An Overview of the GAO Report on Key National
Indicators
Richard D. Young
Introduction
As the 21st century begins, many significant challenges and opportunities face Americans at all levels of jurisdiction—nationwide as well as at state and local levels. Many of these challenges and opportunities are complex and require reliable and useful data and information to allow for clear understanding and decision making. While sound and trusted data exist on many subject areas, these data are scattered across the country among a vast array of organizations, some public, some private, and others public-private institutions. Though the national government is a repository of excellent data and information on an array of topical areas and issues, such as those that can be found from Fedstats[1] and the U.S. Bureau of Census,[2] still the United States does not have a comprehensive system of key data and information on economic, environmental, social, and cultural issues.
This is highly problematic to many individuals since without such a single and unified comprehensive system it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain or assess with accuracy the relative or absolute position of the U.S. Thus the question of where the U.S. stands in aggregate—economically, environmentally, socially, and culturally—can not be definitively answered since no national indicator system exists. The result is that one has to rely on many data and information systems that are segregated, widespread, often unverifiable or biased, and many times incompatible. This is a growing concern and Congressional leaders and others are looking for answers.
On February 27, 2003, the Government Accountability Office[3] (GAO) along with the National Academies[4] held a three-day forum in Washington, D.C. to discuss the potentialities of establishing a comprehensive system of key indicators. More specifically, the forum consisted of a diverse and distinguished group of individuals who sought answers to the following questions:
▪ How are the world’s leading democracies measuring national performance?
▪ What might the U.S. do to improve its approach and why?
▪ What are the important areas to measure in assessing U.S. national performance?
▪ How might new U.S. approaches be led and implemented?[5]
The outcome of the 2003 forum on key national indicators was four principal observations and the commitment to continue an organized effort to analyze the possibility of creating a comprehensive system of national indicators. With regard to the observations made, they included 1) the affirmation that the development of a system of national indicators is important, 2) the consensus that a broad range of data sets may prove useful, 3) the confirmation that current indicator systems warrant “collective research,” and 4) the firm belief that the U.S. must build on past lessons and current efforts. With these observations made, the forum participants agreed to form a “national coordinating committee” to foster and study the merits and issues connected with the establishment of some sort of comprehensive system of national indicators.
Spurred by this movement and increasing Congressional interest, the GAO published on November 10, 2004, a 238-page report to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, entitled Informing Our Nation: Improving How to Understand and Assess the USA’s Position and Progress.[6]
In this article, an overview of the findings and recommendations of this ground-breaking GAO report will be presented. While the aim is to be synoptic and informative, it is also hoped that this article will be suggestive the type of effort that should be made in South Carolina to establish a dependable and accepted ranking (status) of South Carolina among other states as to its position and progress in both topical and comprehensive areas.
Purpose, Definitions and Methodology of the GAO Report
The opportunity before us is to build sophisticated information resources and comprehensive key indicator systems that aggregate vital information across sectors, levels of societies, and institutions. These would be available to any person or institution, anywhere at any time, and for any purpose.[7]
David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States
In describing the purpose of its recent study, the GAO found that a great deal of interest and activity existed as regards to the establishment of a “comprehensive key indicator system” (CKIS).[8] As such, several fundamental questions presented themselves. For instance, how is a political jurisdiction (a community, a state, or the U.S.) doing as a whole? More exactly, how does one jurisdiction compare to another? How would a CKIS help to better inform decision makers about such comparisons (with regard to position and progress)? Could such a CKIS be precise, easily accessible, relevant, up-to-date, comprehensible, and so on?
Given this, and for purposes of background and substantive discussion and review, the GAO was asked by Congress to address the following far-reaching questions.
1) What is the state of the practice in developing and implementing comprehensive key indicator systems in the U.S. and around the world?
2) What are the lessons learned from these systems and future implications?
3) What are some options for Congress to consider in identifying an organization to develop and implement a national system?[9]
Before embarking on answering these sweeping questions, the GAO report defined four basic terms. First, an indicator was defined as “a quantitative measure that depicts a condition over time, particularly one which is economic, environmental, social or cultural in nature.” Examples of indicators include the GDP, mortality rates, and water or air quality indices. Second, an indicator system is “a structured assemblage of measurements or indices that show the position and progress of some condition of a jurisdiction.” Examples here include Fedstats (national), Minnesota Milestones[10] (state), and Baltimore’s Vital Signs[11] (local). Third, topical indicator systems are “organized indices’ structures” that focus on specific subject or issue areas—health, education, natural resources, criminal justice, and so forth. For instance, statistics or data for the topical area of health can be found at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics[12] or at the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control.[13] Fourth, and lastly, comprehensive key indicator systems (CKISs) are defined as “structured measurement systems that concentrate on an aggregate of indices that fall within the broad areas pertaining to economic, environmental, social and cultural issues.” Differing from a topical indicator system, a CKIS often—but not always—seeks to present or articulate measurements that are “combined” yet wide-ranging, measurements that allow for a more full understanding of the connections or interrelationships (“cross-cutting”) between topical data sets, such as educational attainment and income earnings.[14] An excellent example of a national CKIS is Australia Now, developed and maintained by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. (See http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/3b12c5b1bd7f6434ca256bdc001223f0!OpenDocument.)
Figure 1—Schematic Breakdown of CKIS into Topical Areas
.
In terms of methodology, the GAO report selected 29 CKISs for review and analysis. These selected CKIS systems were from all levels of jurisdiction—local, state, national, and international—and were recommended by experts principally in the field of performance measurement and statistical analysis. Further, the GAO conducted interviews with providers and users associated with five CKISs, which included comprehensive systems developed by the city of Boston,[15] the state of Oregon,[16] Germany,[17] the United Kingdom,[18] and the European Union.[19] (A complete list of these systems is provided in the Appendix.) Numerous topical indicator systems were also examined in the subject areas of health, aging, children and families, business, and science and engineering. Finally, the GAO solicited input, advice and critique from numerous experts before publishing its report.
It should be pointed out that the GAO did not review the entire universe of indices systems, nor fully examine the literature on comprehensive and topical indicator systems. Additionally, the GAO did not evaluate the federal statistical system or agency systems. No cost-benefit analysis was conducted and no national CKIS was proposed or endorsed.
GAO Report Findings
The findings of the November 2004 GAO report fall basically into two categories. The first category presents findings as to the current state of the practice or use of indicator systems. The second category speaks to lessons learned and resultant implications.
The State of Practice
In essence, five distinct findings were made as to the current usage of indicator systems. These findings are discussed below.
1) All levels of society have comprehensive key indicator systems. The GAO found that many CKISs exist through out the U.S. and internationally. Again, in the GAO study, it selected and reviewed 29 CKISs that had been operational for a period of at least two years. Of these 29 systems, 20 were at the local or regional level of the U.S.; six were state level CKISs; and, three were outside the U.S. The GAO found that “many recognize that these systems could, generally speaking, provide better information and data for public-private debate and greatly assist decision makers.”[20]
2) Topical systems provide the foundation for comprehensive systems. The GAO found also that the U.S. has an extensive array of topical indicator systems at the national level. These topical systems are important to CKISs in a least two respects. Topical indicators, for example, are significant in that they provide information and data elements that can be aggregated in a meaningful way and thus form the substructure of a CKIS. Additionally, because of the wide variety of topical indicator systems, reliable data sets are readily available covering far-reaching topics, which could, in turn, “facilitate” the establishment of a national comprehensive key indicators system.
The GAO cites Healthy People[21] as an example of a highly regarded national topical indicator system. Building on initiatives that began in 1979, Healthy People is a federal program established within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It sets two overarching goals for the year 2010: 1) increase quality and years of healthy life, and 2) eliminate health disparities. Healthy People also has developed a broad list of indicators to measure progress towards these goals. These topical indicators cover, for example, areas associated with obesity, tobacco use, immunization, mental health, and physical activity.
3) Comprehensive key indicator systems are active, diverse, and evolving. The CKISs studied by the GAO are highly accessible and are Web based. All are kept up-to-date and typically they are user-friendly. Additionally, the GAO found that CKISs provide a wide variety of information and data that are useful to a host of audiences, both public and private. Additionally, these systems are generally being perfected and improved upon, not only in terms of the quality of data and information provided, but also with respect to visual presentation and operational or design features.[22]
4) Comprehensive key indicator systems are oriented toward learning or outcomes. The GAO found that CKISs are mostly oriented towards “learning or knowledge” and/or “outcomes.” Learning-oriented systems are primarily aimed at providing selected information and data to specific audiences. Here the main emphasis is to inform or educate, not to monitor or assess progress. One example cited by the GAO of a learning-oriented CKIS is the Social Assets and Vulnerabilities Indicators system[23] in Indianapolis. This indicator system provides information on community schools, libraries, hospitals and other similar local facilities and institutions.
Other CKISs are outcome-oriented. These systems concentrate on the achievement of objectives or goals. They provide key indicators that measure progress towards a specified end—e.g., better health, improved economic status, or educational attainment. For instance, Oregon Shines[24] is a CKIS that establishes a “vision” for Oregonians to achieve, which translates into a set of goals and objectives that are measurable by pre-established indicators.
Figure 2—Oregon Shines
Source: Oregon Progress Board. Retrieved December 8,
2004 from http://egov.oregon.gov/DAS/OPB/os_1.shtml.
5) Attention to issues and aspirations are important. With regard to outcome-oriented CKISs, the GAO found that “audiences are more favorable to use the information and data—indicators—if they are relevant to their aspirations and interests.”[25] Further, users and decision makers of CKISs that find them pertinent and applicable are likely to support and sustain such systems—implying financial as well as other supportive resources and measures.
Additionally, attention to relevant issues and interests can be extremely valuable in framing policy questions.[26] This in turn enables individuals—elected officials, stakeholders, etc.—to get maximum use from a CKIS and, in some instances, helps to shape the direction and focus of CKIS design and application.
Lessons Learned and
Implications
Complementary to the findings above, the GAO also found from its examination of selected CKISs what it termed “lessons learned and implications.” These consisted of mainly four lessons/implications and are discussed in the following narrative.
1) Comprehensive key indicator systems show positive effects. The GAO found generally that the 29 CKISs it studied showed positive effects, including increasing knowledge, fostering and improving collaboration, and enhancing decision making. More specifically, the GAO found that comprehensive indicator systems:
▪ Increased public knowledge about key economic, environmental, social and cultural issues. CKISs permit users to comprehend better the intricate and complex interrelationships among issues by “crosscutting” across two or more topical areas—for example, “the impact of economic development on crime rates.”[27]
▪ Improved collaboration to address public issues. For instance, by focusing attention on certain conditions, a CKIS could “bring pressure to bear” on individuals, with opposing views, to work together to achieve positive change.[28]
▪ Heightened research and assisted greatly in informed decision making. A single CKIS, one which is reliable and pertinent, provides a one-stop resource for comparable information and data. This greatly aids both researchers and decision makers alike.
▪ Provided tools to encourage progress. Individuals are prone to be more aggressive, pro-active to achieve goals or objectives when monitoring progress, or the lack thereof, as indicated by a CKIS.[29] [30]
2) System costs are difficult to quantify. The GAO report did not provide a cost-benefit analysis of the selected CKISs nor did it speculate about the costs associated with the development of a national comprehensive key indicator system. However, the GAO did discuss, in a limited fashion, the intricacies related to costs associated with the development and maintenance of a CKIS.
The GAO found that the costs of a CKIS were difficult to quantify fully. This was due to several factors. In many cases, for example, the full costs were not captured due to the borrowing of staff and other resources from other organizations. In other cases, information and data came from other organizations and the costs related to these data—costs of collection, processing, etc.—were not available or simply unknown. Also, while the GAO attempted to analyze the costs of some select CKISs as to “the acquiring and managing of technology, the paying of staff and consultants, Web design, printing and the like,” it was unable to completely ascertain and, most importantly, verify full systems’ costs.
As a result of the GAO’s limited examination of CKIS costs, it was found that more study was needed in this area.
3) Certain design features are needed to overcome challenges. The GAO pointed to several challenges related to design features of CKISs. Among these challenges were securing and maintaining stakeholder support, gaining and sustaining funding, using technology effectively, and coming to consensus on key indicators to be utilized.[31]
To address these challenges, the GAO suggested—as based on its study of the 29 CKISs—the following design features:
▪ Establish a clear purpose and define target audiences and their needs.
▪ Ensure independence and accountability.
▪ Create a broad-based governing structure and actively involve stakeholders.
▪ Secure stable and diversified funding sources.
▪ Design effective development and implementation processes.
▪ Identify and obtain needed indicators or data.
▪ Attract and retain staff with appropriate skills.
▪ Implement marketing and communications strategies for target audiences.
▪ Acquire and leverage information technologies.[32]
4) Comprehensive key indicator systems have potentially broad applicability. The GAO study indicates that the CKISs reviewed have wide applicability. This finding is based on several factors including the similarity of design features among systems, the longevity of many systems, and the use of new technologies to advance and improve systems. The GAO, therefore, found that such factors “demonstrate the feasibility for a U.S. national system.”[33]
More specifically, the GAO found that a national CKIS would
have a large number of indicators, already existent, to choose from. This is
especially true as well in the number and variety of existing topical
indicators that could be adapted to a CKIS framework. Additionally, in terms of
scalability, a national CKIS is potentially feasible given that the UK, Germany
and the EU all have working and reputable systems in place. Finally, the GAO
believes that there is plentiful evidence as to the transferability of existing
system design, processes, and indicators.
GAO Suggested Next Steps
The GAO finds that while the U.S. has a large number of useful CKISs and various excellent topical indicator systems, there is again no one unified national system. The GAO believes that having information and data scattered among many diverse systems—while useful in many instances for both learning and outcome orientations—are, in essence, no real substitutes for a single comprehensive national system that considers “the whole.” Again, accessibility, reliability, and comparability are rationales for the feasibility of a national CKIS. Also there are other potential benefits associated directly with a CKIS, including the marking of progress, the identifying of performance gaps, the connecting and enriching of discussions and debates, and the enhancing of consensus among decision makers.
Nevertheless, according to the GAO, there are some “pitfalls” related to the establishment of a national CKIS and, to the extent possible, these must be shunned or avoided. One pitfall is, in some cases, that few good indicators are readily available, such as ones linked to the environment.[34] In other cases, conditions are difficult to measure, for example, which relate to “certain aspects associated with culture.”[35] Some other pitfalls identified by the GAO involve poor indicator selection, inattention to data quality, and restraint to utilize innovative measures to enhance overall system efficiency and effectiveness.
The GAO specifically suggests four crucial steps that Congress might want to do or undertake in its consideration of a national comprehensive key indicator system. These next steps are as follows:
▪ Encourage awareness and education. The GAO suggests that an organized effort be put into place to educate the public as to the significance of a national CKIS. This effort might include forums, workshops, media events, conferences, and even Congressional hearings.
▪ Pursue additional research. The GAO advocates that research continue as to the creation and implementation of a national CKIS. Questions still remain, for example, as to organizational sponsorship, system design, cost-benefit, and many other crucial issues connected to a national CKIS. Additionally, more study of existing national indicator systems would be highly useful in the overall planning and development stages of a national system.
▪ Support further development of comprehensive key indicator systems. Many CKISs already exist. The improvement of existing indicator systems and lessons learned from such improvements would “reduce risks, expand opportunities and avoid reinventing solutions.”
▪ Widen the dialogue on options for a U.S. national system. The February 2003 Forum, the Key National Indicators Initiative,[36] and other supportive projects are important to the continuing dialogue on establishing a national CKIS. However, the GAO recommends that the dialogue be even further expanded to other sectors of society, engaging more interested persons and expertise throughout the nation and around the world.[37]
Finally, one additional consideration or “next step” that the GAO suggests, if a national CKIS is seriously considered, is that Congress must give significant deliberation to a range of organizational options. Thus, the question: Who is to develop, implement, and manage a national system? In respect to this important question, the GAO offers three suggestions—a public organization, a private organization, or a public-private organization. And further, “Should the organization—whatever structure or arrangement—be established in relation to an existing organization or one that is completely anew?”
1) A public organization. A CKIS could be housed within an existing (or new) federal agency. The advantage here would be that an existing federal agency, in all probability, possesses many of the skills and capacities already that would complement and support a national CKIS. A disadvantage may be the “mixing of official and unofficial information and data.” The GAO suggests that the U.S. Bureau of Census, for example, would be a logical choice for the locating or the placing of a national CKIS.[38]
2) A private organization. Another option that Congress may want to consider for a national CKIS, as suggested by the GAO, is a private organization. In particular, a private, non-profit organization vis-à-vis a for-profit organization would be more suitable in terms of accessibility and independence. A Title 36 corporation would, for example, allow for the receipt of federal funding as well as private gifts and bequests. The advantage of a private organization is that it would offer a national CKIS more flexibility (less red-tape) in acquiring donations, and also with respect to management and operational policies. A disadvantage would be—perhaps—the difficulty of policy makers, especially Congressional members, “to accept and use the indicator system.”[39]
3) A public-private organization. This public-private option suggested by the GAO would offer “a great deal of flexibility” and the possibility of incorporating a “range of features.”[40] One clear advantage of a public-private organization, according to the GAO, would be the opportunity to leverage federal resources with private ones—money, expertise, and technologies. Conversely, one disadvantage would be maintaining sufficient independence from “governmental influences” and avoiding overlap or competition with existing federal information and data providers.
Options and Recommendations
If Congress or another entity chooses to support the development of a comprehensive key indicator system, certain features should be applied to the design and organization of it. Purpose and target audience are the most important design features to consider at the outset. Other features, including creating a broad-based governing structure, ensuring independence and accountability, acquiring diversified funding sources, and developing strategies to obtain needed indicators or data, will also need to be considered, decided upon, and factored into the design and organization of a system.[41]
Based on its findings, the GAO report “recommends” certain options or considerations regarding the establishment of a national CKIS. These options total ten in number and relate directly or indirectly to the GAO’s findings discussed earlier in this paper. Each GAO option is reviewed briefly below.
1) Certain design features should guide system development. The GAO study strongly suggests that certain design features should be considered as regards a national CKIS. These are identified earlier in this paper and, more importantly, comprise the following recommended options 2 through 10, which follow.[42]
2) A clear purpose and a defined target audience should be established. The establishment of a national CKIS should be based on whether the focus will be for purposes of learning or measuring progress, according to the GAO. The audience should be naturally narrow if the main intent of a national CKIS is, for example, to inform only government policymakers. If the intent is to inform government policymakers, business leaders, researchers, not-for-profit groups, the media, etc., then the audience should obviously be more universal.[43]
3) Independence and accountability of a system should be ensured. The GAO finds that a national CKIS, if established, should be free from political pressures and special interests. The credibility of a national CKIS is dependent on its “transparency,” i.e., its “firewall” to any special ideological, partisan, or other potential bias. The GAO states that “one way to ensure independence and accountability would be to make the actions of the organization managing the system and key decisions accountable and transparent to the organizing entity, donors, other funders, and the public.”[44]
4) A broad-based governance structure should be created. The GAO believes that a broad-based governance structure for a national CKIS would allow for greater interest and acceptance among diverse users. The GAO recommends that a CKIS should be governed and overseen by a mix of public and private members. These might include individuals with various appropriate backgrounds including those with knowledge and expertise in statistics, science, research, business, media, and finance. Also membership might include those in leadership positions (public and private), public interest groups, non-profits, and ordinary citizens.[45]
5) A stable and diversified funding mechanism should be put into place. The GAO recommends that a secure and diverse funding apparatus would ensure a national CKIS’s long-term sustainability. Ideally, mixed funding sources from governments (federal, state and/or local) along with private or institutional monies (private corporations, not-for-profit organizations, academic institutions, etc.) would offer the greatest financial stability.[46]
6) Effective development and implementation processes should be designed. The GAO believes that a national CKIS should have in place effective operational processes to establish and maintain a competent, credible, and useful indicator system. Formal and accepted practices for selecting, organizing, and revising indicators should be designed. Criteria should be put in place to ensure the selection of appropriate indicators and their utility to users, including relevance to target audiences, alignment to goals and issues, understandability, accessibility, and comparability. Periodic assessment of the quality and reliability of all information and data should also be undertaken. Additionally, the development and refinement of marketing and communication strategies should be on-going.
7) Proper indicators should be identified and collected. The GAO found in its study that most CKISs use information and data that come from other sources, to one degree or another. Thus, the GAO finds that it would be practical and useful for a national CKIS to identify and access data from state and local CKISs. This would be highly beneficial for several reasons, the most important of which is to have a wide-ranging data set available to numerous potential users. The GAO, of course, suggests strongly that information and data from other sources should be used only if it meets “agreed-upon quality assurance criteria.”[47]
8) Appropriate and skilled staff should be acquired. The GAO recommends that a chief executive officer should be responsible for the day-to-day operations of a national CKIS. This executive officer should possess all relevant experience and competencies associated with such an important position. Further, the staff of a national CKIS should obviously meet sufficiently the particular skills and qualifications (statistics, information technology, economics, etc.) that would be required for the successful operation of a national indicator system.[48]
9) Marketing and communications strategies should be established. The GAO recommends that a versatile and comprehensive marketing program be established for a national CKIS in order to “spread the word.” The GAO believes it is important to communicate to everyone concerned the benefits and features of a new CKIS. Strategies for marketing and communicating would include briefings and demonstrations, interaction and frequent contact with the media, direct contact with target users and audiences, workshops and training sessions. Probably the most important marketing strategy would be communicating to individuals and groups about the interactive Web site feature of a national CKIS and the advantages and benefits that it would offer.[49]
10) Advanced technologies should be applied. The GAO believes that highly developed and progressive technologies would be crucial to a national CKIS, just as they have been to the existing and developing CKISs which were studied for the 2004 November report. Advanced technology and database systems make it possible to collect, organize, and present information and data with relative ease and rapidity. The Internet alone has revolutionized the accessibility and applicability of CKISs worldwide. The
GAO recommends that the use of advanced technologies, along with appropriate technical staffing, be employed in the establishment of a national CKIS.
Conclusion
The GAO studied a varied and distinct number of comprehensive key indicator systems at the local and state levels, including three programs outside the U.S. The study was undertaken due to a keen interest in the possible development of a national CKIS among many interested parties, and more specifically, at the request of a Congressional subcommittee. The directives of the subcommittee were 1) to review the state of practice in CKISs in the U.S. and abroad, 2) to present findings on “lessons learned and their implications,” and 3) to make appropriate observations and enumerate options and “next steps” if further action should be undertaken.
In terms of the state of practice, again, the findings were four: 1) all levels of society have comprehensive key indicator systems, 2) topical systems provide the foundation for comprehensive systems, 3) comprehensive key indicator systems are active, diverse, and evolving, and 4) comprehensive key indicator systems are oriented toward learning or outcomes. And with regard to lessons learned and implications, essentially four additional findings were made: 1) comprehensive key indicator systems show positive effects, 2) system costs are difficult to quantify, 3) certain design features are needed to overcome challenges, and 4) comprehensive key indicator systems have potentially broad applicability.
Finally, the GAO, as requested, “recommended” that steps be taken if Congress desires to pursue a national CKIS. As discussed fully in this paper earlier, these include encouraging awareness and education, pursuing additional research, supporting further development of comprehensive indicator systems, and widening the dialogue on options for a U.S. national system. And in terms of options or considerations to be taken if a national indicator system is to be pursued, the GAO suggested the following:
1) Certain design features should guide system development.
2) A clear purpose and a defined target audience should be established.
3) Independence and accountability of a system should be ensured.
4) A broad-based governance structure should be created.
5) A stable and diversified funding mechanism should be put into place.
6) Effective development and implementation processes should be designed.
7) Proper indicators should be identified and collected.
8) Appropriate and skilled staff should be acquired.
9) Marketing and communications strategies should be established.
10) Advanced technologies should be applied.
References
Government
Accountability Office. (2003, May). Forum
on national indicators: assessing the nation’s position and progress.
Washington, DC: GAO in cooperation with the National Academies. Retrieved
December 6, 2004 from http://www.keyindicators.org/Forum_Summary_Report.pdf.
Government
Accountability Office. (2004, November). Informing
our nation: improving how to understand and assess the USA’s position and
progress. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved December 6, 2004 at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d051.pdf.
About the
Author
Richard D. Young, B.A., M.A.
Richard
Young is director of governmental research with the Institute for Public
Service and Policy Research at the University of South Carolina. He conducts research
on a myriad of public policy and public administration topics relating to
state and local governments. Mr. Young can be reached at young-richard@sc.edu.
Appendix: Comprehensive Key Indicator Systems Selected for GAO’s Study
Source: From the Government Accountability Office. (2004, November). Informing our
nation: improving how to understand and
assess the USA’s position and progress.
Washington,
DC: Author, p. 8.