This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-396 
entitled 'Key Indicator Systems: Experiences of Other National and 
Subnational Systems Offer Insights for the United States' which was 
released on April 1, 2011. 

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

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Addressees: 

March 2011: 

Key Indicator Systems: 

Experiences of Other National and Subnational Systems Offer Insights 
for the United States: 

GAO-11-396: 

[Note: The report was reissued on April 12, 2011 with the following
clarification to the Highlights page (in the first paragraph under
Why GAO Did This Study): "The Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act of 2010 (PPACA) authorized a congressionally appointed
commission and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to
oversee the development of a key national indicator system for
the U.S." This change makes the text consistent with that used on
page 9 of the report].


GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-396, a report to congressional addressees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The U.S. has many indicators on a variety of topics such as the 
economy and health, but has no official vehicle for integrating and 
disseminating this information to better inform the nation about 
complex challenges. Diverse jurisdictions across the U.S. and 
internationally are integrating and disseminating this information 
through comprehensive key indicator systems. The Patient Protection 
and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA) authorized the National 
Academy of Sciences (NAS) to oversee the development of a key 
national indicator system for the U.S.

PPACA also directed GAO to study (1) how indicator systems are being 
used; (2) how indicator systems are designed and developed; (3) some 
factors necessary to sustain a system; and (4) potential implications 
for the development and use of a U.S. system. This study builds on a 
2004 GAO report on key indicator systems. GAO also obtained 
information on 20 comprehensive indicator systems from diverse U.S. 
and international areas; reviewed seven of those systems in greater 
depth; and interviewed system experts, representatives, and 
stakeholders. GAO verified the accuracy of the information about 
indicator systems with system representatives, the NAS, the Office of 
Management and Budget, and selected federal agencies and made 
technical changes as appropriate. GAO does not make recommendations in 
this report. 

What GAO Found: 

Key indicator systems integrate reliable statistical information on a 
jurisdiction’s economic, social, and environmental conditions. 

Figure: Possible Topics for a Comprehensive Key Indicator System: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table; 3 photographs] 

The Economy: 
* Consumers and employment; 
* Transportation and infrastructure; 
* Finance and money; 
* Business and markets; 
* Government; 
* The world economy. 

Society: 
* Health and housing; 
* Communities and citizenship; 
* Education and innovation; 
* Security and safety; 
* Crime and justice; 
* Children, families, and aging; 
* Democracy and governance; 
* Arts and culture. 

The Environment: 
* The Earth (ecosystems) 
* Land; 
* Water; 
* Air; 
* Natural resources. 

Crosscutting indicator categories: 
* Quality of life; 
* Sustainability; 
* Poverty; 
* Diversity; 
* Opportunity; 
* Mobility; 
* Equity. 

Sources: GAO (information); PhotoDisc and BrandXPictures (photos). 

[End of figure] 

The NAS and others who will oversee the development of a U.S. key 
indicator system can draw insights from the experiences GAO observed 
at the local, state, regional, and national levels in the U.S. and 
other countries. GAO found that the indicator systems reviewed were 
used for one or more overarching purposes, including increasing 
transparency and public awareness; fostering civic engagement and 
collaboration; and monitoring progress, aiding decision making, and 
promoting accountability. GAO also identified several key elements in 
developing and designing indicator systems, such as: (1) consulting 
experts and stakeholders about the purpose and design of the system, 
(2) using relevant indicators based on reliable data, and (3) 
providing disaggregated and comparative data where feasible. In 
addition, GAO found that sustaining indicator systems can present a 
constant challenge, depending on stable and diversified funding and 
the continued interest of key stakeholders. Thus, a participatory 
process for developing and revising the system is important. 

Data produced by the federal statistical community and other sources 
could serve as the beginning foundation for a U.S. system. The federal 
government can also benefit from a system by using information on 
trends in societal conditions to inform strategic planning and 
decision making. Although a fully operational set of measures will 
take time to develop, require broad involvement of American society, 
and involve substantial resource commitments, the benefits can 
include: (1) more informed policy choices, (2) a better educated 
citizenry, and (3) greater civic engagement. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-396] or key 
components. For more information, contact Bernice Steinhardt at (202) 
512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Key Indicator Systems Are Used for Multiple Purposes: 

Key Elements Factored into the Development and Design of Comprehensive 
Indicator Systems: 

Sustaining Support for Indicator Systems Is a Constant Challenge: 

Potential Implications for How a Key National Indicator System Could 
Be Developed and Used in the U.S. 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Indicator System Definitions: 

Appendix II: Comprehensive Key Indicator System Case Study Profiles: 

Measures of Australia's Progress: 

MONET Indicator System, Switzerland: 

United Kingdom's Government Sustainable Development Indicators: 

Community Indicators Victoria, Australia: 

Virginia Performs: 

King County AIMs High, Washington: 

Boston Indicators Project: 

Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix IV: Pub. L. No. 111-148, "Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act," Title V, Section 5605; 124 Stat. 680: 

Appendix V: Full Text for Figure 3 Presentation of Key Indicators from 
the MONET System: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Descriptions of the Seven Case Study Comprehensive Key 
Indicator Systems: 

Table 2: Descriptions of the 13 Additional Comprehensive Key Indicator 
Systems Reviewed: 

Table 3: Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Selected for GAO's Study: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Possible Topics for a Comprehensive Key Indicator System: 

Figure 2: Illustration of MAP Access to Commentary, MAP Data, and 
Source Data: 

Figure 3: Interactive Presentation of Key Indicators from the MONET 
System: 

Figure 4: Presentation of Virginia Comparative Educational Attainment 
Data: 

Figure 5: Presentation of Renewable Energy Production and Consumption 
Trend Data: 

Figure 6: Example of Community Indicators Victoria Report Creation 
Interface and Report: 

Figure 7: Example of Online Indicator Mapping Tool Featuring 
Information on the Greater Boston Metropolitan Area: 

Figure 8: Example of MAP Use of Color Coding to Show Indicator Trends: 

Figure 9: Example of Information Provided by MAP, Competitiveness and 
Openness Supplementary Dimension: 

Figure 10: Example of Information Provided by MONET on the Official 
Development Assistance to Poor Countries Indicator: 

Figure 11: Example of Monet System Use of Color Coding to Depict 
Indicator Progress for the Global Dimension: 

Figure 12: Summary of the 11 Key Challenges of the Sustainable 
Development Strategy Using the Color Coding of the Indicators: 

Figure 13: Example of Pocket Guide Information Provided on the 
Indicator for Water Resource Use: 

Figure 14: Summary of Changes in All UK Government Sustainable 
Development Indicators from the Pocket Guide: 

Figure 15: Table Presentation of Indicator from Community Indicators 
Victoria, by Region within Victoria: 

Figure 16: Map Presentation of Indicator from Community Indicators 
Victoria: 

Figure 17: A High-level Schematic of the Virginia Performs 
Architecture: 

Figure 18: Example of High School Graduation Indicator Page from 
Virginia Performs: 

Figure 19: Virginia Performs Indicators Scorecard at a Glance: 

Figure 20: List of Community Indicators and Performance Measures in 
the "Health" Category of King County AIMs High: 

Figure 21: Example of Indicator Page from AIMs High Web Sit: 

Figure 22: Boston Indicators Project Web Site Indicator Page Example: 

Abbreviations: 

ABS: Australian Bureau of Statistics: 

BIP: Boston Indicators Project: 

Defra: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: 

GDP: Gross Domestic Product: 

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act: 

JCCI: Jacksonville Community Council, Inc. 

MAP: Measures of Australia's Progress: 

MONET: Monitoring der Nachhaltigen Entwicklung or Monitoring 
Sustainable Development: 

NAS: National Academy of Sciences: 

OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

PPACA: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010: 

SUSA: State of the USA: 

UK: United Kingdom: 

VCIP: Victorian Community Indicators Project: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

March 31, 2011: 

Congressional Addressees: 

The creation of a key national indicator system to help Americans 
better assess the nation's progress is formally under way, with 
passage of legislation authorizing a national system.[Footnote 1] A 
key national indicator system aims to aggregate into a system 
essential statistical measures of economic, social, and environmental 
issues to provide reliable information on a country's condition, 
offering a shared frame of reference that enables collective 
accountability.[Footnote 2] Key indicator systems are numerous in 
communities, cities, counties, and regions across the country, but the 
United States, unlike some other countries, has had no widely shared 
factual frame of reference for assessing national position and 
progress across a range of critical challenges. 

The 21st century ushered in a period of profound transition for 
societies and governments around the world, marked by growing global 
interdependence, rapid advances in science and technology, and 
environmental sustainability and quality of life issues, among others. 
All of these trends have changed public expectations of government, 
and in the U.S., carry a number of significant implications. Among 
other things, the government's ability to attain societal goals will 
increasingly depend on strengthened mechanisms for collaboration with 
other governments and the not-for-profit and private sectors in 
dealing with a number of major challenges. A key national indicator 
system can help support these collaborations, providing a framework 
for related strategic planning efforts and linking shared purposes. It 
can also enhance transparency, accountability, and efficiency as it 
helps the public and its leaders better assess national position and 
progress. 

We have previously reported that a key national indicator system has 
the potential to build sophisticated information resources that can 
help to identify a country's significant challenges and opportunities, 
inform choices regarding the allocation of scarce public resources, 
assess whether solutions are working, and make comparisons within the 
country and to other countries.[Footnote 3] Indicators are measures 
that describe conditions over time. This is important for monitoring 
progress toward societal aims, such as improving education, enhancing 
security, or protecting the environment, which require reliable, 
unbiased, and useful indicators that are readily accessible to a wide 
variety of audiences. In many ways such information about the nation 
and the world is more available today than ever before, but too often 
it is in formats and locations that may make it difficult to locate 
and use effectively to provide an integrated picture of a 
jurisdiction's position and progress. Looking at the parts of a 
society or individual topics is no substitute for viewing the whole. 
Along these lines, there are numerous examples of comprehensive key 
indicator systems that bring together a select set of indicators that 
provide information conveniently in one place on a broad range of 
areas, such as economic development and employment, air and water 
quality, and public health and education. 

We were asked by the Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security 
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, 
Federal Services, and International Security to update our work on 
indicator systems to learn more about how key indicator systems are 
being used, experiences of others in developing the systems, and what 
some of the implications might be for a U.S. key national indicator 
system. Subsequently, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 
which included a provision directing that the National Academy of 
Sciences[Footnote 4] establish a U.S. key national indicator system, 
required that we report on work conducted by public agencies, private 
organizations, or foreign countries with respect to best practices for 
a key national indicator system.[Footnote 5] In response to the Senate 
request and the mandate, this report addresses (1) how indicator 
systems are being used by government entities, nongovernment 
stakeholders, and citizens; (2) how indicator systems are developed 
and designed; (3) some of the factors necessary to sustain indicator 
systems; and (4) potential implications for how a U.S. key national 
indicator system could be developed and used. 

This report builds on the findings from our November 2004 report on 
key indicator systems.[Footnote 6] In addition, based on 
recommendations from experts and our review of the literature, we 
selected a group of 20 comprehensive indicator systems from different 
jurisdictional levels and diverse geographic locations. We also 
conducted in-depth case studies--including interviews with officials 
or managers and stakeholders--of 7 of these 20 systems. The criteria 
for selection as a case study system included (1) comprehensiveness--a 
mixture of economic, social, and environmental indicators; (2) 
longevity--in existence for at least 5 years and currently in 
operation; (3) outcome-oriented--with measures of progress over time 
or toward goals or outcomes; and (4) involvement of a government 
entity as a partner or as a user of information from the system. We 
interviewed representatives from each of the selected indicator 
systems, as well as a range of experts in the indicator field and 
representatives from the National Academy of Sciences. Table 1 
provides a description of the 7 case study indicator systems we 
examined, and table 2 has a description of the 13 additional indicator 
systems included in our review. Further information on the case study 
systems is provided in appendix II. To analyze potential implications 
for a key national indicator system for the U.S., we drew upon our 
fieldwork, expert interviews, and professional judgment. 

Table 1: Descriptions of the Seven Case Study Comprehensive Key 
Indicator Systems: 

Name of system: Boston Indicators Project (MA); 
Level: Local; 
Description: Consists of 70 goals with indicators organized into 10 
"sectors"--civic vitality, cultural life and the arts, economy, 
education, environment and energy, health, housing, public safety, 
technology, and transportation; 
Identified purposes: To raise public awareness, aid decision making, 
foster civic engagement, and monitor progress toward defined outcomes; 
Managing/host organization(s): The Boston Foundation, a community 
foundation, in partnership with the City of Boston and the 
Metropolitan Area Planning Council; 
Date first reported: First report released in 2000; 
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.bostonindicators.org]. 

Name of system: King County AIMs High (WA); 
Level: County; 
Description: Consists of over 60 "community indicators" organized into 
8 categories--natural resources; built environment; housing and 
homelessness; economic vitality; health; law, safety, and justice; 
accountability and transparency; equity and social justice; 
Identified purposes: To raise public awareness and aid decision making; 
Managing/host organization(s): Government of King County, Washington; 
Date first reported: First report released in 2006; 
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.kingcounty.gov/aimshigh/]. 

Name of system: Community Indicators Victoria, Australia; 
Level: State; 
Description: Consists of approximately 80 indicators organized into 5 
"domains"--social, economic, environmental, democratic, and cultural; 
Identified purposes: To raise public awareness, aid decision making, 
and foster civic engagement; 
Managing/host organization(s): The McCaughey Centre, School of 
Population Health at the University of Melbourne; 
Date first reported: Web site released in 2007; 
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.communityindicators.net.au]. 

Name of system: Virginia Performs (VA); 
Level: State; 
Description: Consists of 49 indicators organized into 7 categories--
economy, education, health and family, public safety, natural 
resources, transportation, government and citizens. Also includes 
state agency objectives and performance measures that align with 7 
long-term state goals; 
Identified purposes: To raise public awareness, aid decision making, 
and monitor progress toward defined outcomes; 
Managing/host organization(s): The Council on Virginia's Future, a 
state advisory board chaired by the governor; 
Date first reported: Web site released in 2007; 
Web site: [hyperlink, http://vaperforms.virginia.gov/]. 

Name of system: Measures of Australia's Progress; 
Level: National; 
Description: Consists of 22 "dimensions of progress" (17 headline and 
5 supplementary) organized into 3 broad "domains"--society, the 
economy, and the environment. Each domain addresses several 
dimensions, such as health within the social domain, national income 
within the economic domain, and biodiversity within the environmental 
domain. Each dimension has a range of indicators and contextual 
information; 
Identified purposes: To raise public awareness and aid decision making; 
Managing/host organization(s): Australian Bureau of Statistics; 
Date first reported: First report released in 2002; 
Web site: [hyperlink, 
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/1370.0]. 

Name of system: MONET Indicator System, Switzerland; 
Level: National; 
Description: Consists of 80 indicators organized under 12 themes. A 
headline set of 17 key indicators are arranged under 4 broad 
questions--"How well do we live?" "How well are resources 
distributed?" "What are we leaving behind for our children?" and "How 
efficiently are we using our natural resources?" 
Identified purposes: To raise public awareness and aid decision making; 
Managing/host organization(s): Swiss Federal Statistical Office in 
cooperation with others, including the Federal Office for Spatial 
Development; 
Date first reported: First report released in 2003; 
Web site: [hyperlink, 
http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/21.html]. 

Name of system: United Kingdom Government Sustainable Development 
Indicators; 
Level: National; 
Description: Consists of 68 indicators organized under 4 themes--
"Sustainable consumption and production," "Climate change and energy," 
"Protecting natural resources and enhancing the environment," and 
"Creating sustainable communities." 20 of these indicators are 
identified as "key" indicators; 
Identified purposes: To raise public awareness and aid decision making; 
Managing/host organization(s): UK Department for Environment Food and 
Rural Affairs (Defra); 
Date first reported: First report released in 1996; 
Web site: [hyperlink, 
http://sd.defra.gov/uk/progress/national/annual-review]. 

Source: GAO analysis of information from the case study comprehensive 
key indicator systems. 

[End of table] 

Table 2: Descriptions of the 13 Additional Comprehensive Key Indicator 
Systems Reviewed: 

Name of system: Albuquerque Progress Report (NM); 
Level: Local; 
Description: Consists of 8 goal areas ranging from "Human and Family 
Development" to "Environmental Protection and Enhancement," to 
"Economic Vitality"--that are further subdivided into 62 Desired 
Community Conditions. Individual indicators are used to assess 
progress toward those desired conditions; 
Identified purposes: To raise public awareness, aid decision making, 
and monitor progress toward defined outcomes; 
Managing/host organization(s): The Indicators Progress Commission 
(IPC), which has responsibility for developing and tracking the 
indicators, and the City of Albuquerque; 
Date first reported: First report released by City of Albuquerque in 
1996.The IPC released subsequent editions beginning in 2000; 
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.cabq.gov/progress/]. 

Name of system: Cercle Indicateurs, Switzerland; 
Level: Local/state; 
Description: Consists of 37 indicators organized into environmental, 
economic, and society "dimensions." Provides comparative information 
for cities and cantons in Switzerland; 
Identified purposes: To aid decision making; 
Managing/host organization(s): Swiss Federal Office for Spatial 
Development and the Swiss Federal Statistical Office; 
Date first reported: First report released in 2005; 
Web site: [hyperlink, 
http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/21/02/autres.html]. 

Name of system: Jacksonville Community Council, Inc. Quality of Life 
Progress Report (FL); 
Level: Local; 
Description: Consists of 115 indicators, with a subset of 22 
identified as "key," organized into 9 categories--education, economy, 
natural environment, social wellbeing and harmony, arts and culture, 
health, government, transportation, and public safety. The categories 
are aligned with 9 "goal statements." 
Identified purposes: To raise public awareness, aid decision making, 
foster civic engagement, and monitor progress toward defined outcomes; 
Managing/host organization(s): Jacksonville Community Council, Inc., a 
non-profit civic organization; 
Date first reported: First report released in 1985; 
Web site: [hyperlink, 
http://www.jcci.org/jcciwebsite/pages/indicators.html]. 

Name of system: Truckee Meadows Tomorrow Quality of Life Indicators 
(NV); 
Level: Local; 
Description: Consists of 33 indicators divided into 10 categories--
arts and cultural vitality, civic engagement, economic well-being, 
education and lifelong learning, enrichment, health and wellness, 
innovation, land use and infrastructure, natural environment, and 
public well-being; 
Identified purposes: To raise public awareness, aid decision making, 
foster civic engagement, and monitor progress toward defined outcomes; 
Managing/host organization(s): Truckee Meadows Tomorrow, a community-
based nonprofit organization; 
Date first reported: First report released in 1994; 
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.truckeemeadowstomorrow.org/]. 

Name of system: Orange County Community Indicators (CA); 
Level: County; 
Description: Consists of over 45 indicators organized into 7 
categories--economic and business climate, technology and business 
innovation, education, community health and prosperity, public safety, 
environment, and civic engagement; 
Identified purposes: To raise public awareness and aid decision making; 
Managing/host organization(s): Government of Orange County, CA, in 
partnership with the Orange County Business Council and the Children 
and Families Commission of Orange County; 
Date first reported: First report released in 2000; 
Web site: [hyperlink, 
http://www.ocgov.com/ocgov/Info%20OC/Facts%20&%20Figures/Community%20Ind
icators]. 

Name of system: Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project (CA); 
Level: County; 
Description: Consists of over 100 indicators organized into 6 
categories--economy, education, health, public safety, social 
environment, and natural environment; 
Identified purposes: To raise public awareness, aid decision making, 
foster civic engagement, and monitor progress toward defined outcomes; 
Managing/host organization(s): Consortium of public and private 
health, education, human service, and civic organizations convened by 
the United Way of Santa Cruz County; 
Date first reported: First report released in 1995; 
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.santacruzcountycap.org/]. 

Name of system: Long Island Index (NY); 
Level: Regional; 
Description: Consists of indicators organized into 10 categories--
economy, population, housing, transportation, safety net, health, 
education, environment, open space, and governance; 
Identified purposes: To raise public awareness, foster civic 
engagement, and monitor progress toward defined outcomes; 
Managing/host organization(s): The Rauch Foundation, a Long Island-
based foundation; 
Date first reported: First report released in 2004; 
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.longislandindex.org]. 

Name of system: Silicon Valley Index (CA); 
Level: Regional; 
Description: Consists of indicators organized into 15 categories 
ranging from "Employment" and "Innovation" to "Quality of Health" to 
"Environment." These 15 categories are grouped also into 4 broader 
categories--people, economy, society, and place; 
Identified purposes: To raise public awareness and aid decision making; 
Managing/host organization(s): Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network, 
a public-private organization, and the Silicon Valley Community 
Foundation; 
Date first reported: First report released in 1995; 
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.jointventure.org/]. 

Name of system: Arizona Indicators (AZ); 
Level: State; 
Description: Consists of indicators divided into 11 "content areas"--
economy, public finance, education, innovation, sustainability, 
culture, health, human services, criminal justice, transportation, and 
demographics; 
Identified purposes: To raise public awareness and aid decision making; 
Managing/host organization(s): Morrison Institute for Public Policy at 
Arizona State University; 
Date first reported: Web site released in 2007; 
Web site: [hyperlink, http://arizonaindicators.org/]. 

Name of system: Measures of Growth in Focus (ME); 
Level: State; 
Description: Consists of 25 indicators divided into 10 indicator 
categories. These 10 categories are also grouped into 3 broader 
categories--economic, community, and environment; 
Identified purposes: To aid decision making and monitor progress 
toward defined outcomes; 
Managing/host organization(s): Maine Development Foundation, a 
nonprofit corporation with a mandate to promote Maine's economy; 
Date first reported: First report released in 1996; 
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.mdf.org/publications.php]. 

Name of system: Oregon Benchmarks (OR); 
Level: State; 
Description: Consists of 91 "benchmarks," and 158 "benchmark 
indicators" organized into 7 categories--economy, education, civic 
engagement, social support, public safety, community development, and 
environment; 
Identified purposes: To raise public awareness, aid decision making, 
and monitor progress toward defined outcomes; 
Managing/host organization(s): Oregon Progress Board, an independent 
state board. Funding was discontinued in 2009, but the Secretary of 
State continues to keep the data current; 
Date first reported: First report released in 1991; 
Web site: [hyperlink, http://benchmarks.oregon.gov]. 

Name of system: South Australia's Strategic Plan, Australia; 
Level: State; 
Description: Consists of 98 targets organized according to 6 
"objectives"--"Growing prosperity," "Improving wellbeing," "Attaining 
sustainability," "Fostering creativity and innovation," "Building 
communities," and "Expanding opportunity." Each target has associated 
indicators used to track progress; 
Identified purposes: To raise public awareness, aid decision making, 
foster civic engagement, and monitor progress toward defined outcomes; 
Managing/host organization(s): Government of the state of South 
Australia, with an independent Audit Committee to provide oversight 
and report on progress; 
Date first reported: First progress report released in 2006; 
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.stateplan.sa.gov.au/]. 

Name of system: Tasmania Together, Australia; 
Level: State; 
Description: Consists of 12 goals, ranging from "Increased work 
opportunities for all Tasmanians" to "Active, healthy Tasmanians with 
access to health care," and 151 "benchmarks," or indicators, that 
measure progress toward the goals; 
Identified purposes: To raise public awareness, aid decision making, 
foster civic engagement, and monitor progress toward defined outcomes; 
Managing/host organization(s): Tasmania Together Progress Board, an 
independent statutory authority reporting directly to the Tasmanian 
Parliament; 
Date first reported: First progress report released in 2002; 
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.tasmaniatogether.tas.gov.au/]. 

Source: GAO analysis of information from the comprehensive key 
indicator systems. 

[End of table] 

We conducted our work from February 2010 to March 2011 in accordance 
with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that are 
relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and 
perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence 
to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our 
work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and the 
analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions. More detailed information on our scope and methodology 
appears in appendix III. 

Background: 

The Need for a U.S. Key National Indicator System Has Gained 
Recognition: 

In February 2003, we convened a forum, in cooperation with the 
National Academy of Sciences, centered on the creation of a national 
system of indicators for the United States. More than 60 leaders from 
around the country gathered to discuss whether a key national 
indicator system could help create a more informed and accountable 
democracy. Subsequent to the forum, we reported on the state of the 
practice in key indicator systems already under way at all levels of 
U.S. society and options for Congress to consider in creating a key 
national indicator system for the U.S.[Footnote 7] In November 2006, 
we recommended that the 110th Congress' oversight agenda include, 
among other things, highlighting the need for a U.S. key national 
indicator system through public hearings and examining the possible 
role of a public-private partnership to further develop and operate a 
system of key national indicators.[Footnote 8] 

By the end of 2008, a legislative proposal for a key national 
indicator system had been created with bipartisan sponsorship. The 
President signed it into law in March 2010 as part of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act, with the provision that members of 
a federally appointed commission oversee implementation of the new key 
national indicator system. By December 2010, congressional leaders in 
the Senate and the House of Representatives had selected members of a 
bipartisan Commission on Key National Indicators.[Footnote 9] Specific 
responsibilities of the commission include conducting oversight of the 
system and issuing annual reports; managing a contract with the 
National Academy of Sciences for system implementation; facilitating 
support of the system, including federal funding and access to federal 
data sources; and making recommendations on system improvements as 
well as issues and measures to be considered.[Footnote 10] 

The National Academy of Sciences has been working in partnership with 
a nonprofit institute, the State of the USA (SUSA), to develop a plan 
for the construction and management of a key national indicator 
system; select issues to be represented by the indicators and the 
measures and data to be used for those indicators; design and maintain 
a public Web site;[Footnote 11] and develop a quality assurance 
framework to ensure rigor in the presentation of information and the 
selection of measures and data sources. According to a National 
Academy of Sciences representative, this plan is based on experience 
gained through research, development, and piloting activities 
conducted by SUSA over the past 5 years. A total of $70 million in 
public financial support is authorized for the system over 9 years to 
complement contributions by the private sector, which to date total 
approximately $13 million. In our 2004 report, we suggested that with 
such a public-private partnership, Congress would have greater 
flexibility in designing a unique organization and selecting from a 
range of possible features, with the opportunity to leverage federal 
resources with private ones--money, expertise, and technologies. 
[Footnote 12] However, to date Congress has not appropriated funding 
for the system. 

U.S. Federal Statistical System Includes Indicators in a Variety of 
Topical Areas: 

The U.S. federal statistical system includes indicators on many 
specific topics and consists of numerous agencies and programs. Each 
was established separately in response to different needs, and there 
are over 70 agencies conducting statistical activities. Ten principal 
federal statistical agencies collect, analyze, and produce statistics 
as their primary mission, and the Interagency Council on Statistical 
Policy--under the leadership of the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB)--enhances coordination and collaboration among federal agencies 
that collect and disseminate indicators. 

More broadly, the United States has national-level indicator systems 
in a variety of topical areas, most of which are supported by the 
federal statistical system. For example, America's Children: Key 
National Indicators of Well-Being provides a comprehensive set of 40 
indicators measuring critical aspects of children's lives. This 
indicator system is managed by the Federal Interagency Forum on Child 
and Family Statistics, which consists of 22 federal agencies that deal 
with children's issues. Some private research organizations and policy 
institutes in the United States also produce national-level reports on 
social, cultural, and environmental indicators in various subject 
areas. For example, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, a private 
charitable organization, produces the annual KIDS COUNT Data Book and 
the KIDS COUNT Data Center, which present national, state, and local-
level indicators on the status of America's children.[Footnote 13] 

The indicators required to inform our nation have evolved in response 
to needs for new or different types of information, new challenges, 
and shifting issues and priorities. The call for economic indicators 
grew out of the nation's experiences during the Great Depression. 
Social upheavals after World War II and the Great Society in the 1960s 
helped spark a desire for social and cultural information. Concerns 
about society's impact on the environment pointed to a need for more 
information on environmental conditions. Substantial information 
assets now exist in these topical areas, providing a foundation 
consisting of thousands of indicators. 

Comprehensive key indicator systems, however, attempt to address 
questions that topical indicator systems, which focus on a specific 
issue such as the economy or health, cannot answer for wide and 
diverse audiences. Indicators included in such systems are a core set 
of statistical measures that have been selected from a much larger 
range of possibilities. Figure 1 illustrates the three issue areas 
commonly found in comprehensive indicator systems and provides an 
illustration of potential indicator categories. 

Figure 1: Possible Topics for a Comprehensive Key Indicator System: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table; 3 photographs] 

The Economy: 
* Consumers and employment; 
* Transportation and infrastructure; 
* Finance and money; 
* Business and markets; 
* Government; 
* The world economy. 

Society: 
* Health and housing; 
* Communities and citizenship; 
* Education and innovation; 
* Security and safety; 
* Crime and justice; 
* Children, families, and aging; 
* Democracy and governance; 
* Arts and culture. 

The Environment: 
* The Earth (ecosystems) 
* Land; 
* Water; 
* Air; 
* Natural resources. 

Crosscutting indicator categories: 
* Quality of life; 
* Sustainability; 
* Poverty; 
* Diversity; 
* Opportunity; 
* Mobility; 
* Equity. 

Sources: GAO (information); PhotoDisc and BrandXPictures (photos). 

[End of figure] 

Selecting the key aspects or activities of a society that are most 
important to measure is a challenge for indicator systems. Diverse 
perspectives and value judgments significantly affect indicator 
choices and definitions, which are inherently subjective. While 
opinions can and do differ over what constitutes a nation's position 
and progress, those involved with indicator systems have nonetheless 
found sufficient common ground to agree that sustained efforts to 
collect, organize, and disseminate information in more comprehensive, 
balanced, and understandable ways provide critical information that 
all can use in discussing options and making choices to address 
societal challenges. In addition, international organizations, such as 
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and 
the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions, have 
begun actively promoting the development and application of key 
national indicator systems. 

At the national level, the movement toward comprehensive indicator 
systems is in part based on long-standing concerns about the adequacy 
of current measures of national performance, in particular those 
solely based on Gross Domestic Product (GDP). A key concern is that 
GDP has become a singular measure of national performance yet does not 
reflect other dimensions of national well-being, such as improvements 
or harm to social structures and the environment, sustainability of 
growth, nonmarket household activities such as unpaid child care, and 
quality of life issues such as the availability of leisure time. In 
response to these concerns, French President Nicolas Sarkozy 
commissioned a report to "explore a broader conceptualization of 
social progress."[Footnote 14] The report pointed out some of the 
limitations and the consequences of relying on GDP, highlighting, for 
example, subjective measures, such as those providing insight into how 
people perceive their own well-being. The report emphasized that 
issues such as quality of governance, social contact, and health 
status are important indicators in themselves, independent of their 
effect on income. The move to consider alternative or additional 
measures of progress and well-being beyond economic indicators has 
also been endorsed by the OECD, which has sponsored three World Forums 
on measuring social progress.[Footnote 15]: 

Key Indicator Systems Are Used for Multiple Purposes: 

Key Indicator Systems Can Increase Transparency and Public Awareness: 

We have previously reported that the effective use of key indicator 
systems can improve transparency and enhance accountability by giving 
decision makers and the public easy access to information. If the 
systems are viewed as credible and relevant, they can provide the 
capacity for many to work from and make choices based upon a single 
source of reliable statistical information. They can also enhance 
efficiency by eliminating the need for individuals or institutions to 
expend time and resources looking for or compiling and integrating 
information from disparate sources. Indicator systems can also promote 
public awareness of issues through indicator reports and Web sites and 
by making information on the condition of a jurisdiction, and the 
factors influencing changes in those conditions, more accessible to 
the community.[Footnote 16] It is important to note, however, that 
indicators communicate societal conditions, and that while they may 
provide some insights into the causes of those conditions, this does 
not necessarily lead to a consensus on the cause or what action, if 
any, should be taken. 

Many key indicator systems, such as the King County AIMs High system 
in the state of Washington, are created to increase the transparency 
and accessibility of information for their jurisdictions. The AIMs 
High system, administered by the county government, includes a public 
report that presents information on key indicators describing the 
condition of the county across a range of areas, from the quality of 
its natural resources to the health of its citizens to the vitality of 
its economy. For example, the AIMs High Web site has an indicator for 
the number of businesses in the county, information on factors that 
influence business development, and the role county government plays 
in supporting business development. According to a county legislator, 
King County government needs to be transparent and accountable to its 
citizens, and AIMs High has helped with these goals. 

Key indicator systems not only bring together diverse sources of 
information, they provide analysis and context for that information, 
which helps to raise public awareness of conditions in their nation, 
region, city, or community. For example, Measuring Australia's 
Progress (MAP), a key national indicator system developed by the 
Australian Bureau of Statistics, is designed to provide statistical 
information about the condition of the nation to the public. In 
addition, MAP releases include extensive interpretive information that 
provides analysis and context for its indicators.[Footnote 17] The 
dimension on "work," for example, has data and analysis on 
unemployment and underemployment, including discussions of 
subpopulations, such as younger and older workers, single parents, 
individuals with disabilities and caregivers, and indigenous people. 
There are also comparisons with other countries, a glossary of related 
terms, and a hyperlinked list of related Australian Bureau of 
Statistics publications. Similar interpretive material is provided for 
other indicators in MAP. Additionally, for those interested in more 
detail and information on data sources, the MAP Web site offers access 
to additional sources of data or to more in-depth statistical 
information. The site, for example, provides links to more extensive 
data both through downloads of data used in MAP and to the Australian 
Bureau of Statistics Web pages for supporting data streams. Figure 2 
illustrates a MAP Web site user's access to commentary, MAP data, and 
source data when looking at the work dimension. In addition, the 
Australian Bureau of Statistics works with the Australian media to 
help ensure that releases of MAP are reported in the national press, 
which helps bring MAP to the attention of people throughout Australia. 

Figure 2: Illustration of MAP Access to Commentary, MAP Data, and 
Source Data: 

[Refer to PDF for image: web page] 

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. 

Note: Measures of Australia's Progress, cat. no. 1370.0, Canberra, 
2010. Web page can be accessed at [hyperlink, 
http://www.abs.gov.au/about/progress] (viewed on Mar. 7, 2011). 

[End of figure] 

Other systems also present indicators using a narrative approach that 
"tells a story" and that is designed to make indicators more 
accessible to general audiences by providing important background and 
contextual information. For example, for each of the indicators 
available through its Web site, the Boston Indicators Project explains 
why the indicator is important and, to place the data in a broader 
context, how groups or geographic areas within Boston compare to one 
another or, where feasible, how Boston compares to peer cities 
throughout the United States. To provide additional contextual 
information, the system highlights key trends and challenges, recent 
developments, accomplishments, and innovations for each of the 10 
sectors that are tracked, such as the economy and education. In 
addition, the Boston Indicators Project issues a narrative report 
every 2 years based on themes developed in civic convenings, the 
analysis of long-term trends, and progress on measurable goals. 

Indicator systems can also highlight the links between different 
policy areas. As an example, the Swiss MONET (Monitoring der 
Nachhaltigen Entwicklung or Monitoring Sustainable Development) system 
is based on three qualitative objectives of sustainable development--
economic efficiency, social solidarity, and environmental 
responsibility. Out of a total set of 80 indicators, 17 "headline" or 
key indicators, each representing a group of indicators, were selected 
to highlight major trends and salient features.[Footnote 18] The set 
of 17 indicators is grouped according to four questions that are 
derived from the MONET indicators framework: 

* Meeting needs--how well do we live? 

* Fairness--how well are resources distributed? 

* Preservation of resources--what are we leaving behind for our 
children? 

* Decoupling--how efficiently are we using our natural resources? 

Figure 3 depicts how the 17 key indicators from the MONET system 
relate to the three qualitative objectives and are grouped according 
to the four questions. This highlights how indicators and themes link 
together. For example, the orange theme shows connections among 
resource use, energy, economy, and transportation and how they relate 
to the different objectives underlying MONET. According to MONET 
officials, such indicator data helped raise awareness of the concerns 
about overdevelopment and the impacts of land use on transportation, 
energy use, and the preservation of natural areas.[Footnote 19] 

Figure 3: Interactive Presentation of Key Indicators from the MONET 
System: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Interactivity instructions: 

Click on each square to see related indicators and explanations.
For the print version of the MONET figure, please see appendix V. 

Objectives: 
Social solidarity; 
Environmental responsibility; 
Economic efficiency. 

Questions Related to Objectives: 

Meeting needs – how well do we live? 

Fairness – how well are resources distributed? 

Preservation of resources – what are we leaving behind for our 
children? 

Decoupling – how efficiently are we using our natural resources? 

Source: Adapted from graphics of MONET system, Swiss Confederation. 

Note: Federal Statistical Office, Federal Office for Spatial 
Development, Agency for Development and Cooperation, and Federal 
Office for the Environment, Sustainable Development--A Brief Guide 
2010 (2011). Web page can be accessed at [hyperlink, 
http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/21/02/dashboard/02.ht
ml]. 

[End of figure] 

In addition, key indicator systems can present indicator information 
and analysis with products oriented toward different audiences. Many 
indicator systems produce simplified "scorecards," "pocket guides," 
reports, and Web-based presentations that provide succinct summaries 
of the indicators in a way that makes them accessible to a broad 
audience. These products aim to bring together indicators from 
different areas in a coherent way, allowing users to quickly determine 
how a jurisdiction is progressing. Some indicator systems also find it 
useful to produce specialized products for particular audiences that a 
system is designed to serve. The developers of Virginia Performs make 
indicator information available by state legislative district, 
summarizing this information in a brief "Community Snapshot" document 
personalized for each member of the state legislature. According to 
one Virginia legislator, these products are particularly useful as 
they consolidate key pieces of information on the conditions and 
trends in each legislative district. 

Key Indicator Systems Can Foster Civic Engagement and Collaboration: 

In addition to providing information and raising public awareness, 
indicator systems are sometimes used to link the system's broad goals 
and indicators to guide specific actions. An indicator system can 
serve as a vehicle for encouraging civic engagement both through the 
system's development process and through action once the indicator 
system is in place. Comprehensive key indicator systems can also help 
address community or national challenges by facilitating collaboration 
of various parties inside and outside of government. The focused 
attention that an indicator system or corresponding report can bring 
to certain conditions may bring increased pressure to bear on diverse 
parties in the public and private sectors. Accordingly, these kinds of 
efforts help break down traditional boundaries between various actors 
and organizations and encourage them to work together in ways that can 
provide solutions to long-term challenges. 

Incorporating public input in the development and use of indicator 
systems was particularly common among the local systems we examined. 
For example, one of the stated purposes of the Truckee Meadows 
Tomorrow indicator system in Nevada is to foster civic involvement 
around issues affecting the region, such as protecting the region's 
natural resources and environment, increasing parental involvement in 
education, and encouraging voter participation. The developers of the 
Truckee Meadows Tomorrow system used a citizen-and stakeholder-driven 
process to identify goals and priorities for the region, and the 
indicators, which provide information on the status of each of these 
goals, were used to encourage civic engagement and inform 
collaborative efforts. Managers of Truckee Meadows Tomorrow have also 
used "Quality of Life Compacts" to encourage civic engagement and 
improve community outcomes. Quality of Life Compacts are formal, 
voluntary agreements between Truckee Meadows Tomorrow and one or more 
organizations, individuals, businesses, or local government entities 
that work together to improve performance on targeted indicators. One 
completed compact involved the Washoe County School District and the 
Washoe Education Association, a teachers' union, which was designed to 
improve parental involvement in schools by actions such as increasing 
the number of parent volunteer hours, parent participation in parent-
teacher conferences, and better use of parent volunteers by teachers 
through individual action plans at each school in the district. 
Following these efforts, the system's "communitywide involvement in 
education" indicator, which measures parental involvement through both 
a survey and parent-teacher conference attendance, showed improvement. 

Some indicator system managers have convened groups that work on 
collective strategies to address areas of common interest. In addition 
to providing data on the condition of a community, the systems 
facilitate conversations between members of a community from a variety 
of sectors about ways to address problems. For example, the Boston 
Indicators Project periodically brings together leaders from the 
public, private, and nonprofit sectors to discuss key issues and 
surface themes for its next report. One such effort includes providing 
staff support to the John LaWare Leadership Forum, quarterly forums 
that bring together civic, business, and community leaders from 
throughout Boston to reflect on and discuss identified challenges and 
potential solutions. For example, the first forums in 2005, focused on 
the weakening of corporate and civic leadership in Boston. By bringing 
together business and civic leaders with academic experts to focus on 
key issues and data identified by the Boston Indicators Project, 
participants were able to explore areas in which Boston and the region 
could sustain and expand their competitiveness in a global economy 
while addressing local challenges in education and housing. According 
to several stakeholders of the system, this effort to foster a shared 
understanding of key challenges and opportunities has been critical in 
facilitating connections between actors from different sectors. 

As another example, at the national level the Healthy People indicator 
system initiative, a federal effort led by the Department of Health 
and Human Services, has increasingly engaged stakeholders at 
subnational levels to assist in progress toward the system's health 
goals and objectives. The Healthy People Consortium--an alliance that 
now consists of more than 400 national organizations and 250 state and 
local agencies--was created to forge a coalition dedicated to taking 
action to achieve the Healthy People objectives, such as reducing 
obesity. It facilitates broad participation in the process of 
developing the national prevention agenda and engages local chapters 
and their members in the provision of community and neighborhood 
leadership. 

Some indicator systems have also been used to raise awareness about 
specific problems and the need for collaborative efforts to address 
them. The Commonwealth of Virginia provides an example of how 
indicators encouraged collaboration across sectors to address the 
issue of infant mortality. In 2007, with a rate of 7.8 deaths per 
1,000 live births, Virginia had the 12th highest rate in the nation. 
Data also showed that there were wide disparities from the northern 
part to the south and southwestern parts of the Commonwealth. The 
Virginia governor set a goal of achieving a statewide infant mortality 
rate of less than 7 per 1,000 live births. According to a Virginia 
official, Virginia Performs, by listing the infant mortality rate as 
one of its key indicators, helped serve as a catalyst, raising the 
profile of the issue and helping people identify drivers of outcomes. 

The increased visibility and attention on reducing the infant 
mortality indicator in Virginia served as a means for focusing 
collaborative efforts. In 2008, the Commissioner of Health formed a 
Working Group on Infant Mortality that brought together leaders from 
the health care industry, community and faith organizations, business 
community, insurers, educators, and associations to find ways to 
promote the health of pregnant women and women with young children. 
Furthermore, after closely analyzing information on infant deaths in 
Virginia, it was found that 10 areas within the Commonwealth accounted 
for 52 percent of all infant deaths. To help address the issue in 
these areas, the Virginia Department of Health created an initiative 
that focused resources on those 10 areas and engaged community 
partners, such as grocery store chains, in developing strategies, 
plans, and actions for reducing the number of infant deaths. By the 
end of 2008, the infant mortality rate in almost every region was 
down, and the statewide rate had fallen to 6.7 deaths per 1,000 live 
births. 

Similarly, in the city of Jacksonville, Florida, the inclusion of the 
infant mortality rate as an indicator in the Jacksonville Community 
Council, Inc. (JCCI) report also helped raise awareness about the 
scope of infant mortality in Jacksonville and led to collaborative 
action to address the problem. First, the creation of an Infant 
Mortality Advocacy Task Force and a JCCI report on infant mortality 
found that numerous factors faced by women throughout their life 
cycle, not just those directly related to health care, influence their 
predisposition for poor birth outcomes. This information resulted in a 
number of different approaches being developed so that Jacksonville 
could address the problem in a multifaceted way. For example, local 
hospitals implemented "baby friendly" designations, vendors at the 
farmers' markets began to accept food stamps to increase the 
availability of nutritious alternatives, and Rotary Clubs promoted 
safe sleep practices. A local foundation launched a social marketing 
campaign to help educate the community about infant mortality. 
According to the manager of the JCCI indicator system, efforts like 
these helped contribute to a 27 percent decline in the infant 
mortality rate in Jacksonville between 2005 and 2009. 

Key Indicator Systems Can Be Used to Monitor Progress, Establish 
Accountability for Results, and Aid Decision Making: 

Indicator systems and their reports have been used to highlight 
instances when progress is not being made and to encourage interested 
parties and stakeholders to take action. In addition, by ensuring that 
relevant, reliable information is made more accessible and usable by 
many different members of our society, indicator systems help 
establish accountability and increase the probability that pressing 
problems are understood and that decisions are well informed. 

System managers and experts we interviewed expressed a range of 
perspectives on the importance of articulating goals as part of an 
indicator system and how specifically an indicator system should 
define goals or targets to be achieved. Some said that the existence 
of specifically defined goals or targets can make indicators more 
meaningful and relevant as accountability tools, help people better 
understand where a jurisdiction is relative to its goals, and help 
generate coordinated action to address shared challenges. For example, 
Maine's Measures of Growth in Focus includes a "research and 
development expenditures" indicator that tracks progress toward a 
target that total research and development spending in Maine will 
increase to 3 percent of the state's GDP by 2015. Other systems used 
indicators to track progress toward broader goals. The JCCI indicator 
system, for example, uses a combination of key and supporting 
indicators to track progress toward nine high-level quality of life 
goals, such as "achieving educational excellence," "growing a vibrant 
economy," and "preserving the natural environment." This information 
is used to identify priority areas where action is needed as well as 
those areas where improvements have been made. Others stated that some 
systems, because of the sensitive political environments in which they 
operate, seek to avoid the political issues that are inherently part 
of selecting and articulating goals. Instead, these systems may use 
benchmarks or comparisons to show how a jurisdiction differs from its 
peers or use trend data to show the movement in an indicator and 
provide a focus on generating positive movement in that area. For 
example, the UK Government Sustainable Development Indicator System 
includes an indicator of productivity, which is used to track output 
per worker over time, relative to a 1991 baseline, and relative to 
other countries. 

Some indicator systems exist as one element of a broader plan and are 
developed to support the monitoring of that plan. For example, the 
state of South Australia has developed an indicator system to support 
its strategic plan. The strategic plan includes 98 specific targets, 
each of which has an associated indicator, which represent outcomes 
the government hopes to achieve over time. Performance of state agency 
executives is evaluated regarding the progress made toward the targets 
for which their agency has responsibility, and government policies and 
new proposals are also evaluated according to their ability to produce 
positive movement toward the targets. By using a series of targets 
that stem from high-level statewide goals, and indicators to track 
whether progress is being made, the strategic plan is being used to 
redirect resources and guide government decision making. As an 
example, South Australia has used math and science outcomes from its 
annual Indicators Progress Report to inform the allocation of 
resources. In recent years the progress report has shown a slight 
decline in the percentage of students meeting the target for math and 
science achievement that the government has set as its objective. On 
the basis of this information, the government has laid out strategies 
to increase the recruitment, retention, and retraining of math and 
science teachers, and the government's most recent budget also 
includes $8.7 million over 4 years to provide schools with more 
teachers who have specialist qualifications in math and science. 

There are several mechanisms by which the Tasmanian government has 
linked its actions to the Tasmania Together system. The Tasmanian 
government has identified a subset of 40 of Tasmania Together's 152 
benchmarks as priority benchmarks and assigned responsibility for 
improving them to state agencies. The state agencies have been 
required to develop action plans in addition to reporting annually to 
parliament on relevant benchmarks. This process is being reviewed with 
a focus on a smaller, more discrete number of priority benchmarks. 
Most state agencies have also incorporated Tasmania Together 
benchmarks into their planning processes. Further, the government 
encourages agencies to link their budget requests to the Tasmania 
Together benchmarks. Tasmania Together publishes a detailed biennial 
progress report to parliament in addition to a snapshot of progress 
every year that is designed to be a quick and accurate assessment of 
what is progressing and what might need more attention in terms of 
achieving the targets. 

Indicator systems are often tied to information used by governments to 
manage programs and make decisions. For example, Ballarat, a city in 
the state of Victoria, Australia, used the framework and the data 
generated by Community Indicators Victoria, a state indicator system, 
to support its community plans and a legislative initiative on alcohol 
control that was generated by the community plan's findings on public 
safety and alcohol consumption. In addition, the government of Orange 
County, California, used information from its annual indicators report 
to develop plans and take action to address asthma and immunization 
rates, as well as homelessness. Specifically, data from a recent 
report showed that county immunization rates were lower than in peer 
regions, asthma rates were higher, and homelessness among children was 
growing. The county used this data in an effort to improve outcomes by 
developing a plan to provide joint asthma clinics with a local 
university and hospital, an immunization campaign to immunize children 
in Orange County by the age of 2, and a 10-year plan to address 
homelessness among the young. 

As another example, the Boston Foundation recently completed a data- 
driven strategic review of its grant making program, beginning with an 
overview of trends and conditions presented by the Boston Indicators 
Project. Guided by its mission statement and the documentation of 
community conditions, the foundation developed nine strategies to 
achieve its goals and then examined data in each issue area to get a 
better sense of trends and issues. Relevant statistical measures for 
each strategy are generated internally on a quarterly basis to track 
progress toward the goals in each strategy area. According to a Boston 
Foundation official, the quarterly reports are having an impact by 
focusing decision makers on investments that have the greatest 
potential to influence positive movement toward the achievement of the 
foundation's objectives. For example, the foundation is now looking at 
data from neighborhoods to determine where to invest resources more 
effectively to address low birth weights in certain areas of Boston. 
The official said that the focus on data and results has also changed 
the nature of the conversation between the Boston Foundation and its 
grant recipients to one that clearly lays out expectations that the 
foundation has for each grant recipient. 

Key Elements Factored into the Development and Design of Comprehensive 
Indicator Systems: 

Consulting Experts and Stakeholders about Purpose and Design Can 
Result in a More Relevant and Useful System: 

Involving technical and subject matter experts in the development 
process can help developers get an accurate sense for which select 
group of indicators and statistical measures are most appropriate 
given the purpose and structure of the system and the data needs of 
intended audiences. For example, a representative from the National 
Academy of Sciences noted that framing issues and choosing indicators 
should be based on the best available research from around the nation 
and the world, particularly given how challenging it is to focus on a 
limited number of measures. 

To take advantage of this expertise, some systems, including the three 
key national indicator systems we reviewed, have used a developmental 
approach that relies on input from a group of key stakeholders and 
technical and subject matter experts to inform the selection of the 
indicators used to measure a jurisdiction's condition and progress. 
Some system managers we interviewed said that experts play an 
important role in the development of indicator systems by providing 
technical and subject matter knowledge that can be used to identify 
(1) the factors that are most critical in determining how a 
jurisdiction is doing, (2) the most appropriate indicators to measure 
a jurisdictions' condition and progress, and (3) sources of available 
data for the indicators. 

A system manager cautioned, however, that without opportunities for 
meaningful stakeholder input during the development process, the 
indicators may bear little relation to the priorities and concerns of 
intended audiences, which can undermine the relevancy and legitimacy 
of a system. Therefore, this approach to development has also been 
combined with other mechanisms for collecting feedback from a broader 
range of stakeholders and citizens. The developers of MAP, for 
example, convened a group of experts from universities, national 
scientific organizations, and nongovernmental organizations to help 
guide the initial development of the system. Subsequently, developers 
also reached out to a wider range of interested public, nonprofit, and 
private sector stakeholders from across Australia and collected 
feedback through a series of targeted seminars held throughout the 
country that were also open to the public. 

Because the selection of indicators is not a value-neutral activity, 
and different audiences may prefer different indicators, involving a 
diverse collection of stakeholders in the development process can 
allow developers to collect input on the priorities, concerns, and 
preferences of a range of potential audiences. Several system managers 
and experts we interviewed mentioned that before selecting specific 
indicators it is important to identify the system's intended 
audiences--whether it be the general public, government officials, or 
specific sets of stakeholders such as business and civic leaders--and 
consider how representatives from those audiences can be involved in 
the system's development. Involving these representatives in decisions 
about the system's purposes and design can also help build and sustain 
the credibility and legitimacy of the system; help ensure that the 
selected goals and indicators align with the priorities of intended 
audiences; create a sense of ownership from involved stakeholders; and 
increase the likelihood that intended audiences will see the indicator 
system as a relevant and useful tool to inform their decision making. 
For example, while Virginia Performs was under development, 
stakeholders from state government and the Council on Virginia's 
Future expressed their desire for a system that would allow them to 
see trends in the condition of Virginia, compare Virginia to peer 
states and national leaders, and compare regions within Virginia. 
Because developers were aware of these needs, they were able to design 
the system to collect and present the disaggregated, comparative, and 
trend data necessary to ensure the system would accommodate those 
needs. 

Involving a wide range of stakeholders, including the general public, 
in the development process was a common characteristic of systems we 
reviewed that were designed to monitor progress toward achieving goals 
and to increase civic engagement. For example, Truckee Meadows 
Tomorrow is an example of a system that used extensive public 
participation to select the indicators that would make up the system. 
Its developers began by bringing together a diverse group of 
representatives from local organizations--including representatives of 
groups that may have been underrepresented in past community-based 
efforts. These representatives formed nine committees that each 
developed a list of about a dozen potential indicators that could be 
used to track community progress in different areas. Truckee Meadows 
Tomorrow board members and staff then made over 100 presentations to 
civic organizations, community groups, and businesses to present the 
draft indicators and used these opportunities to ask audience members 
to prioritize the indicators. Over 2,000 citizens participated in this 
phase of the project, using "play money" to vote on what mattered the 
most to their quality of life. The next phase involved several surveys 
of the community asking respondents to rate the top 100 indicators on 
a scale of 1 to 5. This effort yielded input from another 1,000 
residents and was followed by a random phone survey of 600 residents. 
All of this input was used to inform the selection of the final set of 
66 indicators. 

As another example, the development of Tasmania Together began with 
the Premier of Tasmania asking a representative group of 24 community 
leaders from around the state to consult with their communities, 
identify common priorities, and collect input from citizens on what 
Tasmania should seek to achieve by 2020. This group of leaders 
collected the views of Tasmanians via public forums and meetings, 
Internet submissions, and letters. This effort led to the selection of 
24 goals to structure the indicator system, and a "consultation" 
document was released to collect additional public feedback. As an 
example of how stakeholder and public outreach efforts such as these 
can be combined with the work of experts, after completing the public 
outreach process, the Tasmania Together system's developers worked 
with more than 100 industry, community, and public-sector specialists 
to select the indicators and data sources. 

Extensive public outreach can present logistical challenges. As we 
have previously reported, when indicator systems involve a diverse 
group of stakeholders, it is important to build sufficient time into 
the process of selecting indicators to allow stakeholders to address 
differences and reach consensus. For example, in Tasmania the initial 
public consultation process was expected to take only 3 months but 
ended up taking 18 months. As another example, the public engagement 
process used to inform the selection of the original indicators for 
Truckee Meadows Tomorrow took approximately 1 year to complete. 

Relevant Indicators Based on Reliable Data Help Ensure the Credibility 
of a System: 

According to system managers we interviewed, ensuring the credibility 
of a system requires relevant indicators supported with reliable, 
accurate, and up-to-date statistical information. The selection of 
specific data sources was described as a process that should be guided 
by professional standards for quality. While the data used to support 
indicators should be reliable and of high quality, the indicators must 
also be relevant to the key issues that the system's stakeholders and 
audiences care about. 

Many of the comprehensive key indicator systems we reviewed 
highlighted the importance of selecting indicators that share these 
characteristics. Several systems even made these explicit criteria to 
help ensure that the indicators would meet certain standards for 
reliability and relevancy. For example, Community Indicators Victoria 
established criteria that required an indicator to be, among other 
things: 

* relevant and valuable to the community; 

* endorsed by experts on the topic; 

* populated with regular and reliable data sources; and: 

* unambiguous and resonate with the general population. 

Using a set of selection criteria that all stakeholders agree to in 
advance can also help ensure that the indicator selection process 
works effectively from the outset, and applying criteria can help 
facilitate decisions not to use some of the potential indicators or to 
rank a possible list of indicators. 

While many indicator systems rely, for the most part, on data-
producing organizations to ensure valid, quality data, there are 
systems that have their own processes to help ensure the quality and 
appropriateness of their indicators and data. For example, before 
selecting individual indicators, the Albuquerque Indicators Progress 
Commission considered several questions, including whether: 

* the source is unbiased and reliable; 

* there are policy agendas connected to the indicator; 

* the data are gathered consistently; and: 

* the measurement methodology is sound. 

Providing Disaggregated and Comparable Data Available over Time Can 
Increase the Usefulness of an Indicator System: 

In addition to ensuring that measures included in an indicator system 
are unbiased and reliable, system managers and experts we interviewed 
emphasized that an indicator system can be enhanced by having data 
that are disaggregated by geographic area and demographic group, 
comparable across jurisdictions, and available over time. Interactive 
Web sites and mapping technologies are also improving the ease of 
presenting and analyzing large amounts of data. 

Disaggregated Data: 

Indicators supported with data disaggregated by race, gender, 
geography, and socioeconomic status are useful for audiences because 
they can show variations among areas and groups. Aggregated measures 
providing a high-level view of a jurisdiction are useful in some 
contexts, but may have limited value for decision makers as they can 
mask disparities among geographic areas and demographic groups. 
Disaggregated data are valuable because they allow users to see these 
disparities, which can help decision makers identify issues needing 
attention and target strategies to address the disparities. The extent 
to which the systems we reviewed provided disaggregated data varied, 
but virtually all of the systems provided some data disaggregated by 
geography or demographic characteristics. There are some, such as 
Virginia Performs, that make it a central part of their presentation. 
For example, according to users of Virginia Performs, the usefulness 
of the system is strengthened by the fact that it provides 
disaggregated data for eight regions within Virginia. A Virginia state 
legislator said that state policymakers can use this information to 
understand the disparities that exist among regions in Virginia and to 
inform legislative initiatives to address them. For example, data have 
shown that, over time, educational attainment levels are higher in 
northern Virginia than in other parts of the Commonwealth. Because of 
increased awareness of these disparities, Virginia has begun to invest 
in expanding higher education opportunities in traditionally 
underserved areas. In figure 4, disaggregated educational attainment 
data from Virginia Performs show how regions within Virginia compare 
to one another. 

Figure 4: Presentation of Virginia Comparative Educational Attainment 
Data: 

[Refer to PDF for image: web site page] 

Source: Council on Virginia’s Future. 

Note: Web page from Virginia Performs can be accessed at [hyperlink, 
http://vaperforms.virginia.gov/indicators/education/edAttainment] 
(viewed on Mar. 7, 2011). 

[End of figure] 

The demand may be high for data from progressively smaller geographic 
areas, but capturing reliable data for these areas can be a challenge. 
As data are disaggregated, their quality and reliability may come into 
question. Furthermore, data may not be collected at the desired 
geographic level or according to the racial, gender, or demographic 
variables of interest. For example, according to officials from 
Arizona Indicators, an ongoing challenge is data availability, 
particularly finding uniform data at the subcounty level. In some 
cases, the system's developers have been hindered from providing 
information at the community level because they have found that the 
county is the smallest unit for which they have been able to procure 
reliable and uniform data. A system official, for example, said that 
they would like to be able to provide data disaggregated by zip code 
for certain indicators, such as the incidence of diabetes, but the 
information is not available at that level. 

Comparative Data: 

Virtually all of the systems we reviewed also made some comparative 
data available, while some, such as the Albuquerque Progress Report 
and the Swiss Cercle Indicateurs, made comparative data a central part 
of their presentation. Data that are comparable and consistent across 
jurisdictions can provide a frame of reference for assessing the 
condition and progress of a jurisdiction relative to its peers, and, 
by identifying jurisdictions that may serve as a model for others, 
encourage benchmarking and action to generate improvements. For 
example, in 2004 the Community Assessment Project of Santa Cruz County 
reported that the county ranked 51st out of California's 66 counties 
for the percentage of overweight children younger than 5 years, and 
57th for children aged 5 to less than 20 years. The availability of 
this comparative information and increased awareness about this 
problem helped spur the creation of the Go for Health! Collaborative, 
which was created in 2004 to increase healthy eating and regular 
physical activity for children and youth in Santa Cruz County. Go for 
Health! has over 150 member organizations working to achieve 24 
outcomes. In addition, it has placed fruit stands on school campuses, 
worked with public works departments to add bike lanes, and worked 
with grocery stores to replace candy with fruit at check-out aisles. 

A lack of consistency in the data definitions or units of measurement 
from one jurisdiction to another will have an impact on the usability 
and comparability of data, however. For this reason, it is important 
for system developers interested in using comparative data to ensure 
that the methodologies, definitions, and units of measurement are 
consistent across jurisdictions. 

Trend data: 

Stability and continuity in the indicators and data can also help 
audiences detect changes in indicators and understand the historical 
context surrounding an issue. According to system managers we 
interviewed, trend data are important because, when they are available 
over a sufficient period of time, they can provide a clearer picture 
of the progress of a jurisdiction. Trend analysis can be used to 
determine if changes in indicators represent an isolated movement or a 
true trend, or if a policy or programmatic initiative could be having 
an intended or unintended impact. Furthermore, by indicating when a 
persistent problem exists, trend data can be used to focus civic 
leaders and government officials on issues most deserving of 
attention. Lastly, insights into the correlations between indicators 
can provide perspective on how issues are connected, reinforcing that 
societal issues should not be looked at in isolation. 

Virtually all indicator systems we reviewed made trend data available. 
Trend data are particularly useful for jurisdictions using their 
indicator systems to monitor progress toward defined goals or 
outcomes. For example, the South Australian Strategic Plan includes a 
target that renewable energy should comprise 20 percent of the state's 
electricity production and consumption by 2014. As shown in figure 5, 
the trend data show that since 2000 to 2001 there has been significant 
growth in both renewable energy production and consumption and 
"positive movement" toward the achievement of the target. 

Figure 5: Presentation of Renewable Energy Production and Consumption 
Trend Data: 

[Refer to PDF for image: web site page] 

Source: South Australia’s Strategic Plan Audit Committee. 

Note: South Australia's Strategic Plan Progress Report 2010. Report 
can be downloaded at [hyperlink, 
http://www.stateplan.sa.gov.au/system/pdf/SASP%202010%20Progress%20repor
t.pdf] (viewed on Mar. 7, 2011). 

[End of figure] 

Internet and Mapping Technologies: 

Over the past several years, improvements in Internet and electronic 
mapping technologies have played a large role in the increased 
sophistication with which indicators and statistical information can 
be presented. In the past, indicators were generally presented in 
printed reports released on a periodic basis. Today, by contrast, 
indicators are increasingly being presented using interactive Web 
sites that can be updated frequently and that allow users to sort and 
analyze data by geographic area, subject, or indicator, and to create 
customized reports. For example, as shown in figure 6, Community 
Indicators Victoria allows users to create customized "Wellbeing 
Reports," with comparative charts for the geographic areas and 
indicators most relevant to them. On the left side of the figure is an 
illustration of the interface used to select relevant local government 
areas or regions and indicators to create a Wellbeing Report. On the 
right side of the figure is an example of a Wellbeing Report that a 
user has created for five local government areas within the Northern 
and Western Metro region of Victoria. This report's information allows 
the user to see how the level of people reporting their health as 
excellent or very good varies by area, as well as how these levels 
compare with the level for the region and for the state of Victoria. 
The dotted reference line, which represents the highest score for the 
indicator registered for any local government area in the state, also 
shows how these levels compare with this benchmark. 

Figure 6: Example of Community Indicators Victoria Report Creation 
Interface and Report: 

[Refer to PDF for image: web site page] 

Source: McCaughey Centre, School of Population Health, University of 
Melbourne. 

Note: Web page from Community Indicators Victoria can be accessed at 
[hyperlink, http://www.communityindicators.net.au/node/add/report] 
viewed on Mar. 7, 2011). 

[End of figure] 

Geographic Information Systems and mapping technologies have also made 
it possible to map indicators down to focused geographic areas, such 
as the community level, when data are available at that level. 
Improved mapping and data visualization software is also simplifying 
analysis by allowing large amounts of data to be presented using a 
variety of visual formats, including scatter plots, bar or pie charts, 
and line graphs, and by allowing users to create maps that show 
disparities that exist across multiple jurisdictions. Several of the 
indicator systems we reviewed now offer mapping tools on their Web 
sites. For example, the developers of the Boston Indicators Project 
have worked with staff from the region's planning agency to create the 
MetroBoston DataCommon, an online mapping tool that provides data on 
the Boston region. The DataCommon allows users to analyze multiple 
data sets and create customized maps of the region and its 
municipalities. In figure 7, a user of the MetroBoston DataCommon has 
created a map comparing the percentages of students receiving reduced-
price or free school lunches in municipalities throughout the Boston 
metropolitan region. The various colors represent different percentage 
levels of students receiving reduced-price or free lunches and allow 
users to visualize the variations that exist across the region. In 
this case, areas with the lightest color have between 0 and 6 percent 
of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches, while areas with 
the darkest color have 49 percent or more of students receiving free 
or reduced-price lunches. 

Figure 7: Example of Online Indicator Mapping Tool Featuring 
Information on the Greater Boston Metropolitan Area: 

[Refer to PDF for image: web site page] 

Source: The Boston Foundation and Metropolitan Area Planning Council. 

Note: MetroBoston DataCommon mapping tool can be accessed at 
[hyperlink, http://www.metrobostondatacommon.org] (viewed on Mar. 7, 
2011). 

[End of figure] 

The Boston Indicators Project and Metropolitan Area Planning Council 
have also partnered with computer scientists at the University of 
Massachusetts-Lowell and representatives of other indicator systems 
around the nation to form the Open Indicators Consortium, which is 
developing an open source mapping, analysis, and data visualization 
tool. 

Finding New Ways to Collect and Use Data Can Help Fill Gaps: 

Filling in gaps in data can be challenging for comprehensive key 
indicator systems that rely almost exclusively on data from public 
sources, which may not provide data in areas of interest or at 
sufficiently disaggregated levels. According to a representative from 
the National Academy of Sciences, it will be essential that a U.S. key 
national indicator system rely not only on government data but on 
university-based, commercial, and nonprofit data sources in areas 
where the government cannot provide data. In some instances, however, 
the data for indicators necessary to measure key issues may not be 
available from any source and would need to be developed. 

Some system managers we interviewed stated that they have tried not to 
let data availability affect the selection of indicators. If an issue 
has been identified as important, they believe it should be included 
in the indicator set and efforts made to find supporting data. This 
can be done by finding new ways to collect and use existing data, or 
by collecting new data. For example, following the 2005 revision of 
the UK Government Sustainable Development indicators, eight indicators 
without supporting data were added to the system. By 2009, the 
system's managers were able to find data for seven of those 
indicators. A specific example of their efforts to address one of 
these gaps involves the development of an indicator for "environmental 
equality." This indicator, which first appeared in the 2007 report, is 
designed to evaluate the relationship between environmental conditions 
and poverty. By combining data from the English Indices of Multiple 
Deprivation, measures for local areas released by the UK Department of 
Communities and Local Government, with information on eight 
environmental conditions for communities in England, they developed a 
measure of the percentage of the population living in areas with, in 
relative terms, the "least favorable" environmental conditions. 
Analysis of this indicator has shown that a higher proportion of 
people in the most deprived areas of England may live in areas with 
multiple environmental conditions that are the least favorable, 
compared with populations living in less deprived areas. A UK official 
said this was the first time this relationship had been quantified and 
efforts are now ongoing to determine how this information can be used 
to inform policy development. 

Other indicator systems addressed data gaps through the collection of 
original survey data. For example, to collect comparable data on the 
perceived well-being of citizens in each of the 79 local government 
areas in the state of Victoria, in 2007, Community Indicators Victoria 
commissioned a telephone survey of approximately 24,000 Victorians, 
ensuring that they received at least 300 responses from each local 
government area. Efforts have also been used in Albuquerque, New 
Mexico; Jacksonville, Florida; Santa Cruz County, California; Truckee 
Meadows, Nevada; and Long Island, New York, to collect information on 
the concerns, opinions, desires, and needs of a demographically 
representative sample of citizens and to determine if citizen 
perceptions align with the empirical evidence about conditions in each 
jurisdiction. 

Indicator systems may also use existing data collected by agencies 
responsible for administering nonstatistical programs and services. 
Using administrative data has a number of advantages, including no 
additional costs for data collection or burdens on survey respondents, 
and recent advancements in technology have permitted statistical 
agencies to overcome many of the limitations of processing large data 
sets. For example, as a measure of "economic innovation," the Silicon 
Valley Index uses information on patent registrations from the United 
States Patent and Trademark Office to calculate the percentage of all 
patents registered in California and the United States that are 
registered to residents of Silicon Valley. Systems that use 
administrative data, however, should be aware of issues related to the 
level of quality control over the data, problems associated with 
missing records or the timeliness of the data, privacy concerns, as 
well as the cost that comes with cleaning administrative data to make 
it useful. 

The managers of the Annie E. Casey Foundation's KIDS COUNT system have 
worked with a nationwide network of partners to more effectively 
compile and leverage existing data. According to a KIDS COUNT 
official, following the initial development of the system in the early 
1990s, there was a desire to go beyond collecting and reporting 
aggregated state-level data. The managers of KIDS COUNT formed 
partnerships with child advocacy organizations and research 
institutions in all 50 states to collect and report county-and local-
level data, which are made available through the KIDS COUNT Data 
Center. While there are variations in county-level data available from 
one state to another that in some cases make it impossible to compare 
counties from different states, this effort has made it possible to 
compare counties within a state. This network of state partners, which 
receives some financial assistance from the national KIDS COUNT 
office, plays a critical role in the KIDS COUNT effort to provide 
information on the condition of children across the country. 

Periodic Reevaluation and Revision of the Indicators Maintains 
Relevance: 

While it is important to have stable indicators and measures, 
occasional changes, including dropping, modifying, and adding 
indicators, are needed to ensure the system remains relevant. 
According to system managers we interviewed, system developers should 
allow flexibility for revisions and modifications based on feedback 
from users, changes in the interests and values of audiences over 
time, advances in research, and improvements in data. For this reason, 
it is important that there are periodic reviews and mechanisms for 
collecting feedback from users. While some systems collect ongoing 
feedback, the approach used by many of the indicator systems we 
reviewed is a formal review of the indicators, often as part of a 
periodic effort to update their systems. For example, the Jacksonville 
indicator system instituted a formal process to review the system's 
indicators and draft products annually. Before the release of its 
indicators report, the organization will convene a balanced group of 
20 to 25 community leaders, data experts, and interested citizens. 
They provide participants with the draft report, facilitate a review 
of the draft to ensure that the content is clear, accurate, and fair, 
and collect feedback on the design and usability of each report. 
Furthermore, every year, following the public release of its report, 
JCCI will survey key stakeholders and interested citizens to collect 
feedback on what they liked about the report, as well as suggestions 
for how it could be improved. According to a JCCI official, every year 
approximately 5 percent of the indicators are altered, removed, or 
added to reflect the availability of better indicators or data, or 
changes in the perceptions of issues within the community. 

Sustaining Support for Indicator Systems Is a Constant Challenge: 

Stable and Diversified Funding Helps Ensure Continuity of Indicator 
Systems: 

We have previously reported that securing adequate and stable funding 
to run the indicator system at the outset, when costs are higher, as 
well as later when costs sometimes level off, is crucial to a system's 
long-term sustainability.[Footnote 20] One way to ensure the stability 
of the system is to diversify the number and types of funding sources. 
A lack of diversified funding sources makes indicator systems more 
vulnerable due to their dependence on one source for most or all of 
their funding. Systems that rely on multiple funding sources, such as 
governments, foundations, and corporations, can make up for reductions 
from one source by turning to others for additional funding or 
possibly by reaching out to new funding sources. 

A project manager from Community Indicators Victoria, a state 
indicators project hosted by the McCaughey Centre at the University of 
Melbourne, noted that finding stable funding for the system is 
challenging. When creating the system in 2004, the developers 
recognized that the advantage of being at arm's length from the state 
government was that Community Indicators Victoria would be viewed as 
independent. However, as a nongovernmental entity, maintaining funding 
has been more precarious. The developers of the system rejected the 
idea of charging for data, reasoning that the data should be for the 
public good. Now, the project manager said the charitable foundation 
funding the system would like to take a step back as the main funding 
source. She noted that she has had to develop a consultancy service to 
generate revenue to help support the project. 

The Arizona Indicators system, created in 2007, is an example of an 
indicator system with several sources of support. The system began in 
the Office of the President at Arizona State University with strong 
backing from the Arizona Community Foundation. These two entities each 
have made significant multiyear commitments and continue to provide 
the vast majority of funding for the project. In addition, Valley of 
the Sun United Way has provided varying levels of support over time. 
Recently, for example, they have underwritten the addition of content 
that tracks changes in the state budget and explores the human impact 
of funding cuts. Early on, the Arizona Department of Commerce provided 
funding for the development of select economic indicators. They have 
not been able to continue their financial commitment, but they feature 
Arizona Indicators prominently on their Web site and drive 
considerable traffic to the system's Web site. All of these partners 
contribute time and expertise to the indicator system by, for example, 
attending planning meetings, reviewing content, helping with outreach, 
and connecting the system with colleagues in their professional 
networks. 

Indicator Systems Depend on the Continued Interest of Sponsors, 
Advisors, and Champions: 

Maintaining stable and diversified funding depends in part on the 
continued interest of sponsors, advisors, and champions. Experts and 
managers from our selected systems told us that the challenge of 
maintaining the interest of stakeholders is constant, even among 
indicator systems that already have strong levels of financial and 
political support and large user bases. Some systems that are able to 
garner the funding and political support needed to start an effort 
experienced difficulties in maintaining that support. Buy-in from 
users across the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, however, can 
increase the likelihood that an indicator system will be funded, and 
we have previously reported that mechanisms for helping to maintain 
support from system stakeholders include showing that the system's 
managers are achieving the indicator system's stated aims; using 
scarce resources effectively; remaining independent from political 
processes; and emphasizing opportunities for improvement.[Footnote 21] 
Indicator researchers have noted that managing the expectations of 
stakeholders is also an important part of sustaining an indicator 
system. If expectations for the system are unrealistic, the actual 
achievements of the project may be undermined, which in addition to 
engendering a sense of disappointment, risks the continued support of 
sponsors.[Footnote 22] 

An official previously associated with the Oregon Benchmarks indicator 
system, a statewide system which is currently not funded, noted that 
for an indicator system to have an impact, it is important to have a 
critical mass of influential actors who understand and support the 
system. In the Oregon legislature, the fact that legislative term 
limits were instituted exacerbated difficulties already present due to 
the legislature's turnover rate, as, over time, there were fewer 
members who understood the purpose of the benchmarks or had a desire 
to use them to inform their decision making. In hindsight, the 
official said that more could have been done to maintain buy-in and 
interest from the system's stakeholders. For example, in her view, 
holding annual events could have brought everyone--politicians, policy 
advocates, business community representatives, and interested 
citizens--together to discuss the importance of the benchmarks system. 
She believed these events also would have served as an opportunity to 
encourage the development of a continuing dialogue among stakeholders 
and to mine the knowledge of citizens. 

The importance of cultivating and maintaining champions of the 
indicator system was mentioned by a number of managers and officials 
we interviewed. For example, according to the head of the Australian 
Bureau of Statistics, a risk for Australia's national indicator system 
would be not having various sectors, such as the business community 
and the media, supportive of the MAP initiative. In his opinion, 
having this support gives politicians comfort and confidence in the 
system. An official formerly with the Oregon Benchmarks system 
mentioned the importance of cultivating bipartisan champions to 
support the system. He noted that he was able to navigate in a 
challenging environment by aligning with the influential legislators 
who saw the value of the indicator system and were willing to support 
it. Similarly, a King County AIMs High manager said that there must be 
buy-in from high-level county leadership to help ensure a strong, 
clear mandate for the system, which then makes it easier for 
developers to persuade others of the system's worth. 

Indicator Systems Insulated from Political Pressure Can Protect the 
Systems from Perceptions of Bias: 

Managing the tension between the scientific, political, and cultural 
dimensions of indicator work involves acknowledging the value-laden 
nature of indicator development. Given this tension, we have 
previously reported that if an indicator system is to have staying 
power, it is important to insulate the system, as much as possible, 
from political pressures and other sources of potential bias.[Footnote 
23] An indicator system and its managers must be seen as credible, 
with a participatory process for developing and revising the system 
over time. When this is not the case and indicator systems are 
perceived as biased toward a particular ideological or partisan 
perspective, the indicators are less likely to have credibility and 
may lose support from a broad group of users. Without the credibility 
that comes from a strong degree of independence and support from a 
diverse set of stakeholders, some users may lose trust in the accuracy 
and objectivity of the system and the information it provides. 

The Oregon Benchmarks system experience suggests that support for an 
indicator system can be lost if it is perceived as being the creation 
of a particular political party, a political leader, or a single 
branch of government. When the Oregon benchmarks were first created, 
the governors and majorities in both chambers of the state legislature 
were from the same political party. Support for the indicator system 
from the legislature decreased after the opposing political party 
gained the majority in the legislature because the system was 
perceived as being driven by the executive branch and the governor's 
political party. The system, as mentioned previously, is currently not 
funded. 

In contrast, the Council on Virginia's Future--a group that has the 
involvement of the governor, lieutenant governor, cabinet members, 
high ranking members of the General Assembly from both parties, and 
influential citizens--is designed to serve as the overall champion of 
Virginia Performs. The developers of Virginia Performs have also 
partnered with experts from the Weldon Cooper Center, a well-respected 
and nonpartisan public affairs research institution at the University 
of Virginia. According to members of the council and their staff, 
Virginia Performs' relationship with the Weldon Cooper Center has been 
important in insulating the system from political concerns and 
questions about its quality, as the developers of the system have been 
able to take advantage of the expertise and technical capacity of the 
Center's researchers. 

Developers of indicator systems have also established independent 
bodies to provide objective, nonpartisan oversight and ensure that 
their systems are not in a position to be politicized. For example, 
the government of South Australia established an audit committee to 
oversee the development of indicators used to track progress toward 
goals outlined in the South Australian Strategic Plan. The committee 
is an independent body that ensures that the indicators are 
sufficiently rigorous, meet criteria for selection, and are 
periodically reevaluated, and provides suggestions for improvements. 
According to South Australian officials, its existence and the 
assessments it provides increase the credibility of the indicators by 
ensuring that they receive independent verification and validation. 
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which authorized the 
establishment of a key national indicator system for the United 
States, also provided for oversight of the system through the creation 
of the bipartisan Commission on Key National Indicators. 

Continually Raising the Public's Level of Awareness of a System Can 
Help Preserve Its Relevance: 

Reaching diverse audiences, including the print and electronic media, 
can be achieved through multifaceted marketing and communications 
strategies. These strategies spread the word about the existence and 
features of the system; disseminate information on what the indicator 
trends are showing; help to encourage a broader base of individuals 
and organizations to use the system; and provide training and 
assistance to users. Developers of the indicator system need to 
establish strong relations with the media and listen to their 
reporting needs. As an example of this, The Arizona Republic, a daily 
newspaper published in Phoenix, frequently promotes Arizona Indicators 
by publishing an "Arizona Indicators Snapshot" in the Viewpoints 
section of its Sunday edition and covers Arizona Indicators events and 
policy briefs. The "product" of the system also needs to be attractive 
and easily accessible to the media and the public. For example, 
according to staff from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, MAP can 
be viewed as successful if it is picked up by the media and when it is 
used as a tool for debate in schools and within other sectors, such as 
the business sector. According to an official who helped to develop 
MAP, the importance of a communication or media strategy is one of the 
lessons they learned and one that is essential for sustaining an 
indicator system. Another official familiar with key national 
indicator systems observed that the successful ones devote at least as 
much effort to communications and promotion of the indicators as they 
do to their development. 

When asked what the Boston Foundation and Boston Indicators Project 
have done to become more influential, a senior manager for the Boston 
Foundation said that they created a communications strategy around 
their indicators. She noted that she was aware of the Boston Indicator 
Project when she joined the Boston Foundation and knew it was a good 
asset that provided a base of knowledge about conditions in Boston. 
She sensed, however, that although the indicator system provided a 
wealth of knowledge about the city, it was largely unknown to the key 
people who should know about it, such as the media. Consequently, the 
foundation has worked with the Boston Globe, a daily Boston newspaper, 
to ensure coverage of the indicator system data and research as part 
of its public relations strategies and ensures that the project's 
biennial indicator reports are released at a major civic venue. The 
continued publication and presentation of the data through foundation 
newsletters, additional research, public briefings and forums, and 
other formats help to keep the public engaged. The manager stated that 
the foundation is now perceived as a neutral, consistent information 
provider. 

Potential Implications for How a Key National Indicator System Could 
Be Developed and Used in the U.S. 

Experts and Stakeholders Could Help Clarify the Purposes and Select 
the Content of a U.S. Key National Indicator System: 

Managers of national key indicator systems we reviewed emphasized the 
importance of involving technical and subject matter experts in the 
development of a key national indicator system and in the selection of 
the indicators that will make up the system. The role that the 
National Academy of Sciences has been given in the development and 
implementation of a key national indicator system could help ensure 
that the selection of indicators is informed by the best available 
research from around the world and input from the nation's most 
knowledgeable sources. 

Several system managers and officials we interviewed emphasized that 
those charged with developing a system of key national indicators 
should also work with a range of stakeholders from the intended 
audiences to consider the purposes the system will be designed to 
fulfill. For example, developers and stakeholders should consider 
whether the system will be designed to provide a high-level overview 
of the condition of the country, to give users a more detailed 
perspective on the differences that exist among states or regions 
across the country, to monitor progress toward defined outcomes, to 
stimulate citizen engagement, or for other purposes. Involving 
stakeholders early in the development process can give potential users 
an opportunity to share their priorities and preferences on the 
content of an indicator system and the purposes it should be designed 
to fulfill. The purposes of some indicator systems do evolve, but 
these initial decisions about the purposes, audiences, and content of 
a system could have an impact on the approach used to develop the 
system, the indicators that are selected, and the information-sharing 
tools and products the system makes available. Clearly articulating 
the purposes of the system will also help ensure that there is a 
common understanding of what the system will be designed to achieve. 

When selecting the indicators and data sources that will make up a 
national indicator system, several system managers and officials 
suggested that one potential approach could seek to combine input from 
key public and private sector stakeholders, subject matter 
specialists, and technical experts with a mechanism for collecting 
more widespread input from a wider range of potential users, including 
interested stakeholders and citizens. For example, one official 
suggested that a first step could involve experts working with the 
developers of a national system to create a proposal identifying the 
categories to structure the system, the individual indicators used to 
measure the country's condition and progress, and the most appropriate 
data sources available to support these indicators. The Institute of 
Medicine,[Footnote 24] which is affiliated with the National Academy 
of Sciences, has already used a similar process to select 20 key 
health measures for the nation.[Footnote 25] For this effort, the 
Institute of Medicine convened a committee of experts to select from a 
myriad of available health indicators a manageable set of 20 
indicators considered crucial for understanding the state of the 
nation's health. This process is an example of how the developers of a 
national key indicator system might take advantage of the National 
Academy of Sciences' ability to bring together experts from various 
fields to gather information, perspective, and input. 

Because there are value judgments involved in the selection of 
indicators, however, officials we interviewed emphasized that 
developers will need to solicit input on any proposal from a wider 
range of stakeholders and interested citizens. For example, according 
to representatives of the National Academy of Sciences, ensuring that 
a national indicator system is relevant and is seen as legitimate will 
require that developers have feedback mechanisms to collect input from 
interested stakeholders in all sectors and at all levels of society, 
including the public. Developers of a key national indicator system 
might use a number of approaches to collect this input including the 
following: 

* Advisory committees, which are used by statistical agencies to draw 
on the expertise of academics and research communities and to collect 
recommendations on statistical methodology and other technical matters 
related to the collection, tabulation, and analysis of statistics. 

* Outreach to state, regional, and local indicator partners through 
organizations like the Community Indicators Consortium and the 
National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership. The Community Indicators 
Consortium is a network of individuals and organizations engaged in 
indicator efforts at the local, regional, state, national, and 
international levels that is used to facilitate the exchange of 
knowledge about the effective development and use of indicators. The 
National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership is a collaborative effort 
by the Urban Institute and local partners from 35 metropolitan areas 
around the country to further the development and use of neighborhood 
information systems in local policy making and community building. 

* Community forums, town hall meetings, survey, or focus groups. 

* More technologically advanced tools like online surveys and online 
voting, online town hall meetings, formal requests for comment 
collected through the indicator system's Web site, and social media. 

A system of key national indicators, as outlined by the legislation, 
will be designed to serve as a resource for the entire nation rather 
than just the federal government. However, it will be important to 
consider the information needs of members of Congress and other 
federal officials. As we have seen from other systems we reviewed, 
collecting input on the information needs of legislators and 
government officials can provide developers with the insights they 
need to create content and products sensitive to the interests of that 
audience. At the same time, it is important to ensure that the 
selection of indicators and data sources is independent of government 
control. Attempting to closely tie societal indicators to government 
decision making, for instance by using indicator information to 
determine resource allocations, can present challenges. For example, 
according to an Oregon state official we interviewed, interest by the 
governor in using the Oregon Benchmarks indicators to guide resource 
allocation decisions led to a situation where perceptions of agency 
and program value began to be judged on an agency or program having a 
representative indicator as part of the system. Because agency 
officials and issue advocates had the ability to influence the 
selection of indicators, their pressures led to a proliferation of 
measures, which temporarily created a situation where the total number 
of indicators became unwieldy. This situation was rectified after a 
few years when the Oregon Progress Board placed an upper limit of 100 
on the total number of benchmarks. 

These types of political pressures may also lead to demands to select 
indicators that portray the government in a positive light, which may 
introduce political bias and undermine the system's credibility and 
legitimacy. Some indicator systems created with significant 
involvement from government officials, such as those in Virginia, 
South Australia, Tasmania, and Albuquerque, New Mexico, have attempted 
to address this tension by using independent advisory and oversight 
boards. These bodies have a responsibility for ensuring that 
indicators are selected based on their quality and appropriateness, 
while allowing public officials to play an important, but not 
dominant, role in the development of systems and the selection of 
indicators. 

A U.S. Key National Indicator System Could Leverage Existing Data 
Sources and Technologies: 

Data: 

To help ensure the quality and reliability of the data in their 
systems, many indicator systems in the United States use existing data 
produced by federal statistical organizations, such as the United 
States Census Bureau, which have quality assurance processes in place 
to ensure accuracy. Under guidelines established by OMB, federal 
agencies are required to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, 
utility, and integrity of statistical information that is disseminated 
to the public, and are, among other things, required to adopt specific 
information quality standards and develop a process for reviewing the 
quality of information before it is released. Leveraging high-quality 
data that are already being collected by these organizations can help 
minimize the burden on indicator system developers. While there are 
costs associated with identifying data sources and acquiring the 
relevant data, relying on existing data to the extent possible can 
help reduce these costs. 

Similarly, data already produced by the federal statistical community, 
and other university-related, commercial, and nonprofit data sources, 
could serve as the beginning foundation for a key national indicator 
system for the United States. Using data being produced by federal 
statistical agencies could help ensure the quality of the system's 
data and reduce the possibility of duplicative data collection efforts 
at the national level. A key national indicator system could also aid 
the federal statistical community in its mission of making federal 
statistics more visible and accessible to a broad audience of 
potential users. It will be important, however, for the developers of 
a national system to ensure that there is appropriate attribution so 
that users are aware of the ultimate source of the information. 

Because of the importance of these data sources, and the importance of 
using them appropriately, involving representatives of federal 
statistical agencies and other data providers in the development of a 
key national indicator system could help establish a tradition of 
ongoing cooperation between the developers and data providers and 
enhance the developers' access to the expertise of the data community. 
These lines of communication would also allow the developers of a 
national system to engage data providers in a conversation about the 
processes that are used to verify the quality of each data set, the 
sources of the data, any limitations or concerns about the quality of 
the data that might exist, and the feasibility of and costs associated 
with addressing data gaps. 

The purposes of the key national indicator system will also dictate 
the degree to which it needs comparable or disaggregated data. For 
instance, if the system is designed to allow audiences to see how the 
United States compares to other countries, developers of a national 
system will need to consider how a national system for the U.S. might 
align with existing indicator and statistical systems in other 
countries. After the committee of experts from the Institute of 
Medicine had selected the list of 20 key health indicators, for 
example, they took this list of indicators, compared each to a list of 
health indicators maintained by other countries that are members of 
the OECD, and found that 9 of 20 were comparable. 

Furthermore, if the system is designed to provide data disaggregated 
by state, region, or county, or by demographic characteristics, this 
will require the identification of existing sources that provide 
reliable data for progressively smaller levels of geography or for 
different demographic or socioeconomic groups. For example, one of the 
criteria that the committee of experts from the Institute of Medicine 
used to select its indicators was the need for the indicator to be 
supported by data that could be viewed by population subgroups or 
geographic region. The committee also explicitly recommended that a 
key national indicator system should include the ability to explore 
disparities by socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity, and 
geographic region for each indicator selected for its various issue 
areas. According to a National Academy of Sciences representative, the 
level to which disaggregated data will be made available will depend 
on the quality of the data available at different levels. For example, 
when high-quality data are available for multiple levels, a key 
national indicator system could make these data available to 
facilitate state, national, and international comparisons, as well as 
demographic comparisons based on gender, race, age, poverty level, or 
other demographic characteristics. 

Making these data available through one source could allow users at 
all levels to see the differences that exist from one jurisdiction or 
group to another. Users of a national indicator system may also be 
interested in data that are specific to the areas in which they live, 
or to other domains of particular interest to them, such as their age 
group or national origin group. Viewing the information in this way 
may make the indicators more meaningful and relevant to the personal 
experience of the user. It may also help states, regions, or counties 
see how they fit into the national picture. For example, the UK's 
Government Sustainable Development indicators include 46 indicators 
collected for each of the nine regions of England which, according to 
one regional official we spoke with, make it possible for regions to 
track their progress relative to their peers. 

Technology: 

As discussed above, according to several system managers we 
interviewed, the ongoing evolution of the technologies available to 
present, analyze, and share statistical information has led to a shift 
in the way that indicators are being presented and disseminated. 
Furthermore, in an effort to expand access to new data visualization 
technologies and stimulate innovation and collaboration across 
indicator systems, new tools, such as the Open Indicators Consortium's 
WEAVE[Footnote 26] platform, are being developed. 

The developers of a key national indicator system should also consider 
the importance of openness and transparency in the development of its 
Web interface and supporting technologies. Pursuing an open approach 
could help ensure that there is a collaborative process used to 
collect input and ideas into the technical development of a national 
system and leverage the expertise of the widest possible range of 
technical experts and potential users, including other information 
providers and end users. According to a representative from the 
National Academy of Sciences, SUSA, the nonprofit institute working in 
partnership with the National Academy of Sciences, has committed to 
this type of approach through the release of its draft enterprise 
architecture and beta Web site. Specifically, in 2010, SUSA released a 
beta Web site with the goal of testing advanced technical 
capabilities, to refine content features across eight pilot issue 
areas, and to leverage intellectual capital by exposing SUSA design 
principles to broad technical scrutiny. Since the beta site was 
released, there are now close to 1,000 individuals who have access to 
the site and give regular feedback on features and functions that they 
like and things they would like to see improved. According to the 
National Academy of Sciences representative, this feedback will always 
be crucial in making design adjustments for the rollout and evolution 
of an official key national indicator Web site. 

A U.S. Key National Indicator System Could Be Used to Inform Federal 
Government Strategic Planning and Decision Making: 

In addition to their usefulness to society as a whole, some 
governments have looked to indicator systems to inform their own 
planning efforts and decision making. For example, the President's 
annual budget includes approximately 60 "social indicators" that 
measure long-term trends in the economic, social, and environmental 
condition of the United States.[Footnote 27] However, a system of key 
national indicators could go beyond this by providing decision makers 
with easy access to a broader set of economic, social, and 
environmental indicators, disaggregated data, and additional 
contextual information that could serve as a valuable tool for framing 
and informing budgetary and policy decisions. 

A system of key national indicators may also be useful to federal 
officials as a tool to support strategic planning and monitoring by 
OMB and federal agencies. The Government Performance and Results Act 
(GPRA), which was recently amended by the GPRA Modernization Act of 
2010,[Footnote 28] now requires that every 4 years OMB develop a 
limited number of long-term, outcome-oriented priority goals for the 
federal government covering policy areas that cut across agencies. The 
act also requires OMB to develop a federal government performance 
plan, which, among other things, is to detail for each federal 
government priority goal (1) performance goals, measures, and targets; 
(2) the agencies, programs, and activities involved; and (3) an 
official responsible for coordinating efforts. Together these 
requirements are to function effectively as a governmentwide strategic 
plan.[Footnote 29] The act also requires that agencies select agency 
priority goals, which will also have performance targets and 
milestones. The process of identifying these goals and measures has 
already begun within the executive branch where OMB and agency 
officials have identified priority goals. According to OMB, some 
agencies are tracking "contextual indicators" alongside performance 
measures and targets. Contextual indicators are intended to be 
relevant quantitative measures that provide a broader perspective on 
the conditions that may influence an agency's ability to achieve its 
performance goals as well as provide context for understanding agency 
progress toward the priority goals. Examples could include data about 
the outcomes an agency is trying to influence over the long term or 
with only limited control, warning signals, unwanted side-effects, and 
external factors that affect outcomes, including both causal factors 
the government can try to influence and those over which it can have 
very little effect. For example, the Department of the Treasury has a 
Priority Goal to "Repair and Reform the Financial System." Treasury 
has identified the Chicago Federal Reserve National Activity Index as 
a key contextual indicator, over which it may have some but very 
indirect influence, but which provides an indication of overall 
economic activity and inflationary pressure. According to OMB, 
agencies do not need to provide targets for contextual indicators, as 
their direct ability to influence these indicators is limited, or they 
do not intend to directly affect these indicators. OMB characterized 
these contextual indicators as analogous to the indicators of societal 
condition often found in key indicator systems. 

A system of key national indicators might contribute to the federal 
government's ongoing strategic planning and performance monitoring 
efforts in three ways. First, federal officials could look to measures 
included in a system of key national indicators to inform the 
selection of contextual indicators used by the federal government. 
These indicators could help provide federal officials with a broader 
perspective on changes in societal conditions and how these changes 
might affect their ability to achieve performance goals. Second, a 
system of key national indicators could be used to inform the 
selection of future priority goals, as well as governmentwide and 
agency strategic planning efforts. By providing information on 
economic, social, and environmental conditions and trends across the 
United States, a key indicator system for the U.S. may help highlight 
areas in need of improvement and provide federal officials with 
insights into the environment in which agencies are operating. Third, 
a system of key national indicators could also support efforts to 
address duplicative and overlapping programs and initiatives, a 
governmentwide issue on which we recently reported.[Footnote 30] For 
example, to influence positive movement in certain indicators, federal 
officials could look at all the programs that contribute to improving 
outcomes, examine how each contributes, and use this information to 
streamline and align the programs to create a more effective and 
efficient approach. 

U.S. Key National Indicator System Could Be Refined over Time: 

Experts and managers emphasized that developers of a U.S. key 
indicator system will need to ensure that the system remains relevant 
to users and continues to fill their information needs. Like the 
national, state, regional, and local indicator systems we reviewed, 
the developers of a national indicator system may want to consider 
periodically reevaluating the indicators and data sources by 
systematically collecting feedback from users to refine and improve 
the system and address changing needs. A number of options exist for 
collecting this feedback. For example, one expert suggested that input 
from a national user advisory group made up of local, state, and 
national partners could identify improvements and provide insights 
into how the system indicators are being used. Other approaches could 
include periodic meetings of subject matter specialists to discuss 
scientific research into factors driving changes in indicators, or of 
technical experts to discuss improvements in the quality, 
availability, and presentation of data. These formal, periodic reviews 
could also be supplemented by ongoing feedback from users collected 
through the system's Web site and other venues, such as conferences. 

The National Academy of Sciences and others who will oversee the 
development of a U.S. key national indicator system can draw insights 
from the experiences we observed at the local, state, regional, and 
national levels in the U.S. and other countries. Since building a key 
national indicator system requires an investment of significant time 
and resources, such costs can only be justified if there is a 
reasonable expectation of meaningful benefits over time. Such 
information must be useful to the public, professionals, and leaders 
at all levels of our society. Although a fully operational set of 
credible measures of our progress and prospects will take time to 
develop, require broad involvement of American society, and involve 
substantial resource commitments, the benefits can include more 
informed policy choices, a better educated citizenry, and greater 
civic engagement. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees and other interested parties. The report will also be 
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. If you have any questions concerning this report, 
please contact Bernice Steinhardt at (202) 512-6543 or 
steinhardtb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of the 
report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. 

Signed by: 

Bernice Steinhardt: 
Director, Strategic Issues: 

List of Addressees: 

The Honorable Thomas Harkin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Michael Enzi: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Frederick Upton: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Henry Waxman: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Energy and Commerce: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Thomas Carper: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, 
Federal Services, and International Security: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Indicator System Definitions: 

An indicator is a quantitative measure that describes an economic, 
social, or environmental condition over time. The unemployment rate, 
infant mortality rates, and air quality indexes are a few examples of 
indicators. Indicators are measures that are focused on changes in 
conditions. Some indicators may be direct in that they measure what 
they say they do. For example, the unemployment rate is a direct 
indicator. Other indicators may be indirect or "proxy" indicators. For 
example, the number of patents granted may be used as a proxy for 
measuring the degree of inventiveness. 

An indicator system is a systematic effort to assemble and 
disseminate, through various products and services, a group of 
indicators that satisfy the needs of intended audiences and together 
tell a story about the condition and progress of a jurisdiction or 
jurisdictions. A jurisdiction, such as Australia, is distinguished 
from a governmental entity, such as the federal government of 
Australia. Indicator systems aggregate into a system statistical 
measures of many things, including attributes of people, animals and 
plant life, institutions, industries, and the physical environment, 
among others. 

It is useful to distinguish between two types of indicator systems. 
The first are topical indicator systems, which consist of indicators 
pertaining to a related set of issues, such as health, the 
environment, education, or transportation. For example, a topical 
system in health might have related indicators like the prevalence of 
certain diseases, such as cancer or heart disease; the number of 
citizens with access to health insurance; and the number of doctors or 
hospitals available for use by citizens in a particular jurisdiction. 
Topical indicator systems are a major source of information for the 
media, professionals, researchers, citizens, and policymakers. 

By contrast, comprehensive key indicator systems aggregate the most 
essential economic, social, and environmental indicators into a single 
system. These systems can make it easier to see a more complete, 
general picture of the condition and progress of a particular 
jurisdiction and can facilitate analysis of how changes in one domain 
can affect other domains. 

These systems are "comprehensive" in that they provide information 
across the three primary domains: economic, social, and environmental. 
Indicators included in these systems can be defined as "key," as they 
are a core set of measures that a group of citizens or stakeholders 
has selected from a much larger range of possibilities. While there is 
no "right" number of key indicators, the systems are not intended to 
be exhaustive. Because they represent a select set, they cannot 
provide a full description of the condition and progress of a 
jurisdiction but rather focus on providing a generally accurate 
picture of the whole. 

Topical indicator systems form the essential underpinning for 
aggregating information into comprehensive key indicator systems, as 
comprehensive key indicator systems are built selectively by members 
of a jurisdiction from the foundation of existing topical indicators. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comprehensive Key Indicator System Case Study Profiles: 

We conducted seven in-depth case studies of comprehensive key 
indicator systems over the course of the review. We reviewed three 
national systems, two state systems, and one county system, and one 
local system. The indicator systems profiled here are: 

1. Measures of Australia's Progress (National): 

2. MONET Indicator System, Switzerland (National): 

3. United Kingdom's Government Sustainable Development Indicators 
(National): 

4. Community Indicators Victoria, Australia (State): 

5. Virginia Performs (State): 

6. King County AIMs High,Washington (County): 

7. Boston Indicators Project, Massachusetts (Local): 

Measures of Australia's Progress: 

Overview: Measures of Australia's Progress (MAP), a key national 
indicator system developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics 
(ABS), is designed to provide statistical information about the 
condition of the nation to the public.[Footnote 31] According to the 
ABS, it originally developed MAP to satisfy growing public interest in 
the relationships between economic, social, and environmental aspects 
of life and to supplement Gross Domestic Product, which was viewed as 
a limited indicator of Australia's overall condition. 

Development: In 1995, the Australian Senate undertook a study of 
national well-being and recommended that the ABS create a system of 
well-being indicators for Australia. To foster a dialogue in Australia 
on progress and well-being, in 1997, the ABS sponsored a conference 
and invited top thinkers from throughout Australia to participate. 
Development of the first MAP, originally Measuring Australia's 
Progress, was led at the most senior levels of the ABS. There was a 
steering committee of senior bureau officials as well as a small staff 
with expertise in many areas at the bureau. In addition, the MAP 
steering committee and staff were advised by an external reference 
group of nine experts. The first version of MAP, released in 2002, was 
timed to coincide with a major statistical conference, and there was 
coordination with the national press to help publicize it. Subsequent 
releases were published in 2004, 2006, and 2010. The 2010 revision 
followed a similar development process as 2002, relying on bureau 
staff and on an external reference group, and coordinating release 
with the media. The headline indicators on the MAP Web site are 
updated annually. 

Design: The 2010 release of MAP is organized into three domains-- 
society, economy, and environment--with more than 80 headline and 
supplemental indicators. It includes a dashboard for 17 headline 
dimensions, such as work and housing, using a "traffic light" color 
coding system to show trends. MAP uses gray shading to indicate there 
is insufficient data to evaluate the trend (see figure 8). There are 
also five supplementary dimensions--culture and leisure; 
communication; transport; inflation; and competitiveness and openness. 

Figure 8: Example of MAP Use of Color Coding to Show Indicator Trends: 

[Refer to PDF for image: web site page] 

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. 

Note: Measures of Australia's Progress--Summary Information, Canberra, 
2010. Publication can be downloaded at [hyperlink, 
http://www.abs.gov.au/about/progress]. 

[End of figure] 

The updated MAP Web site provides data and definitions of 
subpopulations of interest, comparisons with other countries, a 
glossary of related terms, and a hyperlinked list of related ABS 
publications (see figure 9). In the 2010 release, disaggregated data 
are available through the MAP Web site. The MAP system provides 
analysis and interpretation of indicator trends, but it does not 
establish explicit goals or benchmarks to be achieved. To help reach 
the public, the ABS also revised how MAP was presented for the 2010 
release by creating a 20-page guide, which summarized the key 
dimensions in plain language and provided a graphic for each key 
indicator. 

Figure 9: Example of Information Provided by MAP, Competitiveness and 
Openness Supplementary Dimension: 

[Refer to PDF for image: web site page] 

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. 

Note: Measures of Australia's Progress, cat. no. 1370.0, Canberra, 
2010. Web page can be accessed at [hyperlink, 
http://www.abs.gov.au/about/progress] (viewed on Mar. 7, 2011). 

[End of figure] 

Key Products: 

* Web site, Measures of Australia's Progress, [hyperlink, 
http://www.abs.gov.au/about/progress]. 

* Pocket Guide, Measures of Australia's Progress: Is Life in Australia 
Getting Better? 2010, available on the Web site under MAP Downloads. 

MONET Indicator System, Switzerland: 

Overview: MONET (Monitoring der Nachhaltigen Entwicklung or Monitoring 
Sustainable Development) is a system of indicators designed to provide 
the general public and policymakers with information about the current 
situation and trends in the social, economic, and environmental 
qualititative objectives of sustainable development in Switzerland. 
Sustainable development was defined by the United Nations in 1987 as 
"development that meets the needs of the present without compromising 
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." The MONET 
indicators are the monitoring element of Switzerland's national 
sustainable development strategy, and the system is carried out 
jointly by the Federal Statistical Office, the Federal Office for the 
Environment, and the Swiss Federal Office for Spatial Development. 

Development: The sustainable development strategy and the MONET 
indicators were first developed from 1997 through 2002 within the 
Swiss government. To select a pilot set of indicators, a small core 
team of federal employees drew on the expertise of 80 government 
officials from 20 agencies and organizations. The data in the 
indicators are updated annually. A system revision project, which took 
place from September 2007 to June 2009, was aimed at reducing the size 
of the system, increasing its relevance, filling in gaps, and 
optimizing international comparability. 

Design: The current MONET set, released in 2009, includes 80 
indicators. For each indicator, MONET provides quantitative 
information on trends, commentary, definitions, and links to 
additional statistical information, among other things (see figure 
10). In addition, each indicator is assessed using a "traffic light" 
color coding system that shows the trend of each indicator and an 
arrow that shows the direction of movement. As an example, the global 
dimension includes 12 indicators with trends and arrows (see figure 
11). The MONET indicators used to monitor the sustainable development 
strategy are presented in a "dashboard of sustainable development." 
This dashboard makes an aggregated assessment of the 11 key challenges 
of the strategy, using the traffic light color coding of the 
indicators (see figure 12). 

Figure 10: Example of Information Provided by MONET on the Official 
Development Assistance to Poor Countries Indicator: 

[Refer to PDF for image: web site page] 

Source: Swiss Federal Statistical Office, Swiss Agency for Spatial 
Development. 

Note: Web page from MONET can be accessed at [hyperlink, 
http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/21/02/ind9.indicator.
70702.90602.html] (viewed on Mar. 16, 2011). 

[End of figure] 

Figure 11: Example of Monet System Use of Color Coding to Depict 
Indicator Progress for the Global Dimension: 

[Refer to PDF for image: web site page] 

Source: Swiss Federal Statistical Office, Swiss Agency for Spatial 
Development. 

Note: Web page from MONET can be accessed at [hyperlink, 
http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/21/02/ind9.approach.9
03.html] (viewed on Mar. 16, 2011). 

[End of figure] 

Figure 12: Summary of the 11 Key Challenges of the Sustainable 
Development Strategy Using the Color Coding of the Indicators: 

[Refer to PDF for image: web site page] 

Source: Swiss Federal Statistical Office, Swiss Agency for Spatial 
Development. 

Note: Web page can be accessed at [hyperlink, 
http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/fr/index/themen/21/02/dashboard/02.ht
ml] (viewed on Mar. 16, 2011). 

[End of figure] 

Among the 80 indicators, the MONET system has designated 17 indicators 
as "key" and grouped them into four questions: 

* Meeting needs--how well do we live? 

* Fairness--how well are resources distributed? 

* Preservation of resources--what are we leaving behind for our 
children? 

* Decoupling--how efficiently are we using our natural resources? 

MONET does not provide disaggregated data by cantons (states) and 
cities within Switzerland. Instead, indicators for cantons and cities 
are provided in a different indicator system called Cercle 
Indicateurs, with a link to the system provided on the MONET Web site. 

The first MONET indicators report, as well as the MONET Web site, were 
both released in 2003. The full MONET indicator set, supplementary 
information for each indicator, graphical presentations, Cercle 
Indicateurs, and additional information about MONET are available on a 
Web site available in German and French. An abbreviated Web site with 
the 17 key indicators, global dimension indicators, and some 
interpretive information is also available in English and Italian. A 
biennial "pocket guide" print product with the 17 key indicators is 
available in all four languages. 

Key Products: 

* Web site, Indicators, and Postulates, the MONET Indicator System, 
[hyperlink, 
http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/21/02/01.html]. 

* Pocket Guide, Sustainable Development - A Brief Guide 2010, 17 Key 
Indicators to Measure Progress, available for download at [hyperlink, 
http://www.monet.admin.ch]. 

United Kingdom's Government Sustainable Development Indicators: 

Overview: The United Kingdom's (UK) Government Sustainable Development 
system of indicators is one element of its sustainable development 
strategy.[Footnote 32] The purpose of the indicators is to provide an 
overview of progress on four themes: 

* sustainable consumption and production; 

* climate change and energy; 

* protecting natural resources and the environment; and: 

* creating sustainable communities. 

Development: The first set of UK Government Sustainable Development 
indicators was published in 1996. The original sustainable development 
strategy was produced by the government, with some involvement of 
nongovernmental organizations through a seminar and ongoing meetings 
between interested organizations and government departments. In 
addition, the public was provided with an opportunity to comment on 
the draft strategy. An interdepartmental government working group 
compiled the indicators along with informal input from other 
governmental and nongovernmental organizations, such as the UK 
Government Panel on Sustainable Development; the Sustainable 
Development Round Table; groups representing local governments in 
Britain; and statistical, academic, and research organizations. Both 
the strategy and the indicators have gone through several revisions 
since they were first published and last revised in 2005. In 2007, 
commitments were met to include measures of well-being in the set, 
including on life satisfaction and satisfaction with aspects of life. 
In 2011, the UK government mandated that a new set of indicators be 
developed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
(Defra) and has directed that the indicators should be a useful tool 
for policy evaluation and decision making. 

Design: The UK Government Sustainable Development indicator system has 
68 indicators and 126 measures, with a subset of 20 indicators 
identified as "framework" indicators. The trend for each indicator is 
depicted graphically and evaluated using a "traffic light" color 
coding system (see figure 13), and the change for the indicators under 
each theme is summarized in a pie chart (see figure 14). 

Figure 13: Example of Pocket Guide Information Provided on the 
Indicator for Water Resource Use: 

[Refer to PDF for image: web site page] 

Source: UK Defra. 

Note: Measuring Progress Sustainable Development Indicators 2010. 
Publication can be downloaded at [hyperlink, 
http://sd.defra.gov.uk/progress/national/annual-review/]. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 14: Summary of Changes in All UK Government Sustainable 
Development Indicators from the Pocket Guide: 

[Refer to PDF for image: web site page] 

All indicators[A]: 

Changes in measures since 1990[B]: 
Showing deterioration: 13; 
Showing improvement: 50; 
Showing little or no change: 11; 
Insufficient data: 25. 

Changes in measures since 2003[B]: 
Showing deterioration: 10; 
Showing improvement: 57; 
Showing little or no change: 24; 
Insufficient data: 8. 

[A] Based on 99 of 126 measures, comprising 68 indicators. 

[B] Or nearest year for which data are available. 

Compared with the position in 2003, 57 measures show improvement 
(representing over half of those for which it is possible to make an 
assessment), and 24 show little or no change. 

A wide range of measures show improvement including renewable 
electricity, emissions of air pollutants and manufacturing emissions, 
fossil fuels used for electricity generation, waste and land 
recycling, agricultural emissions and land stewardship, crime,	fear of 
crime, mortality rates, road accidents, rough sleepers and homeless 
households. Fossil fuels used for electricity generation has improved 
since 2003. 

Source: UK Defra. 

Note: Measuring Progress Sustainable Development Indicators 2010. 
Publication can be downloaded at [hyperlink, 
http://sd.defra.gov.uk/progress/national/annual-review/]. 

[End of figure] 

In addition to national indicators, the system introduced regional 
indicators in 1999 for nine regions in England. Currently, regional 
data exist for 46 of the 68 national indicators. 

The indicators were first published in a traditional print product in 
1996. Revised indicators were published again in hard copy in 1999, 
and since 2001, they have been published annually. The indicators are 
also available on the Defra Web site, which is updated regularly as 
new data become available. In addition to the definitions and 
descriptive information available in a pocket guide, the Defra Web 
site includes tables of national, international, and regional data. 
The hard copy indicator publications were historically distributed to 
members of parliament and staff and were available to other government 
officials as well. The publications were particularly popular with 
schools and colleges, with tens of thousands of copies distributed 
annually. However, with the 2010 edition, the annual publication is 
available only online. 

Key Product: 

* Web site, Sustainable Development in Government, Reviewing Progress, 
[hyperlink, http://sd.defra.gov.uk/progress/national/annual-review/]. 

Community Indicators Victoria, Australia: 

Overview: Community Indicators Victoria aims to support the 
development and use of local community well-being indicators in 
Victoria to improve citizen engagement, community planning, and policy 
making. The system provides a framework for community well-being 
indicators for local communities and the state of Victoria. 

Development: Inspired by other efforts to establish comprehensive 
indicator systems, such as "Measures of Australia's Progress" and 
"Tasmania Together," Community Indicators Victoria is an outgrowth of 
a process called the Victorian Community Indicators Project (VCIP). 
VCIP was initiated in January 2005 to determine a framework for local 
governments in Victoria to make better use of indicators. The concept 
that community indicator development needs to be linked to community 
engagement processes was central to the VCIP design. VCIP conducted 
extensive consultation with local and state government officials and 
academics and conducted a literature review to develop a framework of 
indicators for measuring the well-being of Victorians. While much of 
the desired information was available through preexisting data 
streams, there was a need to centralize all of the available 
information and fill in information gaps. A survey was conducted in 
2007 to provide previously unavailable information identified by VCIP 
participants as potentially valuable to local governments in Victoria. 

Design: Community Indicators Victoria consists of a framework of five 
domains: 

* healthy, safe and inclusive communities; 

* dynamic, resilient local economies; 

* sustainable built and natural environments; 

* culturally rich and vibrant communities; and: 

* democratic and engaged communities. 

Each domain contains multiple indicators with a total of approximately 
80 indicators. The indicators include a broad range of measures 
designed to identify and communicate economic, social, environmental, 
democratic, and cultural trends and outcomes for each community in 
Victoria, Australia. Data for each indicator are available in the 
aggregate for the state of Victoria, but can also be disaggregated to 
the level of the 79 local government areas and regions in Victoria, 
including Metro Melbourne, the major city in Victoria, and Country 
Victoria, rural areas in Victoria. This allows for comparisons of 
indicator data among communities within Victoria. Data sources include 
state and local administrative data, data from the Australian Bureau 
of Statistics, data from existing Victorian surveys, and Community 
Indicators Victoria's survey. 

Community Indicators Victoria presents data and reports on the well- 
being of Victorians using an integrated set of community well-being 
indicators through a public Web portal. The Web portal has dynamic 
reporting capabilities, which allow users to generate custom reports, 
both in table (see figure 15) and map format (see figure 16). 

Figure 15: Table Presentation of Indicator from Community Indicators 
Victoria, by Region within Victoria: 

[Refer to PDF for image: web site page] 

Source: McCaughey Centre, School of Population Health, University of 
Melbourne. 

Note: Reports from Community Indicators Victoria can be generated at 
[hyperlink, http://www.communityindicators.net.au/] (viewed on Mar. 
16, 2011). 

[End of figure] 

Figure 16: Map Presentation of Indicator from Community Indicators 
Victoria: 

[Refer to PDF for image: web site page] 

Source: McCaughey Centre, School of Population Health, University of 
Melbourne. 

Note: Community Indicators Victoria mapping tool can be accessed at 
[hyperlink, http://www.communityindicators.net.au/] (viewed on Mar. 
16, 2011). 

[End of figure] 

User-requested reports are stored in an online database that is also 
available for public review. In addition, the staff of Community 
Indicators Victoria is available to provide customized assistance for 
a fee. 

Key Product: 

* Web site, Community Indicators Victoria, [hyperlink, 
http://www.communityindicators.net.au/]. 

Virginia Performs: 

Overview: Virginia Performs is a "performance leadership and 
accountability system" for the Commonwealth of Virginia that is 
overseen by the Council on Virginia's Future. It includes a system of 
"societal indicators" that is designed to provide citizens and 
policymakers with a high-level assessment of Virginia's condition and 
progress, to assess the state's progress toward seven high-level goals 
for Virginia, and to serve as a catalyst for better strategic thinking 
and performance-driven decision making by maintaining a focus on 
achieving priority outcomes. 

Development: To develop a vision and long-term goals for Virginia's 
future, in 2003 the Virginia General Assembly established the Council 
on Virginia's Future, an advisory board to the governor and General 
Assembly that is chaired by the governor and made up of the lieutenant 
governor, senior members of the General Assembly, citizen and business 
leaders, and cabinet members. Virginia Performs is one of the 
Council's signature initiatives, and the Council on Virginia's Future 
members and staff have overseen the development and design of the 
system since 2004. 

Following its creation, the Council on Virginia's Future worked to 
establish a vision and goals for Virginia, eventually settling on 
seven long-term goals for the Commonwealth, six of which are outwardly 
focused and address quality of life issues, with a seventh focused on 
the efficiency and effectiveness of state government operations. After 
these long-term goals had been selected, workgroups made up of 
legislators, subject matter experts, and other stakeholders were 
created to establish priorities and propose indicators in each of the 
seven goal areas. These efforts were supplemented by additional work 
by Council staff to finalize the list of societal indicators and data 
sources. The Virginia Performs Web site, which serves as a portal to 
societal indicators at the state and regional levels, was released 
publicly in early 2007. 

Design: Virginia Performs is made up of three distinct but 
interconnected tiers. Figure 17 presents a high-level schematic of the 
"architecture" of this system. 

1. The first tier is made up of 49 societal indicators arranged 
according to the seven goal areas--economy; education; health and 
family; public safety; natural resources; transportation; and 
government and citizens--that answer the question, "How is Virginia 
doing?" These indicators are designed to provide an overview of how 
Virginia is doing with respect to several broad issues, such as water 
quality or educational attainment. An example of a societal indicator 
in the education area is Virginia's high school graduation rate. These 
indicators are measured over time and, where possible, by region 
within Virginia and in comparison to other states. 

2. The second tier is made up of approximately 200 key objectives and 
measures, which are agency performance measures selected by agencies 
and the governor tracked to determine if state government is making 
progress on its highest priorities. For example, a key measure for the 
Virginia Department of Education is the percentage of high school 
students who exit high school with a diploma. The Council has 
developed tables that show how these key agency measures align with 
each societal indicator. 

3. The third tier is made up of other agency performance measures. 
State agencies establish objectives and measures for programs and 
services as part of their strategic planning process, and agencies now 
regularly report their performance on those measures. For example, an 
agency performance measure for the Department of Education is the 
percentage of youth with disabilities graduating from high school with 
an Advanced or Standard diploma. 

Figure 17: A High-level Schematic of the Virginia Performs 
Architecture: 

[Refer to PDF for image: web site page] 

Source: Council on Virginia’s Future. 

Note: Graphic from presentation to GAO Staff, Sept. 30, 2010. 
Presentation can be accessed at [hyperlink, 
http://www.future.virginia.gov/docs/RecentPresentations/GAO_2010_09_30.p
df] (viewed on Mar. 7, 2011). 

[End of figure] 

On the Virginia Performs Web site, each societal indicator has its own 
page that includes a description of the indicator and its importance, 
a description of how Virginia is doing, information on major factors 
influencing the indicator, and perspective on state government's role 
in moving the indicator. Figure 18 provides an example of the high 
school graduation indicator page. 

Figure 18: Example of High School Graduation Indicator Page from 
Virginia Performs: 

[Refer to PDF for image: web site page] 

Source: Council on Virginia’s Future. 

Note: Web page from Virginia Performs can be accessed at [hyperlink, 
http://vaperforms.virginia.gov/indicators/education/hsGraduation.php] 
(viewed on Mar. 7, 2011). 

[End of figure] 

To provide a quick snapshot and summary of the state's performance, 
the Council also created a one-page document that summarizes the trend 
for each of the societal indicators included in Virginia Performs. 
This "Scorecard at a Glance" is shown in figure 19. 

Figure 19: Virginia Performs Indicators Scorecard at a Glance: 

[Refer to PDF for image: web site page] 

Source: Council on Virginia’s Future. 

Note: Scorecard from Virginia Performs can be accessed at [hyperlink, 
http://vaperforms.virginia.gov/Scorecard/ScorecardatGlance.php] 
(viewed Mar. 7, 2011). 

[End of figure] 

Key Products: 

* Virginia Performs Web Site - [hyperlink, 
http://vaperforms.virginia.gov/]. 

* The Virginia Report - [hyperlink, 
http://vaperforms.virginia.gov/extras/newsResources.php#reports]. 

* Virginia Performs Scorecard at a Glance - [hyperlink, 
http://vaperforms.virginia.gov/Scorecard/ScorecardatGlance.php]. 

King County AIMs High, Washington: 

Overview: King County AIMs High is a key indicator system managed by 
the government of King County, Washington. It is designed to provide 
citizens and policymakers with insights into the social, economic, and 
environmental condition of King County, as well as information on what 
King County government is doing to improve those conditions, in an 
effort to improve public discussion, management decision making, and 
accountability. 

Development: The first AIMs High report was released in 2006 as a 
companion to the County Executive's budget proposal, but did not 
contain information on community indicators. Instead, the report 
focused on the performance of individual county departments. Following 
the 2006 AIMs High report, the County Executive sought to enhance the 
report by including information on community conditions. To structure 
this new report, staff from the County Executive's office worked with 
agency staff to select the themes, categories, and associated 
community indicators to be included in the report. The community 
indicators were selected from two existing indicator reports, King 
County Benchmarks and Communities Count. King County Benchmarks was 
designed originally to track growth management issues and report on 
indicators that focus on land use, economic conditions, affordable 
housing, transportation, and environmental policy. Communities Count 
tracks indicators with a focus on social and health conditions across 
the county. This revised approach was used for the AIMs High report 
and Web site released in 2007, and for subsequent annual updates 
through June 2010. 

The AIMs High system has continued to evolve. In July 2010 the King 
County Council approved a new countywide strategic plan that consists 
of eight high-level countywide goals. Each goal consists of several 
high-level objectives, such as "Keep people safe in their homes." 
Community indicators, such as the percentage of resident survey 
respondents who feel safe in their neighborhood during the day and at 
night, will be used to gauge progress toward these objectives. The 
plan also includes specific strategies for achieving each objective, 
such as "Maintain a proactive law enforcement presence." "Strategic 
measures," such as the response time of the sheriff's department, will 
be used to assess how well the strategies have been implemented. The 
legislation authorizing the creation of the strategic plan also 
requires the continued release of an annual public performance report, 
with information on both community indicators and government 
performance measures, consistent in principle with the current 
structure of the AIMs High report. The intention going forward is to 
have the AIMs High report align with the structure and objectives 
outlined in the strategic plan. 

Design: The current AIMs High report consists of eight categories-- 
natural resources; built environment; housing and homelessness; 
economic vitality; health; law, safety, and justice; accountability 
and transparency; and equity and social justice--that, together, are 
designed to capture the breadth of conditions addressed by county 
services. 

Within each category AIMs High provides two levels of information. The 
first level is comprised of "Community Indicators," which are higher- 
level measures that track the state of the environment or the 
condition of the community. Indicators are generally influenced by a 
number of factors and jurisdictions, and individual organizations have 
less ability to control the conditions being measured. The second 
level is comprised of "Performance Measures," which, by contrast, are 
quantifiable measures of the amount, quality, efficiency, or 
effectiveness of products or services produced by a specific program 
or agency. The broader perspective provided by the community 
indicators is intended to provide citizens and county officials with 
an understanding of whether or not county programs are making a 
difference at the community level. Figure 20 provides a visual 
illustration of the relationship between the community indicators and 
performance measures in the "Health" category of AIMs High. 

Figure 20: List of Community Indicators and Performance Measures in 
the "Health" Category of King County AIMs High: 

[Refer to PDF for image; web site page] 

Source: King County, Washington, Office of the Executive. 

Note: Web page from King County AIMs High can be accessed at 
[hyperlink, http://your.kingcounty.gov/aimshigh/health.asp] (viewed on 
Mar. 7, 2011). 

[End of figure] 

The AIMs High Web site is comprised of individual pages for each 
subcategory of community indicators. For example, Figure 21 provides 
an example of the "Health promotion" subcategory page. Each 
subcategory page consists of information on how King County is doing 
(including graphical depictions of the indicators), the factors that 
influence the indicators, and the role that King County government 
plays in improving conditions in the County. On the left side of the 
page are links to pages with information on each performance measure. 

Figure 21: Example of Indicator Page from AIMs High Web Site: 

[Refer to PDF for image; web site page] 

Source: King County, Washington, Office of the Executive. 

Note: Web page from King County AIMs High can be accessed at 
[hyperlink, http://your.kingcounty.gov/aimshigh/health.asp] viewed on 
Mar. 7, 2011). 

[End of figure] 

Key Product: 

* King County AIMs High Web Site [hyperlink, 
http://your.kingcounty.gov/aimshigh/index.asp]. 

Boston Indicators Project: 

Overview: The Boston Indicators Project (BIP) is a local key indicator 
system managed by the Boston Foundation in partnership with the City 
of Boston and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council that was designed 
to: 

* "democratize data" by increasing access to data and research on 
local conditions; 

* engage the public, community-based organizations, media, the 
business community, and government; 

* help leaders from different sectors find ways to collaborate; and: 

* monitor progress toward shared civic goals for Boston. 

Development: The effort to develop BIP began in 1997. Since then, the 
system has evolved through an open, participatory approach to 
development that has involved a wide range of engaged residents, 
public officials, academics, and leaders from the private and 
nonprofit sectors. 

At the beginning, the effort involved a small number of individuals 
from various community organizations and city departments, but over 
time the group grew to include more than 300 participants who worked 
to develop a broad framework for the project, including a vision, 
goals, and indicator categories. The next step in the process involved 
the identification of the indicators themselves, and included 150 
individuals working in both large and small group settings for a 
period of about 6 months. As the effort evolved, participants formed a 
steering group and various subcommittees, and developed criteria to 
select indicators and identify data sources. By early 1998, 
participants had narrowed an initial "wish list" of 1,500 measures to 
about 150 proposed indicators, and they began the process of 
collecting data. After releasing a draft report in 1999 to more than 
1,000 people and collecting feedback on the draft for a year, the 
first BIP indicators report was released in the fall of 2000. BIP 
subsequently released reports in 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009. Each of 
these biennial reports had a distinct theme, and they have been used 
to measure progress toward a long-term vision for Boston. 

To inform the development of its reports BIP has hosted a series of 
"convenings," which have been used to capture a range of perspectives 
from experts, community-based practitioners, public officials, private 
sector representatives, and interested citizens. The number of 
participants for each convening varies, but each has used the same 
structured agenda to elicit views on key long-term trends, major 
developments and accomplishments, and key challenges in different 
topic areas. This input has been used to frame and prioritize the 
findings of the next BIP report. BIP has also hosted a series of 
What's Next? Seminars to engage younger participants and emerging 
leaders. The process of convening stakeholders around the development 
of its biennial reports, as well as holding briefings following the 
release of reports, has helped keep core constituencies engaged and 
informed over time. 

Design: BIP is divided into 10 "sectors"--civic vitality; cultural 
life and the arts; economy; education; environment and energy; health; 
housing; public safety; technology; and transportation. On the BIP Web 
site, each sector has its own page, summarizing key trends, 
accomplishments, developments, challenges, and innovations. Each 
sector is subdivided according to the goals for that sector, each of 
which is supported by at least one indicator. For example, the economy 
sector includes a goal to attain "Economic Strength and Resilience;" 
progress toward this goal is measured by several indicators, including 
employment by industry sector, the unemployment rate in Boston, and 
hotel and office occupancy rates. Each specific indicator is also 
given its own page, which provides a brief summary of why an indicator 
is important and how Boston is doing. Figure 22 provides an example of 
an indicator page from the BIP Web site. 

Figure 22: Boston Indicators Project Web Site Indicator Page Example: 

[Refer to PDF for image: web site page] 

Source: The Boston Foundation. 

Note: Web page from the Boston Indicators Project can be accessed at 
[hyperlink, 
http://bostonindicators.org/Indicators2008/Economy/Indicators.aspx?id=11
020] (viewed on Mar. 7, 2011). 

[End of figure] 

To allow users to explore certain crosscutting subjects, the BIP Web 
site also offers a "Sector Crosscut" filter for six different 
subjects--Boston neighborhoods, children and youth, competitive edge, 
fiscal health, race/ethnicity, and sustainable development. The BIP 
Web site contains a page for each of these crosscutting subjects that 
includes a description of the subject and a list of links to relevant 
indicators from across sectors. For example, the children and youth 
crosscut is made up of a list of 29 indicators from eight different 
sectors, while the competitive edge crosscut is made up of 24 
indicators from nine different sectors. 

In addition to the full list of regional goals available through the 
BIP Web site, BIP also worked with hundreds of stakeholders and 
experts to develop a "Civic Agenda" for Boston. This civic agenda is 
organized into four major areas--an open and effective civic culture, 
world class human capital, 21st century infrastructure, and 21st 
century jobs and economic strategies--each of which has a high-level 
goal and associated measurable milestones, relevant statistical 
information, and information on the strategies that are being used by 
different actors to drive progress toward achieving the milestones. 

Key Products: 

* Boston Indicators Project Web Site--[hyperlink, 
http://www.bostonindicators.org]. 

* Biennial Boston Indicators Project Reports--available through 
[hyperlink, http://www.bostonindicators.org]. 

* Boston Civic Agenda--available through [hyperlink, 
http://www.bostonindicators.org]. 

* MetroBoston DataCommon--[hyperlink, 
http://www.metrobostondatacommon.org/]. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The objectives of our review were to address (1) how indicator systems 
are being used by government entities, nongovernment stakeholders, and 
citizens; (2) how indicator systems are developed and designed; (3) 
some of the factors necessary to sustain indicator systems; and (4) 
potential implications for how a U.S. key national indicator system 
could be developed and used. 

This report builds on the findings from our November 10, 2004, report 
on key national indicators, Informing our Nation: Improving How to 
Understand and Assess the USA's Position and Progress, GAO-05-1. We 
conducted a literature review of indicator systems, focusing on 
developments since 2004. We determined the status of indicator systems 
we previously identified and researched additional national, state, 
regional, and local systems, reviewing primary and secondary documents 
related to the comprehensive key indicator systems. We interviewed 
experts, current and former government officials, and noted 
practitioners from the indicator community to get a sense of the main 
issues related to the development and use of indicator systems, 
lessons learned, and possible challenges and effects of a key national 
indicator system. 

Based on recommendations from experts and our review of the 
literature, we selected a group of 20 comprehensive indicator systems 
from different jurisdictional levels and diverse geographic locations, 
as shown in table 3. We conducted interviews with representatives from 
these systems. We selected 7 of the 20 systems to serve as case 
studies. These in-depth case studies included interviews with 
officials or managers and stakeholders. To select the case study 
systems, we looked for national, state, and local indicator systems 
that met four criteria, including: (1) comprehensiveness--a mixture of 
economic, social, and environmental indicators, (2) longevity--in 
existence for at least 5 years and currently in operation, (3) outcome-
orientation--with measures of progress over time or toward goals or 
outcomes, and (4) involvement of a government entity as a partner or 
as a user of information from the system. 

Table 3: Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Selected for GAO's Study: 

Local/county/regional level: 

Name of System: King County AIMs High, Washington (case study). 

Name of System: Albuquerque, NM Progress Report, New Mexico. 

Name of System: Boston Indicators Project, Massachusetts (case study). 

Name of System: Cercle Indicateurs, Switzerland (local/state level)[A]. 

Name of System: Jacksonville Community Council Inc. Quality of Life 
Progress Report, Florida. 

Name of System: Long Island Index, New York. 

Name of System: Orange County Community Indicators, California. 

Name of System: Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, 
California. 

Name of System: Silicon Valley Index, California. 

Name of System: Truckee Meadows Tomorrow Quality of Life Indicators, 
Nevada. 

State level: 

Name of System: Arizona Indicators, Arizona. 

Name of System: Community Indicators Victoria, Australia (case study). 

Name of System: Measures of Growth in Focus, Maine. 

Name of System: Oregon Benchmarks, Oregon. 

Name of System: South Australia's Strategic Plan, Australia. 

Name of System: Tasmania Together, Australia. 

Name of System: Virginia Performs, Virginia (case study). 

National level: 

Name of System: Measures of Australia's Progress, Australia (case 
study). 

Name of System: MONET Indicator System, Switzerland (case study). 

Name of System: United Kingdom Government Sustainable Development 
Indicators, United Kingdom (case study). 

Source: GAO. 

[A] Cercle Indicateurs provides comparative information for Swiss 
cities and cantons. Cantons in Switzerland are roughly the equivalent 
of U.S. states. 

[End of table] 

The three national case study systems--the comprehensive key indicator 
system maintained by the United Kingdom's Government Sustainable 
Development Indicators, the MONET Indicator System maintained by 
Switzerland, and Measures of Australia's Progress--were chosen to 
reflect similarities in systems of government, demographic and 
cultural diversity, geography, and economy to the United States. We 
also selected three domestic subnational systems--Virginia Performs, 
King County AIMs High, and the Boston Indicators Project--as case 
study systems. These systems were chosen to represent different types 
of jurisdictions--state, county, and local; different types of 
governing authorities--governmental and nongovernmental; and different 
regions of the country. We conducted a case study of one statewide 
nongovernmental system in Australia, Community Indicators Victoria. 
For each of these case studies, in addition to a review of documents, 
we also conducted site visits to meet with officials and selected 
stakeholders involved in the systems. 

To better understand how the United States government might use a key 
national indicator system, we met with representatives from the 
National Academy of Sciences and a number of federal statistical 
agencies. We also interviewed officials from two federal government 
topical national indicator systems--Healthy People, maintained by the 
Department of Health and Human Services and the Report on the 
Environment, maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency. In 
addition, we interviewed an official from KIDS COUNT, a national 
topical indicator system hosted by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, a 
private charitable organization. The KIDS COUNT system presents 
national, state, and local-level indicators on the status of America's 
children. To analyze insights for a key national indicator system for 
the U.S., we drew upon our professional judgment, fieldwork, and 
interviews with scholars, practitioners, and government officials. 

Given the case study approach, this report's findings rely heavily on 
practices in certain situations and contexts. There may be limitations 
on the extent to which the insights of key stakeholders on the 
development and design of indicator systems and the factors necessary 
to sustain indicator systems could be used in a U.S. national context. 
We did not perform a cost and benefit analysis of the systems 
reviewed. Nor did we evaluate the federal statistical system and its 
related agencies. Most of the graphics presented in this report from 
the indicator systems we studied are only to illustrate the types of 
information and the variety of ways it is presented in the reports or 
on the Web sites of these systems. The examples are not intended to 
highlight or frame discussions of the substantive issues conveyed by 
them. 

We verified the accuracy of the information about the indicator 
systems with system representatives, the National Academy of Sciences, 
the Office of Management and Budget, and selected federal agencies. We 
incorporated their comments, where appropriate, throughout the draft. 
We conducted our work from February 2010 to March 2011 in accordance 
with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that are 
relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and 
perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence 
to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our 
work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and the 
analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and 
conclusions in this product. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Pub. L. No. 111-148, "Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act," Title V, Section 5605; 124 Stat. 680: 

March 23, 2010: 

SEC. 5605. Key National Indicator System: 

(a) Definitions: In this section: 

(1) Academy: The term "Academy" means the National Academy of Sciences. 

(2) Commission: The term "Commission" means the Commission on Key 
National Indicators established under subsection (b). 

(3)Institute: The term "Institute" means a Key National Indicators 
Institute as designated under subsection (c)(3). 

(b) Commission On Key National Indicators: 

(1) Establishment: There is established a "Commission on Key National 
Indicators"'. 

(2) Membership: 

(A) Number And Appointment: The Commission shall be composed of 8 
members, to be appointed equally by the majority and minority leaders 
of the Senate and the Speaker and minority leader of the House of 
Representatives. 

(B) Prohibited Appointments: Members of the Commission shall not 
include Members of Congress or other elected Federal, State, or local 
government officials. 

(C) Qualifications: In making appointments under subparagraph (A), the 
majority and minority leaders of the Senate and the Speaker and 
minority leader of the House of Representatives shall appoint 
individuals who have shown a dedication to improving civic dialogue 
and decision-making through the wide use of scientific evidence and 
factual information. 

(D) Period Of Appointment: Each member of the Commission shall be 
appointed for a 2-year term, except that 1 initial appointment shall 
be for 3 years. Any vacancies shall not affect the power and duties of 
the Commission but shall be filled in the same manner as the original 
appointment and shall last only for the remainder of that term. 

(E) Date: Members of the Commission shall be appointed by not later 
than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

(F) Initial Organizing Period: Not later than 60 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall develop and implement a 
schedule for completion of the review and reports required under 
subsection (d). 

(G) Co-Chairpersons: The Commission shall select 2 Co-Chairpersons 
from among its members. 

(c) Duties Of The Commission: 

(1) In General.--The Commission shall: 

(A) conduct comprehensive oversight of a newly established key 
national indicators system consistent with the purpose described in 
this subsection; 

(B) make recommendations on how to improve the key national indicators 
system; 

(C) coordinate with Federal Government users and information providers 
to assure access to relevant and quality data; and: 

(D) enter into contracts with the Academy. 

(2) Reports: 

(A) Annual Report To Congress: Not later than 1 year after the 
selection of the 2 Co-Chairpersons of the Commission, and each 
subsequent year thereafter, the Commission shall prepare and submit to 
the appropriate Committees of Congress and the President a report that 
contains a detailed statement of the recommendations, findings, and 
conclusions of the Commission on the activities of the Academy and a 
designated Institute related to the establishment of a Key National 
Indicator System. 

(B) Annual Report To The Academy: 

(i) In General: Not later than 6 months after the selection of the 2 
Co-Chairpersons of the Commission, and each subsequent year 
thereafter, the Commission shall prepare and submit to the Academy and 
a designated Institute a report making recommendations concerning 
potential issue areas and key indicators to be included in the Key 
National Indicators. 

(ii) Limitation: The Commission shall not have the authority to direct 
the Academy or, if established, the Institute, to adopt, modify, or 
delete any key indicators. 

(3) Contract With The National Academy Of Sciences: 

(A) In General: As soon as practicable after the selection of the 2 Co-
Chairpersons of the Commission, the Co-Chairpersons shall enter into 
an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences under which the 
Academy shall: 

(i) review available public and private sector research on the 
selection of a set of key national indicators; 

(ii) determine how best to establish a key national indicator system 
for the United States, by either creating its own institutional 
capability or designating an independent private nonprofit 
organization as an Institute to implement a key national indicator 
system; 

(iii) if the Academy designates an independent Institute under clause 
(ii), provide scientific and technical advice to the Institute and 
create an appropriate governance mechanism that balances Academy 
involvement and the independence of the Institute; and: 

(iv) provide an annual report to the Commission addressing scientific 
and technical issues related to the key national indicator system and, 
if established, the Institute, and governance of the Institute's 
budget and operations. 

(B) Participation: In executing the arrangement under subparagraph 
(A), the National Academy of Sciences shall convene a multi-sector, 
multidisciplinary process to define major scientific and technical 
issues associated with developing, maintaining, and evolving a Key 
National Indicator System and, if an Institute is established, to 
provide it with scientific and technical advice. 

(C) Establishment Of A Key National Indicator System.--: 

(i) In General: In executing the arrangement under subparagraph (A), 
the National Academy of Sciences shall enable the establishment of a 
key national indicator system by--: 

(I) creating its own institutional capability; or: 

(II) partnering with an independent private nonprofit organization as 
an Institute to implement a key national indicator system. 

(ii) Institute: If the Academy designates an Institute under clause 
(i)(II), such Institute shall be a non-profit entity (as defined for 
purposes of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) 
with an educational mission, a governance structure that emphasizes 
independence, and characteristics that make such entity appropriate 
for establishing a key national indicator system. 

(iii) Responsibilities: Either the Academy or the Institute designated 
under clause (i)(II) shall be responsible for the following: 

(I) Identifying and selecting issue areas to be represented by the key 
national indicators. 

(II) Identifying and selecting the measures used for key national 
indicators within the issue areas under subclause (I). 

(III) Identifying and selecting data to populate the key national 
indicators described under subclause (II). 

(IV) Designing, publishing, and maintaining a public website that 
contains a freely accessible database allowing public access to the 
key national indicators. 

(V) Developing a quality assurance framework to ensure rigorous and 
independent processes and the selection of quality data. 

(VI) Developing a budget for the construction and management of a 
sustainable, adaptable, and evolving key national indicator system 
that reflects all Commission funding of Academy and, if an Institute 
is established, Institute activities. 

(VII) Reporting annually to the Commission regarding its selection of 
issue areas, key indicators, data, and progress toward establishing a 
web-accessible database. 

(VIII) Responding directly to the Commission in response to any 
Commission recommendations and to the Academy regarding any inquiries 
by the Academy. 

(iv) Governance: Upon the establishment of a key national indicator 
system, the Academy shall create an appropriate governance mechanism 
that incorporates advisory and control functions. If an Institute is 
designated under clause (i)(II), the governance mechanism shall 
balance appropriate Academy involvement and the independence of the 
Institute. 

(v) Modification And Changes: The Academy shall retain the sole 
discretion, at any time, to alter its approach to the establishment of 
a key national indicator system or, if an Institute is designated 
under clause (i)(II), to alter any aspect of its relationship with the 
Institute or to designate a different non-profit entity to serve as 
the Institute. 

(vi) Construction: Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit 
the ability of the Academy or the Institute designated under clause 
(i)(II) to receive private funding for activities related to the 
establishment of a key national indicator system. 

(D) Annual Report: As part of the arrangement under subparagraph (A), 
the National Academy of Sciences shall, not later than 270 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, submit to 
the Co-Chair persons of the Commission a report that contains the 
findings and recommendations of the Academy. 

(d) Government Accountability Office Study And Report: 

(1) GAO Study: The Comptroller General of the United States shall 
conduct a study of previous work conducted by all public agencies, 
private organizations, or foreign countries with respect to best 
practices for a key national indicator system. The study shall be 
submitted to the appropriate authorizing committees of Congress. 

(2) GAO Financial Audit: If an Institute is established under this 
section, the Comptroller General shall conduct an annual audit of the 
financial statements of the Institute, in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards and submit a report on such 
audit to the Commission and the appropriate authorizing committees of 
Congress. 

(3) GAO Programmatic Review: The Comptroller General of the United 
States shall conduct programmatic assessments of the Institute 
established under this section as determined necessary by the 
Comptroller General and report the findings to the Commission and to 
the appropriate authorizing committees of Congress. 

(e) Authorization Of Appropriations: 

(1) In General: There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
the purposes of this section, $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, and 
$7,500,000 for each of fiscal year 2011 through 2018. 

(2) Availability: Amounts appropriated under paragraph (1) shall 
remain available until expended. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Full Text for Figure 3 Presentation of Key Indicators from 
the MONET System: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

[A] Meeting needs - How well do we live? 
Being healthy, feeling safe, and having enough income to live are all 
needs that, when met, contribute to the well-being of the population. 
Enabling all individuals to live in dignity and enjoy a good quality 
of life is a central goal of sustainable development. 

[B] Preservation of resources – what are we leaving behind for our 
children? 
Sustainable development also means meeting the needs of the present 
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their 
own needs. The quality of life of future generations depends, in large 
part, on the state of environmental, economic, and social resources we 
leave them in Switzerland and worldwide. 

[C] Fairness – how well are resources distributed? 
The concept of sustainable development is based on a demand for 
fairness. In this context, all individuals should have fair access to 
important resources such as education, income, health, and clean air. 
Inequality and poverty must be tackled at the national and 
international level. 

[D] Decoupling – how efficiently are we using our natural resources? 
From a sustainable development perspective, it is necessary that we 
seek to satisfy our needs within the limits of what the environment 
can withstand. Promoting economic and social development without 
damaging the environment means adopting more rational and efficient 
modes of production and consumption. 

Overlapping Objectives: 

Social solidarity: 
Poverty[C]; 
Physical safety[A]; 
Health[A]; 
Teenage reading skills[B]. 

Economic efficiency: 
Investment[B]; 
Innovation and technology[B]
Public debt[B]. 

Environmental responsibility: 
Built-up areas[B]; 
Biodiversity[B]. 

Social solidarity and Economic efficiency: 
Unemployment[A]; 
Income[A]; 
Equality[C]. 

Environmental responsibility and Economic efficiency: 
Freight transport[D]; 
Material consumption[D]; 
Energy consumption[D]. 

Social solidarity, Environmental responsibility, and Economic 
efficiency: 
Official development assistance[C]; 
Passenger transport[D]. 

Source: Adapted from graphics of MONET system, Swiss Confederation.
Innovation and technology 

Note: Federal Statistical Office, Federal Office for Spatial 
Development, Agency for Development and Cooperation, and Federal 
Office for the Environment, Sustainable Development--A Brief Guide 
2010 (2011). Web page can be accessed at [hyperlink, 
http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/21/02/dashboard/02.ht
ml]. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Bernice Steinhardt (202) 512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Elizabeth Curda, Assistant 
Director, and Janice Latimer and Judith Kordahl, Analysts-in-Charge, 
supervised the development of this report. 

Adam Miles and Diana Zinkl made significant contributions to all 
aspects of this report. Gregory Wilmoth assisted with the design and 
methodology. Sabrina Streagle provided legal counsel. William 
Trancucci verified the information in the report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, Pub. L. 
No. 111-148, §5605, established a Commission on Key National 
Indicators that will enter into an arrangement with the National 
Academy of Sciences to establish a U.S. key national indicator system. 

[2] Other definitions regarding indicator systems are in appendix I. 

[3] GAO, Informing our Nation: Improving How to Assess the Position 
and Progress of the United States, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-1] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 10, 
2004). 

[4] The National Academy of Sciences is a congressionally chartered, 
nongovernmental, tax-exempt institution that includes two other 
honorary academies, the National Academy of Engineering and the 
Institute of Medicine, as well as its operating arm, the National 
Research Council, [hyperlink, http://www.nas.edu]. 

[5] In addition, if an institute is established under this section, we 
are to conduct an annual financial statement audit and programmatic 
assessments as necessary. 

[6] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-1]. 

[7] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-1]. 

[8] GAO, Suggested Areas for Oversight for the 110th Congress, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-235R] (Washington, 
D.C.: Nov. 17, 2006). 

[9] The seven commission appointees are: Nicholas N. Eberstadt, Ph.D.; 
Stephen Heintz; Wade F. Horn, Ph.D.; Ikram U. Khan, M.D.; Dean Ornish, 
M.D.; Tomas J. Philipson, Ph.D.; and Marta Tienda, Ph.D. One 
additional person was appointed but subsequently resigned. Two 
commission appointments each were made by the majority and minority 
leaders of the Senate and the speaker and the minority leader of the 
House. 

[10] Appendix IV includes section 5605 of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act, which details the provisions for implementation 
of a key national indicator system. 

[11] See [hyperlink, http://stateoftheusa.org]. 

[12] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-1], pp. 168-169. 

[13] See [hyperlink, 
http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/index.asp] for more 
information on the America's Children indicators. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.KIDSCOUNT.org] for more information on KIDS COUNT 
indicators. 

[14] Joseph Stiglitz, Sen Amartya, and Jean-Paul Fitoussi, Report by 
the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social 
Progress (2009), available online at [hyperlink, 
http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr]. 

[15] The OECD sponsored the first World Forum on measuring social 
progress in November 2004 in Palermo, Italy. The second one was held 
in June 2007 in Istanbul, Turkey, and the third was held in October 
2009 in Busan, Korea. 

[16] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-1], p. 87. 

[17] The Australian Bureau of Statistics releases an updated MAP 
product periodically. 

[18] Although the MONET Web site shows that there are 16 indicators, 
according to Swiss federal officials, a 17th indicator, poverty, is 
considered part of the MONET key indicator set, although adequate data 
are not available to populate that indicator. 

[19] Both the Swiss MONET and UK Government Sustainable Development 
indicator systems are part of national sustainable development 
strategies. Sustainable development was defined by a United Nations 
document in 1987 as "development that meets the needs of the present 
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their 
own needs." 

[20] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-1], p. 157. 

[21] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-1], pp. 17-18. 

[22] K. Scrivens and B. Iasiello, What Makes a Successful Set of 
Indicators, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 
Global Project on Measuring the Progress of Societies, 2008. 

[23] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-1], p. 18. 

[24] The Institute of Medicine is an independent organization 
affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences that provides 
unbiased and authoritative advice to decision makers and the public on 
health-related matters. 

[25] For more information on the 20 key health measures, see 
[hyperlink, http://www.stateoftheusa.org/content/from-hundreds-of-
health-indica.php]. 

[26] WEAVE, or Web-based Analysis and Visualization Environment, is a 
data visualization tool being developed by the Open Indicators 
Consortium. WEAVE, by integrating maps, charts, and tables on one Web 
site, is designed to allow users to visualize and analyze economic, 
social, and environmental indicators at the neighborhood, municipal, 
county, and regional levels. 

[27] For the current list of indicators, see the "Analytical 
Perspectives" section of the fiscal year 2012 federal budget. 

[28] Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (Jan. 4, 2011). 

[29] S. Rep. No. 111-372, at 8 (2010). 

[30] GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government 
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 
2011). 

[31] The ABS is an independent statutory authority with the Australian 
government and is headed by an Australian Statistician who serves a 7- 
year term. The Australian Statistician is not a member of parliament, 
and although the ABS is attached to the Treasury Portfolio, the 
Australian Statistician has independent control of the operations of 
the ABS. 

[32] The first UK sustainable development strategy was issued in 1994. 
Sustainable development can be defined as development that meets the 
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future 
generations to meet their own needs. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

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

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: