التسجيل
Applied America · Index51 jurisdictions · 16 indicators

The State Development Index

All fifty states and the District of Columbia, scored on eight pillars: the productive base, the labour market, income and education, new businesses and state tax, housing permits and prices, population health, the state’s credit rating, and whether it publishes its data in a form a machine can read. Each rank is printed with the band it falls in under most defensible weightings.

The full rankingHow it is built

Jurisdictions
51Fifty states and the District of Columbia
Pillars
8Scored separately, then averaged
Indicators
16From 8 bodies, named in the table caption
Weighting
1/8Equal across pillars, declared rather than tuned
Normalisation
0–100Percentile rank within the set of fifty-one
Gaps shown, not filled
3State–indicator pairs the source does not publish

The ranking

How to read a cell
Above the median for that pillar.
Mark sits over the number.
Below it.
Mark sits under the number.
A shorter mark is a
smaller distance.

Each pillar has its own median, printed in the column head and again in the National median row below. Fiscal’s is 92, because it is a credit rating set on a fixed scale rather than a percentile, and most states hold one of the two highest ratings; a 100 there is ordinary. Most others sit near 50.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; CDC; CDC NCIPC; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Federal Housing Finance Agency; Moody's; CEFA. Each indicator names its own series and vintage on the state and pillar pages.
#Rank bandStateScoreGradeBasemed 51Labourmed 49Prosperitymed 52Startupmed 55Housingmed 58Healthmed 50Fiscalmed 92Opennessmed 51
National median5149525558509251
11–3COColorado71BProductive base: 49 of 100, 2 below the national median of 51Labour market: 68 of 100, 19 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 89 of 100, 37 above the national median of 52Starting up: 89 of 100, 34 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 48 of 100, 10 below the national median of 58Population health: 71 of 100, 21 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 61 of 100, 10 above the national median of 51
22–4UTUtah68BProductive base: 58 of 100, 7 above the national median of 51Labour market: 53 of 100, 4 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 57 of 100, 5 above the national median of 52Starting up: 70 of 100, 15 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 57 of 100, 1 below the national median of 58Population health: 68 of 100, 18 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 79 of 100, 28 above the national median of 51
31–9WAWashington67BProductive base: 68 of 100, 17 above the national median of 51Labour market: 52 of 100, 3 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 85 of 100, 33 above the national median of 52Starting up: 25 of 100, 30 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 41 of 100, 17 below the national median of 58Population health: 75 of 100, 25 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 86 of 100, 35 above the national median of 51
42–10FLFlorida66BProductive base: 34 of 100, 17 below the national median of 51Labour market: 40 of 100, 9 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 58 of 100, 6 above the national median of 52Starting up: 95 of 100, 40 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 59 of 100, 1 above the national median of 58Population health: 69 of 100, 19 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 71 of 100, 20 above the national median of 51
52–13TXTexas65BProductive base: 57 of 100, 6 above the national median of 51Labour market: 37 of 100, 12 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 48 of 100, 4 below the national median of 52Starting up: 84 of 100, 29 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 81 of 100, 23 above the national median of 58Population health: 44 of 100, 6 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 71 of 100, 20 above the national median of 51
65–16NCNorth Carolina63B−Productive base: 59 of 100, 8 above the national median of 51Labour market: 51 of 100, 2 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 49 of 100, 3 below the national median of 52Starting up: 64 of 100, 9 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 71 of 100, 13 above the national median of 58Population health: 41 of 100, 9 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 67 of 100, 16 above the national median of 51
73–23NHNew Hampshire62B−Productive base: 61 of 100, 10 above the national median of 51Labour market: 81 of 100, 32 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 84 of 100, 32 above the national median of 52Starting up: 65 of 100, 10 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 31 of 100, 27 below the national median of 58Population health: 80 of 100, 30 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
85–19MDMaryland61B−Productive base: 38 of 100, 13 below the national median of 51Labour market: 71 of 100, 22 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 86 of 100, 34 above the national median of 52Starting up: 33 of 100, 22 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 27 of 100, 31 below the national median of 58Population health: 71 of 100, 21 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 65 of 100, 14 above the national median of 51
84–28VTVermont61B−Productive base: 36 of 100, 15 below the national median of 51Labour market: 81 of 100, 32 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 77 of 100, 25 above the national median of 52Starting up: 10 of 100, 45 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 18 of 100, 40 below the national median of 58Population health: 83 of 100, 33 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 88 of 100, 37 above the national median of 51
86–18VAVirginia61B−Productive base: 46 of 100, 5 below the national median of 51Labour market: 30 of 100, 19 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 83 of 100, 31 above the national median of 52Starting up: 37 of 100, 18 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 47 of 100, 11 below the national median of 58Population health: 63 of 100, 13 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 84 of 100, 33 above the national median of 51
115–24MOMissouri60B−Productive base: 48 of 100, 3 below the national median of 51Labour market: 76 of 100, 27 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 32 of 100, 20 below the national median of 52Starting up: 87 of 100, 32 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 49 of 100, 9 below the national median of 58Population health: 30 of 100, 20 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 60 of 100, 9 above the national median of 51
126–28CTConnecticut59B−Productive base: 76 of 100, 25 above the national median of 51Labour market: 40 of 100, 9 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 92 of 100, 40 above the national median of 52Starting up: 21 of 100, 34 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 21 of 100, 37 below the national median of 58Population health: 81 of 100, 31 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 76 of 100, 16 below the national median of 92Openness: 64 of 100, 13 above the national median of 51
127–23NENebraska59B−Productive base: 70 of 100, 19 above the national median of 51Labour market: 64 of 100, 15 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 56 of 100, 4 above the national median of 52Starting up: 39 of 100, 16 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 79 of 100, 21 above the national median of 58Population health: 47 of 100, 3 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 27 of 100, 24 below the national median of 51
127–26SDSouth Dakota59B−Productive base: 63 of 100, 12 above the national median of 51Labour market: 70 of 100, 21 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 57 of 100, 5 above the national median of 52Starting up: 58 of 100, 3 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 77 of 100, 19 above the national median of 58Population health: 28 of 100, 22 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 18 of 100, 33 below the national median of 51
158–26IAIowa58B−Productive base: 68 of 100, 17 above the national median of 51Labour market: 47 of 100, 2 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 26 of 100, 26 below the national median of 52Starting up: 35 of 100, 20 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 81 of 100, 23 above the national median of 58Population health: 50 of 100, level with the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 60 of 100, 9 above the national median of 51
158–28TNTennessee7/8 pillars58B−Productive base: 69 of 100, 18 above the national median of 51Labour market: 57 of 100, 8 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 31 of 100, 21 below the national median of 52Starting up: 64 of 100, 9 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 65 of 100, 7 above the national median of 58Population health: not scored, indicator missingFiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 18 of 100, 33 below the national median of 51
156–33DCWashington, D.C.7/8 pillars58B−Productive base: not scored, indicator missingLabour market: 44 of 100, 5 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 100 of 100, 48 above the national median of 52Starting up: 42 of 100, 13 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 4 of 100, 54 below the national median of 58Population health: 55 of 100, 5 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 64 of 100, 13 above the national median of 51
189–36NJNew Jersey57B−Productive base: 50 of 100, 1 below the national median of 51Labour market: 14 of 100, 35 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 88 of 100, 36 above the national median of 52Starting up: 45 of 100, 10 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 19 of 100, 39 below the national median of 58Population health: 94 of 100, 44 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 68 of 100, 24 below the national median of 92Openness: 76 of 100, 25 above the national median of 51
1913–33DEDelaware56B−Productive base: 59 of 100, 8 above the national median of 51Labour market: 12 of 100, 37 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 48 of 100, 4 below the national median of 52Starting up: 57 of 100, 2 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 59 of 100, 1 above the national median of 58Population health: 52 of 100, 2 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 59 of 100, 8 above the national median of 51
1911–39HIHawaii56B−Productive base: 35 of 100, 16 below the national median of 51Labour market: 63 of 100, 14 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 67 of 100, 15 above the national median of 52Starting up: 4 of 100, 51 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 21 of 100, 37 below the national median of 58Population health: 97 of 100, 47 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 84 of 100, 8 below the national median of 92Openness: 75 of 100, 24 above the national median of 51
199–39MAMassachusetts56B−Productive base: 60 of 100, 9 above the national median of 51Labour market: 24 of 100, 25 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 97 of 100, 45 above the national median of 52Starting up: 15 of 100, 40 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 5 of 100, 53 below the national median of 58Population health: 96 of 100, 46 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 62 of 100, 11 above the national median of 51
1912–36NYNew York56B−Productive base: 56 of 100, 5 above the national median of 51Labour market: 18 of 100, 31 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 85 of 100, 33 above the national median of 52Starting up: 33 of 100, 22 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 13 of 100, 45 below the national median of 58Population health: 90 of 100, 40 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 63 of 100, 12 above the national median of 51
1914–28WIWisconsin56B−Productive base: 63 of 100, 12 above the national median of 51Labour market: 65 of 100, 16 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 42 of 100, 10 below the national median of 52Starting up: 37 of 100, 18 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 60 of 100, 2 above the national median of 58Population health: 41 of 100, 9 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 51 of 100, level with the national median of 51
1912–30WYWyoming56B−Productive base: 42 of 100, 9 below the national median of 51Labour market: 69 of 100, 20 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 57 of 100, 5 above the national median of 52Starting up: 72 of 100, 17 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 62 of 100, 4 above the national median of 58Population health: 36 of 100, 14 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 18 of 100, 33 below the national median of 51
2515–39CACalifornia55C+Productive base: 64 of 100, 13 above the national median of 51Labour market: 15 of 100, 34 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 82 of 100, 30 above the national median of 52Starting up: 29 of 100, 26 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 17 of 100, 41 below the national median of 58Population health: 88 of 100, 38 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 84 of 100, 8 below the national median of 92Openness: 63 of 100, 12 above the national median of 51
2517–32MIMichigan55C+Productive base: 60 of 100, 9 above the national median of 51Labour market: 46 of 100, 3 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 27 of 100, 25 below the national median of 52Starting up: 61 of 100, 6 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 41 of 100, 17 below the national median of 58Population health: 51 of 100, 1 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 60 of 100, 9 above the national median of 51
2512–37MNMinnesota55C+Productive base: 69 of 100, 18 above the national median of 51Labour market: 36 of 100, 13 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 75 of 100, 23 above the national median of 52Starting up: 20 of 100, 35 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 63 of 100, 5 above the national median of 58Population health: 77 of 100, 27 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
2815–34AZArizona54C+Productive base: 36 of 100, 15 below the national median of 51Labour market: 37 of 100, 12 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 37 of 100, 15 below the national median of 52Starting up: 77 of 100, 22 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 58 of 100, level with the national median of 58Population health: 45 of 100, 5 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 53 of 100, 2 above the national median of 51
2915–38GAGeorgia53C+Productive base: 53 of 100, 2 above the national median of 51Labour market: 45 of 100, 4 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 37 of 100, 15 below the national median of 52Starting up: 88 of 100, 33 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 64 of 100, 6 above the national median of 58Population health: 34 of 100, 16 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
2919–39ILIllinois53C+Productive base: 76 of 100, 25 above the national median of 51Labour market: 47 of 100, 2 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 73 of 100, 21 above the national median of 52Starting up: 30 of 100, 25 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 37 of 100, 21 below the national median of 58Population health: 55 of 100, 5 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 52 of 100, 40 below the national median of 92Openness: 57 of 100, 6 above the national median of 51
2916–36SCSouth Carolina53C+Productive base: 46 of 100, 5 below the national median of 51Labour market: 63 of 100, 14 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 22 of 100, 30 below the national median of 52Starting up: 74 of 100, 19 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 71 of 100, 13 above the national median of 58Population health: 31 of 100, 19 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 18 of 100, 33 below the national median of 51
3223–41INIndiana51C+Productive base: 67 of 100, 16 above the national median of 51Labour market: 47 of 100, 2 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 18 of 100, 34 below the national median of 52Starting up: 52 of 100, 3 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 67 of 100, 9 above the national median of 58Population health: 22 of 100, 28 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 33 of 100, 18 below the national median of 51
3224–39KSKansas51C+Productive base: 58 of 100, 7 above the national median of 51Labour market: 54 of 100, 5 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 46 of 100, 6 below the national median of 52Starting up: 42 of 100, 13 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 75 of 100, 17 above the national median of 58Population health: 30 of 100, 20 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 84 of 100, 8 below the national median of 92Openness: 18 of 100, 33 below the national median of 51
3220–42MTMontana51C+Productive base: 11 of 100, 40 below the national median of 51Labour market: 77 of 100, 28 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 53 of 100, 1 above the national median of 52Starting up: 70 of 100, 15 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 55 of 100, 3 below the national median of 58Population health: 46 of 100, 4 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
3220–40OHOhio51C+Productive base: 69 of 100, 18 above the national median of 51Labour market: 67 of 100, 18 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 25 of 100, 27 below the national median of 52Starting up: 59 of 100, 4 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 62 of 100, 4 above the national median of 58Population health: 36 of 100, 14 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
3226–44PAPennsylvania51C+Productive base: 51 of 100, level with the national median of 51Labour market: 36 of 100, 13 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 59 of 100, 7 above the national median of 52Starting up: 30 of 100, 25 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 26 of 100, 32 below the national median of 58Population health: 55 of 100, 5 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 76 of 100, 16 below the national median of 92Openness: 71 of 100, 20 above the national median of 51
3729–43NDNorth Dakota50C+Productive base: 58 of 100, 7 above the national median of 51Labour market: 51 of 100, 2 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 50 of 100, 2 below the national median of 52Starting up: 13 of 100, 42 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 61 of 100, 3 above the national median of 58Population health: 47 of 100, 3 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 27 of 100, 24 below the national median of 51
3825–43OKOklahoma49C+Productive base: 26 of 100, 25 below the national median of 51Labour market: 48 of 100, 1 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 18 of 100, 34 below the national median of 52Starting up: 71 of 100, 16 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 72 of 100, 14 above the national median of 58Population health: 24 of 100, 26 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 84 of 100, 8 below the national median of 92Openness: 51 of 100, level with the national median of 51
3930–48OROregon48C+Productive base: 45 of 100, 6 below the national median of 51Labour market: 6 of 100, 43 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 61 of 100, 9 above the national median of 52Starting up: 31 of 100, 24 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 30 of 100, 28 below the national median of 58Population health: 51 of 100, 1 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 67 of 100, 16 above the national median of 51
4032–44IDIdaho47CProductive base: 28 of 100, 23 below the national median of 51Labour market: 67 of 100, 18 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 23 of 100, 29 below the national median of 52Starting up: 56 of 100, 1 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 61 of 100, 3 above the national median of 58Population health: 51 of 100, 1 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
4034–48MEMaine47CProductive base: 33 of 100, 18 below the national median of 51Labour market: 72 of 100, 23 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 54 of 100, 2 above the national median of 52Starting up: 20 of 100, 35 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 49 of 100, 9 below the national median of 58Population health: 60 of 100, 10 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 84 of 100, 8 below the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
4026–46MSMississippi47CProductive base: 42 of 100, 9 below the national median of 51Labour market: 79 of 100, 30 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 1 of 100, 51 below the national median of 52Starting up: 78 of 100, 23 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 65 of 100, 7 above the national median of 58Population health: 1 of 100, 49 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 84 of 100, 8 below the national median of 92Openness: 27 of 100, 24 below the national median of 51
4335–47KYKentucky46CProductive base: 56 of 100, 5 above the national median of 51Labour market: 45 of 100, 4 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 7 of 100, 45 below the national median of 52Starting up: 55 of 100, level with the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 50 of 100, 8 below the national median of 58Population health: 22 of 100, 28 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 76 of 100, 16 below the national median of 92Openness: 56 of 100, 5 above the national median of 51
4434–48AKAlaska45CProductive base: 47 of 100, 4 below the national median of 51Labour market: 26 of 100, 23 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 52 of 100, level with the national median of 52Starting up: 88 of 100, 33 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 44 of 100, 14 below the national median of 58Population health: 29 of 100, 21 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 76 of 100, 16 below the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
4441–46NVNevada45CProductive base: 35 of 100, 16 below the national median of 51Labour market: 49 of 100, level with the national median of 49Prosperity: 31 of 100, 21 below the national median of 52Starting up: 59 of 100, 4 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 52 of 100, 6 below the national median of 58Population health: 38 of 100, 12 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
4637–47ALAlabama7/8 pillars44CProductive base: not scored, indicator missingLabour market: 49 of 100, level with the national median of 49Prosperity: 9 of 100, 43 below the national median of 52Starting up: 62 of 100, 7 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 63 of 100, 5 above the national median of 58Population health: 7 of 100, 43 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 27 of 100, 24 below the national median of 51
4634–50RIRhode Island44CProductive base: 33 of 100, 18 below the national median of 51Labour market: 63 of 100, 14 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 64 of 100, 12 above the national median of 52Starting up: 17 of 100, 38 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 9 of 100, 49 below the national median of 58Population health: 84 of 100, 34 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 84 of 100, 8 below the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
4844–49LALouisiana41CProductive base: 41 of 100, 10 below the national median of 51Labour market: 61 of 100, 12 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 10 of 100, 42 below the national median of 52Starting up: 65 of 100, 10 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 63 of 100, 5 above the national median of 58Population health: 7 of 100, 43 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 84 of 100, 8 below the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
4945–49ARArkansas40CProductive base: 46 of 100, 5 below the national median of 51Labour market: 37 of 100, 12 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 7 of 100, 45 below the national median of 52Starting up: 58 of 100, 3 above the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 72 of 100, 14 above the national median of 58Population health: 11 of 100, 39 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
5049–50WVWest Virginia36C−Productive base: 21 of 100, 30 below the national median of 51Labour market: 38 of 100, 11 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 1 of 100, 51 below the national median of 52Starting up: 30 of 100, 25 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 63 of 100, 5 above the national median of 58Population health: 22 of 100, 28 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 84 of 100, 8 below the national median of 92Openness: 27 of 100, 24 below the national median of 51
5151NMNew Mexico33C−Productive base: 19 of 100, 32 below the national median of 51Labour market: 26 of 100, 23 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 13 of 100, 39 below the national median of 52Starting up: 34 of 100, 21 below the national median of 55Housing permits and prices: 65 of 100, 7 above the national median of 58Population health: 23 of 100, 27 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 84 of 100, 8 below the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51

How this is built, and what it cannot tell you

Vertical axis on both panels: net domestic migration per 1,000 residents, 2021–2024. One shared scale, so the difference in slope is real and not an artefact of the drawing.

Composite index score+0.036Correlation with net domestic migration
0+56−45335271Index scoreColorado: +4.0 per 1,000Utah: +13.5 per 1,000Washington: −4.2 per 1,000Florida: +34.7 per 1,000Texas: +22.2 per 1,000North Carolina: +34.8 per 1,000New Hampshire: +19.8 per 1,000Maryland: −18.4 per 1,000Vermont: +9.6 per 1,000Virginia: −3.9 per 1,000Missouri: +6.9 per 1,000Connecticut: −1.0 per 1,000Nebraska: −6.5 per 1,000South Dakota: +22.8 per 1,000Iowa: −2.5 per 1,000Tennessee: +32.8 per 1,000Washington, D.C.: −20.2 per 1,000New Jersey: −19.3 per 1,000Delaware: +41.9 per 1,000Hawaii: −31.8 per 1,000Massachusetts: −18.7 per 1,000New York: −45.0 per 1,000Wisconsin: +0.5 per 1,000Wyoming: +11.7 per 1,000California: −35.5 per 1,000Michigan: −6.2 per 1,000Minnesota: −8.0 per 1,000Arizona: +29.3 per 1,000Georgia: +17.3 per 1,000Illinois: −31.1 per 1,000South Carolina: +54.7 per 1,000Indiana: +4.1 per 1,000Kansas: −7.4 per 1,000Montana: +44.6 per 1,000Ohio: −3.0 per 1,000Pennsylvania: −3.5 per 1,000North Dakota: −7.5 per 1,000Oklahoma: +21.8 per 1,000Oregon: −1.8 per 1,000Idaho: +55.7 per 1,000Maine: +33.7 per 1,000Mississippi: −6.8 per 1,000Kentucky: +6.0 per 1,000Alaska: −24.2 per 1,000Nevada: +21.7 per 1,000Alabama: +21.2 per 1,000Rhode Island: −7.4 per 1,000Louisiana: −27.1 per 1,000Arkansas: +21.4 per 1,000West Virginia: +6.3 per 1,000New Mexico: −4.1 per 1,000

No relationship: the fit is flat within its own error.

Housing authorised per 1,000 workers+0.742Correlation with net domestic migration
0+56−450.11.12.0Permits per 1,000 workersColorado: +4.0 per 1,000Utah: +13.5 per 1,000Washington: −4.2 per 1,000Florida: +34.7 per 1,000Texas: +22.2 per 1,000North Carolina: +34.8 per 1,000New Hampshire: +19.8 per 1,000Maryland: −18.4 per 1,000Vermont: +9.6 per 1,000Virginia: −3.9 per 1,000Missouri: +6.9 per 1,000Connecticut: −1.0 per 1,000Nebraska: −6.5 per 1,000South Dakota: +22.8 per 1,000Iowa: −2.5 per 1,000Tennessee: +32.8 per 1,000Washington, D.C.: −20.2 per 1,000New Jersey: −19.3 per 1,000Delaware: +41.9 per 1,000Hawaii: −31.8 per 1,000Massachusetts: −18.7 per 1,000New York: −45.0 per 1,000Wisconsin: +0.5 per 1,000Wyoming: +11.7 per 1,000California: −35.5 per 1,000Michigan: −6.2 per 1,000Minnesota: −8.0 per 1,000Arizona: +29.3 per 1,000Georgia: +17.3 per 1,000Illinois: −31.1 per 1,000South Carolina: +54.7 per 1,000Indiana: +4.1 per 1,000Kansas: −7.4 per 1,000Montana: +44.6 per 1,000Ohio: −3.0 per 1,000Pennsylvania: −3.5 per 1,000North Dakota: −7.5 per 1,000Oklahoma: +21.8 per 1,000Oregon: −1.8 per 1,000Idaho: +55.7 per 1,000Maine: +33.7 per 1,000Mississippi: −6.8 per 1,000Kentucky: +6.0 per 1,000Alaska: −24.2 per 1,000Nevada: +21.7 per 1,000Alabama: +21.2 per 1,000Rhode Island: −7.4 per 1,000Louisiana: −27.1 per 1,000Arkansas: +21.4 per 1,000West Virginia: +6.3 per 1,000New Mexico: −4.1 per 1,000

A strong relationship, from a single indicator inside the same index.

Where each state can rank16Places the average rank moves across the middle 90% of defensible weightings — 28.5 across all of them
113263951Rank across defensible weightings (middle 90%)Colorado: published 1, ranks 1–3 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 1–8 across all of themUtah: published 2, ranks 2–4 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 1–10 across all of themWashington: published 3, ranks 1–9 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 1–21 across all of themFlorida: published 4, ranks 2–10 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 1–20 across all of themTexas: published 5, ranks 2–13 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 1–21 across all of themNorth Carolina: published 6, ranks 5–16 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 3–20 across all of themNew Hampshire: published 7, ranks 3–23 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 2–39 across all of themMaryland: published 8, ranks 5–19 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 3–31 across all of themVermont: published 8, ranks 4–28 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 1–45 across all of themVirginia: published 8, ranks 6–18 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 3–29 across all of themMissouri: published 11, ranks 5–24 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 2–31 across all of themConnecticut: published 12, ranks 6–28 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 3–41 across all of themNebraska: published 12, ranks 7–23 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 1–30 across all of themSouth Dakota: published 12, ranks 7–26 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 2–31 across all of themIowa: published 15, ranks 8–26 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 3–35 across all of themTennessee: published 15, ranks 8–28 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 4–33 across all of themWashington, D.C.: published 15, ranks 6–33 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 2–45 across all of themNew Jersey: published 18, ranks 9–36 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 3–47 across all of themDelaware: published 19, ranks 13–33 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 9–40 across all of themHawaii: published 19, ranks 11–39 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 5–48 across all of themMassachusetts: published 19, ranks 9–39 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 3–48 across all of themNew York: published 19, ranks 12–36 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 6–46 across all of themWisconsin: published 19, ranks 14–28 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 9–33 across all of themWyoming: published 19, ranks 12–30 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 7–35 across all of themCalifornia: published 25, ranks 15–39 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 6–48 across all of themMichigan: published 25, ranks 17–32 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 8–39 across all of themMinnesota: published 25, ranks 12–37 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 5–46 across all of themArizona: published 28, ranks 15–34 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 7–41 across all of themGeorgia: published 29, ranks 15–38 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 7–44 across all of themIllinois: published 29, ranks 19–39 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 12–49 across all of themSouth Carolina: published 29, ranks 16–36 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 9–40 across all of themIndiana: published 32, ranks 23–41 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 13–44 across all of themKansas: published 32, ranks 24–39 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 16–42 across all of themMontana: published 32, ranks 20–42 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 11–47 across all of themOhio: published 32, ranks 20–40 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 12–43 across all of themPennsylvania: published 32, ranks 26–44 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 19–48 across all of themNorth Dakota: published 37, ranks 29–43 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 22–47 across all of themOklahoma: published 38, ranks 25–43 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 12–47 across all of themOregon: published 39, ranks 30–48 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 22–50 across all of themIdaho: published 40, ranks 32–44 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 23–47 across all of themMaine: published 40, ranks 34–48 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 23–49 across all of themMississippi: published 40, ranks 26–46 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 12–47 across all of themKentucky: published 43, ranks 35–47 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 27–49 across all of themAlaska: published 44, ranks 34–48 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 22–50 across all of themNevada: published 44, ranks 41–46 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 33–48 across all of themAlabama: published 46, ranks 37–47 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 27–49 across all of themRhode Island: published 46, ranks 34–50 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 20–51 across all of themLouisiana: published 48, ranks 44–49 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 29–50 across all of themArkansas: published 49, ranks 45–49 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 31–50 across all of themWest Virginia: published 50, ranks 49–50 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 45–51 across all of themNew Mexico: published 51, ranks 51–51 in nineteen of twenty defensible weightings, 49–51 across all of them

Each line is one jurisdiction; the dot is its published rank; the band is where it ranks in the middle 90% of defensible weightings, and the outer tenth can reach past it.

Percentile rank, not a raw scale

California’s economy is 88 times Vermont’s. On a min-max scale 41 of the 51 would sit in the bottom fifth, and 2 sit more than three standard deviations above the mean while holding 23% of the total between them. A percentile asks only how many states a state beats, which is the question being asked.

Size is not quality

Everything that scales with population is expressed per worker or as a rate. An index whose top ten is just the ten largest economies has measured population and called it something else — Colorado leads on starting up, population health, prosperity, fiscal standing.

Equal weights, declared

Any other weighting is a claim about relative importance this project cannot substantiate, and weights tuned until the ranking looks right are how an opinion gets laundered into a measurement. Two of the eight pillars are not published statistical series: fiscal standing is one agency’s credit rating, and openness is CEFA’s own probe of whether a state’s data answers a machine. Each carries the same weight as the others. Every pillar score is published so a reader who disagrees can reweight them.

Gaps are shown, and a partial pillar is not scored at all

3 state-indicator pairs have no published value. Tennessee (7 of 8 pillars), Washington, D.C. (7 of 8 pillars) and Alabama (7 of 8 pillars) — the missing indicator is named in the row. Averaging the indicators a pillar does have would look like a refusal to guess and would not be one: it hands the missing indicator the mean of the others, which is imputation with the label removed. A pillar with a hole scores nothing, the state is scored on its remaining pillars, and the row says how many that was — because a score built from 7 pillars is not the same measurement as one built from 8.

An indicator considered and rejected

State tax collections as a share of total personal income is a better-normalised measure than tax per resident: it accounts for how rich a state is, and it ranges from 2.75% in New Hampshire to 13.81% in the District of Columbia. It was computed for all 51 jurisdictions from data already held here, and then not adopted — because it correlates with the tax-per-resident indicator already in the index at r = +0.89. Two measures that rank the states almost identically are not two pieces of evidence; carrying both would have inflated the fiscal signal by counting one fact twice. That is the same objection this page raises against two of its own inputs further down, and it applies to what gets added next as much as to what is already here.

What is still missing

Regulatory burden. Across thirty-three tested federal series the only state-level regulatory variable is the minimum wage, and even that exists for forty-five states rather than fifty — Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee have no state statute, so the series simply does not exist. An index that filled those five with the federal floor would have invented five data points. The regulatory dimension is left out rather than proxied.

How much of the rank is the weighting

The eight pillars are averaged equally. That is declared rather than tuned, but declared is not neutral — and a single integer rank hides how much of itself the choice is carrying. So it was measured: 20,000 weightings were drawn at random, the composite recomputed each time, and every state re-ranked. Restricted to weightings a person could actually defend — every pillar between 6.25% and 25% of the total, so none dominant and none ignored — the average state’s rank moves 16 places across the middle 90% of those weightings, and 28.5 once the outer tenth is counted. Drop the restriction and the figures are 28.9 and 41.7. The band is quoted first because no single draw in 20,000 can set it. The wider pair is quoted beside it because one draw in ten falls outside the band, and the extremes are where a ranking reverses. 23 of the fifty-one can reach first place under some weighting; 19 can reach last.

The useful part is that this is not uniform. The ends of the table are firm and the middle is not: Colorado stays inside ranks 1–3 in nineteen defensible weightings out of twenty, and no worse than 8 in any of them; West Virginia stays inside 49–50, and no better than 45. Massachusetts, published at rank 19, sits between 9 and 39 in the same nineteen out of twenty, and between 3 and 48 across the lot. Read the top and bottom of this table as findings; read the middle as a band, which is why the band is printed beside every rank above rather than left for a reader to discover.

What this index does not predict, tested

A reader could reasonably assume a state scoring well here is a state people are moving to. Across all fifty-one jurisdictions that is not what the data shows. The composite score correlates with net domestic migration at r = +0.036, which is indistinguishable from no relationship (permutation p = 0.650). A single indicator inside the index — housing units authorised per 1,000 workers — reaches r = +0.742. Put plainly: the single most-moved-to state in America is Idaho, at 55.7 net domestic movers per 1,000 — and this index ranks it 40th. Colorado, ranked first here, is 25th on movers.

This does not make the index wrong — it measures what it says it measures. It means the score is not a forecast of migration, and should not be read as one. Two of its inputs are also less independent than they look: manufacturing share of jobs (productive-base pillar) and production occupations location quotient (workforce) correlate at +0.96 across the 49 jurisdictions holding both. Not an error in either figure — both are correct. It means the two are not independent evidence, and a state strong on one is not confirmed by being strong on the other. n = 51, a single cross-section, unweighted — Wyoming counts as much as California. States are not independent of one another. Co-movement is not causation, and none of this identifies why anyone moved.

How this was checked

Each of the 46 candidate findings drawn from this data was put to three independent attempts to refute it, and 8 held. The migration finding above was not among them: it came from asking what the whole exercise had missed, and the answer was that nobody had checked whether the index tracks anything outside its own inputs. It was recomputed independently before it was published here. The 8 that held and the 38 that did not, with the reasons.

Revisions to this page

Earlier versions of this page made claims that were wrong. The corrections follow, with what changed as a result.

A correction to an earlier version of this page

It said no federal series measures state tax burden. That was wrong. The Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of State Government Tax Collections publishes every state’s receipts by tax type in one open file, and it is now the source for the tax facts here — including which states levy no individual income tax (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming) and no corporate income tax (Nevada, Texas, Washington and Wyoming), both read off that file rather than typed here. It also said the Tax Foundation’s index is a copyrighted work this cannot touch; it is licensed CC BY-NC 4.0, which is a narrower restriction than stated. Nothing here derives from it either way — this is arithmetic on a federal filing.

Three categories that were never actually blocked

Educational attainment, commute times and a safety measure sat unbuilt here behind a note saying they needed API keys registered to a named person. That was half right: the obvious endpoints do need keys — api.census.gov now redirects to a missing-key page, and the FBI Crime Data Explorer wants a data.gov token. It was wrong that this made the data unreachable. All three are published keyless as flat files by the same agencies, and two now sit in this index: adults 25+ with a bachelor's degree or higher joins per-capita income under prosperity, and firearm-injury deaths per 100,000 (crude) joins adult obesity under population health. Their vintages are ACS 2024 1-year and CDC NCIPC 2024, both cover all 51 jurisdictions, and neither required a key.

Two notes on what those numbers are and are not. The firearm figure is a crude rate, not age-adjusted — a sibling CDC dataset publishes that same kind of figure under an “age-adjusted” label when it is nothing of the sort, and the difference is not cosmetic. It counts deaths, not crime, so it sits in population health rather than under a heading like “safety”, a word it cannot honestly carry. Mean commute time was also recovered and is deliberately not in the composite: there is no pillar it honestly belongs to, and inventing one for a single indicator would let the tail wag the dog. Adding the two that do fit changed nothing about the finding above — the index’s correlation with domestic migration moved from +0.024, measured before they were added, to +0.036, which is still nothing.

What Applied America does with this

Applied America, a nonprofit division of CEFA, carries public priorities to projects that get built. It tests where a project should land against this index, read at pillar level, before the sponsor commits to a site, and it publishes the index whole so that test can be checked. A state or regional office with a priority starts at Identify Development Needs; a sponsor or company choosing between states starts at Location & Market Entry.

The development office directoryThis week in economic development

The State Development Index — Applied America