TABLE 
  2: 
   
  Quantitative 
  evaluation 
  of 
  state 
  infrastructures, 
  by 
  selected 
  characteristics 
  (ranked 
  1-­‐5, 
  with 
  5 
  as 
  highest)

n

= 
   
  Includes 
  Barder 
  Fund 
  state-­‐infrastructure 
  grantee

 
  = 
  Includes 
  group(s) 
  that 
  made 
  declined 
  RFP 
  submission

n

= 
   
  Includes 
  state-­‐infrastructure 
  grantee 
  in 
  regular 
  program

 
  = 
  Includes 
  group(s) 
  whose 
  submission 
  was 
  declined, 
  but 
  staff 
  initially 
  

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California

Respected, 
  
dynamic 
  
leadership
3
1
5
2
4

Think 
  
tank(s)

4
1
5
3
4

Investigative 
  
Journalism
2
1
4
2
3

Opposition 
  
research
2
1
4
2
3

thought 
  merited 
  further 
  review
Receptive 
  
Legal 
  
policy-­‐
component
makers
1
5
1
4
5
5
2
5
5
1

Symbolic 
  w/ 
  
grassroots 
  
groups
4
3
5
4
3

TOTAL 
  
Local 
  funding 
   "SCORE" 
  
support
(MAX. 
  40)
3
24
3
15
5
38
2
22
4
27

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia

5
2
2
4
5

5
2
2
4
4

5
1
1
4
3

5
1
1
3
2

4
1
1
5
2

2
1
1
4
5

5
2
2
4
5

5
3
2
3
3

36
13
12
31
29

Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa

1
2
5
4
3

2
3
5
3
2

1
2
4
3
1

1
2
4
2
1

1
2
4
2
1

1
4
3
5
3

1
3
5
4
3

1
3
4
3
2

9
21
34
26
16

Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland

3
2
4
2
4

3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
3

2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1

5
3
2
3
2

5
3
3
3
3

4
3
3
2
2

25
19
20
18
20

Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri

4
5
5
2
3

5
5
5
2
3

3
5
3
1
2

3
5
2
1
1

1
5
4
1
1

1
4
1
5
3

2
5
3
3
5

3
5
3
3
2

22
39
26
18
20

(CMD 
  reproduction 
  of 
  Bradley 
  Foundation 
  graph)

 [TABLE 
  2: 
   
  Quantitative 
  evaluation 
  of 
  state 
  infrastructures, 
  by 
  selected 
  characteristics 
  (ranked 
  1-­‐5, 
  with 
  5 
  as 
  highest) 
  -­‐ 
  cont'd]

n

= 
   
  Includes 
  Barder 
  Fund 
  state-­‐infrastructure 
  grantee

n

= 
   
  Includes 
  state-­‐infrastructure 
  grantee 
  in 
  regular 
  program

 
  = 
  Includes 
  group(s) 
  that 
  made 
  declined 
  RFP 
  submission
 
  = 
  Includes 
  group(s) 
  whose 
  submission 
  was 
  declined, 
  but 
  staff 
  initially 
  
thought 
  merited 
  further 
  review
Receptive 
  
Legal 
  
policy-­‐
component
makers
1
3
1
4
3
5
1
4
1
2

Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New 
  Hampshire
New 
  Jersey

Respected, 
  
dynamic 
  
leadership
2
2
3
3
2

New 
  Mexico
New 
  York
North 
  Carolina
North 
  Dakota
Ohio

2
5
5
1
4

2
5
5
2
4

1
3
5
2
4

1
2
5
1
4

1
1
3
1
3

3
2
5
5
4

2
2
5
5
3

2
3
5
3
4

14
23
38
20
30

Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode 
  Island
South 
  Carolina

4
2
3
3
2

4
2
3
3
3

4
2
4
2
4

4
1
3
1
3

3
1
3
1
1

5
1
3
1
4

5
4
4
1
5

4
3
4
1
3

33
16
27
13
25

South 
  Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont

1
2
5
3
1

3
3
5
4
1

1
2
4
2
1

1
2
3
1
1

1
1
5
1
1

5
5
5
5
1

5
3
5
4
1

3
2
5
4
1

20
20
37
24
8

Virginia
Washington
West 
  Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

4
5
3
5
3

4
4
2
5
2

3
4
1
5
1

2
4
1
4
1

3
5
1
5
1

3
2
3
5
5

5
5
2
5
3

3
3
1
5
2

27
32
14
39
18

Think 
  
tank(s)

3
3
3
3
2

Investigative 
  
Journalism
4
2
2
4
1

Opposition 
  
research
3
2
2
3
1

Symbolic 
  w/ 
  
grassroots 
  
groups
3
3
3
3
5

TOTAL 
  
Local 
  funding 
   "SCORE" 
  
support
(MAX. 
  40)
3
22
3
20
3
24
4
25
3
17

(CMD 
  reproduction 
  of 
  Bradley 
  Foundation 
  graph)