Key Findings

• UnderstandingofMichigan’sEVIPpolicyinnovationisunevenamonglocalleadersacrossthestate.WhileofficialsfromlargejurisdictionsarequitefamiliarwiththeEVIPprogram,nearlyaquarter(24%)ofofficialsfromthesmallestEVIP-eligiblejurisdictionssaytheyknowverylittle,ifanything,abouttheincentiveprogram.

• InordertoreceiveEVIPfundsinthecategoryofaccountabilityandtransparency,eligiblelocalgovernmentsmustcreateperformancedashboardsandcitizen’sguidestolocalfinances,bothofwhichprovidesimplifiedviewsofkeyfiscalandoperationalindicators.

» LocalgovernmentsthatareeligibleforEVIPfundingappeartoberespondingtotheEVIPincentivesbycreatingdashboardsandcitizen’sguides,butfewotherjurisdictionsarefollowingsuitatthisearlystage.Overall,90%ofEVIP-eligiblejurisdictionssaytheyhavecreatedaperformancedashboardorwilldosointhenext12months.Bycomparison,only26%ofjurisdictionsthatareineligibleforEVIPfundinghavecreatedadashboard,orplantodosowithinthenextyear.

• DespitetheiradoptioninEVIP-eligiblejurisdictions,mostMichiganlocalleadersquestiontheefficacyofperformancedashboards.

» Only10%ofalllocalleadersthinkadashboardwouldbeveryeffectiveatimprovingtheirjurisdiction’saccountabilityandtransparencyoritsabilitytobenchmarkitselfagainstotherjurisdictions.

» Only8%thinkadashboardwouldbeveryeffectiveatimprovingtheirlocalgovernment’soverallperformance.

» Commonconcernsaboutdashboardsincludemisgivingsabouttypicalmeasuresincludedonthem,insufficientgovernmentresourcesfortheirdevelopment,andskepticismabouttheirusebycitizens.

Local officials react to state policy innovation tying revenue sharing to dashboards and incentive fundingIn2011,thestateofMichiganimplementedmajorpolicychangesinitsstatutoryrevenuesharingprogram,throughwhichitdistributesfundingtoasubsetofMichigan’s1,856localgovernments.Thenewpolicyreplacedformula-basedfundingwithanincentiveprogramthatusesrevenuesharingtofosterlocalgovernmentreform.Thenewprogram,calledtheEconomicVitalityIncentiveProgram(EVIP),requireslocalgovernmentstocertifythattheyhavemetstate-specifiedstandardsfor“bestpractices”inthreecategories(accountabilityandtransparency;intergovernmentalcollaboration;andemployeecompensationpolicies)inordertoreceivetheirfullallotmentofincentive-basedfunds.

ThisreportfocusesonthefirstEVIPcategory(accountabilityandtransparency)andexamineshowMichigan’slocalgovernmentsarerespondingtothestate’sincentive-drivenpushforlocalreform.ThefindingsarebasedonstatewidesurveysoflocalgovernmentleadersintheFall2011waveoftheMichiganPublicPolicySurvey(MPPS).

>> The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS) is conducted by the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP) at the University of Michigan in partnership with the Michigan Association of Counties, Michigan Municipal League, and Michigan Townships Association. The MPPS takes place twice each year and investigates local officials’ opinions and perspectives on a variety of important public policy issues. Respondents for the MPPS this wave include county administrators and board chairs, city mayors and managers, village presidents and managers, and township supervisors, clerks, and managers from 1,272 jurisdictions across the state.

For more information, please contact: closup-mpps@umich.edu/(734) 647-4091.

The Center for Local, State, and Urban PolicyGerald R. Ford School of Public Policy >> University of Michigan

Michigan Public Policy Survey January 2012

2 www.closup.umich.edu

Background Revenuesharingprograms—wheretaxesarecollectedatthestatelevelandthenrevenueisdistributedtolocalities—arecommonamongmoststatesintheunion,andcanbeusedtoaddresspolicygoalssuchashelpingtoeliminateinequitiescreatedbydifferencesinlocaltaxbases,promotingadministrativeefficiencyintaxcollections,andhelpingequalizetheabilityofalllocalgovernmentstoprovidebasiclevelsofpublicservicestotheirresidentsandbusinesses.

Michiganlocalgovernmentshavelongreceivedrevenuesharingfundsfromthestategovernmentintwoseparatestreams:constitutionalrevenuesharing(determinedbythestateconstitutionandavailabletoallcity,village,andtownshipgovernmentsonapercapitabasis),andstatutoryrevenuesharing(determinedbylawandavailabletoonlyasubsetofthestate’s1,856localgovernments,basedonaseriesofcomplexformulae).MoreinformationonMichigan’srevenuesharingprogramsisavailablefromtheCitizensResearchCouncilofMichigan1andMichiganattheMillennium.2

Overthepastdecade,thestateofMichiganhasrepeatedlycuttheamountofstatutoryrevenuesharingprovidedtolocalgovernments.Atthesametime,thenumberoflocalgovernmentsreceivingstatutoryrevenuesharinghasdeclined.AccordingtoanalysisbytheMichiganHouseFiscalAgency,thenumberofcities,villages,andtownshipsthatreceivedstatutoryrevenuesharingdroppedfrom1,775inFY1997-98to755inFY2010-11.3

Inthespringof2011,thestateenactedamajorpolicyreform,replacingtheformerstatutoryrevenuesharingprogramwithanewprogramcalledtheEconomicVitalityIncentiveProgram(EVIP),whichusesfundingincentivestofosterreforminlocalgovernmentoperations.UndertheEVIP,thenumberoflocalunitseligibletoreceivepaymentsdroppedevenfurther:onlythe486cities,townships,andvillagesthatreceivedgreaterthan$4,500instatutoryrevenuesharinginfiscalyear2009-10arenoweligiblefortheEVIPfunds.ThenewEVIPprogramusesits$210millionappropriationtoincentivizelocalgovernmentreforminthreeareas:accountabilityandtransparency,intergovernmentalcollaboration,andemployeecompensationpolicies.Eligiblelocalgovernmentsmustcertifytothestatethattheyareincompliancewiththeprogram’s“bestpractices”asdefinedinitsthreecategoriesinordertoreceivetheirfullallotmentoffunding.

ThisreportprovidesaninitiallookathowMichigan’sEVIPpolicyinnovationisunfoldingatthelocallevel,andhowlocalofficialsarereactingtothechanges,basedonresponsestotheFall2011MichiganPublicPolicySurvey(MPPS).WhilethisreportfocusesonthefirstEVIPcategory(accountabilityandtransparency),asubsequentreportwillexaminethesecondandthirdcategories(intergovernmentalcollaboration,andemployeecompensationpolicies).

Knowledge of the EVIP innovation rolls out unevenly across the stateWhileaslimmajority(53%)ofleadersfromallEVIP-eligiblejurisdictionssaytheyareveryfamiliarwiththeEVIPprogramandunderstandagreatdealaboutit,asignificantportionarenotwellinformed(seeFigure1a).Forinstance,33%ofleadersfromEVIP-eligiblejurisdictionssaytheyaresomewhatfamiliarwiththeprogrambutdon’tknowmanydetailsaboutit,whileanother13%aremostlyorcompletelyunfamiliarwiththeprogram.

Figure 1aLocal officials’ familiarity with EVIP (among jurisdictions eligible for EVIP)

10%

1%

3%

33%

53%

Very familiar(know a great deal)

Somewhat familiar(don't know many details)

Mostly unfamiliar (know very little)

Completely unfamiliar (never heard of it)

Don’t know

3

Michigan Public Policy Survey

TherearesignificantdifferencesinunderstandingtheEVIP,associatedwithjurisdictionsize.Forexample,while77%ofleadersfromthelargestEVIP-eligiblejurisdictions(thosewithmorethan30,000residents)reportbeingveryfamiliarwiththeEVIPincentives,thesameistrueforonly33%ofleadersfromEVIP-eligiblejurisdictionswithfewerthan1,500residents(seeFigure1b).

Byjurisdictiontype,63%ofcityofficialsfromEVIP-eligiblejurisdictionssaytheyareveryfamiliarwiththeprogram,comparedto48%oftownshipofficialsandonly38%ofvillageofficials(whilecountiesarenoteligibleatallfortheEVIPincentive-basedfunds).

Byregion,localleadersofEVIP-eligiblejurisdictionsinSoutheastMichigan(62%)aremostlikelytosaytheyareveryfamiliarwiththeprogram,followedcloselybyleadersintheNorthernLowerPeninsula(61%).Bycomparison,leadersofEVIP-eligiblejurisdictionsintheWestCentralregionofMichiganaretheleastlikely(39%)tosaytheyareveryfamiliarwiththeprogram.

TogaugeunderstandingofEVIPeligibility,theFall2011MPPSalsoaskedlocalofficialsiftheyknowwhetherornottheirjurisdictioniseligibleforEVIPincentivefunds.Again,theMPPSfindsthatlevelsofknowledgeareunevenandareassociatedwithjurisdictionsize.AmongEVIP-eligibleunits,92%ofleadersfromthestate’slargestjurisdictionscorrectlyidentifythattheircities,villages,ortownshipsareeligibleforEVIPfunds,comparedtoonly76%ofleadersfromthesmallestjurisdictions(seeFigure2).

ThereisalsoconfusionamongjurisdictionsthatarenotcurrentlyeligibleforEVIPfunding.Forinstance,53%ofleadersfromalljurisdictionsthatarenoteligibleforEVIPincentivefundsreportthattheydonotknowwhetherornottheirjurisdictionsareeligible.

10%

64%

24%

53%

37%

5%5%

63%

33%

23%

77%

Population<1,500

Population1,500-5,000

Population5,001-10,000

Population10,001-30,000

Population>30,000

1%2%

33%

6%

42%

17%

Very familiar(know a great deal)

Somewhat familiar(don't know many details)

Mostly unfamiliar (know very little)

Completely unfamiliar (never heard of it)

Don’t know

1%2%2%

15%

84% 81%

17%

91% 92%

Population<1,500

Population1,500-5,000

Population5,001-10,000

Population10,001-30,000

Population>30,000

1%

76%

23%

Correctly identify jurisdiction as eligible

Incorrectly identify jurisdiction as not eligible

Don't know

2%

7% 6%2%

1%

2%

Figure 1bLocal officials’ familiarity with EVIP (among jurisdictions eligible for EVIP), by population size

Figure 2Local officials’ knowledge of eligibility for EVIP (among jurisdictions that are eligible for EVIP), by population size

4 www.closup.umich.edu

17%

26%

5% 14%

24%

21%

21%

30%

12%

32%

Population<1,500

Population1,500-5,000

Population5,001-10,000

Population10,001-30,000

Population>30,000

6%

28%

10%

56% Produced dashboard

Not yet produced — planning one withinnext 12 months

Not yet produced — not planning to

Don't know

52%

41%

37%

49%

10%

9%

EVIP-eligible jurisdictions produce dashboards, while few non-eligible jurisdictions follow suit Despitesomeofficials’confusionregardingtheEVIPprogramoverall,90%ofofficialsfromEVIP-eligiblejurisdictionsacrossthestatereportthattheyhavecreatedadashboard,orthattheyplantodosowithinthenextyear.Largerjurisdictionsaresomewhatmorelikelythansmallerjurisdictionstoproduceadashboard,buteven84%ofthestate’ssmallestEVIP-eligiblejurisdictionshavealready,orwillsooncreateadashboard(seeFigure3a).

Bycomparison,relativelyfewjurisdictionsthatareineligibleforEVIPincentivefundshaveproducedadashboardorplantodosointhenextyear(seeFigure3b).Overall,only26%ofthesenon-eligiblejurisdictionsarecreatingdashboards.Amongthesmallestofthesejurisdictions,only6%haveproducedadashboardalready,andonly10%plantoproduceonewithinthenextyear.

TheseMPPSfindingsappeartoshowthatthestate’sEVIPfundingincentivesareinfactencouragingEVIP-eligiblejurisdictionstoproducedashboards.Butatthisearlystage,atleast,thestate’spushforlocaldashboardsisnotyetgainingtractionwherestate-incentivefundingisnotattachedtoadoptionofdashboards.

Figure 3aProduction of performance dashboards by Michigan’s local governments (among jurisdictions eligible for EVIP), by population size

10%

4%

85% 91%

5%

85%

6%

9%

92%

Population<1,500

Population1,500-5,000

Population5,001-10,000

Population10,001-30,000

Population>30,000

1%

70%

9%

14%

7%

Produced dashboard

Not yet produced — planning one withinnext 12 months

Not yet produced — not planning to

Don't know

2%2%

3%2%3%

Figure 3bProduction of performance dashboards by Michigan’s local governments (among jurisdictions not eligible for EVIP), by population size

The EVIP’s influence on local reform: performance dashboardsThefirstEVIPincentivecategoryisdesignedtofostergreateraccountabilityandtransparencyinlocalgovernmentthroughthecreationofperformancedashboardsandrelatedcitizen’sguidestolocalfinances.Thedashboardsandcitizen’sguidesareintendedtoprovidesimplifiedviewsofkeyindicatorsregardingthelocalgovernment’soperationsandfiscalhealth(formoreinformation,see:www.michigan.gov/midashboard).TheMPPSfindsthatlocalleaders’viewsoncitizen’sguidesareverysimilartotheirviewsondashboards,andsoforbrevity,thisreportfocusesprimarilyonviewsofdashboards.

Inordertoreceiveone-thirdoftheiravailableEVIPincentivefunds(thatis,thefundingtiedtothefirstofthethreeEVIPcategories),localgovernmentsneededtocertifytothestateofMichiganthattheyhadcreatedaperformancedashboard(andrelatedcitizen’sguide)bythefallof2011.

5

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Figure 4bOfficials’ assessments of the efficacy of local government dashboards for accountability and transparency, by population size

Figure 4aOfficials’ assessments of the efficacy of local government performance dashboards

Jurisdiction Performance

Ability to Benchmark

Accountability and Transparency

Very effective

Somewhat effective

Neither

Somewhat ineffective

Very ineffective

Don’t know

10%

32%

8% 8%5% 5% 6%

10% 8%

35% 28%

38%

9%

34%

11% 12%

30%

11%

12%

11%

31%

35%

10%

39%

35%

5%

8%

15%

37% 50%

28%

24%

15%

Population<1,500

Population1,500-5,000

Population5,001-10,000

Population10,001-30,000

Population>30,000

3%

7%

9%

34%

27%

7%

16%

Very effective

Somewhat effective

Neither

Somewhat ineffective

Very ineffective

Don't know8% 3% 9%

6%5% 6%

4%

1%

Local doubts regarding performance dashboardsWhileEVIP-eligiblejurisdictionshaverushedtoproducedashboards(andcitizen’sguides),mostMichiganlocalgovernmentleaders—includingthosefromEVIP-eligiblejurisdictions—areatbestlukewarmregardingtheefficacyofperformancedashboards.Overall,only10%ofthestate’slocalleadersthinkaperformancedashboardwouldbeveryeffectiveathelpingtoimprovetheirjurisdiction’saccountabilityandtransparency(seeFigure4a).Whileanother32%ofofficialsoverallthinkdashboardswouldbeatleastsomewhateffective,11%areunsureoftheirvalue,and47%saytheywouldbelessthaneffective.

Beyondissuesofaccountabilityandtransparency,theMPPSalsoaskedlocalleadersiftheythoughtdashboardswouldbeeffectiveatimprovingtheirjurisdictions’overallperformanceandtheirabilitytobenchmarkagainstotherjurisdictions.Only10%oflocalofficialsthinkdashboardswouldbeveryeffectiveatimprovingtheirabilitytobenchmarkagainstotherjurisdictions,andevenfewer,just8%,believetheywouldbeveryeffectiveatimprovingtheirgovernment’sperformance.

Attitudestowardtheefficacyofdashboardsdovarybyjurisdictionsize,withofficialsfromsmallerjurisdictionsreportinggreaterskepticismcomparedtoofficialsfromlargerones(seeFigure4b).Still,evenamongofficialsfromthestate’slargestjurisdictions,only15%saydashboardswouldbeveryeffectiveatimprovingaccountabilityandtransparency.

Overall,thereisalackofconvictionintheefficacyofperformancedashboardsamonglocalofficialstoday.

6 www.closup.umich.edu

Concerns about dashboard measuresInthefallof2011,theCitizensResearchCouncilofMichiganreviewedthestate’stemplateforsuggestedlocalgovernmentdashboardsandidentifiedanumberofproblems.4Forexample,CRCnotedthatsomeproposedmeasures,suchasthepercentageofadultswithbachelorsdegrees,arebeyondthecontroloflocaljurisdictions,andthatothers,suchaspercapitaspending,areambiguous(e.g.,itisunclearwhetherchangesinspendingpercapitawouldbegoodorbad,withoutknowingmoreofthedetailsbehindsuchchanges).TheCRCanalysispointsoutthedifficultyofcreatingvalidandmeaningfuldashboards.

TheMPPSfindsthatthesemeasurementdifficultiesarebeingfeltatthelocallevel.Amongjurisdictionsthathavecreateddashboardstodate,23%oflocalleadersaredissatisfiedwiththeirdashboards’measurementcategories.Interestingly,theselevelsofdissatisfactionarerelativelyconsistentacrossjurisdictionsofallsizes,fromthesmallesttothelargest.Forinstance,while22%ofleadersfromthesmallestjurisdictionsthathaveadopteddashboardsaredissatisfiedwiththeirmeasures,thesameistruefor21%ofleadersfromthelargestjurisdictions(seeFigure5).

Dashboardshavethedifficulttaskofsimplifyingcomplexissues,andaboutaquarteroflocalleaderswhohavebeenthroughthedashboarddevelopmentprocessarenotyetsatisfiedwiththeiradoptedindicators.

81% 72% 71% 79%

Population<1,500

Population1,500-5,000

Population5,001-10,000

Population10,001-30,000

Population>30,000

78%

22%

Generally satisfiedwith dashboard's measurementcategories

Dissatisfied with dashboard's measurement categories

19%

28% 29%

21%

Figure 5Officials’ assessments of jurisdictions’ dashboard measures (among all jurisdictions that have produced a performance dashboard)

7

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Why some jurisdictions have not created dashboardsGiventhelocalgovernmentfiscalcrisisandresultingcutsinstaffingexperiencedoverthelastfewyears,manyjurisdictionsinMichiganaretryingto“domorewithless”today.Addingnewactivitiessuchascreationandmaintenanceofdashboardsandcitizen’sguidesmaybeuntenableinthiseraofpublicsectorretrenchment,atleastforsomejurisdictions.

Todigbeyondthatmostfundamentalbarriertoadoptingdashboards,theMPPSaskedfollow-upquestionsoflocalleaderswhosejurisdictionshavenotcreateddashboards.Manyoftheseleadersindicatethattheyhaveproblemswiththekindsofmeasuresoftenfoundondashboards(forexample,thattheyareoutsideofthecontroloflocalgovernmentorthattheydonottakeintoaccountthequalityofaservice);thattheirjurisdictionsalreadyreportoutdatatocitizens,makingdashboardsunnecessaryintheirviews;thattheirjurisdictions’resourcesaretoostrainednowtotakeontheadditionalworktoproduceandmaintaindashboards;orthatnooneintheirjurisdictionswillusethem.

Acommonthemeinsmallerjurisdictionsisthatlocalleadersbelievethejurisdictionissmallenoughthatitscitizensalreadyknowexactlywhatishappening,andiftheyhaveanyquestionstheyknowexactlywhomtoask.Theseleaderstendtothinkdashboardswon’taddanynewvalueintheirjurisdictions.

Theboxbelow(“VoicesAcrossMichigan”)providesaseriesoftypicalresponsesfromlocalleaders,describingwhytheirjurisdictionhasdecidednottoadoptdashboardsatthispoint.

Voices Across MichiganOnwhyperformancedashboardswouldbeineffectiveandwhyjurisdictionschoosenottoproducedashboards:

• “Lackofreliableinformationwhen‘self-reporting.’Also,toomuchvariationbetweenunits.Thiswouldcreatescenariosinwhichvastlydifferentareaswerecomparedwithexpectationthattheyshouldbeabletoperformthesame.”

• “Wedon’thavethetimeandresourcestoaddanothermandatetoouralready-overburdenedworkforce.Thisismicro-managementatitsworse,andmicromanagementjustbreedshostilityandfrustration,makingourgovernmentlesspro-ductive.”

• “Wheretostart...haveyoulookedatthemeaningless,detail-less,dashboardsbeingcreated…becauseofthispolicy?Oy!So,themetricsusedforadashboardareoftendeliberatelyvagueandsohigh-levelastobeineffectiveinhelpingde-finewhatelementsofpolicyorprogramarecontributingtothesuccessorfailureofaprogram.Nordomostdashboardsusesufficientlynuancedinformation.”

• “Wearetoosmalltobeabletoeffectivelyusesuchinformationinawaythatjustifiesthecostsinvolvedinobtaining,organizing,andreportingit.”

• “Becauseweonlyreceiveconstitutionalrevenuesharing.Ifwedidreceivestatutoryrevenuesharingitwouldbeworththemanhoursneeded.Butatthispointintime,itdoesn’tseemlikethebenefitswouldoutweighthemanhoursrequired.”

• “Itwouldbeawasteoftimebecausewealreadymonitorperformance,income,andexpense.A‘performancedashboard’wouldbearedundancyandwasteoftimeandeffortinourcase.”

8 www.closup.umich.edu

ConclusionDuring2011,GovernorSnyderandtheMichiganlegislaturepursuednewpolicies--suchasexpandedpowersforEmergencyManagers,aswellastheuseoffinancialincentivesintheEVIPprogramdesignedtofosterreformatthelocallevel--thatarereshapingthestate-localrelationshipinMichiganinimportantways.TheMPPShasbeentrackinglocalleaders’viewsonthesechanges,andfindsarangeofviewsonEVIPandperformancedashboards.

TheMPPSfindsthatthestate’sEVIPinnovation--usingfinancialincentivestofosterlocalreform--ismeetingmixedsuccessinitsfirstyear.LevelsofknowledgeandunderstandingoftheEVIPincentivesareunevenamonglocalofficialsacrossthestate.Inparticular,officialsfromsmallerjurisdictionstendtohavelessinformationabouttheprogram,comparedtotheirpeersinlargejurisdictions.Andwhileacoreoflocalofficialsexpressstrongsupportfordashboards’efficacy,mostexpressdoubts.

Despitethesedoubts,however,thefinancialincentivesappeartobedrivingaresponseamongjurisdictionsthatareeligibleforEVIPfunding,with90%ofsuchjurisdictionscreatingdashboardsandcitizen’sguides.Inthissense,thestate’smostimmediategoalsappeartohavebeenlargelymet.However,thestate’sultimategoalistohavealljurisdictionsadoptdashboards,andhereitisfallingshort,atleastatthisearlystage.Thereappearstobelittleornospill-overeffectfromtheEVIPfundingincentives,asfewjurisdictionsthatareineligibleforEVIPfundingarefollowingsuitwithcreationofdashboards.Perhapsthespill-overeffectwillemergedowntheroad,ifdashboardsarefoundtobemoreeffectivethanmanylocalofficialsbelievetoday,orifcitizensorotherstakeholdersinlocalcommunitiesbegintopushfortheiradoption.

Alternatively,openingEVIPeligibilitytoalllocaljurisdictions(ratherthanjustthecurrent486EVIP-eligiblejurisdictions)orotherwiseprovidingfundingtiedtocreationofdashboardscouldhelpspreadtheadoptionofdashboardsacrossthestatequickly.

Meanwhile,onekeylessonforstateandlocalpolicymakersisthatlocalunderstandingofmajorstatepolicyinnovationscanunfoldinveryunevenwaysacrossastateaslargeanddiverseasMichigan.Greatereffortandattentionshouldbepaidtohelpinglocalofficialsgetup-to-speedonmajorpolicychanges,especiallyforofficialsfromsmallerjurisdictionsthatmayhavelessaccesstoinformationandfewerinternalresources,suchasspecializedstaff,todealwithsuchchanges.

Survey background and methodologyThe MPPS is a biannual survey of each of Michigan’s 1,856 units of general purpose local government. Surveys were sent by the Center for Local, State and Urban Policy (CLOSUP) via the internet and hardcopy to top elected and appointed officials (including county administrators and board chairs, city mayors and managers, village presidents and managers, and township supervisors, clerks, and managers) from all 83 counties, 274 cities, 259 villages, and 1,240 townships in the state of Michigan.

The Fall 2011 wave was conducted from October 3 – November 23, 2011. A total of 1,330 jurisdictions in the Fall 2011 wave returned valid surveys, resulting in a 72% response rate by unit. The margin of error for the survey as a whole is +/- 1.43%. However, the margin of error may differ for analyses that include only a subset of respondents. Contact CLOSUP staff for more information. The key relationships discussed in the above report are statistically significant at the p<.05 level or below, unless otherwise specified. Missing responses are not included in the tabulations, unless otherwise specified. Data are weighted to account for non-response.

Detailed tables of the data analyzed in this report broken down three ways-- by jurisdiction type (county, city, township or village); by population size of the respondent’s community; and by the region of the respondent’s jurisdiction—will soon be available online at the MPPS homepage: http://closup.umich.edu/mpps.php

The views reported herein are those of local Michigan officials and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Michigan.

Notes1. CitizensResearchCouncilofMichigan.“Michigan’sUnrestrictedRevenueSharingProgram:RetrospectandProspect.”September2000.http://crcmich.

org//PUBLICAT/2000s/2000/rpt330.pdf.

2. Fisher,RonaldC.andJeffreyP.Guilfoyle.“FiscalRelationsamongtheFederalGovernment,StateGovernment,andLocalGovernmentsinMichigan.”MichiganattheMillennium.Ed.CharlesL.Ballardetal.EastLansing:MichiganUniversityPress,2003.645-665.

3. Gielczyk,BenandJimStansell.MichiganHouseFiscalAgency.“Memorandumre:EconomicVitalityIncentiveProgram.”September22,2011.http://house.michigan.gov/hfa/PDFs/EVIP%20FINAL_2011.pdf.

4. CitizensResearchCouncilofMichigan.“LocalGovernmentPerformanceDashboardsandCitizen’sGuides.”September2011.http://crcmich.org/PUBLICAT/2010s/2011/memo1108.pdf.

University of Michigan

Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy

Joan and Sanford Weill Hall

735 S. State Street, Suite 5310

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-3091

Regents of the University of Michigan

Julia Donovan DarlowAnn Arbor

Laurence B. DeitchBingham Farms

Denise IlitchBingham Farms

Olivia P. MaynardGoodrich

Andrea Fischer NewmanAnn Arbor

Andrew C. RichnerGrosse Pointe Park

S. Martin TaylorGrosse Pointe Farms

Katherine E. WhiteAnn Arbor

Mary Sue Coleman(ex officio)

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP), housed at the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, conducts and supports applied policy research designed to inform state, local, and urban policy issues. Through integrated research, teaching, and outreach involving academic researchers, students, policymakers and practitioners, CLOSUP seeks to foster understanding of today’s state and local policy problems, and to find effective solutions to those problems.

www.closup.umich.edu >> 734-647-4091