This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-672SP 
entitled 'Forum on Key National Indicators: Assessing the Nation's 
Position and Progress' which was released on May 01, 2003.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

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. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

GAO, in cooperation with The National Academies, Advisers to the Nation
on Science, Engineering, and Medicine:

The United States of America:

May 2003:

Forum on Key National Indicators: 

Assessing the Nation's Position and Progress:

GAO-03-672SP:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-03-672SP

Why GAO Convened This Forum:

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?

What Participants Said:

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.

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.

May 2003:

Contents:

Letters:

Comptroller General of the United States Introductory Letter:

President of the Institute of Medicine, The National Academies
Introductory Letter:

Forum:

Background:

Forum Summary:

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?

Appendixes:

Appendix I: Forum Participants:

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

Appendix III: Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems:

Appendix IV: Selected Web Sites on Indicator Systems:

Tables: 

Table 1: Illustrative Comprehensive Indicator Systems:

Table 2: Illustrative Specialized Indicator Systems:

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

Table 4: Structure of USA Series 0.5:

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

Figures:

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

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

Letter:

Comptroller General of the United States Introductory Letter:

On February 27, 2003, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) in 
cooperation with the National Academies convened the Forum on Key 
National Indicators for the United States. This report summarizes the 
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 self-awareness 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.

Signed by:

David M. Walker
Comptroller General of the United States:

President of the Institute of Medicine, The National Academies
Introductory Letter:

On behalf of the National Academies, let me add my deep appreciation to 
all who participated in and facilitated this forum. The level of 
participation in this important event speaks volumes about a topic that 
is critically important to our nation and ripe for our attention. It 
has been a pleasure for the National Academies to be a part of this 
promising, important, and 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.

Signed by:

Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg
President, Institute of Medicine, The National Academies:

[End of section]

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.[Footnote 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.

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[Footnote 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 Qualifications Concerning the Forum:

The dialogue as summarized in this report should be interpreted in the 
context of five key limitations and qualifications.

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 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 Indicators for the United States is Important:

While there is no generally accepted comprehensive, integrated 
indicator system at the national level, a wide variety of indicator 
systems exist in the 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 Information Areas Are Considered Significant:

While the range of information areas that participants considered 
important about the U.S. was extremely broad, there was little argument 
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 Systems Warrants Collective Research:

There is a long history of efforts around the world by leading 
democracies to develop and sustain indicator systems. However, no 
generally accepted, 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 Must Build on Past Lessons and Current 
Efforts:

Participants agreed that developing a key national indicator system 
would require a combination of applying the essential lessons from past 
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 Leading Democracies Measuring National Performance?

Because of the broad scope of this question, most of the material in 
this section represents preparatory research that was provided to 
participants prior to the forum as background and context. A summary of 
this research was presented briefly at the beginning of the forum.

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 Current Indicator Systems:

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

Indicator system: Canada's Performance 2002; Reported by: Treasury 
Board of Canada; Data sources: Canadian government agencies and the 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; Scale: 
National; Purpose: To provide information on trends in well-being and 
to make comparisons internationally; Year report first issued: 1994; 
Frequency of report updates: Yearly.

Indicator system: Measuring Australia's Progress 2002; Reported by: 
Australian Bureau of Statistics; Data sources: Australian government 
agencies; Scale: National; Purpose: To provide information on national 
progress in economic, social, and environmental areas; Year report 
first issued: 2002; Frequency of report updates: Annual updates 
planned.

Indicator system: Minnesota Milestones 2002; Reported by: Minnesota 
Planning[A]; Data sources: Federal agencies, Minnesota state agencies, 
and universities; Scale: State; Purpose: To assess progress toward 
achieving 19 state goals in four areas: increasing the health and well-
being of Minnesotans, enhancing community and democracy in the state, 
protecting the environment, and improving government; Year report 
first issued: 1991; Frequency of report updates: Periodically[B].

Indicator system: Achieving the Oregon Shines Vision: The 2001 
Benchmark Performance Report; Reported by: Oregon Progress Board[C]; 
Data sources: Federal agencies and Oregon state agencies; Scale: State; 
Purpose: To provide information on the economic, social, and 
environmental health of the state in relation to its goals; Year 
report first issued: 1989; Frequency of report updates: Biennially.

Indicator system: The Wisdom of Our Choices: Boston's Indicators of 
Progress, Change and Sustainability 2000; Reported by: The Boston 
Foundation; Data sources: Federal agencies, Massachusetts state 
agencies, Boston city agencies, universities, and community-based 
organizations; Scale: Local; Purpose: To provide information on the 
health and well-being of Boston, its neighborhoods, and the region as a 
whole; Year report first issued: 2000; Frequency of report updates: 
Biennially.

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.

[End of table]

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:

Indicator system: America's Children: Key National Indicators of Well-
Being 2002; Reported by: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family 
Statistics; Data sources: Federal agencies; Scale: National; Purpose: 
To provide information on the well-being of children; Year report 
first issued: 1997; Frequency of report updates: Annually.

Indicator system: Healthy People 2010; Reported by: Department of 
Health and Human Services; Data sources: Federal agencies; Scale: 
National; Purpose: To provide indicators of progress on a variety of 
health policy objectives; Year report first issued: 1979; Frequency of 
report updates: Once a decade[A].

Indicator system: Kids Count 2002 Data Book; Reported by: The Annie E. 
Casey Foundation; Data sources: Federal agencies; Scale: National; 
Purpose: To track the well-being of youth; Year report first issued: 
1990; Frequency of report updates: Annually.

Indicator system: Older Americans 2000: Key Indicators of Well-Being; 
Reported by: Federal Interagency Forum on Aging Related Statistics; 
Data sources: Federal agencies; Scale: National; Purpose: To track the 
health and well-being of Americans aged 65 and over; Year report first 
issued: 2000; Frequency of report updates: Every 3 to 5 years.

Indicator system: The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the 
Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States; Reported by: 
The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the 
Environment; Data sources: Federal and state agencies, private 
organizations, and universities; Scale: National; Purpose: To provide 
information on the state of the ecosystems of the United States; Year 
report first issued: 2002; Frequency of report updates: Annually; next 
full addition in 2007.

Indicator system: The State of the World's Children 2003; Reported by: 
UNICEF; Data sources: United Nations' agencies, national governments, 
and the World Bank; Scale: Multinational; Purpose: To present 
information on the economic and social well-being of children 
worldwide; Year report first issued: 1980; Frequency of report 
updates: Annually.

Indicator system: The World Health Report 2002; Reported by: World 
Health Organization; Data sources: United Nations' agencies, national 
governments, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
Development Statistics; Scale: Multinational; Purpose: To measure the 
amount of disease, disability, and health that can be attributed to 
certain risks and to calculate how much of the burden is preventable; 
Year report first issued: 1995; Frequency of report updates: Annually.

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.

[End of table]

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[Footnote 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[Footnote 4] and Measuring Australia's 
Progress[Footnote 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[Footnote 6] 
while another private foundation produced Kids Count.[Footnote 7] A 
private foundation, the city of Boston, and the Metropolitan Planning 
Council jointly produced The Wisdom of Our Choices.[Footnote 8] Healthy 
People 2010[Footnote 9] was produced through a public-private 
partnership between federal 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[Footnote 10] was produced by a coalition 
of nine federal agencies[Footnote 11] and supplemented by substantial 
contributions from three other federal agencies.[Footnote 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 Systems:

Four primary observations on indicator systems emerged based on forum 
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 
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.[Footnote 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, 
(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 Indicators in the United States:

GAO found that the development of national indicators in the United 
States over the last 75 years has followed three fairly discrete 
trajectories 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: Economic indicators; Illustrative examples: 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.

Tradition: Social indicators; Illustrative examples: 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.

Tradition: Environmental indicators; Illustrative examples: 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. §§ 4321 - 4347.

[G] 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 - 7671q.

[H] 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 - 1544.

[End of table]

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 States Do to Improve Its Approach and Why?

After reviewing research on how the world's democracies are tackling 
indicator development, the bulk of the forum's discussion turned to 
implications and issues for the United States.

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 States' Approach:

The participants agreed that a more comprehensive system for measuring 
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 for Developing a National Indicator System:

Several existing models could be used as reference points for designing 
a United States indicator system. Two current examples cited were the 
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 National Indicator System:

Commissioned by GAO, in cooperation with the National Academies, Dr. 
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: Advanced; Economic: Macroeconomy; 
Social: Education; Health; Crime; Social Support; Environmental: 
[Empty].

Information area: development stage: Developing; Economic: [Empty]; 
Social: Community; Governance; Environmental: Ecology.

Information area: development stage: Formative; Economic: 
Sustainability; Transparency; Social: Sustainability; Transparency; 
Security; Environmental: Sustainability.

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

[End of table]

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:

[See PDF for image].

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

[End of figure].

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):

[See PDF for image].

[End of figure].

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 Areas to Measure in Assessing U.S. National 
Performance?

While participants generally agreed that the straw proposal's 11 
information areas were important to measure, they thought a majority of 
the areas needed refinement and enhancement. (For the specific 
indicators defined in the proposal, please see app. II) Also, 4 
additional 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 Need Further Refinement:

Participants identified seven information areas included in the 0.5 
proposal 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 the Proposal:

Participants identified four areas that should be included in 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. Approaches Be Led and Implemented?

The last segment of the forum was devoted to discussing how to take 
meaningful action on such a challenging idea. Recognizing that any 
effort pertaining to such a large, diverse nation would of necessity be 
long term, 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 development stage: Advanced; Series 0.5: Crime/public 
safety; Education; Health; Macroeconomy; Social support; Series 1.0-
2.0: (cumulative): Energy; Labor and
 employment; Microeconomy; Resource allocation; Special populations; 
Series N.0: (cumulative): Community Ecology Governance.

Information area development stage: Developing; Series 0.5: Community; 
Ecology; Governance; Series 1.0-2.0: (cumulative): Citizenship; 
Competitiveness; Infrastructure; Wealth/prosperity; Well-being/
happiness; Series N.0: (cumulative): Families; Innovation; Justice; 
Knowledge.

Information area development stage: Formative; Series 0.5: Security; 
Sustainability; Transparency; Series 1.0-2.0: (cumulative): 
Accountability; Cities; Diversity; Equity; Globalization; 
Neighborhoods; Series N.0: (cumulative): Arts and Culture; Civility; 
Freedom; Mobility; Opportunity; Trust; Values.

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

[End of table]

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.


[End of section]

Appendixes:

Appendix 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:

:

[End of section]

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

Community Information Area[Footnote 14]

* 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 rates:

* 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:

* 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:

[End of section]

Appendix III: Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems:

Comprehensive Indicator Systems:

Abbott, Robert M., Scott D. Johnson, and Tracy Dieckhoner. Embedding 
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 well-being.

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 Place-
Based 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 three-quarters, (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 data-
driven 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.

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Selected Web Sites on Indicator Systems:

Multinational:

European System of Social Indicators 
http://www.social-science-gesis.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.html:

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

(450175):

FOOTNOTES

[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.

[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.

[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/
b66ebefc05cdf265ca256bdc001223ec!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).

[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.

[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.

[14] 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.

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the 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 full-text 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 daily E-mail alert for newly 
released products" under the GAO Reports 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: