MAP 1: States with infrastructures including Barder Fund and regular-program grantees includes Barder Fund state?infrastructure grantee Cl lncludes state-infrastructure grantee in regular program MAP 2: States with infrastructures including groups that made declined RFP submissions and whose submission was declined, but staff initially thought merited further review CI includes group(s) that made RFP submission 2 includes group{s) whose submission was declined, but staff initially thought merited further review LIST National grantees in Bradley?s regular program that help state infrastructures America?s Future Foundation American Legislative Exchange Council American Transparency Americans for Prosperity Foundation Americans for Tax Reform Foundation Center for Consumer Freedom Colorado Christian University Employment Policies Institute [Interstate Policy Alliance) Foundation for Government Accountability FreedomWorks Foundation illinois Policy institute Leadership Program of the Rockies Liberty Foundation of America Manhattan institute for Policy Research Mercatus Center National Review Institute Sagamore institute State Policy Network Texas Public Policy Foundation Think Freely Media it. Moving forward on state infrastructures During its June meeting, the Board awarded substantial Barder state-infrastructure grants to groups at work in four states, as shown in MAP 1 on page 9, which also shows the nine states that have state~ infrastructure grantees at work in them that are part of Bradley?s regular grantmaking program. Twenty national regular-program grantees, in LIST 1 on page 9, help other groups in all state infrastructures across the country, including the interstate Policy Alliance Another 26 states include one or more groups that made submissions in response to the Barder state- infrastructure RFP, as shown in MAP 2 on page 9, which also shows the four of these that include one or more groups whose submission was declined, but staff initially thought merited further review.2 At the June meeting, the Board requested an evatuation, preferably relying on quantitative measurement, of the quality and promise of all of the states? existing infrastructures to better inform its grantmaking in this area moving forward, too. TABLE 2 on pages 10 and 1? is the result of such an evatuation, by the characteristics of a successful state infrastructure outlined in August Fund write~up for the Board (a reproduction of which is in the APPENDIX to this section on pages 14 through 22). MAP 3 on page 12 shows the states grouped in four tiers by the evaluations resulting "scores." While numericized, the evaluation still reflects some subjective judgment, of course. Of the 11 states in the top tier, nine have groups supported by either Barder or regular?program state? infrastructure grants. Bradley, in other words, is already heavily invested in the best state infrastructures. Staff recommends further investigating the top second?tier states for consideration as potential targets of' opportunity for further Barder investment. If going by "scores,? the top four Tier 2 states are Georgia and three states in a tie -- Catifornia, and Virginia. Staff also recommends investigating four other states that show promise of significant improvement -- one Tier state, Colorado, and three other Tier 2 states, Maryland, Missouri, and Ohio. - In the case of each of these target states, one or more groups already made an RFP submission, as shown in LIST 2 on page 13. They reflectwhat at least those local, ?on-the?ground" groups considered to be priorities in bettering the infrastructure in each of the respective states. in most cases, the proposed project was quite broad.3 Speci?cally, staff recommends a $25,000 grant to the Capital Research Center (CRO) in Washington, D. C., for a report to Bradley on these states, and any potential grantmaking opportunities in them, by executive director Mike Saltsman. This grant would be separate and apart from the support of CRC being recommended to the IRA Committee. Created at Bradley?s behest in 2012 and with continuing Bradley support since then, is a discreet channel for the better coordination and presentation of helpful, high?quality research on existing and proposed state-level, free?market policies around the country. It provides this research, too often ?out of reach? for many small state think tanks, and customizes it for each state to achieve maximum credibility in local- and social-media outlets. The Searle Freedom Trust has joined Bradley in support of the project. Some of these regular?program grantees also made RFP submissions and one, the Goldwater institute, both does work in Arizona and helps infrastructures and groups across the country develop legal components. 2 One other submission, from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, was considered to merit further review, as well, but was not stateespecific. 3 In Georgia?s case, there is already a major Barder investment in the family focus area though to the Georgia Center for Opportwaityiaetthe Georgia Public Policy Foundation, which made a state?infrastructure submission.