Bernice Steinhardt
Director, Strategic Issues
U.S. Government Accountability Office

• The context for indicators: why measure
• U.S. experience with indicators
• Current developments and GAO’s role
• Indicators and the international government audit community
2

st
• Changing security threats
• Long-term fiscal and environmental sustainability
• Economic recovery and restored growth
• Global interdependency
• Demographic and other social change
• Advancements in science and technology
• Public expectations of government
3

• Many of the current policies, programs, functions, and activities are based on conditions that existed decades ago and are not well aligned with 21 st century realities.
• We cannot afford to continue to do business as usual.
• Accomplishing U.S. government goals will increasingly rely on strengthened mechanisms for collaboration.
4

st
• U.S. government increasingly has to partner with other governments, other levels of government, private and not-forprofit sectors, to achieve results. Examples:
• Disaster planning, response and recovery
• Environmental protection
• Public health
• Need tools and metrics to link efforts
5

 Inform strategic planning (link shared purposes)
 Enhance performance and accountability
 Inform congressional oversight and decision making
 Facilitate oversight, and stimulate greater citizen engagement
6

• Numerous sets of national-level indicators in response to changing needs and conditions:
• Economic indicators developed during the Great
Depression of the 1930s
• Growth in social programs in the 1960s drove need for social indicators (e.g., education, health)
• Concern for environmental protection led to interest in developing environmental data
7

• While lacking a national indicator system, considerable interest and activity at the city, state and regional levels during last 20 years
• Learning-oriented: information about social, cultural, economic, environmental conditions, presented with little or no commentary or analysis, for educational purposes
• Outcome-oriented: indicators used to monitor and encourage progress toward goals
• About 150 community, state or regional indicator projects across the U.S.
8

Efforts to Develop National Indicator
System for U.S.
• GAO, in cooperation with National Academy of Sciences, convened forum in 2003 to discuss whether and how to create key national indicator system for U.S.
• About 60 leaders in accountability, business, education,
NGO, government, labor, media, minority, scientific, and statistics communities
• Efforts continued over next several years under leadership of
National Academy
• Independent non-profit organization created in 2007: State of the USA
9

State of the USA
(www.stateoftheusa.org
• Seeks to provide decisionmakers and the public information needed to
• measure national progress
• evaluate policies and strategies
• permit comparisons to other nations
• Designed to be a Web-based system
10

State of the USA
(www.stateoftheusa.org
• Envisioned as public-private partnership, supported by government and non-government sectors
• All sectors involved in achieving national goals have a stake in outcomes
• Vital to have shared understanding in order to link efforts towards common goal
• Expect to develop about 300 key indicators, including some number of composite indicators in 12 core domains (e.g., environment) and 12 cross-cutting domains (e.g, competitiveness)
• Created 20 key health indicators in 2009
11

• In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of
2010 (P.L. 111-148) included a provision mandating
• the National Academy to establish a U.S. key national indicator system through its own institutional capability or in partnership with an independent, private, nonprofit organization; and
• creation of a bipartisan Commission on Key National Indicators composed of eight members, appointed by congressional leadership, to provide oversight of such a system, among other responsibilities.
12

• Act also directed GAO to study previous work conducted by public agencies, private organizations, or foreign countries with respect to best practices for a key national indicator system.
• GAO study also subject of a request from Senate committee chairman to examine other KNI systems and their implications for federal government.
13

• Examine trends in development and maintenance of indicator systems and experiences of key stakeholders
• Identify how indicator systems have been used by governments and stakeholders in policy and management decisions
• Identify factors affecting development and use of indicator systems and their potential implications for (a) the organization responsible for developing and overseeing a key national indicator system and
(b) the federal government as data provider and user
• Report to be issued March 2011
14

Scope of GAO Study: Case Study Selection
Criteria
 Comprehensiveness - a mixture of economic, environmental, and social and cultural indicators.
 Longevity - in existence for at least 5 years and currently in operation.
 Outcome-oriented – measures of progress towards achievement of stated goals or outcomes.
 Connection with a governmental entity that uses the system to establish or modify programmatic priorities or to gauge progress in priority areas.
15

• National: Australia, Switzerland, United Kingdom
• State: Virginia; Victoria, Australia or South Australia
• Local: Boston, MA; King County, WA
• Focused reviews of other indicator systems:
• Albuquerque, NM; Jacksonville, FL;Truckee, CA;
Oregon; the European Union, Lisbon Indicators;
Finland; Latvia.
16

Potential Roles for GAO in Future
• Assess development of indicators or system
• Audit quality of information, including validity and reliability
• Audit effectiveness of KNI system in achieving objectives
• Use indicator data to help target improvement opportunities
17

• In 2007, International Organization of Supreme Audit
Institutions (INTOSAI) agreed that KNIs could be an important tool to align government programs and policies with results that citizens care about.
18

• Relevant audit work that can inform public discourse and decision making
• Ability to learn from other organizations and countries that have national indicator systems
• Better understanding of government agencies’ contributions to national outcomes
• Increase transparency and accountability
19

Role of National Audit Offices in National
Indicator Systems
• Nearly all (23 of 27) responding SAIs indicated they performed at least one role visà-vis indicator systems:
• Identifying the need for key national indicator systems
• Contributing to system design and implementation
• Assessing the indicators/systems
• Auditing quality, validity, reliability of indicator information
• Using indicators to assess, report on national progress
• Others: publishing guides, convening discussions, informing audit work, influencing public discourse
20

• Goals:
• To support SAIs’ ability to use KNIs in auditing government performance
• To promote exchange of best practices in development and use of KNIs
• To support INTOSAI’s role in promoting development and use of KNIs
21

• Memorandum of Understanding with OECD
• Participation in OECD World Forum on Measuring
Progress
• Collaboration on Guide to KNI Terms and Concepts
• Principles and guidelines for use of KNIs in performance audits
• Survey of international experience in KNI development and use
22

• About GAO—www.gao.gov
• Prior GAO work on Key National Indicators
• Informing Our Nation: Improving How to Understand and
Assess the USA’s Position and
Progress www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-1
• Controller General Forum on Key National Indicators www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-672SP
• Key National Indicators Mandate
• H.R. 3590, Public Law 111-148, Title V, Subtitle G, Section
5605
• Available at www.thomas.loc.gov
23