Developing Key National Indicators for the United States Is Important

While there are a variety of indicator efforts in the United States, there is no 

generally accepted, comprehensive indicator system for the nation as a whole. 

There was broad agreement that the issue of developing key national indicators 

is important for taking a more comprehensive view of the nation’s position and 

progress, both on an absolute and relative basis. Several models were discussed 

that offer lessons for developing a national indicator system, including indicator 

systems on aging, children, economics, and health. The purpose of 

measurement, the process of deciding what to measure, and determining 

audiences are as critical as choosing what and how to measure. 

A Broad Range of Information Areas Are Considered Significant

The range of information areas considered important was broad, covering the 

economy, society, and the environment. Participants agreed that a first step is to 

assemble “core” indicators from existing data. A straw proposal for such an 

indicator set—USA Series 0.5—was presented as a starting point for building 

what might eventually be a broadly supported USA Series 1.0 indicator set. 

Series 0.5 included 11 key information areas: community, crime, ecology, 

education, governance, health, the macroeconomy, security, social support, 

sustainability, and transparency. In reacting to Series 0.5, participants suggested 

numerous refinements and identified 4 additional information areas: 

communications, diversity, individual values, and socioeconomic mobility. 

A Rich History of Indicator Systems Warrants Collective Research 

There is a long history of efforts throughout the world by leading democracies to 

develop and sustain indicator systems. A distinction was made between 

comprehensive and specialized efforts that focus on a topic or issue. Research 

on what can be learned from past and present systems is essential to deriving 

useful implications for a possible United States system. A multitude of efforts 

are currently under way in other democracies (e.g., Australia and Canada) as 

well as in the United States at the national, regional, state, and local levels. 

Despite this activity, there appear to be few common sources of broad research 

to facilitate knowledge sharing on comprehensive indicator efforts.

A United States Initiative Must Build on Past Lessons and Current Efforts

Developing a U.S. indicator system requires applying lessons from past efforts 

and engaging with many existing ones. A United States system must be flexible 

and evolve to respond to societal change and incorporate diverse perspectives. 

An informal national coordinating committee of institutions in the public and 

private sectors was constituted to begin organizing a U.S. initiative. It serves as 

an initial means to facilitate dialogue, expand participation, plan work and 

secure financing. As of May 7, 2003, the committee included the American 

Association of Universities, The Conference Board, the Council for Excellence in 

Government, GAO, the International City/County Management Association, The 

National Academies, the National Association of Asian American Professionals, 

the Office of Management and Budget and the White House Council on 

Environmental Quality.

HIGHLIGHTS OF A GAO FORUM 

Key National Indicators: 

Assessing the Nation’s 

Position and Progress 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-672SP.

To view the full report, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Christopher 

Hoenig, Director, Strategic Issues, at 

(202) 512-6779 or hoenigc@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-672SP 

May 2003

The nation confronts profound 

challenges resulting from a variety 

of factors, including changing 

security threats, dramatic shifts in 

demographic patterns, the 

multidimensional processes of 

globalization, and the accelerating 

pace of technological change. 

These are all coming together in an 

era of diminishing public 

resources. 

The nation’s leaders and concerned 

citizens require better knowledge 

of what is happening and where we 

are going to support improved 

public choices. The United States 

could potentially benefit from 

developing a set of key national 

indicators to help assess our 

nation’s position and progress. 

 

On February 27, 2003, GAO, in 

cooperation with the National 

Academies, hosted a forum on key 

national indicators. The purpose of 

the forum was to have a rich and 

meaningful dialogue on whether 

and how to develop a set of key 

national indicators for the United 

States. 

The forum brought together a 

diverse group of national leaders to 

discuss the following: 

• How are the world’s leading 

democracies measuring national 

performance? 

• What might the United States do 

to improve its approach and 

why? 

• What are important areas to 

measure in assessing U.S. 

national performance? 

• How might new U.S. approaches 

be led and implemented? 
Page i GAO-03-672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Contents

Letters 1

Comptroller General of the United States Introductory Letter 1

President of the Institute of Medicine, The National Academies

Introductory Letter 4

Forum 6

Background 6

Forum Summary 11

How Are the World’s Leading Democracies Measuring National 

Performance? 14

What Might the United States Do to Improve Its Approach and 

Why? 24

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

Performance? 34

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

Appendixes

Appendix I: Forum Participants 42

Appendix II: Illustrative Indicators by Information Area for USA 

Series 0.5 46

Appendix III: Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems 49

Appendix IV: Selected Web Sites on Indicator Systems 60

Tables Table 1: Illustrative Comprehensive Indicator Systems 16

Table 2: Illustrative Specialized Indicator Systems 17

Table 3: Selected Highlights of Indicator Traditions in the United 

States during the 20th Century 22

Table 4: Structure of USA Series 0.5 30

Table 5: Proposed Evolutionary Process for a National Indicator 

System (Includes Illustrative Information Areas) 39

Figures Figure 1: Life Expectancy at Birth and at Age 65 31

Figure 2: U.S. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Based on Global 

Warming Potential, 1990-2000 (in Million Metric Tons of 

Carbon Equivalent) 32
Contents

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

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. It may contain copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. 

Permission from the copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product.
Page 1 GAO-03-672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Letr

Comptroller General of 

the United States

Introductory Letter

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

cooperation with the National Academies convened the Forum on Key 

National Indicators for the United States. This report summarizes the 

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

We were pleased to have the National Academies as a partner in this event. 

They have demonstrated the ability not only to conduct quality research 

but also to help professional communities reflect on and build consensus 

around the operational definition of indicator sets, in key areas, such as 

communities, ecology, education, health and transportation.

Although the forum took place in Washington, D.C. the event was not 

merely about the federal government or the public sector. It addressed 

issues about indicators for the nation at all levels, from the community to 

the country as a whole. Those who attended came in the spirit of a national 

endeavor that rose above personal, institutional, or sectoral interests.

Because the United States is diverse, so were the participants. Gathered 

together were national leaders and experts who could articulate the 

concerns and perspectives of businesses, government, the media, 

foundations, and nonprofits as well as the scientific, statistical, and 

educational communities—a group representing both the users and 

producers of public information.

Essentially, the broad impetus for the new level of dialogue at the forum 

comes from two sources. First, that more and better public information 

may be needed to effectively resolve current and future national 

challenges. Second, that the laboratories of democracy in our country and 

around the world are engaged in hundreds of efforts to develop indicator 

systems, many of which are comprehensive in nature. It is a logical 

extension to consider a comprehensive indicator system for the United 

States that would help assess the nation’s overall position and progress. 

There is a strong implication here. To be a leading democracy in the 

information age means producing objective, independent, scientifically 

grounded, and widely shared quality information on where we are and 

where we are going, on both an absolute and relative basis, including 

comparisons to other nations. Such information must be useful to the 

public, professionals, and leaders at all levels of our society.
Page 2 GAO-03-672SP Key National Indicators Forum

The founders of our nation knew this critical issue needed ongoing 

attention as it grew and evolved. President George Washington, in his first 

annual message to Congress on January 8, 1790, said, “Knowledge is in 

every country the surest basis of public happiness. In one in which the 

measures of government receive their impressions so immediately from the 

sense of the community as in ours it is proportionably essential.” 

Since that time, there has been a long history—checkered by success and 

failure—of attempts to create sources of information that would inform our 

public dialogues and serve as a context for governance and civic choices. 

Developing a comprehensive, independent, quality resource of key 

indicators for a nation as large, complex, and diverse as the United States is 

a daunting task. If it is to be done, we must work hard and work together 

to avoid the mistakes of the past and take advantage of new opportunities 

that have emerged in the 21st century.

One lesson shows the need for patience, persistence, and attention to 

democratic process. There is an important role for the federal government, 

and in particular the U.S. Congress, to help catalyze an effort to develop 

and sustain a national indicator system. A fully operational set of credible 

measures of our progress and prospects will take years to develop, require 

broad involvement of American society, and involve substantial resource 

commitments. And yet many believe the benefits, in terms of more facts, 

broader consensus, and better choices, will far outweigh the costs.

Our objective in convening the forum was to stimulate a dialogue that 

might encourage a collective commitment from several leading institutions 

to validate the need and begin organizing themselves to take action. While 

this objective has been met, it should be stressed that this forum is merely 

the start of a new stage of our country’s long journey of increasing selfawareness and sense of collective accountability. We are pleased to help 

contribute to this effort and look forward to working with the 

extraordinary group of committed parties and the many who are 
Page 3 GAO-03-672SP Key National Indicators Forum

continually joining the effort to develop options and approaches that will 

be of truly lasting value to the American people.

David M. Walker

Comptroller General

of the United States
Page 4 GAO-03-672SP Key National Indicators Forum

President of the 

Institute of Medicine,

The National 

Academies

Introductory Letter 

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

all who participated in and facilitated this forum. The level of participation 

in this important event speaks volumes about a topic that is critically 

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

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

timely venture.

It is fitting that the National Academies -- the Institute of Medicine, the 

National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering, 

together with our operating arm, the National Research Council – 

cooperated in facilitating this effort. We represent a body that has provided 

advice on scientific issues that affect public policy decisions since 1863. 

Over that long period, the Academies have been able to contribute to public 

discussion and understanding on many issues of national significance. In 

an important way, our collaboration with the General Accounting Office on 

this issue is a continuation of the contribution we seek to make to the 

formulation of sound public decisions based on sound scientific evidence.

This collaboration with GAO on the development of key national 

performance indicators is one of a number of projects we have undertaken 

under an agreement implemented in 2001. We were pleased to have 

initially convened a panel of experts representing various disciplines to 

share experiences and views on the use of indicators, then, when the panel 

suggested this forum, to support GAO in bringing it together. 

I am enthusiastic about the possibilities and the promise of this forum. 

Public policy in many areas, including medicine, is stronger because of the 

existence of indicators of performance. Indicators help our nation focus 

on the key issues confronting us. We can be proud of the tremendous 

efforts that have been made in the scientific community to develop them. 

As those of us in the public and private sectors jointly consider the next 

steps to take, benefiting from this very useful report of the forum prepared 

by GAO, I hope we keep in mind our ultimate objectives. I will be thinking 

about the enlightening discussion of the issues with a question in mind: 
Page 5 GAO-03-672SP Key National Indicators Forum

“WHY DO WE WANT TO KNOW THIS”? This important question gets us 

started and helps us frame all of the other questions we must ponder. 

Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg

President, Institute of Medicine

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

Forum

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

United States government, the nation itself, and its position in the global 

community. Changing security, economic, demographic, technological, and 

other trends have, in some cases, exacerbated economic, social, and 

environmental tensions. These trends have created new challenges and 

opportunities both within the United States and throughout the world. In 

just one example, the United States faces a huge and growing long-range 

fiscal imbalance due primarily to known demographic trends, rising health 

care costs, and other factors. Policymakers must reconcile the gap 

between projected revenues and expenditures in order to exercise 

fiduciary and stewardship responsibilities to the nation.

A large and growing amount of activity is taking place, throughout the 

United States and around the world, to develop comprehensive indicator 

systems to inform the democratic process. New facts, insights, and 

approaches are being developed. Understanding and interpreting these 

efforts is vital to the process of setting direction and measuring progress—

on both an absolute and a relative basis—as a context for governance.

Although other leading democratic nations have developed key national 

indicator systems, the United States has not done so. While there are 

numerous indicator systems that are national in scale, such systems focus 

on specialized or specific topics such as health care or education. The 

question is, should we develop a comprehensive, national system that 

focuses on major elements of society—economical, social, and 

environmental areas?

A set of key national indicators can help to assess the overall position and 

progress of our nation in key areas, frame strategic issues, support public 

choices and enhance accountability. It could help improve evaluations of 

how well the nation is addressing and resolving key issues and concerns. 

National indicators built on the foundation of information from our federal 

statistical system (i.e., official statistics), administrative records, as well as 

a variety of private sources could provide a unique, fact-based assessment 

of the state of the nation.

The dramatic changes, challenges and increasing interdependencies 

affecting the nation demand new and more cross-sector and cross-border 

responses. Such responses could benefit from more integrated information 

resources to support informed public debate and decisions within and 

among different levels of government and society. For example, in 
Forum

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

homeland security, what indicators will accurately reflect national 

preparedness? In health care, how will we assess the health and well-being 

of our population? How can we best measure success in education? Is the 

most useful information available to fully assess our degree of economic 

and social progress? Are we in fact moving ahead and in the right direction 

in key areas? How do we compare to other nations? The stakes are high, 

including considerations regarding scarce public resources, creating jobs, 

stimulating future industries, maintaining global competitive edge, 

enhancing security, sustaining the environment, and promoting quality of 

life.

Developing a key national indicator system goes beyond any one sector 

(i.e., public, private, or nonprofit). It requires designing and executing a 

process whereby the diverse elements of society can participate in 

formulating key questions and choosing indicators in a way that increases 

consensus on the facts over time. It also involves complex issues ranging 

from fostering agreement on specific indicators to choosing the 

mechanisms for sharing reliable information used in public planning, 

decision making and accountability. Furthermore, indicators in the 

national system should be outcome-oriented, in addition to measuring 

resources and capabilities. They should measure position and progress on 

not only an absolute but also a relative basis, including comparing the 

United States to other nations. They should not be seen as being the 

nation’s goals or priorities, but rather a more sophisticated base of facts 

with which to make more informed decisions.

To discuss the issues involved in developing a set of key indicators to be 

included in a national system for the United States, GAO, in cooperation 

with the National Academies, convened the Forum on Key National 

Indicators on February 27, 2003, in Washington, D.C. The forum was an 

attempt to bring more valuable facts to bear on decision making by the 

public and its leaders. The forum was not intended to decide issues, set 

priorities, or determine resource allocations—which are the province of 

the nation’s duly chosen representatives.

The purpose of the forum was to have a rich and meaningful discussion on 

whether and how to develop a key national indicator system for the United 

States by focusing on four key questions:

• How are the world’s leading democracies measuring national 

performance?
Forum

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

• What might the United States do to improve its approach and why?

• What are important areas to measure in assessing U.S. national 

performance?

• How might new U.S. approaches be led and implemented?

GAO and the National Academies designed this venture to bring together a 

multidisciplinary, multisector group of producers and users of public 

information with a wide variety of perspectives. The invited participants 

were national leaders and experts from the business, education, 

foundation, government, labor, media, minority, scientific, and statistics 

communities. Invitations were also extended to chairmen and ranking 

minority members of relevant congressional committees. (See app. I for a 

list of participants.) Comptroller General David M. Walker comoderated 

the forum with the Honorable Thomas Sawyer, former Congressman from 

Ohio.1

As agreed by the participants, the purpose of the discussion was to engage 

in an open, not for attribution dialogue. However, one participant is 

identified in the report because this individual provided a presentation that 

was critical to the forum’s discussion. Other than this one individual, this 

report summarizes the collective discussion and does not necessarily 

represent the views of any individual participant, GAO,or the National 

Academies.

1

 Mr. Sawyer served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1987 to 2002 and chaired the 

Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, and Postal Personnel, Committee on Post Office and 

Civil Service, in the 101st, 102nd, and 103rd Congresses. Prior to his congressional service, 

Mr. Sawyer served as Mayor of the City of Akron, Ohio, and as a Representative in the Ohio 

House of Representatives.
Forum

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

In addition to summarizing the forum participants’ collective discussion, 

this report highlights the research conducted in preparation for the forum 

and follow-on discussions with participants. Developing and preparing for 

the forum was an intensive 6-month effort. GAO staff, led by Christopher 

Hoenig, Director, Strategic Issues, researched indicator systems, 

conducted a series of interviews with producers and users of information, 

and wrote background papers on the history and state of the practice of 

indicator systems. A preparatory planning meeting and subsequent 

conversations were held with representatives of the National Academies to 

help frame the questions and objectives of the forum. Experts identified by 

the National Academies also prepared background papers for the forum. 

Also, GAO, in cooperation with the National Academies, commissioned Dr. 

Martha Farnsworth Riche2

 to independently develop a straw proposal of a 

key national indicator system to facilitate discussion among the forum’s 

participants. A selected bibliography on indicator systems is included in 

appendix III, and selected Web sites on indicator systems are included in 

appendix IV of this report. 

Limitations and 

Qualifications Concerning 

the Forum 

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

context of five key limitations and qualifications.

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

effort to develop and sustain a key national indicator system. Its purpose 

was to begin a dialogue on an extremely complex topic. Although many 

leaders, institutions and points of view were represented, many more will 

need to be involved—as follow-up efforts proceed—to start representing 

the extraordinary diversity of knowledge and opinion in our nation. This is 

especially true when it comes to choosing aspects of U.S. society for which 

it is important to develop indicators. Additionally, the involvement of the 

federal government, and particularly Congress, will be crucial.

Second, even though GAO, in cooperation with the National Academies, 

conducted preliminary research and heard from national experts in their 

fields, a day’s conversation cannot represent the current state of the 

practice in this vast arena. More thought, discussion, and research must be 

2

 Dr. Riche served as Director of the U.S. Census Bureau from 1994 to 1998. Prior to being 

appointed Director, she was a founding editor of American Demographics, Director of 

Policy Studies for the Population Reference Bureau, and an economist with the U.S. Bureau 

of Labor Statistics. Dr. Riche is currently a Principal with Farnsworth Riche Associates.
Forum

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

done to develop greater agreement on what we really know, what needs to 

be done, and how to do it.

Third, several presentations were made regarding (1) the lessons learned 

from other indicator efforts, (2) a proposal for a draft version of an 

indicator system for the United States, and (3) a potential organizational 

model in the areas of children and aging that could be replicated in other 

topical areas (e.g., public safety and governance). These presentations 

represented individual opinions, not a broad consensus or any formal 

endorsement by the cosponsoring or participating institutions. More 

collaborative work must be done to move from these starting points toward 

more definitive accomplishments.

Fourth, any key national indicator system that would be developed as a 

result of follow-on efforts to the forum would, of necessity, build on the 

vast amount of current information already available, from the federal 

statistical system, the nonprofit and commercial sectors, and the many 

efforts currently operating below the national level. Many state, regional, 

and local governments and nonprofits working either in partnership or 

alone have developed and are using indicator systems. Yet at the same 

time, working on existing data alone would limit the opportunity to raise 

new questions and issues and develop new information sources.

Fifth, because of the extraordinary diversity and quality efforts in 

specialized or topical information areas (e.g., education and health care) 

throughout the United States, this forum generally concentrated on 

bringing together generalists who could help think through how to organize 

a more comprehensive approach. As a result, a large number of leading 

edge individuals, institutions, and networks involved in specialized efforts 

could not be included for reasons of scope. This is an important limitation 

of the forum. Any successful effort to develop a national system must find a 

process and structure for including both specialized and comprehensive 

approaches. It must also build on and aid current efforts as well as 

developing new lines of effort. This has yet to be done and will require 

broad involvement of those specialized organizations that recognize the 

potential for mutual gain in such an effort.
Forum

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

Forum Summary The five key limitations and qualifications described earlier provide 

contextual boundaries. Nevertheless, the forum provided a rich dialogue on 

indicator systems and participants produced strong messages on each of 

the four questions. Those messages are highlighted below.

Developing Key National 

Indicators for the United 

States is Important

While there is no generally accepted comprehensive, integrated indicator 

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

United States. However, these indicator systems either focus on 

specialized or topical areas, such as health or education, or focus on a 

regional, state, or community level. There was broad agreement among the 

forum’s participants that the issue of developing a key national indicator 

system is important but that further work needs to be done on what needs 

to change and why.

• A straw proposal for a comprehensive indicator set—called USA Series 

0.5—was presented at the forum, and participants acknowledged it to be 

a good starting point for building what might eventually be a broadly 

supported USA Series 1.0 indicator set.

• Several possible models were discussed that could offer useful lessons 

for developing a national indicator system—including the leading 

economic indicators as well as indicator systems on health, children, 

and aging.

• A broad range of issues were discussed that would need to be addressed 

to develop a useful key indicator system—including the need to define 

purpose and audience; the need for public outreach, sophisticated 

communications, and technology; and the importance of data 

availability and quality.

A Broad Range of 

Information Areas Are 

Considered Significant

While the range of information areas that participants considered 

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

that an expedient first step is to try and assemble a set of “core” indicators 

from existing data to include within a national system. However, there was 

also significant enthusiasm about: (1) refining information areas included 

in the straw proposal and (2) identifying additional information areas. The 

term “information area” refers to a body of knowledge including existing 

data, questions, and ongoing research—that is meaningful in understanding 

U.S. society.
Forum

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

• A core group of information areas that could serve as a starting point for 

an evolving system—USA Series 0.5—was discussed. Independently 

developed by Dr. Riche, USA Series 0.5 included 11 information areas: 

community, crime, ecology, education, governance, health, the 

macroeconomy, security, social support, sustainability, and 

transparency. 

• To move to a USA Series 1.0, participants identified refinements to a 

majority of the USA Series 0.5 information areas. For example, 

participants thought the governance information area needed to include 

indicators on civic engagement. They also proposed the addition of 4 

information areas: communications, diversity, individual values, and 

socioeconomic mobility. However, this list of information areas was not 

considered exhaustive since it was a first attempt to identify specific 

information areas to be included in a national indicator system. 

A Rich History of Indicator 

Systems Warrants Collective 

Research 

There is a long history of efforts around the world by leading democracies 

to develop and sustain indicator systems. However, no generally accepted, 

comprehensive approach yet exists in a society as large and diversified in 

its system of governance as the United States. Research on what can be 

learned from past and present systems would be essential to deriving 

useful implications for a possible United States system.

• A multitude of specialized and comprehensive efforts are ongoing in the 

United States at the national, regional, state, and local levels as well as 

in other democracies—such as Australia and Canada. For example, 

within the United States, there is an indicator system to nationally 

assess the well-being of children and the Federal Interagency Forum on 

Child and Family Statistics annually reports on the data from this 

system.

• Despite the activity, there appear to be few common sources of 

comprehensive research or communities of practice, either nationally or 

globally, to facilitate knowledge sharing. Furthermore, there are 

limitations in inferring lessons from countries of different size, diversity, 

and political-economic structures than the United States.

• However, some lessons have already been learned. Clearly the purpose 

of measurement, the process of deciding what to measure, and 

determining who will truly benefit from the data are as critical as what 

to measure and how to define specific indicators and technical methods.
Forum

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

A United States Initiative 

Must Build on Past Lessons 

and Current Efforts 

Participants agreed that developing a key national indicator system would 

require a combination of applying the essential lessons from past efforts 

and determining how to engage constructively with the many efforts 

currently under way.

• Any United States system must be flexible and evolve to allow for the 

rapid rate of change in our society, the complexity of the endeavor, and 

the wide variety of perspectives that will need to be reflected.

• An effort to develop a key national indicator system must not supplant 

nor compete with the many existing efforts under way in the areas 

identified by participants but should build on them.

• A comprehensive system for the United States must be appropriately 

focused, have a definable audience, be independent, pay attention to 

quality issues, and be adequately funded both in terms of its 

development and sustainability.

• After the forum, an informal national coordinating committee of public 

and private sector institutions was constituted to begin organizing a 

national initiative and serve as the temporary means of facilitating 

dialogue, work and financing. Because this effort is in its early stages, 

the following list should not be misinterpreted as being complete or 

exclusive. It simply shows the institutions that, to date, have 

volunteered: the American Association of Universities (AAU), The 

Conference Board, the Council for Excellence in Government, GAO, the 

International City/County Management Association (ICMA), The 

National Academies, the National Association of Asian American 

Professionals, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the 

White House Council on Environmental Quality. The committee’s first 

meeting will take place in the spring of 2003 in Washington, D.C.
Forum

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

How Are the World’s 

Leading Democracies 

Measuring National 

Performance? 

Because of the broad scope of this question, most of the material in this 

section represents preparatory research that was provided to participants 

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

was presented briefly at the beginning of the forum.

Many leading democracies around the world as well as major international 

institutions are involved in efforts to develop specialized and 

comprehensive indicator systems of societal performance. Specialized 

indicator systems focus on specific topics or information areas, such as 

health, education, or children while comprehensive indicator systems 

focus on several information areas, generally within the broader categories 

of economic, social, and environmental arenas. Additionally, a multitude of 

both specialized and comprehensive indicator systems are going on in the 

United States at the local, state, regional, and national levels. Some of 

these systems have been in place for decades and some have emerged in 

only the last few years.

Some involved in these systems attribute the level of activity to the 

enabling possibilities created by data integration and presentation 

technologies (e.g., the World Wide Web). Others mention the increasing 

demand for cross-sector, cross-border responses to fiscal and other 

challenges that require new, integrated sources of data as well as new types 

of information. There appear to be few common sources of broad research 

on comprehensive systems (either on a national or global level) in a 

position to facilitate knowledge sharing. In contrast, there are numerous 

communities of practice dedicated to individual specialized systems.

Forum discussion of indicator systems by other countries and the United 

States focused on the state of the practice of current indicator systems, 

observations on indicator systems, and past efforts in the United States to 

develop national indicator systems.

State of the Practice of 

Current Indicator Systems

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

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

systems representing a wide range of maturities from formative to 

advanced. These systems also vary in the number of indicators, ranging 

from 19 to over 400. 

Several democracies, such as Canada and Australia, use comprehensive 

indicator systems and focus on information areas such as economic 
Forum

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

opportunities and innovation, the strength and safety of communities, 

national wealth, and national income. Within these information areas are 

indicators ranging from real national net wealth per capita and real 

disposable income per capita to life expectancy at birth and literacy.

Several states and communities within the United States, such as the State 

of Minnesota and the metropolitan area of Boston, also use comprehensive 

indicator systems. These indicator systems focus on information areas 

such as public safety, housing, and community and democracy and include 

indicators ranging from growth in gross state product and unemployment 

rate to volunteer time and prenatal care.

Comprehensive indicator systems have two primary characteristics. One 

characteristic is creating an overall picture of how a community (or region, 

nation, etc.) is doing. The second characteristic is showing the 

interconnectedness of various key information areas, such as the 

interrelationship between economic development and environmental 

impact. Through both these characteristics, a comprehensive indicator 

system allows for a deeper understanding of what is really happening in a 

society and significantly broadens the availability of that knowledge. 

Different entities take an individualized approach to grouping together key 

specialized information areas. For example, Australia’s system includes 

biodiversity, crime, economic disadvantage and inequality, education and 

training, health, land, national income, national wealth, social attachment, 

water, and work.

Table 1 provides details on several illustrative examples of comprehensive 

indicator systems regarding who reports the data, sources of the data, their 

purpose, the first year a system’s data were reported, and frequency of 

reporting updates. The table also identifies the scale of the system (i.e., 

national, regional, or local) that refers to the primary focus of the 

information being reported. However, larger scale efforts (e.g., national) 

can in some cases be cumulative, including state and/or local data.
Forum

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

Table 1: Illustrative Comprehensive Indicator Systems

Source: GAO.

a

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

b

Updated in 1993, 1996, 1998, and 2002.

c

The Oregon Progress Board was created by the legislature in 1989 to develop and implement a state 

strategic plan.

Indicator system Reported by Data sources Scale Purpose

Year report 

first issued

Frequency of 

report updates

Canada’s 

Performance 2002

Treasury Board 

of Canada

Canadian 

government 

agencies and the 

Organisation for 

Economic Cooperation and 

Development

National To provide information 

on trends in well-being 

and to make 

comparisons 

internationally.

1994 Yearly

Measuring 

Australia’s Progress 

2002

Australian 

Bureau of 

Statistics

Australian 

government 

agencies

National To provide information 

on national progress in 

economic, social, and 

environmental areas.

2002 Annual updates 

planned

Minnesota 

Milestones 2002

Minnesota 

Planninga

Federal agencies, 

Minnesota state 

agencies, and 

universities

State To assess progress 

toward achieving 19 

state goals in four 

areas: increasing the 

health and well-being 

of Minnesotans, 

enhancing community 

and democracy in the 

state, protecting the 

environment, and 

improving 

government.

1991 Periodicallyb

Achieving the 

Oregon Shines 

Vision: The 2001 

Benchmark 

Performance 

Report

Oregon 

Progress 

Boardc

Federal agencies 

and Oregon state 

agencies

State To provide information 

on the economic, 

social, and 

environmental health 

of the state in relation 

to its goals.

1989 Biennially

The Wisdom of Our 

Choices: Boston’s 

Indicators of 

Progress, Change 

and Sustainability 

2000

The Boston 

Foundation

Federal agencies, 

Massachusetts 

state agencies, 

Boston city 

agencies, 

universities, and 

community-based 

organizations

Local To provide information 

on the health and wellbeing of Boston, its 

neighborhoods, and 

the region as a whole.

2000 Biennially
Forum

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

Specialized indicator systems focus on specific subjects or topical areas, 

such as health status, the environment, the status of children, and aging on 

multinational, national, or local scales. Table 2 provides details on several 

illustrative examples of specialized indicator systems.

Table 2: Illustrative Specialized Indicator Systems

Source: GAO

a

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

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

National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives.

Indicator system Reported by Data sources Scale Purpose

Year report 

first issued

Frequency of 

report updates

America’s 

Children: Key 

National Indicators 

of Well-Being 2002

Federal Interagency 

Forum on Child and 

Family Statistics

Federal agencies National To provide 

information on the 

well-being of 

children.

1997 Annually

Healthy People 

2010

Department of 

Health and Human 

Services 

Federal agencies National To provide indicators 

of progress on a 

variety of health 

policy objectives.

1979 Once a decadea

Kids Count 2002 

Data Book

The Annie E. Casey 

Foundation

Federal agencies National To track the wellbeing of youth.1990 Annually

Older Americans 

2000: Key 

Indicators of WellBeing

Federal Interagency 

Forum on Aging 

Related Statistics

Federal agencies National To track the health 

and well-being of 

Americans aged 65 

and over.

2000 Every 3 to 5 

years

The State of the 

Nation’s 

Ecosystems: 

Measuring the 

Lands, Waters, and 

Living Resources 

of the United 

States

The H. John Heinz 

III Center for 

Science, Economics 

and the 

Environment

Federal and state 

agencies, private 

organizations, and 

universities

National To provide 

information on the 

state of the 

ecosystems of the 

United States.

2002 Annually; next 

full addition in 

2007

The State of the 

World’s Children 

2003

UNICEF United Nations’ 

agencies, national 

governments, and 

the World Bank

Multinational To present 

information on the 

economic and social 

well-being of children 

worldwide.

1980 Annually

The World Health 

Report 2002

World Health 

Organization

United Nations’ 

agencies, national 

governments, and 

the Organisation 

for Economic Cooperation and 

Development 

Statistics

Multinational To measure the 

amount of disease, 

disability, and health 

that can be attributed 

to certain risks and to 

calculate how much 

of the burden is 

preventable.

1995 Annually
Forum

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

Regardless of whether they are comprehensive or specialized, indicator 

systems vary in terms of data sources and organizations that report on 

these systems. As shown in tables 1 and 2, indicator systems can include 

data from a variety of sources such as the federal government, local 

government, and nongovernmental organizations. For example, Minnesota 

Milestones3

 uses data from three primary sources: federal agencies, such 

as the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the U.S. Energy Information 

Administration; state agencies such as Minnesota’s departments of 

Revenue and Children, Families and Learning; and educational institutions, 

such as the University of Minnesota.

Information on some systems are reported through government agencies, 

others through private organizations, and some use a combination of both. 

America’s Children4

 and Measuring Australia’s Progress5 were both 

produced by government agencies. A private foundation with the extensive 

participation of government agencies produced The State of the Nation’s 

Ecosystems6

 while another private foundation produced Kids Count.

7

 A 

private foundation, the city of Boston, and the Metropolitan Planning 

Council jointly produced The Wisdom of Our Choices.8

 Healthy People 

20109 was produced through a public-private partnership between federal 

3

 Minnesota Planning, Minnesota Milestones 2002 (St. Paul, Minn.: Minnesota Planning, 

2002). http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/mm/index.html (downloaded Jan. 2003).

4

 Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, America’s Children: Key 

National Indicators of Well-Being 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 

2002). http://childstats.gov (downloaded Jan. 2003).

5

 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Measuring Australia’s Progress 2002: Indicators of 

Australia’s Progress

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/b66ebefc05

cdf265ca256bdc001223ec!OpenDocument (downloaded Jan. 2003).

6 The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems: Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living 

Resources of the United States (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2002). 

http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems/index.htm (downloaded Jan. 2003).

7

 Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count Data Book 2002 (Baltimore, Md.: 2002). 

http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/kc2002/ (downloaded Jan. 2002).

8

 The Boston Foundation, The Wisdom of Our Choices: Boston’s Indicators of Progress, 

Change and Sustainability 2000, http://www.tbf.org/boston/index.html (downloaded Feb. 

2003).

9 Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services: 2000), http://www.healthypeople.gov/

(downloaded Dec. 2002).
Forum

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

agencies, local communities, and professional and trade associations from 

the health care field.

One characteristic that many indicator systems share is that collaboration 

among various groups was important to their creation. Sometimes the 

cooperation was across government agencies and sometimes among 

nongovernmental organizations and government agencies. For example, 

Older Americans 200010 was produced by a coalition of nine federal 

agencies11 and supplemented by substantial contributions from three other 

federal agencies.12 Also, The Wisdom of Our Choices is another example of 

collaboration among various organizations. This indicator system is 

maintained and reported on by the Boston Foundation, the City of Boston, 

and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council with the assistance of local 

businesses, educational institutions, and community-based organizations.

Observations on Indicator 

Systems

Four primary observations on indicator systems emerged based on forum 

discussions and related research. The first observation concerns the 

purposes of indicator systems. Generally, there are, at a minimum, three 

broad purposes for indicator systems that are not mutually exclusive. 

These three purposes are as follows:

• Accelerate learning: This type of indicator system contributes to 

scientific understanding as well as enhances the awareness, insight, and 

foresight provided to leadership and the public.

• Assess position and progress: This type of indicator system involves a 

broad, constituent-focused aim and requires a generally accepted 

10 Federal Interagency Forum on Aging Related Statistics, Older Americans 2000: Key 

Indicators of Well Being (Washington, D.C.: 2000),

http://www.agingstats.gov/chartbook2000/default.htm (downloaded Jan. 2003).

11 These nine agencies are the Administration on Aging, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 

U.S. Bureau of the Census, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, the Health Care Financing Administration, 

the National Center for Health Statistics, the National Institute on Aging, OMB, and the 

Social Security Administration. 

12 The three agencies are the Department of Agriculture’s Center for Nutrition Policy and 

Promotion, the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the Department of 

Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 
Forum

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

common vision and comprehensive framework that helps uncover 

especially challenging problems and beneficial opportunities.

• Measure performance: This type of indicator system is specifically 

intended to determine to what degree institutions or projects are 

successful and are producing appropriate benefits for the resources 

they use.

The second observation was that, at the national level, social and 

environmental indicators have not received as much attention as other 

types of indicators. Specifically, traditional economic and business 

indicators have dominated indicator efforts. As an example, while there is 

a monthly report on economic indicators and estimates of Gross Domestic 

Product are released quarterly, reports on indicators of important social 

topics, such as teenage depression and suicides, are relatively more scarce 

and less frequent. Additionally, economic indicators give a limited view of 

how the country is doing. For instance, Gross Domestic Product, one 

traditional economic indicator, does not capture broad quality of life issues.

The third observation was that many indicator systems focus mainly on 

objective measures as opposed to indicators that reflect the subjective 

perceptions of the public. For example, 29 of the 307 indicators included in 

France’s indicator report appear to be subjective measures. The United 

Kingdom’s indicator report has over 100 indicators, 3 of which are 

subjective measures. While both types of measures are derived using 

scientific methods, indicators that reflect subjective perceptions are 

viewed as important to include along with objective measures to provide an 

evaluation of the state of a city or a nation that takes account of diverse 

public points of view.

The fourth observation was that criteria have been developed to help frame 

the design of national indicator systems. Specifically, several countries 

followed the so-called “Bellagio Principles” in developing their overall 

indicator systems.13 These 10 principles are that assessment of progress 

(1) are guided by a clear vision and goals, (2) review the whole system as 

well as its parts and recognition of the interaction among the parts, 

13 These principles were developed as guidelines for the whole process—choice and design 

of indicators, their interpretation, and communication of results—to measure and assess 

progress toward sustainable development. They were developed in 1996 at an international 

meeting of measurement practitioners and researchers at the Rockefeller Foundation’s 

Study and Conference Center in Bellagio, Italy. 
Forum

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

(3) consider equity and disparity within the current population and over 

generations, (4) have adequate scope, (5) have practical focus, (6) involves 

openness, (7) have effective communication, (8) involve broad 

participation, (9) be an ongoing assessment, and (10) provide institutional 

capacity.

The Development of 

Indicators in the United 

States 

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

over the last 75 years has followed three fairly discrete trajectories 

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

facing the nation provided the impetus for each of these trajectories and 

led to three indicator traditions.

• The Great Depression and World War II put a host of economic 

indicators in wide currency.

• The Great Society and civil rights movements enhanced efforts to 

fashion a wider body of social indicators.

• The emergence of the environmental movement brought indicators to 

measure air and water quality.

Solely for the purpose of illustration, table 3 selectively identifies highlights 

of these three indicator traditions during the 20th century. It is worth 

pointing out that the inherent strength of the current United States system 

is its diversity and flexibility. There are numerous specialized and 

comprehensive indicator systems, driven by either executive or grassroots 

leadership, in the public and private sectors that have shaped the variety of 

available information in our society. This table is not exhaustive, nor can it 

do justice to the diversity of those efforts. However, these highlights do 

demonstrate three—among possible others—recognizable traditions in the 

development of the United States’ indicator systems.
Forum

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

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

Source: GAO.

a

Pub. L. 79-304, Feb. 20, 1946.

b

The Children’s Bureau, created in 1912, is now located within the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and 

Families. It is responsible for assisting states in delivering child welfare services.

c

U.S. Department of Labor, Children’s Bureau, Handbook of Federal Statistics of Children 

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

Tradition Illustrative examples

Economic indicators National Income and Product Accounts were initially formulated to account for flow of commodities and 

services during World War II. They provide a base for key economic indicators such as Gross Domestic 

Product.

Business Cycle Indicators, created in the 1930s by the National Bureau of Economic Research, have been 

compiled by the Conference Board since 1995. The Conference Board determines the specific data series 

included in the composite leading, coincident, and lagging indicators such as stock prices, employment, 

and change in consumer prices for services, respectively. 

The Employment Act of 1946a

 committed the federal government to the goals of full employment and 

economic stability. The act created the Council of Economic Advisors that, in 1947, released the first 

Economic Report to the President. 

Social indicators The U.S. Department of Labor, Children’s Bureau’sb

 Handbook of Federal Statistics of Children,c published 

in 1913, attempted to bring together “scattered” federal data and other information on children’s welfare. 

The Handbook was an early effort to develop indicators for consistent monitoring of children and health. 

A proposed bill called the Full Opportunity and Social Accounting Actd

 was first introduced in 1967. 

Although, the bill was never passed, it called for an annual social report from the President to the Congress 

and helped focus a national dialogue on social indicators.

The Department of Health, Education and Welfare published a report, in 1969, on social indicators called 

Toward a Social Report.e

 The report was prepared at the direction of President Johnson who sought “ways 

to improve the nation’s ability to chart its social progress.” In 1973, the federal statistical agencies 

published a report on social indicators. Subsequent reports on social indicators were published in 1976 

and 1980.

Environmental indicators The National Environmental Policy Actf

 (NEPA) was signed into law on January 1, 1970, and required 

federal agencies to assess the impacts of their decisions on the natural environment. While NEPA did not 

establish any specific indicators, it does require that federal agencies assess the environmental effects of 

major federal actions significantly affecting the environment. NEPA also established the Council on 

Environmental Quality to advise the President on environmental matters and to annually report on the 

state of the environment. 

During the same year, the Environmental Protection Agency—an independent agency to establish and 

enforce federal air standards and water pollution control laws and to monitor the environment—was 

created. The Clean Air Act of 1970g

 was passed that year as well. These initiatives focused national 

attention on indicators of environmental quality.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973h

 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. 
Forum

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

d

90th Congress, S.843.

e

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, 1969). 

f

42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 – 4347.

g

42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 – 7671q.

h

16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 – 1544.

While much of the development of national indicators in the United States 

has focused on specific economic, social, or environmental concerns, the 

importance of interrelationships among these dimensions is growing. For 

example, economists are working to develop new measures of economic 

performance that take into account various social and environmental costs. 

While initial interest in social indicators began as a challenge to the 

centrality of economic indicators in policy discussions, the focus of the 

social indicator tradition expanded through the development of 

frameworks to integrate economic as well as social indicators. Striving to 

understand the impact of human society on the environment involves 

focusing on the interrelationships among economic, social, and 

environmental processes.
Forum

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

What Might the United 

States Do to Improve 

Its Approach and Why?

After reviewing research on how the world’s democracies are tackling 

indicator development, the bulk of the forum’s discussion turned to 

implications and issues for the United States.

The participants generally agreed that an improved, more comprehensive 

approach to assessing the nation’s position and progress should be 

developed. They noted that such an approach should cover a wide variety 

of information areas—ranging from the macroeconomy and social support 

to education and health. In addition to identifying a variety of ideas for 

improving the nation’s approach, the Federal Interagency Forum on Child 

and Family Statistics was discussed as a potential process/structure model 

to emulate. A straw proposal of a indicator system for the United States 

was presented, leading to much fruitful dialogue on what can be done with 

existing data (e.g., on economics and children) as well as what should be 

done to develop new information in important, but neglected areas (e.g., 

personal and national security and socioeconomic mobility).

Ideas to Improve the United 

States’ Approach

The participants agreed that a more comprehensive system for measuring 

national performance could be beneficial. They also recognized that the 

process of generating indicators for a national system is as important as the 

specific indicators that would be identified and measured as a result of the 

process. Hence, the process should be as inclusive as possible, and this 

inclusiveness should show itself from the very beginning of any effort. For 

example, state and local governments should have significant roles and 

responsibilities in helping to develop and implement national indicators, in 

part because the federal government has devolved responsibilities for 

many social issues to state and local governments.

Several additional ideas for improving the United States’ approach to 

measuring national progress were raised by participants. These ideas fell 

into four broad categories: (1) key questions for framing the agenda for a 

new system, (2) public outreach, (3) communication and dissemination, 

and (4) key data issues.

Key questions for the future agenda: Participants proposed a variety of 

questions to help frame an agenda for the possible development of a key 

national indicator system for the United States. These questions included 

the following:
Forum

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

• What is the purpose and value of the national indicator system to be 

developed? In particular, what do we need to do differently, why, and 

what net risk-adjusted benefits might the system achieve?

• Who are the audiences (e.g., general public, educators, policymakers, 

and professionals), and how will they benefit?

• What would a broadly accessible and useful collection of key national 

indicators look like?

• How would the indicator system be designed, developed, implemented, 

operated, used, improved, and communicated? In particular, how will 

the need to build short-term momentum be balanced against the need 

for longer-term persistence and perspective on the initiative?

• What data exist to serve as a foundation for a national effort? Are there 

important data gaps, and what is the quality of the available data?

• What is an appropriate standard for progress, and what are the potential 

unintended consequences or behavior changes from efforts to 

demonstrate progress?

• What is the response system and how does it work when an indicator 

increases or decreases? Is there a response system in place to make use 

of national indicators in everyday life?

• What are the experiences of other countries regarding unintended 

consequences of meeting performance measures?

• Are there examples of how national indicators have been used to inform 

decision making?

• How much time and how many resources will a national effort require? 

How will those resources be allocated to alternative uses, such as 

making existing indicators more widely available and usable by broader 

audiences versus building existing institutional capacity to produce 

more and better indicators?

• Do the nation’s leading institutions (e.g., governmental, commercial, and 

nonprofit organizations) have the capacity to carry out this effort?
Forum

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

Public outreach: Developing an indicator system requires extensive 

outreach to targeted audiences. Such audiences could include some or all 

of the following: the general public, public leaders, the media, educational 

institutions, scientific and professional communities, and public interest 

groups. To be useful, indicators must have consistent form and be clear, 

easy to digest, user-friendly, and timely. The data also need to be provided 

in the appropriate context rather than merely presented in freestanding 

charts or tables. And there must be extensive attention paid to the 

processes, not only of audience understanding but assent to the 

importance of the information areas and indicators eventually chosen.

Communication and dissemination: Communicating and disseminating 

information is essential to sustaining interest in any indicator system. 

However, this can involve significant time and resources. The media will 

play a key role in communication and dissemination. A carefully thought 

out approach to working with the media will be essential for any degree of 

success. Some organizations, such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation, 

commit significant financial resources to communicating and marketing 

indicator information. Another issue raised was a strategic question of 

how the “marginal dollar” of a key indicator effort should really be spent. 

For instance, in some cases it may be more valuable to communicate 

existing information for broader impact than to develop new sources of 

information.

Key data issues: The federal statistical system and federal programs 

produce much data, and they are relied on by the nation. The data are 

widely accepted because they are “official.” The data are produced using 

generally accepted practices and principles and are based on sound 

statistical methodologies for the purposes for which the data were 

produced. There is also a substantial amount of data produced by the 

private sector, of which an important component is viewed as proprietary, 

not public. Hence, two key data issues are quality and availability. In terms 

of quality, since there is a known quality of official statistics and sometimes 

an unknown quality of private statistics, how can this variation in 

knowledge of data quality be addressed so both can be used for a national 

indicator system? In terms of availability, if certain proprietary information 

were essential for assessing the position and progress of the nation, how 

would those data be made more widely available? There needs to be a 

collective effort to address both of these data issues if a national indicator 

system is to be successful.
Forum

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

A Process/Structure Model 

for Developing a National 

Indicator System

Several existing models could be used as reference points for designing a 

United States indicator system. Two current examples cited were the 

federal interagency forums on (1) child and family statistics and (2) agingrelated statistics. A more detailed discussion centered on the Federal 

Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. This was presented as 

an example from the United States’ federal statistical system of a process 

and organizational structure for developing indicators within a specialized 

area. It should be noted that, at this stage, little discussion of these models 

concerned the crucial issue of funding, which will be vital to elucidate in 

order to make any practical progress on applying their lessons to a national 

effort.

In 1994, seven agencies joined together to create the Federal Interagency 

Forum on Child and Family Statistics (Interagency Forum). Three years 

later the Interagency Forum was formally established by an Executive 

Order and directed to develop priorities for collecting enhanced data on 

children and youth, improve the reporting and dissemination of 

information on the status of children to the policy community and the 

general public, and produce more complete data on children at the state 

and local levels. The Interagency Forum now has participants from 20 

agencies as well as partners in private research organizations. It holds 

several public hearings with agency members each year to discuss key 

issues and ideas.

Annually, the Interagency Forum produces a report called America’s 

Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being. The 2002 report is the 

group’s sixth annual report to the nation on the condition of children in 

America. The Interagency Forum’s report presents 24 key indicators on 

important aspects of children’s lives, including their economic security, 

health, behavior and social environment, and education. It also presents 

eight contextual measures that describe changes in the characteristics of 

the population as well as in children’s family settings and living 

arrangements.

The Interagency Forum chose the indicators through careful examination 

of available data. Data were drawn from national surveys and vital records. 

Input on which indicators to choose was also sought from the federal 

policy-making community, foundations, academic researchers, and state 

and local children’s service providers. The implication of this discussion 

was that the Interagency Forum could be studied and replicated as a model 

for other information areas for the United States’ new approach.
Forum

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

A Straw Proposal for a New 

National Indicator System

Commissioned by GAO, in cooperation with the National Academies, Dr. 

Riche produced an independent straw proposal for a key national indicator 

system called USA Series 0.5. USA Series 0.5 served as a starting point for 

the forum’s participants to discuss the framework of a key national 

indicator system and, in the future, move to the next version of an indicator 

system. Moving to an initial version of a national indicator system, 

identified as USA Series 1.0, would involve formal and institutional 

consensus, audience input, and would be the first step toward an evolving 

key national indicator system.

Dr. Riche developed a group of draft principles for developing a key 

national indicator system. These principles included the following:

• The set of indicators is about the nation, not just the government: 

Defining key national indicators goes beyond any one sector or level of 

government.

• If the set of indicators is about the nation, it must incorporate the 

nation’s components. Local, state, regional and federal governments, as 

well as private for-profit and not-for-profit sectors should work to 

coordinate and integrate their own efforts into a national perspective.

• If the set of indicators is national and intended to drive decision making, 

it must be comprehensive. It should be comprehensive, not just 

specialized and it must integrate the links and interactions between 

component measures.

• If the set of indicators is to be useful, the information must be targeted 

and trusted. The set of indicators should be selected based on specific 

criteria. These criteria might include the significance, objectivity, 

accuracy, scope, timeliness, accessibility, clarity, efficiency, 

comparability, and contextual sophistication of a set of indicators.

• If the set of indicators is to be credible, it must be both science-based 

and understandable. The set of indicators should help formulate 

questions about what knowledge is needed so sensible scientific 

statements can be made and a framework on key areas of research and 

investigation can be developed.

• If the set of indicators is to be used to monitor progress, the public must 

be both involved and included. This principle implies a need for polling 

and related research to define what Americans want for their country.
Forum

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

• If the set of indicators is to have staying power, it must acknowledge the 

reality of resource constraints and the corresponding need for judgment 

and compromise. A true national effort will need to be based on some 

type of public/private partnership. No one sector of society can “own” 

the effort.

Additionally, three basic types of indicator approaches were described 

since the United States’ current approach for measuring performance 

includes all three approaches. These three approaches are as follows:

• Composite indicators: This approach combines information from 

several different indicators into a single composite number. An 

example of this approach is the United Nations’ annual Human 

Development Index. The composite approach is a tool for 

communicating directional progress to a large audience, especially in a 

comparative context. However, composite numbers require a 

consensus on weighting the different indicators that is hard to achieve.

• A unified, balance sheet of indicators: This approach uses an 

accounting framework and presents data in a unified system of 

accounts. Under this approach, the indicators are both gathered and 

presented within a coherent hierarchical system. Most countries have a 

similar set of economic accounts, such as the United States’ National 

Income and Product Accounts, that are linked at a certain level of detail 

by the United Nations-sponsored System of National Accounts. 

• A suite of indicators: This approach groups information areas and key 

indicators together. Through use of a suite approach, the links between 

the information areas can be discussed even though not every 

information area needs to be fully developed as a measure.

What the proposal is: USA Series 0.5 specifically addresses areas in which 

national performance might be measured. It includes a suite of indicators 

that has been prominent in past efforts in this country. It also includes 

indicators from other countries whose economic and social systems are, in 

some respects, comparable to our own. The proposal includes information 

areas that are developing as well as those that are advanced.

What the proposal is not: USA Series 0.5 is not systems based because it 

lacks a firm mission statement and conceptual framework and does not 

depend on any particular structure. It does not have an identified audience. 

USA Series 0.5 does not presume to be complete in terms of including the 
Forum

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

many information areas that might likely be incorporated into later 

versions. It does not attempt to propose indicators for new or “formative” 

information areas that have, by definition, large knowledge gaps because 

they are taking shape based on new questions being asked about our nation 

and our world.

Overview of the proposal: USA Series 0.5 consists of three broad 

categories—economic, social, and environmental. Within these three 

categories are a variety of information areas that are classified, in Dr. 

Riche’s opinion, by how well data associated with a specific information 

area are developed. The three classifications of the development stages of 

information areas are (1) advanced, (2) developing, and (3) formative. This 

development construct is not tested and there is no consensus as to which 

information areas are most advanced. The specific structure of the 

proposal—including 11 specialized information areas—is shown in table 4 

below. The proposal also included specific indicators for the advanced and 

developing information areas, such as crime, ecology, education, and 

governance. (See app. II.) There were no specific indicators chosen for the 

information areas that were considered to be in the formative stage (e.g., 

sustainability, transparency, and security). 

Table 4: Structure of USA Series 0.5

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

forum.)

In principle, advanced information areas have a great deal of reliable data 

and relatively broad public and scientific consensus as to their importance 

and method of production. Figure 1 shows data for life expectancy, which 

illustrates the characteristics of an advanced information area. 

Specifically, life expectancy data are based on well-organized bodies of 

Information area

development stage Economic Social Environmental

Advanced Macroeconomy Education

Health

Crime

Social Support

Developing Community

Governance

Ecology

Formative Sustainability

Transparency

Sustainability

Transparency

Security

Sustainability
Forum

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

reliable data and there is a high degree of scientific and political consensus 

on their significance.

Figure 1: Life Expectancy at Birth and at Age 65

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

In contrast, developing information areas have a higher proportion of 

indicators that are evolving and lack a broad technical or public consensus 

about significance. Greenhouse gas emissions, as shown in figure 2, is an 

example of a developing information area. While these emissions have 

gained increasing currency in debate and policy making, they are based on 

estimates of component gases and there is some scientific and public 

uncertainty about their importance and possible implications.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1900 1920 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Years of life

At birth

At age 65

Source: National Center for Health Statistics.
Forum

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

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

Equivalent)

Formative information areas are new areas, on issues of potential 

significance, for which data may not exist. They need pilot projects to 

outline suitable information databases. An example of a formative 

information area would be a measure of public confidence in personal 

security. While there are some data on elements of public confidence in 

personal security, a broad consensus on the definition of personal security 

does not exist. 

Reactions to the Proposal While the participants were receptive to the proposal as a starting point, it 

prompted several reactions. One reaction was that attention should be 

paid to the process of developing the next version. While people 

acknowledged the expediency and practicality of starting with existing 

data, most participants wanted to work on filling in the gaps between 

versions 0.5 and 1.0. A participant suggested that the process that 

produced the “Healthy People 2010” initiative could be a possible model of 

the effort. The “Healthy People 2010” development process was described 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

Million metric tons

Carbon dioxide

Methane

Nitrous oxide

Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride

Total

Source: Energy Information Administration. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000
Forum

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

by some as having been exhaustive. It had several advantages, including an 

organized approach to automation and a human capital infrastructure at 

the federal, state, and local levels.

Another reaction, related to the one above, was to suggest that it is 

important to have a mechanism or process that would allow for creating 

new indicators and/or revising existing indicators. This mechanism or 

process would need to capture the public’s changing concerns and other 

changes nationally and internationally. While it would be a challenge to do, 

one suggestion to address the challenge was for the system to have a set of 

“regular” indicators that will remain meaningful over time and a set of 

“special” indicators that apply in specific situations.

A third reaction focused on the need to disaggregate data, which 

participants considered an important but challenging task. Although 

aggregated information at the national level needs to be presented, the data 

also need to be disaggregated into specific categories that are relevant to 

localities and the public. This capability will also allow localities to relate 

to and understand how they fit into a larger picture. Health indicators were 

provided as an example. It is useful to have national data on health. But 

the information is even more useful if it provides information about health 

in a specific city or neighborhood. Also, careful consideration should be 

given as to how data are disaggregated, since there can be degradation of 

quality due to smaller sample sizes. Applying the lenses of age, race, 

gender, and geographical location to indicators facilitates identifying 

trends among specific groups that are masked in aggregated data.
Forum

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

What Are Important 

Areas to Measure in 

Assessing U.S. National 

Performance?

While participants generally agreed that the straw proposal’s 11 

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

the areas needed refinement and enhancement. (For the specific 

indicators defined in the proposal, please see app. II) Also, 4 additional 

information areas were identified as candidates for including in the 

proposal. The list of information areas that needed to be refined or added 

to the proposal was not intended to be exhaustive. Furthermore, 

participants did not discuss how many indicators might be included under 

each area. Instead, the proposal was meant to represent a good place to 

start to build a more comprehensive national indicator system.

Information Areas That 

Need Further Refinement

Participants identified seven information areas included in the 0.5 proposal 

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

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

Community

Discussion on this information area focused on refining the area to include 

the concept of civic engagement. Civic engagement was described as the 

connectedness of individuals to society and to each other. Further, it 

involves social capital such as participation in social and cultural 

organizations, public service, volunteering, and voting. Some participants 

viewed civic engagement as an undermeasured and underappreciated area, 

while others feel there is already a good deal of information available. This 

suggests, as may be the case in other areas, the value of undertaking 

systematic inventories of existing data. While some participants thought 

civic engagement should be included within the community information 

area, others thought it should be within the governance information area.

Education

Discussion on this information area focused on the need to include both 

the means by which individuals can attain personal enrichment and 

improved quality of life and, at the societal level, the extent to which 

society is served by the educational system.

Governance

Some participants viewed this information area as being not as well 

thought out as others. It should incorporate the concepts of public trust 

and its relationship to institutions. It may also need to cover the 

effectiveness of governance (e.g., political participation and corruption). 

Within the concept of public trust, there was some discussion about the 
Forum

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

need to measure elements of freedom or patriotism, security and civil 

liberties. The discussion of public trust and institutions encompassed both 

corporations and government at all levels. Additionally, this concept 

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

public.

Macroeconomy

Discussion on this information area focused on two broad topics: (1) the 

nation’s role in the world and (2) its economic well-being (e.g., competitive 

advantage). Measuring the nation’s role in the world involves portraying 

and tracking the nation as a member of the world community. This 

includes such issues as foreign aid by government and private 

organizations, United States military presence overseas, anti-American 

sentiments, and economic and cultural globalization. The concept of 

competitive advantage involves measuring key economic areas, such as 

technology; innovation; the mobility and flexibility of the nation’s labor 

force (e.g., geographic, career, and social class mobility); the ability to 

attract, retain, and develop good people; education; and trade. It was 

thought that measuring the nation’s competitive advantage should involve 

national, regional, state, and community levels.

Security

Participants identified this information area as needing focus on personal, 

community, national, and international security. This area was identified as 

a new area of focus for the nation since the terrorist attacks of September 

11, 2001, and other terrorist threats. The area could be approached as a 

subjective measure of individuals’ sense of security and as an objective 

measure of the extent to which important infrastructure systems are 

secure. There were different views as to whether personal security should 

be included within the security information area. Some participants 

thought personal security was already included in the crime information 

area of the proposal. Others thought that personal security should be 

included within the security information area since it was viewed as an 

expanded notion of public safety given the new focus on the issue, 

especially safety from terrorist threats.

Social Support

Participants identified this information area as needing to include both the 

well-being of children and the well-being of the elderly—those classified by 

society as dependents. Ever increasing attention is being given to the 

importance of investment in all aspects of child development (e.g., the No 

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

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

pressing issue given the well known aging of the baby boomers, is also 

receiving increased attention.

Sustainability

Participants viewed this information area as one area that does not fall 

clearly within a distinct information area. It involves several information 

areas and encompasses the proposal’s three broad information categories--

economic, social, and environmental. Sustainability involves the concept 

of leaving a legacy for future generations as well as the notion of 

environmental and social capital and liabilities.

Information Areas to Add to 

the Proposal

Participants identified four areas that should be included in the proposal: 

communications, diversity, individual values, and socioeconomic mobility.

Communications

Discussion on this area involved the various forms of media industry—such 

as television, radio, newspapers, and the Internet—and how to determine 

the impact on, and accountability of, the industry. One possible measure 

suggested involved the degree of citizen access to various media sources or 

types of communication (e.g., the Internet).

Diversity

Participants saw this area as one area that goes beyond the concept of 

fairness to encompass the pluralistic nature of our society. Diversity, in all 

its forms (e.g., population, culture, and points of view), was seen as an 

asset that is consistent with the founding principles of the nation and vital 

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

difficult, to measure.

Individual Values

This area cuts across other areas such as community and quality of life. 

However, because the concept of individual values does cut across other 

areas, no agreement was reached as to whether the area should stand alone 

or be included under several other areas. It was generally agreed though 

that individual values could be measured.

Socioeconomic Mobility

Some participants defined this area as access to opportunities such as 

education and jobs. However, when measuring access to jobs there needs 

to be a distinction between access to good jobs and bad jobs. For others, 

this concept had a broader meaning relating to how rapidly individuals in 
Forum

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

the United States are moving from one standard of living to another. This 

area was seen as being rooted in basic American values and as an essential 

component of the “American dream.”
Forum

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

How Might New U.S. 

Approaches Be Led 

and Implemented?

The last segment of the forum was devoted to discussing how to take 

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

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

the participants’ discussion focused on how to develop, sustain, and fund 

an effort.

Development Information areas tend to develop in an evolutionary fashion, over 

relatively long periods, and in some definable stages as they reach greater 

degrees of consensus and transparency. There was wide acknowledgment 

that any United States indicator system, because of the rapidly changing 

nature of our society, would by definition be evolving. In other words, 

there would be many successive “versions,” each one improving on the one 

before it. Table 5 illustrates the possible evolution of a United States 

indicator system by showing how, over time, additional information areas 

can be added and developed in a cumulative fashion. Specifically, Series 

1.0-2.0 would contain not only new information areas (e.g., energy and 

citizenship) but also the information areas from earlier versions (such as 

education and community in Series 0.5). This table, shown as it was 

presented at the forum, includes some but not all areas mentioned by the 

participants as well as some used by other nations. 
Forum

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

Table 5: Proposed Evolutionary Process for a National Indicator System (Includes 

Illustrative Information Areas) 

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

forum.)

There was discussion about the scope of a “comprehensive” indicator set. 

Participants observed that a comprehensive set of indicators would include 

both indicators that are fairly advanced in their development as well as 

indicators that are new and thus require substantial development. It would 

include indicators at all levels, in all sectors, and in all disciplines. 

Furthermore, it would focus on both areas where much is already known 

as well as areas needing further research. This would help create a 

learning agenda for developing and sustaining indicators.

Sustaining and Funding The discussion of sustaining and funding the effort to develop a key 

national indicator system focused on the need for forming a public/private 

partnership. Such a partnership would need a structure that provided a 

broad, independent, flexible, and responsive base for the effort. 

Participants expressed the view that unless the effort is a partnership 

between public and private entities, it will not be sustained. 

Participants agreed that creating a national coordinating committee and a 

variety of task forces was the best governance mechanism with which to 

Information area 

development stage Series 0.5

Series 1.0-2.0

(cumulative)

Series N.0

(cumulative)

Advanced Crime/public safety

Education

Health

Macroeconomy

Social support

Energy

Labor and

 employment

Microeconomy

Resource allocation

Special populations

Community 

Ecology 

Governance

Developing Community

Ecology

Governance

Citizenship

Competitiveness

Infrastructure

Wealth/prosperity

Well-being/happiness

Families

Innovation

Justice

Knowledge

Formative Security

Sustainability

Transparency

Accountability

Cities

Diversity

Equity

Globalization

Neighborhoods

Arts and Culture

Civility

Freedom

Mobility

Opportunity

Trust

Values
Forum

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

initiate a national indicators initiative. Such an initiative would include all 

forum participants and representatives from any other institutions 

interested in the effort would be invited to participate. As of May 7, 2003, 

the organizations that have agreed to participate are: AAU, The Conference 

Board, the Council for Excellence in Government, GAO, ICMA, The 

National Academies, the National Association of Asian American 

Professionals, OMB, and the White House Council on Environmental 

Quality.

The consensus was that the national coordinating committee should be 

viewed in a facilitative and catalyst role as opposed to a day-to-day 

leadership role. To help promote this role of the committee, it was agreed 

that an individual committee member would chair the committee for one 

meeting and then the chairmanship would rotate to another member. The 

first meeting of the national coordinating committee will be held in the 

spring of 2003 at the offices of the Council for Excellence in Government 

and be chaired by the Council’s President.

The national coordinating committee’s most important tasks will probably 

involve providing effective communications, creating a strategy, and 

obtaining resources. Specifically, the committee will need to focus on 

articulating the national indicator initiative’s purpose, organizing process 

and structure, agreeing on governing principles, identifying additional 

participants, and developing short- and long-term plans. One participant 

noted, and the rest agreed, that while they voted to move forward with this 

effort, there were many conceptions of what “this effort” is. Participants 

noted that objectives need to be clarified and agreement reached on how to 

proceed. They agreed that developing a charter and set of principles for 

the initiative would be addressed at the first meeting of the coordinating 

committee.

Committee task forces could focus on a variety of issues such as 

conducting research, creating short- and long-term action plans, 

capitalizing operations, identifying possible organizational models to 

sustain the effort in the long term, and investigating communications and 

technology solutions. To be successful, people with different skill sets will 

need to be brought into the effort. Specifically, experts in communication 

and technology, not just experts in data and indicators, need to be involved. 

The exact number and functions of all the task forces have yet to be 

decided.
Forum

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

The funding arrangement for this effort was cited as a tremendously 

important issue since it will require a substantial amount of time and 

resources to start and sustain a true national effort. A brief discussion on 

the topic concluded that a range of possible funding alternatives, including 

private sources and federal funds, need to be studied.
Page 42 GAO-03-672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix I

Forum Participants AAppenednxidexiIs

Derek Bok The 300th Anniversary University Professor and President Emeritus, 

Harvard University

Donald Borut Executive Director, National League of Cities

Charles Bowsher Former Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. General Accounting 

Office

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

Europe

Philip M. Burgess President, National Academy of Public Administration

Lala Camerer Deputy Director, Global Access Division, Center for Public Integrity

Richard Cavanagh President, The Conference Board

E. William Colglazier Executive Officer, The National Academies

Rita Colwell Director, National Science Foundation

Michael Delli Carpini Director, Public Policy Program, The Pew Charitable Trusts

Gene Dodaro Chief Operating Officer, U.S. General Accounting Office

Cynthia Fagnoni Managing Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. 

General Accounting Office

Scott Farrow Chief Economist, U.S. General Accounting Office

Harvey Fineberg President, Institute of Medicine, The National Academies

William Galston Professor and Director, University of Maryland Institute for Philosophy and 

Public Policy

Gaston Gianni Vice-Chair, President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency and Inspector 

General, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
Appendix I

Forum Participants

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

John Graham Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget

Robert Groves Director, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan

Judith Gueron President, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation

Hermann Habermann Deputy Director, U.S. Bureau of the Census

Nils Hasselmo President, Association of American Universities

Harry Hatry Director, Public Management Program, The Urban Institute 

Theodore Heintz White House Council on Environmental Quality

Christopher Hoenig Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office

Helen Hsing Director-Special Projects, Office of the Comptroller General, U.S. General 

Accounting Office

Robert Kaplan Professor, Harvard Business School

Nancy Kingsbury Managing Director, Applied Research and Methods, U.S. General 

Accounting Office

Andrew Kohut Director, Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

John Koskinen Deputy Mayor/City Administrator, District of Columbia

Bill Kovach Chairman, Committee of Concerned Journalists

Risa Lavizzo-Mourey President and CEO, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Rosemary Marcuss Deputy Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis

Sylvia Mathews Chief Operating Officer and Executive Director, The Bill & Melinda Gates 

Foundation
Appendix I

Forum Participants

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

Thomas McCool Managing Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment, U.S. 

General Accounting Office

Patricia McGinnis President and CEO, The Council for Excellence in Government

Sara Melendez Professor of Nonprofit Management, The George Washington University 

and Former President, The Independent Sector

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

Northern British Columbia

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

Policy

Daniel Mulhollan Director, Congressional Research Service

Janet Norwood Former Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Robert O’Neill Executive Director, International City/County Management Association

Robert Parker Chief Statistician, U.S. General Accounting Office

Victor Rezendes Managing Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office

Martha Farnsworth Riche Former Director, U.S. Bureau of the Census

Dorothy Ridings President and CEO, Council on Foundations

John Rolph Chairman, Committee on National Statistics, The National Academies

Thomas Sawyer Former Representative, State of Ohio, 14th District

William Scanlon Managing Director, Health Care, U.S. General Accounting Office

Max Singer Board Member and Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute

Pete Smith President and CEO, Private Sector Council
Appendix I

Forum Participants

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

Edward Sondik Director, National Center for Health Statistics, Department of Health and 

Human Services

Edward Spar Executive Director, Council of Professional Associations on Federal 

Statistics

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

Accounting Office

F. Michael Taylor President, National Association of Local Government Auditors

Michael Teitelbaum Program Director, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

Dennis Trewin Chief Statistician, Australia

Kathleen Utgoff Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics

David M. Walker Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. General Accounting Office

Katherine Wallman Chief Statistician of the United States, U.S. Office of Management and 

Budget

Andrew White Director, Committee on National Statistics, The National Academies

Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers Managing Director, Strategic Planning and External Liaison, U.S. General 

Accounting Office

Vincent Yee National President, National Association of Asian American Professionals

Randall Yim Managing Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. General 

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

Appendix II

Illustrative Indicators by Information Area for 

USA Series 0.5 ApendxiI

Community Information Area1

• Rate of volunteering, through nonprofit or charitable organizations

• Youth rates of volunteering 

• Charitable contributions as a percentage of incomes

• Attendance at events and institutions that address the national heritage 

(such as monuments, historical sites, and national parks)

• Attendance at performing arts, by categories

• Participation in organized sports

• Voting rates

• Reported hate crimes

• Allocation of free time 

• Homelessness

Crime/Public Safety Information Area

• Crime victimization rates (by subgroups such as age, sex, and 

race/ethnic origin) 

• National crime rate

• Violent crime rate

• Property crime rate

• Incarceration (as percentage of population, by age rates and by race/ 

ethnic origin)

• Deaths due to transportation accidents

• Deaths due to fires

• Proportion of jail inmates who committed offense to get money for 

drugs

• Percentage of working age population providing protective services

• Percentage of population afraid to walk alone after dark

Ecology Information Area

• Level of nitrogen oxide as a percentage of acceptable levels

• Level of sulfur oxide as a percentage of acceptable levels

• Level of carbon dioxide as a percentage of acceptable levels

• Per capita water consumption

• Some measure of water quality, for example, percentage of population 

with access to safe drinking water

1

 The indicators and information areas for USA Series 0.5 were proposed by Dr. Martha 

Farnsworth Riche to facilitate a dialogue among the forum’s participants.

1
Appendix II

Illustrative Indicators by Information Area 

for USA Series 0.5

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

• Change in status of species at risk of loss

• Protected areas as a proportion of vulnerable areas

• Emissions of greenhouse gases per capita

• Net greenhouse gas emissions per Gross Domestic Product

• Reduction of emissions of toxic substances

Economic Information Area

• Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

• Real GDP per employed person 

• Labor force participation 

• Unemployment

• Expenditures on Research and Development as a share of GDP

• Real disposable income per capita

• Median household net worth

• Composition of wage rates (good jobs/bad jobs)

• Poverty

• Home ownership

Education Information Area

• Percentage of the population aged 25 and over that has completed 

postsecondary education

• National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) or other measure 

of literacy equivalent to high school graduation

• Percentage of the population aged 15 to 29 that is neither enrolled in nor 

has completed high school

• Enrollment in science and engineering (National Science Foundation)

• Mathematics test scores (NAEP)

• Percentage of population with computer literacy and computer access

• Safe schools

• Gap in attainment by race and ethnic origin and other relevant factors 

(e.g., disability)

• Adult education participation/access

Governance Information Area

• Proportion of high elected offices (Congress, mayors, governors, etc.) 

held by women, minorities, etc.

• Proportion of high-appointed offices held by women, minorities, etc.

• Information about the “legal enforcement of constitutional guarantees 

of civil liberties”
Appendix II

Illustrative Indicators by Information Area 

for USA Series 0.5

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

• Civil rights: Enforcement data? Prevalence of complaints?

• Successful management of the voting franchise—for example, 

proportion of ballots that are disqualified 

• Some measure of tax expenditures that reflects how effective the 

government is in taking care of the citizenry

• Some measure of how well government agencies are providing fair 

access to public services and utilities

• Some measure of how the law treats/does not treat Americans equally

• Some measure of the existence of an effective safety net

• Proportion of residents who believe that the nation is “on the right 

track”

Health Information Area 

• Overweight and obesity 

• Life expectancy—at birth, at different policy-relevant ages

• Health/active life expectancy

• Infant/child/youth mortality (i.e., successful survival to adulthood)

• Disability limitations—as represented by inability to perform normal 

activities of daily living

• Physical activity

• Tobacco use

• Substance abuse

• Immunization

• A measure of access to health care—availability, affordability, etc., for 

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

capita income

Social Support Information Area

• Elderly living alone and in poverty

• Proportion of elderly for whom Social Security is more than a “floor” 

• Older Americans who are involuntarily unemployed

• Housing costs as a percentage of income for older Americans

• Percentage of older Americans unable to perform certain physical 

functions

• Proportion of children receiving child care, by source

• Proportion of children whose diet is “poor” 

• Proportion of youth ages 16 to 19 neither enrolled in school or working

• Adolescent birth rate

• Family reading to young children
Page 49 GAO-03-672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix III

Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems ApendxiI

Comprehensive Indicator 

Systems

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

Sustainability in the Business of City Government: An Opportunity for 

Seattle (Vancouver, Canada: Abbott Strategies, ND). 

http://www.abbottstrategies.com/Papers/pdf/embedsustain.pdf. 

(downloaded May 2003).

Embedding Sustainability in the Business of City Government 

discusses ways to create a framework for integrating issues of 

sustainability into decision making in Seattle city government.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. Measuring Australia’s Progress 

2002:Indicators of Australia’s Progress (Canberra, Australia: 2003). 

http://www.abs.gov.au. (downloaded May 2003).

Measuring Australia’s Progress uses a discussion of human capital, 

social capital, natural capital, and financial capital indicators to asses 

the extent to which Australia has progressed.

Bok, Derek. The State of the Nation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University 

Press, 1996. 

The State of the Nation examines the areas of economic prosperity, 

quality of life, equality of opportunity, personal security, and societal 

values, and compares the progress made in these areas with progress 

made in other countries.

The Boston Foundation. The Wisdom of Our Choices: Boston’s Indicators 

of Progress, Change and Sustainability 2000. (Boston, Mass.: 2000). 

http://www.tbf.org/boston/boston-L1.asp. (downloaded May 2003).

The Wisdom of Our Choices provides indicators of civic involvement, 

the economy, education, public health, and other measures of wellbeing. 

Chang, Ping. State of the Region 2002: Measuring Progress in the 21st 

Century (Los Angeles, Calif.: Southern California Association of 

Governments, 2002). http://www.scag.ca.gov/publications/index.htm

(downloaded May 2003).

State of the Region 2002 assesses southern California’s performance 

with respect to three overall goals: raise the standard of living, enhance 

the quality of life, and foster equal access to resources.
Appendix III

Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

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

Chicago Metropolis 2020. 2002 Metropolis Index (Chicago, Ill.: 2002). 

http://www.chicagometropolis2020.org/10_5.htm. (downloaded May 2003). 

The 2002 Metropolis Index is intended to give residents of the region 

benchmarks to assess how the region is doing, and to help them 

consider what must be done to sustain the region’s status as a globally 

competitive region.

Committee on Geography, Committee on Identifying Data Needs for PlaceBased Decision Making. Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for 

Informed Decision Making (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 

2002). http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10262.html. (downloaded May 2003).

Community and Quality of Life examines the concept of livable 

communities, the selection of livability indicators, data needs, and 

measurement and analysis issues related to the indicators.

The Conference Board of Canada. Performance and Potential 2001-2002. 

Ottawa, Canada: 2002.

Performance and Potential 2001-2002 updates the top 40 performance 

indicators and demonstrates that overall performance remains average 

among the six countries used to benchmark Canada’s performance.

Global Reporting Initiative. 2002 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines

(Boston, Mass.: 2002). http://www.globalreporting.org/guidelines/2002.asp. 

(downloaded May 2003). 

The 2002 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines organizes 

“sustainability reporting” in terms of economic, environmental, and 

social performance (also know as the triple bottom line).

Maine Economic Growth Council. Measures of Growth 2002 (Augusta, 

Maine: 2002). http://mdf.org/megc/growth02/. (downloaded May 2003).

Measures of Growth 2002 provides the results of 60 indicators in the 

areas of the economy, community, and the environment.
Appendix III

Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

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

Miringoff, Marc and Marque-Luisa Miringoff. The Social Health of the 

Nation: How America Is Really Doing. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University 

Press, 1999.

The Social Health of the Nation presents a variety of indicators of 

social well-being over several decades.

Minnesota Planning. Minnesota Milestones 2002 (St. Paul, Minn.: 2002). 

http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/mm/index.html. (downloaded May 2003).

Minnesota Milestones 2002 reports on 70 progress indicators to 

determine whether the state is achieving 19 publicly determined goals 

in the areas of people, community and democracy, economy, and 

environment.

The National Audit Office, United Kingdom, Good Practice in Performance 

Reporting in Executive Agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies 

(London, England: Stationery office, 2000). 

http://www.nao.gov.uk/publications/nao_reports/9900272.pdf (downloaded 

May 2003).

Good Practice in Performance Reporting in Executive Agencies and 

Non-Departmental Public Bodies discusses good practices in 

government performance reporting to ensure transparent, accountable, 

and efficient government services.

New York City Department of City Planning. 2000/2001 Report on Social 

Indicators. (New York, N.Y.: 2001). 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/pub/socind00.html (downloaded May 

2003).

2000/2001 Report on Social Indicators is a compendium of data on the 

economic, social, physical, and environmental health of the city. The 

data are compiled from city, state, and federal sources and summarized 

on either a calendar or fiscal year basis.
Appendix III

Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

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

The Oregon Progress Board. Achieving the Oregon Shines Vision: The 

2001 Benchmark Performance Report (Salem, Oreg.: March 2001). 

http://www.econ.state.or.us/opb/2001report/reporthome.htm. (downloaded 

May 2003).

Achieving the Oregon Shines Vision is a report on the comprehensive 

effort to describe progress Oregonians have made in achieving their 

year 2000 targets for 90 benchmarks.

President of the Treasury Board. Canada’s Performance 2002 (Ottawa, 

Canada: 2002). http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/report/govrev/02/cp-rc_e.asp. 

(downloaded May 2003).

Canada’s Performance 2002 reports on the quality of life of Canadians 

in such areas as economic opportunity, health, the environment, and 

the strength and safety of communities.

Steering Committee Review of Commonwealth/State Services, Australia. 

Report on Government Services 2001 (Melbourne, Australia: 2001). 

http://www.pc.gov.au/gsp/2001/index.html. (downloaded May 2003).

Report on Government Services 2001 details the performance of 

government service provision in Australia in education, health, justice, 

emergency management, community services, and housing.

United Nations General Assembly. Implementation of the United Nations 

Millennium Declaration: Follow up to the Outcome of the Millennium 

Summit A/57/270. New York, N.Y.: 2002.

Implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration: 

Follow up to the Outcome of the Millennium Summit details the 

progress that the United Nations has made on its millennium 

development goals, which are (1) halve extreme poverty and hunger, 

(2) achieve universal primary education, (3) empower women and 

promote equality between women and men, (4) reduce under five 

mortality by two-thirds, (5) reduce maternal mortality by threequarters, (6) reverse the spread of disease especially AIDS/HIV and 

malaria, (7) ensure environmental sustainability, and (8) create a global 

partnership for development with targets for aid, trade, and debt relief.
Appendix III

Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

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

United Nations Population Fund. State of the World Population 

2002:People, Poverty and Possibilities (New York, N.Y.: 2002). 

http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2002/english/ch1/index.htm. (downloaded May 

2003).

State of the World Population 2002 provides a variety of demographic 

and economic data about people in various regions of the world as well 

as some data on individual nations.

University at Buffalo Institute for Local Governance and Regional Growth, 

State of the Region Progress Report 2000 (Buffalo, N.Y.: 2000). 

http://regional-institute.buffalo.edu/sotr/repo/repo00/default.html. 

(downloaded May 2003).

State of the Region Progress Report 2000 offers a first update of the 

1999 baseline report with two components--one focused on the datadriven performance measures, the other a second look at the 

opportunities and challenges that will shape Buffalo-Niagara's progress 

into the new century.

Specialized Indicator Systems Annie E. Casey Foundation. Kids Count Data Book 2002 (Baltimore, Md: 

2002). http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/kc2002/. (downloaded May 2002).

Kids Count provides information about the physical health, mental 

health, economic well-being, and educational achievements of children 

in the United States. Data are available nationwide and for each state.

Chrvala, Carole A. and Roger J. Bulger, Eds. Leading Health Indicators for 

Healthy People 2010: Final Report. Committee on Leading Health 

Indicators for Healthy People 2010, Division of Health Promotion and 

Disease Prevention, Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press, 1999. 

Leading Indicators for Healthy People 2010 describes the efforts of 

the Committee on Leading Health Indicators to develop leading health 

indicator sets that could focus on health and social issues and evoke a 

response and action from the general public and the traditional 

audiences for the Healthy People report series.
Appendix III

Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

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

Committee to Evaluate Indicators for Monitoring Aquatic and Terrestrial 

Environments, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Water 

Science and Technology Board, Commission on Geosciences, 

Environment, and Resources, National Research Council. Ecological 

Indicators for the Nation. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 

2000.

Ecological Indicators for the Nation suggests criteria for selecting 

useful ecological indicators, provides methods for integrating complex 

ecological information in indicators that are useful, proposes indicators 

that would meet these criteria, examines the state of data that would be 

used to calculate these indicators, and offers guidance on 

communicating and storing ecological indicators.

Committee on Measuring and Improving Infrastructure Performance, 

Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment, Commission on 

Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council. 

Measuring and Improving Infrastructure Performance (Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press, 1995). http://www.nap.edu/catalog/4929.html. 

(downloaded May 2003).

Measuring and Improving Infrastructure Performance addresses the 

issue of measuring the efficiency with which our infrastructure allows 

people and goods to move, provides adequate safe drinking water, 

provides energy, removes waste, and so on, which is crucial to being 

able to manage the assets that our infrastructure represents.

Cooper, Ronald S. and Stephen A. Merrill, Eds. Industrial Research and 

Innovation Indicators: Report of a Workshop. Board on Science, 

Technology, and Economic Policy, National Research Council (Washington, 

D.C.: National Academy Press, 1997). 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5976.html. (downloaded May 2003).

Industrial Research and Innovation Indicators is the report of a 

workshop held to discuss methods of improving the measurement, data 

collection and analysis of indicators on industrial research and 

innovation, as well as examining ways in which this information could 

be integrated into measures of firm and national performance.
Appendix III

Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

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

Council of Economic Advisors, Executive Office of the President. The 

Economic Report of the President (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing 

Office, 2003).

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/pdf/2003_erp.pdf. (downloaded 

May 2003).

The Economic Report of the President is a discussion of selected 

economic issues and tables of economic data prepared by the Council 

of Economic Advisors.

The Conference Board. Business Cycle Indicators (New York, N.Y.: 2002).

http://www.tcb-indicators.org/Us/LatestReleases/index.cfm. (downloaded 

May 2003).

Business Cycle Indicators provides monthly economic indicators for 

the United States, such as the leading economic indicators, the 

coincident indicators, and the lagging indicators.

Federal Interagency Forum on Aging Related Statistics. Older Americans 

2000: Key Indicators of Well Being (Washington, D.C.: 2000). 

http://www.agingstats.gov/chartbook2000/default.htm. (downloaded May 

2003).

Older Americans: 2000 contains statistics regarding the population, 

economics, health status, health risks and behaviors, and health care of 

older United States Citizens.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. America’s 

Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being 2002 (Washington, D.C.: 

Government Printing Office, 2002). http://childstats.gov. (downloaded May 

2003).

American’s Children provides 24 key indicators on the well-being of 

children in the areas of economic security, health, behavior and social 

environment, and education.
Appendix III

Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

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

United States Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 

2010: Understanding and Improving Health. (Washington, D.C.: 2000). 

http://www.healthypeople.gov/. (downloaded May 2002).

Healthy People 2010 provides a comprehensive set of disease 

prevention and health promotion objectives for the United States to 

achieve by 2010.

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

The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems: Measuring the Lands, Waters, and 

Living Resources of the United States (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge 

University Press, 2002). http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems/index.htm. 

(downloaded May 2003).

The State of the Nation’s Ecosystem is a blueprint for periodic 

reporting on the condition and use of ecosystems in the United States.

Mislevy, Robert J. and Kaeli T. Knowles, Eds. Performance Assessments for 

Adult Education: Exploring the Measurement Issues Report of a 

Workshop. Committee for the Workshop on Alternatives for Assessing 

Adult Education and Literacy Programs, Board on Testing and Assessment, 

Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and 

Education, National Research Council. (Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press, 2002). http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10366.html. 

(downloaded May 2003).

Performance Assessments for Adult Education examines a variety of 

ways of measuring learning gains in adult basic education classes in 

light of the requirement that states evaluate adult students' progress as 

mandated by the Workforce Investment Act.

Nordhaus, William D. and Edward C. Kokkelenberg, Eds. Nature's 

Numbers: Expanding the National Economic Accounts to Include the 

Environment. Panel on Integrated Environmental and Economic 

Accounting, Committee on National Statistics, Commission and Behavioral 

and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council 

(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999). 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6374.html. (downloaded May 2003).

Nature's Numbers examines the issues surrounding the question of 

broadening the U.S. National Income and Product Accounts to include 
Appendix III

Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

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

activities that relate to natural resources and the environment to 

provide a more comprehensive picture of the economy.

Norwood, Janet and Jamie Casey, Eds. Key Transportation Indicators: 

Summary of a Workshop. Committee on National Statistics, Division of 

Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002.

Key Transportation Indicators discusses efforts to review current 

transportation indicators and issues associated with their uses as well 

considering what kinds of additional indicators are need.

Pellegrino, James W., Lee R. Jones, and Karen J. Mitchell, Eds. Grading the 

Nation's Report Card: Evaluating NAEP and Transforming the 

Assessment of Educational Progress. Committee on the Evaluation of 

National and State Assessment, Commission on Behavioral and Social 

Sciences and Education, National Research Council. (Washington, D.C.: 

National Academy Press, 1999). http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6296.html. 

(downloaded May 2003).

Grading the Nation’s Report Card describes the National Assessment 

of Educational Progress' national assessment, the state assessment 

program, the student performance standards, and the extent to which 

the results are reasonable, valid, and informative to the public.

Schultze, Charles L. and Christopher Mackie, Eds. At What Price? 

Conceptualizing and Measuring Cost-of Living and Price Indexes. Panel 

on Conceptual, Measurement, and Other Statistical Issues in Developing 

Cost-of-Living Indexes, Committee on National Statistics, Division of 

Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council 

(Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002). 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10131.html. (downloaded May 2003).

At What Price? discusses the conceptual, measurement, statistical, and 

data issues in the development of cost-of-living indexes and assesses 

the appropriate use of such indexes as for indexing federal programs 

and other purposes.

Starke, Linda, ed. State of the World 2002: Special World Summit Edition

(W.W. Norton and Co.: 2002). http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/sow/2002/. 

(downloaded May 2003).
Appendix III

Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

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

State of the World 2002 provides information on a variety of issues in 

sustainable development, such as climate change, farming, and toxic 

chemicals.

UNICEF. The State of the World’s Children 2003 (Oxford, N.Y.: Oxford 

University Press, 2002). http://www.unicef.org/pubsgen/sowc03/index.html. 

(downloaded May 2003).

The State of the World’s Children 2003 contains a comprehensive set of 

economic and social indicators on the well-being of children 

worldwide.

The World Health Organization. World Health Report 2002 (Geneva: 2002). 

http://www.who.int/whr/. (downloaded May 2003).

World Health Report 2002 measures the amount of disease, disability, 

and health that can be attributed to certain risks and calculates how 

much of the burden is preventable.

Background Berry, David, Patrice Flynn, and Theodore Heintz. “Sustainability and 

Quality of Life Indicators: Toward the Integration of Economic, Social and 

Environmental Measures,” Indicators: The Journal of Social Health vol. 1, 

no. 4 (Fall 2002).

“Sustainability and Quality of Life Indicators” provides discussion of 

approaches to integrate social, economic, and environmental indicators 

and expand the scope of our national data system.

Caplow, Theodore, Louis Hicks, and Ben J. Wattenberg. The First 

Measured Century. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 2001.

The First Measured Century describes how using statistics to measure 

social conditions gained importance throughout the United States from 

1900 through 2000.

Gross, Betram M. Social Intelligence for America's Future: Explorations 

in Societal Problems. Boston, Mass: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1969. 

Social Intelligence for America’s Future is part of a “trial run” social 

report ranging from learning and health to crime and the arts. It 

discusses information methodology and the use of data to guide public 

policy.
Appendix III

Selected Bibliography on Indicator Systems

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

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

Paper presented at the Forum on Key National Indicators, Washington, 

D.C., February 2003.

Observations on Key National Performance Indicators discusses 

several integrated performance systems on the national, international, 

and state levels.

Miringoff, Marc, Marque-Luisa Miringoff, and Sandra Opdycke. Social 

Indicators: What We Need To Make Them Count. Paper presented at the 

Forum on Key National Indicators, Washington, D.C., February 2003..

Social Indicators addresses the need for social indicators to enhance 

consideration of policy issues.

Riche, Martha Farnsworth. The United States of America Developing Key 

National Indicators. Paper presented at the Forum on Key National 

Indicators, Washington, D.C., February 2003..

The United States of America Developing Key National Indicators

offers a framework to assess indicators and provides a preliminary 

draft of what an indicator set might look like for the United States.

Slater, Courtenay M. and Martin H. David, Eds. Measuring the Government 

Sector of the U.S. Economic Accounts. Committee on National Statistics, 

Commission on Behavioral and Social Science and Education, National 

Research Council (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998). 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6208.html. (downloaded May 2003)

Measuring the Government Sector of the U.S. Economic Accounts

summarizes the discussion on and makes recommendations regarding 

the way the government sector is presented in U.S. economics accounts 

and how it could be brought into line with the International System of 

Accounts, which would allow for better cross-national comparisons.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Toward a Social 

Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.

Toward a Social Report discusses how social reporting can improve 

the nation’s ability to chart its social progress and to promote more 

informed policy decisions.
Page 60 GAO-03-672SP Key National Indicators Forum

Appendix IV

Selected Web Sites on Indicator Systems ApendxiIV

Multinational European System of Social Indicators 

http://www.social-sciencegesis.de/en/social_monitoring/social_indicators/EU_Reporting/eusi.htm

Global Reporting Initiative - Sustainability Reporting Guidelines 

http://www.globalreporting.org/guidelines/2002.asp

Measurement and Indicators for Sustainable Development - IISDnet 

http://www.iisd.org/measure/default.asp

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Worldwide 

Statistical Sources 

http://cs3-hq.oecd.org/scripts/stats/source/index.htm

The International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies 

http://www.cob.vt.edu/market/isqols/

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees - The State of The World’s 

Refugees http://www.unhcr.ch/pubs/sowr2000/sowr2000toc.htm

United Nations Human Development Report 2002

http://www.undp.org/hdr2002/

United Nations Millennium Development Goals 

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/index.html

United Nations Population Fund - State of World Population 2002 

http://www.unfpa.org/swp/swpmain.htm

United Nations Statistics Division - Social Indicators 

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/social/default.htm

United Nations Statistics Division

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/

World Bank’s Millenium Development Goals 

http://www.developmentgoals.org/

Worldwatch Institute State of the World 2002 

http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/sow/2002/
Appendix IV

Selected Web Sites on Indicator Systems

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

National Australian Bureau of Statistics - Measuring Australia’s Progress 

http://www.abs.gov.au/

Canadian Council on Social Indicators

http://www.ccsd.ca/soc_ind.html

Conference Board of Canada

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/

FedStats Home Page

http://www.fedstats.gov/

Heinz Center - The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems 

http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems/index.htm

Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators 

http://www.sdi.gov/

Redefining Progress

http://www.redefiningprogress.org/

Treasury Board of Canada - Societal Indicators 

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rma/eppi-ibdrp/SI/si_e.htm

STAT-USA - State of the Nation 

http://www.stat-usa.gov/econtest.nsf

United Kingdom Government Sustainable Development Indicators 

http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/indicators/

United Kingdom National Audit Office 

http://www.nao.gov.uk/

University of Toronto Performance Indicators for Governance 

http://www.utoronto.ca/provost/perf98

University of Washington Human Services Policy Center 

http://www.hspc.org/

White House - Latest Federal Government Statistics 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/fsbr.html
Appendix IV

Selected Web Sites on Indicator Systems

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

Regional or Multistate List of Performance Indicators for the Buffalo-Niagara Region 

http://www.regional-institute.buffalo.edu/sotr/repo/indi.html

Northeast Midwest Institute Home Page

http://www.nemw.org/

Northwest Area Foundation Indicator Web site 

http://www.indicators.nwaf.org/

Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University 

http://www.rri.wvu.edu/

Worcester Regional Research Bureau 

http://www.wmrb.org/CCPM

State Living with the Future in Mind - New Jersey’s 1999 Sustainable State Report 

http://www.njfuture.org/HTMLSrc/SSR/index.html

Maine Marks for Children, Families and Communities 

http://www.mainemarks.org/

Minnesota Planning Home Page 

http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/

Oregon Shines - Oregon Progress Board 

http://www.econ.state.or.us/opb/index.htm

Public Policy Institute of California 

http://www.ppic.org/

Vermont Agency of Human Services 

http://www.ahs.state.vt.us/

Local Burlington Legacy Indicators Project 

http://maps.vcgi.org/burlingtonlegacy/

Center for Schools and Communities - Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 

http://www.center-school.org/

Chicago Metropolis 2020 

http://www.chicagometropolis2020.org/report.htm
Appendix IV

Selected Web Sites on Indicator Systems

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

City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska

http://www.cityofsitka.com/

Healthy Anchorage Indicators 

http://www.indicators.ak.org/

New York City Department of City Planning - Social Indicators 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/pub/socind00.html

Portland Mulnomah Progress Board 

http://www.p-m-benchmarks.org/tblcnts.html

San Diego’s Regional Planning Agency 

http://www.sandag.cog.ca.us/

Southern California Association of Governments

http://www.scag.ca.gov/

Sustainable Community Roundtable, Olympia, Washington 

http://www.olywa.net/roundtable/

Sustainable Seattle 

http://www.sustainableseattle.org/

The Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance

http://www.bnia.org/about_bnia_main.html

The Boston Foundation 

http://www.tbf.org/

The Planning Council, Norfolk, Virginia 

http://www.theplanningcouncil.org/

Specialized Efforts Children

America’s Children 2002 - Key National Indicators of Well-Being 2002 

http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/

Child Trends DataBank 

http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/about.htm
Appendix IV

Selected Web Sites on Indicator Systems

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

Children First for Oregon 

http://www.cffo.org/

KIDS COUNT - Benchmarks of Child Well-Being 

http://www.aecf.org/kidscount

United Nations - The State of the World’s Children 2000 

http://www.unicef.org/sowc00/

Economy 

Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia 

http://www.phil.frb.org/

Index of the Massachusetts Innovation Economy 

http://www.mtpc.org/2001index/about.htm

International Association for Research in Income and Wealth 

http://www.iariw.org/

Maine Economic Growth Council 

http://www.mdf.org/megc

Norwegian Ministry of Finance 

http://www.odin.dep.no/fin/engelsk/

West Virginia Bureau of Employment Programs - Labor Market Information 

http://www.state.wv.us/bep/lmi/

Education

California’s Public Schools Accountability Act 

http://www.cde.ca.gov/psaa/

National Assessment of Educational Progress -- The Nation’s Report Card 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/

White House Social Statistics Briefing Room - Education 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/education.html
Appendix IV

Selected Web Sites on Indicator Systems

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

Elderly 

Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics 

http://www.agingstats.gov/

Administration on Aging - Performance Outcomes Measures Project 

http://www.gpra.net/

Environment

Environmental Protection Agency Biological Indicators of Watershed 

Health http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - State of the 

World’s Forests 

http://www.fao.org/forestry/FO/SOFO/sofo-e.stm

Northwest Environment Watch - Home Page 

http://www.northwestwatch.org/pubs_index.html

Washington Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office 

http://www.governor.wa.gov/gsro/default.htm

World Association of Nuclear Operators Performance Indicators 

http://www.wano.org.uk/

Health

Leading Health Indicators - Healthy People 2010 

http://www.health.gov/healthypeople/LHI/lhiwhat.htm

Maryland’s Drug Early Warning System 

http://www.dewsonline.org/

Pan American Health Organization 

http://www.paho.org/

Partnerships for Networked Consumer Health Information Conferences 

http://odphp.osophs.dhhs.gov/confrnce/
Appendix IV

Selected Web Sites on Indicator Systems

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

The Quality Indicator Project - Association of Maryland Hospitals and 

Health Systems 

http://www.qiproject.org/

White House Social Statistics Briefing Room - Health 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/health.html

Background or Reference Flynn Research - Measuring Contributions to Society 

http://www.flynnresearch.com/products.htm

From Revolution to Reconstruction - Information on U.S. Presidents 

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/

NonProfit Pathfinder - Measuring the Impact of the Independent Sector 

http://www.independentsector.org/pathfinder/impact/indepsec_res/biblio.h

tml

The Social Indicators Survey Center - Columbia University 

http://www.siscenter.org/

 (450175)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal 

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to GAO 

Mailing Lists” under “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548