a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Science, Technology, and Space, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, U.S. Senate

November 2004 INFORMING OUR 

NATION

Improving How to 

Understand and 

Assess the USA’s 

Position and Progress

GAO-05-1
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-1.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Christopher 

Hoenig at (202) 512-6779 or 

hoenigc@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-1, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, 

Technology, and Space, Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

U.S. Senate. 

November 2004

INFORMING OUR NATION 

Improving How to Understand and 

Assess the USA’s Position and Progress 

GAO studied a diverse set of key indicator systems that provide economic, 

environmental, social and cultural information for local, state, or regional 

jurisdictions covering about 25 percent of the U.S. population—as well as 

several systems outside of the United States. GAO found opportunities to 

improve how our nation understands and assesses its position and progress.

 

Citizens in diverse locations and at all levels of society have key 

indicator systems. Building on a wide array of topical bodies of knowledge 

in areas such as the economy, education, health, and the environment, GAO 

found that individuals and institutions across the United States, other 

nations, and international organizations have key indicator systems to better 

inform themselves. These systems focus on providing a public good: a 

single, freely available source for key indicators of a jurisdiction’s position 

and progress that is disseminated to broad audiences. A broad consortium 

of public and private leaders has begun to develop such a system for our 

nation as a whole. 

These systems are a noteworthy development with potentially broad 

applicability. Although indicator systems are diverse, GAO identified 

important similarities. For example, they faced common challenges in areas 

such as agreeing on the types and number of indicators to include and 

securing and maintaining adequate funding. Further, they showed evidence 

of positive effects, such as enhancing collaboration to address public issues, 

and helping to inform decision making and improve research. Because these 

systems exist throughout the United States, in other nations, and at the 

supranational level, the potential for broad applicability exists, although the 

extent of applicability has yet to be determined. 

Congress and the nation have options to consider for further action.

GAO identified nine key design features to help guide the development and 

implementation of an indicator system. For instance, these features include 

establishing a clear purpose, defining target audiences and their needs, and 

ensuring independence and accountability. Customized factors will be 

crucial in adapting such features to any particular level of society or 

location. Also, there are several alternative options for a lead entity to 

initiate and sustain an indicator system: publicly led, privately led, or a 

public-private partnership in either a new or existing organization. 

Observations, Options, and Next Steps 

Key indicator systems merit serious discussion at all levels of society, 

including the national level, and clear implementation options exist from 

which to choose. Hence, Congress and the nation should consider how to 

• improve awareness of these systems and their implications for the nation,

• support and pursue further research, 

• help to catalyze discussion on further activity at subnational levels, and 

• begin a broader dialogue on the potential for a U.S. key indicator system.

There has been growing activity 

and interest in developing a system 

of key national indicators that 

would provide an independent, 

trusted, reliable, widely available, 

and usable source of information. 

Such a system would facilitate factbased assessments of the position 

and progress of the United States, 

on both an absolute and relative 

basis. This interest emerges from 

the following perspectives. 

• The nation’s complex challenges 

and decisions require more 

sophisticated information 

resources than are now 

available. 

• Large investments have been 

made in indicators on a variety 

of topics ranging from health 

and education to the economy 

and the environment that could 

be aggregated and disseminated 

in ways to better inform the 

nation. 

• The United States does not have 

a national system that 

assembles key information on 

economic, environmental, and 

social and cultural issues. 

Congressional and other leaders 

recognized that they could benefit 

from the experiences of others who 

have already developed and 

implemented such key indicator 

systems. GAO was asked to 

conduct a study on: (1) The state of 

the practice in these systems in the 

United States and around the 

world, (2) Lessons learned and 

implications for the nation, and 

(3) Observations, options, and next 

steps to be considered if further 

action is taken. 
Page i GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Contents

Letter 1

Summary 4

Purpose 4

Background 5

Scope and Methodology 7

Results in Brief 10

Chapter 1

Introduction

30

Indicators and Indicator Systems 32

An Illustrative History of National Efforts in the United States 43

Current Activities to Inform the Nation through Comprehensive Key 

Indicator Systems 61

Detailed Scope and Methodology 66

Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse 

Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have 

Indicator Systems

72

Topical Indicator Systems in the United States Form a Vital 

Foundation for Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems 73

The Practice of Developing Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems 

Is Active and Diverse 84

Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key 

Indicator Systems Are 

a Noteworthy 

Development with 

Potentially Broad 

Applicability

112

A Diverse Set of Systems Faced Similar Challenges 112

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Show Evidence of Positive 

Effects 131

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Have Potentially Broad 

Applicability 145
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Chapter 4

Congress and the 

Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking 

Further Action

152

Certain Design Features Should Guide the Development of Any 

System, Including a U.S. National System 152

Congress Could Choose from a Range of Organizational Options as 

Starting Points for a U.S. National System 162

Others Considering Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Have 

Similar Options 173

Chapter 5

Observations and Next 

Steps

175

Observations 175

Next Steps 182

Appendixes

Appendix I: U.S. National Topical Indicator Systems Included in This 

Study 187

Appendix II: Overview of Social and Cultural Indicators 191

Appendix III: Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Included in This 

Study 201

Appendix IV: Timeline and Evolution of the Boston Indicators Project 209

Appendix V: Timeline and Evolution of the Oregon Benchmarks 215

Appendix VI: The Role of Indicators in the European Union 222

Appendix VII: Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems 230

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Contributors 237

GAO Contact 237

Major Contributors 237

Other Contributors 237

Tables Table 1: Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Selected for GAO’s 

Study 8

Table 2: Selected Topical Areas Covered by Federal Statistical 

Programs 44

Table 3: Selected Highlights of Indicator Traditions in the United 

States 45

Table 4: Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Reviewed for This 

Study, by Level of Jurisdiction 85

Table 5: European Structural Indicators—Headline Indicators 123
Contents

Page iii GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Table 6: Characteristics, Advantages, and Disadvantages of the 

Public Organizational Option 165

Table 7: Characteristics, Advantages, and Disadvantages of the 

Private Organizational Option 167

Table 8: Characteristics, Advantages, and Disadvantages of the 

Public-Private Organizational Option 169

Table 9: Advantages and Disadvantages of a New Versus an 

Existing Organization 172

Table 10: Organizational Types of the Systems Studied for Our 

Review 174

Figures Figure 1: Possible Topics for a Comprehensive Key Indicator 

System 4

Figure 2: An Economic Indicator Showing World Exports of Goods 

and Services as a Percentage of World GDP, 1970-2002 36

Figure 3: A Social and Cultural Indicator Showing the Percentage 

of Persons Ages 16-24 Who Were Neither Enrolled in 

School Nor Working, by Race/Ethnicity (Selected Years 

1986-2003) 37

Figure 4: An Environmental Indicator Showing the Number and 

Percentage of Days with an Air Quality Index (AQI) 

Greater Than 100, 1988-2001 38

Figure 5: GPI Per Capita for Burlington, Vermont; Chittenden 

County, Vermont; the State of Vermont; and the United 

States, 1950-2000 41

Figure 6: Revisions in the Leading Index of the Business Cycle 

Indicators, 1984-1997 49

Figure 7: Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke Deaths, by Year, in the 

United States, 1979-1998 55

Figure 8: Reported Sources of Pollution That Resulted in Beach 

Closings or Advisories, 2001 59

Figure 9: Percentage of Children Ages 6 to 18 Who Are Overweight, 

by Gender, Race, and Mexican-American Origin, Selected 

Years 1976-1980, 1988-1994, 1999-2000 79

Figure 10: Percentage of Medicare Beneficiaries Age 65 or Older 

Who Reported Having Had Problems with Access to 

Health Care, 1992-1996 81

Figure 11: Relative Longevity of Selected Comprehensive Key 

Indicator Systems in the United States and Abroad 86

Figure 12: Boston’s Data Items by Source 88

Figure 13: Neighborhood Facts Database Sample, Denver 91

Figure 14: SAVI Web Site Sample, Indianapolis 94
Contents

Page iv GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Figure 15: The Boston Indicators Project’s Interactive Web Site 99

Figure 16: Number of Publicly Traded Gazelle Firms in the Silicon 

Valley 101

Figure 17: Students Carrying Weapons—Percentage of Students 

Who Carry Weapons in Oregon 103

Figure 18: Percentage of Working-Age People Who Are Currently 

Employed in the United Kingdom by Region for 2000 and 

2003 106

Figure 19: Long-term Unemployment Rates for Men, 1999-2002 109

Figure 20: Median Number of Days It Takes for Homes to Sell in a 

Particular Area of Baltimore 117

Figure 21: Different Indicators Used to Measure the Success of 

Public Schools in Jacksonville, Florida 121

Figure 22: SAVI Interactive Tools 129

Figure 23: Traffic Congestion in Chicago—Actual 1996 and 

Projected 2030 133

Figure 24: Travel Trends Placing Stress on the Chicago Regional 

Traffic System 134

Figure 25: Percentage of 9th Graders Reporting Use of Alcohol in 

the Last 30 Days 136

Figure 26: Oregon State Agencies Whose Programs Are Linked to 

Child Abuse or Neglect 138

Figure 27: Population Coverage of Select Comprehensive Key 

Indicator Systems in the United States 148

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. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Comptroller General A of the United States

November 10, 2004 Letr

The Honorable Sam Brownback

Chairman

Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Since the founding of our republic, the importance of informing the nation 

has been an essential component of a healthy democracy. In our country, 

power resides with the people and their duly elected representatives, and 

knowledge serves to both inform and constrain the use of power. This idea 

is embodied in forms ranging from the decennial census to the notion of 

annually reporting on the state of the union, with its history of providing a 

broad, general picture of the nation’s position and progress, along with the 

President’s agenda for the coming year.

Our founding fathers recognized that this critical issue needed ongoing 

attention. 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 [sic] essential.” Since that time, 

there has been a long history—checkered by both success and failure—of 

attempts to create ever more advanced ways to inform our public dialogues 

and generate a context for civic choices and democratic governance. 

This bedrock principle of informing our nation and its citizens has 

maintained its simple, common sense relevance for centuries. Yet, it has 

also evolved and adapted over time to encompass new national and global 

challenges. 

At the time of our nation’s founding, collecting and disseminating 

information was achieved primarily through word of mouth and the 

printing press, drawn from few institutional sources, and traveled at speeds 

of 10 to 20 miles per hour. The availability of information was primarily 

limited to elite groups, and broad general perspectives were difficult to 

develop because of a dearth of factual information. 
Page 2 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Today, information is collected and disseminated at the speed of light, is 

generated in massive amounts from an array of sources, and is available 

throughout the world to almost anyone. It is so diverse and rich that 

general perspectives are difficult to develop because of a surfeit of 

information.

Yet it is just those perspectives we now need in order to work through the 

short- and long-term challenges facing our nation, particularly when, at the 

federal level, the gap between public expectations and available resources 

is expected to widen. There is no substitute for being able to understand 

the whole (e.g., the position and progress of the nation) in order to better 

assess and act on the parts (e.g., the various key issues that we face). 

The opportunity before us is to build sophisticated information resources 

and comprehensive key indicator systems that aggregate vital information 

across sectors, levels of societies, and institutions. These would be 

available to any person or institution, anywhere at any time, and for any 

purpose. 

They would add a key dimension to how we inform ourselves. We now have 

many diverse and extensive bodies of information on issues of limited 

focus (e.g., health care). But we could use comprehensive key indicator 

systems on a broader array of critical issues to help generate a broader 

perspective, clarify problems and opportunities, identify gaps in what we 

know, set priorities, test effective solutions, and track progress towards 

achieving results. For instance, across the federal government, such 

systems could inform a much needed re-examination of the base of existing 

programs, policies, functions, and activities.

To be a leading democracy in the information age may very well mean 

producing unique public sources of objective, independent, scientifically 

grounded, and widely shared quality information so that we know where 

the United States stands now and how we are trending, on both an absolute 

and relative basis—including comparisons with other nations. By ensuring 

that the best facts are made more accessible and usable by the many 

different members of our society, we increase the probability of wellframed problems, good decisions, and effective solutions.

The stakes are high, including considerations regarding allocations of 

scarce public resources, strengthing the economy, creating jobs, 

stimulating future industries, enhancing security, promoting safety, 

strengthening our competitive edge, sustaining the environment, 
Page 3 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

preserving our culture, and promoting quality of life. As a result, Congress 

has a crucial interest in the evolution of comprehensive key indicator 

systems throughout our nation and the world.

Given the variety of activity and interest we observed at all levels of U.S. 

society on this issue, this report can benefit not only those seeking to 

develop a national key indicator system, but also the local and state 

communities who would like to learn more, develop new systems, or refine 

their existing efforts. We look forward to working with you and other 

leaders in joining the effort to develop new approaches to informing our 

nation that will be of truly lasting value to the American people.

Copies of this report are being sent to appropriate congressional 

committees and other interested parties in the United States and around 

the world. We will also make copies available to others upon request. This 

report will also be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff has any questions about matters 

discussed in this report, please contact me at (202) 512-5500 or Christopher 

Hoenig, Managing Director, Strategic Issues, at (202) 512-6779 or 

hoenigc@gao.gov. Key contributors are listed in appendix VIII.

Sincerely yours,

David M. Walker

Comptroller General 

of the United States
Page 4 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Summary

Purpose A substantial amount of activity is taking place throughout the United 

States and around the world to develop comprehensive key indicator 

systems for communities, cities, states, and nations that include essential 

economic, environmental, and social and cultural indicators. These 

systems help people and organizations answer vital questions, such as: 

How is their community, state and/or nation as a whole doing in fact? How 

does it compare to others or to prior conditions? And how does that 

information help them make better choices? Such systems can become an 

essential part of civic dialogue and decision making.

Many in the United States believe that comprehensive key indicator 

systems represent a significant and evolving opportunity to improve how 

individuals, groups, and institutions inform themselves. This is because 

they can enable assessment of the position and progress not just of a wide 

range of jurisdictions throughout the country, but also of the nation as a 

whole. Figure 1 illustrates the variety of topics that might be included in 

such a system. 

Figure 1: Possible Topics for a Comprehensive Key Indicator System

To begin the process of considering whether or how to develop such a 

system at the national level in the United States, congressional and other 

The Economy

Consumers & Employment

Transportation & Infrastructure

Finance & Money

Business & Markets

Government

The World Economy

Society & Culture

Health & Housing

Communities & Citizenship

Education & Innovation

Security & Safety

Crime & Justice

Children, Families & Aging

Democracy & Governance

Values & Culture

The Environment

The Earth (Ecosystems)

Land

Water

Life

Air

Natural Resources

Cross cutting

- Quality of Life

- Sustainability

- Poverty

- Diversity

- Opportunity

- Mobility

- Equity

Source: GAO.
Summary

Page 5 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

leaders have an interest in better understanding the experiences of those 

who have already designed and implemented comprehensive key 

indicators systems. GAO was not asked to develop a set of national 

indicators or conduct an assessment of the position and progress of the 

United States, but rather to address the following three questions.

1. What is the state of the practice in developing and implementing 

comprehensive key indicator systems in the United States and around 

the world?

2. What are the lessons learned from these systems and future 

implications?

3. What are some options for Congress to consider in identifying an 

organization to develop and implement a national system?

Background An indicator is a quantitative measure that describes an economic, 

environmental, social or cultural condition over time. The unemployment 

rate, infant mortality rates, and air quality indexes are a few examples. 

An indicator system is an organized effort to assemble and disseminate a 

group of indicators that together tell a story about the position and 

progress of a jurisdiction or jurisdictions, such as the City of Boston, the 

State of Oregon, or the United States of America. Indicator systems collect 

information from suppliers (e.g., individuals who respond to surveys or 

institutions that provide data they have collected), which providers (e.g., 

the Census Bureau) then package into products and services for the benefit 

of users (e.g., leaders, researchers, planners, and citizens). 

Topical indicator systems involve specific or related sets of issues, such 

as health, education, public safety, employment, or transportation. They 

also form the foundation of information resources for the general public, 

the media, professionals, researchers, institutions, leaders, and 

policymakers. 

Comprehensive key indicator systems pull together only the most 

essential indicators on a range of economic, environmental, and social and 

cultural issues, as opposed to a group of indicators on one topic. 

Comprehensive systems are only as good as the topical systems they draw 

from. 
Summary

Page 6 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Both comprehensive and topical indicator systems use indicators from 

public and private sources, and often disseminate this information to 

diverse audiences, such as in a report or on a Web site. Ultimately, 

however, comprehensive key indicator systems attempt to address 

questions that topical systems (which focus on a specific issue) or current 

statistical databases (which are detailed and highly technical) cannot 

answer for wide and diverse audiences. 

Comprehensive key indicator systems can help to identify a jurisdiction’s 

significant challenges and opportunities, highlight their importance and 

urgency, inform choices regarding the allocation of scarce public 

resources, assess whether solutions are working, and make comparisons to 

other jurisdictions. They exist in a number of countries, including 

Australia, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom, as well as 

supranational entities like the European Union (EU).1

There is a long history of considering the need for a national 

comprehensive key indicator system in the United States going back at 

least to the 1930s. Currently, although a number of cities, states, and 

regions in the United States have comprehensive key indicator systems, 

there is no such system for the United States as a whole. The federal 

government has, however, invested billions of dollars in a rich variety of 

topical information that could underpin a national system.2

 It also supports 

various efforts to enhance the availability of that information, such as 

Fedstats and The Statistical Abstract of the U.S.3

1

 In preparation for its World Indicators Forum in November 2004, the Organisation for 

Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)—one of the major international 

institutions devoted to indicators, statistical data, and policy analysis—is developing a 

“Knowledge Base on National and International Experiences” of existing and developing 

national systems in the 30 OECD member nations as well as others like Brazil, China, and 

India. See http://www.oecd.org/oecdworldforum.

2

 Expenditures for federal statistical programs were approximately $4.7 billion in fiscal year 

2004.

3

 Fedstats is an on-line effort that provides links to statistical information from numerous 

federal agencies. See http://www.fedstats.gov. The statistical abstract is available online 

from the Census Bureau at http://www.census.gov/statab/www.
Summary

Page 7 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Currently, a consortium of not-for-profit, private, and public sector efforts 

is collaborating to create a comprehensive key indicator system for the 

United States.4

 This initiative, known as the Key National Indicators 

Initiative (KNII), emerged after GAO—in cooperation with the National 

Academies—convened a forum in February 2003.5

 At this forum, a crosssection of leaders provided their views on whether and how to develop 

such a national system and believed that it was an important idea that 

should be explored further.6

 They also suggested that it should build on 

lessons learned from other efforts both around the country and worldwide.

The KNII has grown to include a diverse group of over 200 leaders from 

government, business, research, and the nonprofit sector. This group 

consists of experts as well as representatives from broad-based institutions 

throughout the nation. The National Academies currently houses a 

secretariat to incubate this effort. It has recently begun to organize more 

formally and received initial operational funding. One of its goals is to 

create and test a prototype “State of the USA” Web site. 

Scope and 

Methodology

This report is a first step in examining how existing comprehensive key 

indicator systems are working and their implications for the nation. It 

presents information obtained from a select, but not necessarily 

representative, group of 29 comprehensive key indicator systems at all 

levels of society and diverse geographic locations, as shown on table 1. 

GAO interviewed representatives from each of the selected indicator 

systems, as well as a range of experts in the field. In addition, GAO 

conducted in-depth reviews—including interviews with officials, 

stakeholders, and users—of 5 of these 29 systems: Boston, Oregon, 

Germany, the United Kingdom, and the EU. GAO also studied U.S. topical 

indicator systems in five areas: the business cycle, science and engineering, 

health, children and families, and aging. To explore options for Congress, 

4

 While federal agencies (e.g., GAO, the Office of Management and Budget, and major federal 

statistical agencies) do not play a formal role in the effort, they regularly communicate, 

coordinate, offer routine advice, observe meetings, and exchange professional knowledge.

5

 The National Academies is the umbrella organization for four of the nation’s premier 

scientific organizations: the National Research Council, the National Academy of Sciences, 

the Institute of Medicine, and the Institute of Engineering.

6

 GAO, Forum on Key National Indicators: Assessing the Nation’s Position and Progress, 

GAO-03-672SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2003). 
Summary

Page 8 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

GAO drew upon its professional judgment, historical and legal analysis, 

fieldwork, and expert interviews. 

Table 1: Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Selected for GAO’s Study 

Name of system

Approximate 

population

Approximate 

duration 

(in years)

U.S local/regional level

State of the Region (Southern California) 17,123,000 7

Chicago Metropolis 2020 8,090,000 8

New York City Social Indicators 8,080,000 15

Index of Silicon Valley (California) 2,300,000 12

King County Benchmarks (Washington) 1,760,000 14

Social Assets and Vulnerabilities Indicators (Indianapolis) 1,600,000 11

Indicators for Progress (Jacksonville, Fla.) 1,200,000 19

Hennepin County Community Indicators (Minneapolis) 1,120,000 9

Community Atlas (Tampa area, Fla.) 1,070,000 7

Compass Index of Sustainability (Orange County, Fla.) 965,000 12

Portland Multnomah Benchmarks 678,000 11

Baltimore’s Vital Signs 640,000 4 

Boston Indicators Project 590,000 7

Milwaukee Neighborhood Data Center 590,000 13

Sustainable Seattle 570,000 12

Denver Neighborhood Facts 560,000 10

Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project 250,000 11

Benchmarking Municipal and Neighborhood Services in 

Worcester (Massachusetts) 175,000 6

Santa Monica Sustainable City (California) 84,000 10

Burlington Legacy Project (Vermont) 39,000 5

U.S. state level

North Carolina 20/20 8,407,000 9

Minnesota Milestonesa 5,059,000 13

Oregon Benchmarks 3,560,000 15

Results Iowa 2,944,000 5

Maine’s Measures of Growth 1,306,000 11

Social Well-Being of Vermonters 619,000 11
Summary

Page 9 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Source: GAO.

Note: for more information on each of these systems, see app. III of this report. The Web links for each 

of these systems can be found at http://www.keyindicators.org.

a

Since GAO conducted its interviews in fall 2003, Minnesota Milestones ceased to be an active 

system. State officials told us that the Web site will be maintained but there are no plans to update the 

data in the near future.

GAO selected comprehensive key indicator systems that were recognized 

by experts and others as being useful and accessible; and had been in 

existence for more than 2 years. Also, GAO asked national associations 

representing state and local governments to validate the selections. The 

European examples were selected after consultation with OECD, several 

European national statistical offices, and other experts. GAO selected one 

system in each of the topical areas it reviewed on the basis of experts’ 

recommendations. GAO also conducted a literature review. Importantly, 

GAO has not defined explicit, objective criteria for the success or failure of 

a comprehensive key indicator system. More research is needed in this 

area because so many situational, evaluative, and contextual factors 

influence the determination of such criteria. 

Most of the graphics presented in this report from the indicator systems 

GAO studied are only to illustrate the types of information and the variety 

of ways it is presented in the reports or on the Web sites of these systems. 

The examples are not intended to highlight or frame discussions of the 

substantive issues conveyed by them.

GAO did not, nor was it asked to, catalogue the full universe of the 

potentially large number of topical or comprehensive key indicator 

systems. Moreover, indicators are only one part of the complex knowledge 

base required to inform a nation. For instance, comprehensive key 

indicator systems must be supported by detailed databases for those who 

want or need to conduct more extensive research or analysis. A review of 

these databases and other elements that contribute to an informed society 

are beyond the scope of this report.

National level outside the United States

German System of Social Indicators 83,000,000 30

United Kingdom Sustainable Development Indicators 60,000,000 5

Supranational level 

European Structural Indicators 450,000,000 4

(Continued From Previous Page)

Name of system

Approximate 

population

Approximate 

duration 

(in years)
Summary

Page 10 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Given the relatively small number of systems GAO studied in-depth, this 

report’s findings and conclusions may not be universally applicable. GAO 

did not review the entire body of knowledge associated with indicator 

systems in either private enterprises or government agencies and did not 

perform a formal cost and benefit analysis of the systems reviewed. Nor 

did GAO evaluate the federal statistical system and its related agencies. 

Most of the indicator system efforts GAO studied are not necessarily 

comparable in size and political-economic structure to the United States, 

which potentially limits the validity of generalizations to the U.S. national 

context. 

To gain additional insights, GAO solicited and received comments on a 

draft copy of the report from over 60 experts who possess knowledge and 

experience in this field, including leaders from the statistical and scientific 

communities. Sections of the report were also reviewed by the systems 

GAO studied to confirm facts and figures. GAO incorporated comments 

where appropriate in this final version. GAO’s work was conducted from 

July 2003 through September 2004 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief GAO found that comprehensive key indicator systems are active, diverse, 

and evolving. Individuals and institutions from local, state, and regional 

levels across the United States—as well as some other nations and the 

EU—have comprehensive key indicator systems to better inform 

themselves. GAO found enough similarities in the challenges they 

encountered and the positive effects they have had to view them as a 

coherent, noteworthy development in governance. They also have 

potentially broad applicability. Accordingly, GAO has identified key design 

features and defined a set of options for Congress and the nation to 

consider regarding the further development of comprehensive key 

indicator systems at all levels of society, including the U.S. national level.

State of the Practice: 

Citizens and Institutions in 

Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have 

Comprehensive Key 

Indicator Systems

Jurisdictions throughout this country and around the world are operating 

comprehensive key indicator systems and have been for years. Many 

recognize that these systems could represent a significant tool to better 

inform public and private debate and decision making. 
Summary

Page 11 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Topical Systems Provide the 

Foundation for Comprehensive 

Key Indicator Systems

The United States has a wide variety of topical indicator systems at the 

national level that provide a resource for comprehensive key indicator 

systems to draw upon. The interrelationship between topical and 

comprehensive key indicator systems is complementary. Topical systems 

form the essential underpinning for aggregating information into 

comprehensive key indicator systems. Comprehensive key indicator 

systems create a broad picture for users that illuminates the relative 

coverage, depth, and sophistication of topical systems. The broader 

perspective that comprehensive key indicator systems provide can also 

help identify new areas where topical indicators are needed. 

One of the U.S. national topical indicator systems is Healthy People (a 

federal effort led by the Department of Health and Human Services). This 

system provides a set of national health objectives, along with indicators to 

measure progress, which are revisited every 10 years. It also highlights 10 

leading health indicators, such as physical activity, overweight and obesity, 

tobacco use, and substance abuse. Since it was established in 1979, 

Healthy People has engaged a diverse group of stakeholders throughout the 

country, including a Healthy People Consortium. The Healthy People 

Consortium is a group of public and private organizations that is dedicated 

to taking action to achieve the Healthy People agenda. Further, most states 

have their own Healthy People plans. 

Comprehensive Key Indicator 

Systems Are Active, Diverse, and 

Evolving

The comprehensive key indicator systems GAO studied each bring together 

diverse sources of information to provide an easily accessible and useful 

tool for a broad variety of audiences and uses. The Boston Indicators 

Project, for example, brings together a set of indicators from sources such 

as the U.S. decennial census, state and city agencies, nonprofit 

organizations, and universities. It groups the indicators into categories and 

established goals in these areas.7

 

These systems are oriented toward both public and private choices. They 

incorporate individual and institutional perspectives and address a wide 

range of audiences, including business, nonprofit, government, and media 

users, as well as the general public. A small business owner of a company 

that provides health care services, for example, might use information from 

an indicator system to investigate market opportunities in a particular 

7

 The Boston Indicators Project’s categories include civic health, cultural life and the arts, 

the economy, education, the environment, housing, public health, public safety, technology, 

and transportation.
Summary

Page 12 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

geographic area or demographic group. A foundation or nonprofit could 

use indicators regarding the status of children’s education, health, and 

family environment to inform decisions to fund certain grant applications. 

Information from comprehensive key indicator systems could be used to 

help government leaders establish priorities and allocate scarce public 

resources. They can also help individuals understand more about issues 

that affect their life choices, such as how progress in community 

development, public safety, and education could affect where they might 

want to live.

Comprehensive Key Indicator 

Systems Are Oriented Primarily 

toward Learning or Outcomes

GAO found that comprehensive key indicator systems are primarily, but not 

exclusively, either learning-oriented or outcome-oriented.8 

Some systems are oriented more toward learning and information 

exchange. The indicators in these systems are primarily selected based 

upon the information needs of their target audiences and are grouped into 

categories without specific links to outcomes or goals. Information is 

often presented on Web sites with limited commentary or analysis of 

results. The Social Assets and Vulnerabilities Indicators (SAVI) system in 

Indianapolis is an example of a learning-oriented system. It collects, 

organizes, and presents information on “community assets,” such as 

schools, libraries, hospitals, and community centers. It also includes 

indicators in areas like health, education, and criminal justice that highlight 

“vulnerabilities,” such as neighborhoods with high crime or unemployment. 

Learning-oriented systems enable citizens, researchers, and leaders to 

learn more about and monitor conditions in their jurisdictions and may 

help inform decision making.9

Other comprehensive key indicator systems encompass an outcomeoriented focus on societal aspirations or goals. These indicator systems 

are used to monitor and encourage progress toward a vision for the 

future—or in some cases a specific set of goals—which have been 

established by the people and institutions within a jurisdiction. Most of the 

8

 The term outcome-oriented refers to a general concern with impact on the conditions of 

society. Outcome statements range from broad aspirations (e.g., a healthy population) to 

specific objectives or targets for change over a specified time period (e.g., increasing 

available jobs by 10 percent over a 4 year period).

9

 The term jurisdiction is used throughout this report to refer to neighborhoods, 

communities, cities, regions, states, nations, or other entities that, by definition, cover a 

geographic area and incorporate both public and private activities.
Summary

Page 13 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

systems GAO studied were outcome oriented. One of these, the Oregon 

Benchmarks system, measures progress toward a strategic vision and 

related goals for the state, known as Oregon Shines. It is organized around 

three broad goals (1) quality jobs; (2) safe, caring, and engaged 

communities; and (3) healthy and sustainable surroundings; each of which 

has specific objectives. Under the goal for safe, caring, and engaged 

communities, for example, Oregon has a specific objective to decrease the 

number of students carrying weapons, measured by the percentage of 

students who report carrying them (based on a state wide survey). 

Attention to Relevant Issues, 

Aspirations, and Questions Is 

Important in the Development 

and Evolution of Comprehensive 

Key Indicator Systems

GAO’s work showed that an orientation toward outcomes—whether 

outcomes were formative and implicit or advanced and explicit—had an 

important influence on focusing and facilitating the development of the 

system. Audiences are more likely to use information if they see how it is 

relevant to their aspirations or interests. Therefore, outcome-oriented 

systems can help create focused information for their audiences that may 

enhance the use of and continuing support for these systems. 

Moreover, broad discussions about strategic issues and opportunities can 

help to reframe existing problems in new ways or identify important gaps 

in knowledge about certain issues or populations. The notion of progress 

assumes some agreement on the most important questions, issues, or 

opportunities facing a jurisdiction. The civic dialogue and processes used 

to reach common ground in the systems GAO studied were often extensive, 

complex, and time-intensive. Such processes are a pre-requisite for 

initiating, and are critical in sustaining, any comprehensive key indicator 

system.

Lessons Learned and 

Implications: 

Comprehensive Key 

Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development 

with Potentially Broad 

Applicability

Comprehensive key indicator systems add a dimension of information 

about society that is currently not available to most people. The 29 systems 

GAO studied showed evidence of positive effects, such as improving 

decision making, enhancing collaboration on issues, and increasing the 

availability of knowledge. These systems, although very diverse, 

encountered similar challenges and applied many of the same design 

features. Because GAO found systems at all levels of society, including 

other nations, this demonstrates the potential for transferability—meaning 

that approaches used in other jurisdictions may be adapted and used 

elsewhere. Thus, the development and use of comprehensive key indicator 

systems has the potential for broad applicability throughout the United 

States at the subnational and national levels. 
Summary

Page 14 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Comprehensive Key Indicator 

Systems Showed Some Evidence 

of Positive Effects

GAO found that comprehensive key indicator systems showed evidence of 

positive effects in four areas. They enhanced collaboration to address 

public issues, provided tools to encourage progress, helped inform decision 

making and improve research, and increased public knowledge about key 

economic, environmental, and social and cultural issues.

These positive effects are a function of how different stakeholders use 

indicators (along with other resources and information) within the context 

of various political, economic, and other factors. Individuals, the media, 

businesses, non-profits, interest groups, professionals, and governments, 

among others, all may play a role in influencing ideas, choices, and actions. 

Thus, it is difficult to attribute actions directly to an indicator system. In 

several cases, these systems generated information that appeared to spur 

action and produce positive effects in the short term. It can take years, 

however, for an indicator system to become a widely used and effective 

tool. 

Enhanced Collaboration to Address Public Issues

By revealing significant public policy problems or raising the profile of 

new, divisive, or poorly understood issues, comprehensive key indicator 

systems can help spur or facilitate collaboration. Focusing attention on a 

particular condition may bring increased pressure to bear on diverse 

parties in the public and private sectors to collaborate on strategies for 

change. Providing a common source of information also facilitates a 

shared understanding of existing conditions. 

The Chicago Metropolis 2020 indicator report, for example, highlighted the 

region’s severe traffic congestion and its effects. This report was a key 

factor leading to the formation of a task force of public and private leaders, 

supported by the state’s governor and legislature, to deal with 

transportation problems in the Chicago metropolitan region. The task 

force recommended actions intended to transform transportation and 

planning agencies into a more coherent regional system, which are under 

consideration. 

Provided Tools to Encourage Progress 

Users of comprehensive key indicator systems found that they provide an 

effective tool for monitoring and encouraging progress toward a shared 

vision or goals. Some jurisdictions used information from these systems to 

assess the extent to which various parties, including government agencies, 
Summary

Page 15 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

not-for-profit organizations, and businesses, contributed to achieving 

results. 

For instance, the European Structural Indicators system helps officials 

determine how well countries in the EU are meeting agreed-upon policy 

goals that are spelled out in the Lisbon Strategy. Spotlighting each 

country’s progress, or lack thereof, in an annual, publicly released report 

encourages each country to improve its performance, which could then 

raise the overall position of the EU.10 When the EU determines, based on a 

review of the related indicators, that a member country has not made 

sufficient progress toward a particular goal, it can recommend specific 

actions to help further that country’s progress. Some countries have 

changed their policies in response to EU recommendations, such as Spain, 

which has agreed to take steps to raise its employment rate among women. 

Helped Inform Decision Making and Improved Research

Bringing relevant information together in a single resource helps leaders, 

researchers, and citizens to easily access and use it. Therefore, 

comprehensive key indicator systems—if they are viewed as credible, 

relevant, and legitimate—provide the capacity for many to work from, and 

make choices based upon, the same source of reliable information. This 

also enhances efficiency by eliminating the need for individuals or 

institutions to expend additional time and resources looking for or 

compiling information from disparate sources. Researchers, for example, 

could more easily determine what knowledge exists to help identify 

existing or new areas meriting further study.

In Indianapolis, officials from the Social Assets and Vulnerabilities 

Indicators system (SAVI) provided input, based upon the system’s 

economic, public safety, demographic, and program indicators, on where to 

locate a new Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) facility for the 

city. SAVI used its indicators to map areas of need and found that 

numerous parts of the city were equally in need of better recreation and 

educational facilities. That is, no one part of the city was a clear-cut choice 

based on analysis of the indicators. As a result, the YMCA made a decision 

to not construct a single new building. Instead it created a “YMCA Without 

10 Commission of the European Communities, Report from the European Commission to 

the Spring European Council: Delivering Lisbon Reforms for the Enlarged Union 

(Brussels: 2004).
Summary

Page 16 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Walls” program offering a variety of new services throughout the city in 

existing facilities, such as churches, schools, and community centers. 

Increased Knowledge about Key Economic, Environmental, and 

Social and Cultural Issues

Comprehensive key indicator systems allow users to better understand the 

interrelationships between issues that may not have been apparent when 

viewed separately. New insights may also result from looking at economic, 

environmental, and social and cultural information from crosscutting 

perspectives (e.g., opportunity, equity). 

Further, comprehensive key indicator systems helped expose information 

or knowledge gaps about significant issues. These gaps may result from 

(1) the absence of information; (2) inadequate knowledge about the 

interrelationships among various indicators (e.g., the impact of economic 

development on crime rates); or (3) a poor understanding about the 

conditions of certain population groups. As a result, indicator system 

providers and users can help spur new data collection efforts or redirect 

existing efforts to reduce gaps and increase knowledge.

For example, when developing the Compass Index of Sustainability (in 

Orange County, Florida), gaps were identified in knowledge about the 

county’s aging population. Neither government agencies nor other 

organizations were collecting adequate data on the health and well-being of 

aging residents. The system’s report commented on these gaps, leading 

county commissioners to appoint a task force. The task force reviewed 

existing data collection efforts and recommended improvements that are 

now underway, thereby increasing knowledge about a major segment of the 

population. 

System Costs Are Difficult to 

Quantify

Most of the systems GAO studied are located in larger organizations or 

agencies and the reported costs dedicated to developing, implementing, 

and sustaining them are difficult to quantify. Because the system managers 

were able to borrow or leverage staff and resources from their parent 

organizations, the full costs of the time and effort to develop, implement, 

and sustain these systems were not fully captured. In most cases, one to 

three persons worked on the project full-time. For example, one person (in 

the city’s Department of Public Works) manages Santa Monica’s 

Sustainable City indicator system. Further, because these systems rely 

primarily on indicators or data collected by others, the costs incurred by 
Summary

Page 17 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

others to collect data generally are not reflected as part of an indicator 

system’s costs.

According to officials from the systems GAO reviewed, systems’ significant 

cost items included acquiring and managing technology, paying staff and 

consultants, and printing and distributing reports. For example, 

representatives of the Southern California Association of Governments’ 

State of the Region system said that they dedicated approximately $200,000 

for their system’s 2002 annual indicators report. Of this amount, 

approximately $25,000 went to printing the reports, which were distributed 

to various officials, academia, businesses, and nonprofit organizations in 

southern California. The rest of the funding was for two staff members and 

related costs to draft and process the report. This cost structure was for 

the most part consistent with the other systems GAO studied. However, 

any variation in costs in relation to the size of the population covered by 

the system has not yet been determined. 

Certain Design Features Are 

Needed to Overcome a Range of 

Key Challenges

GAO identified a number of challenges experienced by the 29 

comprehensive key indicator systems it reviewed and identified nine 

common design features they exhibited. The nature of these challenges, as 

well as the ways in which the design features were applied, varied based on 

factors such as the system’s size, purpose, target audiences, and the 

jurisdiction’s political and economic structures. 

The primary challenges that systems experienced included (a) gaining and 

sustaining stakeholders’ support, (b) securing and maintaining adequate 

funding, (c) agreeing on the types and numbers of indicators to include, 

(d) obtaining indicators or data for the system, and (e) effectively 

leveraging information technology. Many of these challenges are 

continuous and interrelated. For example, challenges in obtaining 

indicators or data for the system are exacerbated when systems have 

difficulty maintaining adequate funding. 

To address these challenges up front and help ensure a lasting, well-used 

system, GAO’s work in the United States and around the world strongly 

suggests that the development of a comprehensive key indicator system at 

any geographic level—including a U.S. national system—would benefit 

from considering and applying these nine design features. At the outset, 

establishing a clear purpose and defining a target audience and its needs 

are most crucial. Decisions about how to incorporate other important 

features into the system’s design should follow decisions about purpose 

and target audience. 
Summary

Page 18 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

1. Establish a Clear Purpose and Define Target Audiences and Their 

Needs

Deciding whether the system will focus primarily on allowing users to learn 

more about the conditions of their jurisdiction, or whether it would also 

measure progress toward specific outcomes, is a first step in designing a 

comprehensive key indicator system. Another important factor is whether 

to design the system for a specifically targeted audience, such as 

government policymakers, or for a wider audience, including business 

leaders, researchers, not-for-profit organizations, the media, and citizens. 

The media are an especially critical audience because of the role they often 

play in conveying the information presented in indicator systems to the 

general public. 

2. Ensure Independence and Accountability

It is important to insulate comprehensive key indicator systems from 

political pressures and other sources of potential bias as much as possible. 

When indicator systems are perceived as biased toward a particular 

ideological or partisan perspective, the indicators are less likely to have 

credibility and may lose support from a broad group of users. Mechanisms 

for helping to ensure transparency and accountability to stakeholders 

include demonstrating that the system’s managers are achieving the 

indicator system’s stated aims, using scarce resources effectively, 

remaining independent from political processes, and emphasizing problem 

areas or opportunities for improvement. 

3. Create a Broad-Based Governing Structure and Actively Involve 

Stakeholders

A comprehensive key indicator system should be governed by a structure 

that includes a blend of public and private officials and represents views 

from various communities.11 The system’s governing officials typically 

make decisions about how to apply and implement the design features and 

set the policies for the system’s staff to follow, including what products and 

services will be provided. The challenge of gaining and sustaining support 

is continuous, even among systems with champions or large user bases. A 

11 Such communities could include, but not necessarily be limited to, the accountability, 

statistical, scientific and research, business, media, civic, leadership, finance, and not-forprofit communities, including key geographic and demographic groups.
Summary

Page 19 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

governing structure representing various interests can help ensure that the 

system maintains a balanced perspective to meet diverse needs and avoid 

“capture” by one party or particular interest group. 

4. Secure Stable and Diversified Funding Sources

Securing adequate funding to initiate the system and sustain it over time is 

a constant challenge. One way to help ensure that funding remains stable 

over time—and an important aspect of maintaining independence of the 

system—is to diversify the number and types of funding sources. GAO 

found that a lack of diversified funding sources made indicator systems 

more vulnerable to fiscal constraints. Systems that relied on multiple 

funding sources, such as government, corporate, and non-profit 

foundations, could make up for reductions from one source by turning to 

others. 

5. Design Effective Development and Implementation Processes

It is critical to have transparent, collaborative, and repeatable processes in 

place to effectively carry out basic functions of a comprehensive key 

indicator system, including, but not limited to

• developing and modifying an organizing framework for the indicators, 

• selecting and revising the indicators on an ongoing basis, 

• acquiring indicators or data to compute indicators as needed, 

• engaging data providers, 

• assessing the quality and reliability of the indicators or data, and 

• seeking and maintaining funding. 

For example, many of the indicator systems GAO reviewed established 

criteria for facilitating the process of selecting indicators, such as 

relevance, comparability, and reliability. Selecting indicators is particularly 

challenging because it involves making subjective judgments about, and 

reaching agreement on, the relative importance of issues to a jurisdiction.
Summary

Page 20 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

6. Identify and Obtain Needed Indicators or Data

Comprehensive key indicator systems often report on indicators or use 

data that are originally collected by others. Identifying and gaining access 

to indicators or data that are controlled by other organizations is critical to 

these systems. Some systems have established formal processes that 

specify how they will use the data and when and in what form they will 

receive the data from providers. In addition to having legal authority to 

access the information, the system should have responsibility, including 

legal responsibility, for protecting the privacy of the information when 

necessary.

7. Attract and Retain Staff with Appropriate Skills

Systems cannot operate effectively on a day-to-day basis if they do not have 

staff with appropriate skills and abilities. The ability to collaborate with 

diverse stakeholders is a fundamental requirement. Systems also need to 

involve people with a wide variety of skills and knowledge in areas 

including statistics, information technology management, and marketing. 

Working knowledge and experience with key economic, environmental, 

and social and cultural issues are also important. 

8. Implement Marketing and Communications Strategies for Target 

Audiences 

Reaching diverse audiences, including the print and electronic media, 

requires multifaceted marketing and communications strategies. These 

strategies spread the word about the existence and features of the system; 

disseminate information on what the indicator trends are showing; help to 

encourage a broader base of individuals and organizations to make use of 

the system; and provide training and assistance to users. 

9. Acquire and Leverage Information Technologies 

The development of advanced information technologies (e.g., the World 

Wide Web) has transformed the tools available for comprehensive key 

indicator systems, although the extent to which systems have leveraged 

these technologies varied in the systems GAO reviewed. According to 

many of the system managers, effectively using technology, including the 

Internet, has made it possible to transfer data quickly, disseminate it 

economically, and make it more widely available. However, gaining access 
Summary

Page 21 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

to new technologies can be costly and requires staff or users to have 

technical expertise. 

Comprehensive Key Indicator 

Systems Have Potentially Broad 

Applicability

Comprehensive key indicator systems exist across all levels of society, and 

GAO’s review of selected systems indicates that these systems have 

potentially broad applicability. They exhibit similar features that can be 

transferred and adapted by other systems, and have years of experience 

from which to draw. Further, existing mainstream information 

technologies have lowered costs of distribution and increased the methods 

available to make information more accessible and usable. Other 

developed nations already have comprehensive key indicator systems. 

Several specific factors demonstrate the feasibility for a U.S. national 

system.

Strong Foundations. Since comprehensive key indicator systems for the 

most part aggregate existing indicators to enhance dissemination and 

usage, a U.S. system has a large body of indicators from which to select. An 

array of existing topical indicator systems are continually evolving and 

developing broader conceptions of how to understand and assess a 

society’s position and progress. 

Demonstrated Scalability and Comparability. GAO has found working 

systems at all levels of society in the United States and abroad, including 

neighborhoods, communities, cities, regions, states, nations, and 

supranational entities. They range from small population scales in the 

millions to the largest system GAO studied, the EU, at over 450 million.12 

Hence, a system for the U.S. population of over 290 million is potentially 

feasible. 

Evidence of Transferability. Elements from existing systems are being 

adapted by new entities to meet specific needs and interact with one 

another, especially at the local levels in the United States. For example, the 

Boston Foundation has developed technology and processes that could be 

used by other cities, and a group of organizations in Dallas has developed a 

comprehensive key indicator system (Dallas Indicators) that is, in part, 

based on the Boston Indicators Project. Hence, there is abundant 

knowledge and expertise at varying scales that could be applied, with 

recognition of unique factors, to a U.S. national system.

12 The United States is not directly comparable to the EU, however, on a range of political, 

economic, cultural, and geographic dimensions.
Summary

Page 22 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Credible Activity. There is a significant amount of activity and interest 

across the United States in further developing and sharing information on 

comprehensive key indicator systems that could contribute to and 

complement a national system. Moreover, the Key National Indicators 

Initiative is currently in the process of planning a national comprehensive 

key indicator system for the United States. 

Observations and Next 

Steps: Congress and the 

Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further 

Action

The United States confronts profound challenges resulting from a variety of 

factors, including changing security threats, dramatic shifts in demographic 

patterns, increasing globalization, and the accelerating pace of 

technological change. Addressing these challenges will likely depend on 

information resources that better portray a broad picture of society and its 

interrelationships. 

However, in light of the United States’s large supply of topical indicators, a 

natural question is: If the nation has so much information on so many 

issues, why does it need a comprehensive key indicator system? One 

answer to this question is that having information on all the parts—while 

important and necessary—is not a substitute for looking at the whole, 

whether in life, business, science, or governance and politics. 

A National Indicator System for 

the United States Merits Serious 

Discussion 

It appears feasible to create a comprehensive key indicator system for the 

nation that provides independent, objective, and usable information on the 

nation’s position and progress. If designed and executed well, a national 

comprehensive key indicator system could have wide impact—that is, if 

American citizens, leaders, and institutions pay attention to it, access it, 

and use it to inform their personal and professional choices. Alternatively, 

if it is poorly planned and implemented, the effort could absorb scarce time 

and resources, fail to meet expectations, and might even make it more 

difficult to create such a system in the future. 

The potential positive benefits of a U.S. comprehensive key indicator 

system could include the ability to

• highlight areas in which progress has been made in improving people’s 

living conditions as well as areas needing new or higher levels of public 

attention;

• connect debates about the relative merits of competing demands with 

reliable indicators to help make choices among competing priorities and 

direct resources where they have the most impact;
Summary

Page 23 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

• provide information about the possible impact of particular 

interventions and policies, thereby providing greater accountability and 

learning;

• facilitate comparisons within the United States or of the nation as a 

whole with other countries; 

• accelerate the identification of important gaps in the nation’s knowledge 

about important issues and populations;

• enhance fact-based consensus on issues and aspirations, thereby 

devoting more time, energy, and resources to discussing priorities and 

effective solutions; 

• provide more people and institutions with an accessible “window” into 

the nation’s critical sources of information, thereby increasing the 

return on the large investments that have already been made to collect 

it; and

• at the federal level, inform a much-needed re-examination of the base of 

existing programs, politics, functions, and activities as well as the 

mandated creation of a governmentwide performance plan.

However, there are some pitfalls that a key national indicator system would 

need to avoid. First, because there are some areas where indicators or data 

may not exist (e.g., certain aspects of the environment) or are difficult to 

measure (e.g., certain aspects of culture), a key U.S. indicator set could 

have an implicit bias towards areas with existing measures. It will be 

important for the nation to focus on what it needs to measure, not just on 

what it currently measures. Second, poor indicator selection or lack of 

attention to data quality, in the context of such a highly visible system, 

raises the risk in terms of possible misinformation or unintended 

consequences arising from use of the system. Finally, exploring a broad 

number of creative solutions to the problem of how to better inform the 

nation—including the possibility of competing efforts—may help to 

encourage faster or more robust development. A single system, if not 

designed to be open and innovative and implemented in such a fashion, 

could restrain innovation. 

Comprehensive Key Indicator 

Systems Could Help Better 

Inform the Nation at Many Levels

One distinguishing characteristic of the United States is unity built out of 

diversity. This diversity finds its expressions in the multiple levels and 

branches of government, the different sectors of economic and social 
Summary

Page 24 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

activity, the varied geographic regions, and the widely ranging racial, 

ethnic, professional, cultural, and other communities of interest. 

Accordingly, questions about a national system from a local, state, or 

regional perspective might include the following: Can it provide specific or 

contextual information, at an appropriate level of disaggregation (e.g., 

geographic areas or population subgroups) that helps localities, states, and 

regions become better informed? Alternatively, how could a U.S. national 

comprehensive key indicator system help subnational jurisdictions better 

understand themselves in a national context? 

A comprehensive key indicator system for the entire United States could be 

designed in different ways. It could express only national-level indicators 

(e.g., the average national unemployment rate) and coordinate with 

subnational levels and others as they develop their own comprehensive key 

indicator systems with more localized information. Experts GAO talked 

with made it clear that this is an achievable aim and would add value. 

Alternatively, a national system could also include some capability for 

users to get not only national-level information but also information for 

geographic areas and demographic subgroups (e.g., unemployment rates 

for metropolitan areas or school achievement levels for certain population 

groups). Experts said that, due to availability and comparability issues, 

limited progress toward such capabilities would be possible in the short 

term. Much more work must be done to determine how much flexibility in 

comparison and disaggregation could be built into a single national system 

over time, versus what would be available in separately managed 

databases.

Congress Could Choose from a 

Range of Organizational Options 

as Starting Points for a U.S. 

National System

The basic issue for Congress, or any other entity or jurisdiction considering 

a comprehensive key indicator system, concerns who is to develop, 

implement, and manage the system. It is important to note that the specific 

organizational option Congress or any other decision maker chooses as a 

starting point may be less important than ensuring that it incorporates the 

nine key design features presented in this report. 

GAO identified three basic organizational options for a U.S. comprehensive 

key indicator system. Each option would allow for incorporation of all or 

most of the nine design features but to varying degrees: (A) a public 

organization, (B) a private organization, or (C) a combination publicprivate organization. There are advantages and disadvantages to each 

option. 
Summary

Page 25 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Regardless of which option is chosen, the organization would need to 

involve public and private individuals and institutions. Assessing the 

position and progress of a market-oriented democracy like the United 

States would benefit from aggregating both publicly and privately produced 

information for two reasons. First, private sector providers produce much 

useful information (e.g., attitudinal data on consumer confidence). 

Second, much of the information collected by federal agencies is tied 

directly to functional or programmatic purposes and, therefore, is generally 

focused on areas where the government has traditionally played a role. As 

a result, the federal government’s statistical programs could be 

supplemented with information collected by others as the nation evolves 

and attempts to meet emerging challenges in new ways. In addition, public 

and private institutions, individuals, and a wide variety of groups have an 

interest in being engaged in a national comprehensive key indicator system 

so that it will meet their needs. Finally, public sector institutions that 

currently provide indicators rely heavily on data collected from private 

individuals or institutions. All of them have an interest in seeing more 

available and accessible information in return for their time, expense, and 

energy.

Option A: A Public Organization

A national comprehensive key indicator system could be led by a federal agency or a 

component of a larger agency or department. This option would entail operating as 

either (1) a new organization within an existing agency, (2) a completely new agency, or 

(3) an added responsibility in the mission and activities of an existing agency. In terms 

of advantages, a public organization could build upon the vast institutional capacity and 

skills within the federal government. Difficulties involved in mixing official and unofficial 

statistical information would be a disadvantage for a public organization. It could also be 

constrained by federal management and human capital policies. The U.S. Census 

Bureau illustrates some of the main features of a publicly led option. It is one of the 

main federal statistical agencies, with an extensive statistical infrastructure and skill 

base. As such, it provides an example of a potentially viable option for housing a 

national system in an existing agency.
Summary

Page 26 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Option B: A Private Organization

Option C: A Public-Private Organization

Choosing a New or Existing Organization Carries Certain 

Advantages and Disadvantages 

Unlike existing organizations, the most significant disadvantage for a new 

organization is the difficulty of incubating it—that is, getting it off to a 

successful start. The challenges of funding, establishing networks 

internally and with key external communities, new operating policies and 

procedures, and human capital issues are all more difficult in a start-up 

Another option would be to identify or charter a private organization to develop and 

implement a national system. A private, non-profit organization would be better suited 

than a for-profit organization to develop a widely accessible, independent system. A 

common type of congressionally chartered organization that would be an appropriate 

venue for a national system is the federal Title 36 corporation. It provides some degree 

of prestige and indirect financial benefits in that it can receive federal funding, along with 

private gifts and bequests. Federal supervision of such organizations is very limited as 

these organizations are set apart from the executive and legislative branches. In terms 

of advantages, a private organization would be more adaptable and have flexibility in 

soliciting donations from a range of sources and developing its management and human 

capital policies. A disadvantage is that a private organization would be disconnected 

from political appropriations and authorization processes, possibly making it more 

difficult to encourage policymakers to accept and use the indicator system. The 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is an example of a Title 36 organization chartered 

by Congress. NAS is noted for its reputation of providing independent, scientific 

information to the nation, and provides an example of a potentially viable option to 

house a national system in a private organization.

Under the third option of a public-private organization, Congress would have a great 

deal of flexibility in designing a unique organization and selecting from a range of 

possible features. Congress would need to decide which existing laws, such as the 

Privacy Act, should apply. Advantages would include the opportunity to build on the 

capabilities of the federal government while retaining the ability to more easily adapt to 

changing circumstances. The mix of public and private interests could also help 

balance the critical need for independence with important connections to the political 

process. Of course, public-private organizations are not immune to political pressures 

and would need to build institutional processes and a culture focused on quality and 

independence. Further, some risks that the organization would overlap or compete with 

existing federal functions are possible even if the organization is carefully structured. In 

designing a public-private organization, various entities serve as possible models, 

including the Smithsonian Institution (although it is not a viable option to house such a 

system). The Smithsonian Institution is a hybrid organization that is publicly supported 

and privately endowed, illustrating the degree of flexibility Congress would have in 

establishing a public-private partnership to house a national system.
Summary

Page 27 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

situation. In addition, it is more difficult to build awareness, trust, and 

credibility. However, a new organization also provides the opportunity to 

make a fresh start and design an organization that suits the key design 

features and enhances the likelihood that it will become a long-lasting, 

well-used indicator system. 

A New Public-Private Organization Could Offer Greater Flexibility 

to Apply Design Features 

A new public-private organization could facilitate collaboration among a 

variety of communities and combine the best features of federal support 

and engagement. Congress could incorporate flexibilities by selectively 

determining which federal management and human capital policies would 

apply to the organization. A public-private organization could solicit both 

public and private funds, or it could be designed to coordinate the separate 

actions of a few leading public and private institutions. Most of the experts 

GAO interviewed believed that a public-private partnership would probably 

be the best venue for a national system. However, comprehensive key 

indicator systems could begin by being housed in any of the three 

organizational options discussed in this report. GAO found no significant 

reason why any option should be ruled out, especially as a starting point.

From a broader national perspective, other jurisdictions throughout the 

United States that are considering development of a comprehensive key 

indicator system have similar options from which to choose. Unique 

aspects and applications of local, state, and national laws, culture, 

economic conditions, and considerations about existing organizations and 

operations will affect which organizational option is best suited for a 

particular jurisdiction. GAO’s work revealed that lasting comprehensive 

key indicator systems existed in a range of organizational formats in 

jurisdictions throughout the United States, from strictly public systems, 

such as the Oregon Benchmarks, to those housed in private, nonprofit 

organizations, such as Chicago 2020. 

Next Steps for Congress and the 

Nation

In addition to Congress and the executive branch at the federal level, there 

are many providers and users of information in thousands of jurisdictions 

who could benefit from the findings in this report. Accordingly, GAO’s 

suggested next steps are addressed to a broad audience around the nation. 
Summary

Page 28 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Encourage Awareness and Education

Expanding efforts to make leaders, professionals, and the public more 

aware of comprehensive key indicator systems and their implications could 

enhance discussions and enrich considerations about their significance and 

potential application. Specific actions could include conducting briefings, 

workshops, or media events; convening forums or conferences; or holding 

congressional hearings. 

Pursue Additional Research

As it is becoming more feasible for jurisdictions to create such systems, 

more research should be encouraged. Research conducted thus far on 

these systems has shown that many questions remain, such as how much 

time, money, and effort are required to create them and are they worth it? 

A common research agenda, developed among interested parties, would be 

of value. Learning more about large-scale systems, such as those in other 

nations, would help inform the development of a possible U.S. national 

comprehensive key indicator system.

Support Further Development of Comprehensive Key Indicator 

Systems

A high degree of innovation is taking place at local levels, which can help in 

building the nation’s body of experience and inform considerations at the 

state and national levels. One way to enhance the improvement of existing 

systems and increase the probability of successful new ones would be to 

institutionalize a national network of practitioners and experts. The 

regular exchange of knowledge in such a community of practice could 

reduce risks, expand opportunities, and avoid reinventing solutions by 

leveraging accumulated expertise. 

Widen the Dialogue on Options for a U.S. National System 

It is important to initiate a broader dialogue on the possible development of 

a national comprehensive key indicator system that would include 

Congress, the administration, other levels of government, and different 

sectors of society. Such a dialogue should explore potential benefits, costs, 

risks, and opportunities involved. Engaging interested parties across the 

nation would help ensure collaboration across boundaries, leverage 

existing information assets, build on existing knowledge and experience, 
Summary

Page 29 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

and position the nation to make choices about whether and how to develop 

a national comprehensive key indicator system for the United States. 
Page 30 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Chapter 1

Introduction Chapte1r

Difficult decisions related to societal aims, such as improving health care, 

enhancing security, or sustaining the environment require reliable, 

unbiased, and useful indicators that are readily accessible to citizens, the 

media, advocates, businesses, policymakers, nonprofit leaders, 

researchers, and other audiences. While in many ways such information 

about the world is more available today than ever before, too often it is in 

diverse formats and locations that may make it difficult to locate and use 

effectively and to provide a general picture of a jurisdiction’s position and 

progress. In addition, it is not easy to ensure that the most relevant and 

important information is accessible, recognized, and used by a wide variety 

of people and institutions. As a result, public and private decision making 

about issues and solutions may be based on information that is limited, 

fragmented, and incomplete. 

One example where progress has been made is a single entry point for 

federal statistical data (http://www.fedstats.gov), which gives access to 

statistics from over 100 federal agencies, available by both state and topical 

area. It is a valuable resource for professionals and those who need 

information on a specific topic. However, the site does not provide access 

to a limited number of indicators that have been agreed upon as important 

for understanding and assessing the position and progress of the United 

States. Further, it is not designed to allow a user to easily assemble 

indicators in multiple topical areas at the same time, navigate easily 

through different areas, or interact with the system for different purposes 

(e.g., producing a report). Because the site links directly to agency Web 

sites, a wide variety of formats exist and users must also navigate within 

each agency’s site to find desired information.

The nation’s challenges at all levels demand new and more cross-sector, 

cross-border responses involving many different individual and 

institutional participants in U.S. society. These responses, in turn, depend 

on more integrated information resources to support informed public 

debate and decisions within and between different levels of government 

and society. For example, individuals and institutions play multiple roles in 

life (i.e., resident in a particular neighborhood and borough in New York 

City, resident of the city itself, resident of the State of New York, and citizen 

of the United States), illustrating one reason why the interrelationships 

between indicator systems are important.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 31 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Looking at the parts of a society is no substitute for viewing the whole. 

Along these lines, there are examples of citizens, institutions, and leaders, 

in both private and public roles and settings, that have comprehensive key 

indicator systems. Such systems bring together a select set of indicators 

that provides information conveniently in one place on a broad range of 

topical areas, such as economic development and employment, air and 

water quality, and public health and education. We use the term 

comprehensive to denote systems that include indicators from each of the 

three following domains: economic, environmental, and social and 

cultural.1

Organizers and users of comprehensive key indicator systems attempt to 

address questions such as: What are our most significant challenges and 

opportunities? What are their relative importance and urgency? Are we 

making optimal choices to allocate scarce public resources, create jobs, 

stimulate future industries, maintain a global competitive edge, enhance 

security, sustain environmental health, and promote quality of life 

considerations? Are our solutions working and compared to what? How 

do we really know if they are working?

Importantly, indicator systems are oriented toward both public and private 

choices; individual and institutional perspectives; business, nonprofit, 

government, and media points of view; and leaders, voters, and employees. 

Their intent is to improve the availability of quality information for better 

decision making and problem solving. For example, a small business 

owner could use such a system to investigate market opportunities in 

particular geographic areas or among certain demographic groups. A 

foundation might use the information on the status of children’s education, 

health, and family environment to make decisions about competing grant 

applications. Policymakers in government might use such information to 

inform priorities and allocate scarce public resources.

1

 These three domains are widely used in the United States and around the world. 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 32 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Indicators and 

Indicator Systems

An indicator is a quantitative measure that describes an economic, 

environmental, or social and cultural condition. There are many widely 

known indicators, such as the unemployment rate. Yet, there are many 

more indicators that are less widely understood but of comparable 

importance. For example, the number of patent applications or patents 

granted in a particular industry or jurisdiction2

 is sometimes used to 

measure the degree of “inventiveness.” Such an indicator can be useful to 

businesses seeking to locate in places with highly educated and creative 

potential employees. An indicator such as this one could also be useful for 

assessing relative competitive advantage in research and development. 

The indicators related to unemployment and patent applications illustrate 

another difference between indicators—direct vs. indirect or “proxy” 

indicators. Experts in the field of statistics emphasize this distinction 

because it highlights things that are difficult to measure. A direct indicator 

measures exactly what it says it does—in this case the unemployment rate. 

In contrast, an indirect indicator, such as the number of patents, cannot 

directly measure inventiveness. In fact, it may be impossible to measure 

such a concept directly and it is possible that it could only be approximated 

through a variety of quantitative proxy measures. 

In this report, we define “indicator systems” as systematic efforts to 

institutionalize the provision of indicators through various products and 

services to satisfy the needs of targeted audiences. Indicator systems 

measure many things, including attributes of people, institutions, 

industries, and the physical environment, among others. In terms of 

management and ownership, many topical indicator systems in the United 

States are primarily public in character, such as the National Income and 

Product Accounts maintained by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Others 

are privately led, such as the Institute for Survey Research at the University 

of Michigan, which produces consumer confidence indicators. 

Indicators are based on data collected from suppliers (e.g., individuals and 

institutions that fill out surveys or census forms), which can then be 

designed and packaged into products and services by providers (e.g., the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics or the Conference Board) for the benefit of 

2

 We are using the term “jurisdiction” in this report in the broadest sense—it could be a 

neighborhood or community, a state or local government, a region, or a nation. Therefore, a 

jurisdiction could be defined by political or geographical boundaries.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 33 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

various users (e.g., leaders, researchers, planners, or voters). Audiences 

can use the information packaged in an indicator system for a variety of 

reasons: to stimulate awareness, increase understanding, frame points of 

view on issues, plan strategically, assess progress, or make choices.

Indicator systems also vary to the degree that they focus on (1) detailed 

account structures (e.g., the U.S. National Income and Product Accounts); 

(2) portfolios of individual indicators; (3) single composite indices that are 

constructed out of many individual indicators (e.g., the U.S. Index of 

Leading Economic Indicators); or (4) some combination of the above.

Further, indicators are only one part of the base of knowledge and 

information necessary to inform a nation. They are important for 

summarizing, highlighting, and synthesizing what can sometimes be 

complex and bewildering information for many audiences. However, they 

must be supported by more extensive databases to support analysts who 

want to probe into a deeper understanding of the reasons for movements in 

certain indicators.

Topical and Comprehensive 

Key Indicator Systems

It is useful to distinguish between two types of indicator systems: topical 

and comprehensive. “Topical indicator systems” consist of indicators 

pertaining to a related set of issues, such as health, water quality, 

education, science, technology, or transportation. For example, a topical 

system in health might have related indicators like the prevalence of 

certain diseases, such as cancer or heart disease; levels of certain risk 

behaviors, such as cigarette smoking or drug use; the number of citizens 

with access to health insurance; and the number of doctors or hospitals 

available for use by citizens in a particular jurisdiction. Topical indicator 

systems exist at different geographical levels, including local, state, 

regional, national, and supranational. They are a major source of 

information for the media, professionals, researchers, citizens, and 

policymakers.

In contrast with topical systems, comprehensive key indicator systems 

aggregate key economic, environmental, and social and cultural indicators 

into a single system that disseminates information products and services. 

Comprehensive key indicator systems are built selectively by members of a 

jurisdiction from the foundation of many existing topical indicators. 

Indicator systems have an institutional foundation to sustain and improve 

them over time. Comprehensive key indicator systems can make it easier 

to see a more complete, general picture of the position and progress of a 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 34 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

particular jurisdiction without requiring the review of exhaustive detail. 

These comprehensive systems also facilitate analysis and our 

understanding of how changes in one domain can affect other domains. 

For example, public health (which would be included in the social and 

cultural domain) may also be affected by both economic and 

environmental factors. 

Selecting the key aspects or activities of a society that are most important 

to measure is a challenge for comprehensive key indicator systems. 

Citizens of any jurisdiction view the world differently based on their 

culture, geography, aspirations, values, and beliefs, among other factors. 

Diverse perspectives and value judgments significantly affect indicator 

choices and definitions, which are inherently subjective. For example, 

poverty is a characteristic of society that is frequently monitored, and it can 

be defined and measured in a number of ways. The proportion of the 

population that is low income can be selected as one indicator of poverty, 

which frames it in financial terms. However, other possible indicators, 

based on nonfinancial factors like physical, psychological and spiritual 

well-being and education levels, also could be considered as broader 

indicators of poverty. 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 35 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Focus of U.S. National 

Topical Systems on Specific 

Issues

The United States has national-level indicator systems in a variety of 

topical areas, most of which are supported by the federal statistical system. 

Because of the natural interrelationship between topical and 

comprehensive systems, GAO included five U.S. national topical systems in 

our study to provide context, including (1) the Conference Board’s 

Business Cycle Indicators,3

 (2) the National Science Foundation’s Science 

and Engineering Indicators, (3) the Department of Health and Human 

Services’ Healthy People, (4) the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and 

Family Statistics’ America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Wellbeing, and (5) the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics’ 

Older Americans: Key Indicators of Well-being. (See app. I for further 

details on these systems.) These systems and others provide a foundation 

for a national comprehensive key indicator system as well as lessons 

learned that would be useful in developing it. Accordingly, it is important 

to note the common elements exhibited as part of the development and 

implementation of these topical indicator systems.4

 These systems have

• originated in response to certain national challenges or concerns,

• evolved over time by expanding their scope and refocusing their 

activities,

• been used in a variety of ways by the public and private sectors,

• relied heavily upon indicators from the federal statistical system,

• spurred the development of new or different indicators, and

• enhanced approaches for collecting data.

3

 The Conference Board is a nonprofit organization that creates and disseminates 

knowledge about management and the marketplace. It works as a global, independent 

membership organization in the public interest.

4

 Other indicator systems exist in each of the three domains. We did not focus on 

environmental indicator systems because another forthcoming GAO product will focus on 

this domain. 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 36 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Economic, Environmental, 

and Social and Cultural 

Domains

The topical indicator systems we examined fell into either the economic, 

environmental, or social and cultural domain. For example, at the national 

level in the United States, the annual Economic Report of the President 

covers several topical areas within the economic domain, such as business, 

markets, finance, and employment.5

 The environmental domain includes 

areas such as natural resources and ecosystems. The social and cultural 

domain includes topical areas such as education and health care. 

The following three figures illustrate some indicators that fall under each 

domain. First, to illustrate the economic domain, one measure of growing 

worldwide interdependence is the total share of world goods and services 

that is traded. As shown in figure 2, from 1970 through 2002, world exports 

increased from about 12 percent to 24 percent of world gross domestic 

product (GDP). Hence, all over the world, people are depending more and 

more on other nations to consume the goods they produce and to produce 

the goods they, in turn, consume. 

Figure 2: An Economic Indicator Showing World Exports of Goods and Services as 

a Percentage of World GDP, 1970-2002

Note: Calculated from International Monetary Fund data.

5

 Council of Economic Advisers/Executive Office of the President, Economic Report of the 

President (Washington, D.C.: February 2004).

Percentage of GDP

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2002

Source: GAO Strategic Plan, 2004-2009.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 37 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

To illustrate an indicator in the social and cultural domain, one indicator of 

the status of youth in the United States is a measure of the percentage of 

persons ages 16 to 24 who are neither enrolled in school nor working, as 

shown in figure 3. This indicator provides information on a transition 

period for youth when most are finishing their education and joining the 

workforce, a critical period for young people as they are achieving their 

educational goals and choosing their career paths. A breakdown of the 

data by race and ethnic group shows that the percentage of youth that fall 

into this category of neither being in school nor working has been 

consistently higher for American Indian, Black, and Hispanic youths than 

for White and Asian/Pacific Islander youths since 1986.

Figure 3: A Social and Cultural Indicator Showing the Percentage of Persons Ages 16-24 Who Were Neither Enrolled in School 

Nor Working, by Race/Ethnicity (Selected Years 1986-2003)

Note: Data from Current Population Survey, March Supplement, selected years 1986-2003, previously 

unpublished tabulation December 2003.

Percent

20

40

10

0

30

50

Hispanic

White

Asian/Pacific 

Islander

American 

Indian

Total

Black

Year

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2003

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 38 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

As an example from the environmental domain, in 2003 the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) published a Draft Report on the Environment 

2003 that covered topical areas in this domain, such as air, land, and 

water.6

 The air quality index, for example, is used for daily reporting of air 

quality as related to ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen 

dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. The higher the index, the poorer the air quality. 

When air quality index values are higher than 100, the air quality is deemed 

unhealthy for certain sensitive groups of people. Based on EPA’s air quality 

index data, the percentage of days across the country on which air quality 

exceeded 100 dropped from almost 10 percent in 1988 to 3 percent in 2001, 

as shown in figure 4. 

Figure 4: An Environmental Indicator Showing the Number and Percentage of Days 

with an Air Quality Index (AQI) Greater Than 100, 1988-2001 

Source: EPA.

Note: Data used to create graphic are drawn from EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1997. Table A-15. December 1998; EPA, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards; Air Trends: Metropolitan areas trends, Table A-17, 2001; 

(February 25, 2003; http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/metro.html).

6

 Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Report on the Environment 2003 (Washington, 

D.C.: 2003). Number of days with AQI>100

Percent of Total Days

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

Year

24

20

16

12

8

4

0

Number of Days

Percent of Total Days
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 39 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Significant national-level research has been conducted on topical systems. 

For example, the National Academies, which brings together committees of 

experts in areas of scientific and technological endeavor to address critical 

national issues and advise the federal government and the public, has 

conducted extensive research on indicator systems in the United States 

and around the world. Specifically, the Academies has done work in 

response to several requests from federal agencies over the past 15 years to 

develop, evaluate, or propose statistics or select indicators in fields such as 

the economy, health, education, families, the environment, transportation, 

science, and technology. 

Some indicators, however, can be considered under more than one of the 

three domains. The number of housing starts, for example, could be 

considered under the economic domain, but housing availability also 

affects the social and cultural domain, which includes aspects of quality of 

life. The health effects resulting from various environmental conditions 

provide another example where the distinction between different domains 

blurs. A wider perspective is also crucial in the area of health care, which 

involves economic as well as social and cultural indicators. For example, 

participants in a recent GAO forum on health care observed that, although 

a nation’s wealth is the principal driver of health care spending, that wealth 

alone does not explain the high level of spending in the United States.7

These interrelationships point to one of the strengths of comprehensive 

key indicator systems—they provide a tool to bring information together 

more easily on an ongoing basis. This means they are especially suitable 

for assessing increasingly complex, crosscutting issues that are affected by 

a wide range of factors.

Comprehensive Systems’ 

Broad Focus on Position 

and Progress across All 

Three Domains

A comprehensive key indicator system can be defined more specifically as 

shown below. 

• Comprehensive—Contains information from the three main domains: 

economic, environmental, and social and cultural (note that 

crosscutting categories such as sustainability do not fit neatly into one 

domain). It is comprehensive in the sense that it provides broad 

coverage across the three domains.

7

 GAO, Highlights of a GAO Forum: Health Care: Unsustainable Trends Necessitate 

Comprehensive and Fundamental Reforms to Control Spending and Improve Value, GAO04-793SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2004).
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 40 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

• Key—A core set of information that a group of citizens has selected 

from a much larger range of possibilities. There is no “right” number of 

key indicators. How jurisdictions strike the balance between simplicity 

and effective coverage can differ widely. An indicator set can include a 

few to hundreds of indicators, but it is not intended to be exhaustive. 

Because these are a select set, they cannot provide a full description of 

the position and progress of a jurisdiction but rather focus on providing 

a generally accurate picture of the whole.

• Indicator— Description of an economic, environmental, or social and 

cultural condition over time. These indicators can be but are not 

necessarily tied directly to goals or formulated as objectives, or have 

specific performance targets associated with them. 

• System—The products, services, people, processes, and technologies 

involved in an organizational form to sustain and adapt the set of 

indicators. This refers to a larger set of civic, scientific, technical, and 

other processes that involve suppliers (of data), providers (of 

indicators), or users (of information). 

Although comprehensive key indicator systems are functioning in the 

United States at the community, local, state, and regional levels, limited 

research appears to have been conducted with comprehensive key 

indicator systems themselves as the focus of analysis. Appendix VII 

provides a bibliography of some of the existing literature related to topical 

and comprehensive key indicator systems.

Figure 1 shown earlier in the summary section of this report illustrates how 

a comprehensive key indicator system might integrate information from 

the three domains into a single conceptual framework. Note that this 

framework also allows for crosscutting indicators that do not easily fit into 

one of the three domains. Some comprehensive key indicator systems are 

based primarily on broad, crosscutting conceptual areas, such as quality of 

life or sustainable development. An example of an indicator system that is 

tracking quality of life is the Burlington Legacy Project of Burlington, 

Vermont. The Burlington Legacy Project has calculated a single index of 

quality of life—referred to as the genuine progress indicator (GPI) index, 

which is a composite of 26 economic, environmental, and social and 

cultural indicators. Figure 5 shows the GPI calculated for Burlington, 

Vermont; Chittenden County, Vermont; the State of Vermont; and the 

United States. 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 41 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Figure 5: GPI Per Capita for Burlington, Vermont; Chittenden County, Vermont; the 

State of Vermont; and the United States, 1950-2000

Note: See also Costanza, et al., “Estimates of the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) for Vermont, 

Chittenden County, and Burlington, from 1950 to 2000,” Ecological Economics.

Nations with 

Comprehensive Key 

Indicator Systems

A number of countries, including Australia, Canada, and the United 

Kingdom, have comprehensive key indicator systems at the national level. 

Some exist at the supranational level, such as the European Union’s (EU) 

European Structural Indicators system.8

 Although we did not study the 

Canadian and Australian systems as part of this review, they nonetheless 

illustrate how national comprehensive key indicator systems can be 

organized. 

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Burlington

Chittenden

Vermont

US

Sources: Burlington Legacy Project. $/cap ita

8

 In preparation for its World Indicators Forum in November 2004, the OECD is developing a 

“Knowledge Base on National and International Experiences” of existing and developing 

national systems in the 30 OECD member nations, and others like Brazil, China, and India.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 42 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Canada’s Treasury Board maintains an annually updated comprehensive 

key indicator system consisting of 20 indicators intended to reflect a 

balance of economic, environmental, and social and cultural conditions.9

 

This system provides a snapshot of where Canada stands in comparison 

with other countries. The Treasury Board’s indicator system complements 

government departmental reports by giving Canadians a broad perspective 

on national performance, providing a context for assessing the 

performance of government programs, and reporting on basic information 

to support dialogue among Canadians about future directions in public 

policy. The Board grouped indicators into the following four themes.

• Economic opportunities and innovation—real gross domestic 

product per capita, real disposable income per capita, innovation, 

employment, literacy and educational attainment.

• Health—life expectancy, self-rated health status, infant mortality and 

healthy lifestyles.

• Environment—climate change, air quality, water quality, biodiversity, 

and toxic substances and the environment.

• Strength and safety of communities—volunteerism, attitudes 

toward diversity, cultural participation, political participation, and 

safety and security. 

Australia’s comprehensive system—Measures of Australia’s Progress—is 

organized around four dimensions of progress with associated topical 

areas. System organizers selected a variety of indicators to measure 

progress in each of the topical areas. The dimensions and associated 

topical areas for the 2004 report are as follows.10

• Individuals—health, education and training, and work.

9

 The most recent report is Canada’s Performance 2003. For more information, see 

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/report/govrev/03/cp-rc1_e.asp#_Toc54511340. Updated reports are 

issued annually.

10 The most recent report—Measures of Australia’s Progress 2004—was issued in April 

2004. For more information, see 

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/398ab89dbd6cba6fca256e7d00002636?OpenDoc

ument.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 43 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

• Economy and economic resources—national income, financial 

hardship, national wealth, housing, and productivity.

• Environment—the natural landscape, the human environment, oceans 

and estuaries, and international environmental concerns.

• Living together—family, community, and social cohesion; crime; and 

democracy, governance, and citizenship.

An Illustrative History 

of National Efforts in 

the United States

A consistent message from the many experts and practitioners engaged in 

this field has been to look at indicator systems from a historical 

perspective. This is not only because such systems typically have evolved 

over long periods, but also because some understanding of the evolution of 

how U.S. citizens and organizations inform themselves provides a basic 

foundation for describing comprehensive key indicator systems. This 

history is intended to emphasize a few critical ideas. First, our substantial 

information assets have evolved as the nation confronted great problems or 

questions and needed to know more. Second, the topical areas that 

resulted are the essential foundation for how the nation informs itself. 

Third, since early in the 20th century, many observers have recognized the 

potential value of a more comprehensive, objective view of the United 

States. But it is only now, for a variety of reasons, becoming potentially 

feasible to plan, design, and implement such a resource.

National Challenges and 

Concerns Led to the 

Creation of Topical Area 

Indicator Systems, Which 

Have Evolved Over Time

The indicators required to inform our nation have developed over time in 

response to important issues and opportunities. As national-level 

indicators developed in the economic, environmental, and social and 

cultural domains, each evolved with its own history and traditions. The call 

for economic indicators grew out of the nation’s experiences during the 

Great Depression. Social upheavals after World War II and the Great 

Society in the 1960s helped spark a desire for social and cultural 

information. Scientific studies that raised concerns about society’s impact 

on the environment pointed to a need for more information on 

environmental conditions. Substantial information assets now exist in 

these topical areas—providing a foundation consisting of thousands of 

indicators—on which we all depend for decision making. 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 44 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

The U.S. federal statistical system includes indicators on many specific 

topics and consists of numerous agencies and programs, each established 

separately in response to different needs. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has identified 70 federal agencies that each spends at least 

$500,000 annually on statistical activities.11 The U.S. federal statistical 

system is looked to as a worldwide leader in terms of the sheer volume, 

scope, and experience in developing and refining information sets in 

particular domains and topical areas. Together, the output of these 

agencies constitutes the federal statistical system. Ten of these agencies 

are considered by OMB to be the principal statistical agencies because they 

collect, produce, and disseminate statistical information as their primary 

missions, while the other agencies that produce and disseminate statistical 

data do so as an ancillary part of their missions. Table 2 provides a list of 

topical areas selected to illustrate the variety of subjects covered by the 

federal statistical system.12

Table 2: Selected Topical Areas Covered by Federal Statistical Programs

Source: Office of Management and Budget.

11 According to OMB estimates, funding for federal statistical agencies that collect and 

disseminate information, including many indicators in nearly every topical area, amounted 

to over $4.7 billion for fiscal year 2004.

12 See Office of Management and Budget, Statistical Programs of the United States 

Government, Fiscal Year 2004 (Washington, D.C.: 2003).

• Agriculture • Children and families

• Food and nutrition • Homeland security

• Natural resources • Housing

• Education • Crime and Justice

• Health • Employment

• International trade • Job training

• Patents and trademarks • Transportation

• Energy • Science and technology

• Occupational safety and health • Small business

• Aging • Urban development
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 45 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Table 3 provides selected highlights of indicator traditions in the economic, 

environmental, and social and cultural domains. These highlights 

demonstrate three recognizable traditions in the development of the United 

States’ indicator systems that continue today but are now being 

complemented by the development and evolution of comprehensive 

systems. These national topical area indicator systems have evolved in 

response to needs for new or different types of information, new 

challenges, and shifting issues and priorities. They reflect an investment of 

billions of dollars to create, maintain, and revise.

Table 3: Selected Highlights of Indicator Traditions in the United States 

Tradition/

domain Illustrative examples

Economic 

indicators

National Income and Product Accounts were initially formulated to 

account for the 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 were created in the 1930s by the National 

Bureau of Economic Research and have been compiled by the 

Conference Board since 1995. They were first compiled by the U.S. 

Census Bureau for government agency use from 1961 to 1968 and then 

for public use from 1968 to 1972; the Bureau of Economic Analysis 

compiled them from 1972 to 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 1946a committed the federal government to the 

goals of full employment and economic stability. The act created the 

Council of Economic Advisors, which released the first Economic Report 

of the President in 1947. The Council continues to publish it to this day.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 46 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Source: GAO.

a

Pub. L. No. 79-304, 60 Stat. 23 (1946).

b

Department of Labor, Children’s Bureau, Handbook of Federal Statistics on Children (Washington, 

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

c

90th Congress, S-843.

d

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Toward a Social Report (Washington, D.C.: 1969).

e

42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4370f.

f

42 U.S.C. §§ 7401–7671q.

g

16 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1544.

Social and 

cultural 

indicators

The Department of Labor, Children’s Bureau’s Handbook of Federal 

Statistics on Children,

b

 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 Actc

was first introduced in 1967. Although the bill was never passed, it 

called for an annual social report from the President to Congress and 

helped focus a national dialogue on social indicators.

In 1969, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare published a 

report on social and cultural indicators called Toward a Social Report.d 

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, federal statistical agencies published a report on social 

indicators. Subsequent reports on social indicators were published in 

1976 and 1980.

Environmental 

indicators

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),e signed into law on 

January 1, 1970, requires 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 major federal actions significantly affecting the environment. 

NEPA also established the Council on Environmental Quality to advise 

the President on environmental matters. 

During the same year, EPA was created as an independent agency to 

establish and enforce federal air standards and water pollution control 

laws and to monitor the environment. The Clean Air Act of 1970f

 also 

was passed. These initiatives focused national attention on indicators of 

environmental quality.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973g 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. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Tradition/

domain Illustrative examples
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 47 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Economic Indicator Systems As the Great Depression deepened in the 1930s, the United States 

established mechanisms to improve the collection of indicators on 

particular economic and social and cultural conditions, including national 

surveys on labor and health issues. During the 1940s and early 1950s, 

efforts increasingly focused on economic monitoring and reporting. Key 

economic indicators, such as the National Income and Product Accounts, 

became regularly reported and widely referenced by policymakers, the 

business community, researchers, and the public.13 The United States has 

been refining these indicators since the 1930s, and work continues to this 

day. For example, our 1997 report on the consumer price index (CPI) 

identified more frequent updating of market basket expenditures weights 

as a way to significantly improve the accuracy of the index and have a 

positive impact on the federal budget deficit.14 Based on this and other 

reports, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has made important improvements 

in the CPI methodology, including more frequent updating of the market 

basket.

An example of a specific topical area within the economic domain is the 

Business Cycle Indicators system that is currently maintained by the 

Conference Board. It consists of three sets of composite leading, 

coincident, and lagging indexes—and is a well-known tool for forecasting 

economic activity.15 The continuity of the system has been critical for 

achieving a high level of attention from national and business leaders. 

Like most other U.S. economic indicators, the Business Cycle Indicators 

system had its impetus in the dramatic economic transformations of the 

Great Depression of the 1930s and World War II and its aftermath. During 

the Great Depression, leaders were not able to adequately track or forecast 

13 The measurement of incomes earned in the United States was a joint effort by the 

Department of Commerce and the National Bureau of Economic Research. The Department 

of Commerce subsequently assumed all the work and provided the first measure of U.S. 

production during World War II.

14 GAO, Consumer Price Index: More Frequent Updating of Market Basket Expenditure 

Weights Is Needed, GAO/GGD/OCE-98-2 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 9, 1997).

15 The composite indexes are the key elements in an analytic system designed to signal 

peaks and troughs in the business cycle. The leading, coincident, and lagging indexes are 

essentially composite averages of between 4 and 10 individual leading, coincident, or 

lagging indicators. They are constructed to summarize and reveal common turning point 

patterns in economic data in a clearer and more convincing manner than any individual 

component—primarily because a number of indicators taken together as a single index has 

more information than any one indicator. 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 48 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

changes in the business cycle due to significant gaps in our knowledge of 

the U.S. economy.

The Business Cycle Indicators system has been developed and refined 

through public-private interactions over time. Business cycle indexes have 

been published continuously since 1968, albeit with numerous revisions 

and substitutions in response to factors like structural changes in the 

economy due to, for example, increased globalization, and new 

understandings of how the business cycle unfolds. Initially, work on 

researching what would become the Business Cycle Indicators came not 

from the government but from the private sector. Specifically, this work 

began during the late 1930s at the private, nonprofit National Bureau of 

Economic Research (NBER). NBER initially helped to identify the most 

important business issues to measure and the types of indicators needed. 

By the 1960s, NBER had refined the Business Cycle Indicators and, in 1961 

the U.S. Census Bureau began to regularly publish reports based upon the 

indicators for government agency use. In 1968, the U.S. Census Bureau 

began publishing a report on the Business Cycle Indicators not just for 

government agency use, but also for public use and did so through 1972. 

The Bureau of Economic Analysis then published the indicators from 1972 

to 1995, although the program was scaled back over time. The reports also 

included a sizeable chartbook containing underlying economic data, which 

was eventually eliminated. By 1995, the Business Cycle Indicators had 

become well established, and the federal government granted the 

Conference Board exclusive rights to produce the Business Cycle 

Indicators, which it has done ever since. 

Figure 6 illustrates how an indicator system may change over time. This 

illustration shows how two different versions of the leading index—the old 

leading index (or “current leading index” in the figure) and the “new 

leading index” that replaced it in late 1996—predicted different patterns for 

the U.S. economy. Specifically, figure 6 compares two sets of trends: one 

based on the original (“current”) leading index and the other based on 

recalculations using a new, revised index. For example, the old (“current”) 

leading index provided a “false signal” of an oncoming recession in 1984, 

whereas the revised leading index (“new”) provided a much more muted 

signal. 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 49 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Figure 6: Revisions in the Leading Index of the Business Cycle Indicators, 1984-1997

Note: Data from Business Cycle Indicators, vol.1, no. 11, December 1996.

Social and Cultural Indicator 

Systems

The apparent success of economic indicators in contributing to discussions 

and decisions about managing economic policy helped spark interest in 

producing indicators on the social and cultural well-being of the nation and 

increased institutional support for enhancing the availability of information 

to support planning and policy making. In the 1960s, some believed that 

economic indicators alone were not adequate to monitor the dramatic 

social changes taking place. A heightened focus and debate on social and 

cultural indicators led certain observers to label this effort as a “social 

indicators movement”—even though some attempts were made to focus on 

environmental indicators as well. (See app. II for more information on the 

social and cultural domain.) 

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

92

94

96

98

100

102

104

106

92

94

96

98

100

102

104

106

New Leading Index

Current Leading Index

 Source: The Conference Board.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 50 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

There were some attempts during the 1960s to unite economic indicators 

with improved social and cultural and environmental indicators in order to 

provide a comprehensive view of the position and progress of the nation. A 

first step to enhance social and cultural indicators and report more 

comprehensively on the position of the nation as a whole occurred in 1962 

when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration commissioned 

the American Academy of Arts and Sciences to explore the potential side 

effects of space exploration on U.S. society. The resulting Social 

Indicators report, published in 1966, found that adequate information for 

assessing American life was not as widely available as economic 

information was. It called for increased collection of social and cultural 

statistics and recommended the development of a system of national social 

accounts to help guide policy decisions.16

In 1967, several senators proposed legislation calling for the creation of a 

national system of social accounting and a Council of Social Advisers that 

was to have been comparable to the Council of Economic Advisers. 

Hearings were conducted on a proposed bill that would have established an 

annual social report similar to the Economic Report of the President, 

although the bill did not pass.

In 1969, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare—now the 

Department of Health and Human Services—produced an influential 

publication entitled Toward a Social Report. This report was 

commissioned by presidential directive to “develop the necessary social 

statistics and indicators to supplement those prepared by the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics and the Council of Economic Advisers.” The report dealt 

with various environmental and social and cultural concerns of American 

society, such as health and illness; social mobility; the physical 

environment; income and poverty; public order and safety; learning, 

science, and art; citizen participation; and the perceived alienation of 

certain groups of citizens. The report assessed prevailing conditions on 

each of these topics, concluded that indicators on social and cultural 

conditions were lacking, and recommended that the executive branch 

prepare a comprehensive social report for the nation with emphasis on 

16 Raymond Bauer, ed. Social Indicators (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1966).
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 51 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

indicators to measure social change that could be used in setting policy and 

goals.17 

There were several other developments in the area of social and cultural 

indicators during the 1970s and 1980s. In 1972, the Social Science Research 

Council—a non-profit organization—established the Center for 

Coordination of Research on Social Indicators. 

In 1973, 1977, and 1980, the federal government published three reference 

volumes , entitled Social Indicators.

18 These reports presented 

information on important aspects of the country’s social condition along 

with underlying historical trends and developments. Subject areas 

included population; the family; health and nutrition; housing; the 

environment; transportation; public safety; education and training; work; 

social security and welfare; income and productivity; social mobility and 

participation; and culture, leisure, and use of time. However, the U.S. 

government discontinued the Social Indicators series after the 1980 

volume. Moreover, the Center for Coordination of Research on Social 

Indicators also closed. Although the absence of these consolidated efforts 

creates the appearance that the production of literature on social and 

cultural indicators declined, this is difficult to substantiate. An equally 

plausible possibility is that it simply dispersed and continued to develop in 

respective topical areas in academic, governmental, and non-profit 

settings.

17 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Toward a Social Report (Washington, 

D.C.: 1969).

18 Office of Management and Budget, Statistical Policy Division, Social Indicators 1973: 

Selected Statistics on Social Conditions and Trends in the United States (Washington, 

D.C.: 1973); Department of Commerce, Social Indicators 1976: Selected Data on Social 

Conditions and Trends in the United States (Washington, D.C.: 1977); and Department of 

Commerce, Social Indicators III: Selected Data on Social Conditions and Trends in the 

United States (Washington, D.C.: 1980).
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 52 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Other developments during the 1970s and 1980s included publication of a 

number of works on social indicators and the launch of several periodic 

sample population surveys, such as the General Social Survey and the 

National Crime Victimization Survey.19 Research on social and cultural 

indicators was also under way in other countries and involved some 

international organizations. For example, building on the work completed 

in the United States, researchers in Germany continued to develop social 

indicators. Their work formed the basis for the German System of Social 

Indicators, which has been in place for 30 years. Additionally, the 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 

launched a social indicators program in 1970. This program, with the help 

of an international network of researchers and national statisticians, 

developed a model survey and a list of social indicators intended to provide 

systematic indicators for national and comparative use. OECD’s first 

Programme of Work on Social Indicators was cancelled after the 

publication of the first (and only) edition of the report, Living Conditions 

in OECD Countries in 1986.20 OECD began work on its current social 

indicators project in 1998, which led to the publication of a 2002 report.21

Observers have proposed a number of explanations as to why national 

attempts to create more integrated social and cultural reporting appear to 

have declined. One factor cited was that western industrial societies 

experienced an economic crisis in the early 1980s that continued to focus 

attention on economic problems. Further, the large government budget 

deficits that accumulated during the 1980s reduced the funding available 

for social research—along with many other domestic policy priorities. 

Others believe that initial expectations about what social and cultural 

indicators could accomplish may have been “oversold.” These observers 

argued that the usefulness of the existing social and cultural indicators had 

not been demonstrated to leaders and that, therefore, the indicators were 

not directly used in policy making. Further, social processes were proving 

to be more complex and less clearly understood than economic ones, and 

19 The General Social Survey has been conducted by NORC (formerly known as the National 

Opinion Research Center) since 1972. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has sponsored the 

National Crime Victimization Survey since 1973, although it is conducted by the Census 

Bureau.

20 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Living Conditions In 

OECD Countries: A Compendium Of Social Indicators (Paris: 1986).

21 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Society at a Glance: OECD 

Social Indicators 2002 Edition (Paris: 2002).
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 53 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

there was no theoretical framework comparable to economic theory. An 

additional factor may have been that the extensive cost of and effort 

associated with collecting and analyzing social data were significant due to 

the limited technology available at that time; and benefits were unclear.

In fact, the diversity of the ways in which social and cultural indicators can 

be conceptualized continues to be a challenge. Many topical areas that 

appear to reside clearly within that domain (e.g., social equity), upon 

further investigation, turned out to be crosscutting and could only be 

examined in the context of interrelationships with the other two domains. 

The difficulty of work in the social and cultural domain is accentuated by 

the fact that it covers many sensitive moral, racial, or religious issues, 

among others. 

Healthy People, led by the Department of Health and Human Services, is a 

specific example of a topical indicator system currently operating in the 

social and cultural domain at the U.S. national level.22 Healthy People 

originated in the late 1970s during a movement in the medical, scientific, 

and public health communities to enhance health promotion, health 

protection, and disease prevention in the nation. Specifically, its purpose is 

to provide a consensus set of national objectives related to various health 

concerns—such as the prevalence of cigarette smoking and related 

illnesses among Americans—that the health community could agree to, 

obtain data on, and monitor over time. Healthy People was envisioned as a 

tool for progress, with a number of objectives established to provide 

consistent guidance to the process. 

The Healthy People system has increasingly engaged stakeholders at the 

subnational levels to assist in progress toward national health goals and 

objectives. In 1987 the Healthy People Consortium—an alliance that now 

consists of more than 350 organizations and 250 state and local agencies—

was created to forge a coalition that is dedicated to taking action to achieve 

the Healthy People objectives, such as reducing obesity. It facilitates broad 

participation in the process of developing the national prevention agenda 

and engages local chapters and their members in the provision of 

community and neighborhood leadership. The National Medical 

Association, Wellness Councils of America, American Hospital Association, 

and American Medical Association are examples of Consortium members 

that use their expertise, contacts and resources to adopt, promote, and 

22 See http://www.healthypeople.gov.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 54 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

achieve the Healthy People agenda. The Consortium also seeks to 

coordinate Healthy People with state, local, and community level 

initiatives. Further, 41 states and the District of Columbia have their own 

Healthy People plans.

Since 1980, Healthy People has evolved into a series of 10-year efforts. For 

each upcoming decade, Healthy People has established new sets of goal 

statements, focus areas, and objectives that build upon the work of the 

prior decades’ efforts. Healthy People 2010: Understanding and 

Improving Health, was issued in 2000 and continues the tradition by 

setting forth two overarching goals: (1) increasing the quality and years of 

healthy life and (2) eliminating health disparities. These goals are detailed 

in 28 focus areas that include 467 specific objectives, along with indicators 

to be used in monitoring progress.23 

Figure 7 provides an example of current Healthy People indicators that 

measure the objective of improving cardiovascular health and quality of life 

through prevention, detection, and treatment of risk factors; identifying 

and treating heart attacks and strokes; and preventing recurrences—rates 

of coronary heart disease and stroke deaths (per 100,000 people). It shows 

that the age-adjusted death rate for heart disease (per 100,000 people) 

declined throughout the 1980s and 1990s to 208 in 1998, while the rate of 

deaths due to strokes declined to 60. 

23 Department of Health and Human Services, Healthy People 2010: Understanding and 

Improving Health (Washington, D.C.: 2000).
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 55 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Figure 7: Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke Deaths, by Year, in the United States, 

1979-1998

Notes: Data from National Vital Statistics Systems, 1979-98. The rates are age adjusted by the year 

2000 standard population to compensate for the relative increase in the number of older people in the 

United States, who have higher rates of death from coronary heart disease and strokes.

*Age adjusted to the year 2000 standard population

Another innovation that emerged in the Healthy People 2010 report is the 

identification of a smaller set of 10 “Leading Health Indicators,” which 

provides a succinct, user-friendly measure of the health of the U.S. 

population. These indicators are intended to increase general public 

awareness and motivate action at the federal, state, and local levels. The 

leading indicators include measures of 

• physical activity,

• overweight and obesity, 

• tobacco use, 

• substance abuse, 

• responsible sexual behavior, 

Death per 100,000*

1979 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 1980

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.

CHD Stroke

400

300

200

100

0

208

60
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 56 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

• mental health,

• injury and violence,

• environmental quality,

• immunization, and

• access to health care.

Environmental Indicator 

Systems

Public concerns about the quality of the environment date back to around 

the turn of the 20th century but began to reach a critical mass in the 1960s. 

Initially, many of these concerns centered on the effects of pollution. In 

1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, chronicling the effects of 

bioaccumulation.24 Several reports raised similar concerns regarding the 

quality of the nation’s rivers, lakes, and estuaries. For example, the 

Potomac River was heavily polluted, beach closures and warnings 

regarding shellfish contamination were common events, and the Cuyahoga 

River in Ohio caught fire. By the 1970s, the political momentum to protect 

the environment and the public from the hazards of pollution led to a 

number of laws and initiatives, including creating the EPA, establishing 

national standards for drinking water, legislating protections for 

endangered species, and enacting air and water pollution control laws. 

For example, water quality is one area in which various efforts have been 

undertaken to develop and implement environmental policies and related 

indicators. Among these actions was the passage of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, which, as amended, is 

commonly known as the Clean Water Act.25 The primary objective of the 

act is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Under the act, states have primary 

responsibility for implementing programs to manage water quality. In 

particular, state responsibilities include establishing water quality 

standards to achieve designated uses (the purposes for which a given body 

of water is intended to serve), assessing whether the quality of their waters 

meets state water quality standards, and developing and implementing 

cleanup plans for waters that do not meet standards. 

24 Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 1962).

25 Pub. L. No. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816 (codified as amended in 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387).
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 57 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Monitoring information on water quality—for example, the presence of 

chemicals such as chlorine, physical characteristics such as temperature, 

and biological characteristics such as the health or abundance of fish—is 

the linchpin that allows states to perform their responsibilities. States 

generally monitor water quality directly, but often supplement their efforts 

with information collected by federal agencies, volunteer groups, and other 

entities. For example, many states use data collected by the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), which has a large program for monitoring water 

quality. 

While the use of water quality data is critical to meeting the objectives of 

the Clean Water Act, other organizations use water quality data for a variety 

of other purposes. Federal land management agencies (including the 

Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park 

Service, and Bureau of Land Management and the Department of 

Agriculture’s Forest Service) rely upon these data to fulfill their 

responsibilities to protect and restore aquatic resources on federal lands. 

In addition to these federal agencies, numerous public and private 

organizations at the local level rely on water quality data to ensure that 

public health and environmental goals are protected. Many agencies and 

organizations maintain computerized data systems to store and manage the 

water quality data they or others collect. 

Perhaps the largest water quality information system is EPA’s storage and 

retrieval system (STORET). State, local, and federal agencies and private 

entities, such as universities and volunteer monitors, enter data into 

STORET. Multiple users can access, analyze, and summarize the raw data 

in STORET for many purposes. Data in STORET can now be accessed via 

the Internet. States turn their raw data into information on whether their 

waters meet water quality standards and report this information to the EPA 

biennially.26 EPA then compiles and analyzes this information in the 

National Water Quality Inventory—the primary report for the public 

about the condition of the nation’s waters —which is often used to 

characterize the nation’s progress in achieving the goals specified in the 

Clean Water Act. The report is used as a basis for making management 

decisions regarding water quality, such as how funds are to be allocated 

among the states.27

26 Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 1315 (b).

27 See http://www.epa.gov/305b for EPA’s past National Water Quality Inventory reports.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 58 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

However, the National Water Quality Inventory provides a limited 

national picture of the condition of waters and watersheds in the United 

States. A number of factors hinder what the National Water Quality 

Inventory data can say about conditions at the national level. Most states, 

territories, and tribes collect information on only a portion of their water 

bodies. According to the best available data from EPA, only about one-fifth 

of the nation’s total rivers and stream miles have been assessed to 

determine their compliance with state water quality standards.28 Also, state 

monitoring programs, sampling techniques, and standards differ. 

Inconsistencies are compounded by the different ways that states submit 

data to EPA for inclusion in the system. EPA and other agencies are in the 

process of addressing the inconsistencies in the ways states monitor and 

assess their waters, which hinder its ability to use the National Water 

Quality Inventory report for making comparisons across states. 

As part of another effort, EPA collects information from 237 agencies on 

beach closings and advisories through its National Health Protection 

Survey of Beaches. Reporting under the survey is voluntary and data are 

drawn primarily from coastal and Great Lakes beaches rather than inland 

beaches, so the survey’s reliability as a national indicator is unknown. 

Furthermore, monitoring and reporting vary by state. EPA asks survey 

respondents to identify the sources of pollution that cause advisories or 

closings. Without precise information, respondents use their best 

judgment to identify sources. In more than half of the cases, the source is 

unknown, as shown in figure 8. The most frequently identified source is 

storm water runoff, which contains harmful contaminants such as bacteria 

from livestock or pet waste. 

28 Environmental Protection Agency, National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report

(Washington, D.C.: 2002).
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 59 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Figure 8: Reported Sources of Pollution That Resulted in Beach Closings or Advisories, 2001 

Note: Data from EPA’s Beach Watch Program: 2001 Swimming Season, May 2002.

Septic system 3% POTW 1%

SSO 2%

Boat discharge 2%

CSO 3%

Wildlife

10%

Sewage line blockage/break 4%

Unknown

52%

Stormwater

runoff

20%

Other

3%

CSO - Combined Sewer Overflow

SSO - Sanitary Sewer Overflow

POTW - Publicly Owned Treatment Works

Source: EPA, Office of Water. 

What are sources of recreational water 

pollution?

EPA asks survey respondents to identify the 

sources of pollution that cause advisories or 

closings. Without precise information, 

respondents use their best judgment to identify 

sources. In more than half the cases, the source 

is unknown. The most frequently identified source 

is storm water runoff that contains harmful 

contaminants such as bacteria from livestock or 

pet waste, inadequate sewage treatment, or 

poorly designed or operated septic systems.

What human health effects are 

associated with recreation in 

contaminated waters?

The health effects of swimming in contaminated 

waters are usually minor and temporary—sore 

throats, ear infections, and diarrhea—but can be 

more serious, even fatal. Waterborne microbes 

can cause meningitis, encephalitis, and severe 

gastroenteritis. However, data on the effects and 

number of occurrences are limited. The number of 

occurrences may be underreported because 

people may not link common symptoms with 

exposure to contaminated recreational waters 

and, unless symptoms are debilitating, do not 

seek medical attention. Additional research and 

information are needed to improve understanding 

of the types and extent of health effects 

associated with swimming in contaminated 

waters.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 60 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Recognition of the Need for 

Comprehensive Approaches 

in the United States

Although there have been attempts to comprehensively integrate nationallevel indicators, no large-scale public effort has endured. Attempts date 

back to the beginning of the 20th century, when President Herbert Hoover 

established the Research Committee on Social Trends to bring together 

comprehensive information on the socioeconomic condition of the country. 

The Committee’s 1933 report, Recent Social Trends in the United States, 

addressed many aspects of society, including the environment, 

demographics, health, education, recreation, religion, urban and rural life, 

the family, labor, crime, and the arts.29 This effort also tried to analyze the 

interrelationships between trends to understand the position of the country 

as a whole; however, it was never repeated. 

Today, efforts are underway to discuss and report on the position and 

progress of the nation as a whole, but they have not taken on the character 

of a comprehensive key national indicator system. These efforts are 

attempting to better organize and enhance the visibility of the indicators 

collected or funded by the federal government. However, they do not 

integrate private sector indicators, which would allow public and private 

sector leaders to rely on the same information and could potentially 

increase efficiency of access and use. Examples of ongoing federal efforts 

include the following.

• The annual State of the Union message describes the position and 

progress of the nation—along with policy priorities for the coming 

year—from the perspective of the current administration.30

• Fedstats is an online effort that provides links to a variety of statistics 

from federal agencies.31

• Online briefing rooms at the White House Web site provide selected 

statistics.32 

29 President's Research Committee on Social Trends, Recent Social Trends in the United 

States (Washington, D.C.: 1933).

30 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2004.

31 See http://www.fedstats.gov.

32 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/fsbr.html.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 61 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

• The federal government has published The Statistical Abstract of the 

United States since the 1870s. This publication contains time series of 

estimates for various economic and demographic indicators at the 

national level.33 

• The Interagency Council on Federal Statistics—under the leadership of 

OMB—exists to enhance coordination and collaboration among federal 

agencies that collect and disseminate indicators. 

In addition to the recognition of potential value at the national level, 

comprehensive key indicator systems have emerged and become 

sustainable at much smaller scales in the “laboratories of democracy” at 

the local, state, and regional levels. 

Current Activities to 

Inform the Nation 

through 

Comprehensive Key 

Indicator Systems

Before moving to a more detailed analysis of the state of the practice, it is 

worth noting the current level of activity regarding the development and 

interaction of comprehensive key indicator systems. Broadly speaking, the 

United States appears to be building a solid foundation at local levels, with 

less diversity and activity as one moves to the state or regional levels. The 

United States does not have a national system that assembles key 

economic, environmental, and social and cultural indicators.

Activities at the Subnational 

Level

Networks of communication and knowledge sharing on comprehensive key 

indicator systems exist at the local levels, especially communities and 

neighborhoods. The Urban Institute’s National Neighborhood Indicators 

Partnership, the Community Indicators Consortium, and the Alliance for 

Regional Stewardship are good examples of efforts to communicate and 

share knowledge. (See app. III for a list of and detailed information on the 

comprehensive key indicator systems that we studied.)

Numerous U.S. cities also have comprehensive key indicator systems. It 

appears that there are significant opportunities to benefit both established 

and newer efforts by sharing knowledge, best practices, and research 

results. 

33 U.S. Census Bureau, The Statistical Abstract of the United States (Washington, D.C.: 

2004). See http://www.census.gov/statab/www.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 62 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Activities at the U.S. National 

Level

A number of national leaders and experts have concluded that, particularly 

in light of the long-term, crosscutting challenges facing the nation, the 

United States should explore establishing a comprehensive key national 

indicator system that incorporates information from the economic, 

environmental, and social and cultural domains. There is evidence that the 

fiscal and policy issues that each level of government in our system faces 

are increasingly intertwined. For example, the retirement of the baby 

boom generation and rising health care costs threaten to overwhelm our 

nation’s finances. To effectively address emerging challenges, many 

believe the nation needs to embark upon strategies that are affordable and 

sustainable and that consider how best to coordinate and integrate the 

capabilities of all levels of government, as well as the private sector, 

community groups, and individuals. 

Further, a number of trends—including security and preparedness, 

globalization, a shift to knowledge-based economies, advances in science 

and technology, and an aging population, along with the long-range fiscal 

challenges facing the government—drive the need for transformation. In 

most federal mission areas—such as homeland security, affordable 

housing, and higher education assistance—national goals are increasingly 

achieved through the participation of many organizations. State and local 

governments, nonprofit institutions, and private corporations all play vital 

roles in formulating and implementing national initiatives. Promoting 

effective partnerships with third parties will prove increasingly vital to 

achieving national objectives.

Significant efforts have begun to explore ways to move forward in 

researching and developing a comprehensive key national indicator 

system. GAO, in cooperation with the National Academies, convened a 

Forum on Key National Indicators in Washington, D.C. in February 2003 to 

discuss whether and how to develop a key national indicator system for the 

United States.34 Participants included leaders from the accountability, 

business, education, not-for-profit, government, labor, media, minority, 

scientific, and statistics communities. These participants were asked to 

respond to the following 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 

34 GAO, Forum on Key National Indicators: Assessing the Nation’s Position and Progress, 

GAO-03-672SP (Washington, D.C.: 2003). Also see http://www.gao.gov/npi/ for more 

information.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 63 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

measure in assessing U.S. national performance? How might new U.S. 

approaches be led and implemented? After discussing these questions at 

length, participants pointed out the following four main messages.

• Developing key national indicators for the United States is 

important. While there are a variety of indicator efforts in the nation, 

there is no generally accepted, comprehensive key indicator system for 

the nation as a whole. Participants generally believed that 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 existing national 

topical indicator systems on aging, children, economics, and health. 

Participants emphasized that the purpose of measurement, the process 

of deciding what to measure, and the process of determining the 

audiences are as critical as choosing what and how to measure. 

• A broad range of information areas are considered significant. 

The range of information assets cover the economic, social and cultural, 

and environmental domains. Participants said that a first step is to 

assemble “core” indicators from these existing sources. A straw 

proposal—“USA Series 0.5”—was presented as a starting point for 

building what might eventually become a broadly supported indicator 

set. The “USA Series 0.5” included 11 key information areas: 

community, crime, ecology, education, governance, health, the macro 

economy, security, social support, sustainability, and transparency. In 

reacting to “USA Series 0.5,” participants suggested numerous 

refinements and identified four 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 indicator systems versus efforts that 

focus on specific topical areas or issues. Research on what can be 

learned from these systems is essential for deriving useful information 

for a possible U.S. national system. Although comprehensive efforts are 

currently under way in other democracies (e.g., Australia and Canada) 

as well in the United States at the regional, state, and local levels, it 

appears that few common sources of broad research exist to facilitate 

knowledge sharing on comprehensive indicator efforts. 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 64 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

• A U.S. national initiative must build on past lessons and current 

efforts. Developing a U.S. national comprehensive key indicator 

system requires applying lessons from past efforts and engaging with 

many existing efforts. A U.S. system must be flexible and evolve to 

respond to economic, social and cultural, and environmental change. A 

comprehensive key indicator system for the United States must be of 

high quality, focused, independent, and have a definable audience. It 

should incorporate diverse perspectives and would require adequate 

funding, both in terms of its development and sustainability.

With nearly unanimous endorsement from forum participants of the 

importance of pursuing the idea further, an informal National Coordinating 

Committee (NCC) of public and private sector institutions was constituted 

after the forum. Since then, the Key National Indicators Initiative (KNII) 

has grown to include a large, diverse group of leaders from the government, 

business, research, and not-for-profit sectors. In December 2003, an 

important development occurred when the National Academies—an 

independent organization chartered by Congress to bring together experts 

in the areas of science and technology to conduct critical research—

became the secretariat to help incubate the KNII.35 

During 2003 and 2004, a NCC steering committee and subcommittees were 

created to continue the KNII discussion and refine the approach to be 

taken. The KNII has created a Web site to serve as a clearinghouse for 

knowledge on existing efforts under way throughout the country and the 

world to help inform and underpin the initiative 

(http://www.keyindicators.org). The steering committee meets regularly 

and has continued to reach out to identify additional partners in the 

planning process. These efforts have helped to build the number of 

participants to over 200 diverse individuals and organizations, including 

leaders in substantive fields (e.g., economics and the environment) and 

representatives of major organizations (e.g., professional associations, 

government agencies, and public interest groups). The NCC developed an 

action plan and timetable to achieve its stated aims, which revolve around 

the creation of a prototype “State of the USA” Web site to test 

dissemination of a comprehensive, user-friendly, and fact-based database. 

35 Since helping to catalyze the effort through the initial forum in February 2003, GAO has 

not played a formal role in this effort. However, GAO and other federal government entities 

(e.g., OMB and the White House Council on Environmental Quality) continue to attend 

meetings and participate in the ongoing exchange of professional information and ideas, 

and to ensure coordination across federal agencies. 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 65 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

It produced a draft conceptual framework for the first phase of indicator 

development, a draft communications plan to reach target audiences, and a 

grant proposal. The NCC is in the process of securing private and/or public 

financing to help institutionalize, sustain, and expand the initiative, and 

received its first major funding in August 2004.

Increasing International 

Interest in Indicator 

Systems 

The past decade has witnessed continued growth in the development of 

national indicator systems and in the evolution of national topical indicator 

systems into comprehensive ones. International organizations like the 

United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund have 

supported such efforts, recognizing their importance in an increasingly 

interconnected world. However, until recently there has been no 

coordinated worldwide effort to study the development and implications of 

national indicator systems, although significant interest exists in 

exchanging related information about lessons learned among countries. 

The OECD has begun such an initiative. 

The OECD is an intergovernmental organization in which 30 member 

countries, including the United States, discuss, develop and analyze policy. 

It has become one of the world’s leaders in developing indicators to 

evaluate economic, social and cultural, and environmental conditions and 

to assist members in policy making. While all of the member countries are 

considered to be economically advanced and collectively produce twothirds of the world's goods and services, membership is limited only by a 

country's commitment to a market economy and a pluralistic democracy. 

The majority of the work performed by the OECD is provided by its 

secretariat in Paris, which collects data, monitors trends, analyzes and 

forecasts economic developments, researches social changes and patterns 

in trade, environment, agriculture, technology, taxation, and more. The 

core work of the OECD is organized around the following five main areas—

trade and investment liberalization, policy reform and development, 

managing new and evolving technologies, public governance, and social 

protection. OECD provides members with studies, technical knowledge, 

and expertise in these areas and uses the information to help develop 

guidelines and codes.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 66 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

In keeping with its global leadership role in providing quality data to 

member countries, the OECD, in collaboration with the Italian government, 

is sponsoring a World Indicators Forum in November 2004 to promote and 

sustain a global community of practice on developing national indicator 

systems. The forum will provide an opportunity to coordinate research and 

information sharing among the 30 member nations and others, and the 

OECD hopes it will become an annual event.36

Detailed Scope and 

Methodology

Recognizing that before considering such a large-scale national 

comprehensive key indicator system, members of Congress and other 

leaders could benefit from a better understanding of the experiences of 

those who have already developed and implemented comprehensive key 

indicator systems, we were asked to report on the following three 

questions. 

1. What is the state of the practice in developing and implementing 

comprehensive key indicator systems in the United States and around 

the world?

2. What are the lessons learned from these systems and future 

implications?

3. What are some options for Congress to consider in identifying an 

organization to develop and implement a national comprehensive key 

indicator system?

To address these questions, we collected and synthesized information from 

several lines of effort, including literature reviews on topical and 

comprehensive indicator systems in the United States and around the 

world; interviews with experts; panel discussions from an expert session 

convened by the National Academies; reviews of topical area indicator 

systems at the national level in the United States; fieldwork on 

comprehensive indicators at the state, local, and regional levels in the 

United States and on national and supranational efforts abroad; and a 

review and analysis of organizational options for a U.S. national 

comprehensive key indicator system. 

36 For more information, http://www.oecd.org/oecdworldforum.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 67 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

We conducted a comprehensive literature review and interviewed experts 

in the field to get a sense of the main issues related to indicators, lessons 

learned, possible challenges and effects of a national indicator system, 

knowledge of past and current efforts at the U.S. national level, and ideas 

about possible efforts to study in greater depth within and outside the 

nation. These experts represented a wide range of communities, including 

academic researchers, current and former government officials, not-forprofit leaders, and noted practitioners at all levels of government. We also 

drew upon a literature review and set of interviews that we had conducted 

for our February 2003 forum on key national indicators.37

We studied indicator systems at the national level in the United States in 

the following five topical areas: the business cycle of the economy, health, 

children and families, aging, and science and engineering. We selected one 

indicator system in each of these five topical areas based on 

recommendations from the experts we interviewed, recognizing that this 

group does not represent the entire field of indicators and that other 

indicator systems exist in each of these topical areas. We reviewed related 

documents and conducted interviews with at least three key stakeholders 

associated with or knowledgeable about each of these efforts. We posed a 

standard set of questions to them that addressed issues such as their 

history, uses, and the challenges they have encountered. 

As part of our effort to examine the current state of the practice in 

comprehensive key indicator systems, we studied a select group of 29 

comprehensive key indicator systems that were in operation in the United 

States at the state, local, and regional levels, as well as in Europe. (See app. 

III for a list of and additional information on these 29 systems.) These 

systems were selected based on (1) whether they met all of the 

characteristics described below and (2) recommendations from experts. 

We selected indicator systems that 

• included a mixture of economic, environmental, and social and cultural 

indicators (regardless of whether the indicators were organized around 

a particular policy focus or framework, such as quality of life or 

sustainable development);

• had a reputation of being used or accessed within a jurisdiction; and

37 GAO-03-672SP.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 68 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

• had been in existence for more than 2 years and were currently in 

operation.

As a final step in the selection process, we asked national associations 

representing state and local governments, including the National League of 

Cities and the National Association of State Budget Officers, to review our 

selections to determine whether we included indicator systems that 

generally reflected the state of the practice in the United States at the 

subnational level and for the most part they concurred with our selections. 

The European examples were selected after consultation with OECD, 

several European national statistical offices, and other experts.

We conducted interviews with representatives from each of the 29 

comprehensive indicator systems. For the most part, our interviews 

focused exclusively on those integrally involved in managing the system, 

and we posed a standard set of questions to these representatives. We 

conducted separate interview sessions with these officials by convening 

U.S. regional interview sessions at four GAO field offices in Atlanta, 

Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco.

We also conducted more in-depth reviews of several of the 29 

comprehensive key indicator systems we studied in the United States and 

Europe. 

• In the United States, we conducted focused studies on a state system—

the State of Oregon—and a city system—Boston. We visited Portland 

and Salem, Oregon, and Boston, and conducted interviews with those 

who had developed and implemented the systems as well as a broader 

range of stakeholders, including users and potential users inside and 

outside of government.

• We conducted focused studies outside the United States to get the 

perspective of national and supranational indicator systems in Europe. 

Specifically, we visited two European countries—Germany and the 

United Kingdom— as well as EU offices in Belgium and Luxembourg. 

We focused on the comprehensive key indicator systems that exist in 

each of the two countries and in the EU, and explored how they interact 

with each other to develop and implement these systems. 

In all locations, we talked with those who are or had been involved in 

developing and implementing comprehensive key indicator systems, along 

with users and potential users of the indicator systems. However, we did 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 69 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

not collect systematic and detailed information on the potential versus 

actual range of uses by different audiences for making choices. As a result, 

the preponderance of our examples of usage and application may give the 

impression that the systems are used primarily for public purposes, as 

opposed to a much broader range of uses by private individuals and 

institutions.

Most of the graphics presented in this report from the indicator systems we 

studied are only to illustrate the types of information and the variety of 

ways it is presented in the reports or on the Web sites of these systems. The 

examples are not intended to highlight or discuss the substantive issues 

conveyed by them.

We collected descriptive information on numerous aspects of the various 

indicator systems described above, although we did not perform any 

independent, formal analyses of these selected systems in terms of 

benefits, costs, or risks. Also, the sample of selected systems we reviewed 

did not include executive information systems or private corporate 

systems. Importantly, we have not defined explicit, objective criteria for 

the success or failure of a comprehensive key indicator system. More 

research is needed in this area because many situational, evaluative, and 

contextual factors influence the determination of such criteria.

Although the federal statistical system is commented on or mentioned for 

the purposes of context throughout the report—because of its significant 

role in the issues surrounding topical and comprehensive indicator 

systems—we did not audit or evaluate the federal statistical system and its 

related agencies as part of our scope. Therefore, we are not able to 

comment here on the discussions that take place among the members of 

that system on many of the topics referred to in our report. That body of 

experience and judgment will be vital to any further serious dialogue on or 

implementation of the options and possible steps discussed in this report. 

We did, however, coordinate with many of the leaders within the U.S. 

statistical system for their expertise and relied upon their advice. These 

individuals also were able to comment fully on the document prior to 

publication.

As part of our work on all three objectives, we contracted with the National 

Academies, Committee on National Statistics, to select a group of what 

their staff viewed as the most relevant past studies conducted by the 

Academies on topical area, domain, and comprehensive indicator systems. 

The Academies’ staff reviewed these studies, summarized them, and 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 70 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

convened a meeting of experts who had worked on or been involved with 

these studies to discuss the findings and lessons learned, and implications 

for how a national comprehensive key indicator system might be developed 

and implemented. The Academies’ review and subsequent meeting served 

to validate many of the findings from our fieldwork. The meeting of 

experts was held on January 26 and January 27, 2004.

To identify design features that should be considered when starting or 

refining indicator systems, we analyzed the information obtained from our 

reviews of the literature and the various indicator systems described 

above. We applied our professional judgment to this body of information in 

order to develop our observations for Congress, and we also analyzed the 

legal requirements involved as part of our identification of broad options 

for consideration in developing and implementing a national effort. We did 

not conduct any formal cost, benefit, or risk analyses for any specific 

option we identified and did not make any recommendations as to which 

option, if any, Congress or other leaders should choose.

While we examined indicators from all domains (economic, environmental, 

and social and cultural) as part of our overall review of indicator systems, 

we conducted additional work on the domain of social and cultural 

indicators. Our review of this domain included a literature search on past 

and current efforts to develop social and cultural indicators in the United 

States and around the world as well as a review of information obtained 

from our interviews with experts in the indicator field and from 

practitioner interviews with selected comprehensive and topical indicator 

systems. 

Although this report is a first step in describing the state of the practice in 

comprehensive indicator systems in the United States and other areas of 

the world, we recognize that our analyses are based, in part, on information 

obtained from the select group of indicator systems described above. GAO 

did not, nor was it asked to, catalogue the full universe of the potentially 

large number of topical or comprehensive key indicator systems. 

Moreover, indicators are only one part of the complex knowledge base 

required to inform a nation. For instance, comprehensive key indicator 

systems must be supported by more detailed databases for those who want 

or need to conduct more extensive research or analysis. A review of these 

databases and other elements that contribute to an informed society are 

beyond the scope of this report. When we refer to “most” or “many” 

indicator systems in this report, we are referring to those systems we 

selected to study and not the larger universe of all indicator systems. We 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 71 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

recognize that, given the relatively small number of systems we studied in 

detail, our findings and conclusions may not be applicable to the larger 

universe of all indicator systems. The applicability of any generalizations 

or extrapolations from our study examples to the U.S. national context may 

also be limited. 

To gain additional comments and insights, we sent a copy of this report for 

review to over 60 representatives of various communities who possess 

knowledge and experience in these issues, including representatives of the 

scientific and research, public interest and not-for-profit, and 

accountability communities. We provided a broad spectrum of leaders and 

experts with an opportunity to comment on this report, from the following 

categories: (a) sectoral, including individual from the government (at all 

levels), business, and nonprofit sectors; (b) discipline, including both 

generalists as well specialists in topical areas like economics, health, the 

environment, and so forth; and (c) professional orientation, including 

scientists, academics, and practitioners. We also sent sections of our report 

to representatives of the systems we mention in the text in order to validate 

facts and figures. We incorporated their comments, where appropriate, 

throughout the draft. Our work was conducted from July 2003 through 

September 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards.
Page 72 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All Levels 

of Society Have Indicator Systems Chapte2r

Citizens in jurisdictions throughout our country and around the world are 

engaged in numerous efforts to develop topical and comprehensive 

indicator systems. Some of these individuals act on their own behalf, but 

many act on behalf of the public and private institutions they represent. 

Diverse interested parties from a wide range of geographic areas have 

recognized that monitoring trends over time can provide an important 

method for viewing the conditions of their areas and making comparisons 

with others, as well as for providing information for planning and decision 

making. While opinions can and do differ over what constitutes position 

and progress, those involved in each indicator system have nonetheless 

found sufficient common ground to agree that sustained efforts to collect, 

organize, and disseminate information in more comprehensive, balanced, 

and understandable ways will provide critical information that all can use 

in discussing options and making choices.

Currently, the United States has an array of indicator systems in topical 

areas (such as aging and health) that describe conditions in the nation as a 

whole in those specific areas. In addition, many local, state, and regional 

entities throughout the United States —as well as several European 

countries and the European Union (EU)—have developed comprehensive 

key indicator systems that draw from these topical areas to create broader, 

general pictures of society and made them widely available—often via the 

World Wide Web. We reviewed 29 diverse systems at all levels of 

government, in many different parts of the United States, as well as in 

Germany, the United Kingdom, and the EU.1

The systems we studied have similarities in that each provides a public 

good by serving as a single, freely available source of key indicators about 

the economic, environmental, and social and cultural conditions of a 

particular jurisdiction or group of jurisdictions. Each of these systems has 

produced information products or services (e.g., an annual report or a Web 

site) where the design and marketing of the products have been geared 

toward better informing a target audience.

However, beyond this, the comprehensive key indicator systems we 

studied differed regarding basic purpose. We found that one group of 

systems is oriented more toward learning and information exchange. They 

enable citizens, researchers and leaders to learn more about and monitor 

1

 See app. III for additional information on the comprehensive indicator systems we studied 

for this report.
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 73 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

conditions in their jurisdictions. Occasionally, these systems help inform 

the activities of others, such as making policy and fiscal decisions. In 

contrast, the second group of systems takes a step beyond learning and 

exchanging information to encompass a more outcome-oriented focus on 

goals or aspirations as well, however explicit or implicit they might be. 

These systems use indicators to monitor and encourage progress toward a 

set of goals or a vision for the future that has been established by the 

people and institutions within a jurisdiction and that has been articulated. 

Such systems can help create more focused, relevant information for their 

audiences that may, in turn, enhance the use of and continuing support for 

these systems. 

The interactions over time within and between indicator systems are 

complex. For example, some of the learning-oriented systems we reviewed 

eventually stimulated civic activity to formulate common aspirations. 

Conversely, it is possible a system that is focused on too aggressive and 

narrow a set of goals might be weakened or fail to survive due to a lack of 

legitimacy or from politicization. In some instances work in a topical area, 

such as the environment, has expanded in scope and became more 

comprehensive—such as work over the past decade on sustainable 

development, which includes a range of economic, environmental, and 

social and cultural issues. Finally, developers of larger-scale efforts often 

learn from the innovations being pursued at smaller scales. On the other 

hand, smaller-scale efforts can connect their citizens to larger issues by 

monitoring and participating in regional, state, national, supranational, or 

multinational systems.

Topical Indicator 

Systems in the United 

States Form a Vital 

Foundation for 

Comprehensive Key 

Indicator Systems

U.S. citizens have a large variety of sources and means by which to inform 

themselves about the nation’s position and progress. Indicators that 

measure various aspects of the nation’s conditions come, for the most part, 

from a variety of national topical area systems on issues ranging from 

health, safety, and water quality to education, employment, and natural 

resources. We studied the following national topical area systems in the 

United States: (1) the Conference Board’s Business Cycle Indicators,2

(2) the National Science Foundation’s Science and Engineering Indicators, 

(3) the Department of Health and Human Services’ Healthy People, 

2

 The Conference Board is a nonprofit organization that creates and disseminates 

knowledge about management and the marketplace. It works as a global, independent 

membership organization in the public interest.
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 74 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

(4) the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics’ 

America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-being, and (5) the 

Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics’ Older Americans: 

Key Indicators of Well-being. (See app. I for additional information on 

these five systems.) 

National Topical Area 

Indicator Systems Are WideRanging and Have a Variety 

of Uses 

Interested parties use national topical indicator systems in the United 

States in a variety of ways. All of these systems provide an important 

public good by bringing together diverse sets of information on particular 

topics—often collected by different organizations or agencies—in a single, 

convenient place to educate or inform the public and leaders. For example, 

the biennial Science and Engineering Indicators report (published by the 

National Science Board and the National Science Foundation) provides a 

one-stop shop for reliable, regularly updated indicators that are 

understandable to statisticians and nonstatisticians alike.3

 Some of the 

public and private policy makers we interviewed who do not study the 

multitude of publications on science and engineering issues said that 

having all of this information in one place is valuable. They have used the 

volume as background information for formulating policy and developing 

proposals, as well as for program planning. 

Topical area indicator systems also provide useful information for 

monitoring progress by measuring, tracking, and anticipating or forecasting 

events. The Business Cycle Indicators system is a key example—leaders 

can use this set of indicators as a tool to forecast business conditions and 

to take action to deal with expected fluctuations in the economy before 

they reach crisis levels. The Business Cycle Indicators are designed to 

monitor, signal, and confirm cyclical changes, such as recessions, in the 

economy at large—and are frequently cited by newspapers and television. 

In addition, the leading indicators are often used to report on the extent of 

economic growth and signal the overall health of the economy. 

Topical area indicator systems also can be used to develop and further a set 

of policy objectives or a national agenda, in part, through building 

consensus and uniting stakeholders around the development of an 

indicator set. The underlying concept behind Healthy People, for example, 

is to provide a consensus set of national objectives and indicators to 

3

 National Science Board-National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering 

Indicators 2004 (Arlington, Va.: 2004).
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 75 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

measure progress toward these objectives. The highly participatory 

process Healthy People has used in establishing goals and indicators is an 

important element that has helped rally awareness and commitment for the 

broad set of health objectives at the federal, state, and local levels for more 

than 20 years. 

Many National Topical Area 

Indicator Systems Depend 

on the Federal Statistical 

System, as Well as Private 

Sector Suppliers and 

Providers

All of the national topical indicator systems we examined largely depend 

on data and indicators gathered by the federal statistical system—the 

federal agencies that collect and disseminate statistics as part of their 

missions.4

 These agencies have been organized to support specific 

government activities and congressional needs for statistics to help inform 

policy making in their areas of responsibility. The result is that we have 

statistical agencies for labor, health, education, transportation, science, 

agriculture, and justice, among others. 

The decentralized nature and wide-ranging character of the system is 

evidenced by the fact that over 70 agencies conduct statistical activities. 

Ten principal federal statistical agencies collect, analyze, and produce 

statistics as their primary mission. As with other federal agencies, the 

statistical agencies have been established over time to meet specific needs 

and so they are diverse. The benefit of the federal statistical system is 

having a variety of smaller entities, which presumably may be more 

adaptable to meet the needs of specific audiences. However, this has also 

been a disadvantage in that at times it has hindered the sharing of 

indicators among agencies that serve similar populations or work on 

similar issues. For example, many agencies that collect indicators on 

similar populations or work on similar issues have different funding 

streams and variable levels of available funding, answer to different 

congressional oversight and appropriating committees, were created at 

different times for different reasons, and operate under different laws and 

orders. 

4

 Of the national topical area indicator systems we examined, only one, the Business Cycle 

Indicators, is not produced by a federal agency. It is an extension of official indexes 

previously produced by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis that 

continues to depend, in part, upon federal statistical information.
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 76 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

New Institutional 

Approaches Have Enhanced 

Indicator Development and 

Information Collection

We identified several recent efforts to increase coordination within the 

federal statistical system and enhance access to and dissemination of data 

across agencies, topical boundaries, and legal limitations that could also 

increase the opportunities to leverage federal statistical information. One 

major effort to enhance coordination is the Interagency Council on Federal 

Statistics, which provides a vehicle for coordinating statistical work and 

information when activities and issues cut across agencies.5

 In 1995, 

Congress provided explicit statutory authority to include the heads of all 

the principal statistical agencies on this Council. Another effort to enhance 

access to and dissemination of statistical data is the Confidential 

Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA), 

which established a uniform set of safeguards to protect the privacy of 

individually identifiable information acquired for statistical purposes. 

CIPSEA permits sharing of certain business data between the U.S. Census 

Bureau, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), and the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS).6

 An additional effort to improve coordination and expand 

access to federal statistical information was the establishment of the 

Fedstats Web site (http://www.fedstats.gov), which provides users access 

to statistics from over 100 federal agencies. 

Perhaps even more significant is the emergence of interagency forums that 

have been designed to enhance public-private partnerships and increase 

the federal statistical system’s ability to organize information around 

broader sets of public concerns. For example, the Federal Interagency 

Forum on Aging-Related Statistics and the Federal Interagency Forum on 

Child and Family Statistics are designed to coordinate, collaborate, and 

integrate federal information to improve reporting and dissemination of 

information to the policy community and the general public; they also try to 

produce more complete indicators with more consistent definitions. 

Gaps in our knowledge about important national issues and populations 

exist in all topical areas, as do inconsistencies in how we collect 

information on them. In some cases, these knowledge gaps appear to be 

standing concerns, while in other cases new challenges or events have 

rendered existing information collections insufficient. Some topical 

indicator systems have served as springboards for identifying knowledge 

gaps and a means to work on collecting new or different types of indicators 

5

 44 U.S.C. § 3504(e)(8).

6

 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note.
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 77 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

to fill these gaps or enhance consistency, although the changes have tended 

to occur incrementally.

Both the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics and the 

Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics seek to identify and 

remedy knowledge gaps in information about their respective populations, 

many of which appear to be long-standing concerns. Accordingly, their 

regular reporting includes sections devoted to presenting a description of 

measures that are in need of development. These lists include many 

important aspects of children’s and older Americans’ lives for which 

regular indicators are lacking or are in development, such as homelessness; 

long-term poverty; mental health; disability; neighborhood environment; 

and information on the social, intellectual, and emotional skills of 

preschoolers. The forums have been used to discuss ways to collect new 

measures and improve existing ones; and in some cases, agencies have 

fielded surveys to incorporate new measures. Moreover, in some instances 

topical area systems have demonstrated how indicators on similar issues or 

populations are collected inconsistently across various agencies, including 

different definitions of concepts like homelessness. For example, the work 

of the Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics has led to a number 

of developments, such as the establishment of the Study of Asset and 

Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old and the acceptance of more 

standardized age categories for use across federal agencies.

The indicator system maintained by the Federal Interagency Forum on 

Child and Family Statistics, referred to as America’s Children: Key National 

Indicators of Well-being, grew from a public policy need to integrate 

information on subjects relating to children and their families, such as 

economic security, health, behavior and social environment, and education. 

It also originated from a need to understand the problems of the shared 

populations served by various federal agencies and stimulate discussions 

of collaborative solutions. At the outset, member agencies were concerned 

that they did not have, in one place, a comprehensive picture of the health 

and well-being of children and that while there was an abundance of 

indicators, they were located in too many different places. This forum, 

which started informally in 1994, was formally established by presidential 

executive order in 1997, and today it comprises over 20 agencies that have 

some jurisdiction over children’s issues.7

7

 Executive Order No. 13045, 62 Fed. Reg. 19885 (1997).
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 78 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

The Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics has evolved 

to focus on the development of a set of indicators and led to an ongoing 

series of reports on these indicators, which have been published annually 

since 1997.8

 Generally, efforts are made to keep indicators the same so that 

changes over time can be measured; however, indicators have been added 

and refined as data have improved or become available, or based on 

comments from interested parties. For example, a new regular indicator 

added to the health section of the 2003 report was children who are 

overweight. This indicator reflects growing national concerns about 

obesity among Americans. Figure 9 shows one of the indicators used to 

monitor the numbers and trends of overweight children and adolescents, 

which shows a dramatic increase in the number of children who are 

overweight today as well as significant differences among various racial 

and ethnic groups. In addition, in some years following publication of each 

report, a symposium has been held with representatives from the private 

sector and academia to seek feedback and identify any significant gaps in 

knowledge about children’s issues. Recently, to make better use of its 

resources, the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics 

decided to update all indicators annually on its Web site 

(http://www.childstats.gov), and to alternate publishing the more detailed 

America’s Children report with a new condensed version—America’s 

Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being—that only 

highlights selected indicators. Accordingly, in July 2004, the Forum 

published the brief, and in July 2005 the Forum will publish the more 

detailed report. 

8

 For more information, see http://www.childstats.gov.
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 79 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Figure 9: Percentage of Children Ages 6 to 18 Who Are Overweight, by Gender, Race, and Mexican-American Origin, Selected 

Years 1976-1980, 1988-1994, 1999-2000

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.

Note: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

In determining its list of key indicators for America’s Children, the Federal 

Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics chose indicators that 

were easily understood by broad audiences; objectively based on 

substantial research connecting them to child well-being and using reliable 

data; balanced so that no single area of children's lives dominates the 

report; measured regularly so that they can be updated and show trends 

over time; and representative of large segments of the population, rather 

than one particular group. 

Indicator HEALTH 3

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Percent

Total Males Females

White,

nonHispanic

White,

nonHispanic

Black,

nonHispanic

Mexican

American

Black,

nonHispanic

Mexican

American

White,

nonHispanic

Black,

nonHispanic

Mexican

American

1976-1980 1988-1994 1999-2000

NOTE: Data for Mexican American children are not available from 1976-80 due to differences in reporting of race and Hispanic origin.

Overweight is defined as body mass index (BMI) at or above the 95th percentile of the 2000 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

BMI-for-age growth charts. BMI is calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters.
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 80 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

The Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics was created in 

1986 to coordinate information related to the aging population.9

 The 

impetus for the Forum on Aging-Related Statistics was a need to improve 

the quality of information on the aging population, which has been growing 

and will become an even larger population with the retirement of the baby 

boomers. Major topics of concern include economic security, health status, 

health risks and behaviors, and health care. The Federal Interagency 

Forum on Aging-Related Statistics encourages collaboration among federal 

agencies to ensure that they know as much as possible about the health and 

well-being of the aging population.

Like the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, the 

work of the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics 

eventually led to the development of an interagency set of key indicators on 

the health and well-being of the aging population, culminating in the 

publication of its first, and so far only, report in 2000, entitled Older 

Americans 2000: Key Indicators of Well-being.

10 Figure 10 provides an 

example of one of the indicators contained in this report that is related to 

the ability of older Americans to access health care: the percentage of 

Medicare beneficiaries age 65 or older who reported having had problems 

with access to health care between 1992 and 1996. According to an official 

of the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, an updated 

version of their indicators report is expected in late 2004.

9

 In addition to the original three core agencies—U.S. Census Bureau, National Center for 

Health Statistics, and National Institute on Aging—the members of the Forum on AgingRelated Statistics now include senior officials from the Administration on Aging, Agency for 

Healthcare Research and Quality, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 

Evaluation in the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Social Security 

Administration. 

10 Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, Older Americans 2000: Key 

Indicators of Well-being (Washington, D.C.: 2000). For more information, see 

http://www.agingstats.gov. 
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 81 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Figure 10: Percentage of Medicare Beneficiaries Age 65 or Older Who Reported 

Having Had Problems with Access to Health Care, 1992-1996

Source: Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey.

Topical indicator systems are also devising ways to address knowledge 

gaps that have been exposed by new challenges, such as changes in the 

global economy. For example, in the science and engineering area, 

research and development work is increasingly being conducted by a wider 

variety of parties, as there have been significant increases in research and 

development partnerships, alliances, and interdisciplinary research. 

However, it appears that current indicators in science and engineering are 

not sufficient to measure the trend of increased outsourcing of research 

and development. In response, the National Science Foundation is carrying 

out strategies to capture this information and change some of its data 

collection systems to address these data gaps.

Topical area indicator systems have also exposed instances when 

indicators are not collected or presented in the same way, which could 

cause confusion or pose difficulties in monitoring trends over time. For 

instance, across the health and aging areas, there are reportedly numerous 

different definitions of disability in federal programs. One of the primary 

missions of both the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family 

Statistics and the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics is 

developing ways to improve consistency in information collection efforts 

and in how concepts are defined.

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Reference population: These data refer to nonconstitutional Medicare beneficiaries.

DELAYED CARE DUE TO COST

DIFFICULTY OBTAINING CARE
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 82 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Topical Areas Are Evolving 

in Different Ways, toward 

Creating a Broader Picture 

of the Nation’s Position and 

Progress

It is evident that many of those working in the topical fields clearly 

understand the need both to broaden the scope of their work and to 

ultimately integrate it into a broader, more comprehensive view of society. 

Hence, the forces working toward more comprehensive indicator systems 

include both citizens and professionals in topical and disciplinary 

communities. The following are just a few examples of such efforts.

• Economics and non-market accounts. The Bureau of Economic 

Analysis and others are working on a project to apply national economic 

accounting methods to sectors not included in the gross domestic 

product accounts, such as research and development. This is 

exemplified in the Blueprint for an Expanded and Integrated Set of 

Accounts for the United States, which was presented at the Conference 

on Research in Income and Wealth – New Architecture for the U.S. 

National Accounts.11 Further, European statisticians, particularly in the 

Netherlands, have developed frameworks for integrating environmental 

information into the national accounts, and research in this area is a 

priority in the EU.

• Social and cultural indicators. Many private and public sector 

efforts currently sponsor either research or regular publications that 

bring together information on social and cultural indicators. European 

nations including Germany, the Scandinavian countries, and the 

Netherlands in particular, have developed social and cultural indicator 

systems that have had an impact on the social policies pursued by their 

governments.

• Sustainable development. For at least the past 15 years, the 

environmental community (including governments, scientists and 

researchers, non-governmental organizations, and businesses) has 

struggled worldwide to expand its work to ensure that socioeconomic 

development policies include a consideration of the environmental 

impact by developing an overall conception of sustainable development. 

This was first formalized at the international level, primarily by 

governments, when the United Nations sponsored a summit on 

sustainable development in Rio De Janeiro in 1992. It was followed by a 

11 Dale Jorgensen and Steve Landefeld, Blueprint for an Expanded and Integrated Set of 

Accounts for the United States, presented at the Conference on a New Architecture for the 

U.S. National Accounts, April 16, 2004, Washington, D.C. For more information, see 

http://www.nber.org/CRIW/CRIWs04/CRIWs04prog.html.
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 83 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

summit in Johannesburg 10 years later, which was much broader and 

attempted to reach a more diverse community throughout civil society. 

In addition, the EU has adopted sustainable development goals and 

mandated the development of action plans from member countries and 

the development of a system of indicators for measuring progress on 

sustainable development. As a result, many of the EU member 

countries are developing their own sustainable development indicator 

systems.

• Well-being and happiness. A significant body of academic research 

focuses on how to measure overall individual and societal well-being 

and happiness, as larger constructs with which to assess society. For 

example, researchers in the Netherlands created a World Database of 

Happiness, which stores available research findings on happiness and 

provides access to related indicators that form the basis of these 

findings. Another recent example was a June 2004 the Brookings 

Institution panel on the relationship between money and happiness, 

titled Informing Policy Choices Using the Economics of Happiness.

12

• Quality of life. Perhaps the broadest set of efforts has to do with using 

quality of life as an integrative framework intended to move beyond the 

more strictly economic idea of “living standards” to a more holistic and 

broader conception of a society’s overall status and progress. For 

example, the International Society for Quality of Life Studies has done 

extensive work on these topics and has several academic journals 

related to these topics, such as Social Indicators Research and the 

Journal of Happiness Studies.

13

The next step beyond efforts to broaden the scope within a topical area or 

create new crosscutting topical areas leads naturally to comprehensive key 

indicator systems, which pull all these together in an integrated fashion for 

one or multiple jurisdictions. The interrelationships between topical and 

comprehensive key indicator systems appear to be highly complementary. 

While topical systems form the essential underpinning for aggregating 

information into comprehensive systems, comprehensive systems create a 

12 For a summary of the event, which was held on June 3, 2004, see 

http://www.brookings.edu/comm/op-ed/20040603happiness.htm.

13 For more information, see http://market1.cob.vt.edu/isqols. 
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 84 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

broad picture that helps illuminate areas where new topical indicators 

could be developed.

The Practice of 

Developing 

Comprehensive Key 

Indicator Systems Is 

Active and Diverse

We found evidence of potentially hundreds of comprehensive key indicator 

systems throughout the United States. In this study, we focused on 26 

comprehensive key indicators systems in the United States at the 

subnational level that were highly diverse in terms of geographic location, 

size of the jurisdiction, level of governance, culture, situational conditions, 

political and legal structures, key public issues, and longevity. In addition, 

we studied 3 comprehensive key indicator systems outside the United 

States at the national and supranational levels—for a total of 29, as shown 

in table 4. (See app. III for more information on the comprehensive 

systems we studied in the United States and abroad.) 
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 85 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Table 4: Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Reviewed for This Study, by Level of Jurisdiction

Source: GAO analysis.

In each case, we found active efforts to assemble indicators and focus on 

institutionalizing a new tool for informing the democratic process in their 

communities. As shown in figure 11, the longevity of the efforts we 

reviewed in the United States and abroad ranged from approximately 4 to 

30 years.

U.S. local/regional level U.S. state level

National level outside the 

United States Supranational level

• Baltimore’s Vital Signs

• Boston Indicators Project

• Burlington Legacy Project

• Chicago Metropolis 2020

• Neighborhood Facts (Denver)

• Hennepin County Community Indicators 

(Minneapolis)

• Community Atlas of Hillsborough County 

(Tampa area, Florida)

• Social Assets and Vulnerabilities Indicators 

(Indianapolis)

• Indicators for Progress (Jacksonville, Fla.)

• King County Benchmarks (Washington)

• Milwaukee Neighborhood Data Center

• New York City Social Indicators

• Compass Index of Sustainability (Orange 

County, Fla.)

• Portland Multnomah Benchmarks (Oregon)

• Santa Cruz County Community 

Assessment Project (California)

• Santa Monica Sustainable City Program 

(California)

• Sustainable Seattle

• Index of Silicon Valley (California)

• State of the Region (Southern California)

• Benchmarking Municipal and 

Neighborhood Services in Worcester 

(Massachusetts)

• Results Iowa

• Maine’s Measures of Growth 

• Minnesota Milestones

• North Carolina 20/20

• Oregon Benchmarks

• Social Well-being of 

Vermonters

• German System of Social 

Indicators

• United Kingdom 

Sustainable Development 

Indicators

• European Structural 

Indicators (European 

Union)
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 86 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Figure 11: Relative Longevity of Selected Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems in the United States and Abroad

The systems we studied have similarities in that each provides a public 

good by serving as a freely available source of key indicators about 

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2004 2000

European Structural Indicators

Baltimore's Vital Signs

Burlington Legacy Project

Results Iowa

United Kingdom Sustainable

Development Indicators

Benchmarking Municipal and 

Neighborhood Services in Worcester

Community Atlas

 (Hillsborough County, FL)

Boston Indicators Project

State of the Region

(Southern California)

Chicago Metropolis 2020

North Carolina 20/20

Hennepin County 

Community Indicators

Santa Monica 

Sustainable City Program

Neighborhood Facts (Denver)

Santa Cruz County Community

Assessment Project (CAP)

 Social Well-being of Vermonters

Portland Multnomah County

 Benchmarks

Maine's Measures for Growth

Social Assets and Vulnerabilities

Indicators (Indianapolis)

Sustainable Seattle

Compass Index of Sustainability

(Orange County, FL)

Milwaukee Neighborhood Data Center

Minnesota Milestones

King County Benchmarks

 (Washington)

Index of Silicon Valley (California)

New York City Social Indicators

Oregon Benchmarks

Indicators for Progress

(Jacksonville, FL)

German System of

Social Indicators

Years

Approximate duration in years

Source: GAO.

30

19

15

15

14

12

13

13

12

12

11

11

11

11

11

10

10

9

9

8

7

7

7

6

5

5

5

4

4
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 87 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

economic, environmental, and social and cultural conditions of a particular 

jurisdiction or group of jurisdictions. However, the most significant 

difference among them regarded their basic orientation and purpose. One 

group of systems is oriented more toward learning and information 

exchange. They enable citizens, researchers, and leaders to learn more 

about and serve as instruments to monitor conditions in their jurisdictions. 

Occasionally, these systems help to inform the activities of others, such as 

making policy and fiscal decisions. Another group of systems is more 

outcome oriented around goals or aspirations, however explicit or implicit. 

These systems go a step further by using the indicators as a way to monitor 

and encourage progress toward a set of goals or a vision for the future that 

has been established by the people and institutions within a jurisdiction. It 

appears that outcome-oriented systems tend to create more focused, 

relevant information for their audiences, which can aid them in overcoming 

some common challenges.

Comprehensive Key 

Indicator Systems Create a 

Unique Public Good: A 

Single Source of 

Information about 

Conditions in a Jurisdiction 

Available to Many 

Audiences

All the systems we studied have a simple idea in common: bringing 

together diverse sources of information into an easily accessible, useful 

tool—which can be considered a public good—for a broad variety of 

audiences and uses in their jurisdictions. Figure 12 illustrates the diversity 

of data sources which a comprehensive indicator system could aggregate. 

For example, the Boston Foundation’s Boston Indicators Project brings 

together indicators from many public and private sources at all levels of 

government, including the U.S. Census Bureau, and city, university, and 

not-for-profit sources. In addition, systems can cut across different 

geographic boundaries and make different comparisons. Some systems we 

studied present information at a state or regional level, while others 

present information down to the neighborhood level.
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 88 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Figure 12: Boston’s Data Items by Source

Comprehensive Key 

Indicator Systems Differ 

Primarily by the Degree to 

Which They Are LearningOriented or OutcomeOriented

Some indicator systems solely provide information for mutual learning 

about the economic, environmental, and social and cultural conditions of a 

jurisdiction. The indicators in these systems are primarily selected based 

upon the information needs of their target audiences and are grouped into 

topical area categories without specific links to jurisdictional or regional 

goals. The information is often presented on Web sites with limited 

commentary or analysis of results. Systems of this kind that we examined 

were housed in academic or not-for-profit organizations. For example, the 

Social Assets and Vulnerabilities Indicators (SAVI) system in Indianapolis 

collects, organizes, and presents information on “community assets,” such 

as schools, libraries, places of worship, hospitals, and community centers. 

The system also includes indicators on health, education, criminal justice, 

and welfare that may highlight what are referred to as “vulnerabilities,” 

such as neighborhoods with high levels of crime and unemployment.

Regional

7%

Newspaper

3%

Other

4%

University

3%

Other Federal

13%

U.S. Census

14%

Non-profit

17%

State of MA

18%

City

21%

Source: The Boston Foundation.
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 89 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

At the other end of the spectrum are systems that use indicators as a way to 

monitor and encourage progress toward outcomes, such as a set of goals or 

a vision for the future, that have been established for a jurisdiction or group 

of jurisdictions. For example, the Oregon Benchmarks system measures 

progress toward a strategic vision and related goals for the state—known 

as Oregon Shines. The indicators are organized around three broad goals: 

quality jobs; engaged, caring, and safe communities; and healthy, 

sustainable surroundings. Each of these three broad goals has numerous 

objectives and specific targets associated with it, and related indicators to 

measure progress. In most cases, both types of comprehensive key 

indicator systems have drawn upon the rich body of information already 

developed in topical areas within the three domains of economic, 

environmental, and social and cultural. In addition, some of the systems 

have evolved by changing in design or focus to adapt to different 

circumstances, such as user demands for more understandable information 

or other types of indicators.

We identified less diversity among the learning-oriented type of 

comprehensive key indicator system and studied fewer of these types of 

systems than those that are linked to goals or visions. Key illustrations of 

learning-oriented comprehensive systems include Neighborhood Facts, 

Denver, and the Social Assets and Vulnerabilities Indicators, Indianapolis.

It should be mentioned that nothing in theory prevents an organization 

from having purposes that incorporate aspects of both learning and 

outcome orientations. For instance, a learning-oriented indicator system 

might be drawn on for the purposes of policy analysis. Or, an outcomeoriented system could include significant educational and outreach 

programs to increase the understanding of its audiences. 

Neighborhood Facts, Denver The Neighborhood Facts project in Denver provides a comprehensive 

source of information on neighborhood conditions in that city, which has a 

population of half a million people and is the state capital of Colorado. It 

has not established goals or targets for what neighborhood conditions 

should be or the levels of progress that are expected. Thus, a system like 

Denver’s collects select pieces of information from diverse sources and 

organizes them so they are useful and easily accessed by their target 

audience. This system performs a range of activities, such as publishing 

regular reports with updated information on the indicators and maintaining 

a centralized database. Another activity is providing training and technical 

assistance to the public or other organizations in using the indicator 
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 90 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

information, particularly smaller organizations with fewer resources or less 

expertise. 

Created in 1991, the Neighborhood Facts system describes conditions in 

Denver’s 77 neighborhoods. The system is managed by the Piton 

Foundation, a private foundation funded by a Denver energy company, the 

Gary-Williams Energy Corporation. The Piton Foundation was started in 

1976 to provide opportunities for families to move from poverty and 

dependence to self-reliance. The impetus for Neighborhood Facts was a 

desire among public and private leaders to provide citizens, particularly 

those in neighborhoods with high concentrations of low-income 

individuals, with the information necessary to take action to improve 

conditions in their neighborhoods and to become more independent. 

The indicators cover such topical areas as demographics, housing, 

economics, health, education, and crime. Neighborhood-level information 

can be compared to citywide information. For example, the system reports 

on the number of renters who pay more than 30 percent of income on 

housing for a particular neighborhood, which was identified by Piton as a 

key indicator of Denver’s housing situation. Leaders could use this 

information to determine which areas of the city might be candidates for 

lower cost options or additional housing units, or community activists can 

use it to push for corrective actions. Indicator information is obtained 

from local, state, and federal sources, such as the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Neighborhood Facts regularly updates the information on its Web site and 

provides periodic e-mail bulletins to those who sign up online to receive 

them. Since 1994, it has published a comprehensive report on indicator 

results every 5 years. Piton staff provide some training to the public on 

how to access and use the information contained in the report and on the 

Web site, which is important considering the focus on assisting low-income 

residents and small community groups. See figure 13 for a sample of 

information in the Neighborhood Facts interactive online database.
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 91 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Figure 13: Neighborhood Facts Database Sample, Denver

Source: The Piton Foundation.

Note: See http://www.piton.org.

Home

About Piton

Program Areas

Neighborhood Facts

Search

Custom Search

Clickable Map

Clickable List

Registration

Login

Neighborhood Facts Sample

Neighborhood Technical Documentation

Census Facts Sample

Census Technical Documentation

Related Links & Documents

Neighborhood Maps

School Facts

Publications

What's New

The Piton Foundation's Email

Bulletin: 5th Edition (8-24-04)

The New Coloradans

Early Childhood Education in

Denver 2004 Presentation

Providing opportunities for families and children in Denver to move from poverty and dependence to self-reliance. en Español

Neighborhood Facts

CONTACT US

370 17th Street, Suite 5300

Denver, CO 80202

P:(303) 825-6246

F:(303) 628-3839

E-Mail: info@piton.org

MAKING

CONNECTIONS

DENVER

Click Here To Visit

*Note: a new browser window will open with the results

Neighborhood Custom Search:

The custom search provides access to a searchable database of indicators describing changing neighborhood 

conditions from 1970 to present. Complete steps 1 through 4 to search this database. Please allow this website a 

few seconds to update itself after completing steps 1 and 4.

1.) Select a Data Type:

3.) Select Years

4.) Select a catagory, then an indicator for each category

Indicator 1:

2.) Select a Neighorhood(s):

All Neighborhood Data

-Least Recent YearDenver

Athmar Park

Auraria-Lincoln Park

Baker

Barnum

Barnum West

Bear Valley

Belcaro

Berkeley

Capitol Hill

To select multiple

neighborhoods:

Windows users: Hold

down the Control key and

select using the left mouse

botton.

MAC users: Hold down the

Shift key and select using

the mouse button.

Use the most recent/least recent options

above to see oldest or most current indicators

available in our database.

From Year:

-Most Recent Year-

-Select a Category-

-Select a CategoryDemographic

Housing

Economic

Education

Health

Crime

To Year:

Select all Neighborhoods
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 92 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Social Assets and Vulnerabilities 

Indicators, Indianapolis

Initiated in 1993, the Social Assets and Vulnerabilities Indicators (SAVI) 

system provides information on the economic, environmental, and social 

and cultural conditions in the Indianapolis metropolitan area, which had a 

population of over 1.6 million people in 2000. The Indianapolis metro area 

is made up of 10 counties with very different economic structures—Boone, 

Hamilton, Hendricks, Marion, Hancock, Morgan, Johnson, Putnam, Brown, 

and Shelby counties. Marion County is the center of population in the 

metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and in the State of Indiana overall.14 

SAVI began out of an effort to update a community assessment conducted 

by the United Way of Central Indiana. The overriding principle of the 

project is to increase the accessibility of information about human services 

needs, assets, and resources and to provide that information at a 

reasonable cost to nonprofit and neighborhood groups. Further, organizers 

were concerned that there was too much costly redundancy in data 

collection throughout the Indianapolis region, as well as a desire to have 

public and private leaders work from the same information base about 

conditions in the metropolitan region. SAVI collects, organizes, and 

presents information on “community assets,” such as schools, libraries, 

places of worship, hospitals, and community centers. The system also 

includes indicators on health, education, criminal justice, and welfare that 

may highlight what are referred to as “vulnerabilities,” such as 

neighborhoods with high levels of crime and unemployment. The system 

allows users to match assets with vulnerabilities. For example, if the 

indicators showed that the most prevalent ailments in the Indianapolis 

region are treatable through outpatient care, yet indicators also show that 

there is an overabundance of hospital beds, leaders might be prompted to 

convert unused hospital space to outpatient treatment centers. 

SAVI is managed by the Polis Center, a private not-for-profit organization 

located in Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis. The 

United Way of Central Indiana is the community trustee of the project. 

SAVI is funded primarily by local community foundations, Indiana 

University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, and local governments. 

14 Following the 1990 U.S. census, the Indianapolis MSA was defined as 9 counties. 

Following the 2000 U.S. census, the MSA was redefined as 10 counties—adding Brown and 

Putnam and dropping Madison. SAVI includes 11 counties—all counties from the 1990 and 

2000 MSA definitions.
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 93 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

SAVI aims to provide a common source of information for community-level 

decision making. The system integrates 10 large data sets (approximately 

40 data sets in total) that are collected by others—mostly by federal, state 

and local agencies—and processes and presents the data at the regional 

and neighborhood levels. An important part of the program is teaching the 

public how to use its interactive database through online support and 

tutorials. See figure 14 for an example of the SAVI interactive Web site, 

which is currently being modified. 
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 94 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Figure 14: SAVI Web Site Sample, Indianapolis

Source: The Polis Center.

Note: See http://www.savi.org/.

SEARCH:

Log In

New User

Registration

Go

Home

About

Community Profiles

Data & Mapping

SAVIToolkit

Reports

Reference Room

Support

My SAVI

Help

Revised: June 25, 2004

Disclaimer

Community

Resource

Centers

SAVI INTERACTIVE

Information for Central Indiana Communities

Data & Mapping

Data Search Data Cart Map Tables Queries Charts &

Graphs Statistics Quick Data

Select

Step 4 of 5: Step 4 of 5: 

Step 5 of 5: Continue adding data or choose one of the following: Step 5 of 5: Continue adding data or choose one of the following:

*

Births

Crime

Deaths

Demographics

Education

Home Loans

Housing

Public Assistance

Sites, Programs, and Agencies

Step 1 of 5: Choose a Category Step 2 of 5: Choose an Item 

Please Select

Add To Data Cart

Map It View Table Search Data

G (0)

Choose one of the following:

 2000 Population Age 65+ 

 2000 Average Household Size 

 2000 Single Mom with Kids Age 

<18 

 2000 Median Family Income 

 2000 Persons Living in Poverty 

 2000 Population Under Age 5 

 2000 Total Unemployed Age 16+ 

 2000 Total Population 

 2000 Hispanic Population 

 2000 African American Population

Step 3 of 5: Choose a Geography Level: Step 3 of 5: Choose a Geography Level:

Please Select

1990 Blockgroups

2000 Census Tracks

Counties

Townships
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 95 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Comprehensive Key 

Indicator Systems Are 

Diverse, Particularly Those 

That Are Outcome-Oriented

Most comprehensive key indicator systems we examined in the United 

States at the state, local, and regional levels, and in Europe at the national 

and supranational levels, are outcome-oriented in that they monitor the 

progress of jurisdictions in meeting certain goals or aspirations for the 

future and simultaneously provide information on the condition or position 

of jurisdictions to a wider group of users. However, these systems are 

diverse and vary in several major ways, including their aims and the 

activities they perform, their organizational structures, sources of funding 

and data, and the geographic level of data they present. 

In most instances, the organizers of these systems selected their indicators 

after the goals or visions of a jurisdiction were established. However, goals 

or indicators typically undergo periodic updating through an iterative 

process of stakeholder review. For example, the EU developed its 

European Structural Indicators system to assess progress in achieving a set 

of policy goals for the economic, environmental, and social renewal of the 

EU that were agreed to by member countries. The indicators form the basis 

for a mandated annual report that policy makers use to monitor progress in 

achieving the goals and take appropriate action. Moreover, numeric targets 

are sometimes attached to the indicators, specifying the exact degree to 

which the indicators are expected to change over time. For example, the 

Oregon Benchmarks set a target for crime to decrease by 4 percent over a 

10-year period. Outcome-oriented systems are designed to respond to the 

needs or attract the attention of a particular audience of stakeholders—

that is, those who can take action to achieve the goals or those who are 

otherwise interested in seeing progress being made toward them. 

However, the systems are also available—either through public reports, a 

Web site, or both—to other organizations or individuals to provide 

information about the condition or position of a particular jurisdiction, 

regardless of whether they agree with or are interested in the goals or 

visions around which an indicator set is organized. 

Comprehensive key indicator systems also vary in their aims and the 

activities they perform, their organizational structures, and their funding 

arrangements. Their various aims include holding others accountable for 

agreed-upon policies or strategic goals; raising awareness of issues 

revealed through indicator trends to spur action among leaders inside and 

outside government; and demonstrating connections among goals and 

indicators in crosscutting areas, such as sustainable development and 

quality of life. For example, the United Kingdom’s Sustainable 

Development Indicators system shows various indicators of social 

progress, economic growth, and environmental protection that are related 
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 96 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

to the country’s ability to meet the needs of present citizens without 

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. 

Along with working toward multiple aims, comprehensive key indicators 

systems perform a variety of activities, such as regularly reporting to the 

public on progress being made toward achieving their goals or vision, or on 

general conditions in the jurisdiction. Some organizations choose to report 

results with little or no commentary on how much progress has been made. 

In contrast, others offer extensive commentary and analysis, such as 

assigning grades to signify the level or degree of progress, offering 

recommendations for ways to make more progress, or both. Further, based 

on emerging trends that some indicators have highlighted, a few systems 

have acted on their own to address them. Others have provided 

nonfinancial assistance, for example, training or technical assistance, to 

other organizations or entities to use the information to enhance their 

ability to take action. 

The organizational structures and funding sources of these comprehensive 

key indicator systems also varied. Some have been established within 

government agencies; not-for-profit organizations, such as civic groups, 

academic institutions, or foundations; or through partnerships between 

public and private organizations. In some cases, new organizations were 

created to develop and implement the systems. In other cases, the systems 

were initiated in existing organizations. Sources of funding included 

exclusively public, exclusively private, or a mixture of the two. Diversity 

exists even within a particular type of funding. For example, private 

funding might come from one or more non-profit foundations or a for-profit 

corporation. The Index of Silicon Valley system in California was initiated 

by a non-profit organization that is a consortium of leaders in the 

government, academic, civic, and business communities, among others; 

and its funding sources are similarly diverse. In contrast, the Oregon 

Benchmarks system was initiated and is managed by the state government, 

and receives its funding exclusively from the state.

Several comprehensive key indicator systems at the state, local, and 

regional levels in the United States and at the national and supranational 

levels in Europe illustrate the similarities and differences between those 

that are linked to desired outcomes, such as a jurisdiction’s goals or visions 

for the future. The following are examples of outcome-oriented systems: 

the Boston Indicators Project, Boston; the Index of Silicon Valley, 

California; the Oregon Benchmarks, State of Oregon; the Sustainable 

Development Indicators, the United Kingdom; and the European Structural 

Indicators, European Union.
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 97 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Example of a Comprehensive 

Key Indicator System at the 

Local Level—Boston Indicators 

Project

Since 1999, the Boston Indicators Project’s system has reported on 

progress toward shared goals for Boston, provided comprehensive 

information about Boston’s progress in meeting those goals, and has 

compared the city’s position to that of other cities and the nation as a 

whole. Boston is a racially and ethnically diverse city, with a population of 

nearly 600,000 (according to the 2000 U.S. census), making it the 20th 

largest city in the United States and a major northeastern hub. It also 

serves as the capital of the State of Massachusetts. (See app. IV for 

additional information on the Boston Indicators Project.)

Staff of the Boston Foundation, a private, not-for-profit community 

foundation, manages the indicators project. The project is funded through 

private sources yet receives some in-kind public support. The project is a 

collaborative effort between the Boston Foundation, the Boston 

Redevelopment Authority, and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. 

The staff’s main activities are to use the indicator system and its reports to 

raise awareness of emerging issues among public and private leaders as 

well as citizens, provide a comprehensive source of information, train and 

educate groups and individuals on how to use the information, provide a 

common source of information for civic discourse, and facilitate 

collaborative strategies to make progress toward citywide goals. 

According to organizers, the impetus for the system was a major change in 

Boston’s economic and social conditions in the 1990s, including a transition 

to a more technology-based economy. Accordingly, government and 

community leaders called for a convenient source of information to assess 

the city’s position and progress in a time of rapid change.

The indicators are organized along 10 goal areas: civic health, cultural life 

and the arts, economy, education, environment, housing, public health, 

public safety, technology, and transportation. For example, in the section 

on the environment, one goal is having accessible green and recreational 

spaces, and a related indicator is the amount of green space available per 

1,000 children. This indicator could be used in a number of ways. If the 

indicator showed that Boston’s green space acreage was not keeping up 

with the growth in the number of children in a particular neighborhood, it 

could be a sign that city leaders should consider increasing the amount of 

public open space in that neighborhood, among other options.

Further, the project groups some of its indicators by crosscutting topics, 

such as children and youth, race/ethnicity, and sustainable development, to 

help users see important connections among various issues and how they 

might contribute to problems such as poor race relations or racial 
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 98 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

disparities. For example, under race/ethnicity, one could view those 

indicators related to monitoring the conditions of Boston’s racial and 

ethnic communities, such as the degree of racial segregation in Boston’s 

neighborhoods and the unemployment rate by race. Indicators are drawn 

primarily from existing statistical sources and supplemented by a few 

public opinion surveys that the project conducts. 

The project publishes reports on indicator trends every 2 years and has 

published comprehensive reports in 2000 and 2002, with another one 

planned for 2004. It also maintains an interactive Web site, which is 

illustrated in figure 15. The goals and related indicator measures were 

selected through a highly participatory process involving more than 300 

residents from diverse public and private organizations, neighborhoods, 

and racial and ethnic groups. 
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 99 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Figure 15: The Boston Indicators Project’s Interactive Web Site

Note: See http://www.tbf.org/indicators/.

The Boston Indicators Project is an example of a system that has evolved 

over time. Initially, it aimed to promote public awareness of issues though 

its indicators report and make information more accessible to the 

Boston Indicators Report 2002 B t I di t R t 2002 Boston Indicators Report 2002 p

Boston Municipal Research 

Bureau comments on FY05 

budget

Economy Overview 

Source: The Boston Foundation. 

Economy Overview 

Economy - Goals 

and Measures 

3.1 Maintaining the 

Region’s Competitive 

Edge 

3.2 Infrastructure to 

Support the Knowledge 

Economy 

3.3 Economic Strength 

and Resilience 

3.4 Affordable Cost of 

Living 

3.5 Skilled Workforce 

3.6 Economic Equity

3.7 Economic Mobility 

and Opportunity 

Economy Menu 

What Metro Boston lacks in oil, coal, and corn, it makes up for in 

the intellectual and financial capital that fuels innovation — the 

key to the region’s past success and future prosperity. 

OVERVIEW 

The driver of the Massachusetts economy, Boston is

read on.........

Click for Economy Goals & 

Measures.

U.S. poverty rate increases, 

median income unchanged

Report Shows Older Industrial 

Cities Offer Opportunities for 

Private Sector Investment

News @ Economy

Executive Civic Health Economy Environment Housing Public Health Public Safety Technology Transportation

Summary

The MassINC. report recommends 

reforms for Massachusetts’ 

workforce development system.

Mass workers not saving 

enough for retirement 

Kids Count release highlights 

the problem of “disconnected” 

youth 

Women’s Union report calls for 

more job training

SEARCH

THIS SITE

Home

The Boston tBf Foundation Boston Indicators Report 2002
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 100 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

community. Because of widespread support and use of the system, 

managers have expanded their activities to link the system’s broad goals 

and indicators to the development of a new civic agenda for action. The 

project’s managers have brought together a group of local leaders from 

government, business, academic, and not-for-profit organizations to 

develop a mutually agreed-to civic agenda, including long-term goals and 

benchmarks, that would include specific actions to address certain issues 

identified through the project’s indicators. Managers say they believe such 

an agenda will allow the indicator system to have a greater impact on the 

city and make it more relevant to the public. The civic agenda will appear 

for the first time in the project’s 2004 comprehensive report.

Example of a Comprehensive 

Key Indicator System at the 

Regional Level—Index of Silicon 

Valley

Launched in 1995, the Index of Silicon Valley annually reports on progress 

in achieving a set of goals—largely related to sustainable development—for 

California’s Silicon Valley region. The Silicon Valley is commonly 

considered to be all of California’s Santa Clara County, as well as part of 

San Mateo County; Scotts Valley in Santa Cruz County; and Fremont, 

Newark, and Union City in Alameda County. With a population of more 

than 2 million people, the Silicon Valley region has a larger population than 

18 U.S. states.

The indicator system is managed by the Joint Venture: Silicon Valley 

Network (JVSV), an independent and private, nonprofit organization 

funded by private corporations, individuals, foundations, and local 

governments in the region, which also constitute the target audiences. 

JVSV has a board of directors consisting of leaders from business, labor, 

government, education, nonprofits, and the community. The impetus for 

the system was a perceived need for leaders inside and outside of 

government to work together toward common goals, since the Valley itself 

is so diverse—containing hundreds of businesses, educational, and 

research institutions, as well as myriad local governments. 

The system is organized around four broad themes—innovative economy, 

livable environment, inclusive society, and regional stewardship—and 17 

goals under these themes. The related indicators deal with topical areas, 

such as education, health, housing, the environment, economic 

development, workforce preparedness, transportation, and civic 

involvement. For example, one goal is for the region’s innovative economy 

to increase productivity and broaden prosperity. This goal is measured in 

part by an indicator of the number of fast-growth companies in the Silicon 

Valley. In this case, if the number of fast growth companies was shown to 

be declining, depending on the cause of variation, this trend could spur 
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 101 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

collaborative efforts in the region to attract businesses that create rapid job 

growth, such as gazelle companies (especially fast-growing companies) 

that generate the most wealth, new technology, and new jobs in the Silicon 

Valley and across the United States. Figure 16 is an example of one of the 

indicators used in this system—the number of publicly traded gazelle firms 

in the Silicon Valley, which has declined from a high point in 1996. 

Most indicators are obtained from existing sources, although some original 

surveys are conducted. JVSV selected the goals and accompanying 

indicators after consulting with thousands of residents and regional leaders 

in the public and private sectors. Planning for the effort began in 1992.

Figure 16: Number of Publicly Traded Gazelle Firms in the Silicon Valley

JVSV aims to raise awareness among public and private leaders of issues 

highlighted by the indicator results by communicating results through an 

online database, oral presentations, e-mail updates, and mass mailings of 

Source: Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network.
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 102 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

its reports. In addition, JVSV tries to tackle specific issues that emerge by 

facilitating various regional collaboration activities, such as seeking 

investors to fund and implement efforts to facilitate progress toward 

certain regional goals. 

Example of a Comprehensive 

Key Indicator System at the State 

Level—Oregon Benchmarks

Work on the Oregon Benchmarks system was initiated in 1989, and its 

intent is to measure progress toward a strategic vision and related goals for 

the state as a whole—known as Oregon Shines15—and to provide a single 

source of comprehensive information on economic, environmental, and 

social and cultural conditions in Oregon. The State of Oregon has a 

population of slightly over 3.5 million, and it is a mix of high technology, 

urban areas—with over 530,000 people concentrated in Portland—and 

rural, agricultural areas. While the state benefited from the technology 

boom of the 1990s and became a high-technology hub, its economy has also 

suffered the effects of the downturn in this industry. The state had one of 

the highest unemployment rates in the United States as of July 2004. (See 

app. V for additional information on the Oregon Benchmarks.) 

The Oregon Shines strategy was developed in the late 1980s, when the state 

was recovering from another serious recession. Oregonians helped to 

create Oregon Shines as a blueprint for the state’s economic recovery, and 

the benchmarks system was created shortly thereafter to monitor the 

state’s progress in achieving it. The system is managed by the Oregon 

Progress Board (Board), a unit of the state government that is chaired by 

the governor and consists of other appointed leaders inside and outside 

government. It also has a small government staff and is funded by state 

government appropriations. The Board developed, and continues to revise, 

the indicators based on extensive feedback sessions with other leaders and 

citizens, such as holding meetings with residents across the state. 

The indicators are organized around three broad goals related to Oregon 

Shines: quality jobs; engaged, caring, and safe communities; and healthy, 

sustainable surroundings. Under these goals are 90 indicators regarding 

the economy, education, civic engagement, social support, public safety, 

community development, and the environment. There are numeric targets 

attached to each of the indicators. As an example of a particular goal and 

indicator, under the “safe, caring and engaged communities” goal, “students 

carrying weapons” is measured by the percentage of students (grades 9-12) 

15 Oregon Economic Development Department, Oregon Shines (Salem, Oreg.: 1989). Oregon 

Progress Board, Oregon Shines II (Salem, Oreg.: 1997).
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 103 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

who report carrying them—based on a statewide survey (see fig. 17). In the 

case of Oregon, the number of students carrying weapons has declined in 

the past 10 years. However, if this indicator showed that the number of 

students carrying guns began to increase, it could result in leaders 

determining that corrective actions might be necessary to address the 

problem. Oregon’s system provides information at both the county and 

state levels. Approximately one-quarter of the indicators are derived from 

a state survey and the rest are obtained from existing federal, state, and 

local sources. 

Figure 17: Students Carrying Weapons—Percentage of Students Who Carry 

Weapons in Oregon

Source: Oregon Progress Board.

A report on the indicators has been published every 2 years since 1991, and 

its target audience is state government officials, other leaders throughout 

the state, and residents of the state. The Board promotes the results 

throughout the state so that state agencies will have clear benchmarks to 

aim for and others outside of government can work to help the state 

achieve its indicator targets. In fact, since 2002 the indicator system has 

State Agencies Linked

 - Education 

How Oregon Compares Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS)

High School Students Carrying Weapons

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

OR 32% 19% 19% 14% 13% DHS

U.S. 22% 20% 18% 17% 17% Ctrs for Disease Control & Prev.

Making Progress?

Yes

Students Carrying Weapons 63 Percent of students who carry weapons

Students (grades 9-12) 

report that they carry 

weapons at a far lower rate 

in 2001 than in 1991. 

Oregon is also significantly 

lower than the U.S. rate. 

(See below.)

63. Percent of Students Who Carry Weapons

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 05 10

Targets
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 104 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

been part of the state government’s performance measurement process and 

state agencies are required to specify how their programs and policies will 

lead to improvement in areas measured by the indicators. 

The Oregon Benchmarks system is another example of one that has 

evolved—in this case, from exclusively monitoring and communicating on 

the level of progress toward achieving Oregon’s high-level, statewide goals 

to also facilitating the state government’s performance measurement 

system. Specifically, the main mission of the Progress Board and its staff 

has become facilitating the state’s performance measurement process and 

providing information to help various leaders hold state government 

agencies accountable for making progress toward indicator targets. 

However, organizers told us that they do want to lose their statewide 

visioning focus. Legislation enacted in 2001 mandated that the Board 

establish guidelines for state agencies to link their performance measures 

to the indicators and develop a set of best practices for doing so. Further, 

the Board has established a system for reporting progress on performance 

measures that are linked to the Oregon Benchmarks, although each agency 

is responsible for reporting on its individual performance. These changes 

were made largely in response to calls from political leaders to make the 

system more relevant to the policy-making process and justify its continued 

existence in the midst of a serious downturn in the state government’s 

fiscal situation. 

Example of a Comprehensive 

Key Indicator System at the 

National Level—United 

Kingdom’s Sustainable 

Development Indicators

Since 1999, the United Kingdom’s Sustainable Development Indicators 

system has measured progress toward the government’s sustainable 

development strategy in the areas of social progress, economic growth, and 

environmental protection. The United Kingdom is a constitutional 

monarchy with a parliamentary system of government. It has the fourth 

largest economy in the world, and its population in 2002 was nearly 60 

million—the third largest in the EU and the 21st largest in the world. Its 

overall population density is one of the highest in the world, as its 

population is concentrated in an area of land that is about the same size as 

Oregon. The United Kingdom’s capital, London, is by far the largest city in 

the country with over 7.2 million people, making it the 13th largest city in 

the world.

In the late 1990s, the ruling government committed itself to the goal of 

achieving a better quality of life for U.K. citizens and, in 1999, developed a 

comprehensive sustainable development strategy for pursuing that goal. A 

set of indicators was developed alongside the strategy to monitor progress. 

The published strategy document identified a core set of 147 indicators and 
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 105 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

committed the government to report annually on progress against a set of 

15 headline indicators—the so-called quality of life barometer. This 

strategy is intended to ensure that the government meets the needs of 

present citizens without compromising the ability of future generations to 

meet their own needs. 

The Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) 

manages the comprehensive sustainable development strategy, along with 

the indicator system, on a day-to-day basis, although DEFRA must closely 

coordinate with other ministries of the government that have jurisdiction 

over other areas in the strategy. The indicator system is funded entirely by 

the national government. 

The system contains 15 “headline” indicators in areas related to social 

progress, economic growth, and environmental protection, such as health, 

jobs, crime, air quality, traffic, housing, educational achievement, and 

wildlife, as well as 132 other indicators in these areas. Indicators are 

obtained primarily from national government agencies with jurisdiction 

over the various topical areas, including DEFRA. 

For example, one headline indicator measuring progress toward the goal of 

maintaining high and stable levels of economic growth and employment is 

the percentage of people of working age who are currently employed (see 

fig. 18). If this indicator showed that the number of working-age 

individuals who are employed started to decline, it could raise questions 

and spur efforts to identify the root causes of the decline (which could 

range from cyclical conditions or demographic shifts to competitiveness 

issues). Then, the government or others could determine whether there 

was a need to design solutions to fit the nature of the problem. For 

example, they might consider enhancing job training programs or conclude 

that incentives to encourage businesses to increase hiring were needed to 

boost employment, or they might decide not to intervene. It is interesting 

to note that the U.K. system reports employment in a positive light (as 

opposed to “unemployment” as in the United States). 
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 106 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Figure 18: Percentage of Working-Age People Who Are Currently Employed in the United Kingdom by Region for 2000 and 2003

The system provides information on the indicators at the national level. 

Where possible, the definitions used are consistent with international 

definitions, allowing comparisons with other countries to be made. 

Regional versions of the 15 headline indicators are also published annually. 

In addition, the national indicators have influenced other regional 

indicators and indicator development at a sub-regional level. The first 

national report, a comprehensive baseline assessment for all 147 

indicators, was issued in 1999 and fully updated in 2004; reports assessing 

progress based on the 15 headline indicators are issued annually. Also, a 

Web site contains updated indicators. The system was designed with the 

intention that the United Kingdom would use the information to modify its 

policies and budgets to achieve the goals contained in the strategy, 

particularly in areas in which the United Kingdom is not making sufficient 

progress or is lagging behind other countries. 

England average (2003)

Source: “Regional Quality of Life Counts-2003, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom Crown 

Copyright 2004.”

0 10 20

2000

2003

30 40 50 60 70 80 90

South West

South East

London

East of England

West Midlands

East Midlands

Yorkshire and the Humber

North West

North East

Percent
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 107 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Example of a Comprehensive 

Key Indicator System at the 

Supranational Level—European 

Union’s European Structural 

Indicators

Since 2001, the European Structural Indicators system of the EU has 

measured progress toward goals for the economic, environmental, and 

social renewal of all of Europe, which were established in an agreement 

that was ratified by member countries. The EU is the latest stage in the 

ongoing process of European integration begun after World War II to 

promote peace and economic prosperity. The EU is a treaty-based, 

institutional framework that defines and manages economic and political 

cooperation among its 25 member states: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the 

Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, 

Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the 

Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the 

United Kingdom. The EU member countries have a total population of over 

450 million people, compared to over 290 million in the United States. 

Standards of living measured by GDP per capita are around 30 percent 

below U.S. levels. Since the 1950s, European integration has expanded to 

encompass other economic sectors; a customs union; a single market in 

which goods, people, and capital move freely; and a common agricultural 

policy. Some EU countries have also adopted a common currency (the 

euro). The EU has also adopted a range of social policies related to 

reducing inequalities and promoting social cohesion. Over the last decade, 

EU member states have taken additional steps toward political integration, 

with decisions to develop a common foreign policy and closer police and 

judicial cooperation. The EU sees enlargement as crucial to promoting 

stability and prosperity and furthering the peaceful integration of the 

European continent; it also has several candidate countries that are 

expected to join in the coming years.16

The goals for the renewal of the EU were outlined in the Lisbon Strategy of 

2000 (and modified in 2001), a 10-year blueprint to promote sustainable 

economic growth, social cohesion, and environmental protection that 

member countries agreed to work toward by implementing related policies 

within their own borders. The impetus for creating the European 

Structural Indicators system was the need to track the progress of member 

countries in achieving the ambitious goals of the Lisbon Strategy and 

identifying areas that need improvement. The system is managed by the 

European Commission (EC), the EU’s executive apparatus, which is 

16 Ten of the current 25 member states (Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, 

Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia) joined the EU on May 1, 2004. Two 

other candidates, Bulgaria and Romania, hope to complete negotiations and be able to join 

the EU by 2007. Another candidate, Turkey, remains in a separate category as it seeks to 

comply fully with the EU's political and economic criteria for membership.
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 108 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

partially funded by contributions from member countries. A European 

Council, which consists of representatives of member countries, makes 

decisions about the general direction of the system and which indicators to 

include. 

The indicators are organized into five key areas: employment, innovation 

and research, economic reform, social cohesion, and the environment. For 

example, there is an indicator for the long-term (12 months or more) 

unemployment rate for men as a percentage of the working male 

population. Figure 19 illustrates the tremendous variation in the male 

unemployment rates among the EU countries, as well as among other nonEU countries, such as the United States. Indicators are presented at the 

national level to facilitate comparisons among member countries. This 

indicator could be used to show which EU countries have the highest male 

long-term unemployment rates in comparison to other members, 

potentially bringing down the averages for the EU overall. It could also 

point out which countries need to take action to boost employment within 

their borders, and thereby contribute to the overall social cohesion and 

economic security of all of Europe. Data for the indicators are obtained 

from countries and coordinated by Eurostat, the EC’s statistical agency. 

The EC is required to report each year to the Council on progress in 

meeting the Lisbon Strategy. The progress report based on the structural 

indicators (and accompanying analyses) has been published every year 

since 2001. 
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 109 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Figure 19: Long-term Unemployment Rates for Men, 1999-2002 

Note: Data from Update of the Statistical Annex, 2004 Report from the Commission to the Spring 

European Council: Structural Indicators.

In response to changing circumstances, this indicator system was recently 

redesigned to improve its utility in monitoring and reporting on progress 

toward the Lisbon Strategy’s goals and to encourage leaders of member 

countries to take action to meet those goals. Leaders from member 

countries agreed that the system needed to focus attention on a limited 

number of what were considered the most important indicators. However, 

the number of indicators kept increasing, and some changed from year to 

year, making it difficult to focus on a few important challenges or monitor 

progress toward the Lisbon Strategy over time. As a result, the EC reduced 

the number of indicators that appeared in its 2004 report to a few headline 

indicators, and EC officials told us that the indicators that will be reported 

to member country leaders annually will not change for at least 3 years. 

Eurostat continues to maintain and update the full set of about 100 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1999 2002

Source: Eurostat.

2000

Slovak Republic

Poland

Turkey

Romania

Bulgaria

Lithuania

Latvia

Estonia

Italy

Germany

Malta

Belgi

Slovenia

um

Greece

Finland

Czech Republic

Hungary

Spain

Irelan

France

d

United Kingdom

De

Sweden

Portugal

nmark

Austria

L

Netherlands

uxembourg

Cyprus

ACC

US

Japan

EU15

eurozone 12
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 110 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

indicators on its Web site for the benefit of other interested parties who 

want more detail. 

Outcome-Oriented Systems 

May Be More Relevant to 

Target Audiences

Outcome-oriented systems can help create focused and relevant 

information for their audiences that may enhance the use of and continuing 

support for these systems. Audiences could be more likely to use the 

information if it is relevant to decisions that affect their lives and work. 

Relevancy is difficult, but not impossible, to determine if there is no focus 

on outcomes. For instance, a learning-oriented system that was especially 

disciplined and focused on determining the relevancy of information for its 

audiences could evolve towards an outcome orientation while gaining the 

initial advantage of building early momentum without battles over 

determining common aims. 

Relevancy and quality also affect use. The more the information is used, 

the easier it is to create a cycle of stakeholder support and funding that can 

eventually lead to positive effects. Similarly, developers of indicator 

systems are more likely to identify the most significant and appropriately 

constructed indicators if they can, through civic dialogue and research, 

define a set of common aims and aspirations for their jurisdictions.

Although it was not intentional, of the 29 systems we examined, many were 

focused on outcomes in one way or another. Our interviews with officials 

representing these systems revealed that an outcome orientation—whether 

outcomes were formative and implicit or well advanced and explicit—had 

an impact on the system by making it somewhat easier to select indicators 

that were relevant to the system’s audiences. 

The vocabulary usage surrounding discussions of outcomes is sometimes 

inconsistent, and thus potentially confusing. This is because outcomes can 

be defined in forms ranging from:

1. the general—what could be called an aim, vision, or aspiration (e.g., a 

healthy population); to

2. a more focused articulation of intent with direct implications for 

existing institutions and programs—what could be called a goal or 

objective (e.g., reduce the nation’s level of obesity); to
Chapter 2

Citizens in Diverse Locations and at All 

Levels of Society Have Indicator Systems

Page 111 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

3. a specific objective—what could be called a target (e.g., reducing teen 

pregnancy in a city by 10 percent from its current level over a 4-year 

period).

Whether outcomes are stated in general or specific terms is not necessarily 

a reflection on their utility or legitimacy. An unrealistic goal that is very 

specific can create problems in contrast to a vague, general aspiration that 

has broad support and builds common ground. For instance, a frequently 

observed phenomenon associated with systems that try to measure 

performance and make links to results is the manipulation of data in order 

to meet specified goals, targets, or mandated requirements. 

Different methods of developing an outcome-orientation can also be highly 

interrelated. Positive or negative experiences with targets (e.g., the 

inability to effectively measure an area like the fine arts) could lead a 

jurisdiction to back off to more general goal statements. Building 

consensus around aspirations could, over time, lead progressively to 

statements of goals and then eventually to targets as a jurisdiction gains the 

confidence and experience in managing to greater levels of specificity and 

detail. It is important to clarify terminology and recognize these 

interrelationships in any discussion of comprehensive key indicator 

systems.
Page 112 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability Chapte3r

The implications of comprehensive key indicator systems for the United 

States are significant. Our work covered a diverse set of systems in 

different geographic regions of the United States and abroad, from small 

scale (under 1 million in population) to large scale (over 450 million), with 

widely differing demographics, cultures, political dynamics, and economic 

structures. Although the comprehensive key indicator systems we 

reviewed were diverse in many respects, our analysis revealed similarities 

in the challenges they faced and the types of positive effects they 

experienced. 

These similarities provide evidence of a pattern in development and 

implementation that can provide useful lessons learned for others who are 

considering establishing or enhancing such systems. Further, 

comprehensive key indicator systems represent a positive step in the 

evolution of measurement practices. Prior efforts, including developing 

useful data on a wide range of topics and systematic efforts to measure 

performance, form the basis for developing more comprehensive 

information systems to address increasingly complex and interrelated 

issues. It appears that comprehensive key indicator systems have broad 

applicability to all levels of society and forms of governance—from 

neighborhoods to nations as a whole. However, the commonalities we 

discuss here should not be interpreted as a “one-size-fits-all” approach. 

Local factors would have to be taken into account. 

A Diverse Set of 

Systems Faced Similar 

Challenges

Despite the diversity of the comprehensive key indicator systems we 

studied across the United States and around the world, we found that 

similar challenges existed when developing and implementing these 

systems. The five common challenges we identified involved some issues 

that were difficult to overcome, took years to address, or both. In addition, 

some challenges require ongoing attention. The exact nature and 

magnitude of the challenges varied from place to place based on various 

factors, including the system’s purpose and target audiences as well as the 

features of the particular jurisdiction, such as its political and economic 

structures. The common challenges we identified in the course of our 

work are

• gaining and sustaining stakeholders’ support for a system,

• securing and maintaining adequate funding,

• agreeing on the types and number of indicators to include,
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 113 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

• obtaining indicators or data for the system, and

• effectively leveraging information technology.

Gaining and Sustaining 

Stakeholders’ Support

The challenge of gaining and sustaining support is continuous, even among 

systems we reviewed that already had strong levels of political and 

financial support and large user bases. For instance, we found that 

organizers faced challenges due to concerns about how the indicators 

might be perceived and used. Some systems that were able to garner the 

strong support needed to start an effort experienced difficulties in 

maintaining that support over time. It was also challenging to ensure that 

leaders, policymakers, and a wide range of interested parties viewed the 

indicator systems as relevant and useful. 

Seeking broad support and commitment helped comprehensive key 

indicator systems avoid “capture” by one party or particular interest group. 

Some systems have instituted broad-based governing structures at the 

outset to address this issue. For example, the North Carolina Progress 

Board’s (which runs North Carolina 20/20) members are appointed by the 

governor, leaders of the legislature, and the Progress Board itself. Further, 

to keep its operations as independent as possible, the indicator system’s 

board represents a cross-section of the state and includes a former 

governor and representatives from the academic community. The Progress 

Board reports directly to the Board of Governors of the State University 

system. 

Involving a range of stakeholders helped ensure a mix of interested parties 

would use the system over time and identify needed refinements to ensure 

its continued relevance. For example, the Portland Multnomah Progress 

Board—organizers of a city/county comprehensive indicator system in 

Oregon—has benefited from having strong support from the county 

chairperson and the mayor. However, uncertainties regarding who would 

continue to champion the indicator system in the future when these elected 

officials might change represented a continuing challenge, according to 

Progress Board officials. They highlighted the importance of ongoing 

communications to build continuing support, explain what the indicators 

measure, and their usefulness. This can be accomplished through briefing 

policymakers and outreaching to businesses, community leaders, and other 

interested parties on the usefulness of having a single, convenient source of 

information on the economic, environmental, and social and cultural 

conditions of their jurisdictions. 
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 114 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Officials we interviewed identified several specific types of challenges they 

encountered in gaining and sustaining support for their comprehensive key 

indicator systems, including (1) perceptions of bias or a lack of 

independence because the indicator system was initiated or supported by a 

particular official or political party and (2) questions about comprehensive 

systems being out of touch and not used in policy making.

Perceptions of bias or a lack of independence. Support for a 

comprehensive key indicator system can be undermined if it is viewed 

as being nonobjective and biased because of its association with a 

particular political leader or party. 

While leaders’ support can help an indicator system come into 

existence and survive for a time, an indicator system that is viewed as 

one administration’s or one party’s initiative can be vulnerable to 

changes or elimination as administrations or circumstances change. 

Several of the state-level comprehensive indicator systems that we 

examined were closely associated with a particular governor and 

experienced challenges related to securing and maintaining political 

support over time, particularly among legislative bodies or those of the 

opposite political party. This perception of a lack of independence 

played a role in the history, development, and near demise of the 

Oregon Benchmarks system, which is managed by the Oregon Progress 

Board. Four successive governors of the same political party have 

championed this system. When it came into existence in the late 1980s, 

the then-governor’s political party controlled the state legislature. 

However, by 1994 the opposing political party had gained control of the 

entire legislature, and some of the new legislators were suspicious of 

the goals and targets of the indicator system. They believed the 

targeted levels set for many of the benchmarks were part of a strategy 

to increase public funding for the other party’s favored programs. In 

1995, the legislature allowed the authorization for the Progress Board 

to expire, although the newly elected governor reestablished it by using 

executive authority. 

A strategy used by Oregon Progress Board’s executive director to 

encourage the legislature to restore the authorization for the Board and 

the benchmarks was to demonstrate the value of the system through 

education about what the indicators measure and how they could be 

used. Eventually, management was able to gain support of two key 

legislators, who were appointed to the Board. The Board also 

instituted a broad-based structure to ensure greater independence and 
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 115 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

bipartisan support from multiple communities. The Board and the 

indicator system were eventually reauthorized by the legislature on a 

permanent basis in 1997. This system has refocused its efforts to 

become more useable and relevant to leaders and keep it on a more 

stable course. To justify its continued existence in a tough state fiscal 

crisis, the Oregon Benchmarks has become a formal part of the state 

government’s performance measurement system, and agencies are 

required to link their individual performance reports to the higher-level 

indicators. 

Questions of relevance and usefulness. Ongoing support for a 

comprehensive indicator system could be compromised by questions 

about the value of and need for an indicator system that brings together 

indicators in particular domains or topical areas that are already 

available elsewhere.

Policy making in the United States and around the world tends to be 

considered and made in individual topical areas or domains, such as 

tax, health, and education policy. Governments at all levels, including 

executive branch agencies and legislative committees, also tend to be 

organized along the lines of specific topical areas. A comprehensive 

indicator system designed around a crosscutting area, such as a 

sustainable development framework dealing with economic 

development, environmental quality, and social and cultural concerns, 

would, therefore, not have a built-in audience. This increases the 

difficulty of encouraging leaders to think about issues in that 

framework, and to use the indicator system as a tool for doing so. For 

example, organizers of the United Kingdom’s Sustainable Development 

Indicators said it was unclear whether their system has prompted 

leaders to focus on comprehensive sustainable development strategies, 

even with support from the Prime Minister. They have undertaken an 

ongoing communications strategy, including an annual national report 

and media events, although they acknowledge that changing the way 

policymakers use information in making decisions will be an evolving 

process. 

Leaders may continue to reach out for information already available in 

their individual topical areas and make policy accordingly, possibly 

rendering a comprehensive indicator system underutilized at best or 

irrelevant at worst. To overcome this challenge, comprehensive 

systems have found it necessary to conduct extensive outreach to make 

sure the public is aware of and understands what the indicators 
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 116 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

monitor, and how this information could be used by different 

individuals and groups. This has been accomplished in a variety of 

ways, including presentations and training, or even redesigning their 

systems to appeal to their target audiences. 

For example, organizers of Baltimore’s Vital Signs indicator system told 

us they continually make presentations and conduct training sessions 

for citywide stakeholders, including the Baltimore City Council, the 

Mayor’s staff, the Baltimore City Department of Housing, and the 

Association of Baltimore Area Grant makers. The purpose of this 

outreach is to make sure leaders, neighborhood groups, and citizens 

understand what the indicators are and what they measure so everyone 

can be on the same page about which economic, environmental, and 

social and cultural conditions are changing, or not changing, in the 

community. Further, several of their stakeholder organizations, 

including the Association of Baltimore Area Grant makers, have sent 

the Vital Signs report to their members to promote wider use of the 

indicators.1

 Figure 20 provides an example of an indicator from the 

Vital Signs system—the median number of days it takes for homes to 

sell in a particular area of Baltimore.

1

 This effort should not be confused with the Baltimore city government’s CitiStat, which is 

an accountability tool used by the Mayor and city officials to hold city managers 

accountable and to measure government results. 
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 117 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Figure 20: Median Number of Days It Takes for Homes to Sell in a Particular Area of 

Baltimore

In addition, other factors can affect perceptions about a system’s relevance 

and usefulness. These factors include situations when information does 

not match the comprehension level of the target audience (such as being 

Vital Signs 

Source: Maryland Regional Information Systems, 2003, Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance.

Indicators that take the pulse of Baltimore neighborhoods 

In Baltimore City, houses on the market are selling faster 

than ever! The map shows the median number of days it takes 

for homes to sell in an area. Areas where homes sell in a low 

number of days may indicate more consistent interest in living 

there. Between 2000 and 2003, the median number of days a 

home stayed on the market experienced a 46% decrease from 52 

days to 28 days citywide. 

Medlan Days on the Market 2003

0 - 10 Days HIGH DEMAND

10 - 30 Days

30 - 50 Days

50 - 84 Day LOW DEMAND

21227

21226

21229

21214

21217

21218

21213

21206

21236

21230

21225

21228

21203

21231

21222 21237

21201

21207

21211

21215

21206

21100

21210

21239

21234

21214

21251

21205

21224
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 118 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

overly technical), or the system does not cover areas that are meaningful or 

important to key stakeholders. 

Due to questions about relevance, the Burlington Legacy Project (BLP) 

system in Vermont is being refocused based on feedback from and 

underutilization by public and private leaders in the city. Essentially, critics 

said that the system’s indicators were not linked to the information that 

Burlington leaders and residents needed, and was unable to answer the 

basic question—how are we doing in improving quality of life and 

sustainability? Organizers decided that they needed an index to serve as a 

comprehensive measure that accounts for and links economic as well as 

social and environmental health, which they felt was fundamental to 

assessing quality of life and sustainability. In response, BLP is redesigning 

the system by not reporting exclusively on individual indicators, and 

instead is developing a single index of the quality of life in Burlington—

consisting of data from 26 topical areas. Managers believe this index will 

attract wider attention from leaders, the public, and the media, and will 

become more relevant to them.2

 (For a graphic of the index, see fig. 5 of 

this report.)

Securing and Maintaining 

Adequate Funding

Securing and maintaining adequate funding can be difficult, particularly in 

light of current and growing fiscal challenges. In some cases managers 

have been forced to curtail the system’s activities and in a few instances 

operations were nearly shut down due to fiscal constraints. For example, 

the Benchmarking Municipal and Neighborhood Services in Worcester 

(Massachusetts) system had to scale back the number of neighborhoods it 

covers with one of its survey tools because the data are too resource 

intensive to collect.3

 Other systems, like the Oregon Benchmarks and 

Minnesota Milestones that relied solely on their state governments for 

funding, have been subject to funding crises. The Oregon and Minnesota 

indicator systems were nearly abolished when their states experienced 

2

 Organizers told us that the general progress index still allows people to drill down into the 

individual data points to identify major deterrents to a higher quality of life index number or 

which individual factors most positively affect the number.

3

 The Worcester Indicator Project in Massachusetts uses a computerized neighborhood 

tracking program adapted from the one used by the City of New York to collect data on 

municipal and neighborhood services. The ComNet survey involves a systematic review by 

neighborhood of specific physical conditions, such as the condition of items like sidewalks 

and street signs, which are recorded and mapped.
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 119 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

economic downturns. In Oregon, funding for the system was abolished by 

the legislature but was later reinstated at a lower level. The Minnesota 

state legislature eliminated line item funding for Minnesota’s system, but 

for a time it was able to continue with a reduced level of funding within the 

state’s operating budget; today, it is no longer an active system. We found 

that a lack of diversified funding sources made indicator systems more 

vulnerable to fiscal constraints due to their dependence on one source for 

most or all of their funding. 

Systems that relied on multiple funding sources, such as government, 

corporate, and not-for-profit foundations, could make up for reductions 

from one source by turning to others for additional funding or possibly by 

reaching out to new funding sources. For example, corporate funding for 

the Index of Silicon Valley system, which operates in a geographic area that 

was hit hard by the downturn in the technology industry during the late 

1990s, was reduced. By relying upon multiple sources, managers were able 

to make up for the declining corporate funding by seeking additional 

support from others. Specifically, several local governments increased 

their funding to make up for it—despite their own fiscal constraints—

because these governments saw the system as a valuable tool for 

enhancing collaboration on issues of mutual concern, such as 

transportation. 

Agreeing on the Types and 

Number of Indicators to 

Include

Agreeing on which indicators to include, and how many to include, in a 

system can be challenging, particularly when starting up a new system. 

However, these issues continue to present challenges as indicator sets are 

revised over time. The reasons for this challenge are that selecting the key 

issues and conditions that are important to a jurisdiction, and selecting 

which specific indicators to use, involves a high level of subjectivity and 

value judgments. This is coupled with a need to be continually responsive 

to emerging issues and demands.
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 120 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

The number of possible indicators that could be selected to measure key 

issues and conditions is generally quite large. Accordingly, selecting 

indicators is not a value neutral activity, and different individuals and 

organizations sometimes prefer different indicators. For example, an 

indicator concerning higher education can be measured in different ways, 

such as by the number of students who enroll in college, or the number 

who actually graduate. Further, there are numerous ways to measure 

whether public education is successful. For example, the Indicators for 

Progress system in Jacksonville, Florida published a report in 2003 that 

discusses different ways to measure public school success.4

 Figure 21 

shows several of the indicators mentioned in that report.5 According to an 

official of the Jacksonville Community Council Incorporated (JCCI), this 

figure also shows that the indicators JCCI tracks can be used as part of a 

citizen-based advocacy process to catalyze community improvements.

4

 These 3 indicators are among the approximately 115 indicators included in Jacksonville’s 

Indicators for Progress indicator set, each of which is measured and reported on annually.

5

 Jacksonville Community Council, Inc., Public Education Reform: Phase I- Assessing 

Progress (Jacksonville, Fla.: 2003).
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 121 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Figure 21: Different Indicators Used to Measure the Success of Public Schools in Jacksonville, Florida

Source: Jacksonville Community Council, Inc.

In addition, in some cases, stakeholders have debated whether to express 

indicators in positive or negative terms. During the development of the 

Boston Indicators Project, for instance, organizers avoided using deficit, or 

Duval County public high school graduation rate,

1992-93 through 2001-02

84.0%

78.2% 77.4%

71.5%68.7%69.2%

58.7%57.4%55.9%

61.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1992-931993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-991999-002000-012001-02

Source: Florida Department of Education. Before 1998, the graduation rate was measured 

by comparing graduating seniors to the total number of students entering ninth grade 

four years earlier. In 1998, the State of Florida began measuring the number of 

students who graduate high school within four years, as tracked by student ID numbers. 

An additional four to five percent of students take five years to graduate from high school, 

and are not included in the official graduation rate.

DCPS high school graduates employed full time six

months after graduation

Source: Florida Education and Training Placement Information Program

19.8% 18.6%

25.9%

19.9% 21.9%

26.1%

28.7% 27.1%

24.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1992-931993-941994-951995-961996-97

1997-981998-991999-002000-01

1992-93

1993-94

1994-95

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

Math

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Reading

Duval County graduates prepared for college courses in reading and math
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 122 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

negative, measures, such as the prevalence of school violence. Instead, the 

system used indicators expressed in terms of desired, positive objectives, 

such as graduation rates. Similarly, the New York City Social Indicators 

comprehensive system elected to report almost exclusively on conditions 

that are related to positive objectives. Baltimore’s Vital Signs system 

reports on births at satisfactory weights—as an indicator of maternal and 

child health—rather than low birth weight births, which is an indicator of 

maternal and child risk. 

Some organizations have sought to involve a wide community of public and 

private stakeholders in developing and revising their indicator systems, 

particularly those with a community-wide focus. For example, Baltimore’s 

Vital Signs system included 200 residents of the city and over 200 other 

leaders from various communities (e.g., business, funders, and policy 

makers) in their indicator selection process. However, officials cautioned 

that when indicator systems involve a diverse group of stakeholders, it is 

important to build sufficient time into the process of selecting indicators to 

allow stakeholders to address differences and reach consensus, and it 

usually is an iterative process. The process of identifying and agreeing on 

indicators took over six months for both the Boston Indicators Project and 

the Compass Index of Sustainability in Orange County, Florida. Developing 

consensus necessitated a series of large and small community meetings 

along with reaching agreement among various committees of public and 

private stakeholders. The officials believed that the inclusive nature of the 

process vastly increased the potential users of a system as well as its 

overall quality. They told us that bringing various groups or individuals into 

the process and involving them in its development and evolution makes 

these groups and individuals more likely to use indicators regularly, and 

encourage others to do so as well. 

Organizers of many of the comprehensive indicator systems we studied 

also found it challenging to limit the total number of indicators included in 

the system. In order to reach agreement and limit tensions among 

stakeholders, one tendency can be to simply increase the number of 

indicators so most of the stakeholders are content because their preferred 

indicators have been included. However, doing so can make the system 

unwieldy and overly complex, thereby decreasing the chances it will be 

used and referenced by policymakers, the media, and others who often 

prefer a limited, simple set of key indicators that they can monitor over 

time. Managers of indicator systems and experts emphasized that, to the 

extent possible, a system should try to keep the total number of indicators 

to a minimum. Some systems have put strict limits on the number of 
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 123 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

indicators right from the start. For example, the North Carolina Progress 

Board, which oversees the statewide North Carolina 20/20, limits the 

number of indicators to four for each of its goals, although it is continuing 

to refine goals and performance targets.

In some cases, indicator systems have added more indicators over time as 

updates occurred, only to later go through a simplification process based 

on feedback from users. 

The EU recently redesigned its European Structural Indicators system to 

improve its effectiveness in (1) monitoring and reporting on progress being 

made toward the Lisbon Strategy’s economic, environmental, and social 

goals and (2) encouraging leaders of member countries to take action to 

meet those goals. The number of indicators had increased over time and 

some of the indicators changed from year to year. Leaders from member 

countries had expressed concern that the growing number of indicators 

made it difficult to identify and focus on the most important indicators for 

effectively monitoring emerging trends over time. To address these 

concerns, the EU decided to identify and report on a limited number of 14 

headline indicators, as shown in table 5. The number of structural 

indicators included in the 2004 annual report was reduced from 42 to 14 

indicators so that country leaders could more easily focus their attention 

on and understand progress toward goals. In addition, these indicators 

have been fixed for a three-year period to facilitate benchmarking and 

monitoring. The full set of indicators is still available online to those users 

who want more detail. 

Table 5: European Structural Indicators—Headline Indicators

Source: European Commission. 

According to the officials we interviewed, using a set of selection criteria 

all stakeholders agree to in advance helps ensure that the indicator 

selection process works effectively from the outset and keeps the total 

• GDP per capita

• Labor productivity

• Employment rate

• Employment rate of older workers

• Educational attainment (20-24)

• Research and development expenditure

• Comparative price levels

• Business investment

• At risk of poverty rate

• Long-term unemployment rate

• Dispersion of regional employment rates

• Greenhouse gas emissions

• Energy intensity of the economy

• Volume of freight transport
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 124 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

number of indicators under control. Applying these criteria can help 

facilitate decisions not to use some of the potential indicators right from 

the start, and it can also be used to rank a possible list of indicators. Many 

of the groups we reviewed have developed such criteria, and from these, 

we identified six common criteria used for selecting indicators. 

Specifically, selected indicators should be

• relevant to key issues, policies, or goals,

• easy to understand and meaningful to a variety of audiences,

• drawn from reliable sources,

• available from existing sources or not resource intensive to collect,

• updated regularly, and 

• comparable across geographic areas or various population groups.

Obtaining Indicators or Data 

for the System

Challenges related to obtaining indicators, or aggregating data to compute 

them, are particularly critical because most comprehensive key indicator 

systems rely heavily (or in many cases exclusively) on indicators and data 

that are already available from other public and private organizations. 

Specifically, officials identified challenges in (1) obtaining existing 

indicators or data from the organizations that collect them, (2) addressing 

quality or comparability problems, and (3) finding that indicators or data 

are not available to measure key issues or trends. 

Obtaining Existing Data Organizers of comprehensive key indicator systems have encountered 

challenges in obtaining existing indicators or data to compute the 

indicators from entities that collect them, particularly when these data 

have not been previously or routinely released to the public or posted on 

the Internet. System organizers told us that such challenges are most 

prevalent at the beginning of a system’s development and experienced 

primarily by systems that are not officially part of a governmental unit. For 

example, Baltimore’s Vital Signs effort had difficulty obtaining data from 

the city’s police department and public school system, although the 

problems were eventually resolved through negotiation with key officials. 

The Orange County, Florida, Compass Index of Sustainability also 

experienced problems in getting data from agencies, although once the 

system’s first report was released, agencies and local leaders benefited 
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 125 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

from its use and are now more supportive. Officials said that a lack of 

cooperation from data producers stemmed from concerns that the data 

might be used in unintended ways or would be used to assess an agency’s 

operations; limited time or resources to make the data more useable to an 

indicator system; and the data producers’ concerns about privacy. 

Some system organizers said that an effective way to increase cooperation 

by data producers is to include them as key stakeholders in the design and 

implementation of the system, including the process of selecting the 

indicators. One system established formal memorandums of 

understanding. Indianapolis’s Social Assets and Vulnerabilities Indicators 

(SAVI) system negotiated and ratified agreements with its data providers—

laying out terms and conditions for both parties as to what the 

organizations will provide and when and how the data will be used—in 

order to forge a formal, ongoing relationship. Further, the Hillsborough 

County Community Atlas system conducted an assessment (involving 

public and private organizations) to determine data needs in the 

community and the capabilities of local organizations to contribute to a 

Web-based data sharing system.

Addressing Quality or 

Comparability Issues 

The indicator systems we reviewed across the United States rely, for the 

most part, on data producing organizations to ensure that they are 

providing valid, quality data. Some system managers told us that they 

sometimes try to work with agencies to improve data quality or encourage 

them to collect other types of data. Indicator systems generally have 

limited data quality control processes. For example, managers of the 

Southern California Association of Governments’ State of the Region 

system told us they have set the standard that they will only accept 

indicators and data from official sources—particularly government 

agencies or organizations with track records of producing reliable data. 

Organizers of comprehensive key indicator systems have encountered 

quality and comparability problems that prevented the use of some 

indicators without devoting substantial resources to improve the quality 

and comparability of the data. In some cases, reliable, quality data are 

simply unavailable. The Jacksonville, Florida, Indicators for Progress 

system, for example, found it difficult to obtain reliable measures of water 

quality in the region. 

Another problem faced by system managers has been that available data 

have been collected by different agencies or jurisdictions, and in some 

instances these agencies and jurisdictions have not used common or 
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 126 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

consistent definitions or units of measurement. As a result, much of this 

information becomes unusable or irrelevant in a comprehensive key 

indicator system. The EU continually faces problems trying to harmonize 

indicators across countries and utilize consistent terms and concepts of 

measurement, which tend to vary by country. The international statistical 

community, including the OECD, IMF, World Bank and UN, has ongoing 

efforts aimed at improving the comparability of indicators.

Further, sometimes data are not disaggregated to the smaller geographic 

levels that systems want to report on, or they are not disaggregated by 

other socioeconomic variables of interest, such as race, age, or gender. For 

example, in the case of the Boston Indicators Project, the police 

department reported crime statistics by district or precinct, using fourblock areas, while educational data were available by neighborhood or 

school. This made it difficult to analyze possible interrelationships 

between crime and educational factors.

Lack of Available Indicators or 

Data 

In some instances, the indicators necessary to measure key issues are not 

available at all or are not available in a timely fashion. These gaps are 

frequently identified during the initial development of indicator systems. 

The most commonly identified areas where gaps exist across the indicator 

systems we reviewed were health insurance and health care, child care, the 

aging population, crime, and educational data, as well as some topical 

areas in the environmental domain. In addition, one of the major sources 

of demographic information is the decennial U.S. census, which is 

conducted once every 10 years. Many subnational indicator systems in the 

United States rely heavily on the Census Bureau, but by the end of the 10-

year period, these data may significantly lag behind actual changes in the 

population. Officials provided several specific examples of gaps they had 

identified, such as those listed below. 

• The Portland Multnomah County Benchmarks system officials reported 

that data were not available for about 12 issues that they would like to 

include. They hope to be able to find data and are encouraging agencies 

and other organizations to collect data on issues such as the 

environment. According to organizers of this system, over the past 

several years, they have been able to whittle the number of data gaps 

from 20 down to 12, as local agencies have improved their performance 

measurement efforts. 

• The Compass Index of Sustainability in Florida’s Orange County wanted 

to report on a variety of issues related to its large retired and aging 
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 127 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

population. In the process of developing this system, however, 

organizers found that the county did not have sufficient data to monitor 

the health and well-being of the aging population. The first indicator 

report by this system commented on this lack of data, which resulted in 

improved data collection efforts throughout the county, including an 

extensive survey of the aging population in Orange County.

To overcome the challenge of indicators or data not being available, or not 

being regularly updated, organizers of indicator systems have turned to 

several remedies to collect their own data or spur additional data collection 

efforts. For example, the Maine Economic Growth Council (MEGC), which 

oversees the statewide Maine’s Measures of Growth system, has developed 

proxy, or substitute, indicators on occasion. In one instance, MEGC used 

an indicator on the estimated loon population as a proxy measure of the 

extent of contamination in Maine’s lakes. Also, data for 8 of the 61 

indicators that the MEGC system tracks are derived from surveys of 

citizens and businesses that it conducts itself. 

The U.S. Census Bureau is in the process of implementing the American 

Community Survey, which will collect and disseminate census information 

more frequently. Most U.S. subnational indicator systems currently rely 

heavily on the “long form” data from the decennial census. Every U.S. 

household receives the short form, which has limited utility for indicators, 

as it includes only the demographic basics of race, ethnicity, and age. In 

the census year, one in six households receives the long form, which asks a 

detailed series of questions regarding such topics as income, occupation, 

education, and journey to work. This is valuable information to support the 

creation and maintenance of indicators at all levels of society. The U.S. 

Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) provides data annually 

and has been implemented on a nationwide basis since 2000 for all states 

and for all counties and metro areas with more than 250,000 residents. 

Current plans, contingent on continued congressional support and funding, 

could quadruple the sample size in 2005 and eventually allow for 

presentation of data at the census tract and block levels. At present, 

800,000 households are surveyed annually; in 2005, the number is expected 

to increase to 3 million. A substantial investment in data, such as for the 

ACS, could make even more information widely available to support the 

development of comprehensive key indicator systems in the United States.
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 128 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Effectively Leveraging 

Information Technology

The development of advanced computer information technologies has 

transformed the tools available for comprehensive key indicator systems, 

although the extent to which various systems have leveraged these 

technologies varied. According to many of the system managers, 

effectively using technology, including the Internet, has made it possible for 

comprehensive key indicator systems to transfer data quickly, made key 

information more widely available, and helped foster dialogue among 

groups with mutual interests. For example, on its Web site, Indianapolis’s 

SAVI presents a set of tools that enable users to interact with the data in 

different ways. Figure 22 lists the various tools on SAVI’s interactive Web 

site.
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 129 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Figure 22: SAVI Interactive Tools

Source: The Polis Center. 

Note: See http://www.savi.org.

Although new information technologies may make it faster, easier, and 

cheaper to collect and share data, gaining access to new technologies can 

SEARCH:

Log In

New User

Registration

Go

Home

About

Community Profiles

Data & Mapping

SAVIToolkit

Reports

Reference Room

Support

My SAVI

Help

Revised: June 28, 2004

Disclaimer

Community

Resource

Centers

The SAVI TOOLKIT is a set of tools to allow users to interact with SAVI data. Users can 

save their work. 

Compare Data

 Users will be able to compare geographic areas. For example, they will be able to 

 compare the poverty rate of a neighborhood to the county. 

 

View Trend Data 

 This tool provides easy access to several years of data and the ability to view changes 

 over time in a table, graph, or comparative maps. 

 

Identify a Location

 Users will be able to enter an address or point and view a list of areas in which that point 

 is located (e.g., township, school district, etc.). 

 

Locate Addresses 

 Users will be able to enter or upload addresses, coordinates, or GPS data and have 

 them displayed on a map with other data. 

 

Create a Report 

 Users may create their own reports, specifying the data to be included in the report. 

 Reports will be updated automatically when new information is available. 

 

Draw a Boundary

 This tool allows users the ability to draw a boundary and view statistics for the area. 

 

Track Indicators 

 This tool allows users to define goals and choose indicators from the SAVI data to track 

 progress over time. Users will be able to save their selections and view progress in the 

 form of charts, tables, or maps that will be updated automatically as the data elements 

 are updated.
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 130 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

be costly. Costs were one factor that limited the extent to which some 

organizations have been able to take advantage of new technologies, and 

some systems had to scale back on planned technology initiatives due to 

resource constraints. For example, the statewide Social Well-being of 

Vermonters system briefly used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to 

display the results of some indicators (e.g., children’s health indicators 

were analyzed by county), but the effort was put on hold mainly because of 

resource constraints. 

However, several systems have been transformed over time by new 

technologies, and many of the systems’ officials told us that they would like 

to do more innovative things than they are doing now. The evolution of the 

Minnesota Milestones state-level system illustrated how improved 

information technologies transformed indicator systems’ operations over 

time.6

 The system progressed from issuing a printed report to an 

interactive system where individuals can manipulate the data themselves, 

including sorting them by geographic area, subject, or indicator and 

creating customized reports. 

Organizers of some comprehensive key indicator systems see potential in 

other developing technologies. For example, the Boston Indicators Project 

expressed interest in work being done by organizations such as the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology on data warehousing and the 

interoperability of different data systems to facilitate sharing between 

systems. The Boston Foundation is also collaborating with Boston’s 

Metropolitan Area Planning Council to develop a regional data repository 

project for community planning and research, which would create a deep, 

searchable database (a data warehouse and portal) with mapping capacity. 

Other officials are looking into improved tools for developing interactive 

query capabilities so that users of indicator Web sites could directly 

manipulate and analyze the data behind the indicators. 

6

 Several other comprehensive indicator systems also maintain interactive Web sites where 

users can search for data by different characteristics, such as the Boston Indicators Project, 

where Web site users can pull out data by sector, or by one of the crosscutting filters 

(including race and ethnicity, children and youth, sustainable development, and Boston 

neighborhoods). 
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 131 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Comprehensive Key 

Indicator Systems 

Show Evidence of 

Positive Effects

The diverse systems we reviewed showed evidence of common types of 

positive effects, such as improved decision making, enhanced 

collaboration on issues, and increasing the availability of knowledge. Even 

though we found anecdotal evidence of positive effects on their respective 

jurisdictions, this information must be interpreted with a number of 

considerations, which are discussed below. 

• These positive effects are a function of how different stakeholders use 

indicator information along with other resources and information to 

inform their decisions made within the context of various political, 

economic, and other factors. Because the information they produce can 

be used by individuals, the media, businesses, nonprofits, interest 

groups, professionals, and governments (among others), the variety of 

uses and possible benefits is theoretically wide ranging.

• Determining a cause and effect relationship between the use of 

indicator systems, better decisions, and improved problem solving is 

beyond the scope of this report. On the basis of common sense, it is not 

an unreasonable link to make. But in reality, so many different factors 

affect decision making that teasing out the role of indicator systems as a 

single causal factor necessitates further research.

• We did not perform complete cost, benefit, risk, and options analysis for 

any of the systems reviewed. Nor did we find that other systems had 

done so. Hence, the question of how to evaluate the value of these 

systems and what their value is relative to other possible uses of public 

and private funds remains open. 

In spite of these analytical difficulties, our work shows that numerous 

investments have been made and sustained over significant periods of time. 

Specifically, comprehensive key indicator systems have

• enhanced collaboration among diverse parties to address public issues;

• provided a tool to encourage stakeholders to make progress toward 

economic, environmental, and social and cultural outcomes;

• informed and facilitated policy making, program planning, fiscal 

decision making, and improved research; and
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 132 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

• increased knowledge about key economic, environmental, and social 

and cultural issues, as well as the conditions of certain populations.

It can take years for an indicator system to become a widely used and 

effective tool for identifying and monitoring conditions, and tracking longterm trends that are most important to citizens of a jurisdiction. For 

example, based on indicator results that showed declining graduation 

rates, leaders of the Indicators for Progress system in Jacksonville, Florida, 

partnered with a variety of mutually interested business leaders and school 

system officials to press for educational reform in that jurisdiction. Their 

collaborative efforts resulted in the county school board implementing 

several new initiatives. 

Enhancing Collaboration to 

Address Public Issues

Comprehensive key indicator systems can reveal significant public policy 

problems and help to address them by facilitating collaboration among 

various parties inside and outside of government. These systems serve as 

useful tools for highlighting economic, environmental, and social and 

cultural trends to broader audiences that can include elected officials, 

agency heads, the media, and the public. The more focused attention that 

an indicator system or corresponding report can bring to certain conditions 

may bring increased pressure to bear on diverse parties in the public and 

private sectors to collaborate on strategies to address them. Some 

indicator system managers have even convened groups that work on 

collective strategies to address areas of common interest. Accordingly, 

these kinds of efforts help break down traditional boundaries between 

various actors and organizations and encourage recognition of 

interconnections among various domains as well as ways that crosscutting 

approaches could provide solutions to long-term challenges. Some key 

illustrations follow. 

Chicago Metropolis 2020. This indicator system’s report highlighted the 

extent to which the Chicago metropolitan region suffered from severe 

traffic congestion. Without the profile and attention given to it by a key 

indicator system, information on traffic congestion might not have had the 

same level of impact on public debate. Figure 23 presents actual traffic 

congestion levels for 1996, as well as projected levels for 2030 if current 

trends continue without intervention. The report and subsequent public 

attention was a key factor that led to the governor signing legislation to 

create a task force, whose recommendations are aimed at transforming 

transportation and planning agencies into a more coherent regional system 

that considers the impact of decisions on other jurisdictions and a broader 
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 133 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

range of economic, environmental, and social and cultural impacts. 

Because authority over transportation policy in the region was fragmented 

along the lines of several state agencies and a variety of city and suburban 

governments, until this task force, no single entity, including the city of 

Chicago, had been able to act on these problems in a holistic and 

crosscutting manner. 

Figure 23: Traffic Congestion in Chicago—Actual 1996 and Projected 2030 

1996 Traffic Congestion 2030 Traffic Congestion

Legend

Severely Congested

Congested

Counties

Legend

Severely Congested

Congested

Counties

McHenry

Kane

Lake

Cook

DuPage

Will

McHenry

Kane

Lake

Cook

DuPage

Will

Source: Chicago Metropolis 2020.
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 134 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Chicago Metropolis 2020 continues to monitor traffic congestion and urban 

transportation trends, as illustrated by testimony presented by the 

organization’s leadership to the Regional Transportation Task Force in 

early 2004 (see fig. 24).

Figure 24: Travel Trends Placing Stress on the Chicago Regional Traffic System

Index of Silicon Valley. This system highlighted shared regional 

problems that negatively affected economic growth by hindering new 

businesses and development. The Smart Permit Initiative was organized to 

tackle these problems. The organizers of this initiative worked with 

business and government leaders to create a regulatory streamlining 

Travel times and congestion in 

Chicago are 2nd and 3rd worst, 

respectively, in the country

• Chicagoans drive 2.3% further each 

year, and congestion has been 

worsening at 1% per year

Future transportation funding 

maybe a challenge

•CATS forecasts a $13 billion unfunded 

shortfall for key transportation projects 

in the next 30 years

•Funding may be limited due to EPA 

and ADA nonattainment

The Chicago region will still need 

to provide over 500 million transit 

trips per year

• CTA ridership is up 15 million rides 

in the past 5 years

Congestion and overall 

transportation costs are high for 

Chicago

• Congestion costs of $4 billion are 

estimated for the Chicago area

• Individuals’overall transportation costs 

are high compared to their peers

Jobs and population growth has 

occurred outside of core 

transportation areas

• 1990-2000, The City of Chicago 

gained only 40,000 jobs, while 

Cook and other suburbs gained 

430,000 jobs

Many low-income and minority 

residents live in the City and may 

need to travel to jobs

• Poverty rates in the city are 3 times 

worse than in the suburbs

Commute complexity has increased 

significantly

• In the past 10 years, the number of 

county-to-county suburban (nonCook) commuters has increased 

56%, and intercounty reverse 

commuting has increased 35%

Transit ridership has recently 

dropped, especially in collar 

counties

• Metro and Pace trip count declined 

3.2% per year from 2000-02, while 

the collar county population jumped 

3.3% from 2000-01

Source: Chicago Metropolis 2020.

Chicagoland must 

address 3 key 

challenges in a tight 

budgetary environment

• Maintain existing 

services

• Address city-to-suburb 

transportation

• Address suburb-tosuburb transportation
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 135 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

council whose efforts led to officials in 27 cities and 2 counties agreeing to 

standardize their building, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical codes and 

related regulatory requirements for new businesses. The council agreed to 

reduce approximately 400 local amendments to these codes to 11. 

According to officials, these changes have reduced confusion in building 

codes among cities and counties, saved businesses time in getting products 

to market, and lowered construction costs for new projects.

Indicators for Progress (Jacksonville, Fla.). The leader of this 

system—the Jacksonville Community Council, Inc. (JCCI)—encouraged 

regional officials and members of the local media to focus on significant 

problems in the county’s public school system that had been highlighted by 

its indicator report. JCCI leaders produced a separate report in 1993 on the 

implications of Jacksonville’s public education problems and 

recommended ways to address them.7

 The effort tried to demonstrate 

linkages such as those between indicators for education excellence and 

other quality of life indicators, including job growth and crime. Using these 

findings, JCCI leaders initiated a high degree of collaboration among public 

and private officials. Eventually, its report and several years of advocacy 

by JCCI officials, citizen volunteers, business leaders, public school 

officials, and others led the school board to create a commission that 

outlined over 150 recommended improvements, many of which have been 

put into action.

Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project (CAP). This 

system was designed to monitor and improve quality of life in this county in 

California and reports on 128 indicators related to the economy, education, 

health, public safety, social environment, and the natural environment. A 

summary of the system’s report is sent to every household in the county. 

CAP results led to eight new community-wide efforts, including projects to 

reduce child injuries, child abuse and neglect, school absenteeism, juvenile 

arrests, and childhood obesity. One key project was to limit youth alcohol 

and drug abuse. The CAP had shown growing alcohol and drug abuse by 

youth in the Santa Cruz area, which affected other conditions measured by 

indicators, such as school achievement, college readiness, and crime. After 

spotlighting the connection between these indicators and securing 

communitywide recognition of the problems, CAP leaders established a 

coalition of 110 representatives from public schools, county services, the 

7

 Jacksonville Community Council, Inc., Public Education: The Cost of Quality

(Jacksonville, Fla.: 1993).
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 136 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

county sheriff’s department and four city police departments, businesses, 

public officials, not-for-profit organizations, parents, and students. The 

coalition created a coordinated alcohol and drug prevention strategy for 

Santa Cruz. Following collaborative efforts to implement this strategy, 

CAP indicators showed that juvenile felony drug arrests, juvenile arrests 

for driving under the influence, as well as youth alcohol and drug abuse, 

started to decline (see fig. 25). 

Figure 25: Percentage of 9th Graders Reporting Use of Alcohol in the Last 30 Days

Providing Tools to 

Encourage Progress 

Among jurisdictions that established a set of desired economic, 

environmental, and social and cultural outcomes in the form of goals or 

targets or shared aspirations for the future, those that used comprehensive 

key indicator systems found them to be effective devices for monitoring 

and encouraging progress toward these outcomes. Some jurisdictions used 

comprehensive key indicator systems as accountability tools to assess the 

extent to which various parties, including government agencies, not-forprofit organizations, and businesses, contributed to achieving results. 

Indicator systems and their reports have also been used to highlight 

instances when progress is not being made for a broader audience and to 

encourage interested parties and stakeholders to take action. Some key 

illustrations follow. 

Santa Monica Sustainable City. This comprehensive key indicator 

system for the City of Santa Monica, California provided information on a 

range of indicators that officials used to assess the extent to which city 

departments and others contributed to a 1994 citywide plan for reaching Percent

60

30

0

’93/’94 ’95/’96 ’98/’99 ’00/’91 ’02/’03

51

42

38 39

31

Source: Santa Cruz County Assessment Program.
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 137 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

sustainable development goals. Indicators are used for assessing both city 

government operations and the community as a whole in achieving these 

community-wide goals. In response to what the indicators were showing, 

the City Council developed a service improvement program to increase bus 

ridership. They also surveyed the public to identify needed improvements 

in services. The city’s transportation department restructured its bus 

program along these lines and eventually increased bus ridership by 25 

percent, 15 percent greater than targets established prior to this 

coordinated effort. 

Oregon Benchmarks. The State of Oregon’s comprehensive key indicator 

system continues to evolve as a tool to help agencies collect and report 

information to the legislature and the governor. The use of these indicators 

can help demonstrate agencies’ contributions toward statewide goals set 

forth in Oregon Shines and enhance agencies’ accountability for achieving 

these goals. Chaired by the Governor, the Oregon Progress Board sets up 

the system fore reporting progress on performance measures that are 

linked to benchmarks. State agencies are required by law to link their 

annual performance measures to the Oregon Benchmarks. The intent is to 

better align agencies’ policies so they work in concert and focus on moving 

the indicators in a desired direction. This provides a mechanism to help 

encourage state officials to focus on each agency’s contributions toward 

key objectives and, in some cases, has spurred policy discussions from a 

more holistic, integrated perspective. As shown in figure 26, for example, 

numerous state agencies contributed to a benchmark related to child abuse 

and neglect, demonstrating the shared nature of many challenges.8

 

8

 This graphic was presented in a special publication of the Oregon Progress Board—the 

2001 Benchmark Blue Book—which has not been updated since then because Oregon has 

moved to a new performance measure reporting system.
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 138 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Figure 26: Oregon State Agencies Whose Programs Are Linked to Child Abuse or Neglect

Source: Oregon Progress Board.

50 Child Abuse or Neglect Number of children, per 1,000 persons under 18, who are: 

 a. neglected/abused b. at a substantial risk of being 

 neglected and abused

 Lead Agency Services to Children & Families Division

 Primary Links

 Police, Department of State

 Services to Children & Families Division

 Children & Families, Commission on

 Children’s Trust Fund, Board of Trustees

 Adult & Family Services Division

 Secondary Links

 Criminal Justice Commission, Oregon

 Health Division

 Community Partnership Team

 Youth Authority, Oregon

 Employment Department

 Occupational Therapy Licensing Board

 Dentistry, Oregon Board of

 Pharmacy, Board of
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 139 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

European Structural Indicators. This system provides a tool that is 

used to determine how well member countries are meeting policy goals 

spelled out in the 2000 Lisbon Strategy for the economic, environmental, 

and social renewal of the EU. When the EU’s executive apparatus 

determines, based on a review of the related indicators, that a member 

country has not made sufficient progress toward a particular goal, it can 

recommend specific actions in the areas of the economy and employment 

to be undertaken by a particular country to help further its progress. In 

addition, each country’s progress—or lack thereof—is spotlighted in an 

annual, publicly released report.9

 EU officials told us that 

recommendations have been adopted by member countries and have led to 

changes in those countries’ policies. For example, in response to EU 

recommendations, Spain has agreed to implement new policies to help 

raise its employment rate among women, which had been much lower than 

that for men. This would contribute to the EU goal of reducing social and 

economic disparities among men and women. Further, officials from the 

EU and some member countries told us that merely publishing the 

information and providing the annual report to the leaders of all member 

countries helps influence them to improve performance, thereby 

contributing to the improved performance of Europe as a whole and in 

relation to other nations to which EU members compare themselves, 

including the United States.

Informing Decision Making 

and Improving Research

Various public and private organizations use indicator systems to facilitate 

better-informed and more fact-based policy making, program planning, and 

fiscal decision making, as well as to improve the quality of research on key 

economic, environmental, and social and cultural issues. Indicator systems 

facilitate these processes by bringing together relevant information in a 

centralized, reliable location, and allowing leaders and citizens to easily 

access it. Because comprehensive key indicator systems provide 

indicators on a wide range of topical areas, they enhance opportunities to 

identify interrelationships and analyze crosscutting issues. These systems 

also provide the capacity for all leaders to work from the same information 

set and make decisions based on it. Finally, a system can serve to gain 

economies of scale by eliminating the need for other organizations or 

individuals to spend time and resources pulling together information from 

9

 Commission of the European Communities, Report from the European Commission to the 

Spring European Council: Delivering Lisbon Reforms for the Enlarged Union (Brussels: 

2004).
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 140 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

numerous disparate sources. Several examples from our fieldwork 

illustrate these positive effects.

Boston Indicators Project. This system provides comprehensive 

information on Boston and many community-level organizations have used 

its Web site and reports to better inform their decision making and program 

planning. For example, grant-making organizations, such as the project’s 

main organizer, the Boston Foundation (Foundation) itself, have used this 

indicator system when reviewing proposals to verify the data presented in 

the proposals as well as for making decisions. One of the factors that the 

Foundation considers when assessing the merits of grants proposals 

include whether the proposal targets a topic for which indicators show 

negative trends or is aimed at filling existing knowledge gaps. Similarly, 

grant seekers may use the indicators when selecting topics for research 

when they realize that grant managers’ standard operating practices 

include referring to this system regularly. Accordingly, the Boston 

Indicators Project saves all of these organizations and individuals time and 

money because they do not have to collect or aggregate this information on 

their own. More importantly, it facilitates coordination of research and 

helps shape fact-based decision making that is focused on meeting 

priorities and contributing to continued progress.

In one specific example related to the Boston Indicators Project, leaders of 

the Nuestra Communidad Development Corporation (Corporation)—

dedicated to improving the Roxbury section of Boston—used an array of 

the project’s indicators to provide evidence to a national foundation of the 

plight of housing units owned by senior citizens, many of which were in 

poor condition. The Foundation funded this proposal, and the Corporation 

has implemented a program that helps seniors rehabilitate housing units in 

Roxbury, including rentable units owned by seniors.

Social Assets and Vulnerabilities Indicators (SAVI). SAVI is used by 

community planners, neighborhood groups, researchers, and state and 

local government agencies in the Indianapolis metro area to inform policy 

and program planning and fiscal decision making. For example, SAVI 

helped the Indianapolis YMCA Board of Directors make an important 

funding decision by using the system’s indicators. The YMCA’s Board of 

Directors asked SAVI officials for help in applying the system’s economic, 

public safety, demographic, and program indicators to provide input on 

where to locate a proposed new YMCA building. SAVI used its indicators to 

map areas of need and found that numerous parts of Indianapolis were 

equally in need of better recreation and educational facilities—that is, no 
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 141 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

one part of the city was a clear-cut choice based on analysis of the 

indicators. As a result, the YMCA made a decision to not construct a single 

new building but instead created a “YMCA Without Walls” program offering 

a variety of new services throughout the city in existing facilities, such as 

churches, schools, and community centers. The YMCA also used SAVI 

indicators to determine which services to locate in various parts of the city, 

such as locating after-school programs in parts of the city with high 

concentrations of low-income children. 

United Kingdom’s Sustainable Development Indicators. This 

system’s national report helped focus attention on several problems, such 

as the growing amount of household waste being produced in the country. 

The Sustainable Development Indicators reports over several years showed 

that household waste in the United Kingdom was growing at a rate of 2 to 3 

percent per year.10 These reports highlighted this existing indicator to a 

broader audience. The vast majority of this waste is disposed of in landfill 

sites, raising broader environmental concerns because landfills are 

responsible for about one-fifth of the country’s emissions of methane—a 

major greenhouse gas that also worsens air quality. The Prime Minister 

eventually directed his Strategy Unit to analyze options to address these 

issues, and action has been taken on a number of the options outlined in 

the report, such as increasing taxes at landfills. Also, appropriate tasks and 

targets, aligned with the newly developed waste strategy, have been 

integrated within agency officials’ performance agreements. Figures for 

the amount of household waste not recycled or composted saw a decrease 

in 2002-2003, the first decrease in recent years. 

Increasing Knowledge about 

Key Economic, 

Environmental, and Social 

and Cultural Issues

Through the process of selecting indicators and reviewing data sources, 

stakeholders and organizations that manage comprehensive indicator 

systems sometimes identify areas in which their jurisdictions have gaps in 

knowledge about key economic, environmental, and social and cultural 

issues. In addition, comprehensive systems may highlight gaps regarding 

knowledge about the interrelationships among various indicators and the 

development of solutions to crosscutting problems. In some cases, gaps 

are also exposed in knowledge of the conditions of certain population 

groups, such as the aging population. Once the knowledge gaps are 

10 The government published a separate report in November 2002 on waste-related issues 

titled Waste Not, Want Not. Strategy Unit, Waste Not, Want Not: A Strategy for Tackling the 

Waste Problem in England (London: November 2002).
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 142 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

discovered, the indicator system can help spur new data collection efforts 

or the redirecting of existing efforts. Several illustrations are provided 

below.

Compass Index of Sustainability (Orange County, Florida). When 

developing this system, organizers identified significant gaps in the 

county’s knowledge about its aging population, a large group in that 

jurisdiction. System planners discovered that agencies and other 

organizations did not collect basic data on the health and well-being of the 

aging population. The system’s first report commented on these 

knowledge gaps and helped spur county commissioners to appoint a task 

force to review existing data collection efforts. This task force 

recommended ways to enhance information about the conditions of the 

aging population. More information on the aging population will soon be 

available from the AdvantAge Initiative Study funded by the Winter Park 

Health Foundation in collaboration with the Orange County Commission 

on Aging and the Delta Leadership Council of the Senior Resource Alliance. 

The survey will establish indicators that the system can continue to follow 

into the future.11

European Structural Indicators. This system has evolved through an 

iterative process. Each year participants identify potential indicators that 

need to be developed or improved in order to meet the criteria for the 

structural indicators. For example, the EU had noted the lack of indicators 

on e-commerce and requested that member countries collect new types of 

data. These indicators are now included in an online database of structural 

indicators. Eurostat has also identified 20 indicators that have yet to be 

fully developed.12 The EU uses the following criteria to develop and revise 

its indicators. Indicators must be 

• mutually consistent;

• policy relevant (linked to policy goals already established);

• easily understood by the target audience;

11 See http://indicators.hciflorida.org/indicators.cfm?id=78 for more information.

12 Eurostat, the EU’s statistical organization, has responsibility for ensuring development of 

standard concepts, methods, and technical standards for the indicators; working with the 

national statistical offices of the member countries to obtain data; and consolidating and 

harmonizing data to ensure comparability across the member countries. 
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 143 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

• available in a timely fashion;

• available for all or nearly all member countries;

• comparable among these countries as well as to external parties such as 

the United States;

• selected from reliable, official sources; and 

• easy to collect and not unduly burdensome on member countries.

Some specific areas in which the EU would like to see progress made are 

innovation and research, as well as social cohesion. Although organizers of 

the system have sought to include relevant indicators, they found that for 

the most part, member countries did not collect adequate or sufficiently up 

to date information in these areas. To address these knowledge gaps, the 

EU has asked member countries to increase their collection of data on 

innovation and research in 2004—for example, on the amount of 

information technology investment and public and private expenditure on 

human capital—and to increase the rapidity with which this information is 

becoming available. 

System Costs Are Difficult 

to Quantify

We found it difficult to discern the accurate, full costs for developing, 

implementing, and sustaining a comprehensive key indicator system 

because many of these costs do not appear as line items in the budgets of 

the organizations that house them. Many of the systems we studied are 

located in larger organizations or agencies. The managers of these systems 

tend to borrow or leverage staff and resources from throughout those 

organizations or agencies. As such, the full costs of their time and effort 

are not really captured. For example, managers of the Boston Indicators 

Project, which is housed in the larger Boston Foundation, told us that they 

make use of the Foundation’s resources, such as working with its 

communications department to leverage its significant media and 

publishing expertise; organizers also leverage assistance from the project’s 

partners. Further, because these systems rely primarily on indicators or 

data collected by others, the costs incurred by others to collect data are 

generally not reflected as part of an indicator system’s own costs.

According to the systems we studied, cost items included printing and 

distributing reports, paying staff and consultants, and acquiring and 

managing technology, for those that employed more innovative technology. 
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 144 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

For example, organizers of the Southern California Association of 

Governments’ State of the Region system—which consists of governments 

in 8 counties, including Los Angeles County, covering a population of over 

17 million people—told us that the association dedicated approximately 

$200,000 for its 2002 annual indicators report. Of this amount, 

approximately $25,000 went to printing the reports, which are distributed 

to various officials, academia, businesses, and nonprofit organizations in 

southern California—and are available to the general public upon request. 

The rest of the funding was dedicated to two staff members who were 

responsible for drafting and processing the report.

In a different instance, those responsible for Baltimore’s Vital Signs 

system—which covers a population of over 600,000 people—told us that 

they had three full-time staff dedicated to the project, with an annual 

budget of approximately $350,000. These figures are for the organization 

that runs the system—the Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance—

although the bulk of their work relates to the indicator system. Further, 

organizers told us that they receive a significant amount of in-kind support 

from their partners, which is not reflected in the budget. The one-time 

start-up costs were approximately $450,000. Baltimore’s Vital Signs is an 

example of a system that is working aggressively with technology, in 

particular geographic information systems (GIS). Further, in many of the 

systems we studied, one to three persons were dedicated full-time to the 

project. For example, the Santa Monica Sustainable City indicator system 

is managed by one person in the city’s Department of Public Works. 

The Maine’s Measures of Growth system further illustrates these points. 

The system is overseen by the Maine Economic Growth Council, which is 

affiliated with the broader Maine Development Foundation. The Maine 

Development Foundation has a board of directors drawn from its 

approximately 300 members, who represent companies, educational 

institutions, municipalities, government agencies, and nonprofit 

organizations throughout the state. The Maine Development Foundation 

has a full-time staff of nine professionals, although it makes extensive use 

of volunteers, loaned executives from members, and consultants to deliver 

its various core programs. One program director staffs the Maine 

Economic Growth Council and runs the Maine’s Measures of Growth 

indicator system; that director’s work is overseen by the chief executive 

officer of the Maine Development Foundation. More research will need to 

be done to understand the true costs of these systems and how they vary 

based on issues such as scale of population and use of technology.
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 145 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Comprehensive Key 

Indicator Systems 

Have Potentially Broad 

Applicability 

From a historical perspective, looking back at the 20th century and with 

potentially broad applicability during the 21st century, comprehensive key 

indicator systems appear to be a coherent and noteworthy development. 

They represent a logical next step in the evolution from indicator systems 

for enterprises to performance measurement systems for governmental 

institutions to indicator systems for entire jurisdictions. The most activity 

and the best organized communities of practice and knowledge sharing 

appear to be at the local level, where the “laboratories of democracy” can 

generate larger numbers of efforts at smaller, more manageable scales. 

However, because there is also activity at the state and national levels, 

more research and sharing of knowledge would be beneficial. 

The Systems We Studied 

Appear to Be a Next Step in 

the Evolution of 

Measurement Practices 

From the beginning of our republic, ideas about measuring conditions and 

using information in a democracy were embedded in notions ranging from 

the U.S. decennial census and the need for the president to report on the 

state of the union, to wider ranging rights concerning freedom of speech 

and the press. It was in the 20th century that indicators in the major topical 

areas and domains were initiated and fully developed through public and 

private cooperation. Many of these bodies of knowledge have matured 

over periods ranging from 50 through 75 years into the indicators we now 

read about in the newspaper every day. 

Comprehensive key indicator systems started their evolution later. Private 

sector organizations, academic institutions, and individual authors have, 

from time to time, addressed issues of how to assess the position and 

progress of a jurisdiction, whether it be a city or a nation. An example is 

the widely read volume The State of the Nation by Derek Bok, President 

Emeritus of Harvard University.13 Sustainable, repeatable key indicator 

systems have appeared in different jurisdictions with sets of indicators 

grounded in an intellectual framework, a diverse set of multi-sector 

stakeholders, a group of products and services and institutional support to 

sustain and evolve them. 

For at least two reasons, the emergence of these comprehensive indicator 

systems represents a next step in the evolution of measurement and 

information management practices. First, they take advantage of an 

13 Derek Bok, The State of the Nation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996).
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 146 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

innovative set of new information technologies; and, second, they build on 

previous efforts at smaller scales and move to higher scales.

Technology as an Enabling 

Factor in Indicator System 

Development

Changes brought about by the revolution in distributed data collection, 

management, and dissemination technologies over the last two decades 

have altered the economics of information. Prior to the Internet, the Web, 

and the whole set of distributed, open systems that have been developed, 

the aggregation, management, and dissemination of information from 

disparate sources required a substantial investment. In the last two 

decades, the marginal cost of dissemination has decreased. This means 

that more groups can take advantage of investments in sophisticated 

measurement and information systems that would not have been feasible 

before. The change in the economics of information dissemination has 

created meaningful new opportunities to increase the return on 

investments in data that have already been made by dramatically increasing 

the number of people who have easy access to it in a usable form.

Measuring Jurisdictions as the 

Next Step after Measuring 

Institutions and Governments

At the institutional level, the private sector, and business enterprises in 

particular, were the first to begin the process of systematically measuring 

their performance, which became widespread during the era of Total 

Quality Management in the 1970s and 1980s and then developed into the 

International Standards Organization and “Six Sigma” practices that feed 

the executive information and financial systems in wide use today.14 

Starting in the 1980s and 1990s, this movement spread to government 

entities, which were arguably more complex to measure and, at times, 

larger in scale than business enterprises.

14 The term “Six-Sigma” is now generally used throughout the business community to refer 

to comprehensive quality assurance systems that are focused on continuously increasing 

the quality of an institution’s products and services through ever more sophisticated 

systems of quantitative measurement and organizational improvement.
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 147 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

At the government level, examples of measurement reform are the Chief 

Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 199015 and the Government Performance 

and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).16 The CFO Act spelled out an ambitious 

agenda to help the government remedy its lack of timely, reliable, useful, 

and consistent financial information. For example, it requires agencies to 

prepare audited financial statements annually, thereby improving 

accountability over government operations.17 Among the purposes of 

GPRA cited by Congress was to improve federal program effectiveness and 

service delivery by promoting a new focus on results, service quality, and 

customer satisfaction by setting program goals, measuring performance 

against goals, and reporting publicly on progress. 

Moving beyond enterprise and government indicator systems are indicator 

systems covered in this report at the jurisdictional level. These are systems 

that substantially increase in scale and complexity as they attempt to 

assess the position and progress of multi-sector, multi-entity jurisdictions 

(e.g., a city, a region, or a state). As mentioned previously, this next step by 

definition creates a wide range of potential audiences and uses of an 

indicator system because of the many different types of individuals, 

institutions, and communities in a jurisdiction as opposed to a single 

business, nonprofit organization, or government agency.

Working Systems Exist at 

All Levels of Society and 

Show Evidence of 

Replicability

We found working systems in jurisdictions at all levels of society, from 

neighborhoods to nations, with millions of people. We studied a set of 

systems for local, state, or regional jurisdictions covering about 25 percent 

of the U.S. population. Figure 27 shows the population coverage of the 

systems we studied in the United States at the subnational level. Although 

each system faces unique challenges, has a unique history, and exists in a 

unique geographic, political, cultural, and situational context, the existence 

of such systems with similar features suggests potential applicability 

elsewhere.

15 Pub. L. No. 101-576, § 303. 

16 Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993). See GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA 

Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 10, 2004). 

17 The Government Management Reform Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-356, § 405; the Federal 

Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 803; and the 

Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-289, § 2, have expanded on the 

reforms enacted by the CFO Act. 
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 148 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Figure 27: Population Coverage of Select Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems in the United States

There are most likely more systems in existence that we were not able to 

include. At local levels, there is evidence of replicability, as jurisdictions 

0 5 10 15 20

Approximate Population (in millions)

Burlington Legacy Project

Santa Monica

Sustainable City Program

Benchmarking Municipal and

 Neighborhood Services in Worcester

Santa Cruz County

Community Assessment Project (CAP)

Neighborhood Facts (Denver)

Sustainable Seattle

Milwaukee Neighborhood Data Center

Social Well-being of Vermonters

Boston Indicators Project

Baltimore's Vital Signs

Portland Multnomah

County Benchmarks

Compass Index of Sustainability

 (Orange County, FL)

Community Atlas

 (Hillsborough County, FL)

Hennepin County

Community Indicators

Indicators for Progress 

(Jacksonville, FL)

Maine's Measures for Growth 

Social Assets and Vulnerabilities

 Indicators (Indianapolis)

King County Benchmarks

(Washington)

Index of Silicon Valley (California)

Results Iowa

Oregon Benchmarks

Minnesota Milestones

New York City Social Indicators

Chicago Metropolis 2020

North Carolina 20/20

State of the Region

(Southern California)

Systems by Population

Corresponding to Jurisdiction

Source: GAO.

17.1

8.4

8.1

8.1

5.1

3.6

2.9

2.3

1.8

1.6

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.1

1.0

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.04
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 149 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

copy, adapt, or purchase ideas, civic processes, indicator frameworks, or 

technology from others. These networks have focused on sharing 

knowledge and practices about indicator systems.

This replicability is occurring not only through the well-established 

community and neighborhood networks, but also at other levels. For 

example, the Boston Indicators Project is not only developing technology 

that could be used by other cities and metropolitan regions, but it has 

garnered interest from around the country in its intellectual framework, 

indicator set, and advanced product or service design. The City of Dallas, 

with different demographics than Boston, is using many of the Boston 

features in developing its own indicator system through a public-private 

partnership (Dallas Indicators), while adding many elements that fit its 

population, geography, and political and economic structures.18

This notion of potentially broad applicability is important because it is 

likely that in spite of the progress made to date, many jurisdictions in the 

United States do not yet have such systems. If these systems eventually 

demonstrate a high net risk-adjusted return on investment, and continue to 

show replicable features and develop more organized networks for their 

propagation, then the potential benefit for the nation could be large.

Evidence Suggests That a 

System for the United States 

as a Whole Is Potentially 

Feasible

The existence of meaningful activity at all levels and general features that 

demonstrate transferability suggests the potential feasibility of such a 

system for the nation as a whole. The fact that other developed nations 

have such systems also demonstrates feasibility. The following factors 

specifically suggest potential feasibility for a U.S. national system.

Demonstrated Scalability. We have found working systems at all levels 

of society, including neighborhoods, communities, cities, regions, states, 

and nations, as already mentioned. They also exist at the supranational 

level (e.g., the European Union) and for the world as a whole (e.g., the 

United Nations’ Millennium Goals). In one example that bears further 

research, the OECD plays a role for its member nations comparable to 

18 The Dallas Indicators system is a comprehensive database of key community indicators. 

Its is an effort led by the Dallas Foundation and the Foundation for Community 

Empowerment, in collaboration with the Boston Consulting Group, Belo Corp., and the 

Dallas Citizens Council.
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 150 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

what might be expected of an institution dedicated to a comprehensive key 

national indicator system in the United States.

Evidence of Transferability. We have found elements of existing 

systems that are being adapted by other entities (e.g., Dallas and Boston) as 

systems share and transfer practices, processes, information, intellectual 

frameworks, and/or technology to to better meet specific needs and 

interact with one another, especially at the local levels. Also, as a result of 

the EU adopting policies, such as the Lisbon Strategy and Sustainable 

Development, which require member countries to provide standardized 

data for indicator systems to measure progress in achieving agreed-upon 

goals, many members are now developing related goals and indicator 

systems for their own countries.

Demonstrated Comparability. We found working systems for 

population levels, such as the EU, that are equal to or greater than that of 

the United States, which make them roughly comparable in terms of size 

and complexity. However, significant differences remain in terms of 

political and economic structures, geographic location, demographics, and 

culture.

Credible Activity. There is a significant amount of activity across the 

United States in terms of both population coverage and geographic 

locations. Furthermore, there currently exists a broad-based coalition of 

leading individuals and institutions that is planning how to create and 

implement a key national indicator system for the United States—known as 

the Key National Indicators Initiative.

Even accounting for the unique geographic, political, economic, cultural, 

and situational factors in the United States, this evidence of demonstrated 

scalability, transferability, comparability, and credible activity, suggests 

that a U.S. system may not only be feasible, but is actually in the early 

stages of development.

More Information Is Needed 

on Costs, Effects, and Other 

Issues

Comprehensive key indicator systems appear to be a noteworthy 

development in governance and demonstrate potentially broad 

applicability. However, this should not be interpreted to mean that they are 

a fully mature and packaged solution ready for implementation anywhere, 

with known costs and benefits, risks, and possibilities that allow for 

systematic decisions on whether to invest in them or not.
Chapter 3

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Are a 

Noteworthy Development with Potentially 

Broad Applicability

Page 151 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Organizers of systems appeared to make decisions to develop and 

implement indicator systems based on various rationales. Some 

emphasized the importance of having better public information, available 

to a broad range of people, to support better decision making and public 

problem solving. Others started their projects to achieve better 

information on where the real problems exist to make better policy and 

fiscal choices.

At this stage of development, there are as many unanswered questions 

about these systems as there are areas of knowledge and information, but 

one question in particular is important: What is the return on the 

investment realized by jurisdictions that have invested in these systems? 

As previously mentioned in this report, we have not found enough evidence 

to make any sort of definitive determination on the return on investment. 

And, given the difficulty of valuing information and its impacts, such 

rational economic determinations will take years to emerge, as they have in 

the private sector. Hence, return on investment is an important area for 

further research and evaluation. 

Still, such knowledge should not necessarily be seen as a precondition for 

starting new indicator efforts. In many cases, it is a common sense idea to 

want better, more easily usable and broadly available information for the 

public and other audiences on the position and progress of a particular 

community. Further, the lessons learned in this report may be enough to 

warrant initial expenditures that explore the possibilities of comprehensive 

key indicator systems in new areas around the United States and the world.
Page 152 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action Chapte4r

If Congress or another entity chooses to support the development of a 

comprehensive key indicator system, certain features should be applied to 

the design and organization of it. Purpose and target audience are the most 

important design features to consider at the outset. Other features, 

including creating a broad-based governing structure, ensuring 

independence and accountability, acquiring diversified funding sources, 

and developing strategies to obtain needed indicators or data, will also 

need to be considered, decided upon, and factored into the design and 

organization of a system. 

These design features can be achieved by starting with any of three 

different organizational options—public, private, and public-private. The 

comprehensive key systems that we reviewed could be classified into one 

of these three types of organizations. Therefore, we identified these three 

types of organizations as potential options for a national comprehensive 

key indicator system in the United States. Most of the efforts we studied 

tended to take on a public-private character over time regardless of the 

option with which they began because they had both public and private 

audiences and stakeholders among other reasons. Some of the systems we 

reviewed also presented indicators based upon both public and private 

information sources. 

However, beyond these general features, there are a host of contextual 

factors that are critical in the implementation of any system, ranging from 

geography and demographic characteristics to cultural and situational 

considerations. A healthy implementation approach will take into account 

both general and customized factors and weigh them appropriately in any 

particular implementation.

Certain Design 

Features Should Guide 

the Development of 

Any System, Including 

a U.S. National System

Our work in the United States and around the world strongly suggests that 

the development of a national comprehensive key indicator system—or a 

comprehensive system at any geographic level for that matter—would 

greatly benefit from considering and applying several critical design 

features to its organization. The features below were drawn from our 

research, but there are other, complementary sources of design criteria for 

indicator systems which are worthy of note. Specifically, countries have 

followed the so-called “Bellagio Principles” in developing their overall 
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 153 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

indicator systems.1 In addition, communities in the United States appear to 

commonly use information and guidelines in The Community Indicators 

Handbook.

2

At the outset, establishing a clear purpose and identifying a defined target 

audience and its needs are most crucial. Decisions about how to 

incorporate other important features into the system’s design should follow 

decisions about purpose and target audience. Specifically, organizers of a 

comprehensive key indicator system will then need to consider and make 

decisions about how to

• ensure independence and accountability,

• create a broad-based governing structure and actively involve key 

stakeholders,

• secure stable and diversified funding sources,

• design effective development and implementation processes,

• identify and obtain needed indicators or data, 

• attract and retain staff with appropriate skills,

• implement marketing and communications strategies for target 

audiences, and

• acquire and leverage information technologies.

1

 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. However, they apply more broadly to 

comprehensive key indicator systems irrespective of any organizing framework. They were 

developed in 1996 at an international meeting of measurement practitioners at the 

Rockefeller Foundation’s Study and Conference Center in Bellagio, Italy. The 10 principles 

for an indicator system’s design are as follows: (1) are guided by a clear vision and goals, 

(2) review the whole system as well as its parts and recognition of interaction among the 

parts, (3) consider equity and disparity within the current population and over generations, 

(4) have adequate scope, (5) have a practical focus, (6) involves openness, (7) have effective 

communication, (8) involve broad participation, (9) are an ongoing assessment, and 

(10) provide institutional capacity.

2

 Alan AtKisson, and Tyler Norris et al., The Community Indicators Handbook (Oakland, 

Calif.: Redefining Process, 1997).
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 154 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

The importance of each feature, and decisions regarding its application to a 

U.S. national system, will be greatly influenced and challenged by the scale, 

magnitude, and complexity of the jurisdiction within which such an effort 

takes place. For example, a national effort covering 290 million people 

would be affected by a more diverse and fragmented group of stakeholders, 

increased political conflict, and greater organizational and legal constraints 

than a city, region, or state. Also, it would likely necessitate a larger 

amount of fiscal and personnel resources than an effort at a smaller scale. 

Establish a Clear Purpose 

and Define Target 

Audiences and Their Needs 

Organizers should decide whether the system would be intended to focus 

on providing information allowing users to learn more about the conditions 

of their jurisdiction, or whether it would also have an outcome orientation 

and measure progress toward specific goals or a shared vision for the 

future. Additionally, the decision about audience focus forms the 

underlying construct for the entire system. This could be a choice to focus 

on the needs of a smaller audience, such as civic leaders, versus a broader 

audience that includes individuals and institutions in the private and public 

sectors. Most of the systems we reviewed purposely chose broader 

audiences but have had differing degrees of success in reaching and 

attracting these audiences.

Paramount to the design of any system is the establishment of a clear 

purpose and a defined target audience. Once decisions about purpose and 

target audience are set, decisions about the incorporation of other 

important design features, such as sources of funding and appropriate 

governance structures, will naturally follow. Related decisions include the 

activities that the managing organization will perform, and the products 

and services it will deliver. For example, a system that is aimed at 

monitoring and spurring progress toward a set of specific policy goals with 

targets attached to them would need to ensure that it had a governance 

structure, as well as development and implementation processes, that 

incorporates those officials who are positioned to take action to meet those 

targets, such as the heads of key agencies or legislative leaders. The 

specificity of a system’s purpose is directly related to its ability to define 

success or failure, make corrections or document best practices, and to 

ultimately evaluate the value of the effort for both users and stakeholders. 

In contrast, if the system is not structured based on outcomes but is 

designed primarily to help various groups learn more about the conditions 

of their jurisdiction, then a more inclusive, collaborative governance 

structure and processes that include user, provider, and supplier 
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 155 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

communities—such as accountability, finance, business, and statistical 

groups—would be more appropriate. This would help ensure that the 

indicators included in the system reflected a broad-based consensus on the 

key economic, environmental, and social and cultural conditions to track 

and may increase the likelihood that the system will be widely used. 

Organizers could elect to design the system for a specifically targeted 

audience, such as government policymakers, or a wider audience, to 

include not only government policymakers but business leaders, 

researchers, not-for-profit organizations, advocacy groups, the media, and 

citizens. This decision also forms the underlying construct for the entire 

system, including what implementation processes are needed, how it will 

be funded, and which indicators will be selected. For example, an 

indicator system aimed at a wide variety of communities, including 

government policymakers, business leaders, researchers, not-for-profit, 

and statistical agencies and organizations would need to be developed and 

implemented using highly collaborative processes to ensure that diverse 

viewpoints are incorporated. Further, if organizers decided to develop 

such a system, it would need to have a great deal of independence so that it 

could have broad appeal and relevance to those with differing ideologies, 

economic situations, religions, ethnicities, and races.

Ensure Independence and 

Accountability

A comprehensive key indicator system should be insulated from political 

pressures and other sources of potential bias to the greatest extent 

possible. If the indicator system is perceived as biased toward a particular 

ideological or partisan perspective, or perceived as less than transparent, 

the information it presents is less likely to have credibility and legitimacy 

among many users. To attract as diverse a group of stakeholders as 

possible, it is critical for the indicator system and its managers to be seen 

as credible, trusted conveners who have successfully coordinated a 

participatory process for developing and revising the system over time. 

Without the credibility that comes from a strong degree of independence, 

some users may lose trust in the accuracy and objectivity of the 

information.

Furthermore, experts and practitioners commented that the system should 

be designed so that debates among leaders are about what the indicator 

trends are showing, alternative interpretations and solutions, and how to 

address issues and opportunities. A well-designed system should have a 

minimal, ongoing level of discussion about whether organizational 
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 156 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

processes themselves are delivering quality information with appropriate 

transparency. 

One way to ensure independence and accountability would be to make the 

actions of the organization managing the system and key decisions 

accountable and transparent to the organizing entity, donors, other funders, 

and the public. Without this, the credibility and independence of the 

organization could be called into question. For example, a managing 

organization should be required to submit an annual report and audited 

annual financial statements to its major funders. Similarly, a U.S. national 

system could be required to submit a report to Congress if it received 

federal funding. These documents and the organization’s use of funds 

should be subject to external review to avoid questions about credibility, 

integrity, and independence.

Ensuring independence and accountability would be even more critical at 

the U.S. national level, which operates in a highly partisan environment, 

and has a much greater diversity of stakeholders who are often fragmented 

along the lines of ideology, wealth, race, gender, ethnicity, and sexual 

orientation.

Create a Broad-Based 

Governing Structure and 

Actively Involve 

Stakeholders

A comprehensive key indicator system should be governed by a structure 

that includes a blend of public and private officials and represents views 

from various communities of practice, including the accountability, 

statistical, scientific and research, business, media, leadership, finance, 

public interest, and not-for-profit communities. They are the individuals 

who will make decisions about how to apply and implement the various 

design features and set the policies for the indicator system’s staff to 

follow. They will also make decisions regarding the overall direction of the 

system, including the services and products that the managing organization 

will deliver. For example, comprehensive systems that represent large 

geographic areas, such as states, have found it useful to create broad-based 

governing boards appointed by governors, legislative leaders, and the 

boards themselves. These members can include representatives of 

business, educational organizations, labor organizations and other 

nonprofit organizations; executive branch officials; and state legislators. 

Members should ideally be chosen in a transparent, reliable way. A broadbased governing structure is important because it could help build interest 

and acceptance among diverse possible users of an indicator system and 

increase access to needed indicators or data. 
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 157 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Our fieldwork shows that such diverse involvement from leaders of 

different communities can help to build consensus around a set of selected 

indicators and increase use of the system by different groups. In fact, the 

single best way to ensure active involvement from an array of diverse 

stakeholders is to incorporate leaders from key communities as part of the 

management of the system. Moreover, this governing structure could 

benefit from having subcommittees that are dedicated to tackling specific 

aspects of developing and managing a system, such as securing funding or 

designing strategies to communicate the results of the indicators and value 

of the system to others.

In addition, recognizing that most systems will be revised over time, 

organizers will continue to benefit from soliciting views from a broad range 

of citizens, elected officials, government staff, business leaders, advocacy 

groups, academic institutions, and not-for-profit organizations in 

developing the system and identifying or revising the indicators. Increased 

stakeholder involvement generally strengthens the support for and use of a 

comprehensive indicator system and enhances its overall credibility and 

quality. Having diverse representation in its governance structure will be 

even more crucial in a national effort because of the range of different 

interests and viewpoints that exist across the country.

Secure Stable and 

Diversified Funding Sources

Securing adequate funding that remains stable over time to run the system 

at the outset, when costs are higher, as well as later when costs sometimes 

level off, is crucial to a system’s long-term sustainability. Accordingly, an 

indicator system could draw upon funding from a vast number of possible 

sources, including federal, state, and local agencies; private corporations; 

not-for-profit foundations; and academic institutions. Such opportunities 

would be even greater at the national level. As described earlier, securing 

and sustaining funding has been a major challenge for some comprehensive 

key indicator systems, particularly those that depend on a single source of 

funds, as these systems can be vulnerable to fluctuations in a particular 

source. 

One way to ensure stability is to diversify the number and types of funding 

sources. Doing so can potentially reduce an indicator system’s 

vulnerability to funding uncertainties or cuts. Seeking funding from both 

public and private sources also allows more varied stakeholders, or 

funders, to be brought into the system and encourages the diverse 

communities they represent to use the system. Moreover, diversity even 

within one type of funding is also helpful. For example, public funding 
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 158 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

could be drawn from sources such as direct appropriations, government 

agency contracts and grants, or all of the above. The extent to which 

organizers can diversify funding varies and depends in part on applicable 

legal constraints. 

Design Effective 

Development and 

Implementation Processes

Having well-defined and effective processes and systems in place to carry 

out the basic functions of the organization and the system’s design is 

important for comprehensive key indicator systems to operate effectively. 

Specifically, it is important to have transparent, collaborative, and 

repeatable processes in place to develop and modify an organizing 

framework for the indicators, select and revise the indicators, acquire 

indicators or data to compute indicators, engage data producers, assess the 

quality and reliability of the indicators or data, seek and maintain funding, 

and develop and implement communications and marketing strategies, 

among other things. Issues regarding the quality of indicators and their 

supporting data are especially important because of the high profile given 

to information in a comprehensive key indicator system. 

For example, a comprehensive indicator system should have a defined, 

agreed-upon process for selecting and revising the indicators to be 

included in the system. This process should be guided by criteria for 

selecting indicators—criteria that have been agreed to by the system’s 

governing leaders and are acceptable to the communities they represent, as 

well as other potential users. Such criteria guide the selection process, 

help to reduce tensions among stakeholders, and help achieve consensus 

among them. Many of the indicator systems we analyzed in the United 

States and around the world have established such transparent criteria. 

Some of the common criteria that have been used by these systems, and 

could be replicated by a national system for selecting its indicator set, 

include

• relevance to target audiences,

• aligned with the goals or key issues that the system wants to monitor,

• easily understood and meaningful to a variety of audiences, 

• drawn from reliable sources, 

• easily available from existing sources, 
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 159 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

• not resource intensive to obtain, 

• updated regularly, and 

• comparable across geographic areas or various population groups.

While transparent processes, such as criteria for selecting indicators, are 

important, a system’s leaders should also have sufficient flexibility to 

modify the system’s processes as situations change and some become 

irrelevant or counter-productive, or as more effective ones are discovered.

Identify and Obtain Needed 

Indicators or Data

Most comprehensive indicator systems report indicators or use data that 

are originally collected by other organizations. Identifying and having the 

ability to gain access to indicators or data that are provided by other 

organizations, including government agencies and the private sector, is 

critical to these systems’ survival. A national system would also benefit 

from being able to combine both public and private sources of information, 

assuming the existence of agreed-upon quality assurance criteria, 

standards, and processes. In addition to having legal authority to access 

the information, the system should have responsibility, including legal 

responsibility, for protecting the confidentiality of the information. 

Further, some organizations are reluctant to share information if they 

believe that data might be misrepresented or used to make a particular 

program or agency look bad. To overcome these and other constraints, 

comprehensive indicator systems should establish collaborative 

relationships with data producers to convince them to share information in 

a timely manner, particularly information that is not readily available to the 

public. One effective way to ensure that the system obtains needed 

information is to incorporate data producers or key representatives of the 

data and scientific communities into the system’s leadership. At the very 

least it is helpful to have these representatives at the table when decisions 

are being made about which indicators to select as part of the system.

A system’s leadership should also develop clear procedures for fair 

treatment of data providers. To do this, some systems have established 

more formal processes, such as memorandums of agreement that specify 

how the data will be used and when and in what form the producers will 

provide these data. In addition, if a national system is developed, it will be 

necessary to establish access and privacy rights by statute.
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 160 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Attract and Retain Staff with 

Appropriate Skills

A number of human capital issues need to be addressed for an organization 

that houses a comprehensive key indicator system. The most basic would 

be to establish the nature of the position of chief executive officer, who 

would lead the system’s staff, and select a highly qualified person for this 

position. Because of the high visibility of the position and the complexity 

of the organization’s work, particularly at the national level, a person with 

significant stature and expertise would be needed. 

Having staff with appropriate skills is also critical to ensuring the system 

will be operated effectively on a day-to-day basis and working with the 

system’s leadership to carry out their decisions. A system’s staff would 

need to include individuals with a wide variety of skills and knowledge in 

areas including statistics, information technology management, economics, 

accounting, and marketing and communications, as well as working 

knowledge of key economic, environmental, and social and cultural issues. 

In addition, these individuals must bring highly collaborative skills to the 

table, including experience in facilitating group processes and consensusbased decision making. Such skills are important for staff since they would 

be responsible for managing processes to continually engage key 

stakeholders and ensure the effective running of the system, including 

cooperation from data providers.

In addition, other concerns to consider include the exact types and number 

of employees, the salaries they would be paid, the benefits they would 

receive, and the protections that would apply to them. An additional 

human capital issue concerns temporary staff. It is useful if the system’s 

staff could rely on occasional outside assistance to supplement the 

permanent staff, for example, through fellowships, interagency personnel 

agreements, internships, and exchanges with other organizations and 

government agencies. This element would help to break down potential 

barriers, promote a better understanding of the needs of various statistical 

entities, and help build public-private partnerships. 

Implement Marketing and 

Communications Strategies 

for Target Audiences

A comprehensive key indicator system would need to have multifaceted 

marketing and communications strategies that are tailored to diverse target 

audiences. Marketing and communications strategies are intended to 

spread the word about the existence and features of the system; 

disseminate information on what the indicator trends are showing 

regarding economic, environmental, and social and cultural conditions and 

trends; and encourage a broader base of individuals and organizations to 
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 161 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

make use of the system. Effective marketing and communication 

strategies are critical to ensuring widespread understanding and use of the 

system, as well as ongoing political and funding support for it. 

In particular, the media, whether print or electronic, are a critical audience 

for a system because they play a vital role as both users of indicators and 

providers of information to diverse audiences throughout all segments and 

levels of society. They can help spread the word about what the broad 

indicator set communicates, what specific indicators or sets of indicators 

measure and what they mean, how they can be used by various audiences, 

and what major trends may be worth paying attention to on a regular basis. 

Based on the experience of others, some specific aspects of an allencompassing strategy might include

• conducting briefings and demonstrations for key legislators, agency 

officials, and their staffs;

• maintaining an interactive Web site;

• making presentations at the conferences of various communities, such 

as the accountability, statistical, scientific and research, business, 

media, leadership, finance, and public interest and not-for-profit 

communities;

• reaching out to the media so that they report on the system;

• publishing a variety of comprehensive and topical or domain-specific 

reports on indicator trends;

• holding open workshops for leaders and their staffs, as well as for 

citizens;

• providing training sessions and other learning opportunities;

• making technical assistance available to users by phone or e-mail; and

• conducting media events for the release of new reports or major 

updates, featuring notable leaders as spokespersons.
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 162 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Acquire and Leverage 

Information Technologies

In the past decade, technology has made it much easier and less resource 

intensive to collect, coordinate, and exchange data among various 

organizations, and disseminate information to a broader audience. For 

example, the Internet has revolutionized the way indicators and base data 

are made available to the public; some federal agencies post thousands of 

pieces of data free of charge on their Web sites. Innovative technology 

could also facilitate widespread use of a comprehensive key indicator 

system. For example, a highly interactive Web site would make the 

indicators widely available and accessible to public and private leaders as 

well as citizens. It would also enhance a system’s relevance by allowing 

users to review certain indicators selectively, or illustrate indicator trends 

in different ways, such as cutting them by geographic regions, race, or 

gender. In acquiring and applying technology, a national system in 

particular could look to a number of existing systems in the United States 

and around the world that are on the cutting edge.

While a national system (or any system for that matter) would benefit from 

employing the latest technology, doing so requires extensive fiscal 

resources, particularly at the outset. Specifically, a system would need 

adequate resources to purchase the technology and upgrade it over time, as 

it changes rapidly. A system would also need to have adequate resources 

and flexibility to attract and retain technical staff with relevant expertise to 

manage the information technology systems.

Congress Could 

Choose from a Range 

of Organizational 

Options as Starting 

Points for a U.S. 

National System

If Congress decides to establish a national comprehensive key indicator 

system and identify an organization to house it, a number of organizational 

options are available to choose from, including public, private, and 

combination public-private entities. There are advantages and 

disadvantages associated with each option. These basic options, to a 

significant degree, also hold for any neighborhood, community, city, region, 

or state that is considering a comprehensive key indicator system.

It is important to note that the specific organizational option Congress or 

any other decision maker chooses as a starting point may be less important 

than ensuring that key design features are incorporated into it. This would 

include considering ways in which multiple solutions might coordinate 

with one another until the time is right to create an overarching 

institutional structure. Eventually, since most of these systems tend to 

involve public-private interactions, the public-private option appears to 

offer the highest degree of flexibility to apply the common design features. 
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 163 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Any Viable Comprehensive 

Key National Indicator 

System for the United States 

Will Eventually Involve 

Substantial Public and 

Private Interaction

In terms of organizational implementation, most of the efforts we reviewed 

had some public-private character—either formal or informal—that 

provided certain flexibility in terms of many of the key design features we 

identified.

• First, assessing the position and progress of a jurisdiction in a marketoriented democracy like ours would benefit from aggregation of both 

publicly and privately produced data, as there is a great deal of 

information that is produced by private sector providers.

• Second, both public and private institutions, as well as individuals and a 

wide variety of groups, make up any jurisdiction that is being measured 

and, thus, have an interest in being engaged.

• Third, much federal government data are tied directly to functional or 

programmatic purposes and restricted to areas in which the government 

has a vested interest. This represents a built-in constraint to funding 

and/or including indicators that are not directly associated with any 

federal function or program.

• Fourth, public sector institutions that provide data and indicators today 

in most cases collect them from private individuals or institutions, who 

may have an interest in seeing more available and accessible 

information in return for the burden of their time, expense, and energy.

As a result, there is little question that any comprehensive key indicator 

system would have a public-private character. The issue for any 

jurisdiction considering a system is where to start, which is a complex 

decision that needs to be made on a case-by-case basis. 

Publicly Led, Privately Led, 

or Public-Private 

Organizations Are Options 

Congress Could Consider as 

a Starting Point

We identified three primary organizational options that Congress could 

consider if it decides to initiate a national comprehensive key indicator 

system. Each option would allow for incorporation of all or most of the 

key design features, but to varying degrees. These three organizational 

options are (A) a public entity, (B) a private entity, and (C) a combination 

public-private entity. Our work revealed that lasting comprehensive key 

indicator systems—showing positive effects—existed in a number of 

organizational formats, ranging from strictly public systems, such as 

Oregon Benchmarks, to systems housed in private, nonprofit organizations, 

such as Chicago 2020. There are advantages and disadvantages to each 
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 164 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

option, as well as a great deal of variety in their basic characteristics. Any 

key indicator system that uses information not already in the public domain 

needs to have the authority to access it as well as the responsibility for 

protecting privacy and other concerns.

We present three options below that lay out some significant advantages 

and disadvantages. We also identified existing national organizations to 

highlight various characteristics of each organizational option. 

Option A: A Public Organization

Congress could choose a federal agency, or component of a larger agency 

or department, to lead the development and implementation of a national 

comprehensive key indicator system. Table 6 provides additional detail on 

the characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages of the public option.
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 165 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Table 6: Characteristics, Advantages, and Disadvantages of the Public 

Organizational Option 

Source: GAO.

To illustrate some of the main features of a publicly led option at the 

national level, we selected the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census Bureau is 

one of the main federal statistical agencies, as it collects a wide variety of 

information across the economic, environmental, and social and cultural 

domains. It is a major participant in the federal statistical system, with an 

extensive statistical infrastructure and skill base. As such, it is a viable 

option for taking a lead role in developing a national system. 

U.S. Census Bureau as an 

Example of a Public 

Organization

The U.S. Census Bureau is a federal agency that has broad statutory 

authority to collect and report on statistical information in the economic, 

environmental, and social and cultural domains. A primary responsibility 

A publicly led system would be housed in a federal agency, operating as either (1) a new 

organization within an existing agency, (2) a completely new agency, or a (3) an added 

responsibility in the mission and activities of an existing agency. Federal statistical 

agencies could be required to provide a new system with access to data. Existing 

organizational relationships and processes could be leveraged, such as ensuring the full 

participation of federal statistical agencies and working with successful forums and other 

models for engaging public and private external stakeholders, such as advisory 

committees maintained by some of the principal statistical agencies.

Advantages Disadvantages

• A public organization could build upon the 

significant institutional capabilities and 

cultures of professionalism and 

independence within the federal statistical 

system.

• The federal government is already the 

center of gravity for national statistics and 

a public organization could build on this 

base. 

• A public organization could help 

ameliorate concerns regarding access to 

and use of federal statistical information.

• Successful forums and other models 

currently exist in the federal system to 

incorporate stakeholders from inside and 

outside government, and could be 

replicated.

• A public organization could use lessons 

learned from federal government 

experiences in implementing federal laws 

concerning transparency and 

accountability.

• Few federal agencies have broad enough 

scope to house a comprehensive national 

system (the U.S. Census Bureau may be 

an exception).

• Difficulties exist in mixing official and 

unofficial statistical information.

• It is an ongoing challenge for information 

providers to maintain independence within 

the national political context.

• A public organization could limit private 

sector contributions of funding or staffing 

by volunteers.

• A public organization could make it easier 

for funding displacement to occur, as the 

organization could have constraints on 

seeking outside funding.

• A public organization could be constrained 

by the federal management and human 

capital structures that may apply to it, 

potentially affecting the availability of 

needed talent.
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 166 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

of the Census Bureau is to conduct the decennial census of Americans. 

This census has been conducted every 10 years since 1790. In addition to 

the decennial census, it conducts more than 100 other surveys every year. 

Federal law contains provisions to keep confidential the information 

obtained by the Census Bureau. 

The Census Bureau is under the jurisdiction of the Department of 

Commerce. It is headed by a director, who is appointed by the President, 

with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is no specified term for 

the director under the statute. It has over 10,000 employees and is funded 

through federal appropriations. It can be paid for special analytical 

products produced at the request of private or public parties. The agency’s 

workforce expands dramatically when the decennial census is taken every 

10 years—approximately 860,000 temporary workers were hired for the 

2000 census. The Census Bureau is not authorized to receive outside 

donations, or otherwise obtain nonappropriated funds. However, it is 

specifically authorized to obtain information from any other department, 

agency, or establishment of the federal government or of the Government 

of the District of Columbia. The agency has 12 regional offices located 

throughout the country. Under Title 13, the Census Bureau has authority to 

access individual data from other agencies and could use these data to 

create new indicator series. One such example under development is the 

Longitudinal Economic Household Dynamics program, which uses data 

from BLS, the Social Security Administration, and the Internal Revenue 

Service to produce “workforce indicators.”

The Census Bureau is working to make comprehensive information more 

available to diverse audiences. For example, the American FactFinder is 

an electronic system for access and dissemination of Census Bureau data 

on the Internet. The American FactFinder offers prepackaged data 

products and user-selected data tables and maps from the 2000 U.S. census, 

the 1990 Census of Population and Housing, the 1997 Economic Census, 

and the American Community Survey. 

Option B: A Private Organization

Another option would be for Congress to identify or charter a private 

organization to develop and implement a national comprehensive key 

indicator system. This organization could either be for-profit or nonprofit. 

Because too strong a profit motive could significantly affect a system’s 

perceived or actual real independence, credibility, and legitimacy, a 

nonprofit organization is probably be better suited to develop a widely 
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 167 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

accessible system integrating diverse information on the position and 

progress of the United States in the economic, environmental, and social 

and cultural domains. Table 7 discusses the option of a private 

organization in greater detail. 

Table 7: Characteristics, Advantages, and Disadvantages of the Private 

Organizational Option

Source: GAO.

A private, not-for-profit organization chartered by Congress would provide semiofficial 

status to a national system, yet set it apart from the administration or Congress. A 

common type of congressionally chartered organization that would be an appropriate and 

likely venue for a national system is a Title 36 corporation, which is listed in Title 36 of the 

U.S. Code. Noteworthy examples of Title 36 corporations include the National Academy 

of Sciences and the National Academy of Public Administration. Chartered corporations 

listed in Title 36 are not agencies of the United States. For example, the corporation’s 

debt is not guaranteed, explicitly or implicitly, by the full faith and credit of the United 

States.

Title 36 status for national organizations tends to provide an “official” imprimatur to their 

activities, and may provide them some degree of prestige and indirect financial benefits. 

Federal supervision of congressionally chartered not-for-profit organizations is limited. 

Among the few federal requirements for Title 36 corporations are that they must have 

independent audits done annually and have the audit reports submitted to Congress. The 

House Committee on the Judiciary forwards all audits received to GAO for review. Title 36 

organizations can receive appropriated funds in the form of federal contracts, grants-inaid, and other forms of financial agreement with executive departments and agencies. 

These organizations may also receive private gifts and bequests, although they are not 

intended to operate for a profit.

Advantages Disadvantages

• A private organization would be more 

adaptable and exposed directly to 

competitive market forces.

• A private organization would have a high 

degree of flexibility in developing 

management and human capital policies.

• A private organization would offer the 

potential to develop affiliations with a wide 

variety of groups.

• A private organization could have the 

ability to take actions subject to fewer 

constraints than organizations that are 

subject to governmental processes and 

politics.

• A private organization could solicit funds 

from a wider range of potential donors 

and retain voluntary staff.

• A private organization could be more 

independent of the political process than 

a purely public organization.

• A private organization would be separate 

from the management control system of 

the federal government, which could 

compromise accountability and integrity. 

• A private organization would be 

disconnected from the political 

appropriations and authorization 

processes, possibly making it more difficult 

to encourage policy makers to support it.

• A private organization could have a smaller 

skill base and infrastructure to start.

• Housing it in a private organization could 

lead to competition in the marketplace, 

detracting from its status as a public good.

• Private organizations, unless they have 

highly diversified stakeholders or strong 

institutional cultures and processes, can 

be as subject to bias or politicization as 

government organizations.
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 168 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

To illustrate how a private organization chartered by Congress might 

operate, we selected the National Academies of Sciences (NAS). NAS is 

noted for its reputation of providing independent, scientifically grounded 

analysis, advice, and recommendations to the nation, could viably take a 

lead role in developing and implementing a national system.3

 

National Academy of Sciences as 

an Example a Private 

Organization 

NAS is part of the National Academies, which is a society of distinguished 

scholars who are engaged in scientific and engineering research. 

Specifically, it serves to investigate, examine, experiment, and report on 

any subject of science or art where called upon to do so by any department 

of the government. Collectively, four research organizations are known as 

the National Academies, which is an umbrella structure for these 

organizations. NAS was the first of the four to be created, in 1863, and was 

later joined by the National Research Council in 1916, the National 

Academy of Engineering (NAE) in 1964, and the Institute of Medicine 

(IOM) in 1970. NAS is a congressionally chartered, not-for-profit 

corporation under Title 36 of the U.S. Code. NAS includes about 1,800 

members, the NAE about 1,900, and the IOM about 1,200 members. NAS, 

NAE, and IOM consist of members elected by peers in recognition of 

distinguished achievement in their respective fields. 

Congress chartered NAS in March 1863. It is defined officially as a private, 

not-for-profit, “self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged 

in scientific and engineering research, upon the authority of the charter 

granted to it by Congress.” NAS is exempt from federal taxation and does 

not receive direct federal appropriations for its work. Studies undertaken 

for the government by NAS usually are funded out of appropriations made 

available to federal agencies by Congress. 

Option C: A Public-Private Organization

A third option for Congress is to employ a public-private organization, 

which would combine attributes of both a federal government agency, like 

the Census Bureau, and a private, not-for-profit organization, like NAS. 

Table 8 describes the public-private option in greater detail.

3

 The National Academy of Sciences presently houses the Key National Indicators 

Initiative—the ongoing U.S. effort to begin laying the groundwork for a national 

comprehensive key indicator system.
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 169 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Table 8: Characteristics, Advantages, and Disadvantages of the Public-Private 

Organizational Option

Source: GAO.

In designing a public-private organization, Congress could look at a list of 

diverse national organizations for ideas. One key example is the 

Smithsonian Institution (Smithsonian), which is a unique hybrid 

organization in that it is both publicly supported and privately endowed, 

and has a mixture of federal and private employees. We selected the 

Smithsonian to illustrate the tremendous amount of flexibility Congress 

would have in establishing a public-private partnership and some key 

characteristics of one—although it is not a viable option for taking a lead 

role in a U.S. national system.

The public-private option can vary tremendously in organizational design, funding 

arrangements, and the existing laws that apply. In fact, existing organizations, often 

referred to as “quasi-official agencies,” have little in common with each other, as they were 

all created at different times for different reasons. As a result, it is difficult to find common 

elements among them. Congress would have a great deal of flexibility in chartering a 

public-private organization and delegating various responsibilities to it for the purpose of 

developing a national comprehensive key indicator system. However, such “quasi-official 

agencies” are often subject to political and funding pressures not dissimilar to those 

encountered by regular executive and legislative branch agencies. In designing a publicprivate organization, Congress would need to decide which existing laws would apply to 

the organization, such as the Government Performance and Results Act, the Privacy Act, 

or the Inspector General Act. Unlike the strictly public or private options, for which 

organizational constructs are well established, Congress would need to design a new, 

unique public-private organization by selecting from a menu of available features. 

Advantages Disadvantages

• A public-private organization could build 

on the existing capability of the federal 

government but retain a degree of 

flexibility to adapt to changing 

circumstances.

• Establishing a broader base that builds 

upon both public and private interests 

could enhance the ability to form an 

effective constituency in Congress.

• The mix of public and private interests 

could help balance independence with 

crucial connections to the political 

process.

• A public-private organization could solicit 

donations and retain volunteer staff.

• Because it requires a new organization, it 

faces difficulties inherent in starting up.

• There are risks of competing or 

overlapping with existing federal functions 

in an unconstructive fashion if it is not 

carefully structured.

• Public-private organizations are not 

immune to political pressures and would 

have to build institutional processes and a 

culture focused on quality and 

independence.
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 170 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Smithsonian Institution as an 

Example of a Public-Private 

Organization

The Smithsonian is identified in the U.S. Government Manual as a “quasiofficial agency” and its purposes are to conduct scientific and scholarly 

research, share resources with communities throughout the nation, and 

engage in educational programming and national and international 

cooperative research. 4

 It is the world’s largest museum complex, 

comprising 14 museums and a national zoological park in Washington, D.C., 

and two museums in New York City. 

Started in 1846, the Smithsonian is a unique creation of Congress that is 

both publicly supported and privately endowed. Specifically, the 

Smithsonian is financed in part by trust funds and by federal government 

appropriated funds.5

 In fiscal year 2003, for example, the Smithsonian’s 

budget was $786 million, consisting of $559 million in federal 

appropriations and an estimated $227 million in private trust funds. 

Congress does not provide direction or have control over the trust funds. 

Federal funds are used for purposes authorized by Congress, while trust 

funds are generally used more freely for collection, acquisition, and the 

salaries of trust fund employees. The Smithsonian is unusual in that it has 

two types of employees: federal employees who are part of the civil service 

system and nonfederal employees (or “trust fund employees”), whose 

salaries and benefits are paid from the trust fund. In 1995, the Smithsonian 

had 6,537 employees— 4,492 federal and 2,045 trust fund employees, along 

with thousands of volunteers. 

The Smithsonian Institution is administered by a Board of Regents and a 

Secretary. The Board of Regents includes the Vice President of the United 

States, the Chief Justice of the United States, three Senators, three 

Members of Congress, and nine other persons (two Washington, D.C. 

residents and seven residents of other states, but no two from the same 

state). The President Pro Tempore of the Senate appoints the senators, the 

Speaker of the House appoints the members of the House, and the nine 

other persons are appointed by a joint resolution of the Congress. Their 

terms of office range from 2 to 6 years. The Board appoints the Secretary 

4

 The U.S. Government Manual lists four entities as “quasi-official agencies”: the Legal 

Services Corporation, the State Justice Institute, the United States Institute of Peace, and 

the Smithsonian Institution. 

5

 The Smithsonian was created by an August 10, 1846, act to carry out the terms of the will of 

British scientist James Smithson, who had bequeathed his entire estate to the United States 

“to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment 

for the increase and diffusion of knowledge.” His bequest was $541,379.63. 
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 171 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

of the Smithsonian, who serves as the organization’s chief executive officer. 

To date, the Secretary has always been a trust fund employee. Each 

member of the board is reimbursed for his or her necessary traveling and 

other actual expenses, but is not paid a salary.

Varying federal laws and attributes apply to the Smithsonian. For example, 

it has a majority federal employee workforce, receives representation from 

the United States Attorney’s Office, enjoys absolute governmental 

immunity in libel suits, receives a large amount of federal funding, enjoys 

federal status in taxes and property transfers, publishes its rules and 

regulations in the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations, is 

required to have an inspector general, and is subject to GAO audits. 

Choosing a New or Existing 

Organization Carries 

Certain Advantages and 

Disadvantages

A further consideration in designing an organization to house a 

comprehensive key indicator system is whether a new or existing entity is 

most appropriate; and there are advantages and disadvantages to each. 

Unlike existing organizations, the most significant disadvantage for a new 

organization is the difficulty of incubating it. The challenges of funding, 

establishing networks internally and with key external communities, and 

new operating policies and procedures, are all challenging in a start-up 

situation. In addition, it is more difficult to build brand awareness, trust, 

and credibility. However, there is the opportunity to begin entirely new, 

and to design an organization that suits exactly the key design features that 

might lead to developing a long-lasting, well-used indicator system.

On the other hand, at the national level, there may be few, if any, existing 

organizations with the necessary size, scope, skill base, and infrastructure 

to effectively support an effort of such complexity, scale, and scope. Two 

of the organizations we selected for illustrative purposes—the Census 

Bureau and the National Academy of Sciences—appear to satisfy some of 

the characteristics necessary to support a national indicator effort, 

although they may not be sufficient in all regards. A few other 

organizations may lend themselves equally well to a U.S. national indicator 

system, although not all features of these organizations may be directly 

applicable. The advantages and disadvantages of a new or existing 

organization are illustrated in table 9. 
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 172 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Table 9: Advantages and Disadvantages of a New Versus an Existing Organization

Source: GAO.

A New Public-Private 

Organization Could Offer 

Greater Flexibility to Apply 

Design Features

The public-private organizational option could provide Congress and 

organizers with a great deal of flexibility to apply effectively and more 

easily all of the key design features that we identified as critical to a lasting, 

well-used indicator system: ensuring independence and accountability, 

creating a broad-based governing structure and actively involving key 

stakeholders, securing diversified funding, designing effective development 

and implementation strategies, identifying and obtaining needed indicators 

or data, attracting and retaining staff with appropriate skills, implementing 

marketing and communications strategies for target audiences, and 

acquiring and managing information technology. It could also allow 

Advantages Disadvantages 

New 

organization

• A new organization could be 

designed in alignment with a 

system’s purpose and target 

audiences.

• A new organization would be able 

to incorporate all design features 

with few restrictions. 

• A new organization could be 

difficult to establish and incubate.

• It could be difficult to obtain seed 

capital with no known reputation. 

• Establishing new networks of 

stakeholders and users is difficult.

• Establishing new operating 

policies and procedures is 

challenging.

• Hiring and training a new 

workforce can be difficult.

• Building trust and credibility from 

scratch is challenging.

Existing 

organization

• An existing organization would 

likely have well-established 

networks of stakeholders and 

users.

• An existing organization would 

likely have an established 

reputation, prestige, trust, and 

credibility.

• Funding sources and channels 

would have already been 

established. 

• Operating policies and 

procedures would already be in 

place.

• An existing organization could 

leverage existing facilities and 

information technology.

• Few existing organizations would 

have the necessary scope, skill 

base, and infrastructure to 

support such an effort. 

• The system would have to 

compete with an existing 

organization’s other projects and 

programs.

• The system would have to deal 

with policies and procedures 

already in place.

• Organizers would have less 

flexibility to design a system that 

is aligned with its purpose and 

target audiences.

• Organizers would have less 

flexibility to incorporate all design 

features.
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 173 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Congress to combine the best features of both public and private 

organizations while minimizing their disadvantages. Further, most of the 

experts we interviewed believed that such an organization would be the 

best venue for a national system. However, we found no significant why 

reason the other options should be ruled out, especially as potential 

starting points that might eventually help lay the foundation for the 

creation of a public-private partnership.

A public-private organization appears to offer the best possibility of 

customizing a design to interact formally with significant public and private 

actors in the accountability, statistical, scientific and research, business, 

media, leadership, finance, public interest, and not-for-profit communities. 

It could combine the best features of federal support and engagement, 

while minimizing restrictions of federal management policies by selectively 

subjecting the organization to only certain laws and controls, and allowing 

it to solicit a wider variety of public and private funds while having the 

ability to retain voluntary staff.

A public-private partnership could also build on existing capabilities and 

retain flexibility to incorporate competitive human capital and other 

policies, including fewer restrictions on compensation, marketing, 

communications strategies, and acquiring and utilizing innovative 

technology. Further, it offers a better balance of independence and 

connection to the political process. Finally, a public-private organization 

affords the best opportunity to construct a governing structure with a 

balanced representation from the major communities and topical areas of 

knowledge, thus helping to ensure the organization’s credibility and its 

ability to involve various public and private entities in its oversight and 

evolution. 

Others Considering 

Comprehensive Key 

Indicator Systems 

Have Similar Options

Unique aspects of national, state, and local laws will affect the specific 

organizational forms that a comprehensive key indicator system might take 

in any one jurisdiction. However, the three basic alternative starting points 

and options analysis discussed for a U.S. national system also apply 

elsewhere. As shown in table 10, all the systems we studied had an 

organizational form that for the most part fits the categories discussed. 

Again, any organizational type tends to take on a public-private character in 

terms of the stakeholders with which they informally or formally interact, 

the types of indicators they use, and the funds they receive, among other 

things. 
Chapter 4

Congress and the Nation Have Options to 

Consider in Taking Further Action

Page 174 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Table 10: Organizational Types of the Systems Studied for Our Review

Source: GAO.

An important advantage for officials at the local level is that they have 

many different comparable entities around the country to learn from in 

deciding how to construct systems of their own, as well as organized 

communities of practice that can help translate general lessons into 

specific guidance for a particular jurisdiction.

Publicly led Privately led

Led by public-private 

partnership

European Structural 

Indicators

Benchmarking Municipal 

Neighborhood Services in 

Worcester (Massachusetts)

Baltimore’s Vital Signs 

Hennepin County 

Community Indicators 

(Minneapolis)

Chicago Metropolis 2020 Boston Indicators Project

King County Benchmarks 

(Washington)

Compass Index of 

Sustainability (Orange 

County, Fla.)

Burlington Legacy Project 

(Vermont)

Minnesota Milestones Index of Silicon Valley 

(California)

Community Atlas (Tampa 

area, Fla.)

New York City Social 

Indicators

Milwaukee Neighborhood 

Data Center

German System of Social 

Indicators

North Carolina 20/20 Neighborhood Facts 

(Denver)

Indicators for Progress 

(Jacksonville, Fla.)

Oregon Benchmarks Sustainable Seattle Maine’s Measures of Growth

Portland Multnomah 

Benchmarks (Oregon)

Santa Cruz County 

Assessment Project 

(California)

Results Iowa Social Assets and 

Vulnerabilities Indicators 

(Indianapolis)

Santa Monica Sustainable 

City Program (California)

State of the Region 

(Southern California)

Social Well-being of 

Vermonters

United Kingdom Sustainable 

Development Indicators
Page 175 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Chapter 5

Observations and Next Steps Chapte5r

Observations We have identified several areas where we believe that observations are 

merited and where we can note certain potential implications. These 

observations are supported by our work and the work of others as 

reinforced in discussions with many experts and practitioners in the field. 

Nevertheless, it is important to take into account that even the smallest 

indicator system represents a complex interaction between people, 

institutions, sectors, culture, and other contextual factors, making their 

evaluation difficult. 

A Comprehensive Key 

Indicator System for the 

United States Merits Serious 

Discussion

The nation as a whole confronts profound challenges and opportunities 

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. However, 

public debate over the nation’s agenda is often based on information that is 

limited, fragmented, and incomplete. Difficult decisions to confront these 

challenges and opportunities require reliable, useful, and shared sources of 

information that are readily accessible to citizens, advocates, 

policymakers, and the media. 

The United States already has a large supply of data and indicators in 

topical areas. So, the natural question asked by many who are initially 

exposed to the idea of a national comprehensive key indicator system is: If 

we have so much information, on so many issues, from a variety of 

different points of view, why do we need a national comprehensive key 

indicator system? The common sense answer to this question is that 

having information on all the parts is not a substitute for looking at the 

whole, whether in life, business, science, or self-governance and politics. 

What Abraham Lincoln once said is truer than ever today: “If we could first 

know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge 

what to do, and how to do it.” 

The fact that it is possible to get a great deal of information on U.S. society 

if one is skilled enough to seek it out, collect it, and analyze is helpful if 

one’s purpose is to solve a specific problem or answer a specific question. 

However, that same large amount of information in many different places 

and many different forms is a hindrance if one’s purpose is to take stock of 

all the problems and opportunities a jurisdiction faces. 

Looking regularly at the most important aspects of the whole is critical to 

assessing how we are doing and whether we are moving toward important 
Chapter 5

Observations and Next Steps

Page 176 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

aims and aspirations. The same logic that explains why we go for annual 

check-ups where physicians evaluate common key indicators of individual 

health (e.g., blood pressure or cholesterol), also explains the essential 

rationale used by the systems we studied. These indicators help identify 

the most important problems, help set priorities to address them, highlight 

areas where more information is needed, communicate a perspective about 

overall well-being, and inform us about potential choices. As our work has 

shown, this logic is now being extended from neighborhoods to 

communities, to states, nations, and to the global level. Without a key 

indicator system for the nation, it is difficult to see the relationships among 

issues, frame problems in an overall context, or assess the country’s 

position and progress as a whole.

A comprehensive key indicator system could be used in a variety of ways to 

better inform constituencies. For example, businesses could use the 

system to access data to help inform market strategies, or individuals could 

better understand areas of national life that could improve their 

educational or career choices. These constituencies and others, such as 

policy makers, the media, and specific communities of interest (e.g., the 

disabled), could use a national comprehensive key indicator system to

• highlight areas in which progress has been made in improving people’s 

living conditions;

• connect debates about the relative merits of competing demands to 

reliable data about actual conditions to help determine priorities and 

make difficult choices among competing agendas; 

• provide information about changes over time, which would contribute 

to assessments about the impact of particular interventions and policies, 

thereby providing greater accountability and learning;

• facilitate comparisons within or among the states or the nation as a 

whole with other countries, which are central to understanding the U.S. 

role in the global community and informing decisions about how to best 

address emerging issues;

• accelerate the identification of important gaps in the nation’s knowledge 

of itself and the quality of that knowledge through regular collaboration 

and dialogue with other comprehensive key and topical indicator 

systems;
Chapter 5

Observations and Next Steps

Page 177 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

• expand the level of knowledge throughout the country as users of 

comprehensive key indicator systems pursue more detailed information 

from topical indicator systems;

• improve the degree of fact-based consensus on common aspirations, 

which could help shift scarce time, energy, and resources from debating 

facts and aims to discussing priorities and building bodies of evidence 

for the most effective solutions;

• allow various individuals and institutions within a particular jurisdiction 

to see themselves in the context of a larger social unit (e.g., how state 

issues interrelate with national issues), to compare themselves to other 

jurisdictions (e.g., states comparing themselves with others), and in 

relation to other communities and neighborhoods;

• if implemented electronically via the World Wide Web, provide many 

more people and institutions around the country an accessible and 

usable “window” into the nation’s critical sources of data, thus 

increasing the return on the large investments already made and 

leveraging ongoing investments to collect more data more frequently;

• at the federal level, inform a much needed re-examination of program 

effectiveness and the mandated creation of a governmentwide 

performance plan.

To take one example, a debate is now emerging on how the nation will 

respond to the nation’s long-term fiscal challenges. As we and other 

experts have pointed out, there is a growing gap between the projected the 

cost of providing currently promised benefits under the Social Security, 

Medicare and certain other federal programs and the projected financial 

resources that will be available to deliver them. This gap is affected by 

predictable changes in the demographics of the U.S. population. Resolving 

such issues will involve many different parties defining, analyzing, 

modeling, and interpreting statistical indicators on demographics incomes, 

jobs, savings, health care, taxation, and a variety of other issues. Providing 

a common base of facts from many different topical areas on a strategic 

issue for the country such as this one illustrates the value that a national 

comprehensive key indicator system could provide.
Chapter 5

Observations and Next Steps

Page 178 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

A National Effort May Face 

Significant Challenges

If Congress considers supporting the development of a comprehensive key 

indicator system for the nation as a whole, it must carefully decide upon 

the best direction to take such a large-scale, challenging effort. If designed 

and executed well, such a national system could have wide impact when 

American citizens, leaders, and institutions pay attention it, access it, and 

use key indicators to inform their personal and professional choices. 

Building in the design features discussed in this report, as well as the 

flexibility to learn from and adopt innovative approaches, would be 

important. However, it is difficult to ascertain how certain design features 

and organizational options would play out in the context of a system for the 

entire nation.

Alternatively, if an effort is poorly planned and implemented, it could 

absorb scarce time and resources, fail to meet expectations and make it 

more difficult to create such a system in the future. Although any U.S. 

system will be imperfect from the start and continuously evolving, a certain 

threshold of quality will be important in achieving the relevance, 

legitimacy, and utility needed to build momentum and continuously 

improve over time.

The challenges of developing and implementing a comprehensive key 

indicator system would be great at the national level in the United States 

due to a range of significant factors. Because of the scale and complexity 

of a national effort, organizers of a national system should take into 

account—and develop contingency plans to address—the following major 

challenges in addition to those already noted for smaller-scale efforts.

• Securing and maintaining adequate and stable funding could be difficult 

in the current environment of existing and emerging fiscal challenges 

and the need to address multiple national priorities.

• Deciding on the purpose and audience will require significant debate. 

From one point of view, some common ground on the most important 

aims for the nation would have to be found initially, while a broaderbased consensus would evolve over many years. From another point of 

view, the system could be designed around the idea of multiple 

audiences and simply identify a broad range of important aims.

• Building an audience would require overcoming inertia and some 

entrenched interests. Because national leaders have traditionally 

considered information and made policies in discrete topical areas, a 

national comprehensive key indicator system would not necessarily 
Chapter 5

Observations and Next Steps

Page 179 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

have a built-in audience. This increases the difficulty of encouraging 

leaders to think about national issues in a comprehensive framework 

and use a comprehensive key indicator system for doing so.

• Agreeing on the types and number of indicators would likely require a 

long, contentious process to adequately involve and consider the diverse 

views of a wide range of public and private stakeholders. Highlighting 

certain data in a key indicator system could possibly have the negative 

consequences of upsetting certain constituencies and possibly eroding 

support for collecting data.

• Obtaining consistent and comparable indicators from a vast array of 

sources would be challenging at all levels due to the different ways in 

which information is collected, organized, updated, and disseminated, 

along with varying degrees of quality and reliability. The long-term 

utility of a national system would be significantly enhanced by—and 

perhaps even depend on—the ability to

• disaggregate indicators from a larger scale (e.g., the average 

unemployment rate for the nation) to smaller scales of society where 

action can be taken (e.g., the unemployment rate in one’s city or 

community) and 

• aggregate and or/compare indicators from smaller scales (e.g., 

education achievement in a school district) to larger scales (e.g., 

educational achievement in the United States as compared with other 

nations). 

• Because there are some areas where data simply may not exist (e.g., 

certain aspects of the environment) or are very difficult to measure (e.g., 

certain aspects of culture), a U.S. national indicator system may have an 

implicit bias in terms of balance towards information that is quantitative 

and can be measured. From the outset, this would have to be 

recognized by acknowledging measurement limitations and knowledge 

gaps. Poor indicator selection or lack of attention to quality, in the 

context of a highly visible system, raises the stakes in terms of 

misinformation or unintended consequences that might arise.

• Developing new indicators requires the statutory authority to access the 

necessary information and should include the legal responsibility to 

protect privacy.
Chapter 5

Observations and Next Steps

Page 180 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

• Leveraging costly innovative technology to provide an online, userfriendly resource would be crucial for the success of such an effort.

Implementing effective human capital management strategies, such as 

recruiting and retaining the advanced technical and scientific staff, are key 

elements in the success of any high-performing organization or national 

initiative like this one.

Key Indicator Systems 

Could Help Better Inform 

the Nation at Many Levels

One of our nation’s distinguishing characteristics is unity built out of 

diversity. This diversity finds its expressions in the multiple levels and 

branches of government, the different sectors of economic and social 

activity (i.e., business, nonprofit and government), the varied geographic 

regions, and the widely ranging ethnic, professional, cultural, and other 

communities of interest. Another way of putting this is that every 

individual plays multiple roles in U.S. society (e.g., resident of a city and 

state, member of an interest group, oremployee working in a sector). In 

each role, the information needs of individuals will differ significantly. 

Therefore, it is vital to recognize that a key indicator system for the entire 

nation would either

• express only U.S. level indicators (e.g., the average national 

unemployment rate) and coordinate with these elements of our society 

as they develop indicator systems from their own point of view, or

• include a capability for the people who use the system to obtain not only 

U.S.-level information, but also information for their community, sector, 

city, state, or region (e.g., state demographics or unemployment rates 

for metropolitan areas).

The nation’s leaders and concerned citizens are realizing they require better 

knowledge of what is happening and where we are going to support 

improved public choices. Although the constituent elements of U.S. 

society view emerging challenges and opportunities, as well as their 

choices, from unique and varied points of view, the time may be at hand 

when it is feasible for many different elements of society to organize 

information into comprehensive key indicator systems. As this report has 

demonstrated, citizens, public and private sector groups, and their leaders 

are encouraging and creating a better overall understanding of their 

communities, cities, states, and the nation, our society’s competitive 

advantage and capacity to define and respond to challenges and 

opportunities. 
Chapter 5

Observations and Next Steps

Page 181 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

The nation as a whole could benefit from additional elements of society 

opting to develop and implement key indicator systems to better 

understand economic, environmental, and social and cultural conditions; 

trends; levels of progress; and emerging challenges. This could include the 

identification of knowledge gaps and development of new indicators, 

identification of trends, and generally a richer information base. A wider 

range of creative and successful individual efforts would provide a fuller 

set of experiences and lessons learned so that the nation could learn from 

successes and avoid common mistakes. Moveover, at the federal level, a 

comprehensive system could inform a much-needed re-examination of the 

base of existing programs, politics, functions, and activities. It could also 

inform the mandated creation of a governmentwide performance plan.

The country can learn a great deal from work already being done. There 

are likely to be significant gains in efficiency and effectiveness to be gained 

if these systems learn how to coordinate, share, and leverage experiences 

and lessons learned. There are critical interrelationships among such 

systems that need to be recognized and better understood. Many public 

policy issues are implemented primarily at the local level, where 

information is translated into action in areas such as schools, jobs, and 

public safety. Thus, a primary question about a national system for anyone 

from a local point of view will be: can it provide specific or contextual 

information, at an appropriate level of disaggregation (e.g., neighborhoods, 

census tracts, or blocks), that can help my community be better informed?

In addition to pursuing information that can be disaggregated below the 

national level to elements of U.S. society, it is also important to aggregate 

information above the national level to obtain a fuller understanding of our 

nation’s position and progress in a global environment and an increasingly 

globalized economy and society. To see U.S. issues in a global context and 

to facilitate comparisons with other nations on issues like education, 

innovation, or health care is likely to require assiduous efforts to develop 

indicators that can be aggregated at the supranational or global levels, as 

well as indicators providing comparable information across countries. 

Many entities within and outside of the United States have been hard at 

work for years on developing and implementing such indicator systems, 

especially in the international statistical and scientific communities. Their 

lessons learned would provide a building block for efforts to develop key 

indicator systems throughout the United States.
Chapter 5

Observations and Next Steps

Page 182 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Next Steps It appears that in addition to Congress and the executive branch, users and 

providers of information in jurisdictions throughout the United States (e.g., 

cities, counties, states, and regions) could benefit from the findings in this 

report. Our work in this area may also be of value to audiences in other 

nations. Accordingly, our suggested next steps are addressed both 

specifically to Congress and more generally to these broader audiences.

Encourage Awareness and 

Education

A substantial effort should be made by various interested parties to make 

leaders, professionals, and the public more aware of comprehensive key 

indicator systems and to understand the potential implications for their 

jurisdiction of interest. Such understandings and awareness could 

underpin a broader and more informed dialogue on what current systems 

are contributing and what new systems might contribute to informing our 

nation. Most importantly, these systems have emerged and endured 

because concerned citizens and institutions are beginning to come to grips 

with how to define and make choices on the most important issues and 

opportunities they face, based on common agreement about their societal 

aspirations, and a single source of shared factual knowledge. Specific 

actions to encourage awareness and education could include the following:

• Convening workshops and briefings for public and private sector 

leaders.

• Holding public hearings around the country to highlight alternative 

points of view on potential costs and benefits, desired uses, risks, and 

possibilities.

• Developing a Web-based national clearinghouse on key indicator 

systems so that interested parties can conveniently access published 

documents or link directly to Web sites to familiarize themselves with 

what is currently available.

• Strengthening partnerships between key indicator systems and relevant 

media, private information providers, and other organizations that have 

an interest in the dissemination of quality information.

Pursue Additional Research Even though some comprehensive indicator systems have been in 

existence for decades, developments over the last decade in information 

technology (e.g., the World Wide Web) and information management (e.g., 
Chapter 5

Observations and Next Steps

Page 183 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

open systems architectures with enhanced data flexibility) have created 

significant opportunities to build and sustain key indicator systems. In 

theory, the possibilities for interested parties to learn from and use public 

information have increased at the same time as the up-front capital 

investments required for data aggregation, maintenance and dissemination 

costs continue to decline. 

The formal research on key indicator systems has still left many questions 

unanswered and, therefore, more research is essential to reducing the risks 

of failure and increasing the probabilities of success for undertaking such 

an endeavor. Among these outstanding issues are the following four major 

categories of questions.

• How much is really known about the design of key indicator systems? 

For instance, does existing research on topical indicator systems 

provide lessons for designing them? Is there a predictable model that 

shows how a well-designed system would develop over time? 

• How can key indicator systems be effectively implemented? What are 

the major differences between implementing one for a small population 

group as opposed to a large one? How have people have used these 

systems and for what purposes? 

• What value does key indicator systems provide? For example, how 

much time, money, and effort are required to create them, and are they 

worth it compared to other needed investments? How does one define 

the success or failure of a system? 

• How significant are key indicator systems for market-based democratic 

governance? For example, could they change how policy-makers, 

nonprofit foundations, and even citizens set priorities and make 

decisions, ranging from resource allocations to career and voting 

choices?

As it is becoming more feasible for jurisdictions to create such systems, 

formal research should accelerate. Taking steps to provide support for 

such research could substantially aid those involved in considering or 

designing and implementing comprehensive key indicator systems. 

Specific actions could include the following.

• Coordinating amongst various interested parties to identify a common 

research agenda for the field of key indicator systems to help increase 
Chapter 5

Observations and Next Steps

Page 184 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

the synergy of existing work and guide the direction of future research 

efforts.

• Creating a comprehensive inventory of past and current research efforts 

on key indicator systems, including those in other countries.

• Identifying major gaps in the nation’s knowledge about key issues and 

opportunities that can be brought to the attention of leaders and 

policymakers.

• Generating working prototypes of what a key national indicator system 

for the United States would look like to flush out the risks and 

opportunities involved in building such a system.

• Investigating questions that may be specific to the development of a 

national system for the United States. For example, what will be the 

respective roles of government, the federal government, business, and 

the nonprofit sectors in the system? How will key indicator systems 

developed at different levels of society complement one another?

Support New Initiatives to 

Develop Key Indicator 

Systems

A high degree of innovation can take place at local levels, which can help 

build the nation’s body of experience. Local efforts have been particularly 

creative, for example, in developing indicator systems, such as those 

focused on quality of life issues, that cut across more traditional topical 

areas. One possible way to begin creating and developing more 

comprehensive key indicator systems may be to institutionalize a network 

or networks of interested practitioners as a “community of practice.” Then, 

as people become more educated about these systems, they would have an 

organized resource available to tap into accumulated expertise. Such a 

community of practice or a clearinghouse could help speed learning 

curves, reduce risks, and avoid reinventing solutions. Specific actions 

could include the following:

• Developing a national community of practice of those who study and 

implement key indicator systems at all levels to keep practitioners up to 

date on the latest research.

• Participating in an international community of practice, like the first 

World Indicators Forum being sponsored by the OECD, to learn from 

what is going on abroad and share the U.S. experience with others.
Chapter 5

Observations and Next Steps

Page 185 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

• Identifying criteria to define what success means for a system, specific 

best practices and evaluation techniques, all of which could be included 

in a sourcebook or practice guide for indicator system development that 

would distill existing knowledge for the benefit of those new to the field.

• Considering funding an effort within the federal statistical system, under 

the aegis of the Interagency Council on Federal Statistics or the Census 

Bureau, to aggregate a common set of key official statistics—based on 

the advice of an independent panel of experts—that would build on the 

lessons of the White House Briefing Room, the American Fact Finder, 

and Fedstats. Although such a system could not include private sector 

sources, it would represent a major advance toward a national 

comprehensive key indicator system.

Widen the Dialogue on 

Options for a U.S. National 

System

At this stage, it is important for a broader dialogue to begin that includes 

Congress, the administration, and other major suppliers, users, and 

providers of information. Such a dialogue could provide an avenue for 

exploring complex issues, such as the potential benefits, costs, and risks 

involved, in a meaningful way. Involving interested members of Congress 

and the executive branch would be critical to ensuring collaboration across 

boundaries, facilitating ongoing attention to strategically leverage national 

information assets, and position the nation to better meet emerging 

challenges and take advantage of upcoming opportunities. Specific actions 

could include the following.

• Hold public hearings or private forums to discuss and debate options 

pertaining to a key national indicator system for the United States.

• Convene a national conference of practitioners and potential 

stakeholders to (a) share knowledge on existing systems, (b) debate and 

discuss whether and how to develop a U.S. system, and (c) help identify 

the major topical areas that would be included in a possible national 

system. 

• Charge the Interagency Council on Federal Statistics with coordinating 

a series of discussions between those developing comprehensive key 

indicator systems and those who operate topical systems on issues of 

mutual concern and interest.

• Encourage discussions between the private groups now undertaking the 

development of a national comprehensive key indicator system, 
Chapter 5

Observations and Next Steps

Page 186 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

members of Congress, and executive branch officials on the role of the 

federal government in investigating and potentially supporting such a 

system.
Page 187 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Appendix I

U.S. National Topical Indicator Systems Apendxies

Included in This Study ApendxiI

Topical area and 

name of indicator 

system History and purpose Description of indicator system

Managing organization and key 

stakeholders

Economy: 

Business Cycle 

Indicators

First published for government 

use in 1961 and for public use 

in 1968, and currently updated 

monthly, its purpose is to 

forecast and analyze the onset 

of and recovery from economic 

recessions. 

This system provides the official U.S. 

composite leading, coincident, and lagging 

indexes (three summary statistics for the 

U.S. economy). The indexes represent key 

elements of an analytic system designed to 

signal peaks and troughs in the business 

cycle, each consisting of 4 to 10 individual 

indicator series.a

Managed by the Conference Board 

(CB) since 1995.b

 

CB has an advisory panel of 

academic, government, and 

private sector experts providing 

guidance in all areas relating to the 

Business Cycle Indicators. CB 

gathers data from many sources, 

about 80 percent from official U.S. 

government sources, such as the 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, the 

U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, and the Federal 

Reserve Board; and the remainder 

from private sources, including 

Standard & Poor’s and the 

University of Michigan. 

Science and 

Engineering:

Science and 

Engineering 

Indicators 

First published in 1973 and 

updated every two years, its 

purpose is to provide 

information on the status of 

U.S. science, engineering, and 

technology. 

This system provides a broad-based set of 

quantitative information about U.S. 

science, engineering, and technology. 

Indicators are grouped under eight topical 

headings, such as science and 

engineering labor force; and industry, 

technology, and the global marketplace.c

Managed by the National Science 

Boardd

 (the board of the National 

Science Foundation). 

Members of the National Science 

Board are selected to be broadly 

representative of the views of 

national science and engineering 

leadership based on their 

distinguished service in these 

areas. 

Health: 

Healthy People

First issued in 1979 and 

updated in 1980, it has been 

revised once every decade 

since then. Its purpose is to 

provide a comprehensive set 

of disease prevention and 

health promotion objectives for 

the nation to achieve, and 

indicators with which to 

measure progress toward 

them.e

Provides a national approach to health 

improvement that integrates a 

comprehensive system of two overarching 

goals as well as objectives in 28 focus 

areas, such as cancer, for improving 

Americans’ health. The overarching goals 

are to increase quality and years of healthy 

life and eliminate health disparities. 

Healthy People currently focuses on 10 

leading health indicators to highlight major 

health priorities, including physical activity.f

Managed by the Department of 

Health and Human Services 

(HHS). 

HHS uses a participatory process 

to stimulate broad multisector 

involvement by federal, state, local, 

and community agencies, as well 

as the private sector, through the 

Healthy People Consortium and its 

local chapters.g

Most states have replicated the 

Healthy People process and have 

their own plans.
Appendix I

U.S. National Topical Indicator Systems 

Included in This Study

Page 188 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Source: GAO analysis.

a

The composite business cycle indexes include 21 component series. The 10 leading index indicators

are average weekly hours, manufacturing; average weekly initial claims for unemployment insurance; 

manufacturers’ new orders, consumer goods and materials; vendor performance, slower deliveries 

diffusion index; manufacturers’ new orders, nondefense capital goods; building permits, new private 

housing units; stock prices, 500 common stocks; money supply (M2); interest rate spread, 10-year 

Treasury bonds less federal funds (percentage); and index of consumer expectations. The 4 

coincident index indicators are employees on nonagricultural payrolls; personal income less transfer 

payments; index of industrial production; and manufacturing and trade sales. The 7 lagging index 

indicators are average duration of unemployment; inventories to sales ratio, manufacturing and trade; 

change in labor cost per unit of output, manufacturing (percentage); average prime rate charged by 

banks (percentage); commercial and industrial loans outstanding; consumer installment credit 

outstanding to personal income ratio; and change in consumer price index for services (percentage). 

Historically, cyclical turning points in the leading index occur before, turning points in the coincident 

Index about the same time, and turning points in the lagging index after those in aggregate economic 

activity.

b

The CB is a private research and business membership group of over 2700 corporate and other 

members that was chosen by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), after a bidding process, to be 

custodian of the official Business Cycle Indicators. Assuming responsibility for computing them was 

deemed, by the CB, to support its mission to improve the business enterprise system and to enhance 

the contribution of business to society. The CB’s first independent release was on January 17, 1996. 

From October through December 1995, CB and BEA released the indicators jointly. 

c

The report consists of two volumes. Volume 1 consists of topical analytic essays on key trends in 

science and technology. Volume 2 is an Appendix of Tables that contains 225 statistical measures. 

Reports and statistical measures both are grouped under the same eight headings: (1) elementary 

and secondary Education; (2) higher education in science and engineering; (3) science and 

engineering labor force; (4) U.S. and international research and development (R&D): funds and 

technology linkages; (5) academic R&D: (6) industry, technology and the global marketplace; 

(7) science and technology: public attitudes and understanding; and (8) state indicators. 

d

The National Science Board is responsible, under amendments to the National Science Foundation 

Act of 1950, for developing this biennial report to be rendered to the President for submission to 

Congress. 

Children and 

Families:

America’s Children: 

Key National 

Indicators of WellBeing 

Initiated in 1997, its purpose is 

to provide comprehensive 

information on the health and 

well-being of children. The full 

report is updated every two 

years with brief updates on 

select indicators issued in 

between. All data on its Web 

site are updated annually.

Provides a comprehensive set of 25 key 

indicators measuring critical aspects of 

children’s lives, grouped in four sections: 

economic security, health, behavior and 

social environment, and education. Also 

includes nine “contextual measures” 

describing the population, family, and 

environmental context in which children are 

living.h

Managed by the Federal 

Interagency Forum on Child and 

Family Statistics, which consists of 

20 federal agencies that deal with 

children’s issues.i

Aging: 

Older Americans: 

Key Indicators of 

Well-Being

Initiated in 2000 with 

occasional planned updates, 

its purpose is to track the 

health and well-being of 

Americans aged 65 and over. 

(Next update is expected in 

November 2004.)

Provides a set of 31 key indicators to 

measure critical aspects of older 

Americans’ lives. Indicators are presented 

in five sections: population, economics, 

health status, health risks and behaviors, 

and health care.j

Managed by the Federal 

Interagency Forum on AgingRelated Statistics, which consists 

of numerous federal agencies that 

deal with aging issues.k

(Continued From Previous Page)

Topical area and 

name of indicator 

system History and purpose Description of indicator system

Managing organization and key 

stakeholders
Appendix I

U.S. National Topical Indicator Systems 

Included in This Study

Page 189 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

e

Originally published in 1979 as Healthy People: The Surgeon General’s Report, and 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.

f

Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health (issued in 2000), sets forth two 

overarching goals—(1) increase quality and years of healthy life and (2) eliminate health disparities—

with 467 specific objectives to improve the health of Americans that are organized into 28 focus areas. 

It also consists of 10 leading health indicators to highlight progress toward major health priorities. The 

focus areas are: access to quality health care; arthritis, osteoporosis, and chronic back conditions; 

cancer; chronic kidney disease; diabetes; disability and secondary conditions; educational and 

community-based programs; environmental health; family planning; food safety; health 

communication; heart disease and stroke; HIV; immunization and infectious diseases; injury and 

violence prevention; maternal, infant, and child health; medical product safety; mental health and 

mental disorders; nutrition and overweight; occupational safety and health; oral health; physical activity 

and fitness; public health infrastructure; respiratory diseases; sexually transmitted diseases; 

substance abuse; tobacco use; and vision and hearing. The 10 leading indicators are physical activity, 

overweight and obesity, tobacco use, substance abuse, responsible sexual behavior, mental health, 

injury and violence, environmental quality, immunization, and access to health care.

g

A central principle of Healthy People is its participatory process, which stimulates broad multisector 

involvement in defining and implementing objectives by federal, state, local, and community agencies 

as well as private, voluntary, and other community-based organizations. At the federal level, lead 

responsibility for each of the 28 focus areas is assigned to an agency of HHS’s Public Health Service. 

These lead agencies have responsibility for engaging multiple agencies in attaining objectives, forging 

partnerships with states and the private and voluntary sectors, and monitoring progress by collecting 

necessary data. States are encouraged to develop state-specific goals and objectives tailored to their 

individual needs and conditions, and at the local level, model standards, linked to Healthy People 

objectives, provide public health agencies with tools to determine community health issues. 

h

Nine contextual measures describe the changing population, family, and environmental context in 

which children are living, and 25 indicators depict the well-being of children in the areas of economic 

security, health, behavior and social environment, and education. The indicators, grouped by domain, 

are: (1) population and family characteristics: child population, children as a proportion of the 

population, racial and ethnic composition, children of at least one foreign-born parent, difficulty 

speaking English, family structure and children’s living arrangements, births to unmarried women, child 

care, and children’s environments; (2) indicators of children’s well-being: (a) economic security 

indicators: child poverty and family income, secure parental employment, housing problems, food 

security and diet quality, and access to health care; (b) health indicators: general health status, activity 

limitation, overweight, childhood immunization, low birth weight, infant mortality, child mortality, 

adolescent mortality, and adolescent births; (c) behavior and social environment indicators: regular 

cigarette smoking, alcohol use, illicit drug use, and youth victims and perpetrators of serious violent 

crimes; (d) education indicators: family reading to young children, early childhood care and education, 

mathematics and reading achievement, high school academic course taking, high school completion, 

youth neither enrolled in school nor working, and higher education.

i

Members of the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics include officials from 20 

federal agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture (Food and Nutrition Service), Commerce 

(Census Bureau), Defense (Defense Manpower Data Center), Education (National Center for 

Education Statistics), HHS (Administration for Children and Families, Agency for Healthcare Research 

and Quality, National Center for Health Statistics and three other agencies), Housing and Urban 

Development (Office of Policy Development and Research), Justice (Bureau of Justice Statistics and 

two other agencies), Labor (Bureau of Labor Statistics and 1 other agency), and Transportation 

(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), plus the Environmental Protection Agency (Office of 

Environmental Information), National Science Foundation (Division of Science Resources Statistics), 

and the Office of Management and Budget.

j

Thirty-one indicators in five groups are (1) population: number of older Americans, racial and ethnic 

composition, marital status, educational attainment, living arrangements; (2) economics: poverty, 

income distribution, sources of income, net worth, participation in the labor force, and housing 

expenditures; (3) health status: life expectancy, mortality, chronic health conditions, memory 

impairment, depressive symptoms, self-rated health status, and disability; (4) health risks and 

behaviors: social activity, sedentary lifestyle, vaccinations, mammography, dietary quality, and criminal 

victimization; and (5) health care: health care expenditures, components of health care expenditures, 
Appendix I

U.S. National Topical Indicator Systems 

Included in This Study

Page 190 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

out-of-pocket health care expenditures, access to health care, use of health care services, nursing 

home utilization, and home care.

k

Members of the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics include the original core 

agencies—U.S. Census Bureau, HHS’s National Center for Health Statistics and the National Institute 

on Aging—along with HHS’s Administration on Aging, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; Bureau of Labor Statistics; Social 

Security Administration; and the Office of Management and Budget. 
Page 191 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Appendix II

Overview of Social and Cultural Indicators ApendxiI

The United States does not have a national report on key indicators that 

covers the entire social and cultural domain, which includes health, 

education, and public safety, among other topical areas. Moreover, there is 

no regular, broad reporting at the national level that looks across various 

social and cultural indicators to describe the overall social and cultural 

conditions of the nation, nor are there official mechanisms to review, 

analyze, and interpret diverse social and cultural indicators as they relate 

to each other and their implications for society. 

However, an array of diverse social and cultural indicators can be found in 

the United States as parts of topical area systems at the national level, such 

as Healthy People. In addition, many comprehensive key indicator systems 

below the national level in the United States report on a host of key social 

and cultural indicators, as do a variety of systems outside the nation, 

including numerous European countries and multinational and 

supranational entities, such as the United Nations Development 

Programme’s reporting on the Human Development Index in the Human 

Development Report, which measures countries’ overall achievements in 

longevity, knowledge, and standard of living.1

 These systems define the 

social and cultural domain in different ways, with some systems defining 

the domain narrowly to exclude indicators about the economy and the 

environment while others define it broadly to include economic and 

environmental indicators, meaning society as a whole. Over time, it has 

been difficult to reach consensus on social and cultural issues in part due 

to the value judgments that surround them. As described in chapter 1, in 

the past there was a decade-long effort in the United States to produce a 

national societal indicators report, but that effort did not endure beyond 

the early 1980s and has not been attempted since. 

1

 United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2003 (New York: 

2003). For more information, see http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003.
Appendix II

Overview of Social and Cultural Indicators

Page 192 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

National-Level Indicator 

Systems with a Focus on 

Social and Cultural 

Information 

The United States has national-level indicator systems and statistical 

volumes that report on select indicators in specific topical areas within the 

social and cultural domain, although there is no national-level indicator 

report covering this entire domain. An example is Healthy People, which is 

led by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and includes 

10 leading health indicators that are used to measure the health of the 

nation over a 10-year period.2

 Each of the 10 Leading Health Indicators has 

one or more objectives associated with it, which are intended to reflect the 

major health concerns in the United States at the beginning of the 21st 

century. Leading health indicators include physical activity, overweight 

and obesity, tobacco use, substance abuse, and responsible sexual 

behavior. 

Another example of an indicator system is the Federal Interagency Forum 

on Aging-Related Statistics. This forum was initially established in 1986 

with the goal of bringing together federal agencies to collaborate on 

improving aging-related indicators and includes the National Institute on 

Aging, the National Center for Health Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau, 

the Administration on Aging, the Social Security Administration, the 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the Office of Management 

and Budget, among other agencies. The forum published its first report in 

2000, Older Americans 2000: Key Indicators of Well-Being, which focuses 

on important indicators in the lives of older people along topics such as 

population, economics, health status, health risks and behaviors, and 

health care.3

 

2

 For more information, see http://www.healtypeople.gov.

3

 Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, Older Americans 2000

(Washington, D.C.: 2000). For more information, see http://www.agingstats.gov.
Appendix II

Overview of Social and Cultural Indicators

Page 193 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

In addition, various federal agencies produce periodic reports that present 

indicators of national trends and social and cultural conditions in American 

society, such as The Condition of Education, which is produced by the 

National Center for Education Statistics at the Department of Education,4

and Crime in the United States, which is produced by the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation (FBI) based on the Uniform Crime Reporting system.5

 The 

Census Bureau also collects data and produces many publications that 

pertain to social and cultural issues. For example, the Census Bureau 

administers the following surveys: the National Crime Victimization Survey, 

conducted on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which collects 

information from households on the frequency, characteristics, and impact 

of criminal victimization; the Current Population Survey, which is 

conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistics and provides the primary 

source of information on labor force characteristics of the U.S. population; 

and the Survey of Income and Program Participation, which collects 

information on income, the labor force, program participation and 

eligibility, and demographics to measure the effectiveness of existing 

government programs, estimate future costs and coverage for government 

programs (such as Food Stamps), and provide improved income 

distribution statistics. Further, in 2002, the Census Bureau conducted the 

Survey of Public Participation in the Arts. More than 17,000 adults over age 

18 were asked whether they had read novels, short stories, poetry, or plays 

in the last 12 months that were not required for work or school. Similar 

surveys were conducted in 1982 and 1992.

Some private research organizations and policy institutes produce nationallevel reports on social and cultural indicators in various subject areas in the 

United States. For example, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, a private 

charitable organization, produces the annual Kids Count Data Book, which 

presents national- and state-level indicators on the status of America’s 

children.6

 The report’s key indicators reflect a wide range of factors 

affecting the well-being of children, such as health, income, and 

educational attainment. In addition, HHS’s Office of the Assistant 

4

 National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education 2004 (Washington, 

D.C.: 2004). For more information, see http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/.

5

 The latest available report (as of Sept. 2004) is Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in 

the United States 2002 (Washington, D.C.: 2002). For more information, see 

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm.

6

 Kids Count, Kids Count Databook 2004 (Baltimore: Annie Casey Foundation, 2004). For 

more information, see http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/.
Appendix II

Overview of Social and Cultural Indicators

Page 194 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation recently provided funding so that the 

not-for-profit organization Child Trends, Inc., could produce a forthcoming 

indicators report describing the conditions of children and families in the 

United States as a whole, entitled Social Indicators: Measures of Children, 

Family, and Community Connections. This report measures family 

conditions and outcomes along the lines of several “domains,” including 

family structure, school involvement and civic engagement, and social 

connections. 

Social and Cultural 

Indicators as Parts of 

Comprehensive Key 

Indicators Systems

Many comprehensive key indicator systems at the subnational level in the 

United States report on a host of key social and cultural indicators. The 

Boston Indicators Project is an example of a citywide comprehensive key 

indicator system that includes a variety of such indicators. Specifically, the 

project tracks numerous indicators that are grouped into 10 categories, and 

a number of the categories are in the social and cultural domain: civic 

health, cultural life and the arts, education, housing, public heath, and 

public safety. Examples of specific social and cultural indicators tracked in 

the Boston Indicators Project include measures of racial and ethnic 

diversity, residents’ trust in neighbors, voter participation, strength of the 

not-for-profit sector, a “creativity index,” and attendance at cultural events.

Further, the Jacksonville Community Council, Inc. (JCCI) maintains a 

regional comprehensive key indicator system—called Indicators of 

Progress—that includes numerous social indicators for five counties in 

northeastern Florida. In the 2003 Quality of Life Progress Report, JCCI 

reported on 115 indicators that reflect trends in nine areas, of which 

several are part of the social and cultural domain: achieving educational 

excellence; promoting social well-being and harmony; enjoying arts, 

culture, and recreation; sustaining a healthy community; maintaining 

responsive government; and keeping the community safe.7

 Some examples 

of social indicators tracked in these areas include the extent of racism, the 

divorce rate, library use, attendance at arts events, health care and public 

health indicators, voter registration, crime, and motor vehicle accidents. 

For example, a goal related to social and cultural issues in the report is 

keeping the community safe, and one of the measures of this goal is the 

index of crimes per 100,000 people.

7

 Jacksonville Community Council, Inc., 2003 Quality of Life Progress Report (Jacksonville, 

Fla.: 2003).
Appendix II

Overview of Social and Cultural Indicators

Page 195 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

An example of a state-level comprehensive key indicator system that 

includes extensive social indicators is the State of Minnesota’s Minnesota 

Milestones system. The indicators in Minnesota Milestones are grouped 

into four goal categories, and two of the four relate directly to social and 

cultural conditions. Each of these four categories has four to five specific 

goals under it. For example, under the first category, “people,” is the goal 

“families will provide a stable, supportive environment for their children,” 

which is measured by indicators such as satisfaction with child care, child 

abuse and neglect, and teen pregnancy. Under the second category, 

“community and democracy,” is the goal “our communities will be safe, 

friendly, and caring,” which is measured by indicators such as sense of 

safety, violent and property crime, and volunteer work.8,9

 

Broad-Based Social 

Indicator Systems Outside 

the United States

Unlike the United States, many other countries have implemented broadbased social reporting systems, as have some multinational and 

supranational entities, such as the United Nations and the World Bank. 

Country examples include Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, 

Canada, the Netherlands, and France.10 The national social reporting 

systems vary in terms of the extent to which they include analysis, 

discussion of implications for public policy, or targeted goals for future 

social change. For example, Germany’s Datenreport is based on indicators 

drawn from the German System of Social Indicators, which was first 

developed by the Center for Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA) in 

the 1970s.11 The purpose of this system is to continually monitor the state 

of and changes in objective living conditions and subjective quality of life in 

German society along the lines of 13 “life domains” plus an overall “total

8

 The two other goal categories are “economy” and “environment.”

9

 Since we completed our work, Minnesota Milestones ceased to be an active system. State 

officials told us that the Minnesota Milestones Web site will be maintained but there are no 

plans to update the data in the near future.

10 The Australian Bureau of Statistics began to publish Australian Social Trends in 1994, 

Statistics Canada began to publish Canadian Social Trends in 1986, France’s Institut 

Nationale de la Statistique et des Economique began to produce the Donnes Sociales in 

1973, the German government began producing Datenreport in 1983, the Netherlands’ Social 

and Cultural Planning Office began to produce the Social and Cultural Report in 1974, and 

the United Kingdom’s Central Statistical Office began to produce Social Trends in 1970.

11 Federal Statistical Office of Germany, Datenreport 2004 (Wiesbaden, Germany: 2004).
Appendix II

Overview of Social and Cultural Indicators

Page 196 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

life situation” category.12 Some observers have concluded that some 

European countries have developed broad-based social indicators systems 

at the national level due to factors such as the existence of extensive, longstanding social welfare policies; a more centralized tradition of 

government, including centralized statistical agencies; a history of 

reporting on various social conditions nationally; and concentrations of 

people in smaller geographic areas.

Moreover, under a contract from the European Union (EU), Germany’s 

ZUMA developed a European System of Social Indicators, to be used to 

monitor social changes in Europe along 14 life domains, including, among 

others, population, households, and families; housing; transport; leisure, 

media and culture; social and political participation and integration; and 

education and vocational training. The system covers 15 EU member 

states plus Norway; Switzerland; the Czech Republic; Hungary; Poland; and 

for comparative purposes, Japan and the United States. 

The EU is placing increased emphasis on social indicators and social 

reporting, due to the great diversity of ethnic, racial, and religious 

populations that are located throughout Europe, along with vast 

differences in the levels of economic development among the countries. 

For example, the EU has a comprehensive European Structural Indicators 

system consisting of a broad range of key indicators from the social and 

cultural, economic, and environmental domains, which is designed to 

measure progress toward the 2000 Lisbon Strategy.13 The EU is also 

developing a comprehensive sustainable development indicator system, 

which will include extensive key social indicators. 

Work on social and cultural reporting, and related indicators, has also been 

conducted by multinational entities like the United Nations and the World 

12 Six of the 13 life domains consist of sectors that are considered part of the economic and 

environmental domains for this report (socioeconomic status and subjective class 

identification, labor market and working conditions, income and income distribution, 

consumption, transportation, and environment). The other seven life domains fall into what 

we have termed the overall social and cultural domain; and these are population, housing, 

health, education, social and political participation, crime and public safety, leisure, time 

use and media consumption.

13 The Lisbon Strategy is an agreement among EU member countries that laid out goals and 

objectives for all EU members. The Lisbon Strategy is dedicated to economic, social, and 

environmental renewal in the EU and contains goals that were agreed to by member 

countries. The EU reports on progress toward achieving these goals every spring.
Appendix II

Overview of Social and Cultural Indicators

Page 197 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Bank. The United Nations Secretariat’s Statistics Division compiles social 

indicators from national and international sources for a wide range of 

subject matter fields. The United Nations Research Institute for Social 

Development (UNRISD) was created in 1963 as part of the first United 

Nations Development Decade, which stressed a “new approach” to 

development based on the idea that economic indicators were insufficient 

to measure the effects of progress in developing countries. 

The annual Human Development Report of the United Nations 

Development Programme—first produced in 1990—introduced the Human 

Development Index (HDI), which includes social measures. The HDI is a 

summary composite index that measures a country’s average achievements 

in three aspects of human development: longevity (as measured by life 

expectancy at birth), knowledge (as measured by a combination of the 

adult literacy rate and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross 

enrollment ratio), and standard of living (measured by gross domestic 

product per capita). In addition, the World Bank annually publishes the 

World Development Report, which includes data on social indicators for 

many countries, and maintains “social indicators of development,” a set of 

social indicators for over 170 economies, which is intended to describe the 

social effects of worldwide economic development.14 

Defining and Gaining 

Consensus on Social 

Indicators

We also observed variation in terms of the topical areas that different 

organizations include as social and cultural indicators. The social and 

cultural domain can be defined narrowly, to exclude economic and 

environmental indicators, or broadly to include indicators from the 

economic and environmental domains. For instance, a comprehensive 

system might define the social and cultural domain to just include 

indicators pertaining to health, public safety, social welfare, the arts, 

children, and aging. 

An example is Australia’s comprehensive key indicator system—Measures 

of Australia’s Progress—which organizes its social and cultural domain to 

include various areas of social concern including health, education and 

training, work, housing, financial hardship, family and community, crime, 

governance, democracy, and citizenship. The other components of 

Australia’s comprehensive system are indicators relating to the economic 

14 World Bank Group, World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor 

People (Washington, D.C.: 2004).
Appendix II

Overview of Social and Cultural Indicators

Page 198 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

and environmental domains. The EU’s European Structural Indicators 

system also makes a distinction between economic, environmental, and 

social and cultural issues. 

In contrast, a number of social indicator systems are based on broadly 

defining the term to mean indicators that pertain to any dimension of 

society, even including economic and environmental indicators. For 

example, both the European System of Social Indicators and the German 

System of Social Indicators define the social and cultural domain broadly 

to include a variety of economic and environmental indicators along with 

what are typically considered social and cultural indicators, such as public 

safety or health. In the past, the social domain was conceptualized more 

broadly in the United States than it is today. The United States social 

indicators movement of the 1960s and 1970s developed in some respects as 

a response to the dominance of economic indicators, based on the claim 

that economic indicators alone were inadequate to monitor society 

comprehensively. Specifically, the Social Indicators III report15 (the last of 

the three social reports published by the U.S. government) defined 11 

subject areas related to social conditions in the United States, and included 

environment (“housing and the environment”) and economic (“work” and 

“income and productivity”) topics among them. 

The term cultural indicator is sometimes used interchangeably with the 

term social indicator. It also has a variety of meanings as it has been used 

by different groups over time. Some indicator systems have 

conceptualized cultural indicators as being related to the arts and the 

humanities. For example, Social Indicators III took the approach of 

describing cultural conditions through indicators related to the arts, such 

as attendance at performing arts events and visits to museums.16 

Another effort that uses an arts and humanities-based interpretation of 

cultural indicators is the Arts and Culture Indicators in the Community 

15 Department of Commerce, Social Indicators III: Selected Data on Social Conditions and 

Trends in the United States (Washington, D.C.: December 1980).

16 The indicators chosen to measure cultural activity in the U.S. federal government social 

reports changed from the second to the third report. In the second report, Social Indicators 

1976, the cultural indicators did not just center on the arts. The indicators included, in 

addition to the number of concerts played and attendance at concerts, the number of 

persons employed in knowledge-producing or knowledge-disseminating occupations, the 

proportion of women in those occupations, the percentage of the civilian labor force made 

up of scientists and engineers, and book production (disaggregated by subject area). 
Appendix II

Overview of Social and Cultural Indicators

Page 199 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Building Project (ACIP), which was launched in 1996 by the Urban Institute 

and the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership (NNIP), with 

support from the Rockefeller Foundation. ACIP is an effort to develop 

neighborhood-level indicators of arts and culture for use in local planning, 

policy making, and community building, and seeks to integrate arts and 

culture into quality of life measures. 

The 2002 Creative Community Index of the Cultural Initiatives Silicon 

Valley, provides an additional example of cultural indicators in which the 

arts and cultural activities are important.17 The Creative Community 

Index resulted from a research project to develop quantitative measures of 

cultural participation and creativity in the region. It contains over 30 

indicators designed to measure the health and vitality of cultural activities 

and the importance of creativity to the region’s vitality.

In contrast to the use of cultural indicators as pertaining to the arts, 

William J. Bennett’s Index of Leading Cultural Indicators 2001 

conceptualizes culture as the overall state of American culture. This work 

reports on a wide range of topics pertaining to the state of American 

society and culture, such as out-of-wedlock births, crime, illegal drug use, 

marriage and divorce, educational achievement, child poverty, youth 

behaviors, civic participation, popular culture, and religion.18 

Further, the General Social Survey (GSS) is designed to measure and report 

on the views and attitudes of Americans across a wide range of topics and 

the state of our culture and society.19 It is collected approximately every 2 

years by NORC, a national organization for research at the University of 

Chicago (formerly known as the National Opinion Research Center), and 

has been administered 24 times since 1972. Specifically, its millennium 

survey wave in 2000 covered topics such as users of the Internet, 

assessments of external and internal security threats and the balancing of 

security and civil liberties, how people assess their physical and mental 

health, sexual behavior and drug use, and evaluating the functions of local 

churches. The GSS has been sponsored by a number of public and private 

organizations, including the National Science Foundation, the Centers for 

17 Cultural Initiatives Silicon Valley, Creative Community Index (San Jose, Calif.: 2002). For 

more information, see http://www.ci-sv.org/cna_index.shtml. 

18 William J. Bennet, Index of Leading Cultural Indicators (New York: 2001).

19 For more information, see http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/projects/gensoc.asp.
Appendix II

Overview of Social and Cultural Indicators

Page 200 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Disease Control and Prevention, and the MacArthur Foundation, among 

others. 

Programs of the United Nations’ Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Organization (UNESCO) and other United Nations’ agencies demonstrate 

another approach to cultural indicators. For example, UNESCO sponsored 

a culture and development project with the United Nations Research 

Institute for Social Development from 1996 through 1997. The purpose of 

the project was to promote better understanding of the relationship 

between various countries’ cultures and their development, and it included 

research on cultural indicators of development. Cultural indicators and 

statistics are also included in UNESCO’s World Culture Report, issued in 

1998 and 2000.20 

Accordingly, it could be difficult for organizers of an indicator system to 

reach consensus on the scope of a social and cultural indicator system, or 

on what variables to measure. The diversity of the ways in which social 

and cultural indicators have been conceptualized and used could 

complicate efforts to develop a national social and cultural indicator 

system in the United States, as they appear to have done in the past. There 

might also be disagreement about whether particular characteristics of 

society are considered positive attributes as opposed to undesired 

outcomes. For example, obtaining agreement on a select set of social and 

cultural indicators has tended to be controversial because some of them 

deal with sensitive moral, racial, or religious issues, such teen pregnancy 

and drug use. 

Selecting the societal conditions that should be measured or included in a 

system involves some value judgments and subjectivity, and is often 

colored by factors such as religious or moral beliefs. Moreover, questions 

exist as to how to define the parameters of the social and cultural domain, 

ranging from narrow to broad definitions, and whether to include cultural 

elements.

20 See http://www.unesco.org/culture/worldreport.
Page 201 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Appendix III

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems 

Included in This Study ApendxiI

Name of 

system/report

Jurisdiction(s) 

and population Description

Managing 

organization(s)

Date 

begun/first 

reported

Frequency 

of updates

Baltimore’s 

Vital Signs 

Baltimore, Md.

Approximately 

640,000

Balitmore’s Vital Signs indicators measure 

progress toward a shared vision and desired 

outcomes for strong neighborhoods in 

Baltimore. Indicators are grouped as follows: 

housing and community development; 

children and family health; safety and wellbeing; workforce and economic development; 

sanitation; urban environment; transit, 

education, and youth; and neighborhood 

action and sense of community. In addition, 

the One Stop Shop program provides access 

to the Vital Signs data and other data about 

Baltimore and its neighborhoods from a 

variety of sources. 

(Public/Private)

Baltimore 

Neighborhood 

Indicators Alliance—

a collaborative of 

several private and 

public organizations.

Initiative began 

in 2000. First 

indicators 

report in 2002.

Reported 

annually.

Boston 

Indicators 

Project

Boston, Mass.

Approximately 

590,000 (for the 

City of Boston) 

Indicators measure progress toward shared 

goals for Boston and provide comprehensive 

information about Boston’s progress in 

meeting goals in civic health, cultural life and 

the arts, economy, education, environment, 

housing, public health, public safety, 

technology, and transportation. Crosscutting 

indicators are presented in neighborhoods, 

children and youth, competitive edge, race 

and ethnicity, and sustainable development. 

Indicators also compare some issues to the 

state as a whole and to those in selected U.S. 

cities.

(Public/Private)

Boston Foundation, a 

large not-for-profit 

community 

foundation, in 

partnership with 

three public 

organizations: the 

City of Boston, 

Boston 

Redevelopment 

Authority, and 

Metropolitan Area 

Planning Council.

Initiative began 

in 1997. First 

report in 2000.

Reported 

every 2 years.

Periodic 

updates of 

Web site 

information.

Burlington 

Legacy Project

Burlington, Vt.

Approx.

39,000

Indicators measure progress and monitor 

trends in areas (e.g., economy, 

neighborhoods, governance, youth and life 

skills, and environment) that citizens of 

Burlington value based upon a 

comprehensive plan to guide change for the 

economic, environmental, and social health 

of Burlington.

(Public/Private) 

Burlington Mayor’s 

Office, Community 

Economic 

Development 

division. There is 

also in-kind support 

from a partnership 

with the University of 

Vermont.

Initiative began 

in 1999. First 

report in 2000.

Reported 

annually.

Periodic 

updates of 

Web site 

information.
Appendix III

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems 

Included in This Study

Page 202 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Chicago 

Metropolis 

2020

Chicago 

metropolitan 

area

Approx. 

8,090,000

Indicators assess progress toward quality of 

life goals for the Chicago metropolitan area 

(e.g., regional economy, transportation and 

land use, housing, community life, education, 

and the natural environment). Indicators also 

serve as benchmarks for decision makers to 

consider what actions are needed to sustain 

Chicago’s status as a globally competitive 

region.

(Private)

Chicago Metropolis 

2020, a not-for- profit 

organization, initiated 

by the Commercial 

Club of Chicago, a 

membership 

organization of 

leading area 

business and civic 

leaders, with an 

executive council.

Initiative began 

in 1996. First 

report in 1999.

Reported 

annually 

through 2002.

Frequency of 

future reports 

is uncertain. 

Neighborhood 

Facts

Denver, Colo.

Approx. 

560,000

Provides detailed information and indicators 

on Denver's 77 neighborhoods. Information 

resources include data tables, maps, and 

graphs about each neighborhood's 

population, housing, economic, and 

education characteristics, and the health and 

safety of its residents. 

(Private)

Piton Foundation—a 

corporate foundation 

of the Denver-based 

Gary-Williams 

Energy Corporation.

First report 

issued in 1994.

Reported 

every 5 years.

Web site 

information 

updated on a 

quarterly 

basis.

Hennepin 

County 

Community 

Indicators

Hennepin 

County (Minn.)

Approx. 

1,120,000

Indicators are linked to the mission, vision, 

and goals of Hennepin County government to 

measure progress (i.e., people are healthy, 

protected and safe, self-reliant, assured due 

process, mobile, and engaged in the 

community); identify areas for improvement; 

and foster a dialogue among businesses, notfor-profit organizations, faith-based 

communities, and other units of government.

(Public)

Hennepin County 

Office of Planning 

and Development. 

Initiative began 

in 1995. 

Reported 

annually until 

2000. 

Reported 

every 2 years 

since 2000.

Community 

Atlas

Hillsborough 

County, Fla. 

(Tampa Bay, 

Fla. area)

Approx. 

1,070,000

Indicators measure quality of life at the 

neighborhood level to assist various 

community stakeholders, including citizens, 

government, business representatives, and 

academics in community planning. Indicators 

cover economics, infrastructure, information 

sharing, civic engagement, arts and culture, 

diversity, education, government, health, the 

environment, visual/physical design, and 

economics.

(Public/Private)

Collaborative effort 

led by the University 

of South Florida 

Center of Community 

Design and 

Research. Partners 

include faculty from 

the University’s 

Department of 

Geography, the 

University’s College 

of Arts and Sciences’ 

University 

Community Initiative, 

and “Tomorrow 

Matters!”—a local 

citizen’s group.

Initiated in 

1997.

Planned 

report.

Web site 

information 

updated 

periodically.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Name of 

system/report

Jurisdiction(s) 

and population Description

Managing 

organization(s)

Date 

begun/first 

reported

Frequency 

of updates
Appendix III

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems 

Included in This Study

Page 203 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Social Assets 

and 

Vulnerabilities 

Indicators 

(SAVI)

Indianapolis, 

Ind., region

Approx. 

1,600,000

Indicators and related data provide 

comprehensive and accessible information 

on “assets” (e.g., agencies, programs, and 

facilities in the community) and 

“vulnerabilities” (e.g., demographics and 

social characteristics of the community) for 

the Indianapolis metropolitan area. By 

creating a common source for reference 

geographies, such as school districts, 

transportation routes, health department 

districts and service areas, SAVI reduces 

redundancy in data development efforts and 

ensures that stakeholders (e.g., local level 

officials and planners) are working with the 

same reference information.

(Public/Private)

Polis Center, an 

affiliate of Indiana 

University-Purdue 

University at 

Indianapolis. 

Project initiated 

in 1993.

No formal 

report.

Continual 

updating of 

Web site 

information. 

Indicators for 

Progress

Five counties 

that comprise 

the 

Jacksonville, 

Fla. region

Approximately

1,200,000

The indicators help monitor progress toward 

a quality of life vision for the Jacksonville, Fla. 

metropolitan area. Goals and related 

indicators cover the following topics: 

achieving educational excellence; growing a 

vibrant economy; preserving the natural 

environment; promoting social well-being and 

harmony; enjoying arts, culture, and 

recreation; sustaining a healthy community; 

maintaining responsive government; moving 

around efficiently; and keeping the 

community safe. Trends are analyzed and 

action is taken to address issues. The project 

engages diverse citizens groups in open 

dialogue, research, consensus building, and 

leadership development to improve quality of 

life.

(Public/Private)

Jacksonville 

Community Council, 

Inc. (JCCI)—a notfor-profit 

organization. JCCI 

partners with the City 

of Jacksonville, the 

regional United Way, 

and the Chamber of 

Commerce. 

Project initiated 

in 1985.

Reported 

annually.

King County 

Benchmarks 

King County 

Wash. (Seattle)

Approx.

1,760,000

Indicators monitor progress toward 

countywide planning goals for the economy, 

environment, affordable housing, land use, 

and transportation, to improve the quality of 

life in King County. Indicators are reported at 

the national, state, and county levels to offer 

insights into the direction and extent of 

changes in the region for policy, planning, 

and budget decisions.

(Public)

King County Office of 

Budget.

Project initiated 

in 1990. First 

report in 1996.

Reported 

annually from 

1996 through 

2002.

Since 2003, 

reports are 

shorter and 

published on 

specific 

indicator 

topics 

throughout 

the year.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Name of 

system/report

Jurisdiction(s) 

and population Description

Managing 

organization(s)

Date 

begun/first 

reported

Frequency 

of updates
Appendix III

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems 

Included in This Study

Page 204 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Milwaukee 

Neighborhood 

Data Center

Milwaukee, Wis. 

metropolitan 

area

Approx. 

590,000

Provides comprehensive local-level statistics 

and indicators and analysis serving the 

Milwaukee area. Topical areas include 

housing, employment, education, school 

readiness, health, family economic status, 

and civic engagement. The center helps 

community organizations understand data to 

better target their own resources or to assess 

program outcomes. 

(Private)

Non-Profit Data 

Center of Milwaukee.

Project initiated 

in 1991.

No formal 

report.

Information 

updated 

periodically. 

New York City 

Social 

Indicators

New York City

Approx.

8,080,000

Indicators provide information about New 

York City (i.e., demographics, economy and 

employment, public safety, health, education 

and culture, poverty and social services, 

housing and infrastructure, and the 

environment), trends over the current and 

previous 5 years and comparisons with other 

areas, and a narrative summarizing the 

economic, social and cultural, and 

environmental health of the city.

(Public)

New York City 

Department of City 

Planning.

Initiated in 

1989. First 

report in 1992.

Reported 

annually.

Compass 

Index of 

Sustainability

Orange County 

Fla. (Greater 

Orlando)

Approx.

965,000

Indicators measure progress toward 

sustainable development goals for the region 

and for the health and vitality of the 

community. Sustainable development goals 

aim to show the interconnectedness of the 

following: nature (i.e., environmental quality, 

ecosystem health, natural resources and 

beauty); economy (i.e., production of goods 

and services that make livelihoods possible 

and lives comfortable, including 

transportation, infrastructure, employment, 

and economic security); society (i.e., 

collective dimension of human life, including 

government, schools, public safety, and 

stability); and well-being (i.e., health, long life, 

satisfaction and optimism, and social 

relationships). 

(Private)

Healthy Community 

Initiative—a private 

not-for-profit 

organization.

Initiated in 

1992.

Reported 

every 2 years.

Portland 

Multnomah 

Benchmarks

Portland, Oreg. 

and Multnomah 

County, Oreg. 

Approx.

678,000

The benchmarks, based upon the statewide 

Oregon Benchmarks program, gauge 

conditions in the community and measure 

progress related to the visions of the City of 

Portland and Multnomah County in the 

economy, education, environment, 

governance and civic participation, health 

and families, public safety, and urban vitality. 

Benchmarks are developed to encourage 

community organizations to focus on 

outcomes and increase collaboration. 

(Public)

City Auditor’s Office 

of Portland. 

Initiated in 

1993.

Reported 

every 2 years.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Name of 

system/report

Jurisdiction(s) 

and population Description

Managing 

organization(s)

Date 

begun/first 

reported

Frequency 

of updates
Appendix III

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems 

Included in This Study

Page 205 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Santa Cruz 

County 

Community 

Assessment 

Project (CAP)

Santa Cruz 

County, Calif.

Approx.

250,000

Indicators measure progress toward quality of 

life goals (e.g., economic, education, 

environment, health, public safety, social, and 

natural environment) for Santa Cruz County 

and raise awareness of changing trends and 

emerging issues as well as provide 

information to human services agencies and 

the organizations that fund them. CAP also 

supports action plans to achieve its goals.

(Public/Private)

Managed through a 

collaboration of 

individuals and 

community groups, 

including the United 

Way of Santa Cruz 

and Dominican 

Hospital. Applied 

Survey Research, a 

not-for-profit 

consulting company, 

is responsible for the 

research component 

of the system. 

Initiated in 

1993. First set 

of indicators 

presented in 

1995.

Reported 

annually. 

Santa Monica 

Sustainable 

City

City of Santa 

Monica, Calif.

Approx. 

84,000

Indicators measure progress toward city 

goals and strategies for all sectors of the 

community aimed to conserve and enhance 

local resources, safeguard human health and 

the environment, maintain a healthy and 

diverse economy, and improve the livability 

and quality of life for all community members 

in Santa Monica. Goal and indicator 

categories are resource conservation, 

environmental and public health, 

transportation, economic development, 

economic diversity, open space and land use, 

housing, community education and civic 

participation, and human dignity. 

(Public)

City of Santa 

Monica’s 

Environmental 

Programs Division, 

Public Works 

Department. 

Initiated in 

1994.

Reported 

every 2 years.

Sustainable 

Seattle

Seattle, Wash. 

Approx.

570,000

Indicators promote sustainable development 

at a local and regional scale to help solve 

fundamental development problems and 

foster long-term social change through policy 

advocacy, education, and civic action. 

Indicators are provided in the following topical 

areas: environment, population and 

resources, economy, youth and education, 

and health and community.

(Private)

Sustainable 

Seattle—a not-forprofit organization. 

Initiated in 

1992. First 

report in 1993.

Most recent 

full report in 

1998. 

Index of Silicon 

Valley 

(California)

Silicon Valley 

region of 

Northern 

California

Approx. 

2,300,000

Indicators report on progress toward 

achieving goals primarily related to 

sustainable development and quality of life for 

California’s Silicon Valley region (e.g., in the 

areas of environment, population and 

resources, economy, youth and education, 

and health and community). The project 

addresses issues raised from indicator 

results through collaborative action.

(Private)

Joint Venture: Silicon 

Valley Network—an 

independent, not-forprofit organization 

with some publicprivate partnerships. 

Initiated in 

1992.

First report in 

1995.

Reported 

annually.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Name of 

system/report

Jurisdiction(s) 

and population Description

Managing 

organization(s)

Date 

begun/first 

reported

Frequency 

of updates
Appendix III

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems 

Included in This Study

Page 206 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

State of the 

Region 

(Southern 

California)

Local 

governments in 

southern 

California 

Approx.

17,123,000

Indictors track progress toward a regional 

comprehensive plan and goals for the 

southern California region (i.e., in the areas 

of population, the economy, housing, 

transportation, the environment, and quality 

of life). It also serves as a guide for local 

government planning in the region.

(Public/Private)

Southern California 

Association of 

Governments.

Initiated in 

1997. 

First report in 

1998.

Reported 

annually.

Benchmarking 

Municipal and 

Neighborhood 

Services in 

Worcester

Worcester, 

Mass.

Approx.

175,000

Indicators measure progress toward strategic 

goals in the areas of public safety, education, 

economic development, municipal and 

neighborhood services, and youth services. 

The effort informs city agency officials (for 

management of city services), as well as 

interested citizens.

(Private)

Worcester Regional 

Research Bureau, a 

private, not-for-profit 

organization.

Initiated in 

1998.

Reported 

annually.

Results Iowa State of Iowa

Approx.

2,944,000

Indicators are linked to statewide goals (i.e., 

the areas of new economy, education, health, 

safe communities, and environment) to 

provide Iowa state government officials’ 

benchmark information for planning and 

budgeting. 

(Public)

Iowa Department of 

Management.

Project initiated 

around 1999.

Reported 

annually.

Maine’s 

Measures of 

Growth

State of Maine

Approx.

1,306,000

Indicators track progress toward a long-term 

economic growth policy for the state of Maine 

through quality of life measures on the 

economy (i.e., prosperity, business 

innovation, business climate, and skilled and 

educated workers); community (i.e., civic 

assets, disparities, and health and safety); 

and environment (i.e., preservation, access, 

and stewardship).

(Public/Private)

Maine Economic 

Growth Council, an 

independent entity 

chartered by the 

state legislature. 

Initiative began 

in 1993. First 

reported in 

1996.

Reported 

annually.

Minnesota 

Milestones

State of 

Minnesota

Approx.

5,059,000

Indicators track progress toward 19 quality of 

life goals for the state (e.g., Minnesotans will 

excel in basic and challenging academic 

skills and knowledge; have sustainable, 

strong economic growth; and improve the 

quality of the air, water, and earth). Also, 

provides accessible information to make 

planning and budget decisions. 

(Public)

Minnesota 

Department of 

Administration. 

Project initiated 

in 1991. 

First reported 

on in 1993.

Reported 

every 2 or 3 

years. 

Also 

periodically 

updates data 

on Web site.a

(Continued From Previous Page)

Name of 

system/report

Jurisdiction(s) 

and population Description

Managing 

organization(s)

Date 

begun/first 

reported

Frequency 

of updates
Appendix III

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems 

Included in This Study

Page 207 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

North Carolina 

20/20

State of North 

Carolina

Approx.

8,407,000

Indicators measure progress toward goals in 

multiple domains over a 20-year period to 

assess the strengths, needs, and challenges 

in North Carolina. Goals are linked to the 

economic competitiveness of the state and 

fall within the following categories: healthy 

children and families, safe and vibrant 

communities, quality education for all, a highperformance workforce, a sustainable 

environment, a prosperous economy, a 21st 

century infrastructure, and active citizenship 

and accountable government.

(Public)

North Carolina 

Progress Board—

reporting to the state 

university system’s 

Board of Governors.

Initiated in 

1995.

Reported 

every several 

years along 

with other 

interim 

reports.

Oregon 

Benchmarks

State of Oregon

Approx.

3,560,000

Indicators measure progress toward a 

strategic vision for the State of Oregon and 

related goals. Indicators fall within the goal 

categories of (1) quality jobs for all 

Oregonians, (2) safe, caring, and engaged 

communities, and (3) healthy, sustainable 

surroundings. 

(Public)

Oregon Progress 

Board—a unit of 

state government 

reporting to a board 

comprised of the 

governor and other 

leaders inside and 

outside of 

government.

Initiated in 

1989. 

First report in 

1991.

Reported 

every 2 years.

Social WellBeing of 

Vermonters 

State of 

Vermont

Approx.

619,000

Indicators serve as benchmarks to measure 

outcomes to improve well-being of children, 

families, and individuals. Outcomes are 

grouped under (1) families, youth, and 

individuals are engaged in their community’s 

decisions and activities; (2) pregnant women 

and young children thrive; (3) children are 

ready for school; (4) children succeed in 

school; (5)children live in stable, supported 

families; (6) youth choose healthy behaviors; 

(7) youth successfully transition to adulthood; 

(8) adults lead healthy and productive lives, 

and elders and people with disabilities live 

with dignity and independence in settings 

they prefer; and (9) communities provide 

safety and support to families and individuals.

(Public)

Vermont Agency of 

Human Services. 

Project initiated 

in 1993.

Reported 

annually.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Name of 

system/report

Jurisdiction(s) 

and population Description

Managing 

organization(s)

Date 

begun/first 

reported

Frequency 

of updates
Appendix III

Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems 

Included in This Study

Page 208 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Source: GAO analysis.

Note: The World Wide Web links for these systems can be found at http://www.keyindicators.org.

a

Since we concluded our interviews in the fall of 2003, Minnesota Milestones ceased to be an active 

system. State officials told us that the Minnesota Milestones Web site will be maintained but there are 

no plans to update the data in the near future.

German 

System of 

Social 

Indicators

Germany

Approx. 

83 million 

Indicators monitor the state of and changes in 

living conditions and quality of life, covering 

14 life domains (including the economic, 

environmental, and social and cultural 

domains). Includes almost 400 indicators 

and 3,000 time series.

(Public/Private)

Center for Survey 

Research and 

Methodology 

(ZUMA), a 

government-funded 

research institution in 

Mannheim, Germany.

Development 

began in the 

1970s. Data 

are available 

online from 

ZUMA. 

Indicators 

continually 

maintained 

and updated. 

Biennial data 

report is 

published 

with the 

Federal 

Statistical 

Office of 

Germany.

United 

Kingdom 

Sustainable 

Development 

Indicators

United Kingdom

Approx. 

60 million

To measure progress toward the 

government’s sustainable development 

strategy in the areas of social progress, 

economic growth, and environmental 

protection. Includes 15 headline indicators to 

give a broad overview and 132 core 

indicators to focus on specific issues and 

identify areas for action.

(Public)

Department of 

Environment, Food, 

and Rural Affairs.

In 1999, the 

U.K. 

government 

published a 

strategy for 

sustainable 

development 

and included 

baselines for 

the indicators. 

Starting in 

2000 reports 

annually on 

the latest 

information 

on progress, 

including all 

the headline 

indicators. 

Major 

updates 

every 5 years.

European 

Structural 

Indicators

European 

Union

Approx. 

450 million 

Indicators track progress toward strategic 

goals for the economic, social, and 

environmental renewal of Europe, which are 

detailed in the Lisbon Strategy. The indicator 

system covers the following topics: 

employment, innovation and research, 

economic reform, social cohesion, and the 

environment. Starting in 2004, the EU 

reports on 14 headline indicators, although 

the more detailed set of indicators will be 

maintained in a publicly available database.

(Public)

European 

Commission. 

Lisbon Strategy 

was adopted in 

2000 (and 

modified in 

2001); the 

structural 

indicators 

began in 2001.

Reported on 

annually to 

the European 

Council.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Name of 

system/report

Jurisdiction(s) 

and population Description

Managing 

organization(s)

Date 

begun/first 

reported

Frequency 

of updates
Page 209 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Appendix IV

Timeline and Evolution of the Boston 

Indicators Project ApendxiIV

The Boston Indicators Project is coordinated by the Boston Foundation in 

partnership with the City of Boston, the Boston Redevelopment Authority, 

and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. The goal of the project is to 

engage the general public, civic and community-based institutions, media, 

business, and government in better understanding Boston’s key challenges 

and opportunities. The project aims to

• “democratize data” (by creating a container for local data, research, and 

reports); 

• create a common ground for civic discourse and collaborative 

strategies; 

• track progress on shared goals along the lines of civic health, cultural 

life and the arts, economy, education, environment, housing, public 

health, public safety, technology, and transportation; and

• disseminate results and best practices to a wide audience. 

The project took years to develop and has evolved and expanded its focus 

in several distinct phases, although there is some overlap between them. 

Participatory Development 

of the Indicator System 

(1997–99)

The Boston Foundation and the City of Boston launched the project in 

1997, with additional support from the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C.1

It was intended to engage the community in developing indicators of 

sustainability that would measure natural assets, economic well-being, and 

human development for the City of Boston and its neighborhoods. The 

project developed an open, participatory approach involving a wide range 

of practitioners, academics, policymakers, and other private and not-forprofit sector leaders. It attempted to take advantage of lessons learned 

from past efforts in the United States, and adopt successful practices used 

by others who had implemented comprehensive key indicator systems.

An initial planning meeting took place in January 1997, involving about 12 

individuals from various community organizations, in addition to officials 

1

 The specific programs at each of these organizations that helped establish the Boston 

Indicators Project included the Community Building Network at the Boston Foundation, the 

Sustainable Boston Initiative of the City of Boston, and the Urban Institute’s National 

Neighborhood Indicators Partnership. 
Appendix IV

Timeline and Evolution of the Boston 

Indicators Project

Page 210 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

from the city’s planning and development offices. Planning focused on the 

need for a clear vision for the project, as well as some of the limitations of 

indicators that had traditionally been used to measure change in urban 

communities. Individuals from additional groups and agencies were 

invited to subsequent meetings so that by late spring 1997, the group had 

grown to include about 75 participants who had developed a broad 

framework for the project, including a vision, goals, and a process for 

developing indicator categories. 

The next step involved identifying indicator categories as well as the 

indicators themselves. This involved about 150 individuals working in both 

large and small group settings and the process took about 6 months. As the 

effort evolved, participants formed a steering group and various 

subcommittees, developed criteria for selecting indicators, began to 

identify data sources, and continued to consult widely with similar projects 

to try to learn from their experiences. Project participants decided that 

indicators should ideally be expressed in positive or asset-based terms 

(such as the number of third graders who can read at grade level or the 

percentage of healthy babies born). Accordingly, the Project attempted to 

identify strengths and focus on desired positive outcomes, rather than 

focusing on deficit or negative terms (such as the school dropout rate or 

the percentage of low birth weight babies). 

By early 1998, participants in the project had identified over 150 proposed 

indicators. They began to try to reduce the number of proposed indicators 

and identify and collect data, which was difficult and time-consuming. 

Over 300 individuals from diverse sectors, neighborhoods, levels of 

government, and racial and ethnic groups participated in working sessions 

to conceptualize and develop the indicator system. Even more individuals 

and organizations assisted with data collection and analysis, and the initial 

phase was largely finished by the fall of 1998.

Initial Reporting on the 

Indicators (1999–2002)

In June 1999, a draft report on the indicators was released at a Boston 

Citizen Seminar hosted by Boston College. The mayor of Boston gave the 

keynote address at this event, and approximately 250 people attended. The 

seminar included a panel of civic leaders and a presentation on the 

indicators, and small group discussions. Subsequently, more than 

700 copies of the draft report were distributed to senior government 

officials, state legislators, and interested organizations and individuals for 

review, and their comments were incorporated. 
Appendix IV

Timeline and Evolution of the Boston 

Indicators Project

Page 211 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

The Boston Foundation and other organizations2 worked with the Center 

for Survey Research at the University of Massachusetts in Boston to design 

and fund an annual survey to produce qualitative data for some measures 

for which data had not been consistently available. They conducted the 

first survey in the summer of 2000 in the metropolitan region, the city, and 

four Boston neighborhoods. The project released the final indicators 

report, The Wisdom of Our Choices: Boston’s Indicators of Progress, 

Change and Sustainability 2000, in the fall of 2000 at another Boston 

Citizen Seminar that about 350 people attended. The project distributed 

7,500 copies of the report.3

Pursuing Two Tracks: 

Reporting on Indicators and 

Working toward a Civic 

Agenda (2002 through the 

Present)

In recent years, the Boston Indicators Project has begun to follow two 

distinct tracks. One track has continued to produce the indicators reports 

every 2 years to measure progress toward a vision for 2030.4

 This track has 

involved maintaining and improving the project’s Web site 

(http://www.bostonindicators.org); improving data and creating tools for 

accessing data; developing an educational curriculum and a seminar series; 

and conducting briefings for media professionals. The other main track 

involves developing a civic agenda for Boston. This second track has 

begun efforts to reach consensus on a Boston civic agenda. The agenda is 

to consist of short-term, achievable outcomes that are linked to high-level, 

long-term goals. These efforts are also intended to build support from 

stakeholders by incorporating various organizations’ goals and 

encouraging organizations to align their own resources and activities with 

the shared civic agenda. 

Under the first track, the project released an updated indicators report, 

entitled Creativity and Innovation: A Bridge to the Future in February 

2003.5

 Like the first report, it was released at a Boston Citizen Seminar 

hosted by Boston College and attended by hundreds of civic leaders. The 

highly interactive Web site for the Project was also launched at this time. 

2

 The other groups included the Boston Redevelopment Authority, Action for Boston 

Community Development, the United Way of Massachusetts Bay, the Harvard School of 

Public Health, and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. 

3

 The Boston Foundation, The Wisdom of Our Choices: Boston’s Indicators of Progress, 

Change and Sustainability 2000 (Boston: 2000).

4

 Boston’s 400th anniversary will be in the year 2030. 

5

 Boston Foundation, Creativity and Innovation: A Bridge to the Future (Boston: 2002).
Appendix IV

Timeline and Evolution of the Boston 

Indicators Project

Page 212 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

The structure of the Web site allows users to search for information by goal 

categories, or by one of five crosscutting filters. These filters include 

Boston neighborhoods, children and youth, competitive edge, 

race/ethnicity, and sustainable development. They allow users to pull 

relevant information from different areas of the Web site, identify 

connections across sectors, and show local conditions in a citywide, 

regional, and global context.

The concept for a civic agenda was developed as part of the work of a 

leadership group established by the Boston Indicators Project. This 

group—composed of individuals (many in leadership positions) from 

diverse organizations and sectors, including academia, nonprofit 

organizations, foundations, the Boston public school system, and 

businesses—meets periodically to discuss issues such as dissemination 

strategies for the indicators report, and whether and how the project could 

contribute to connecting leaders in Boston and shaping the public dialogue 

on important issues. Members had agreed that once the indicators were in 

place, the group’s next step would be to try to leverage change by 

strengthening civic leadership. The group formed a subcommittee to 

develop recommendations, criteria, and a strategy for developing a civic 

agenda to be released as part of the 2004 indicators report. The group 

intends to articulate a set of long-term goals based on a preferred future 

scenario, and then create specific strategies, or pathways of change, to 

reach these long-term goals. The project also plans to use measurable 

benchmarks in tracking and reporting on progress toward the short-term 

aspects of the civic agenda.

Key Themes from the 

Boston Experience

The project’s over 7 years of experience demonstrate the importance and 

value of engaging collaborative and highly participatory processes in 

developing an indicator system and revising it as circumstances change or 

new indicators become available. It also provides an illustration of the 

extent to which an indicator system can expand its focus over time and 

shows the value of learning from others and sharing information on 

successful practices and technologies. 

• Collaborative and participatory processes are important. The 

Boston experience illustrates that involving a diverse and large group of 

public and private leaders and citizens can pay off in terms of 

widespread buy-in and use. From the outset, the project involved 

widely consultative and participatory processes for developing concepts 

and making decisions, including public and private leaders. A large 
Appendix IV

Timeline and Evolution of the Boston 

Indicators Project

Page 213 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

number of individuals from diverse sectors, neighborhoods, levels of 

government and racial and ethnic groups participated in working 

sessions to conceptualize the first draft indicators report. The final 

versions of the 2000 indicators report, as well as the 2002 report, were 

released at public events attended by diverse audiences, and the draft 

version of the 2000 report was distributed to 700 different individuals 

and organizations for comment. The project’s leadership group includes 

leaders from many diverse sectors. 

• A system’s focus can expand over time. The Boston experience also 

shows that, with sufficient support and buy-in, an indicator system can 

expand its focus and become an agent for change. According to project 

officials, a major motivation for the first indicators report in 2000 was to 

provide access to objective data. Project staff explained that the first 

report was immense and contained a huge amount of data. They said 

they received feedback that it was too much for potential users to “get 

their arms around,” and that the data and report needed to be 

interpreted and synthesized more so they would be more 

understandable. Following the release of the 2000 report, the project 

began a new phase with two tracks, one to implement a different 

approach with the 2002 report, although it did not abandon its original 

focus on reporting on and widely disseminating indicators. The second 

report contained more interpretation of data, comparisons, and 

identification of important trends. While greater interpretation of data 

may be more useful to potential users, it may also lead to more friction 

among leaders. The civic agenda was based on the idea of analyzing 

indicators to develop specific strategies for achieving selected goals. 

Observers we spoke with noted that selecting and reaching consensus 

on strategies involves more subjectivity and may be harder to 

accomplish than just reporting objective information. The implications 

of moving toward greater interpretation of data and strategy 

development are not likely to fully unfold for some time, as the Project 

is dynamic and still evolving. Change can also be noted in terms of the 

specific indicators used over time. For example, of the 16 specific 

indicators of civic health included in the 2000 report, about half of them 

were no longer included among the 23 indicators shown on the project’s 

Web site in June 2004. 

• Learning from others and sharing information. The project 

illustrates the value of learning from the experiences of others when 

developing a system, and once the system has been developed, sharing 

successful practices and technology with others. In recent years, the 
Appendix IV

Timeline and Evolution of the Boston 

Indicators Project

Page 214 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

project has made it a priority to share information and lessons learned 

with groups from other cities that are interested in using the Boston 

indicator system as a model. Project officials believe this will facilitate 

easier replication elsewhere in the United States. For example, a new 

comprehensive key indicator system in Dallas, Texas (Dallas Indicators) 

has borrowed heavily from the experiences of the Boston Indicators 

Project. In addition, project staff have made the Web site architecture 

available for licensing, and have received queries from several 

interested organizations. 
Page 215 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Appendix V

Timeline and Evolution of the Oregon 

Benchmarks ApendxiV

The State of Oregon’s comprehensive indicator system, known as the 

Oregon Benchmarks, had its roots in a strategic planning exercise that was 

launched in response to a serious economic downturn in the early to mid1980s. This system has evolved over time in several phases, which are 

described in detail below, although there is some overlap between them. 

The Oregon Benchmarks system started as a way to monitor and encourage 

statewide progress toward a set of policy goals and targets—and explicitly 

aimed to be a system for all of Oregon, not just the state government. In 

recent years, the system has narrowed its focus somewhat and become an 

integral part of the state government’s performance measurement and 

improvement process.

Oregon Shines Strategic 

Planning Initiative (1988–

89)

In 1988, Governor Neil Goldschmidt launched a statewide economic 

planning initiative, based on a vision of Oregon as a diverse economy built 

on a foundation of an educated workforce and a high quality of life. 

Sixteen committees made up of approximately 180 leaders from the 

business, labor, education, and government communities were involved in 

drafting reports that the governor’s office and the Economic Development 

Department used to shape the comprehensive strategic plan. The resulting 

document, Oregon Shines: An Economic Strategy for the Pacific Century,

was issued in May 1989 (commonly known as Oregon Shines), and laid out 

an economic strategy for the next two decades. The strategy was based 

upon the concept of a “circle of prosperity,” which held that quality 

communities and a prosperous private sector reinforce one another, and 

could be strengthened by pursuing several initiatives: a well-educated, 

skilled workforce; an attractive quality of life achieved through maintaining 

the natural environment; and an internationally-oriented business and 

cultural climate attractive to global commerce. 

Establishing the Oregon 

Progress Board and Oregon 

Benchmarks (1989–91)

The Oregon Benchmarks system was developed as a complement to 

Oregon Shines, as a tool for following up on the long-range strategy and 

assessing progress made toward achieving its broad goals. In the summer 

of 1989, the legislature approved the creation of the Oregon Progress Board 

as a statutory agency located within the governor’s office. The governor 

was chair of the Progress Board and appointed all of its nine volunteer 

members, who were to translate the strategic vision of Oregon Shines into 

a set of measurable indicators. Specifically, the Progress Board was 

supposed to develop a set of benchmarks for legislative approval in 1991, 

and then report on progress toward the benchmarks every 2 years. 

Benchmarks were intended to be broad indicators of the overall economic, 
Appendix V

Timeline and Evolution of the Oregon 

Benchmarks

Page 216 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

social, and environmental health of the state as a whole and not simply 

performance measures for state agencies. Achieving the benchmarks 

would be beyond the reach of state and local governments alone, and 

would require the combined efforts of citizens, businesses, advocacy 

groups, charitable organizations, and academic researchers. While the 

Oregon Progress Board was intended to be bipartisan, the governor and the 

majority of members of both houses of the state legislature were 

Democrats when it was established.

A variety of citizen groups participated throughout 1990 in identifying the 

Oregon Benchmarks, and the Progress Board met monthly to oversee the 

process. The Oregon Shines strategy was divided into six topics, with 

teams of citizens assigned to develop and identify preliminary indicators. 

The preliminary recommendations were then presented to the public in 

statewide meetings attended by about 500 citizens, and another 200 

organizations and individuals contributed written comments. Based on 

that input, the Progress Board developed a master list of 158 benchmarks. 

Where possible, for each benchmark, historical data were presented for 

1970 and 1980; baseline data were presented for 1990; and future short- and 

long-term goal or target levels were set for 1995, 2000, and 2010. In general, 

the long-term goal levels were ambitious, based on aspirations for society, 

and not necessarily realistic. Examples of ambitious target levels for 2010 

included that there should be no children living below the federal poverty 

line, there should be no pregnant women using illicit drugs, and 97 percent 

of teenagers should graduate from high school (up from 87 percent in 

1990). Early in 1991, the Progress Board sent the set of 158 benchmarks to 

18 legislative committees, which recommended some amendments. The 

state legislature unanimously adopted the Oregon Benchmarks in 1991. 

Beginning to Link 

Government Programs to 

the Benchmarks (1991-93)

After the 1990 elections, a number of developments related to the state 

political environment and the budget began to affect the Oregon Progress 

Board and the use of the benchmarks. Republicans gained control of the 

state House of Represfor the first time in 20 years, although Democrats still 

controlled the Senate and the governorship. In 1990, Oregon voters also 

approved a property tax cap (known as Measure 5), which also required 

that state funds replace any resulting lost revenues for local school 

districts. As a result, it was anticipated that more state funds would need 

to be allocated for education, which would make it necessary to reduce 

noneducation spending. The new governor, Barbara Roberts, was a strong 

supporter of the Progress Board. In anticipation of the need to make 

budget reductions, she tried to use the benchmarks as a tool to help set 
Appendix V

Timeline and Evolution of the Oregon 

Benchmarks

Page 217 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

priorities during the 1993 budget preparation process. Basically, state 

agencies had to submit base budgets at only 80 percent of the level of the 

prior year, but could receive higher percentages if they could show that 

their programs contributed to lead benchmarks. The Progress Board 

estimated that the policy resulted in a shift in the budget distribution worth 

an estimated $130 million toward programs aimed at the lead benchmarks. 

The Oregon Benchmarks became more important to state government 

agencies, although since the benchmarks had not been developed to reflect 

agency programs or structures, there was not always a good fit between 

services provided by the agencies and the benchmarks. One result of this 

disconnect between agency programs and the benchmarks was upward 

pressure on the number of benchmarks, as agencies and special interest 

groups pressed the Progress Board to add benchmarks to reflect their 

specific areas of work. By 1993, the number of benchmarks had increased 

from 158 to 272. The Progress Board, in conjunction with the Oregon 

Business Council, sponsored 29 community meetings across the state that 

engaged about 2,000 citizens in reviewing the strategic vision and 

benchmarks. The state legislature approved the Oregon Benchmarks again 

in 1993, although not unanimously this time.

Oregon Progress Board and 

Benchmarks Affected by 

Politics (1994–95)

In the 1994 elections, Republicans gained control of both chambers of 

Oregon’s legislature, a development that eventually had serious 

implications for the future of the Progress Board and Oregon Benchmarks. 

The statute that had established the Oregon Progress Board required that 

the state legislature vote to reauthorize it in 1995, or it would automatically 

“sunset.” John Kitzhaber, the new Governor who took office in 1995, 

supported the Oregon Progress Board and Oregon Benchmarks system. 

The Oregon Benchmarks also influenced several local governments, for 

example, the Portland Multnomah County Benchmarks, and a few private 

statewide agencies within Oregon, as well as the states of Minnesota and 

Florida, in developing their own benchmark initiatives, and won 

recognition from a number of prestigious organizations.1

 However, some 

legislators, particularly Republicans, perceived that state agencies were 

trying to use the ambitious target levels set for the Benchmarks to argue for 

increased funding for their programs. Some felt that the Oregon 

1

 In 1994 the Oregon Benchmarks was one of the winners of an Innovations in Government 

contest sponsored by Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and the Ford 

Foundation. The Oregon Benchmarks also received positive notice from the National 

Governor’s Association and the federal government’s National Performance Review. 
Appendix V

Timeline and Evolution of the Oregon 

Benchmarks

Page 218 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Benchmarks represented a partisan and ideological agenda. Overall, the 

legislature was evidently not persuaded of the value of the Oregon 

Benchmarks system, because in 1995, a Republican caucus did not approve 

the bill to reauthorize the Progress Board. However, a 2-year budget for the 

Progress Board had already been approved by the legislature, and 

Governor Kitzhaber decided to keep it alive via an executive order. This 

effectively meant that the Oregon Progress Board received a 2-year 

reprieve during which it could try to regain the support of the legislature 

for reauthorization.

New Directions (1995–2001) In 1995, the Oregon Progress Board received a new executive director who 

oversaw a process of working to address concerns expressed by legislative 

critics and trying to win more support by making some changes to the 

Oregon Benchmarks and the Progress Board. Also in 1996, the Governor 

instructed state agencies to identify benchmark linkages in their budgets 

and describe how proposed programs would contribute to achieving 

benchmark targets. The Progress Board’s director advocated updating the 

Oregon Shines strategy, based on the argument that Oregon’s economic 

situation had substantially improved and new issues had become relevant 

since the original strategy was issued in 1989. To update the strategy, the 

governor established a 45-member task force consisting of past and present 

Progress Board members, a Republican senator, a Democratic 

representative, local politicians, independent citizen leaders, and 

individuals from universities and nonprofit organizations. In 1997, Oregon 

Shines II: Updating Oregon’s Strategic Plan was released. Emphasis was 

also placed on increasing support from state legislators. As part of this 

process, the indicators were revisited and the total number was reduced to 

92, and target levels were made more realistic. Around the same time, the 

Oregon Progress Board released the first report card on progress toward 

achieving the benchmarks. The Progress Board staff succeeded in winning 

support for the Oregon Benchmarks system from several Republican 

legislators, and met individually with all of the state senators and other key 

leaders. These efforts paid off when, in the spring of 1997, the state 

legislature permanently reauthorized the Oregon Progress Board. 

With the newly reauthorized Progress Board came a new emphasis on 

using the Oregon Benchmarks system as an accountability tool, although 

the Board does not want to lose its value as a visioning tool. According to 

some observers, the work of the Progress Board was moving toward 

performance measurement of state agency programs in order to maintain 

the support of key legislators. In March 1999, the Progress Board 
Appendix V

Timeline and Evolution of the Oregon 

Benchmarks

Page 219 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

presented a benchmark report to the legislature, which assessed progress 

toward achievement of each benchmark with a letter grade. Efforts were 

made to align the activities of state agencies with the benchmarks. In 2001, 

legislation moved the Progress Board to the Department of Administrative 

Services (the central administrative agency of state government, 

responsible for budget development) and added a significant focus on 

helping state agencies link their performance measures to Oregon 

Benchmarks. The bill also mandated that the Progress Board write 

guidelines on performance measures for state agencies, and added one 

legislator from each chamber of the legislature as a voting member of the 

Progress Board. The Progress Board issued a report showing to which 

benchmarks particular state agencies were contributing.

Recent Developments (2002 

through the Present)

In a special legislative session in the fall of 2002, the Oregon Progress 

Board lost all its funding when state government spending was drastically 

cut to deal with an ongoing state fiscal downturn. The current governor, 

Theodore Kulongoski, managed to set aside some funds to keep the 

Progress Board going through the end of the 2001-2003 budget period. As 

of the fall of 2003, the statute authorizing the Oregon Progress Board was 

still in effect, and there was authority for three staffing slots and modest 

funding for 2 years. According to the director, the Progress Board has only 

managed to survive because it is so involved in doing performance 

measurement work that the legislature considers important. Another 

observer said it was very difficult to keep the board “alive” during the last 

legislative session, because there is not that much interest in it. The 

Oregon Benchmarks system continues to evolve in the direction of serving 

as a performance measurement tool for state government. Many leaders 

we interviewed believe that this new focus might make the Oregon 

Benchmarks more relevant and useful. Recently, the Progress Board 

assisted the state’s Department of Administrative Services and the 

governor’s budget office in reviewing the programs of all 87 state agencies 

and assessing how the goals and performance measures in their strategic 

plans link to the Oregon Benchmarks. The Progress Board also helped 

state agencies to develop performance measures as part of their budget 

requests. In the future, agencies will be required to explain how their 

programs tie to benchmarks in their annual performance measure reports. 

Key Themes from the 

Oregon Experience

The nearly 15 years of the Oregon Benchmarks experience highlight several 

themes, including the importance of having bipartisan and broad-based 

support, the extent to which a system can evolve from its original purpose, 
Appendix V

Timeline and Evolution of the Oregon 

Benchmarks

Page 220 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

and the advantages and disadvantages of being a completely governmentled and funded system. 

• Bipartisan and broad-based support is important. The Oregon 

experience suggests that support for an indicator system could be 

vulnerable if it is perceived as being the creation of a particular political 

party, a particular leader, or a single branch of government. When the 

Oregon Progress Board was first created, the governor and majorities in 

both chambers of the state legislature were from the same political 

party. The Progress Board and the Oregon Benchmarks system 

continued to enjoy support from the next three governors in succession, 

who also belonged to the same party. It was clearly perceived as driven 

by the executive branch and the governors’ political party. Support for 

the indicator system from the legislature decreased after the opposing 

political party gained the majority in the legislature. The Progress Board 

and the Oregon Benchmarks have come close to being eliminated twice, 

due at least in part to perceptions of political partisanship. Recently, 

attempts have been made to broaden support across party lines and 

increase collaboration with the legislature.

• Indicator systems evolve over time. The Oregon experience also 

illustrates that an indicator system can change significantly over time as 

its organizers and supporters respond to changes in political or 

economic circumstances. Today, the Oregon Progress Board continues 

its work, monitoring and reporting on benchmark indicators that track 

progress toward future targets. In the 15 years since the state legislature 

first established the Oregon Progress Board (13 years since it approved 

the first set of Oregon Benchmarks), the system has evolved from a 

participatory visioning process intended to develop an economic 

strategy and broad goals for the kind of society Oregonians aspired to 

have, to its present emphasis on performance measurement and linking 

the programs of state agencies to achieving the benchmarks. To 

increase its relevance and usefulness to state executive and legislative 

branch officials, the Oregon comprehensive indicator system has 

evolved toward a greater emphasis on serving as a tool for state 

government agency performance measurement.

• Public sector status has advantages and disadvantages. The 

Oregon Progress Board and the Oregon Benchmark system have been 

funded by and housed within the state government—specifically the 

executive branch—from the beginning. The Oregon experience 

demonstrates that being led and financed by the government can have 
Appendix V

Timeline and Evolution of the Oregon 

Benchmarks

Page 221 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

advantages and disadvantages. Having the support of a high-level public 

official, such as the governor, can lead to a great deal of exposure and 

initial use for an indicator system. However, such support can also 

make a system vulnerable once that leader leaves office or government 

fiscal priorities change. Several different governors championed the 

Oregon Benchmark system, which helped secure funding and resources 

for the program. A downside of the patronage from the governors, 

however, has been the issue of perceptions of political partisanship, as 

described above. In addition, reliance on state funding made the 

Progress Board vulnerable to elimination during a severe fiscal 

downturn, which has been the case since 2001. Since 2001, the state, 

which has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, has 

been forced to make large budget cuts, placing programs that are 

perceived to be nonessential, like the Oregon Benchmarks, in jeopardy.
Page 222 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Appendix VI

The Role of Indicators in the European Union ApendxiVI

Over the past 50 years, efforts to create an integrated European Union (EU) 

have expanded from an agreement among six countries to form a coal and 

steel common market to a union of 25 countries with a wide array of 

common policies and institutions. Indicators and related systems have 

played an important role in helping to monitor the position and progress of 

member countries and to assess Europe in relation to other democracies 

throughout the world, including the United States. The EU has numerous 

well-developed and accepted indicator systems specific to topical areas 

and domains, as well as those that recognize the relationships among 

economic, social and cultural, and environmental indicators. The 

European Structural Indicators system, which is linked to the Lisbon 

Strategy, is widely accepted as the largest scale, most comprehensive 

indicator effort at the EU level. 

Background on the EU The EU is a treaty-based, institutional framework that facilitates economic 

and political cooperation among its current 25 member states—Austria, 

Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, 

Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, 

Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, 

Sweden, and the United Kingdom.1

 The EU is the latest stage in a gradual 

process of European integration that began after World War II to promote 

peace and economic prosperity in Europe. Its founders hoped that by 

creating communities of shared sovereignty—initially in areas of coal and 

steel production, trade, and nuclear energy,—another war in Europe would 

be prevented. In the last decade, EU member states have taken significant 

steps toward political integration as well, with decisions to develop a 

common foreign policy and closer police and judicial cooperation. EU 

members work together through common institutions. The EU has been 

built through a series of binding treaties. 

1

 Ten of the 25 current member states (Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, 

Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia) joined the EU on May 1, 2004. Two 

other states, Bulgaria and Romania, hope to complete accession negotiations and be able to 

join the EU by 2007. Accession negotiations establish the terms under which applicants will 

meet and enforce EU rules and regulations in a host of areas ranging from agriculture to 

competition to trade. Turkey was formally recognized as a EU candidate in 1999, but 

remains in a separate category as it seeks to comply fully with the EU’s political and 

economic criteria for membership. No firm date has been set for beginning accession talks 

with Turkey. Croatia and Macedonia have also applied for EU membership.
Appendix VI

The Role of Indicators in the European Union

Page 223 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

The institutions of the EU are divided into three "pillars” and decisionmaking processes differ in each. Pillar one is the European Community, 

which encompasses economic, trade, and social policies ranging from 

agriculture to education. In pillar one areas—by far the most developed 

and far-reaching—members have largely pooled their national sovereignty 

and work together in EU institutions to set policy and promote their 

collective interests. Decisions in pillar one often have a supranational 

character and most are made by a majority voting system. Pillar two aims 

to establish a common foreign and security policy to permit joint action in 

foreign and security affairs. Pillar three seeks to create a justice and home 

affairs policy to foster common internal security measures and closer 

police and judicial coordination. Under pillars two and three, members 

have agreed to cooperate but decision making is intergovernmental and by 

consensus. Thus, members retain more discretion and the right to veto 

certain measures. 

The EU is governed by several institutions. They do not correspond exactly 

to the traditional division of powers in democratic governments. Rather, 

they embody the EU's dual supranational and intergovernmental character.

The European Council brings together the heads of state or government 

of the member states and the Commission President at least twice a year. It 

acts principally as a strategic guide and driving force for EU policy.

The Council of the European Union (Council of Ministers) consists 

of ministers from the national governments. As the main decision-making 

body, the council enacts legislation based on proposals put forward by the 

European Commission (described below). Different ministers participate 

depending on the subject under consideration (e.g., finance ministers could 

convene to discuss budgetary policy). Most decisions are made by majority 

vote, but some areas, such as taxation, require unanimity. The presidency 

of the council rotates among the member states every six months.

The European Commission (EC) is essentially the EU's executive 

apparatus and has the sole right of legislative initiative. It upholds the 

interests of the Union as a whole and ensures that the provisions of the EU 

treaties are carried out properly. The 25 commissioners are appointed by 

the member states for 5-year terms. Each commissioner holds a distinct 

portfolio, for example, agriculture. The EC represents the EU 

internationally and negotiates with other countries primarily in areas 

falling under pillar one. However, the EC is primarily an administrative 

entity that serves the Council of Ministers.
Appendix VI

The Role of Indicators in the European Union

Page 224 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

The European Parliament consisted of 732 members as of June 2004. 

They are directly elected in each member state for 5-year terms under a 

system of proportional representation based on population. The 

Parliament cannot initiate legislation like national parliaments, but it 

shares “co-decision” power with the Council of Ministers in a number of 

areas and can amend or reject the EU's budget.

The Court of Justice interprets EU law and its rulings are binding. A 

Court of Auditors monitors the EU's financial management. A number of 

other advisory bodies represent economic, social, and regional interests.

The European Central Bank (ECB) was established in 1998, under the 

Treaty on European Union, to introduce and manage the new common 

European currency shared by 12 of the member countries (the euro). The 

ECB is also responsible for framing and implementing the EU’s economic 

and monetary policy.

Evolution of Indicators in 

the European Union 

From the beginning, the European Union and its governing institutions 

have used indicators as the basis for monitoring conditions, tracking 

progress, and making decisions. As the EU has expanded into new areas, 

indicators have played an increasingly important role. Many of the policy 

agreements among member countries are accompanied by agreements to 

develop indicators to measure progress toward achieving the goals and 

objectives to which members have agreed. Because of the limited powers 

of the EU compared to those of the sovereign member countries, and 

because of the great diversity among the member countries, the EU has 

promoted evidence-based decision making and the use of high-quality, 

impartial, and comparable information as a way of enhancing the prospects 

for making progress toward EU-wide goals and objectives. Closely 

monitoring levels of progress and encouraging action toward these goals 

and objectives are important functions of the EC because in most cases it is 

up to individual, sovereign countries to determine how and to what extent 

to pursue them.

Economic indicators serve as the basis for a number of key decisions 

within the EU. In fact, use of some indicators is written into important 

treaties. In one specific example, the Maastricht Treaty laid out criteria to 

determine when countries are ready to adopt the euro—the single 

European currency that 12 members currently use. Among other things, 

the treaty specifies that the annual government deficit of the country, 

defined as the ratio of the annual deficit to gross domestic product, must 
Appendix VI

The Role of Indicators in the European Union

Page 225 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

not exceed 3 percent at the end of the preceding financial year. The treaty 

also stipulates that the country must achieve a high degree of price 

stability. To monitor these treaty-driven criteria, the EU uses sets of key 

indicators. For example, the European Central Bank has worked with the 

EC to develop a harmonized index of consumer prices, a key indicator for 

monetary policy and the monitoring of inflation. The EU has also 

developed a set of euro-indicators to measure economic development in 

member countries.

Eurostat, which is a component of the EC, is the statistical agency of the 

EU. Eurostat does not collect much data on its own—instead it relies on 

data collected by member countries. Accordingly, Eurostat works with the 

national statistical offices of the member countries to obtain the required 

information. Eurostat has worked with member countries to harmonize 

indicator data, improve the quality of indicators, expand coverage for 

acceding countries, conduct methodological work on new indicators, 

maintain databases, and provide technical assistance in the development 

and use of indicators. Because of the great diversity of the member 

countries in a wide variety of areas, including the maturity of their 

statistical systems, the task of obtaining high-quality, comparable, and 

harmonized data for indicator systems has been a major challenge. 

The increasing demands for indicators and data and, in particular, their 

increasing use for monitoring EU policies,called for a more formalized 

structure for European statistics. In 1997, the EU agreed to include an 

article on statistics in the Treaty of Amsterdam. It supplements the 

Statistical Law of 1997, which provides the legal framework for EC 

statistics and sets out the division of tasks between the national statistical 

institutes and Eurostat. The Statistical Law publicly and legally established 

basic principles for compiling and disseminating statistics, in particular 

those of impartiality and independence; and it guarantees confidentiality. 

Development and 

Implementation of the 

European Structural 

Indicators

The development of the comprehensive European Structural Indicators 

system was a major milestone in the evolution of indicators at the EU level. 

It was at a meeting of the European Council in Lisbon, Portugal in 2000 that 

the EU established a strategic goal for the next decade: “ ...becoming the 

most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world 

capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and 

greater social cohesion.” Moreover, the member countries agreed to a 

series of more specific objectives and targets. Their agreements are laid 

out in the Lisbon Strategy. For example, one objective was to raise the 
Appendix VI

The Role of Indicators in the European Union

Page 226 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

employment rate to 70 percent by 2010 and increase the number of women 

in employment to more than 60 percent by 2010. Another less quantitative 

goal was the creation of an information society for all businesses and 

citizens.

The European Council also acknowledged the need for regular discussion 

and assessment of the progress made in achieving the Lisbon Strategy’s 

goal and related objectives on the basis of commonly agreed to European 

Structural Indicators. To this end, it invited the EC to draw up an annual 

synthesis report on progress on the basis of indicators relating to 

employment, innovation, economic reform, and social cohesion. The 

Lisbon Strategy acknowledged the links between the economic and social 

arenas and the necessity for more comprehensive indicators to measure 

progress. In the following year, the Gothenburg European Council added 

the domain of the environment to the areas already covered by the Lisbon 

Strategy and the European Structural Indicators, thereby making it a 

comprehensive strategy cutting across the economic, environmental, and 

social and cultural domains. 

In the months that followed, the EC and the Council implemented a 

structured process for defining, creating, and using the European 

Structural Indicators needed for this policy process. The evolving process 

has proved to be an important vehicle for achieving consensus within the 

EC directorates and among member countries. To identify the indicators 

and develop an indicator system, the EC convened a series of meetings 

through which it established processes that continue to be used to this day. 

Specifically, it established a committee consisting of officials from all 

relevant EC directorates (e.g., research, education and culture, 

environment, and employment and social affairs) whose purpose is to 

discuss which indicators to include and develop a draft slate of indicators. 

The economic and financial affairs directorate coordinates the European 

Structural Indicators selection process. Eurostat participates in this 

committee primarily as a technical advisor. For example, Eurostat staff 

advises on what indicators or data exist and their levels of quality and 

reliability. In some cases, indicators already exist while in others they do 

not. For example, identifying indicators of employment to include in the 

European Structural Indicators was relatively easy because a welldeveloped employment indicator system already existed. In contrast, 

identifying appropriate indicators in the area of science and technology has 

been more challenging. The EU attempts to reach consensus regarding 

indicator selection by applying certain criteria and balancing the number of 

indicators among the various policy goals. As a part of its work to identify 
Appendix VI

The Role of Indicators in the European Union

Page 227 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

appropriate indicators, the EU has adopted a set of criteria for selection of 

the European Structural Indicators. Indicators that are part of the system 

should be mutually consistent; policy relevant, or linked to policy goals 

already established; easy to understand by the target audience; available in 

a timely fashion; available for all or nearly all member states, acceding 

states, and candidate states; comparable among these states as well as to 

external parties, such as the United States; selected from reliable, official 

sources; and does not impose undue data collection burdens on members. 

Once the committee has achieved consensus, the EC forwards a proposal 

to the Council of Ministers, which consists of officials from member 

countries. The Council of Ministers discusses the proposed indicators and 

works with the EC to agree on a final list. Once agreement on the list of 

indicators has been ratified by the Council, a separate EC committee, led 

by Eurostat, works to obtain indicators or data to compute the desired 

indicators. Each year, the EC issues a spring report to the Council that 

discusses the results of the indicators. 

The list of key indicators has been reassessed every year, taking into 

account political priorities as well as progress with regard to development 

of indicators. The initial list of European Structural Indicators adopted in 

2000 for the 2001 spring report contained 35 indicators. For the 2002 

report, the list grew to 42 indicators with 107 subindicators. In the 2003 

report, the list of indicators remained the same, but the coverage was 

extended to include the 10 candidate countries to the extent indicators 

were available. Concerned about the growing list of proposed indicators, 

the EC agreed in 2003 to designate 14 indicators as headline indicators for 

the 2004 report, allowing leaders to focus on the most important measures 

of progress in the Lisbon Strategy. Further, they decided to revise the 

selection of key indicators every 3 years rather than annually, making it 

easier to assess levels of progress over time. The EC continues to collect 

and maintain the larger database of indicators. While the discussion on 

progress made towards the Lisbon objectives in the annual spring report 

focuses on the headline indicators, reference is made to indicators in the 

database when appropriate.

Participants from both the EC and member countries agree that the 

process of collaboration is working well. In fact, the processes and 

practices established for the European Structural Indicators system, such 

as the selection criteria, are increasingly being utilized as a model for other 

EU indicator systems.
Appendix VI

The Role of Indicators in the European Union

Page 228 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Key Themes from the EU 

Experience

Several themes emerge from studying the experience of the EU and its 

governing institutions in developing and implementing indicator systems, 

particularly the European Structural Indicators. This system was started 

for a specific purpose, had a defined target audience in mind, and was 

designed accordingly. The EU’s experience demonstrates the usefulness of 

having transparent, repeatable processes in place for coordinating the 

work of all participants in the selection and revision of the indicator set and 

in the analysis and reporting of results. In addition, the European 

Structural Indicators system is increasingly being used as a best practices 

model for the rest of the EU’s new and existing indicator systems. 

• Identifying specific purposes and target audiences is important. 

The European Structural Indicators system—and nearly all key topical 

area or domain-specific indicator systems— are linked to goals and 

objectives that have been ratified in various treaties or otherwise agreed 

to by member countries. EU officials told us their key indicators 

generally serve to assess progress in meeting these Union-wide goals 

and objectives and then to encourage lower-performing countries to 

take action to better meet them. The EC can issue country-specific 

recommendations and does so regularly if, based on a review of the key 

indicators, it finds a particular country is not making sufficient progress. 

Merely publishing the comparative figures on performance of EU 

member countries helps influence leaders to improve performance. 

Accordingly, indicators have become an effective policy and political 

tool for the EU, and in recent years the use of indicators and the demand 

for data has increased. Moreover, the targeted audience of EU indicator 

systems, including the European Structural Indicators, is fairly narrow. 

EU officials readily acknowledge that the targets of their key indicator 

systems are primarily policymakers in the EU and member countries—

not necessarily the public, advocacy groups, or researchers. For this 

targeted audience, indicators have increased in importance. However, 

other possible user groups may access the information, as it is publicly 

disseminated on the Eurostat Web site 

(http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/).

• Structured and transparent processes are also important. 

Ensuring coordination among diverse stakeholders in selecting 

indicators and assessing progress has been essential to the development 

of the European Structural Indicators and other EU indicator systems as 

well. This structured and transparent process of collaboration provides 

for regular participation of representatives of the EU and member 

countries, and the EC and the Council, including political decision 
Appendix VI

The Role of Indicators in the European Union

Page 229 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

makers and policy and technical experts. To make this all work, EU and 

country officials stressed that the selection of indicators and the 

selection of data to feed into those indicators should be wellcoordinated processes, with indicator decisions left up to elected and 

appointed officials while data selection, collection, and coordination is 

left up to the appropriate experts. In addition, it is important for the 

coordinating mechanism (in this case, the EC directorates) to have 

highly dedicated, intelligent, experienced and collaborative staff with 

substantive knowledge of the subject areas and training in relevant 

disciplines (e.g., statistics, economics, or law). The initiatives to 

develop selection criteria, harmonize data from vastly different 

countries with different statistical systems, and improve the quality of 

available data require a significant investment of time and effort initially, 

but become easier over time. The view from selected member countries 

we interviewed is that these processes work well.

• It serves as a best practices model to assist other efforts. The EU 

is also using the European Structural Indicators to better coordinate 

other indicators efforts, and is trying to make practices designed for this 

system serve as a framework for other efforts to develop indicators of 

progress. Specifically, EU officials are expanding their efforts to 

establish common definitions, data collection standards, quality 

standards, and criteria for selecting indicators—as they have done in the 

development of the European Structural Indicators. In fact, if any 

directorate is proposing to establish new indicators in its particular 

policy domain, it must now submit the indicators for comment among 

other EC directorates. According to EC officials, the European 

Structural Indicators system is an effective model because it is viewed 

as an objective, trustworthy measure of progress. The professional 

work of the EC and member countries has led to significant progress in 

comparing heterogeneous jurisdictions, harmonizing the indicators to 

ensure comparability and quality, moving from a national to a European 

level, dealing with different levels of resources and maturity of 

statistical systems, and balancing national priorities among the member 

countries.
Page 230 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Appendix VII

Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems ApendxiVI

Comprehensive Key 

Indicator Systems

Australian Bureau of Statistics. Measures of Australia’s Progress 2004. 

Canberra: 2004.

Measures of Australia’s Progress uses a discussion of human capital, 

social capital, natural capital, and financial capital indicators to asses 

the extend 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. Creativity and Innovation: A Bridge to the 

Future: Boston Indicators Report 2002. Boston: 2002.

This report provides indicators of civic involvement, the economy, 

education, public health, and other measures of well-being. 

Chicago Metropolis 2020. 2002 Metropolis Index. Chicago: 2002.

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 its status as a globally 

competitive region. 

Committee on Geography, Committee on Identifying Data Needs for PlaceBased Decision Making. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for 

Informed Decision Making. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 

2002.

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.

Conference Board of Canada. Performance and Potential 2003-2004. 

Ottawa: 2004. 

This report identifies issues that need to be address in order to 

maintain and improve Canada’s quality of life.

Global Reporting Initiative. 2002 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. 

Amsterdam: 2003. 

The 2002 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines organizes 

“sustainability reporting” in terms of economic, environmental, and 

social performance (also known as the triple bottom line).
Appendix VII

Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

Page 231 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Jacksonville Community Council, Inc. Quality of Life Progress Report: A 

Guide for Building a Better Community. Jacksonville, Fla.: 2003. 

This report measures progress toward goals cobering 10 quality of life 

topics for the Jacksonville, Florida area.

Maine Economic Growth Council. Measures of Growth 2004. Augusta, 

Maine: 2004. 

Measures of Growth 2004 provides the results of 58 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: Oxford University 

Press, 1999.

The Social Health of the Nation presents a variety of indicators of 

social well-being over several decades.

National Audit Office, United Kingdom. Good Practice in Performance 

Reporting in Executive Agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies. 

London: 2000. 

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. 2002 Report on Social 

Indicators. New York: 2002. 

2002 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. 

Oregon Progress Board. Is Oregon Making Progress? The 2003 

Benchmark Performance Report. Salem, Oregon: 2003. 

Is Oregon Making Progress? is a report on the comprehensive effort to 

describe progress Oregonians have made in achieving their targets for 

90 benchmarks.

President of the Treasury Board of Canada. Canada’s Performance 2003. 

Ottawa: 2003. 

Canada’s Performance 2003 reports on the quality of life for 

Canadians. 
Appendix VII

Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

Page 232 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Southern California Association of Local Governments. State of the Region 

2003: Measuring Progress in the 21st Century. Los Angeles: 2003.

State of the Region 2003 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.

Steering Committee Review of Commonwealth/State Services, Australia. 

Report on Government Services 2004. Canberra: 2004.

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. New York: 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 to (1) halve extreme poverty and hunger, 

(2) achieve universal primary education, (3) empower women an 

promote equality between women and men, (4) reduce under five 

mortality by two-thirds, (5) reduce maternal mortality by threequarters, (6) reverse the spread of diseases especially AIDS/HIV 

malaria, (7) ensure environmental sustainability, and (8) create a global 

partnership for development with targets for aid, trade, and debt relief.

University at Buffalo Institute for Local Governance and Regional Growth. 

State of the Region Progress Report 2002. Buffalo, New York: SUNY 

University at Buffalo Institute for Local Governance and Regional Growth, 

2002.

State of the Region Progress Report 2002 offers a second update of the 

1999 baseline report, with two components—one focused on the datadriven performance measures, the other a second look at the 

opportunities and challenges that will shape Buffalo-Niagara's progress 

into the new century. 
Appendix VII

Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

Page 233 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Topical Area Indicator 

Systems

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, D.C.: National 

Academy Press, 1999.

Leading Indicators for Health 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 Healthy People.

Committee to Evaluate Indicators for Monitoring Aquatic and Terrestrial 

Environment, 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 integration 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.

Council of Economic Advisors, Executive Office of the President. The 

Economic Report of the President. Washington, D.C.: 2004. 

The Economic Report of the President is a discussion of selected 

economic issues prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors and 

tables of economic data.

Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010: 

Understanding and Improving Health. Washington, D.C.: Department of 

Health and Human Services, 2000. 

Healthy People 2010 provides a comprehensive set of disease 

prevention and health promotion objectives for the United States to 

achieve by 2010, with related indicators.

Federal Interagency Forum on Aging Related Statistics. Older Americans 

2000: Key Indicators of Well-being. Washington, D.C.: 2000. 

Older Americans: 2000 contains statistics regarding the population, 

economics, health status, health risks and behaviors, and health care of 

older U.S. Citizens.
Appendix VII

Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

Page 234 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. America’s 

Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being 2003. Washington, D.C.: 

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2003.

American’s Children provides 25 key indicators on the well-being of 

children in the areas of economic security, health, behavior and social 

environment, and education.

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, United Kingdom: 

Cambridge University Press, 2002. 

The State of the Nation’s Ecosystem is a blueprint for periodic 

reporting on the condition and use of ecosystems in the United States.

Kids Count. Kids Count Data Book 2004. Baltimore: Annie Casey 

Foundation, 2004.

Kids Count Data Book 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.

National Research Council. 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. 

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. 

Norwood, Janet and Jamie Casey, eds. Key Transportation Indicators: A 

Summary of a Workshop, Committee on National Statistics, Division of 

Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. 

Washington, D.C.: 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.
Appendix VII

Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

Page 235 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Starke, Linda, ed. State of the World 2004: Richer, Fatter, and Not Much 

Happier. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 2004. 

State of the World 2002 provides information on a variety of issues in 

sustainable development such as climate change, farming, toxic 

chemicals, and other areas.

UNICEF. The State of the World’s Children 2003. New York: 2003. 

The State of the World 2003 contains a comprehensive set of economic 

and social indicators on the well-being of children world wide.

World Health Organization. World Health Report 2002. New York: 2002. 

World Health Report 2002 measure the amount of disease, disability, 

and health that can be attributed to certain risks and calculates how 

much of the burden is preventable.

Background Sources 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 expanding the scope of our national data system.

Caplow, Theodore, Louis Hicks, and Ben J. Wattenberg. The First 

Measured Century. Washington, DC: AEI Press, 2001.

The First Measured Century describes how using statistics to measure 

social conditions gained importance throughout the United States 

between 1900 and 2000.

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Toward a Social Report. 

Washington, D.C.: 1969.

Toward a Social Report discusses how social reporting could improve 

the nation’s ability to chart its social progress and to promote more 

informed policy decisions. 

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.
Appendix VII

Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

Page 236 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

For more background information and materials on indicator systems, see 

http://www.gao.gov/npi/. These materials were assembled in advance of 

the February 27, 2003 forum on Key National Performance Indicators in 

order to both provide background on the subject of national indicators, and 

to provide support for post-Forum efforts.
Page 237 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Appendix VIII

GAO Contact and Contributors ApendxiVI

GAO Contact Christopher Hoenig, Managing Director, Strategic Issues, (202) 512-6779, 

hoenigc@gao.gov

Major Contributors Ann Calvaresi Barr, Acting Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management

Susan Ragland, Assistant Director, Strategic Issues

Tom Yatsco, Senior Analyst-in-Charge, Strategic Issues

Anne Inserra, Senior Analyst, Strategic Issues

Elizabeth Powell, Senior Analyst, Strategic Issues

Bob Yetvin, Senior Analyst, Strategic Issues

Katherine Wulff, Analyst, Strategic Issues

Peter Zwanzig, Analyst, Strategic Issues

Elizabeth Morris, Analyst, Norfolk Field Office

Michael Volpe, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel

Andrea Levine, Senior Attorney, Office of the General Counsel

Other Contributors Robert Parker, Chief Statistician

Allen Lomax, Senior Analyst, Strategic Issues

Bill Trancucci, Senior Analyst, Strategic Issues

Chase Huntley, Senior Analyst, Natural Resources and Environment

Atlanta Field Office Bernice Benta

James Cook

Laura Czohara

Catherine Myrick

Boston Field Office Kate Bittinger

Anne Cangi 

Betty Clark

Melissa Emery-Arras

Josh Habib

Christine Houle

Shirley Hwang 

Denise Hunter

Chris Murray
Appendix VIII

GAO Contact and Contributors

Page 238 GAO-05-1 Informing Our Nation

Nico Sloss

Tatiana Winger

Chicago Field Office Jackie Garza

Libby Halperin

Andrew Nelson

Tarek Mahmassani

Cory Roman

Julianne Stephens

San Francisco Field Office Jeff Arkin

Elizabeth Fan

Jeanine Lavender

Janet Lewis

Mark Metcalfe

Susan Sato

(450228)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

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. Government Accountability 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

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00