SPP 20091
Codebook for data described in:
Nelson C. Dometrius and Deil S. Wright. 2009. State-Level Measures of Institutional Budgetary Influence From the AmericanState Administrators Project (ASAP): 1964-1998. Paper Presented at the Ninth Annual Conference on State Politics and Policy, Chapel Hill, N.C., May 22-23, 2009.
Please cite the article above when using the data or codebook.
Article Data File.Data File Codebook.
YEARSurvey Year
STATENumeric state code, 1-50 in alphabetical order using full state name.
SNAMEString variable containing the state name
SYIDA unique case identifier comprised of STATE and YEAR. The whole numbers are the survey year and the decimals the state number.
COUNTNumber of respondents per state in a given survey year.
INDEXYears: 1964, 1968, 1974, 1978, 1984, 1988, 1994, 1998
ASAP Question: Generally speaking, do you find that the governor or the legislature exercises greater control and oversight over your agency?
+1. Governor
-1. Legislature
0. Each the same
State mean ranges from +1.0 to – 1.0.
INDEXBYears: 1974, 1978, 1984, 1988, 1994, 1998
Who exercises the more detailed review of your agency's budget requests?
+1. Governor
-1. Legislature
0. Each the same
State mean ranges from +1.0 to – 1.0.
9Survey year in which question was not used
REDUCEYears: 1964, 1968, 1974, (not 1978), 1984, 1988, 1994, 1998
Who has the greater tendency to reduce your budget requests?
+1. Governor
-1. Legislature
0. Each the same
State mean ranges from +1.0 to – 1.0.
9Survey year in which question was not used
Budget Influence variables, 1994 and 1998.
Lead-in Question: In making agency decisions it is usually possible to identify and weigh several major sources of influence. Among these are: (1) governor, (2) legislators, (3) state courts, (4) clientele groups, and (5) professional associations to which your employees belong. Please indicate below the degree of influence each has on decisions your agency makes in the following decision areas.
Total agency budget level:
GOVABGovernor
1.None
2.Slight
3. Moderate
4.High
-1Survey year in which question was not used
LEGABLegislators
1.None
2.Slight
3. Moderate
4.High
-1Survey year in which question was not used
CLIENTABClientele Groups
1.None
2.Slight
3. Moderate
4.High
-1Survey year in which question was not used
PROFABProfessional Associations
1.None
2.Slight
3. Moderate
4.High
-1Survey year in which question was not used
COURTABState Courts
1.None
2.Slight
3. Moderate
4.High
-1Survey year in which question was not used
Budgets for specific programs
GOVPBGovernor
1.None
2.Slight
3. Moderate
4.High
-1Survey year in which question was not used
LEGPBLegislators
1.None
2.Slight
3. Moderate
4.High
-1Survey year in which question was not used
CLIENTPBClientele Groups
1.None
2.Slight
3. Moderate
4.High
-1Survey year in which question was not used
PROFPBProfessional Associations
1.None
2.Slight
3. Moderate
4.High
-1Survey year in which question was not used
COURTPBState Courts
1.None
2.Slight
3. Moderate
4.High
-1Survey year in which question was not used
Budget Influence variables, 1978, 1984, and 1988.
Same as above except that State Courts were not included among the options.