Number of manufacturing establishments
• Rationale: Spending captures education investment. (NAICS 31–33) per 100,000 residents.
Higher spend doesn’t guarantee outcomes, but ex-
• Weight / direction: 7.0 / Descending

34
• Notes: 2022 data • Source: ACF: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/programs/
• Source: US Census CBP: https://data.census.gov/ tanf/data
table?q=manufacturing+CBP • Rationale: Another proxy for economic dependency.
• Rationale: A proxy for onshoring, working-class indus- Lower values reflect less direct welfare reliance. Low
try, and trade-exposed sector strength. Higher num- weight due to small population affected and overlap
bers are better. Weighted moderately. with SNAP.

4. Regulation count Cultural

• Description: Total number of individual regulatory 1. % of prime-aged adults married

restrictions in state code. • Description: Share of adults aged 25–54 who are cur-
• Weight / direction: 7.0 / Ascending rently married.
• Notes: 2023 data • Weight / direction: 7.0 / Descending
• Source: Mercatus RegData: https://www.mercatus.org/ • Notes: 2024 data
regsnapshots • Source: Institute for Family Studies: https://ifstudies.
• Rationale: Captures administrative and statutory org/report-brief/family-structure-indexx
regulatory burden. Fewer restrictions is better. High • Rationale: Strong families are foundational to civil
weight due to clear economic implications and ideo- society. Higher marriage rates indicate social cohesion.
logical clarity. Descending direction reflects higher is better. Weighted
high for cultural relevance and connection to fertility,
rootedness.
5. State-chartered bank assets per capita
• Description: Total assets held by in-state chartered
banks, divided by population. 2. Total fertility rate
• Weight / direction: 3.0 / Descending • Description: The average number of children born to a
woman over her lifetime.
• Notes: 2024 data
• Weight / direction: 7.0 / Descending
• Source: FDIC: https://banks.data.fdic.gov/bank-
find-suite/sodSummary.html • Notes: 2024 data
• Rationale: Proxy for strength of local capital formation • Source: Institute for Family Studies: https://ifstudies.
and finance. Higher is better. Modest weight due to org/report-brief/family-structure-indexx
indirect linkage to overall performance. • Rationale: Captures whether the population is replac-
ing itself — a strong cultural and economic signal.
Higher is better (descending). Weighted high to reflect
6. % of population on SNAP
its foundational importance.
• Description: Share of population receiving Supplemen-
tal Nutrition Assistance Program benefits.
3. % teens raised intact
• Weight / direction: 3.0 / Ascending
• Description: Percentage of teenagers raised by their two
• Notes: 2024 data
married, biological parents.
• Source: CBPP: https://apps.cbpp.org/program_partici-
• Weight / direction: 10.0 / Descending
pation_summaries/snap
• Notes: 2024 data
• Rationale: Proxy for economic dependency and pover-
ty. Lower rates are preferable. Low weight due to high • Source: Institute for Family Studies: https://ifstudies.
sensitivity to demographics and federal rules. org/report-brief/family-structure-indexx
• Rationale: Best single measure of family structure
durability. Higher is better (descending). Given cul-
7. % of population on TANF
tural and long-term economic significance, it carries
• Description: Share of population receiving Temporary notable weight.
Assistance for Needy Families.
• Weight / direction: 3.0 / Ascending
4. Violent crimes per 100K residents
• Notes: 2024 data
• Description: Reported number of violent crimes per

35
 100,000 state residents.
• Weight / direction: 6.0 / Ascending
• Notes: 2023 data
• Source: FBI CDE via CSG Justice Center: https://proj-
ects.csgjusticecenter.org/tools-for-states-to-address-
crime/50-state-crime-data/
• Rationale: Safety is central to public trust and commu-
nity health. Lower is better, hence ascending direction.
Modest weight to account for complement in % solved.

5. % of violent crimes solved

• Description: Share of reported violent crimes that are
cleared by arrest or closure.
• Weight / direction: 6.0 / Descending
• Notes: 2023 data
• Source: FBI CDE via CSG Justice Center: https://proj-
ects.csgjusticecenter.org/tools-for-states-to-address-
crime/50-state-crime-data/
• Rationale: Reflects law enforcement effectiveness.
Higher clearance rates signal functional institutions.
Direction is descending. Modest weight balances total
crime package.

6. Median homebuyer age

• Description: Average age of homebuyers in the state.
• Weight / direction: 4.0 / Ascending
• Notes: 2021 data
• Source: 2021 Census Bureau data via UC Berkeley Tern-
er Center for Housing Innovation
• Rationale: Lower homebuyer age indicates higher af-
fordability and better prospects for rootedness. Direc-
tion is ascending. Weighted modestly as a second-order
but telling metric.

7. Native retention rate

• Description: Share of residents born in the state who
still live there.
• Weight / direction: 9.0 / Descending
• Notes: Reflects what % people born in the state live
there still. 2023 data
• Source: ACS: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/
time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/state-of-resi-
dence-place-of-birth-acs.html
• Rationale: Measures share of state-born residents who
still live there — proxy for rootedness and loyalty.
Higher is better (descending). High weight reflects its
significant cultural significance.

36
State Color Tagging
See “Methodology” section for description of how tags were created.

State Color State Color

Alabama Red Montana Red

Alaska Red Nebraska Red

Arizona Blue Nevada Blue

Arkansas Red New Hampshire Red

California Blue New Jersey Blue

Colorado Blue New Mexico Blue

Connecticut Blue New York Blue

Delaware Blue North Carolina Red

Florida Red North Dakota Red

Georgia Red Ohio Red

Hawaii Blue Oklahoma Red

Idaho Red Oregon Blue

Illinois Blue Pennsylvania Blue

Indiana Red Rhode Island Blue

Iowa Red South Carolina Red

Kansas Red South Dakota Red

Kentucky Red Tennessee Red

Louisiana Red Texas Red

Maine Blue Utah Red

Maryland Blue Vermont Blue

Massachusetts Blue Virginia Red

Michigan Blue Washington Blue

Minnesota Blue West Virginia Red

Mississippi Red Wisconsin Blue

Missouri Red Wyoming Red

37
 @RedStatesLead
stateleadership.org
38