Directorates
·	Director General's Office
·	Data Development
·	Strategic Evaluations
·	Partnership and Continuous Evaluations
Publications
·	Evaluation Reports
·	Evaluation Briefs
·	Labour Market Development Agreement Series
·	Lessons Learned Series
·	Evaluation Tool Kit Series
·	Evaluation Forum Newsletter
·	From Theory To Practice

A number of different rationales appear to have motivated earlier interest in the social indicator movement, which would apply today. Land (1975) identified three of them: (1) a social change rationale, to improve capacity to measure social conditions and change and to supplement economic indicators; (2) a social reporting rationale, to monitor social progress, presumably towards certain societal goals; and (3) a social policy rationale, to evaluate government programs and to establish social accounts and goals. Land (1975) saw these rationales as inter-related: an improved capacity to measure social change is necessary for effective social reporting, which in turn is necessary for guiding social policy.

The prevailing economic climate likely determines which of these rationales is dominant. Earlier interest in social measurement was born in a climate of plentitude. Social indicators were sought to monitor social conditions in the face of great economic gains. This contrasts with the climate out of which current interest in social indicators has arisen, one where scarcity is leading to greater interest in a social policy role for social indicators. As funding for social programs is reduced, concern for the state of the social economy (social conditions) and social progress (social reporting) remains strong, but the public demand for accountability and transparency in the spending of the increasingly scarce social budgets (social policy) is even greater.

Interest in social indicators for social policy purposes is reflected in recent Rethinking Government polling identifying a desire among Canadians for greater government accountability. In April 1996, about 75 per cent of Canadians felt fairly strongly that accountability for measured results and effectiveness would improve governance (Ekos 1996a). A similar sentiment was expressed in a October-November poll which indicated that 78 per cent of Canadians felt that an appropriate role for government is to demonstrate accountability for the measured results and effectiveness in its operations (Ekos 1996b). This opinion held across age, income, and education groups and regions, though most strongly among older, higher-income, university-educated Canadians and in western Canada. These results appear to indicate that Canadians are less willing than they have been to support expenditures on social and other programs unless the benefits to the economy and to quality of life can be clearly demonstrated.

Interest in the social report function of social indicators is also manifested in recent Ekos polling. For example, a majority of Canadians feel that the federal government should issue national report cards that document progress in key social and economic areas, particularly education and health care (Ekos 1997a). Identified as important elements of these report cards were measuring current conditions and setting measurable targets for the future. The latter requirement matches the very strong support that exists in Canada for national standards in social programs (Ekos 1997b).