{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012345679012345678, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013580246913580247, 'mean_word_length': 5.758333333333334, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Elected and Appointed Assessor Efficiency Differentials

ABSTRACT: Performance differences between elected and appointed public officials are a popular area of research, but such studies have limited policy value because they do not consider factor costs. The present study contributes to the discussion of public sector performance by estimating cost-efficiency differentials between elected and appointed assessors, using a pooled cross-section of 124 assessing jurisdictions in Virginia from 2008 to 2011. The results reveal that assessments administered by an elected assessor are more cost-efficient than those administered by an appointed one. The study also illustrates that performance measures that only measure output may be poor indicators of whether public resources are being employed efficiently.