A Developmental Strategy

Introduction

The objective of this chapter is to present a strategy for social indicator development in terms of two closely related activities: (1) the preparation of social indicator reports, including periodical publications containing such indicators, and (2) the construction of a social accounting framework which would facilitate the derivation of improved indicators of social processes and changes.

Recent efforts to prepare social indicator reports and related publications are reviewed. Prospective efforts in the area of social indicator research and development, focusing on improvements in the data base and the incorporation of these data into some kind of social accounting framework, are also considered. The concluding part provides a summary of some issues and options which emerge from the preceding considerations.

Social indicators may be described as social statistics (direct counts or derived measures) which are considered to reflect some important aspect of social conditions and trends. They constitute a subset of the available body of demographic, economic, and social statistics which may be obtained from a variety of public and private sources. The criteria whereby social indicators may be selected depend upon the purposes they are intended to serve. In general terms, three broad types of indicators may be distinguished on this basis: descriptive indicators, analytical indicators, and programmatic indicators.'

Descriptive indicators are needed to depict, in statistical terms, the current condition of the society

'Compare Eleanor Bernert Sheldon, "Social Reporting for the 1970's," in the President's Commission on Federal Statistics, Federal Statistics, Vol. II, Chapter 7 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Governmen Printing Office, 1971). Also pertinent with respect to the general nature, purposes, and limitations of social indicators are articles by Eleanor Bernert Sheldon and Howard E. Freeman, "Notes on Social Indicators: Promises and Potential," Policy Sciences, I (Spring, 1970), by Eleanor Bernert Sheldon and Robert Parke, "Social Indicators," Science, 188 (May 16, 1975), and by Robert Parke and David Seidman, "Social Indicators and Social Reporting," The Annals, Volume 435 (January 1978), pp. 1-22.

and emerging trends in its evolution. For this purpose, it is necessary to select statistics related to the well-being of different population groups-their health, housing, education, modes of livelihood, income, protection against economic and other hazards, access to goods and services, opportunity for advancement, and the like. The usefulness of such data is enhanced when they are available in timeseries form, so that trends may be revealed.

Analytic indicators are intended to provide a deeper level of understanding than can be acquired by examining descriptive statistics alone. Analysis aims to explain "why" or "how" (in terms of related variables) a given condition has come about and thereby offers some clues as to what might be done to alter, improve, or adjust to that condition. The analytic process calls for the identification and measurement of those "independent" variables which significantly influence the condition or variable of interest. The distinction between descriptive and analytic indicators is a matter of degree. When descriptive indicators are presented either in timeseries form or disaggregated according to certain relevant characteristics, they yield useful insights in their own right by revealing differences which would otherwise be obscured. Futhermore, statistical analysis can reveal the interrelations among selected variables and thereby suggest possible causal influences, but these can seldom be demonstrated with finality.

Programmatic indicators, finally, are statistical observations and measurements which are designed to aid in monitoring and evaluating specific policies and related programs. Such indicators frequently reflect program costs and impacts so that program effectiveness can be assessed. In short, when a particular set of statistics or statistical measures is selected as a social indicator, the underlying rationale may be that the data are thought to depict an important trend or characteristic, or that they provide some explanatory insight as to why some. development of interest has occurred or failed to occur, or that they reflect the effectiveness of a particular policy or program.

The remainder of this paper is concerned with the development of a strategy for improving each of these types of indicators. At the outset, it is necessary to differentiate two basic areas of social indicator development: the preparation of social indicator reports and the conduct of social indicator research and development. These areas are the subject of the following two sections.

Social Indicator Reports

The presentation of descriptive statistics in order to inform different users of current conditions and trends is of course the basic reason why such data are collected in the first place. The most comprehensive single example is the Statistical Abstract of the United States, whose centennial edition will appear in 1979. These publications, together with similar compendia dealing with particular subject-areas, usually consist of printed tabulations without interpretive text. Their basic use is as reference documents for a variety of users. Other Federal agencies issue annual reports containing a broad range of descriptive statistics together with some interpretive text. Examples are the Annual Statistical Supplement to the Social Security Bulletin, issued by the Social Security Administration, DHEW (since 1955); the Employment and Training Report of the President, issued by the Department of Labor since 1963; The Condition of Education issued by the National Center for Education Statistics; Health, United States, 19761977 issued jointly by the National Center for Health Statistics and the National Center for Health Services Research.

Over the years several efforts have been made to develop comprehensive reports which approach the idea of social indicator reports by including assessments of current conditions and trends and recommendations for needed policies and actions. By far the most comprehensive of these efforts was a 4year research project commissioned in 1929 by President Hoover and carried out under the direction of William F. Ogburn. This project culminated in the publication of Recent Social Trends in the United States (1933). The separate volumes of this report provided detailed examinations of some 30 areas of American life and were a useful source of factual information in guiding the development of policies and programs during the depression years.

Nothing approaching this magnitude has been undertaken since then, but a number of more modest reporting efforts reflect intermittent concern with the

'President's Research Committee on Social Trends, Recent Social Trends in the United States (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1933).

potential usefulness of social reports which seek to cover a wide range of topics. Beginning in 1961, for example, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare issued a monthly report entitled Indicators, supplemented by an annual compilation of selected time-series, entitled Trends. Both reports presented selected statistics relating to program developments in the areas of health, education, and welfare together with selected descriptive statistics reflecting the condition of the population in these broad areas of concern. Brief articles treating selected topics were also included.

The resurgence of interest in societal assessment which accompanied the "great society" programs of the mid-1960's gave rise to the establishment, in 1966, of an advisory group of social scientists to advise the Secretary of DHEW on the measurement of social change and the preparation of a social report. The only published result of this large-scale effort was the appearance, in 1969, of DHEW's Toward a Social Report.' Despite its brevity (101 pages), this report is an important prototype of providing assessments of current status in seven major areas of concernhealth and illness; social mobility; the physical environment; income and poverty; public order and safety; learning, science, and art; and participation and alienation.

An important supplementary undertaking was begun in July 1969, when President Nixon established a National Goals Research Staff within the White House, under the direction of Leonard Garment. The work of this group was terminated with the issuance of a report in July, 1970, entitled Toward Balanced Growth: Quantity with Quality. Taken together, these two reports illustrate both the potential and the limitations of social reports. Toward a Social Report was intended to serve as a prototype for annual assessments of "social well-being" as a basis for making "informed decisions about priorities and directions in this Nation's social programs." The analysis it contained was deliberately normative and the criteria employed in selecting the few social indicators it contained emphasized that these

'U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Toward a Social Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969). The original intention of this effort was to inaugurate an annual social report. See the covering letter from Secretary Wilbur J. Cohen to the President, dated January 11, 1969. The principal author of "Toward a Social Report" was Mancur Olson.

'National Goals Research Staff, Toward Balanced Growth: Quantity with Quality (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970). President Nixon's announcement of the establishment of this research staff on July 13, 1969 also made reference to the preparation of "a public report, to be delivered by July 4 of next year, and annually thereafter...." (italics added). The principal author of this report was Raymond A. Bauer.

indicators should have normative significance. The notion of "normative significance" is controversial. Mancur Olson's statement expresses the intended meaning when he argues that it should be possible to infer that "if (a given indicator) changes in the "right" direction, while other things remain equal, things have gotten better, or people are "better off." Toward Balanced Growth had a different focus. It was designed to explore possible alternatives for future development by proposing a number of "debates of emerging issues" for public consideration. Thus both reports shared a normative orientation and both of them made use of selected descriptive statistics in their analysis and interpretation.

The limitations of both reports were well known and expressed by their authors. In preparing Toward a Social Report, it soon became evident that the bulk of the statistics available for any given subject were designed for administrative purposes, not for societal assessment. Data relating to the well-being of individuals or population groups or to the results or outcomes of particular policies or actions were, and remain, extremely hard to come by. Those who prepared Toward Balanced Growth encountered an equally serious obstacle: the paucity of normative projections tracing alternative paths toward the attainment of specified goals. Although the staff carefully avoided prescribing goals, it could not escape the need to offer alternative goals for public consideration, in the form of issues raised in its "emerging debates."

Shortly after the publication of Toward a Social Report, work was begun within the Office of Management and Budget on the first comprehensive national social indicators report, Social Indicators 1973. This renewed effort was motivated largely by the belief that the careful process of data selection which characterized Toward a Social Report could readily be extended to provide more adequate coverage of the major areas of concern. Whereas the preceding reports consisted primarily of interpretive essays, the social indicator report was designed to provide a statistical portrait of the society, stressing the graphical presentation of descriptive statistics without analytic or interpretive text. This focus was justified, in part, by the notion that statistics, if properly selected and presented, "speak for themselves." It was further justified by the fact that the primary audience for which the report was designed consisted of individuals in policymaking or policy-influencing positions within the Federal Government-persons who would be relatively experienced in gleaning useful intelligence from raw

'Toward a Social Report, p. 97.

statistics and who would be expected to develop their own interpretations in any case. This approach was patterned after the long-standing practice of presenting economic indicators without interpretive

text.

Social Indicators 1973 was issued in February, 1974-after more than four years of development. The reception accorded this first publication offers few clear-cut lessons as yet, but a number of tentative conclusions can be offered. About 5,000 copies were distributed among the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government and selected governmental agencies at the State and local level. Another 14,000 copies were purchased by libraries and private individuals. From the limited feedback, it is possible to distinguish four broad audiences for reports of this kind: governmental policymakers and their staffs, librarians and other reference sources, private researchers and research organizations, and interested members of the general public.

Interviews with a small sample of high-level government officials, conducted by Nathan Caplan and associates of the University of Michigan, indicated that while Social Indicators 1973 was well received, it was generally regarded to have promised far more than it could deliver. It was felt that the bulk of the data presented did not satisfy the criteria. initially set forth for social indicators-that the measures selected should reflect the well-being of individuals or families and that they should relate to outcomes or results rather than inputs of resources. Furthermore, the high level of aggregation required. to cover a range of subjects in a single publication. meant that the information supplied was seldom directly relevant to any particular set of policy deliberations. Finally, descriptive statistics, whether they relate to "inputs" or "outputs," cannot inform the policymaker as to whether a particular program has brought about its intended outcome or whether its benefits outweigh its costs. Thus the report was generally regarded as an exceptionally attractive reference document, to be used as a handy source of background information in speech writing-a service which many other reference works, such as the Statistical Abstract, can also provide.

'Nathan Caplan and Eugenia Barton, "Social Indicators 1973: A Study of the Relationship between the Power of Information and Utilization by Federal Executives," published by the Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, Institute for Social Research, the University of Michigan, September 1976. For insight into the informational needs of policymakers with respect to social issues, see "Social Research and Development of Limited Use to National Policymakers," a report of the Comptroller General of the United States to the Congress, April 4, 1977. Also useful is Martin Rein, Social Science and Public Policy (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England; Penguin Books, Ltd.,

1976).

The response of academic researchers and other specialists is also fairly well documented, thanks to the publication of a review symposium organized by the Social Science Research Council shortly after the appearance of Social Indicators 1973. Besides the numerous technical criticisms that were offered by these reviewers, the major general criticism was the absence of analysis and interpretive text. Most of these specialists recognized that the report was not primarily intended to meet their own more stringent data requirements, but they were nevertheless concerned with both the data selection process (what was included, what was left out, and why) and with the paucity of analysis—particularly in regard to the quality of the data, possible misinterpretations, and the like. Whereas both the policymakers and the technical specialists were commonly critical of the absence of interpretive essays, the latter group tended to be especially concerned with the absence of adequate warnings as to the limitations of the data presented.

Much less information is available as to the reactions of individual private purchasers of the report, but occasional comments from librarians indicate that the social indicator report has received extensive use both for reference purposes and in connection with the preparation of students' themes, term papers, and the like. The graphic presentations in particular have won almost universal praise.

Work was begun on the preparation of a second social indicator report, Social Indicators 1976 in July, 1974. The general format of this report is similar to that of its predecessor. It again features the graphic presentation, in color, of summary descriptive data on the socioeconomic characteristics of the population, with very limited geographic detail but with considerable disaggregation by age, sex, color, and other background variables. The coverage of the second report has been enlarged considerably, from 8 to 11 social indicator chapters plus an introduction to the report as a whole. In addition, each chapter contains a section of opinion data relating to public perceptions and a section providing a few international comparisons. Summary statistics relating to the socioeconomic characteristics of a number of ethnic groups, drawn of necessity from the past three decennial censuses, are also included in the introductory chapter, together with a brief discussion of the nature of sampling error and sources of nonsampling error which may affect the quality of the data presented.

'Roxann A. Van Dusen (ed.), Social Indicators 1973: A Review Symposium (Washington, D.C.: Social Science Research Council, Center for Coordination of Research on Social Indicators, 1974).

The report does not provide interpretive text or detailed analysis of the data shown; however, a special issue (Volume 435, January 1978) of The Annals (of the American Academy of Political and Social Science) has been issued, containing a number of interpretive essays based on the chapters of the report. This publication also contains selected statistical material presented in Social Indicators 1976 and therefore provides a variety of interpretations which could not be included in the report itself. In the spring of 1976, work was also begun at the Bureau of the Census on the preparation of a monthly chartbook, STATUS. Four issues of STATUS were issued to a number of individuals both within and outside of the Federal Government, starting with a July 1976 issue and ending with an October issue. STATUS was originally an outgrowth of the weekly briefing notes which were prepared for the White House beginning in the spring of 1975. These weekly reports contained selected current statistics, in graphic form, relating to a wide variety of domestic conditions and developments. STATUS was designed as a public version of these notes.

Despite the fact that STATUS was discontinued for lack of funding, it may still be regarded as an alternative mode for the presentation of social indicators to a wider audience. Although no single issue of STATUS could possibly offer the comprehensive coverage of different subjects that is provided in a general social indicator report, its cumulative content, over a 12-month cycle of publication, could include considerably more detailed information and could, in addition, retain greater flexibility in providing coverage of special topics or particular population groups which would cut across several subject areas. It would also permit publication of data from recently released topical reports on a timely basis.

In summary, Social Indicators 1976, designed as a biennial publication, and STATUS, originally intended to be a monthly chartbook, are both representative of the current state of the art with respect to the graphic presentation of descriptive statistics. Neither publication has enjoyed the resources or the lead time to permit extensive analysis or retabulation of available data, but both of them are appropriate vehicles for the presentation of comprehensive statistical data relating to a variety of subjects and designed to meet the interests of nonspecialists.

Periodical publications, such as STATUS, enjoy two major advantages over annual or biennial re

'The special editor for this issue of The Annals is Dr. Conrad Taeuber of Georgetown University.

ports of a more comprehensive nature. First, they can provide much more current data and second, they can provide a quick and flexible means for presenting materials of current interest on an ad hoc basis. For example, a periodical report can capitalize on the availability of occasional studies relating to special population groups or to other subjects which cut across a number of areas of social concern. Their disadvantages include their inability to provide comprehensive treatment of several subjects in any single issue, their limitations with respect to the depth of treatment that can be given to any topic, and their limited ability to operate with a formal organizational framework.

These two types of social indicator reports-the monthly chartbook and the annual or biennial social indicator report-are not the only vehicles for communicating selected statistical data to the general public. Several major statistical agencies have begun publication of comprehensive annual reports covering the subject matter under their jurisdiction in a format similar to that of the OMB report. Two examples may be mentioned here: the National Center for Education Statistics (DHEW) produces an annual report entitled The Condition of Education and the National Center for Health Statistics (DHEW) with its first comprehensive report, entitled Health, United States, 1975. Because these types of reports focus on a particular subject area, they provide more detailed coverage than is possible in any report covering several areas.

All of the above reporting activities may be regarded as experimental efforts at public communication. They share a common reliance upon descriptive statistics selected from sample surveys and administrative records. They also share a common limitation with respect to the depth of analysis and interpretation that can be developed on the basis of such data. Continuation of these reporting efforts may be expected to yield improvements in the selection and organization of materials, in modes of presentation, and perhaps in responsiveness to emerging public issues and interests. Such efforts cannot be expected to generate deeper levels of understanding of the factors underlying the developments which are observed. Even less can they be expected to provide clear-cut evidence of the effectiveness of particular programs or policies.

In short, descriptive statistics provide useful factual information concerning current conditions

'U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education, 1976 edition and National Center for Health Statistics, Health, United States, 1975 and 1976/77 editions: U.S. Government Printing Office).

and trends. These facts, in turn, provide essential guidelines in formulating improved questions for further research. A strategy for social indicator research and development, aimed at generating measures that would provide more adequate descriptions and greater analytic power, is discussed in the following section.

Social Indicator Research and Development

With respect to descriptive indicators, two main lines of research and development appear to hold promise. First, the improvement of the data base from which indicators are derived, both in terms of more comprehensive coverage of different areas of concern and in terms of greater comparability of concepts and classifications, would in time yield more adequate indicators of the status and conditions of different population groups in the society. The various subject matter chapters of this Framework set forth a number of proposed improvements in the general structure of sound statistics. Second, the ongoing efforts of the Social Indicator Development Program of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) are aimed at producing a basic core of social indicators which would reflect conditions and trends with respect to each of the major areas of social concern which have been agreed upon by member countries.

The achievement of greater comparability of concepts and classifications is requisite to developing tabulations and analyses which utilize data from different sources or covering different subjects. Some of the major surveys whereby statistical information on different aspects of our social condition is collected include the Current Population Survey (CPS); the Annual Housing Survey (AHS); the Survey of Income and Education (SIE); the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP); the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCS); the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES); the Health Interview Survey (HIS); the Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (HANES); and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Among these, the current population survey is unique in serving as a general-purpose data collection mechanism which is employed in obtaining a wide variety of information on the social, economic, and demographic characteristics of the population. It is possible, at least in principle, to increase the analytic usefulness of the data collected in these several major surveys by achieving agreement on a common set of concepts, definitions, classifications and procedures to be employed in all of them. A number of considerations militate against such agreement, except perhaps for a very limited subset of variables. To begin with, the