|
 On Thursday, May 20th, ARS convened a meeting of its Regional Indicators Affinity Group in conjunction with the recent National Forum for Regional Stewardship in Austin, Texas. The group indicated interest in a number of subjects, and raised a number of questions about the process of conducting indicators studies. Starting with the idea that indicators studies should serve as vehicles for action, it was generally agreed that public participation and input is critical to such projects because it fosters legitimacy and can help incorporate a driving vision into the indicators process.
Additionally, it was suggested that tying an indicators project to a motivating event or crisis can provide a sense of urgency, underscoring that these studies must be tailored to specific regional circumstances.
A number of participants advocated the use of a leadership or advisory group to develop indicators. Advisory groups reflect the values and goals of the region, and can inform staff work, further legitimizing the work.
The group reached consensus around the importance of dependable dataproviding the facts demonstrates integrity, as does offering reports and data at regular (e.g., annual) intervals. It was also pointed out that indicators do not serve a single policy level.
An interesting question raised during the meeting concerned the perception of partiality on the part of the group conducting the indicators study. (i.e., Are project proponents inevitably perceived as advocates for a particular policy position or course of action? Further, if the goal is to motivate action and change, how should the issue of neutrality be handled? Finally, should the group doing the indicators work also be formulating recommendations for action?) It was suggested that to motivate change, it is possible to selectively drill down on a particular issue where action is desired.
A final question centered on community response to indicators reports: If no groups choose to take action based on the indicators provided, do the indicators represent what really needs to be measured? Alternatively, does inaction suggest that the initiators of the project were perceived as biased?
The group suggested a number of topics for future inquiry, including best practices, how to get from indicators to action, and how to disseminate the information.
For additional information on the Regional Indicators Affinity Group, please contact Amy Carrier, Alliance Manager, at or .
|
