Making Minnesota’s Future Measure Up

Changing the metrics of public programs to fit the outcomes is a sure path to slow but steady decline.

A single line in Gov. Tim Walz’s last State of the State address received far less attention than it deserves. With one pat-on–his-own-back anecdote, the Governor offered a crystal-clear example of how the state’s best intentions can go awry when meaningful metrics are ignored and poorly designed programs undermine the future.

The Governor offered this nugget as one of his administration’s significant achievements: “During the first two years of the Minnesota Free School Meals Program, schools served more than 300 million free meals, saving Minnesota families an average of $1,000 per student per year.”

That’s great and no doubt Minnesota families of school-aged children appreciate the savings. But what Walz didn’t mention is this: The goal of the program never was to put $1,000 in the pockets of families. The justification for spending more than $400 million every biennium was to improve the academic outcomes of students.

There is voluminous research – not to mention common sense – that a well-nourished student is more likely to succeed in school. The free universal school meals program was sold as a program to give all students the best chance for success. Walz, though, changed the metric to fit the outcome. By doing so, the Governor buries what is vital to the state’s future, a well-educated population, and shifts an education program to an income-support initiative.

The point isn’t to belabor the misguided evaluation of a single program. Rather, it is to say that the next governor and legislators need to be much more thoughtful about investing in the future and much more dedicated to holding programs accountable to measures that matter.

Changing the metrics of public programs to fit the outcomes is a sure path to slow but steady decline. Minnesota, for all its challenges of economic stagnation, a slow-growth population and, of course, fraud, still has enormous opportunities if the new leadership Minnesotans will elect this year is bold and rigorous in its program design and accountability standards.

Some tasks are urgent, including tax and regulatory reform and re-thinking how the state funds public education. There also are other opportunities on the horizon that need innovative policies and meaningful measures even if the pay-off is longer-term. Among them are these three:

Climate Change: The partisan debate over the cause of climate change rages on and on. The evidence-based discussion of whether the climate is changing is over. The world is warming, severe weather events are the norm and today’s politics likely will exacerbate the trends before mitigating them.

Minnesota is not immune to the adverse effects of climate change. Warming, drought, wildfires and more severe precipitation events already are felt in Minnesota. Still, the state is likely to be a far more pleasant place to live than much of the rest of the country.

Can Minnesota become a “climate refuge,” attracting domestic immigrants fleeing harsher conditions elsewhere? Likely not enough to recreate the Baby Boom population explosion, but perhaps enough to reverse the state’s declines in economic growth. The first signs of an increased domestic migration may already be appearing. According to the U.S. Census, Minnesota gained a net of 8,300 new residents from 2024 to 2025, the first gain among this demographic since 2018. While, small in numbers, it is significant in comparison to other states. Minnesota jumped from 41st in  total domestic migration in 2022 to 17th last year.

Democrats and Republicans are quick to claim credit or assign blame to any shift in population. DFLers argue that their progressive package of public services in 2023-24 is making Minnesota a quality-of-life destination. Republicans argue the domestic migration is a blip, not a trend, and whatever gains Minnesota made are offset by the exodus of wealthy residents fleeing the state’s high taxes.

Whatever the cause, it is a step in the right direction. What should policymakers be doing to build on these early growth buds? Work is underway to make Minnesota more resilient as the climate becomes more extreme. More is needed, such as upgrading infrastructure, including water treatment facilities, to make it more resilient and able to handle the extreme precipitation events that have become the norm.

Minnesota’s electricity prices remain below the national average, but the state is losing its advantage. Renewable energy, a reassessment of nuclear power in light of new technologies and continued investment in the power grid will be essential, as well as continued development of renewable energy.

Minnesota will see increasing droughts that threaten the entire state and especially the boreal forests that extend across Canada and into northern Minnesota. Nature intends them to burn from time to time. Managing the forests, including the burns, will become ever more critical.

And so it goes. As people look for places to live that are affordable, safe and offer amenities including world class culture, sports and outdoor recreation, Minnesota can be a standout competitor if policymakers lead in making investments today that won’t pay off for years.

Artificial Intelligence: Minnesota is well-positioned to exploit the potential for value-added wealth from AI. The state already has a strong foothold in AI research and development, advancing new uses for AI chips and improving manufacturing processes. In addition, the state is home to the kind of industries that are among the early adopters of advanced AI. The state’s life sciences sector, for example, includes more than 7,000 companies employing 326,000 workers. Many of these are well-paying jobs in areas like medical devices, biotech and health IT. Mayo Clinic and other health leaders are well-along in adapting AI to better serve patients and customers.

Yet, the policy debate over AI largely is occurring in city councils and county commissions and it’s about data centers. Certainly, there are risks and rewards to the data centers. But if that is Minnesota’s only AI role, we will lose the opportunity for sustainable wealth and the well-paying jobs that will come from the application of AI to everyday tasks and as-yet-unimagined innovations in science, education and industry. Funding research and the researchers and promoting the entrepreneurs and investors essential to new industries will attract and keep the real AI wealth in Minnesota.

DEI: The third area of opportunity is misunderstood, polarizing and sometimes abused by those who implement it. At its best, DEI is about meritocracy, assuring that schools, employers and others cast the broadest possible net to create the largest pool of qualified applicants. Once the best people are on board, DEI promotes an environment in which every person has the opportunity to succeed individually by contributing their different perspectives and skills to advance the organization’s goals and mission.

Yes, DEI needs a new name and rebranding. The “too-woke” edges need to be sanded. But Minnesota will be a better and more successful state if the talent of every person is tapped. What does this mean for policy? Long-term investments are needed in programs (including better compensation for educators) to hire and retain the best and brightest teachers in every school, removing barriers that still block some from home ownership for reasons beyond financial means, assuring safe neighborhoods and creating more engagement opportunities for young people to keep them in school and work in community programs and off the streets.

Four years from now, a successful governor will deliver a state of the state address that touts some meaningful achievements of the term but also has a record of investments and measurements to say that in another four years, Minnesota will be even better.