Directory audit · dataset 2026.08
A page count is not a measure of completeness.
This audit measures provider-specific research coverage across 24 billing, payment, shut-off, and relief fields for 3,490 records—and publishes the gaps alongside the findings.
724
75–100% documented
21% of records
597
40–74% documented
17% of records
1,544
1–39% documented
44% of records
625
Listing details only
18% of records
Why publish this?
Missing information is part of the result.
Large directories can appear comprehensive because every record uses the same polished layout. That appearance is misleading when the underlying fields are empty. This audit makes the denominator visible and prevents generic safety advice from being mistaken for provider-specific research.
Records with limited public detail can still help a visitor identify a provider, service area, official website, payment destination, or public water-system ID. They should be presented as directory listings—not inflated into confident policy guides.
The site now renders qualified provider-specific research notes, labels unconfirmed fields together, and supplies provider and government verification routes. Advertising is restricted to substantive editorial and research pages rather than the generated directory.
Field-level snapshot
What the index currently establishes
73%
Usable online payment URL identified
2,562 of 3,490
15%
Fee or no-fee amount disclosed
529 of 3,490
35%
Leak-adjustment detail identified
1,233 of 3,490
31%
Utility assistance detail identified
1,079 of 3,490
34%
Emergency reporting route identified
1,172 of 3,490
34%
At least one shut-off detail identified
1,192 of 3,490
State comparison
Average documented field coverage
A higher percentage means more directory fields had provider-specific research notes, not that service is better.
| State | Systems | Average detail | Portal | Leak research | Assistance research |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District of Columbia | 3 | 60% | 67% | 67% | 67% |
| California | 418 | 51% | 81% | 54% | 55% |
| Texas | 400 | 50% | 73% | 58% | 54% |
| Alaska | 9 | 48% | 78% | 56% | 33% |
| Colorado | 136 | 42% | 81% | 38% | 35% |
| Nevada | 11 | 41% | 91% | 55% | 45% |
| Florida | 261 | 40% | 74% | 46% | 37% |
| South Dakota | 8 | 40% | 100% | 50% | 25% |
| Maine | 10 | 39% | 90% | 40% | 40% |
| North Dakota | 11 | 38% | 82% | 27% | 27% |
| Virginia | 66 | 37% | 76% | 50% | 33% |
| Nebraska | 13 | 36% | 92% | 38% | 31% |
| Maryland | 27 | 35% | 85% | 41% | 26% |
| New Mexico | 19 | 34% | 68% | 37% | 26% |
| Connecticut | 33 | 33% | 67% | 33% | 36% |
| West Virginia | 13 | 33% | 77% | 31% | 23% |
| Montana | 9 | 33% | 67% | 22% | 22% |
| Indiana | 50 | 32% | 76% | 32% | 28% |
| Wyoming | 8 | 32% | 100% | 25% | 38% |
| Washington | 107 | 31% | 73% | 35% | 34% |
| Missouri | 40 | 30% | 70% | 33% | 33% |
| Tennessee | 101 | 29% | 66% | 32% | 22% |
| Louisiana | 42 | 29% | 71% | 33% | 19% |
| North Carolina | 97 | 28% | 78% | 28% | 23% |
| Wisconsin | 46 | 28% | 78% | 28% | 15% |
| Arizona | 58 | 27% | 62% | 31% | 26% |
| Kansas | 24 | 27% | 75% | 29% | 25% |
| Ohio | 115 | 26% | 72% | 23% | 23% |
| Georgia | 86 | 26% | 72% | 31% | 27% |
| Delaware | 12 | 26% | 58% | 25% | 33% |
| Vermont | 4 | 26% | 75% | 25% | 25% |
| Pennsylvania | 107 | 25% | 59% | 22% | 21% |
| Minnesota | 70 | 25% | 79% | 23% | 23% |
| Oklahoma | 36 | 25% | 81% | 22% | 17% |
| Idaho | 16 | 25% | 63% | 31% | 25% |
| New Jersey | 99 | 24% | 81% | 21% | 21% |
| Utah | 61 | 24% | 62% | 21% | 18% |
| Kentucky | 50 | 24% | 64% | 22% | 20% |
| Oregon | 48 | 24% | 75% | 23% | 27% |
| Hawaii | 14 | 23% | 64% | 21% | 21% |
| New Hampshire | 9 | 23% | 67% | 11% | 22% |
| New York | 108 | 22% | 73% | 18% | 14% |
| Arkansas | 33 | 22% | 73% | 21% | 15% |
| Michigan | 100 | 21% | 67% | 21% | 16% |
| Alabama | 77 | 21% | 58% | 22% | 18% |
| Iowa | 35 | 21% | 69% | 23% | 17% |
| Rhode Island | 17 | 21% | 47% | 24% | 18% |
| Massachusetts | 128 | 20% | 80% | 37% | 14% |
| Illinois | 156 | 18% | 78% | 13% | 14% |
| South Carolina | 60 | 18% | 48% | 22% | 12% |
| Mississippi | 29 | 16% | 76% | 10% | 7% |
Next release priorities
Depth before expansion
Future work should prioritize records people actually use, add source-level citations and effective dates, recheck official destinations, and calculate standardized bills only where tariff components can be reproduced responsibly.
This analysis uses dataset 2026.08, published August 1, 2026. See the full methodology, download the audit CSV, or submit a documented correction.