This document provides an overview of the National Dashboard Project, which aims to precisely and quickly measure the impacts and benefits of federal investments. The Dashboard combines various data sources and analytical techniques to provide a more sophisticated way to estimate the economic impacts of federal initiatives. It allows comparison of initiatives across industries and locations. Initial findings from an analysis of ARRA spending in two Midwestern cities show healthcare and education jobs provided higher economic benefits than energy or transportation jobs in one city, while the benefits were more evenly distributed across job types in the other city. Further analysis of differences in local economies can provide insights to optimize future spending.

1.
Briefing
Paper
No.
1:
Dashboard
Economist
Team
Robert
B.
Cohen,
PhD;
Lawrence
Chimerine,
PhD;
Maryann
Feldman,
PhD
Measuring
Genuine
Impacts
and
Benefits
of
Federal
Investments
–
The
Dashboard
Analysis
Is
there
a
way
to
precisely
and
quickly
examine
the
impacts
and
benefits
of
Federal
Investments
regardless
of
purpose
or
timeline?
To
answer
this
question,
the
National
Dashboard
Project
has
combined
a
number
of
new
information-­‐gathering
techniques,
detailed
reports
on
funded
projects,
intelligent
data
mining,
a
massive
storehouse
of
historical
data
and
regional
input-­‐output
modeling,
to
provide
a
much
more
reliable
way
of
measuring
the
impact
of
government
programs
than
existing
methodologies.
This
methodology
provides
policy
makers,
fund
providers
and
recipients
with
a
more
sophisticated
way
to
estimate
impacts
of
each
component
that
a
Federal
investment
or
initiative
is
producing,
as
well
as
to
assist
with
future
investment
from
unspent
ARRA
and
emerging
reauthorization
programs
at
Federal
departments
and
agencies.
The
Dashboard
explores
impacts
on
local
economies
and
provides
a
comparative
baseline
from
historical
datasets
to
enable
predictive
impact
analysis
of
potential
future
investments.
The
Dashboard
offers
an
innovative
way
to
compare
Federal
initiatives
across
industries
and
geographies.
It
provides
the
metrics
that
government
officials
at
the
national
and
local
level
can
use
to
examine
the
impact
of
common
Federal
spending
and
more
traditional
anti-­‐cyclical,
federal
spending
and
tax
cuts
and
to
determine
what
adjustments
might
be
made
to
ensure
future
spending
provides
the
biggest
national
benefit
possible
This
capability
has
always
been
needed
but
in
current
economic
times
and
pressures,
current
and
future
Federal
investment
planning
and
execution
will
require
much
more
informed
and
integrated
knowledge
such
as
the
Dashboard
can
provide.
Some
may
ask
how
the
Dashboard
differs
from
any
comprehensive
set
of
tools
used
by
government
currently
to
do
investment
planning
and
allocation.
The
major
difference
is
that
government
records
contain
Federal
knowledge
but
the
impact
and
consequence
knowledge
is
contained
in
dozens
of
difference
data
collections
inside
and
outside
government
in
disparate
forms.
The
Dashboard
brings
together
Federal
data
from
many
sources
with
information
from
commercial,
state,
local
and
consulting
venues
to
create
a
comprehensive
picture
of
all
inputs
and
outputs
from
funding
decision
to
the
different
levels
of
transfer
and
consumption
down
to
individuals.
The
following
figure
illustrates
a
timely
example
of
how
the
Dashboard
could
be
used
to
understand
the
impacts
of
ARRA
spending
in
different
cities
and
across
occupations.
The
figure
presents
very
preliminary
findings
concerning
two
different
size
Midwestern
cities
labeled
City1
and
City2.
The
figure
indicates
that
the
local
economic
benefit
for
new
jobs
is
highest
for
healthcare
and
education
jobs
in
1

2. City1.1
The
figure
compares
the
“benefit
ratio”
-­‐-­‐
the
value
a
single
job
adds
to
the
local
economy
(sales
less
labor
and
material
inputs,
estimated
on
a
per
employee
basis)
divided
by
the
cost
of
creating
a
new
job
-­‐-­‐
or
a
rough
impact
measure,
relative
to
the
cost
of
creating
new
jobs.
The
figure
also
shows
that
the
same
jobs
have
a
higher
“benefit
ratio”
and
cost
nearly
half
as
much
to
create
in
City1
as
compared
to
City2,
for
reasons
that
we
discuss
below.
Though
any
job
created
is
important
to
the
vitality
of
the
nation’s
recovery,
the
strength
and
durability
of
these
jobs
will
ensure
that
the
actual
investment
benefits
not
only
help
the
economy
in
the
short
term,
but
also
improve
the
long-­‐term
economic
competitiveness
of
states
and
communities.
The
impact
analysis
and
assessment
using
The
National
Dashboard
tools
and
data
has
already
given
us
insights
that
can
define
how
best
to
deploy
similar
or
new
funding
via
grants,
loans
or
contracts
in
the
future,
High-­‐level
Analysis
of
two
diverse
economies:
why
drilling
into
the
data
is
critical
to
performance
Looking
further
at
City1,
there
is
a
rather
steep
benefit
curve
for
the
four
types
of
jobs
we
examined.
Healthcare
and
education/training
jobs
in
City1
have
a
much
greater
economic
benefit
ratio
(more
than
1.0)
and
cost
less
to
create
than
comparable
jobs
that
the
funding
created
in
City2.
The
current
high
emphasis
energy
and
transportation/infrastructure
jobs,
the
focus
of
much
current
debate,
have
the
lowest
benefit
ratio
and
the
highest
cost.
For
City2,
the
benefit
line
is
much
flatter,
indicating
a
much
wider
range
in
the
cost
of
creating
new
jobs
and
a
narrower
range
of
benefits
from
the
jobs
the
Recovery
Act
created.
In
City2,
education/training
and
healthcare
jobs
continue
to
have
the
highest
benefit
ratio
and
the
lowest
cost.
Energy
and
transportation/infrastructure
jobs
again
have
the
lowest
benefit
ratio
and
the
highest
cost.
Though
preliminary,
this
result
comes
from
real
data
gathered
in
the
last
few
months
and
analyzed
by
the
Dashboard.
In
looking
at
similar
jobs
in
different
cities,
nursing
jobs
in
a
medium-­‐sized
city
might
provide
more
economic
value
relative
to
their
pay.
In
contrast,
nurses
in
a
larger
city
might
contribute
the
same
1
Local
economic
benefit
is
measured
as
the
value
added
locally
(sales
less
labor
and
material
inputs)
divided
by
the
cost
of
creating
new
jobs,
a
“benefit
ratio,”
2

3. economic
value,
but
have
a
lower
economic
impact
relative
to
their
cost
because
nurses
are
paid
more
in
larger
urban
centers.
Things
might
work
in
a
similar
way
for
jobs
in
education.
For
instance,
teachers
in
smaller
cities
are
paid
less
than
their
urban
counterparts,
but
provide
students
with
similar
learning
and
skills.
Consequently,
the
contribution
of
teachers
in
medium
sized
cities
to
the
local
economy
may
be
larger
relative
to
their
cost
or
pay
than
the
economic
“benefit”
of
teachers
in
bigger
cities
who
usually
get
paid
more.
Initial
Conclusions
from
The
National
Dashboard
Proof
of
Concept
For
the
sake
of
illustration,
one
could
draw
two
very
preliminary
conclusions
from
these
findings.
First,
healthcare
and
education/training
jobs
are
likely
to
contribute
larger
economic
benefits
to
the
local
economy
than
the
current
energy
and
transportation/infrastructure
jobs
the
current
emphasis
on
these
topics
is
creating.
Job
creation
is
necessary
on
a
short-­‐term
AND
a
long-­‐term
basis
for
local
recovery.
Within
these
four
sectors,
the
types
of
jobs
created,
the
overall
economic
environment
in
which
the
jobs
are
created,
and
the
ability
to
sustain
growth,
are
vital
to
understand.
Second,
jobs
created
in
medium-­‐sized
cities
are
more
likely
to
have
a
bigger
economic
impact
on
the
local
economy
than
jobs
created
in
larger
urban
centers,
primarily
because
they
contribute
more
value
relative
to
their
pay.
And
yet,
within
larger
urban
centers,
there
are
pockets
of
employment
and
job
creation
that
must
be
assessed
rather
than
rolled-­‐up
or
aggregated.
The
more
that
analysis
and
assessment
of
impact
can
be
drawn
to
the
locations
and
places
with
the
greatest
need
and
greatest
benefit,
the
more
targeted
certain
grants
and
contracts
in
the
future
will
create
improved
ratios.
The
economic
benefit
estimated
here
considers
only
the
local
economy.
It
does
not
include
broader
economic
benefits
that
result
from
spillover
effects,
such
as
spending
on
materials
purchased
outside
the
local
economy.
It
also
does
not
consider
secondary
benefits,
such
as
the
benefits
of
reducing
our
3

4. imports
of
oil
that
would
result
if
the
United
States
creates
more
alternative
sources
of
energy.
These
benefits
and
measurement
techniques
are
being
explored
within
The
National
Dashboard
local,
state
and
regional
communities
where
critical
outcome
data
is
available.
Our
assessment
for
fellow
economists
and
policy-­‐makers
of
The
National
Dashboard:
it
provides
analysis
of
metrics
and
economic
decisions
that
are
difficult
or
nearly
impossible
to
create
from
other
sources.
Federal
government
statistics
do
not
provide
adequate
detail
at
the
level
of
the
local
economy.
The
Federal
government
and
private
sources
also
do
not
have
regional
models
that
can
easily
assess
the
impact
of
specific
programs,
such
as
the
components
of
unique
or
specialized
programs
that
emerge
from
several
sources,
and
not
from
just
one
grant
or
contract.
The
metrics
and
analytic
approach
developed
within
The
National
Dashboard
process
reveals
where
special
investment
initiatives
such
as
ARRA
is
succeeding
and
where
it
might
be
improved
if
additional
funding
is
approved.
In
turn,
The
Dashboard
Project
creates
and
leverages
new
knowledge
of
one-­‐time
or
special
investments
so
that
policy-­‐makers
can
enhance
their
planning
and
execution
of
traditional
federal,
state,
and
local
spending
patterns.
About
the
National
Dashboard
The
National
Dashboard
is
a
project
of
the
Center
for
State
and
Local
Government
Excellence,
and
a
consortium
of
organizations,
institutions,
and
individuals
focused
on
the
effectiveness
and
efficiency
of
federal,
state,
and
local
spending
for
economic
recovery,
competitiveness
and
targeted
use
of
public
resources.
For
more
information
on
The
National
Dashboard,
please
review
www.nationaldashboard.org
4