Training programs designed to make state legislators better at their jobs don't actually increase their ability to pass laws, according to new research from the Niskanen Center. Political scientist Mackenzie Dobson of the University of Tennessee examined alumni records from four regional training programs run by the Council of State Governments and found no observable difference in legislative effectiveness scores between trained and untrained lawmakers. The finding challenges the assumption that good governance organizations can systematically improve legislative performance through skill-building interventions.
Dobson's research analyzed legislators who attended four-to-five-day training orientations featuring political scientists, lobbyists, former elected officials, and representatives from governance organizations. These programs specifically target freshmen legislators in their first few years of service—typically second or third terms—with explicit restrictions preventing lawmakers who've served more than four years from participating. The application process is intensive: candidates must write four to five short essays, submit recommendation letters from other legislators or state officials, provide a cover letter, and in some cases submit personal statements explaining how the program could help them. The programs aim for party parity and balance between upper and lower chamber representation, though it remains unclear whether legislators pay out of pocket for travel.
According to Dobson's analysis, the factors that actually determine legislative effectiveness are overwhelmingly structural rather than skill-based. Being in the majority party, holding committee chair positions, serving on powerful committees like appropriations or rules, and legislative seniority all predict higher effectiveness scores. The research finds that bipartisanship—often touted as essential to effective lawmaking—only helps legislators when party competition is tight, as it is in Congress. In the many state legislatures where one party dominates with little threat of losing control, working across the aisle doesn't translate into more bills becoming law. "Absent party competition, bipartisanship is just not as useful and it's not a predictor of effectiveness anymore," Dobson explains in the research presentation.
The disconnect between training and results likely stems from what these programs actually teach versus what drives legislative success. While some curricula include sessions on navigating the committee process or learning negotiation tactics, much of the content focuses on broader leadership themes like compromise and becoming a better leader. Dobson argues these "more obtuse themes" aren't translating into concrete legislative gains. Legislators who attend report feeling better equipped to do their jobs and believe the training has reshaped their approach, yet their effectiveness scores tell a different story. The research suggests future training should focus on the technical craft of lawmaking: how to be an effective co-sponsor, how to write legislative policy, and how to network strategically with already-effective legislators who hold institutional power.
The report recommends that good governance organizations shift their focus from training existing legislators to candidate recruitment that could increase electoral competition. For minority party members in uncompetitive states, the outlook is particularly grim—they can't moderate or collaborate their way to effectiveness when the majority doesn't need their votes. Dobson's work on issue-specific effectiveness scores, currently covering 18 policy areas from 2009 forward, may reveal whether specialization offers an alternative path. But the bottom line is clear: if you want more effective state legislatures, changing the competitive environment matters far more than sending lawmakers to weekend seminars.