How we grade.
The composite formula
Every governor receives a single A+ to F grade. Each metric is scored 0–100 by blending two sub-scores:
- 30% — Cohort Rank. Where does the state rank against all 50 states on this metric? The best state scores 100, the worst scores 0, the median scores 50. Same rule applies to every metric regardless of unit or scale.
- 70% — Pace vs. the National Trend. Did the state move faster than the country during the governor's tenure? A governor earns trend credit only for improvement that exceeds the national trend over the same window — matching the nationwide tide is treated as neutral (50). A ±25% gap with the national change spans the full 0–100 range. Metrics already at a natural ceiling (e.g. a perfect credit rating) get full credit for being maintained. When a national baseline isn't available for a metric, we fall back to absolute change from the state's own starting point.
Per-metric scores are averaged within eight pillars — Economy, Fiscal Health, Education, Health, Infrastructure, Opportunity, Public Safety, Environment — which are then weighted equally to form the composite. The 30/70 split is deliberate: we heavily reward governors for the change they drove, not the state they inherited. Pillars we haven't backfilled yet for a given governor are excluded from that governor's composite rather than scored as zero, so partial coverage never punishes a state unfairly.
Every metric card on a governor's profile carries an info icon citing the exact federal source and a plain-English definition — the same sources catalogued below.
On each metric card we label the trend in one of five ways so the badge reflects both how the state moved and how it stacked up against the national trend: improving faster than US, improving slower than US, on pace with US, declining slower than US, or declining faster than US. "Declining slower than US" and "improving slower than US" are flagged in amber — the underlying number moved in a direction we'd flag, even if the state out- or under-performed the national trend. Scoring math is identical regardless of label; this is purely about honest presentation.
The letter scale
Final composite scores are curved across the full cohort of 50 governors so the leaderboard spreads cleanly from A to F instead of bunching at B and C. The curve centers the cohort at a B-/C+ and stretches the distribution so the best and worst performers are clearly distinguishable. Category sub-scores on each governor's profile remain uncurved — they reflect raw performance against benchmarks.
Metrics
We grade across eight pillars sourced exclusively from transparent federal data feeds (Census, BLS, BEA, CDC, EIA, EPA, FBI, NCES, USPTO, BJS, FHWA). Each pillar contributes equally to the overall grade — so adding more metrics to one pillar won't dilute the others.
Economy
Fiscal Health
Education
Health
Infrastructure
Opportunity
Public Safety
Environment
All metrics carry equal weight within their pillar. Pillars are then weighted equally in the overall composite. New metrics roll in as we backfill each federal data feed — historical baselines mean a metric only counts toward a governor's grade once we have a value from their tenure start.
What we don't grade on
Party affiliation, social positions, campaign rhetoric, endorsements, scandals, and media coverage are deliberately excluded. We also exclude subjective leadership traits — policy implementation, ethics, transparency, and crisis management — because any score we assigned would be editorial judgment rather than measured outcome. We grade only on quantifiable results a governor's administration can directly influence.
Limitations
- Federal policy and global economics affect every state — we don't perfectly isolate executive impact.
- Data lags 6–18 months for most metrics. We mark the as-of date on each value.
- Short tenures (under 2 years) have less reliable trend signal.
- v1 covers governors only. Mayors and other officials are on the roadmap.