Forum on Key National Indicators: Assessing the Nation's Position
and Progress (01-MAY-03, GAO-03-672SP). 			 
                                                                 
The nation confronts profound challenges resulting from a variety
of factors, including changing security threats, dramatic shifts 
in demographic patterns, the multidimensional processes of	 
globalization, and the accelerating pace of technological change.
These are all coming together in an era of diminishing public	 
resources. The nation's leaders and concerned citizens require	 
better knowledge of what is happening and where we are going to  
support improved public choices. The United States could	 
potentially benefit from developing a set of key national	 
indicators to help assess our nation's position and progress. On 
February 27, 2003, GAO, in cooperation with the National	 
Academies, hosted a forum on key national indicators. The purpose
of the forum was to have a rich and meaningful dialogue on	 
whether and how to develop a set of key national indicators for  
the United States. The forum brought together a diverse group of 
national leaders to discuss the following: How are the world's	 
leading democracies measuring national performance? What might	 
the United States do to improve its approach and why?  What are  
important areas to measure in assessing U.S. national		 
performance?  How might new U.S. approaches be led and		 
implemented?							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-672SP					        
    ACCNO:   A06972						        
  TITLE:     Forum on Key National Indicators: Assessing the Nation's 
Position and Progress						 
     DATE:   05/01/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Best practices					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     National preparedness				 
	     Performance measures				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-672SP

                                       A

Letters 1 Comptroller General of the United States Introductory Letter 1
President of the Institute of Medicine, The National Academies

Introductory Letter 4 Forum 6

Background 6 Forum Summary 11 How Are the World*s Leading Democracies
Measuring National

Performance? 14 What Might the United States Do to Improve Its Approach
and

Why? 24 What Are Important Areas to Measure in Assessing U. S. National

Performance? 34 How Might New U. S. Approaches Be Led and Implemented? 38

Appendixes

Appendix I: Forum Participants 42

Appendix II: Illustrative Indicators by Information Area for USA Series
0.5 46

Appendix III: Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems 49

Appendix IV: Selected Web Sites on Indicator Systems 60 Tables Table 1:
Illustrative Comprehensive Indicator Systems 16

Table 2: Illustrative Specialized Indicator Systems 17 Table 3: Selected
Highlights of Indicator Traditions in the United

States during the 20th Century 22 Table 4: Structure of USA Series 0.5 30
Table 5: Proposed Evolutionary Process for a National Indicator

System (Includes Illustrative Information Areas) 39 Figures Figure 1: Life
Expectancy at Birth and at Age 65 31

Figure 2: U. S. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Based on Global Warming
Potential, 1990- 2000 (in Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent) 32

This is a work of the U. S. Government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain
copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce copyrighted
materials separately from GAO*s product.

Letter

Comptroller General of On February 27, 2003, the U. S. General Accounting
Office (GAO) in

the United States cooperation with the National Academies convened the
Forum on Key National Indicators for the United States. This report
summarizes the

Introductory Letter research, points of view, and commitments that the
event produced.

We were pleased to have the National Academies as a partner in this event.
They have demonstrated the ability not only to conduct quality research
but also to help professional communities reflect on and build consensus
around the operational definition of indicator sets, in key areas, such as
communities, ecology, education, health and transportation.

Although the forum took place in Washington, D. C. the event was not
merely about the federal government or the public sector. It addressed
issues about indicators for the nation at all levels, from the community
to

the country as a whole. Those who attended came in the spirit of a
national endeavor that rose above personal, institutional, or sectoral
interests.

Because the United States is diverse, so were the participants. Gathered
together were national leaders and experts who could articulate the
concerns and perspectives of businesses, government, the media,
foundations, and nonprofits as well as the scientific, statistical, and
educational communities* a group representing both the users and producers
of public information.

Essentially, the broad impetus for the new level of dialogue at the forum
comes from two sources. First, that more and better public information may
be needed to effectively resolve current and future national challenges.
Second, that the laboratories of democracy in our country and around the
world are engaged in hundreds of efforts to develop indicator systems,
many of which are comprehensive in nature. It is a logical extension to
consider a comprehensive indicator system for the United States that would
help assess the nation*s overall position and progress.

There is a strong implication here. To be a leading democracy in the
information age means producing objective, independent, scientifically
grounded, and widely shared quality information on where we are and where
we are going, on both an absolute and relative basis, including
comparisons to other nations. Such information must be useful to the
public, professionals, and leaders at all levels of our society.

The founders of our nation knew this critical issue needed ongoing
attention as it grew and evolved. President George Washington, in his
first annual message to Congress on January 8, 1790, said, *Knowledge is
in every country the surest basis of public happiness. In one in which the
measures of government receive their impressions so immediately from the
sense of the community as in ours it is proportionably essential.*

Since that time, there has been a long history* checkered by success and
failure* of attempts to create sources of information that would inform
our public dialogues and serve as a context for governance and civic
choices. Developing a comprehensive, independent, quality resource of key
indicators for a nation as large, complex, and diverse as the United
States is a daunting task. If it is to be done, we must work hard and work
together to avoid the mistakes of the past and take advantage of new
opportunities that have emerged in the 21st century.

One lesson shows the need for patience, persistence, and attention to
democratic process. There is an important role for the federal government,
and in particular the U. S. Congress, to help catalyze an effort to
develop and sustain a national indicator system. A fully operational set
of credible measures of our progress and prospects will take years to
develop, require broad involvement of American society, and involve
substantial resource commitments. And yet many believe the benefits, in
terms of more facts, broader consensus, and better choices, will far
outweigh the costs.

Our objective in convening the forum was to stimulate a dialogue that
might encourage a collective commitment from several leading institutions
to validate the need and begin organizing themselves to take action. While
this objective has been met, it should be stressed that this forum is
merely the start of a new stage of our country*s long journey of
increasing selfawareness and sense of collective accountability. We are
pleased to help contribute to this effort and look forward to working with
the extraordinary group of committed parties and the many who are

continually joining the effort to develop options and approaches that will
be of truly lasting value to the American people.

David M. Walker Comptroller General of the United States

President of the On behalf of the National Academies, let me add my deep
appreciation to

Institute of Medicine, all who participated in and facilitated this forum.
The level of participation in this important event speaks volumes about a
topic that is critically

The National important to our nation and ripe for our attention. It has
been a pleasure

Academies for the National Academies to be a part of this promising,
important, and Introductory Letter

timely venture. It is fitting that the National Academies -- the Institute
of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of
Engineering, together with our operating arm, the National Research
Council * cooperated in facilitating this effort. We represent a body that
has provided advice on scientific issues that affect public policy
decisions since 1863. Over that long period, the Academies have been able
to contribute to public discussion and understanding on many issues of
national significance. In an important way, our collaboration with the
General Accounting Office on

this issue is a continuation of the contribution we seek to make to the
formulation of sound public decisions based on sound scientific evidence.

This collaboration with GAO on the development of key national performance
indicators is one of a number of projects we have undertaken under an
agreement implemented in 2001. We were pleased to have initially convened
a panel of experts representing various disciplines to share experiences
and views on the use of indicators, then, when the panel suggested this
forum, to support GAO in bringing it together. I am enthusiastic about the
possibilities and the promise of this forum. Public policy in many areas,
including medicine, is stronger because of the

existence of indicators of performance. Indicators help our nation focus
on the key issues confronting us. We can be proud of the tremendous
efforts that have been made in the scientific community to develop them.
As those of us in the public and private sectors jointly consider the next

steps to take, benefiting from this very useful report of the forum
prepared by GAO, I hope we keep in mind our ultimate objectives. I will be
thinking about the enlightening discussion of the issues with a question
in mind:

*WHY DO WE WANT TO KNOW THIS*? This important question gets us started and
helps us frame all of the other questions we must ponder. Dr. Harvey V.
Fineberg President, Institute of Medicine The National Academies

Forum Background The pace and character of change is having a profound
impact on the

United States government, the nation itself, and its position in the
global community. Changing security, economic, demographic, technological,
and other trends have, in some cases, exacerbated economic, social, and
environmental tensions. These trends have created new challenges and

opportunities both within the United States and throughout the world. In
just one example, the United States faces a huge and growing long- range
fiscal imbalance due primarily to known demographic trends, rising health

care costs, and other factors. Policymakers must reconcile the gap between
projected revenues and expenditures in order to exercise fiduciary and
stewardship responsibilities to the nation. A large and growing amount of
activity is taking place, throughout the United States and around the
world, to develop comprehensive indicator systems to inform the democratic
process. New facts, insights, and approaches are being developed.
Understanding and interpreting these efforts is vital to the process of
setting direction and measuring progress* on both an absolute and a
relative basis* as a context for governance.

Although other leading democratic nations have developed key national
indicator systems, the United States has not done so. While there are
numerous indicator systems that are national in scale, such systems focus
on specialized or specific topics such as health care or education. The
question is, should we develop a comprehensive, national system that
focuses on major elements of society* economical, social, and
environmental areas?

A set of key national indicators can help to assess the overall position
and progress of our nation in key areas, frame strategic issues, support
public choices and enhance accountability. It could help improve
evaluations of how well the nation is addressing and resolving key issues
and concerns. National indicators built on the foundation of information
from our federal statistical system (i. e., official statistics),
administrative records, as well as a variety of private sources could
provide a unique, fact- based assessment of the state of the nation.

The dramatic changes, challenges and increasing interdependencies
affecting the nation demand new and more cross- sector and cross- border
responses. Such responses could benefit from more integrated information
resources to support informed public debate and decisions within and among
different levels of government and society. For example, in

homeland security, what indicators will accurately reflect national
preparedness? In health care, how will we assess the health and well-
being of our population? How can we best measure success in education? Is
the most useful information available to fully assess our degree of
economic and social progress? Are we in fact moving ahead and in the right
direction

in key areas? How do we compare to other nations? The stakes are high,
including considerations regarding scarce public resources, creating jobs,
stimulating future industries, maintaining global competitive edge,
enhancing security, sustaining the environment, and promoting quality of
life.

Developing a key national indicator system goes beyond any one sector (i.
e., public, private, or nonprofit). It requires designing and executing a
process whereby the diverse elements of society can participate in
formulating key questions and choosing indicators in a way that increases
consensus on the facts over time. It also involves complex issues ranging
from fostering agreement on specific indicators to choosing the

mechanisms for sharing reliable information used in public planning,
decision making and accountability. Furthermore, indicators in the
national system should be outcome- oriented, in addition to measuring
resources and capabilities. They should measure position and progress on
not only an absolute but also a relative basis, including comparing the
United States to other nations. They should not be seen as being the
nation*s goals or priorities, but rather a more sophisticated base of
facts with which to make more informed decisions.

To discuss the issues involved in developing a set of key indicators to be
included in a national system for the United States, GAO, in cooperation
with the National Academies, convened the Forum on Key National Indicators
on February 27, 2003, in Washington, D. C. The forum was an attempt to
bring more valuable facts to bear on decision making by the public and its
leaders. The forum was not intended to decide issues, set priorities, or
determine resource allocations* which are the province of the nation*s
duly chosen representatives.

The purpose of the forum was to have a rich and meaningful discussion on
whether and how to develop a key national indicator system for the United
States by focusing on four key questions:

 How are the world*s leading democracies measuring national performance?

 What might the United States do to improve its approach and why?  What
are important areas to measure in assessing U. S. national

performance?  How might new U. S. approaches be led and implemented? GAO
and the National Academies designed this venture to bring together a
multidisciplinary, multisector group of producers and users of public
information with a wide variety of perspectives. The invited participants
were national leaders and experts from the business, education,
foundation, government, labor, media, minority, scientific, and statistics
communities. Invitations were also extended to chairmen and ranking
minority members of relevant congressional committees. (See app. I for a
list of participants.) Comptroller General David M. Walker comoderated the
forum with the Honorable Thomas Sawyer, former Congressman from Ohio. 1

As agreed by the participants, the purpose of the discussion was to engage
in an open, not for attribution dialogue. However, one participant is
identified in the report because this individual provided a presentation
that was critical to the forum*s discussion. Other than this one
individual, this report summarizes the collective discussion and does not
necessarily represent the views of any individual participant, GAO, or the
National Academies.

1 Mr. Sawyer served in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1987 to
2002 and chaired the Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, and Postal
Personnel, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, in the 101st,
102nd, and 103rd Congresses. Prior to his congressional service, Mr.
Sawyer served as Mayor of the City of Akron, Ohio, and as a Representative
in the Ohio House of Representatives.

In addition to summarizing the forum participants* collective discussion,
this report highlights the research conducted in preparation for the forum
and follow- on discussions with participants. Developing and preparing for
the forum was an intensive 6- month effort. GAO staff, led by Christopher
Hoenig, Director, Strategic Issues, researched indicator systems,
conducted a series of interviews with producers and users of information,
and wrote background papers on the history and state of the practice of

indicator systems. A preparatory planning meeting and subsequent
conversations were held with representatives of the National Academies to
help frame the questions and objectives of the forum. Experts identified
by the National Academies also prepared background papers for the forum.
Also, GAO, in cooperation with the National Academies, commissioned Dr.

Martha Farnsworth Riche 2 to independently develop a straw proposal of a
key national indicator system to facilitate discussion among the forum*s
participants. A selected bibliography on indicator systems is included in
appendix III, and selected Web sites on indicator systems are included in
appendix IV of this report.

Limitations and The dialogue as summarized in this report should be
interpreted in the

Qualifications Concerning context of five key limitations and
qualifications.

the Forum First, the forum was only an initial step in a possible long-
term, evolving

effort to develop and sustain a key national indicator system. Its purpose
was to begin a dialogue on an extremely complex topic. Although many
leaders, institutions and points of view were represented, many more will
need to be involved* as follow- up efforts proceed* to start representing
the extraordinary diversity of knowledge and opinion in our nation. This
is especially true when it comes to choosing aspects of U. S. society for
which

it is important to develop indicators. Additionally, the involvement of
the federal government, and particularly Congress, will be crucial.

Second, even though GAO, in cooperation with the National Academies,
conducted preliminary research and heard from national experts in their
fields, a day*s conversation cannot represent the current state of the
practice in this vast arena. More thought, discussion, and research must
be

2 Dr. Riche served as Director of the U. S. Census Bureau from 1994 to
1998. Prior to being appointed Director, she was a founding editor of
American Demographics, Director of Policy Studies for the Population
Reference Bureau, and an economist with the U. S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Dr. Riche is currently a Principal with Farnsworth Riche
Associates.

done to develop greater agreement on what we really know, what needs to be
done, and how to do it.

Third, several presentations were made regarding (1) the lessons learned
from other indicator efforts, (2) a proposal for a draft version of an
indicator system for the United States, and (3) a potential organizational
model in the areas of children and aging that could be replicated in other
topical areas (e. g., public safety and governance). These presentations
represented individual opinions, not a broad consensus or any formal
endorsement by the cosponsoring or participating institutions. More
collaborative work must be done to move from these starting points toward
more definitive accomplishments.

Fourth, any key national indicator system that would be developed as a
result of follow- on efforts to the forum would, of necessity, build on
the vast amount of current information already available, from the federal
statistical system, the nonprofit and commercial sectors, and the many
efforts currently operating below the national level. Many state,
regional, and local governments and nonprofits working either in
partnership or alone have developed and are using indicator systems. Yet
at the same time, working on existing data alone would limit the
opportunity to raise

new questions and issues and develop new information sources. Fifth,
because of the extraordinary diversity and quality efforts in specialized
or topical information areas (e. g., education and health care) throughout
the United States, this forum generally concentrated on bringing together
generalists who could help think through how to organize a more
comprehensive approach. As a result, a large number of leading edge
individuals, institutions, and networks involved in specialized efforts
could not be included for reasons of scope. This is an important
limitation of the forum. Any successful effort to develop a national
system must find a process and structure for including both specialized
and comprehensive approaches. It must also build on and aid current
efforts as well as

developing new lines of effort. This has yet to be done and will require
broad involvement of those specialized organizations that recognize the
potential for mutual gain in such an effort.

Forum Summary The five key limitations and qualifications described
earlier provide contextual boundaries. Nevertheless, the forum provided a
rich dialogue on

indicator systems and participants produced strong messages on each of the
four questions. Those messages are highlighted below.

Developing Key National While there is no generally accepted
comprehensive, integrated indicator

Indicators for the United system at the national level, a wide variety of
indicator systems exist in the

States is Important United States. However, these indicator systems either
focus on

specialized or topical areas, such as health or education, or focus on a
regional, state, or community level. There was broad agreement among the
forum*s participants that the issue of developing a key national indicator

system is important but that further work needs to be done on what needs
to change and why.

 A straw proposal for a comprehensive indicator set* called USA Series
0.5* was presented at the forum, and participants acknowledged it to be a
good starting point for building what might eventually be a broadly
supported USA Series 1.0 indicator set.

 Several possible models were discussed that could offer useful lessons
for developing a national indicator system* including the leading economic
indicators as well as indicator systems on health, children, and aging.

 A broad range of issues were discussed that would need to be addressed
to develop a useful key indicator system* including the need to define
purpose and audience; the need for public outreach, sophisticated
communications, and technology; and the importance of data availability
and quality.

A Broad Range of While the range of information areas that participants
considered

Information Areas Are important about the U. S. was extremely broad, there
was little argument

Considered Significant that an expedient first step is to try and assemble
a set of *core* indicators

from existing data to include within a national system. However, there was
also significant enthusiasm about: (1) refining information areas included
in the straw proposal and (2) identifying additional information areas.
The term *information area* refers to a body of knowledge including
existing data, questions, and ongoing research* that is meaningful in
understanding U. S. society.

 A core group of information areas that could serve as a starting point
for an evolving system* USA Series 0.5* was discussed. Independently
developed by Dr. Riche, USA Series 0. 5 included 11 information areas:
community, crime, ecology, education, governance, health, the

macroeconomy, security, social support, sustainability, and transparency.

 To move to a USA Series 1.0, participants identified refinements to a
majority of the USA Series 0.5 information areas. For example,
participants thought the governance information area needed to include

indicators on civic engagement. They also proposed the addition of 4
information areas: communications, diversity, individual values, and
socioeconomic mobility. However, this list of information areas was not
considered exhaustive since it was a first attempt to identify specific
information areas to be included in a national indicator system.

A Rich History of Indicator There is a long history of efforts around the
world by leading democracies

Systems Warrants Collective to develop and sustain indicator systems.
However, no generally accepted, Research

comprehensive approach yet exists in a society as large and diversified in
its system of governance as the United States. Research on what can be
learned from past and present systems would be essential to deriving
useful implications for a possible United States system.

 A multitude of specialized and comprehensive efforts are ongoing in the
United States at the national, regional, state, and local levels as well
as in other democracies* such as Australia and Canada. For example, within
the United States, there is an indicator system to nationally assess the
well- being of children and the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and
Family Statistics annually reports on the data from this system.

 Despite the activity, there appear to be few common sources of
comprehensive research or communities of practice, either nationally or
globally, to facilitate knowledge sharing. Furthermore, there are
limitations in inferring lessons from countries of different size,
diversity, and political- economic structures than the United States.

 However, some lessons have already been learned. Clearly the purpose of
measurement, the process of deciding what to measure, and determining who
will truly benefit from the data are as critical as what to measure and
how to define specific indicators and technical methods.

A United States Initiative Participants agreed that developing a key
national indicator system would

Must Build on Past Lessons require a combination of applying the essential
lessons from past efforts

and Current Efforts and determining how to engage constructively with the
many efforts

currently under way.  Any United States system must be flexible and
evolve to allow for the

rapid rate of change in our society, the complexity of the endeavor, and
the wide variety of perspectives that will need to be reflected.

 An effort to develop a key national indicator system must not supplant
nor compete with the many existing efforts under way in the areas
identified by participants but should build on them.

 A comprehensive system for the United States must be appropriately
focused, have a definable audience, be independent, pay attention to
quality issues, and be adequately funded both in terms of its

development and sustainability.  After the forum, an informal national
coordinating committee of public

and private sector institutions was constituted to begin organizing a
national initiative and serve as the temporary means of facilitating
dialogue, work and financing. Because this effort is in its early stages,
the following list should not be misinterpreted as being complete or
exclusive. It simply shows the institutions that, to date, have
volunteered: the American Association of Universities (AAU), The
Conference Board, the Council for Excellence in Government, GAO, the
International City/ County Management Association (ICMA), The National
Academies, the National Association of Asian American Professionals, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the White House Council on
Environmental Quality. The committee*s first meeting will take place in
the spring of 2003 in Washington, D. C.

How Are the World*s Because of the broad scope of this question, most of
the material in this

Leading Democracies section represents preparatory research that was
provided to participants

prior to the forum as background and context. A summary of this research
Measuring National

was presented briefly at the beginning of the forum. Performance?

Many leading democracies around the world as well as major international
institutions are involved in efforts to develop specialized and
comprehensive indicator systems of societal performance. Specialized
indicator systems focus on specific topics or information areas, such as
health, education, or children while comprehensive indicator systems

focus on several information areas, generally within the broader
categories of economic, social, and environmental arenas. Additionally, a
multitude of both specialized and comprehensive indicator systems are
going on in the United States at the local, state, regional, and national
levels. Some of

these systems have been in place for decades and some have emerged in only
the last few years.

Some involved in these systems attribute the level of activity to the
enabling possibilities created by data integration and presentation
technologies (e. g., the World Wide Web). Others mention the increasing
demand for cross- sector, cross- border responses to fiscal and other
challenges that require new, integrated sources of data as well as new
types of information. There appear to be few common sources of broad
research

on comprehensive systems (either on a national or global level) in a
position to facilitate knowledge sharing. In contrast, there are numerous
communities of practice dedicated to individual specialized systems.

Forum discussion of indicator systems by other countries and the United
States focused on the state of the practice of current indicator systems,
observations on indicator systems, and past efforts in the United States
to develop national indicator systems.

State of the Practice of GAO found that a key aspect of the current state
of the practice involves

Current Indicator Systems comprehensive and specialized (i. e., topical)
categories of indicator

systems representing a wide range of maturities from formative to
advanced. These systems also vary in the number of indicators, ranging
from 19 to over 400.

Several democracies, such as Canada and Australia, use comprehensive
indicator systems and focus on information areas such as economic

opportunities and innovation, the strength and safety of communities,
national wealth, and national income. Within these information areas are
indicators ranging from real national net wealth per capita and real
disposable income per capita to life expectancy at birth and literacy.

Several states and communities within the United States, such as the State
of Minnesota and the metropolitan area of Boston, also use comprehensive
indicator systems. These indicator systems focus on information areas such
as public safety, housing, and community and democracy and include
indicators ranging from growth in gross state product and unemployment
rate to volunteer time and prenatal care.

Comprehensive indicator systems have two primary characteristics. One
characteristic is creating an overall picture of how a community (or
region, nation, etc.) is doing. The second characteristic is showing the

interconnectedness of various key information areas, such as the
interrelationship between economic development and environmental impact.
Through both these characteristics, a comprehensive indicator system
allows for a deeper understanding of what is really happening in a society
and significantly broadens the availability of that knowledge. Different
entities take an individualized approach to grouping together key
specialized information areas. For example, Australia*s system includes
biodiversity, crime, economic disadvantage and inequality, education and
training, health, land, national income, national wealth, social
attachment, water, and work.

Table 1 provides details on several illustrative examples of comprehensive
indicator systems regarding who reports the data, sources of the data,
their purpose, the first year a system*s data were reported, and frequency
of reporting updates. The table also identifies the scale of the system
(i. e., national, regional, or local) that refers to the primary focus of
the information being reported. However, larger scale efforts (e. g.,
national) can in some cases be cumulative, including state and/ or local
data.

Table 1: Illustrative Comprehensive Indicator Systems Year report
Frequency of Indicator system Reported by Data sources Scale Purpose first
issued report updates

Canada*s

Treasury Board Canadian

National To provide information 1994 Yearly

Performance 2002 of Canada government on trends in well- being

agencies and the and to make Organisation for

comparisons Economic Cooperation internationally.

and Development

Measuring

Australian Australian

National To provide information 2002 Annual updates

Australia*s Progress

Bureau of government

on national progress in planned

2002

Statistics agencies

economic, social, and environmental areas.

Minnesota Minnesota Federal agencies, State To assess progress

1991 Periodically b

Milestones 2002 Planning a Minnesota state toward achieving 19 agencies,
and state goals in four universities

areas: increasing the health and well- being of Minnesotans, enhancing
community

and democracy in the state, protecting the environment, and improving
government.

Achieving the

Oregon Federal agencies State To provide information

1989 Biennially

Oregon Shines

Progress and Oregon state on the economic,

Vision: The 2001

Board c agencies

social, and

Benchmark

environmental health

Performance

of the state in relation

Report

to its goals.

The Wisdom of Our

The Boston Federal agencies, Local To provide information

2000 Biennially

Choices: Boston*s

Foundation Massachusetts on the health and well

Indicators of

state agencies, being of Boston, its

Progress, Change

Boston city neighborhoods, and

and Sustainability

agencies, the region as a whole.

2000

universities, and community- based organizations

Source: GAO. a Minnesota Planning is a state agency created by the
Minnesota legislature in 1991.

b Updated in 1993, 1996, 1998, and 2002. c The Oregon Progress Board was
created by the legislature in 1989 to develop and implement a state
strategic plan.

Specialized indicator systems focus on specific subjects or topical areas,
such as health status, the environment, the status of children, and aging
on multinational, national, or local scales. Table 2 provides details on
several

illustrative examples of specialized indicator systems.

Table 2: Illustrative Specialized Indicator Systems Year report Frequency
of Indicator system Reported by Data sources Scale Purpose first issued
report updates

America*s

Federal Interagency Federal agencies National To provide

1997 Annually

Children: Key

Forum on Child and information on the

National Indicators

Family Statistics well- being of

of Well- Being 2002

children.

Healthy People Department of Federal agencies National To provide
indicators

1979 Once a decade a

2010 Health and Human of progress on a Services

variety of health policy objectives.

Kids Count 2002

The Annie E. Casey Federal agencies National To track the well 1990
Annually

Data Book Foundation being of youth. Older Americans

Federal Interagency Federal agencies National To track the health

2000 Every 3 to 5

2000: Key

Forum on Aging and well- being of

years

Indicators of Well

Related Statistics Americans aged 65 Being

and over.

The State of the The H. John Heinz Federal and state National To provide

2002 Annually; next

Nation*s III Center for agencies, private information on the

full addition in

Ecosystems:

Science, Economics organizations, and state of the 2007

Measuring the

and the universities

ecosystems of the

Lands, Waters, and

Environment United States.

Living Resources of the United States

The State of the UNICEF United Nations* Multinational To present 1980
Annually

World*s Children agencies, national information on the

2003

governments, and economic and social the World Bank

well- being of children worldwide.

The World Health

World Health United Nations* Multinational To measure the

1995 Annually

Report 2002 Organization agencies, national amount of disease,
governments, and

disability, and health the Organisation that can be attributed for
Economic Co to certain risks and to operation and

calculate how much Development

of the burden is Statistics

preventable. Source: GAO

a Originally, published in 1979 as Healthy People: The Surgeon General*s
Report, updated in 1980 as

Promoting Health/ Preventing Disease: Objectives for the Nation and in
1990 as Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease
Prevention Objectives.

Regardless of whether they are comprehensive or specialized, indicator
systems vary in terms of data sources and organizations that report on
these systems. As shown in tables 1 and 2, indicator systems can include
data from a variety of sources such as the federal government, local
government, and nongovernmental organizations. For example, Minnesota
Milestones 3 uses data from three primary sources: federal agencies, such
as the U. S. Bureau of the Census and the U. S. Energy Information
Administration; state agencies such as Minnesota*s departments of Revenue
and Children, Families and Learning; and educational institutions, such as
the University of Minnesota.

Information on some systems are reported through government agencies,
others through private organizations, and some use a combination of both.

America*s Children 4 and Measuring Australia*s Progress 5 were both
produced by government agencies. A private foundation with the extensive
participation of government agencies produced The State of the Nation*s
Ecosystems 6 while another private foundation produced Kids Count. 7 A

private foundation, the city of Boston, and the Metropolitan Planning
Council jointly produced The Wisdom of Our Choices. 8 Healthy People 2010
9 was produced through a public- private partnership between federal 3
Minnesota Planning, Minnesota Milestones 2002 (St. Paul, Minn.: Minnesota
Planning, 2002). http:// www. mnplan. state. mn. us/ mm/ index. html
(downloaded Jan. 2003). 4 Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family
Statistics, America*s Children: Key National Indicators of Well- Being
2002 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 2002). http://
childstats. gov (downloaded Jan. 2003).

5 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Measuring Australia*s Progress 2002:
Indicators of Australia*s Progress http:// www. abs. gov. au/ Ausstats/
abs% 40. nsf/ 94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/ b66ebefc05

cdf265ca256bdc001223ec! OpenDocument (downloaded Jan. 2003). 6 The State
of the Nation*s Ecosystems: Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living
Resources of the United States (Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University
Press, 2002). http:// www. heinzctr. org/ ecosystems/ index. htm
(downloaded Jan. 2003).

7 Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count Data Book 2002 (Baltimore, Md.:
2002). http:// www. aecf. org/ kidscount/ kc2002/ (downloaded Jan. 2002).
8 The Boston Foundation, The Wisdom of Our Choices: Boston*s Indicators of
Progress, Change and Sustainability 2000, http:// www. tbf. org/ boston/
index. html (downloaded Feb. 2003).

9 Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health (Washington, D.
C.: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services: 2000), http:// www.
healthypeople. gov/ (downloaded Dec. 2002).

agencies, local communities, and professional and trade associations from
the health care field.

One characteristic that many indicator systems share is that collaboration
among various groups was important to their creation. Sometimes the
cooperation was across government agencies and sometimes among
nongovernmental organizations and government agencies. For example,

Older Americans 2000 10 was produced by a coalition of nine federal
agencies 11 and supplemented by substantial contributions from three other
federal agencies. 12 Also, The Wisdom of Our Choices is another example of
collaboration among various organizations. This indicator system is
maintained and reported on by the Boston Foundation, the City of Boston,
and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council with the assistance of local
businesses, educational institutions, and community- based organizations.

Observations on Indicator Four primary observations on indicator systems
emerged based on forum

Systems discussions and related research. The first observation concerns
the

purposes of indicator systems. Generally, there are, at a minimum, three
broad purposes for indicator systems that are not mutually exclusive.
These three purposes are as follows:

 Accelerate learning: This type of indicator system contributes to
scientific understanding as well as enhances the awareness, insight, and
foresight provided to leadership and the public.

 Assess position and progress: This type of indicator system involves a
broad, constituent- focused aim and requires a generally accepted 10
Federal Interagency Forum on Aging Related Statistics, Older Americans
2000: Key

Indicators of Well Being (Washington, D. C.: 2000), http:// www.
agingstats. gov/ chartbook2000/ default. htm (downloaded Jan. 2003).

11 These nine agencies are the Administration on Aging, the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, the U. S. Bureau of the Census, the Department of Health
and Human Services* Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation, the Health Care Financing Administration,

the National Center for Health Statistics, the National Institute on
Aging, OMB, and the Social Security Administration. 12 The three agencies
are the Department of Agriculture*s Center for Nutrition Policy and
Promotion, the Department of Justice*s Bureau of Justice Statistics, and
the Department of Transportation*s National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.

common vision and comprehensive framework that helps uncover especially
challenging problems and beneficial opportunities.

 Measure performance: This type of indicator system is specifically
intended to determine to what degree institutions or projects are
successful and are producing appropriate benefits for the resources they
use.

The second observation was that, at the national level, social and
environmental indicators have not received as much attention as other
types of indicators. Specifically, traditional economic and business
indicators have dominated indicator efforts. As an example, while there is
a monthly report on economic indicators and estimates of Gross Domestic
Product are released quarterly, reports on indicators of important social
topics, such as teenage depression and suicides, are relatively more
scarce and less frequent. Additionally, economic indicators give a limited
view of

how the country is doing. For instance, Gross Domestic Product, one
traditional economic indicator, does not capture broad quality of life
issues.

The third observation was that many indicator systems focus mainly on
objective measures as opposed to indicators that reflect the subjective
perceptions of the public. For example, 29 of the 307 indicators included
in France*s indicator report appear to be subjective measures. The United

Kingdom*s indicator report has over 100 indicators, 3 of which are
subjective measures. While both types of measures are derived using
scientific methods, indicators that reflect subjective perceptions are
viewed as important to include along with objective measures to provide an
evaluation of the state of a city or a nation that takes account of
diverse public points of view.

The fourth observation was that criteria have been developed to help frame
the design of national indicator systems. Specifically, several countries
followed the so- called *Bellagio Principles* in developing their overall
indicator systems. 13 These 10 principles are that assessment of progress
(1) are guided by a clear vision and goals, (2) review the whole system as
well as its parts and recognition of the interaction among the parts,

13 These principles were developed as guidelines for the whole process*
choice and design of indicators, their interpretation, and communication
of results* to measure and assess progress toward sustainable development.
They were developed in 1996 at an international meeting of measurement
practitioners and researchers at the Rockefeller Foundation*s Study and
Conference Center in Bellagio, Italy.

(3) consider equity and disparity within the current population and over
generations, (4) have adequate scope, (5) have practical focus, (6)
involves openness, (7) have effective communication, (8) involve broad
participation, (9) be an ongoing assessment, and (10) provide
institutional capacity.

The Development of GAO found that the development of national indicators
in the United States

Indicators in the United over the last 75 years has followed three fairly
discrete trajectories

States focusing on economic, social, and environmental issues. Major
concerns

facing the nation provided the impetus for each of these trajectories and
led to three indicator traditions.

 The Great Depression and World War II put a host of economic indicators
in wide currency.

 The Great Society and civil rights movements enhanced efforts to fashion
a wider body of social indicators.  The emergence of the environmental
movement brought indicators to measure air and water quality. Solely for
the purpose of illustration, table 3 selectively identifies highlights of
these three indicator traditions during the 20th century. It is worth
pointing out that the inherent strength of the current United States
system is its diversity and flexibility. There are numerous specialized
and comprehensive indicator systems, driven by either executive or
grassroots leadership, in the public and private sectors that have shaped
the variety of available information in our society. This table is not
exhaustive, nor can it do justice to the diversity of those efforts.
However, these highlights do demonstrate three* among possible others*
recognizable traditions in the development of the United States* indicator
systems.

Table 3: Selected Highlights of Indicator Traditions in the United States
during the 20th Century Tradition Illustrative examples

Economic indicators National Income and Product Accounts were initially
formulated to account for flow of commodities and services during World
War II. They provide a base for key economic indicators such as Gross
Domestic Product.

Business Cycle Indicators, created in the 1930s by the National Bureau of
Economic Research, have been compiled by the Conference Board since 1995.
The Conference Board determines the specific data series included in the
composite leading, coincident, and lagging indicators such as stock
prices, employment, and change in consumer prices for services,
respectively.

The Employment Act of 1946 a committed the federal government to the goals
of full employment and economic stability. The act created the Council of
Economic Advisors that, in 1947, released the first Economic Report to the
President. Social indicators The U. S. Department of Labor, Children*s
Bureau*s b Handbook of Federal Statistics of Children, c published

in 1913, attempted to bring together *scattered* federal data and other
information on children*s welfare. The Handbook was an early effort to
develop indicators for consistent monitoring of children and health. A
proposed bill called the Full Opportunity and Social Accounting Act d was
first introduced in 1967. Although, the bill was never passed, it called
for an annual social report from the President to the Congress and helped
focus a national dialogue on social indicators. The Department of Health,
Education and Welfare published a report, in 1969, on social indicators
called

Toward a Social Report. e The report was prepared at the direction of
President Johnson who sought *ways to improve the nation*s ability to
chart its social progress.* In 1973, the federal statistical agencies
published a report on social indicators. Subsequent reports on social
indicators were published in 1976 and 1980.

Environmental indicators The National Environmental Policy Act f (NEPA)
was signed into law on January 1, 1970, and required federal agencies to
assess the impacts of their decisions on the natural environment. While
NEPA did not establish any specific indicators, it does require that
federal agencies assess the environmental effects of major federal actions
significantly affecting the environment. NEPA also established the Council
on Environmental Quality to advise the President on environmental matters
and to annually report on the

state of the environment. During the same year, the Environmental
Protection Agency* an independent agency to establish and enforce federal
air standards and water pollution control laws and to monitor the
environment* was created. The Clean Air Act of 1970 g was passed that year
as well. These initiatives focused national attention on indicators of
environmental quality.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 h suggests indicators of species
viability, such as size and geographical distribution of species*
populations and their habitats. These indicators can be used as the basis
for avoiding the extinction of species. Source: GAO.

a Pub. L. 79- 304, Feb. 20, 1946. b The Children*s Bureau, created in
1912, is now located within the U. S. Department of Health and Human
Services* Administration for Children and Families, Administration on
Children, Youth and Families. It is responsible for assisting states in
delivering child welfare services. c U. S. Department of Labor, Children*s
Bureau, Handbook of Federal Statistics of Children

(Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1913).

d 90th Congress, S. 843. e U. S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare (HEW) (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1969).
f 42 U. S. C. S:S: 4321 * 4347.

g 42 U. S. C. S:S: 7401 * 7671q. h 16 U. S. C. S:S: 1531 * 1544.

While much of the development of national indicators in the United States
has focused on specific economic, social, or environmental concerns, the
importance of interrelationships among these dimensions is growing. For
example, economists are working to develop new measures of economic
performance that take into account various social and environmental costs.
While initial interest in social indicators began as a challenge to the
centrality of economic indicators in policy discussions, the focus of the

social indicator tradition expanded through the development of frameworks
to integrate economic as well as social indicators. Striving to understand
the impact of human society on the environment involves focusing on the
interrelationships among economic, social, and environmental processes.

What Might the United After reviewing research on how the world*s
democracies are tackling

States Do to Improve indicator development, the bulk of the forum*s
discussion turned to

implications and issues for the United States. Its Approach and Why?

The participants generally agreed that an improved, more comprehensive
approach to assessing the nation*s position and progress should be
developed. They noted that such an approach should cover a wide variety of
information areas* ranging from the macroeconomy and social support to
education and health. In addition to identifying a variety of ideas for
improving the nation*s approach, the Federal Interagency Forum on Child
and Family Statistics was discussed as a potential process/ structure
model to emulate. A straw proposal of a indicator system for the United
States was presented, leading to much fruitful dialogue on what can be
done with existing data (e. g., on economics and children) as well as what
should be

done to develop new information in important, but neglected areas (e. g.,
personal and national security and socioeconomic mobility). Ideas to
Improve the United

The participants agreed that a more comprehensive system for measuring
States* Approach national performance could be beneficial. They also
recognized that the process of generating indicators for a national system
is as important as the specific indicators that would be identified and
measured as a result of the process. Hence, the process should be as
inclusive as possible, and this inclusiveness should show itself from the
very beginning of any effort. For example, state and local governments
should have significant roles and responsibilities in helping to develop
and implement national indicators, in part because the federal government
has devolved responsibilities for

many social issues to state and local governments. Several additional
ideas for improving the United States* approach to measuring national
progress were raised by participants. These ideas fell into four broad
categories: (1) key questions for framing the agenda for a new system, (2)
public outreach, (3) communication and dissemination, and (4) key data
issues.

Key questions for the future agenda: Participants proposed a variety of
questions to help frame an agenda for the possible development of a key
national indicator system for the United States. These questions included
the following:

 What is the purpose and value of the national indicator system to be
developed? In particular, what do we need to do differently, why, and what
net risk- adjusted benefits might the system achieve?

 Who are the audiences (e. g., general public, educators, policymakers,
and professionals), and how will they benefit?

 What would a broadly accessible and useful collection of key national
indicators look like?

 How would the indicator system be designed, developed, implemented,
operated, used, improved, and communicated? In particular, how will the
need to build short- term momentum be balanced against the need for
longer- term persistence and perspective on the initiative?

 What data exist to serve as a foundation for a national effort? Are
there important data gaps, and what is the quality of the available data?

 What is an appropriate standard for progress, and what are the potential
unintended consequences or behavior changes from efforts to demonstrate
progress?

 What is the response system and how does it work when an indicator
increases or decreases? Is there a response system in place to make use of
national indicators in everyday life?

 What are the experiences of other countries regarding unintended
consequences of meeting performance measures?

 Are there examples of how national indicators have been used to inform
decision making?  How much time and how many resources will a national
effort require? How will those resources be allocated to alternative uses,
such as making existing indicators more widely available and usable by
broader

audiences versus building existing institutional capacity to produce more
and better indicators?

 Do the nation*s leading institutions (e. g., governmental, commercial,
and nonprofit organizations) have the capacity to carry out this effort?

Public outreach: Developing an indicator system requires extensive
outreach to targeted audiences. Such audiences could include some or all
of the following: the general public, public leaders, the media,
educational institutions, scientific and professional communities, and
public interest groups. To be useful, indicators must have consistent form
and be clear, easy to digest, user- friendly, and timely. The data also
need to be provided in the appropriate context rather than merely
presented in freestanding charts or tables. And there must be extensive
attention paid to the

processes, not only of audience understanding but assent to the importance
of the information areas and indicators eventually chosen.

Communication and dissemination: Communicating and disseminating
information is essential to sustaining interest in any indicator system.
However, this can involve significant time and resources. The media will

play a key role in communication and dissemination. A carefully thought
out approach to working with the media will be essential for any degree of
success. Some organizations, such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation, commit
significant financial resources to communicating and marketing indicator
information. Another issue raised was a strategic question of

how the *marginal dollar* of a key indicator effort should really be
spent. For instance, in some cases it may be more valuable to communicate
existing information for broader impact than to develop new sources of
information.

Key data issues: The federal statistical system and federal programs
produce much data, and they are relied on by the nation. The data are
widely accepted because they are *official.* The data are produced using
generally accepted practices and principles and are based on sound
statistical methodologies for the purposes for which the data were
produced. There is also a substantial amount of data produced by the
private sector, of which an important component is viewed as proprietary,
not public. Hence, two key data issues are quality and availability. In
terms of quality, since there is a known quality of official statistics
and sometimes an unknown quality of private statistics, how can this
variation in knowledge of data quality be addressed so both can be used
for a national indicator system? In terms of availability, if certain
proprietary information were essential for assessing the position and
progress of the nation, how would those data be made more widely
available? There needs to be a collective effort to address both of these
data issues if a national indicator system is to be successful.

A Process/ Structure Model Several existing models could be used as
reference points for designing a

for Developing a National United States indicator system. Two current
examples cited were the

Indicator System federal interagency forums on (1) child and family
statistics and (2) aging-

related statistics. A more detailed discussion centered on the Federal
Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. This was presented as an
example from the United States* federal statistical system of a process
and organizational structure for developing indicators within a
specialized area. It should be noted that, at this stage, little
discussion of these models concerned the crucial issue of funding, which
will be vital to elucidate in order to make any practical progress on
applying their lessons to a national effort.

In 1994, seven agencies joined together to create the Federal Interagency
Forum on Child and Family Statistics (Interagency Forum). Three years
later the Interagency Forum was formally established by an Executive Order
and directed to develop priorities for collecting enhanced data on
children and youth, improve the reporting and dissemination of information
on the status of children to the policy community and the

general public, and produce more complete data on children at the state
and local levels. The Interagency Forum now has participants from 20
agencies as well as partners in private research organizations. It holds
several public hearings with agency members each year to discuss key
issues and ideas.

Annually, the Interagency Forum produces a report called America*s
Children: Key National Indicators of Well- Being. The 2002 report is the
group*s sixth annual report to the nation on the condition of children in
America. The Interagency Forum*s report presents 24 key indicators on
important aspects of children*s lives, including their economic security,

health, behavior and social environment, and education. It also presents
eight contextual measures that describe changes in the characteristics of
the population as well as in children*s family settings and living

arrangements. The Interagency Forum chose the indicators through careful
examination of available data. Data were drawn from national surveys and
vital records. Input on which indicators to choose was also sought from
the federal policy- making community, foundations, academic researchers,
and state and local children*s service providers. The implication of this
discussion was that the Interagency Forum could be studied and replicated
as a model for other information areas for the United States* new
approach.

A Straw Proposal for a New Commissioned by GAO, in cooperation with the
National Academies, Dr.

National Indicator System Riche produced an independent straw proposal for
a key national indicator

system called USA Series 0.5. USA Series 0. 5 served as a starting point
for the forum*s participants to discuss the framework of a key national
indicator system and, in the future, move to the next version of an
indicator system. Moving to an initial version of a national indicator
system, identified as USA Series 1.0, would involve formal and
institutional consensus, audience input, and would be the first step
toward an evolving key national indicator system.

Dr. Riche developed a group of draft principles for developing a key
national indicator system. These principles included the following:

 The set of indicators is about the nation, not just the government:
Defining key national indicators goes beyond any one sector or level of
government.  If the set of indicators is about the nation, it must
incorporate the

nation*s components. Local, state, regional and federal governments, as
well as private for- profit and not- for- profit sectors should work to
coordinate and integrate their own efforts into a national perspective.

 If the set of indicators is national and intended to drive decision
making, it must be comprehensive. It should be comprehensive, not just
specialized and it must integrate the links and interactions between

component measures.  If the set of indicators is to be useful, the
information must be targeted

and trusted. The set of indicators should be selected based on specific
criteria. These criteria might include the significance, objectivity,
accuracy, scope, timeliness, accessibility, clarity, efficiency,
comparability, and contextual sophistication of a set of indicators.

 If the set of indicators is to be credible, it must be both science-
based and understandable. The set of indicators should help formulate
questions about what knowledge is needed so sensible scientific statements
can be made and a framework on key areas of research and investigation can
be developed.

 If the set of indicators is to be used to monitor progress, the public
must be both involved and included. This principle implies a need for
polling and related research to define what Americans want for their
country.

 If the set of indicators is to have staying power, it must acknowledge
the reality of resource constraints and the corresponding need for
judgment and compromise. A true national effort will need to be based on
some

type of public/ private partnership. No one sector of society can *own*
the effort.

Additionally, three basic types of indicator approaches were described
since the United States* current approach for measuring performance
includes all three approaches. These three approaches are as follows:

 Composite indicators: This approach combines information from several
different indicators into a single composite number. An example of this
approach is the United Nations* annual Human Development Index. The
composite approach is a tool for communicating directional progress to a
large audience, especially in a comparative context. However, composite
numbers require a

consensus on weighting the different indicators that is hard to achieve. 
A unified, balance sheet of indicators: This approach uses an

accounting framework and presents data in a unified system of accounts.
Under this approach, the indicators are both gathered and presented within
a coherent hierarchical system. Most countries have a similar set of
economic accounts, such as the United States* National Income and Product
Accounts, that are linked at a certain level of detail by the United
Nations- sponsored System of National Accounts.

 A suite of indicators: This approach groups information areas and key
indicators together. Through use of a suite approach, the links between
the information areas can be discussed even though not every information
area needs to be fully developed as a measure.

What the proposal is: USA Series 0.5 specifically addresses areas in which
national performance might be measured. It includes a suite of indicators
that has been prominent in past efforts in this country. It also includes
indicators from other countries whose economic and social systems are, in
some respects, comparable to our own. The proposal includes information
areas that are developing as well as those that are advanced.

What the proposal is not: USA Series 0.5 is not systems based because it
lacks a firm mission statement and conceptual framework and does not
depend on any particular structure. It does not have an identified
audience. USA Series 0.5 does not presume to be complete in terms of
including the

many information areas that might likely be incorporated into later
versions. It does not attempt to propose indicators for new or *formative*
information areas that have, by definition, large knowledge gaps because
they are taking shape based on new questions being asked about our nation
and our world.

Overview of the proposal: USA Series 0.5 consists of three broad
categories* economic, social, and environmental. Within these three
categories are a variety of information areas that are classified, in Dr.
Riche*s opinion, by how well data associated with a specific information
area are developed. The three classifications of the development stages of
information areas are (1) advanced, (2) developing, and (3) formative.
This development construct is not tested and there is no consensus as to
which information areas are most advanced. The specific structure of the
proposal* including 11 specialized information areas* is shown in table 4
below. The proposal also included specific indicators for the advanced and
developing information areas, such as crime, ecology, education, and
governance. (See app. II.) There were no specific indicators chosen for
the information areas that were considered to be in the formative stage
(e. g.,

sustainability, transparency, and security).

Table 4: Structure of USA Series 0. 5 Information area development stage
Economic Social Environmental

Advanced Macroeconomy Education Health Crime Social Support

Developing Community Ecology

Governance Formative Sustainability Sustainability

Sustainability Transparency Transparency

Security Source: Dr. Martha Farnsworth Riche, The United States of America
Developing Key National Indicators. (Paper presented at the forum.)

In principle, advanced information areas have a great deal of reliable
data and relatively broad public and scientific consensus as to their
importance and method of production. Figure 1 shows data for life
expectancy, which illustrates the characteristics of an advanced
information area. Specifically, life expectancy data are based on well-
organized bodies of

reliable data and there is a high degree of scientific and political
consensus on their significance.

Figure 1: Life Expectancy at Birth and at Age 65 90

Years of life 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

0 1900 1920 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

At birth At age 65

Source: National Center for Health Statistics.

Note: From 1900 to 1950, no data were available for years of life at age
65.

In contrast, developing information areas have a higher proportion of
indicators that are evolving and lack a broad technical or public
consensus about significance. Greenhouse gas emissions, as shown in figure
2, is an example of a developing information area. While these emissions
have gained increasing currency in debate and policy making, they are
based on estimates of component gases and there is some scientific and
public uncertainty about their importance and possible implications.

Figure 2: U. S. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Based on Global Warming
Potential, 1990- 2000 (in Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent) 2000

Million metric tons 1500 1000

500 0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year

Carbon dioxide Methane Nitrous oxide Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons,
and sulfur hexafluoride Total Source: Energy Information Administration.
Formative information areas are new areas, on issues of potential
significance, for which data may not exist. They need pilot projects to

outline suitable information databases. An example of a formative
information area would be a measure of public confidence in personal
security. While there are some data on elements of public confidence in
personal security, a broad consensus on the definition of personal
security

does not exist. Reactions to the Proposal While the participants were
receptive to the proposal as a starting point, it

prompted several reactions. One reaction was that attention should be paid
to the process of developing the next version. While people acknowledged
the expediency and practicality of starting with existing data, most
participants wanted to work on filling in the gaps between versions 0.5
and 1.0. A participant suggested that the process that produced the
*Healthy People 2010* initiative could be a possible model of the effort.
The *Healthy People 2010* development process was described

by some as having been exhaustive. It had several advantages, including an
organized approach to automation and a human capital infrastructure at the
federal, state, and local levels. Another reaction, related to the one
above, was to suggest that it is important to have a mechanism or process
that would allow for creating new indicators and/ or revising existing
indicators. This mechanism or

process would need to capture the public*s changing concerns and other
changes nationally and internationally. While it would be a challenge to
do, one suggestion to address the challenge was for the system to have a
set of

*regular* indicators that will remain meaningful over time and a set of
*special* indicators that apply in specific situations.

A third reaction focused on the need to disaggregate data, which
participants considered an important but challenging task. Although
aggregated information at the national level needs to be presented, the
data also need to be disaggregated into specific categories that are
relevant to

localities and the public. This capability will also allow localities to
relate to and understand how they fit into a larger picture. Health
indicators were provided as an example. It is useful to have national data
on health. But the information is even more useful if it provides
information about health in a specific city or neighborhood. Also, careful
consideration should be given as to how data are disaggregated, since
there can be degradation of quality due to smaller sample sizes. Applying
the lenses of age, race, gender, and geographical location to indicators
facilitates identifying

trends among specific groups that are masked in aggregated data.

What Are Important While participants generally agreed that the straw
proposal*s 11

Areas to Measure in information areas were important to measure, they
thought a majority of

the areas needed refinement and enhancement. (For the specific Assessing
U. S. National indicators defined in the proposal, please see app. II)
Also, 4 additional

Performance? information areas were identified as candidates for including
in the proposal. The list of information areas that needed to be refined
or added

to the proposal was not intended to be exhaustive. Furthermore,
participants did not discuss how many indicators might be included under
each area. Instead, the proposal was meant to represent a good place to
start to build a more comprehensive national indicator system.

Information Areas That Participants identified seven information areas
included in the 0.5 proposal

Need Further Refinement that need to be further refined. These areas are
community, education,

governance, macroeconomy, security, social support, and sustainability.

Community

Discussion on this information area focused on refining the area to
include the concept of civic engagement. Civic engagement was described as
the connectedness of individuals to society and to each other. Further, it
involves social capital such as participation in social and cultural
organizations, public service, volunteering, and voting. Some participants

viewed civic engagement as an undermeasured and underappreciated area,
while others feel there is already a good deal of information available.
This suggests, as may be the case in other areas, the value of undertaking
systematic inventories of existing data. While some participants thought
civic engagement should be included within the community information area,
others thought it should be within the governance information area.

Education

Discussion on this information area focused on the need to include both
the means by which individuals can attain personal enrichment and improved
quality of life and, at the societal level, the extent to which society is
served by the educational system.

Governance

Some participants viewed this information area as being not as well
thought out as others. It should incorporate the concepts of public trust
and its relationship to institutions. It may also need to cover the
effectiveness of governance (e. g., political participation and
corruption). Within the concept of public trust, there was some discussion
about the

need to measure elements of freedom or patriotism, security and civil
liberties. The discussion of public trust and institutions encompassed
both corporations and government at all levels. Additionally, this concept

relates to the responsiveness of institutions to the perceived needs of
the public.

Macroeconomy

Discussion on this information area focused on two broad topics: (1) the
nation*s role in the world and (2) its economic well- being (e. g.,
competitive advantage). Measuring the nation*s role in the world involves
portraying and tracking the nation as a member of the world community.
This includes such issues as foreign aid by government and private
organizations, United States military presence overseas, anti- American
sentiments, and economic and cultural globalization. The concept of

competitive advantage involves measuring key economic areas, such as
technology; innovation; the mobility and flexibility of the nation*s labor
force (e. g., geographic, career, and social class mobility); the ability
to attract, retain, and develop good people; education; and trade. It was
thought that measuring the nation*s competitive advantage should involve
national, regional, state, and community levels.

Security

Participants identified this information area as needing focus on
personal, community, national, and international security. This area was
identified as a new area of focus for the nation since the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, and other terrorist threats. The area could
be approached as a subjective measure of individuals* sense of security
and as an objective measure of the extent to which important
infrastructure systems are secure. There were different views as to
whether personal security should be included within the security
information area. Some participants thought personal security was already
included in the crime information area of the proposal. Others thought
that personal security should be

included within the security information area since it was viewed as an
expanded notion of public safety given the new focus on the issue,
especially safety from terrorist threats.

Social Support

Participants identified this information area as needing to include both
the well- being of children and the well- being of the elderly* those
classified by society as dependents. Ever increasing attention is being
given to the importance of investment in all aspects of child development
(e. g., the No

Child Left Behind Act of 2001). The well- being of the elderly, a complex
but

pressing issue given the well known aging of the baby boomers, is also
receiving increased attention.

Sustainability

Participants viewed this information area as one area that does not fall
clearly within a distinct information area. It involves several
information areas and encompasses the proposal*s three broad information
categories- economic, social, and environmental. Sustainability involves
the concept of leaving a legacy for future generations as well as the
notion of environmental and social capital and liabilities.

Information Areas to Add to Participants identified four areas that should
be included in the proposal:

the Proposal communications, diversity, individual values, and
socioeconomic mobility.

Communications

Discussion on this area involved the various forms of media industry* such
as television, radio, newspapers, and the Internet* and how to determine
the impact on, and accountability of, the industry. One possible measure
suggested involved the degree of citizen access to various media sources
or types of communication (e. g., the Internet).

Diversity

Participants saw this area as one area that goes beyond the concept of
fairness to encompass the pluralistic nature of our society. Diversity, in
all its forms (e. g., population, culture, and points of view), was seen
as an asset that is consistent with the founding principles of the nation
and vital

to its health. It was agreed that this area would be possible, but very
difficult, to measure.

Individual Values

This area cuts across other areas such as community and quality of life.
However, because the concept of individual values does cut across other
areas, no agreement was reached as to whether the area should stand alone
or be included under several other areas. It was generally agreed though
that individual values could be measured.

Socioeconomic Mobility

Some participants defined this area as access to opportunities such as
education and jobs. However, when measuring access to jobs there needs to
be a distinction between access to good jobs and bad jobs. For others,
this concept had a broader meaning relating to how rapidly individuals in

the United States are moving from one standard of living to another. This
area was seen as being rooted in basic American values and as an essential
component of the *American dream.*

How Might New U. S. The last segment of the forum was devoted to
discussing how to take

Approaches Be Led meaningful action on such a challenging idea.
Recognizing that any effort

pertaining to such a large, diverse nation would of necessity be long
term, and Implemented?

the participants* discussion focused on how to develop, sustain, and fund
an effort.

Development Information areas tend to develop in an evolutionary fashion,
over relatively long periods, and in some definable stages as they reach
greater

degrees of consensus and transparency. There was wide acknowledgment that
any United States indicator system, because of the rapidly changing nature
of our society, would by definition be evolving. In other words, there
would be many successive *versions,* each one improving on the one before
it. Table 5 illustrates the possible evolution of a United States
indicator system by showing how, over time, additional information areas
can be added and developed in a cumulative fashion. Specifically, Series
1.0- 2.0 would contain not only new information areas (e. g., energy and
citizenship) but also the information areas from earlier versions (such as
education and community in Series 0.5). This table, shown as it was
presented at the forum, includes some but not all areas mentioned by the
participants as well as some used by other nations.

Table 5: Proposed Evolutionary Process for a National Indicator System
(Includes Illustrative Information Areas)

Information area Series 1.0- 2.0

Series N. 0 development stage Series 0.5 (cumulative) (cumulative)

Advanced Crime/ public safety Energy

Community Education

Labor and Ecology

Health employment

Governance Macroeconomy

Microeconomy Social support

Resource allocation Special populations

Developing Community Citizenship

Families Ecology

Competitiveness Innovation

Governance Infrastructure

Justice Wealth/ prosperity

Knowledge Well- being/ happiness

Formative Security Accountability

Arts and Culture Sustainability

Cities Civility

Transparency Diversity

Freedom Equity

Mobility Globalization

Opportunity Neighborhoods

Tr u s t Values

Source: Dr. Martha Farnsworth Riche, The United States of America
Developing Key National Indicators. (Paper presented at the forum.)

There was discussion about the scope of a *comprehensive* indicator set.
Participants observed that a comprehensive set of indicators would include
both indicators that are fairly advanced in their development as well as
indicators that are new and thus require substantial development. It would

include indicators at all levels, in all sectors, and in all disciplines.
Furthermore, it would focus on both areas where much is already known as
well as areas needing further research. This would help create a learning
agenda for developing and sustaining indicators.

Sustaining and Funding The discussion of sustaining and funding the effort
to develop a key national indicator system focused on the need for forming
a public/ private

partnership. Such a partnership would need a structure that provided a
broad, independent, flexible, and responsive base for the effort.
Participants expressed the view that unless the effort is a partnership
between public and private entities, it will not be sustained.

Participants agreed that creating a national coordinating committee and a
variety of task forces was the best governance mechanism with which to

initiate a national indicators initiative. Such an initiative would
include all forum participants and representatives from any other
institutions interested in the effort would be invited to participate. As
of May 7, 2003, the organizations that have agreed to participate are:
AAU, The Conference Board, the Council for Excellence in Government, GAO,
ICMA, The

National Academies, the National Association of Asian American
Professionals, OMB, and the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

The consensus was that the national coordinating committee should be
viewed in a facilitative and catalyst role as opposed to a day- to- day
leadership role. To help promote this role of the committee, it was agreed
that an individual committee member would chair the committee for one
meeting and then the chairmanship would rotate to another member. The
first meeting of the national coordinating committee will be held in the

spring of 2003 at the offices of the Council for Excellence in Government
and be chaired by the Council*s President.

The national coordinating committee*s most important tasks will probably
involve providing effective communications, creating a strategy, and
obtaining resources. Specifically, the committee will need to focus on
articulating the national indicator initiative*s purpose, organizing
process and structure, agreeing on governing principles, identifying
additional participants, and developing short- and long- term plans. One
participant noted, and the rest agreed, that while they voted to move
forward with this effort, there were many conceptions of what *this
effort* is. Participants noted that objectives need to be clarified and
agreement reached on how to proceed. They agreed that developing a charter
and set of principles for

the initiative would be addressed at the first meeting of the coordinating
committee. Committee task forces could focus on a variety of issues such
as conducting research, creating short- and long- term action plans,
capitalizing operations, identifying possible organizational models to
sustain the effort in the long term, and investigating communications and
technology solutions. To be successful, people with different skill sets
will need to be brought into the effort. Specifically, experts in
communication and technology, not just experts in data and indicators,
need to be involved. The exact number and functions of all the task forces
have yet to be

decided.

The funding arrangement for this effort was cited as a tremendously
important issue since it will require a substantial amount of time and
resources to start and sustain a true national effort. A brief discussion
on the topic concluded that a range of possible funding alternatives,
including private sources and federal funds, need to be studied.

Appendi Appendi xes x I

Forum Participants Derek Bok The 300th Anniversary University Professor
and President Emeritus, Harvard University Donald Borut Executive
Director, National League of Cities Charles Bowsher Former Comptroller
General of the United States, U. S. General Accounting

Office Heinrich Brungger Director, Statistics Division, The United Nations
Economic Commission for

Europe Philip M. Burgess President, National Academy of Public
Administration Lala Camerer Deputy Director, Global Access Division,
Center for Public Integrity Richard Cavanagh President, The Conference
Board E. William Colglazier Executive Officer, The National Academies Rita
Colwell Director, National Science Foundation Michael Delli Carpini
Director, Public Policy Program, The Pew Charitable Trusts Gene Dodaro
Chief Operating Officer, U. S. General Accounting Office Cynthia Fagnoni
Managing Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, U. S.

General Accounting Office Scott Farrow Chief Economist, U. S. General
Accounting Office Harvey Fineberg President, Institute of Medicine, The
National Academies William Galston Professor and Director, University of
Maryland Institute for Philosophy and

Public Policy Gaston Gianni Vice- Chair, President*s Council on Integrity
and Efficiency and Inspector General, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation

John Graham Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget Robert Groves Director, Survey Research
Center, University of Michigan Judith Gueron President, Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation Hermann Habermann Deputy Director, U.
S. Bureau of the Census Nils Hasselmo President, Association of American
Universities Harry Hatry Director, Public Management Program, The Urban
Institute Theodore Heintz White House Council on Environmental Quality
Christopher Hoenig Director, Strategic Issues, U. S. General Accounting
Office Helen Hsing Director- Special Projects, Office of the Comptroller
General, U. S. General

Accounting Office Robert Kaplan Professor, Harvard Business School Nancy
Kingsbury Managing Director, Applied Research and Methods, U. S. General

Accounting Office Andrew Kohut Director, Pew Research Center for the
People and the Press John Koskinen Deputy Mayor/ City Administrator,
District of Columbia Bill Kovach Chairman, Committee of Concerned
Journalists Risa Lavizzo- Mourey President and CEO, The Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation Rosemary Marcuss Deputy Director, Bureau of Economic
Analysis Sylvia Mathews Chief Operating Officer and Executive Director,
The Bill & Melinda Gates

Foundation

Thomas McCool Managing Director, Financial Markets and Community
Investment, U. S. General Accounting Office Patricia McGinnis President
and CEO, The Council for Excellence in Government Sara Melendez Professor
of Nonprofit Management, The George Washington University and Former
President, The Independent Sector

Alex Michalos Director, Institute for Social Research and Evaluation,
University of Northern British Columbia

Marc Miringoff Founder and Director, The Fordham Institute for Innovation
in Social Policy

Daniel Mulhollan Director, Congressional Research Service Janet Norwood
Former Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics Robert O*Neill Executive
Director, International City/ County Management Association Robert Parker
Chief Statistician, U. S. General Accounting Office Victor Rezendes
Managing Director, Strategic Issues, U. S. General Accounting Office
Martha Farnsworth Riche Former Director, U. S. Bureau of the Census
Dorothy Ridings President and CEO, Council on Foundations John Rolph
Chairman, Committee on National Statistics, The National Academies Thomas
Sawyer Former Representative, State of Ohio, 14th District William Scanlon
Managing Director, Health Care, U. S. General Accounting Office Max Singer
Board Member and Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute Pete Smith President and
CEO, Private Sector Council

Edward Sondik Director, National Center for Health Statistics, Department
of Health and Human Services Edward Spar Executive Director, Council of
Professional Associations on Federal

Statistics Jeffrey Steinhoff Managing Director, Financial Management and
Assurance, U. S. General

Accounting Office F. Michael Taylor President, National Association of
Local Government Auditors Michael Teitelbaum Program Director, Alfred P.
Sloan Foundation Dennis Trewin Chief Statistician, Australia Kathleen
Utgoff Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics David M. Walker
Comptroller General of the United States, U. S. General Accounting Office
Katherine Wallman Chief Statistician of the United States, U. S. Office of
Management and

Budget Andrew White Director, Committee on National Statistics, The
National Academies Jacquelyn Williams- Bridgers Managing Director,
Strategic Planning and External Liaison, U. S. General

Accounting Office Vincent Yee National President, National Association of
Asian American Professionals Randall Yim Managing Director, Homeland
Security and Justice, U. S. General

Accounting Office

Illustrative Indicators by Information Area for 1

Appendi x II

USA Series 0.5 Community Information Area 1

 Rate of volunteering, through nonprofit or charitable organizations 
Youth rates of volunteering  Charitable contributions as a percentage of
incomes

 Attendance at events and institutions that address the national heritage
(such as monuments, historical sites, and national parks)  Attendance at
performing arts, by categories  Participation in organized sports Voting
r ates  Reported hate crimes  Allocation of free time  Homelessness

Crime/ Public Safety Information Area

 Crime victimization rates (by subgroups such as age, sex, and race/
ethnic origin)  National crime rate  Violent crime rate  Property crime
rate  Incarceration (as percentage of population, by age rates and by
race/

ethnic origin)  Deaths due to transportation accidents  Deaths due to
fires  Proportion of jail inmates who committed offense to get money for

drugs  Percentage of working age population providing protective services
 Percentage of population afraid to walk alone after dark

Ecology Information Area

 Level of nitrogen oxide as a percentage of acceptable levels  Level of
sulfur oxide as a percentage of acceptable levels  Level of carbon
dioxide as a percentage of acceptable levels  Per capita water
consumption  Some measure of water quality, for example, percentage of
population

with access to safe drinking water 1 The indicators and information areas
for USA Series 0. 5 were proposed by Dr. Martha Farnsworth Riche to
facilitate a dialogue among the forum*s participants.

 Change in status of species at risk of loss  Protected areas as a
proportion of vulnerable areas  Emissions of greenhouse gases per capita
 Net greenhouse gas emissions per Gross Domestic Product  Reduction of
emissions of toxic substances

Economic Information Area

 Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP)  Real GDP per employed person  Labor
force participation

 Unemployment  Expenditures on Research and Development as a share of
GDP  Real disposable income per capita  Median household net worth 
Composition of wage rates (good jobs/ bad jobs) Poverty  Home ownership

Education Information Area

 Percentage of the population aged 25 and over that has completed
postsecondary education  National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) or other measure

of literacy equivalent to high school graduation  Percentage of the
population aged 15 to 29 that is neither enrolled in nor

has completed high school  Enrollment in science and engineering
(National Science Foundation)  Mathematics test scores (NAEP) 
Percentage of population with computer literacy and computer access  Safe
schools  Gap in attainment by race and ethnic origin and other relevant
factors

(e. g., disability)  Adult education participation/ access

Governance Information Area

 Proportion of high elected offices (Congress, mayors, governors, etc.)
held by women, minorities, etc.  Proportion of high- appointed offices
held by women, minorities, etc.  Information about the *legal enforcement
of constitutional guarantees

of civil liberties*

 Civil rights: Enforcement data? Prevalence of complaints?  Successful
management of the voting franchise* for example,

proportion of ballots that are disqualified  Some measure of tax
expenditures that reflects how effective the

government is in taking care of the citizenry  Some measure of how well
government agencies are providing fair

access to public services and utilities  Some measure of how the law
treats/ does not treat Americans equally  Some measure of the existence
of an effective safety net  Proportion of residents who believe that the
nation is *on the right

track*

Health Information Area

 Overweight and obesity  Life expectancy* at birth, at different policy-
relevant ages  Health/ active life expectancy  Infant/ child/ youth
mortality (i. e., successful survival to adulthood)  Disability
limitations* as represented by inability to perform normal

activities of daily living  Physical activity  Tobacco use  Substance
abuse  Immunization  A measure of access to health care* availability,
affordability, etc., for

example, personal expenditures for health care as a percentage of per
capita income

Social Support Information Area

 Elderly living alone and in poverty  Proportion of elderly for whom
Social Security is more than a *floor*  Older Americans who are
involuntarily unemployed  Housing costs as a percentage of income for
older Americans  Percentage of older Americans unable to perform certain
physical functions

 Proportion of children receiving child care, by source  Proportion of
children whose diet is *poor*  Proportion of youth ages 16 to 19 neither
enrolled in school or working  Adolescent birth rate  Family reading to
young children

Appendi x III

Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems Comprehensive Indicator Abbott,
Robert M., Scott D. Johnson, and Tracy Dieckhoner. Embedding

Systems

Sustainability in the Business of City Government: An Opportunity for
Seattle (Vancouver, Canada: Abbott Strategies, ND). http:// www.
abbottstrategies. com/ Papers/ pdf/ embedsustain. pdf. (downloaded May
2003).

Embedding Sustainability in the Business of City Government

discusses ways to create a framework for integrating issues of
sustainability into decision making in Seattle city government.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. Measuring Australia*s Progress 2002:
Indicators of Australia*s Progress (Canberra, Australia: 2003). http://
www. abs. gov. au. (downloaded May 2003).

Measuring Australia*s Progress uses a discussion of human capital, social
capital, natural capital, and financial capital indicators to asses the
extent to which Australia has progressed. Bok, Derek. The State of the
Nation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996.

The State of the Nation examines the areas of economic prosperity, quality
of life, equality of opportunity, personal security, and societal values,
and compares the progress made in these areas with progress made in other
countries.

The Boston Foundation. The Wisdom of Our Choices: Boston*s Indicators of
Progress, Change and Sustainability 2000. (Boston, Mass.: 2000). http://
www. tbf. org/ boston/ boston- L1. asp. (downloaded May 2003).

The Wisdom of Our Choices provides indicators of civic involvement, the
economy, education, public health, and other measures of wellbeing.

Chang, Ping. State of the Region 2002: Measuring Progress in the 21st
Century (Los Angeles, Calif.: Southern California Association of
Governments, 2002). http:// www. scag. ca. gov/ publications/ index. htm
(downloaded May 2003).

State of the Region 2002 assesses southern California*s performance with
respect to three overall goals: raise the standard of living, enhance the
quality of life, and foster equal access to resources.

Chicago Metropolis 2020. 2002 Metropolis Index (Chicago, Ill.: 2002).
http:// www. chicagometropolis2020. org/ 10_ 5. htm. (downloaded May
2003).

The 2002 Metropolis Index is intended to give residents of the region
benchmarks to assess how the region is doing, and to help them consider
what must be done to sustain the region*s status as a globally competitive
region.

Committee on Geography, Committee on Identifying Data Needs for PlaceBased
Decision Making. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for Informed
Decision Making (Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press, 2002). http://
www. nap. edu/ catalog/ 10262. html. (downloaded May 2003).

Community and Quality of Life examines the concept of livable communities,
the selection of livability indicators, data needs, and measurement and
analysis issues related to the indicators. The Conference Board of Canada.
Performance and Potential 2001- 2002.

Ottawa, Canada: 2002.

Performance and Potential 2001- 2002 updates the top 40 performance
indicators and demonstrates that overall performance remains average among
the six countries used to benchmark Canada*s performance.

Global Reporting Initiative. 2002 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines
(Boston, Mass.: 2002). http:// www. globalreporting. org/ guidelines/
2002. asp. (downloaded May 2003).

The 2002 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines organizes *sustainability
reporting* in terms of economic, environmental, and social performance
(also know as the triple bottom line).

Maine Economic Growth Council. Measures of Growth 2002 (Augusta, Maine:
2002). http:// mdf. org/ megc/ growth02/. (downloaded May 2003).

Measures of Growth 2002 provides the results of 60 indicators in the areas
of the economy, community, and the environment.

Miringoff, Marc and Marque- Luisa Miringoff. The Social Health of the
Nation: How America Is Really Doing. New York, N. Y.: Oxford University
Press, 1999.

The Social Health of the Nation presents a variety of indicators of social
well- being over several decades.

Minnesota Planning. Minnesota Milestones 2002 (St. Paul, Minn.: 2002).
http:// www. mnplan. state. mn. us/ mm/ index. html. (downloaded May
2003).

Minnesota Milestones 2002 reports on 70 progress indicators to determine
whether the state is achieving 19 publicly determined goals in the areas
of people, community and democracy, economy, and environment.

The National Audit Office, United Kingdom, Good Practice in Performance
Reporting in Executive Agencies and Non- Departmental Public Bodies

(London, England: Stationery office, 2000). http:// www. nao. gov. uk/
publications/ nao_ reports/ 9900272. pdf (downloaded May 2003).

Good Practice in Performance Reporting in Executive Agencies and Non-
Departmental Public Bodies discusses good practices in government
performance reporting to ensure transparent, accountable, and efficient
government services.

New York City Department of City Planning. 2000/ 2001 Report on Social
Indicators. (New York, N. Y.: 2001). http:// www. nyc. gov/ html/ dcp/
html/ pub/ socind00. html (downloaded May

2003).

2000/ 2001 Report on Social Indicators is a compendium of data on the
economic, social, physical, and environmental health of the city. The data
are compiled from city, state, and federal sources and summarized on
either a calendar or fiscal year basis.

The Oregon Progress Board. Achieving the Oregon Shines Vision: The 2001
Benchmark Performance Report (Salem, Oreg.: March 2001). http:// www.
econ. state. or. us/ opb/ 2001report/ reporthome. htm. (downloaded May
2003).

Achieving the Oregon Shines Vision is a report on the comprehensive effort
to describe progress Oregonians have made in achieving their year 2000
targets for 90 benchmarks.

President of the Treasury Board. Canada*s Performance 2002 (Ottawa,
Canada: 2002). http:// www. tbs- sct. gc. ca/ report/ govrev/ 02/ cp- rc_
e. asp. (downloaded May 2003).

Canada*s Performance 2002 reports on the quality of life of Canadians in
such areas as economic opportunity, health, the environment, and the
strength and safety of communities.

Steering Committee Review of Commonwealth/ State Services, Australia.

Report on Government Services 2001 (Melbourne, Australia: 2001). http://
www. pc. gov. au/ gsp/ 2001/ index. html. (downloaded May 2003).

Report on Government Services 2001 details the performance of government
service provision in Australia in education, health, justice, emergency
management, community services, and housing.

United Nations General Assembly. Implementation of the United Nations
Millennium Declaration: Follow up to the Outcome of the Millennium Summit
A/ 57/ 270. New York, N. Y.: 2002.

Implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration: Follow up to
the Outcome of the Millennium Summit details the progress that the United
Nations has made on its millennium development goals, which are (1) halve
extreme poverty and hunger, (2) achieve universal primary education, (3)
empower women and

promote equality between women and men, (4) reduce under five mortality by
two- thirds, (5) reduce maternal mortality by threequarters, (6) reverse
the spread of disease especially AIDS/ HIV and malaria, (7) ensure
environmental sustainability, and (8) create a global partnership for
development with targets for aid, trade, and debt relief.

United Nations Population Fund. State of the World Population 2002:
People, Poverty and Possibilities (New York, N. Y.: 2002). http:// www.
unfpa. org/ swp/ 2002/ english/ ch1/ index. htm. (downloaded May 2003).

State of the World Population 2002 provides a variety of demographic and
economic data about people in various regions of the world as well as some
data on individual nations.

University at Buffalo Institute for Local Governance and Regional Growth,

State of the Region Progress Report 2000 (Buffalo, N. Y.: 2000). http://
regional- institute. buffalo. edu/ sotr/ repo/ repo00/ default. html.
(downloaded May 2003).

State of the Region Progress Report 2000 offers a first update of the 1999
baseline report with two components-- one focused on the datadriven
performance measures, the other a second look at the opportunities and
challenges that will shape Buffalo- Niagara's progress into the new
century.

Specialized Indicator Systems Annie E. Casey Foundation. Kids Count Data
Book 2002 (Baltimore, Md: 2002). http:// www. aecf. org/ kidscount/
kc2002/. (downloaded May 2002).

Kids Count provides information about the physical health, mental health,
economic well- being, and educational achievements of children in the
United States. Data are available nationwide and for each state.

Chrvala, Carole A. and Roger J. Bulger, Eds. Leading Health Indicators for
Healthy People 2010: Final Report. Committee on Leading Health Indicators
for Healthy People 2010, Division of Health Promotion and Disease
Prevention, Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
1999.

Leading Indicators for Healthy People 2010 describes the efforts of the
Committee on Leading Health Indicators to develop leading health indicator
sets that could focus on health and social issues and evoke a

response and action from the general public and the traditional audiences
for the Healthy People report series.

Committee to Evaluate Indicators for Monitoring Aquatic and Terrestrial
Environments, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Water Science
and Technology Board, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and
Resources, National Research Council. Ecological Indicators for the
Nation. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press, 2000.

Ecological Indicators for the Nation suggests criteria for selecting
useful ecological indicators, provides methods for integrating complex
ecological information in indicators that are useful, proposes indicators
that would meet these criteria, examines the state of data that would be
used to calculate these indicators, and offers guidance on communicating
and storing ecological indicators.

Committee on Measuring and Improving Infrastructure Performance, Board on
Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment, Commission on Engineering
and Technical Systems, National Research Council.

Measuring and Improving Infrastructure Performance (Washington, DC:
National Academy Press, 1995). http:// www. nap. edu/ catalog/ 4929.html.
(downloaded May 2003).

Measuring and Improving Infrastructure Performance addresses the issue of
measuring the efficiency with which our infrastructure allows people and
goods to move, provides adequate safe drinking water, provides energy,
removes waste, and so on, which is crucial to being

able to manage the assets that our infrastructure represents. Cooper,
Ronald S. and Stephen A. Merrill, Eds. Industrial Research and Innovation
Indicators: Report of a Workshop. Board on Science, Technology, and
Economic Policy, National Research Council (Washington, D. C.: National
Academy Press, 1997). http:// www. nap. edu/ catalog/ 5976. html.
(downloaded May 2003).

Industrial Research and Innovation Indicators is the report of a workshop
held to discuss methods of improving the measurement, data collection and
analysis of indicators on industrial research and innovation, as well as
examining ways in which this information could

be integrated into measures of firm and national performance.

Council of Economic Advisors, Executive Office of the President. The
Economic Report of the President (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing
Office, 2003). http:// w3. access. gpo. gov/ usbudget/ fy2004/ pdf/ 2003_
erp. pdf. (downloaded May 2003).

The Economic Report of the President is a discussion of selected economic
issues and tables of economic data prepared by the Council of Economic
Advisors.

The Conference Board. Business Cycle Indicators (New York, N. Y.: 2002).
http:// www. tcb- indicators. org/ Us/ LatestReleases/ index. cfm.
(downloaded May 2003).

Business Cycle Indicators provides monthly economic indicators for the
United States, such as the leading economic indicators, the coincident
indicators, and the lagging indicators.

Federal Interagency Forum on Aging Related Statistics. Older Americans
2000: Key Indicators of Well Being (Washington, D. C.: 2000). http:// www.
agingstats. gov/ chartbook2000/ default. htm. (downloaded May

2003).

Older Americans: 2000 contains statistics regarding the population,
economics, health status, health risks and behaviors, and health care of
older United States Citizens.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. America*s
Children: Key National Indicators of Well- Being 2002 (Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 2002). http:// childstats. gov. (downloaded
May 2003).

American*s Children provides 24 key indicators on the well- being of
children in the areas of economic security, health, behavior and social
environment, and education.

United States Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People
2010: Understanding and Improving Health. (Washington, D. C.: 2000).
http:// www. healthypeople. gov/. (downloaded May 2002).

Healthy People 2010 provides a comprehensive set of disease prevention and
health promotion objectives for the United States to achieve by 2010.

The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment.

The State of the Nation*s Ecosystems: Measuring the Lands, Waters, and
Living Resources of the United States (Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge
University Press, 2002). http:// www. heinzctr. org/ ecosystems/ index.
htm. (downloaded May 2003).

The State of the Nation*s Ecosystem is a blueprint for periodic reporting
on the condition and use of ecosystems in the United States.

Mislevy, Robert J. and Kaeli T. Knowles, Eds. Performance Assessments for
Adult Education: Exploring the Measurement Issues Report of a Workshop.
Committee for the Workshop on Alternatives for Assessing Adult Education
and Literacy Programs, Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for
Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and

Education, National Research Council. (Washington, DC: National Academy
Press, 2002). http:// www. nap. edu/ catalog/ 10366.html. (downloaded May
2003).

Performance Assessments for Adult Education examines a variety of ways of
measuring learning gains in adult basic education classes in light of the
requirement that states evaluate adult students' progress as mandated by
the Workforce Investment Act.

Nordhaus, William D. and Edward C. Kokkelenberg, Eds. Nature's Numbers:
Expanding the National Economic Accounts to Include the Environment. Panel
on Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting, Committee on National
Statistics, Commission and Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education,
National Research Council (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999).
http:// www. nap. edu/ catalog/ 6374. html. (downloaded May 2003).

Nature's Numbers examines the issues surrounding the question of
broadening the U. S. National Income and Product Accounts to include

activities that relate to natural resources and the environment to provide
a more comprehensive picture of the economy.

Norwood, Janet and Jamie Casey, Eds. Key Transportation Indicators:
Summary of a Workshop. Committee on National Statistics, Division of
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002.

Key Transportation Indicators discusses efforts to review current
transportation indicators and issues associated with their uses as well
considering what kinds of additional indicators are need.

Pellegrino, James W., Lee R. Jones, and Karen J. Mitchell, Eds. Grading
the Nation's Report Card: Evaluating NAEP and Transforming the Assessment
of Educational Progress. Committee on the Evaluation of National and State
Assessment, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education,
National Research Council. (Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press,
1999). http:// www. nap. edu/ catalog/ 6296.html. (downloaded May 2003).

Grading the Nation*s Report Card describes the National Assessment of
Educational Progress' national assessment, the state assessment program,
the student performance standards, and the extent to which the results are
reasonable, valid, and informative to the public.

Schultze, Charles L. and Christopher Mackie, Eds. At What Price?
Conceptualizing and Measuring Cost- of Living and Price Indexes. Panel on
Conceptual, Measurement, and Other Statistical Issues in Developing Cost-
of- Living Indexes, Committee on National Statistics, Division of

Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council
(Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press, 2002). http:// www. nap. edu/
catalog/ 10131. html. (downloaded May 2003).

At What Price? discusses the conceptual, measurement, statistical, and
data issues in the development of cost- of- living indexes and assesses
the appropriate use of such indexes as for indexing federal programs and
other purposes.

Starke, Linda, ed. State of the World 2002: Special World Summit Edition
(W. W. Norton and Co.: 2002). http:// www. worldwatch. org/ pubs/ sow/
2002/. (downloaded May 2003).

State of the World 2002 provides information on a variety of issues in
sustainable development, such as climate change, farming, and toxic
chemicals. UNICEF. The State of the World*s Children 2003 (Oxford, N. Y.:
Oxford University Press, 2002). http:// www. unicef. org/ pubsgen/ sowc03/
index. html. (downloaded May 2003).

The State of the World*s Children 2003 contains a comprehensive set of
economic and social indicators on the well- being of children worldwide.

The World Health Organization. World Health Report 2002 (Geneva: 2002).
http:// www. who. int/ whr/. (downloaded May 2003).

World Health Report 2002 measures the amount of disease, disability, and
health that can be attributed to certain risks and calculates how much of
the burden is preventable. Background Berry, David, Patrice Flynn, and
Theodore Heintz. *Sustainability and

Quality of Life Indicators: Toward the Integration of Economic, Social and
Environmental Measures,* Indicators: The Journal of Social Health vol. 1,
no. 4 (Fall 2002).

*Sustainability and Quality of Life Indicators* provides discussion of
approaches to integrate social, economic, and environmental indicators and
expand the scope of our national data system.

Caplow, Theodore, Louis Hicks, and Ben J. Wattenberg. The First Measured
Century. Washington, D. C.: AEI Press, 2001.

The First Measured Century describes how using statistics to measure
social conditions gained importance throughout the United States from 1900
through 2000.

Gross, Betram M. Social Intelligence for America's Future: Explorations in
Societal Problems. Boston, Mass: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1969.

Social Intelligence for America*s Future is part of a *trial run* social
report ranging from learning and health to crime and the arts. It
discusses information methodology and the use of data to guide public
policy.

Michalos, Alex C. Observations on Key National Performance Indicators.

Paper presented at the Forum on Key National Indicators, Washington, D.
C., February 2003.

Observations on Key National Performance Indicators discusses several
integrated performance systems on the national, international, and state
levels.

Miringoff, Marc, Marque- Luisa Miringoff, and Sandra Opdycke. Social
Indicators: What We Need To Make Them Count. Paper presented at the Forum
on Key National Indicators, Washington, D. C., February 2003..

Social Indicators addresses the need for social indicators to enhance
consideration of policy issues.

Riche, Martha Farnsworth. The United States of America Developing Key
National Indicators. Paper presented at the Forum on Key National
Indicators, Washington, D. C., February 2003..

The United States of America Developing Key National Indicators offers a
framework to assess indicators and provides a preliminary draft of what an
indicator set might look like for the United States. Slater, Courtenay M.
and Martin H. David, Eds. Measuring the Government Sector of the U. S.
Economic Accounts. Committee on National Statistics, Commission on
Behavioral and Social Science and Education, National Research Council
(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998). http:// www. nap. edu/
catalog/ 6208. html. (downloaded May 2003)

Measuring the Government Sector of the U. S. Economic Accounts summarizes
the discussion on and makes recommendations regarding the way the
government sector is presented in U. S. economics accounts and how it
could be brought into line with the International System of Accounts,
which would allow for better cross- national comparisons.

U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Toward a Social
Report. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1969.

Toward a Social Report discusses how social reporting can improve the
nation*s ability to chart its social progress and to promote more informed
policy decisions.

Appendi x IV

Selected Web Sites on Indicator Systems Multinational European System of
Social Indicators http:// www. social- sciencegesis. de/ en/ social_
monitoring/ social_ indicators/ EU_ Reporting/ eusi. htm Global Reporting
Initiative - Sustainability Reporting Guidelines http:// www.
globalreporting. org/ guidelines/ 2002.asp

Measurement and Indicators for Sustainable Development - IISDnet http://
www. iisd. org/ measure/ default. asp Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development Worldwide Statistical Sources http:// cs3- hq.
oecd. org/ scripts/ stats/ source/ index. htm

The International Society for Quality- of- Life Studies http:// www. cob.
vt. edu/ market/ isqols/

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees - The State of The World*s
Refugees http:// www. unhcr. ch/ pubs/ sowr2000/ sowr2000toc. htm

United Nations Human Development Report 2002 http:// www. undp. org/
hdr2002/ United Nations Millennium Development Goals http:// www. un. org/
millenniumgoals/ index. html

United Nations Population Fund - State of World Population 2002 http://
www. unfpa. org/ swp/ swpmain. htm

United Nations Statistics Division - Social Indicators http:// unstats.
un. org/ unsd/ demographic/ social/ default. htm

United Nations Statistics Division http:// unstats. un. org/ unsd/ World
Bank*s Millenium Development Goals http:// www. developmentgoals. org/
Worldwatch Institute State of the World 2002 http:// www. worldwatch. org/
pubs/ sow/ 2002/

National Australian Bureau of Statistics - Measuring Australia*s Progress
http:// www. abs. gov. au/

Canadian Council on Social Indicators http:// www. ccsd. ca/ soc_ ind.
html Conference Board of Canada http:// www. conferenceboard. ca/ FedStats
Home Page http:// www. fedstats. gov/

Heinz Center - The State of the Nation*s Ecosystems http:// www. heinzctr.
org/ ecosystems/ index. htm Interagency Working Group on Sustainable
Development Indicators http:// www. sdi. gov/

Redefining Progress http:// www. redefiningprogress. org/ Treasury Board
of Canada - Societal Indicators http:// www. tbs- sct. gc. ca/ rma/ eppi-
ibdrp/ SI/ si_ e. htm STAT- USA - State of the Nation http:// www. stat-
usa. gov/ econtest. nsf United Kingdom Government Sustainable Development
Indicators http:// www. sustainable- development. gov. uk/ indicators/

United Kingdom National Audit Office http:// www. nao. gov. uk/ University
of Toronto Performance Indicators for Governance http:// www. utoronto.
ca/ provost/ perf98

University of Washington Human Services Policy Center http:// www. hspc.
org/

White House - Latest Federal Government Statistics http:// www.
whitehouse. gov/ news/ fsbr. html

Regional or Multistate List of Performance Indicators for the Buffalo-
Niagara Region http:// www. regional- institute. buffalo. edu/ sotr/ repo/
indi. html

Northeast Midwest Institute Home Page http:// www. nemw. org/ Northwest
Area Foundation Indicator Web site http:// www. indicators. nwaf. org/

Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University http:// www. rri.
wvu. edu/

Worcester Regional Research Bureau http:// www. wmrb. org/ CCPM State
Living with the Future in Mind - New Jersey*s 1999 Sustainable State
Report

http:// www. njfuture. org/ HTMLSrc/ SSR/ index. html Maine Marks for
Children, Families and Communities http:// www. mainemarks. org/

Minnesota Planning Home Page http:// www. mnplan. state. mn. us/ Oregon
Shines - Oregon Progress Board http:// www. econ. state. or. us/ opb/
index. htm

Public Policy Institute of California http:// www. ppic. org/ Vermont
Agency of Human Services http:// www. ahs. state. vt. us/ Local Burlington
Legacy Indicators Project

http:// maps. vcgi. org/ burlingtonlegacy/ Center for Schools and
Communities - Lemoyne, Pennsylvania http:// www. center- school. org/

Chicago Metropolis 2020 http:// www. chicagometropolis2020. org/ report.
htm

City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska http:// www. cityofsitka. com/ Healthy
Anchorage Indicators http:// www. indicators. ak. org/ New York City
Department of City Planning - Social Indicators http:// www. nyc. gov/
html/ dcp/ html/ pub/ socind00. html

Portland Mulnomah Progress Board http:// www. p- m- benchmarks. org/
tblcnts. html San Diego*s Regional Planning Agency http:// www. sandag.
cog. ca. us/ Southern California Association of Governments http:// www.
scag. ca. gov/ Sustainable Community Roundtable, Olympia, Washington
http:// www. olywa. net/ roundtable/

Sustainable Seattle http:// www. sustainableseattle. org/ The Baltimore
Neighborhood Indicators Alliance http:// www. bnia. org/ about_ bnia_
main. html The Boston Foundation http:// www. tbf. org/ The Planning
Council, Norfolk, Virginia http:// www. theplanningcouncil. org/
Specialized Efforts Children

America*s Children 2002 - Key National Indicators of Well- Being 2002
http:// www. childstats. gov/ americaschildren/

Child Trends DataBank http:// www. childtrendsdatabank. org/ about. htm

Children First for Oregon http:// www. cffo. org/ KIDS COUNT - Benchmarks
of Child Well- Being http:// www. aecf. org/ kidscount

United Nations - The State of the World*s Children 2000 http:// www.
unicef. org/ sowc00/

Economy

Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia http:// www. phil. frb. org/ Index of
the Massachusetts Innovation Economy http:// www. mtpc. org/ 2001index/
about. htm International Association for Research in Income and Wealth
http:// www. iariw. org/

Maine Economic Growth Council http:// www. mdf. org/ megc Norwegian
Ministry of Finance http:// www. odin. dep. no/ fin/ engelsk/ West
Virginia Bureau of Employment Programs - Labor Market Information http://
www. state. wv. us/ bep/ lmi/

Education

California*s Public Schools Accountability Act http:// www. cde. ca. gov/
psaa/ National Assessment of Educational Progress -- The Nation*s Report
Card http:// nces. ed. gov/ nationsreportcard/ about/ White House Social
Statistics Briefing Room - Education http:// www. whitehouse. gov/ fsbr/
education. html

Elderly

Federal Interagency Forum on Aging- Related Statistics http:// www.
agingstats. gov/

Administration on Aging - Performance Outcomes Measures Project http://
www. gpra. net/

Environment

Environmental Protection Agency Biological Indicators of Watershed Health
http:// www. epa. gov/ bioindicators

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - State of the
World*s Forests http:// www. fao. org/ forestry/ FO/ SOFO/ sofo- e. stm

Northwest Environment Watch - Home Page http:// www. northwestwatch. org/
pubs_ index. html

Washington Governor*s Salmon Recovery Office http:// www. governor. wa.
gov/ gsro/ default. htm

World Association of Nuclear Operators Performance Indicators http:// www.
wano. org. uk/

Health

Leading Health Indicators - Healthy People 2010 http:// www. health. gov/
healthypeople/ LHI/ lhiwhat. htm Maryland*s Drug Early Warning System
http:// www. dewsonline. org/ Pan American Health Organization http://
www. paho. org/ Partnerships for Networked Consumer Health Information
Conferences http:// odphp. osophs. dhhs. gov/ confrnce/

The Quality Indicator Project - Association of Maryland Hospitals and
Health Systems http:// www. qiproject. org/

White House Social Statistics Briefing Room - Health http:// www.
whitehouse. gov/ fsbr/ health. html

Background or Reference Flynn Research - Measuring Contributions to
Society http:// www. flynnresearch. com/ products. htm

From Revolution to Reconstruction - Information on U. S. Presidents
http:// odur. let. rug. nl/~ usa/ P/

NonProfit Pathfinder - Measuring the Impact of the Independent Sector
http:// www. independentsector. org/ pathfinder/ impact/ indepsec_ res/
biblio. h tml

The Social Indicators Survey Center - Columbia University http:// www.
siscenter. org/

(450175)

Developing Key National Indicators for the United States Is Important
While there are a variety of indicator efforts in the United States, there
is no generally accepted, comprehensive indicator system for the nation as
a whole. There was broad agreement that the issue of developing key
national indicators is important for taking a more comprehensive view of
the nation*s position and progress, both on an absolute and relative
basis. Several models were discussed that offer lessons for developing a
national indicator system, including indicator systems on aging, children,
economics, and health. The purpose of

measurement, the process of deciding what to measure, and determining
audiences are as critical as choosing what and how to measure. A Broad
Range of Information Areas Are Considered Significant The range of
information areas considered important was broad, covering the

economy, society, and the environment. Participants agreed that a first
step is to assemble *core* indicators from existing data. A straw proposal
for such an indicator set* USA Series 0.5* was presented as a starting
point for building what might eventually be a broadly supported USA Series
1.0 indicator set. Series 0.5 included 11 key information areas:
community, crime, ecology, education, governance, health, the
macroeconomy, security, social support, sustainability, and transparency.
In reacting to Series 0. 5, participants suggested numerous refinements
and identified 4 additional information areas:

communications, diversity, individual values, and socioeconomic mobility.
A Rich History of Indicator Systems Warrants Collective Research There is
a long history of efforts throughout the world by leading democracies to
develop and sustain indicator systems. A distinction was made between

comprehensive and specialized efforts that focus on a topic or issue.
Research on what can be learned from past and present systems is essential
to deriving useful implications for a possible United States system. A
multitude of efforts are currently under way in other democracies (e. g.,
Australia and Canada) as well as in the United States at the national,
regional, state, and local levels. Despite this activity, there appear to
be few common sources of broad research to facilitate knowledge sharing on
comprehensive indicator efforts. A United States Initiative Must Build on
Past Lessons and Current Efforts Developing a U. S. indicator system
requires applying lessons from past efforts and engaging with many
existing ones. A United States system must be flexible and evolve to
respond to societal change and incorporate diverse perspectives.

An informal national coordinating committee of institutions in the public
and private sectors was constituted to begin organizing a U. S.
initiative. It serves as an initial means to facilitate dialogue, expand
participation, plan work and

secure financing. As of May 7, 2003, the committee included the American
Association of Universities, The Conference Board, the Council for
Excellence in Government, GAO, the International City/ County Management
Association, The

National Academies, the National Association of Asian American
Professionals, the Office of Management and Budget and the White House
Council on Environmental Quality. HIGHLIGHTS OF A GAO FORUM

Key National Indicators: Assessing the Nation*s Position and Progress

www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 672SP. To view the full report,
click on the link above. For more information, contact Christopher Hoenig,
Director, Strategic Issues, at (202) 512- 6779 or hoenigc@ gao. gov.
Highlights of GAO- 03- 672SP May 2003

The nation confronts profound challenges resulting from a variety of
factors, including changing security threats, dramatic shifts in
demographic patterns, the multidimensional processes of

globalization, and the accelerating pace of technological change. These
are all coming together in an era of diminishing public resources.

The nation*s leaders and concerned citizens require better knowledge of
what is happening and where we are going to support improved

public choices. The United States could potentially benefit from
developing a set of key national indicators to help assess our nation*s
position and progress. On February 27, 2003, GAO, in

cooperation with the National Academies, hosted a forum on key national
indicators. The purpose of the forum was to have a rich and

meaningful dialogue on whether and how to develop a set of key national
indicators for the United States. The forum brought together a diverse
group of national leaders to discuss the following:  How are the world*s
leading democracies measuring national performance?  What might the
United States do

to improve its approach and why?  What are important areas to measure in
assessing U. S. national performance?  How might new U. S. approaches

be led and implemented?

Page i GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Contents

Contents

Page ii GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Page 1 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Page 2 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Page 3 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Page 4 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Page 5 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Page 6 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 7 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 8 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 9 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 10 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 11 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 12 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 13 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 14 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 15 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 16 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 17 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 18 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 19 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 20 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 21 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 22 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 23 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 24 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 25 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 26 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 27 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 28 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 29 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 30 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 31 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 32 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 33 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 34 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 35 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 36 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 37 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 38 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 39 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 40 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Forum Page 41 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Page 42 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix I

Appendix I Forum Participants

Page 43 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix I Forum Participants

Page 44 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix I Forum Participants

Page 45 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Page 46 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix II

Appendix II Illustrative Indicators by Information Area for USA Series 0.5

Page 47 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix II Illustrative Indicators by Information Area for USA Series 0.5

Page 48 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Page 49 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix III

Appendix III Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

Page 50 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix III Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

Page 51 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix III Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

Page 52 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix III Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

Page 53 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix III Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

Page 54 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix III Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

Page 55 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix III Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

Page 56 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix III Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

Page 57 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix III Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

Page 58 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix III Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

Page 59 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Page 60 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix IV

Appendix IV Selected Web Sites on Indicator Systems

Page 61 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix IV Selected Web Sites on Indicator Systems

Page 62 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix IV Selected Web Sites on Indicator Systems

Page 63 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix IV Selected Web Sites on Indicator Systems

Page 64 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix IV Selected Web Sites on Indicator Systems

Page 65 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix IV Selected Web Sites on Indicator Systems

Page 66 GAO- 03- 672SP Key National Indicators Forum

GAO*s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal
government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to good
government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity,
and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail this

list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select *Subscribe to
GAO Mailing Lists* under *Order GAO Products* heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to
a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax:
(202) 512- 6061

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202)
512- 4800 U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D. C. 20548
*** End of document. ***