oversight

District of Columbia: Performance Report Shows Continued Progress

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 2003-05-15.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

             United States General Accounting Office

GAO          Report to Congressional Committees and
             Subcommittees



May 2003
             DISTRICT OF
             COLUMBIA
             Performance Report
             Shows Continued
             Progress




GAO-03-693
             a
                                                May 2003


                                                DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                                                Performance Report Shows Continued
Highlights of GAO-03-693, a report to           Progress
congressional committees and
subcommittees




The Federal Payment Reauthorization             The District of Columbia has made substantial progress in its performance
Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-373) requires          accountability reports over the last 4 years. The 2002 Performance
the District of Columbia to submit to           Accountability Report provided a more comprehensive review of its
the Congress a performance                      performance than prior reports and generally complied with the statutory
accountability plan with goals for the          reporting requirements.
upcoming year, and after the end of
the fiscal year, a performance
accountability report on the extent to          The report included almost all of the District’s significant activities by
which the District achieved the goals           covering 74 agencies representing about 90 percent of the total fiscal year
in the plan. The 1994 act further               2002 expenditures of nearly $5.9 billion. In addition, the 2002 report
requires that GAO review and                    included the level of performance achieved toward almost all of the goals in
evaluate the District’s performance             the performance plan and was issued on time. As required, it provided the
accountability report.                          titles of managers and their supervisors responsible for each of the goals,
                                                and described the status of court orders based on selected criteria.
                                                Specifically, it reported the following:
To improve the usefulness of the
performance reports, the District                  •   Performance results for six agencies that had not been reported on
agreed with our recommendations to                     last year, including the District of Columbia Public Schools and the
do the following:                                      Child and Family Services Agency, which together amount to nearly
                                                       19 percent of the city’s total 2002 expenditures. However, the report
(1) Prioritize the development of data                 does not include agencies and funds that amount to approximately
collection standards and distribute                    10 percent of the city’s expenditures. Among the activities not
guidelines to all city agencies. Data                  included are the Public Charter Schools, representing about 1.7
limitations should also be                             percent of the city’s expenditures, and selected special purpose
documented and disclosed in the
                                                       funds, representing about 1.3 percent of the city’s expenditures.
report.

(2) Expand its coverage to include                 •   The status of selected court orders based on criteria developed in
goals and measures for all of its                      response to a 2002 GAO recommendation. The District has also
major activities as well as related                    developed a risk tracking system to monitor agency responsiveness
expenditures.                                          to compliance with court orders. Although the report contains
                                                       updated information for selected court orders, it does not provide
(3) Include more complete                              complete information on the progress made and steps taken to
information on the steps taken to                      comply with court orders.
comply with court orders during the
year. The District should also
                                                The District has also undertaken initiatives, such as implementing
consider monitoring the costs of
complying with court orders.                    performance based budgeting, creating a performance management council,
                                                and developing data collection standards, that could assist in improving
(4) Conduct additional analysis of              overall performance management. In addition, the District’s performance
information captured in the reports             reports could serve as a tool for identifying and addressing long-standing
to assist in managing overall                   management challenges. However, using performance management as a
performance and achieving strategic             strategic planning tool requires analyzing performance data, using the
goals.                                          analysis to maintain a focus on outcomes, and providing information that is
                                                complete and well-presented so that it is useful to managers and decision
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-693.
                                                makers. In this context, there are some areas in which additional analysis of
To view the full report, including the scope    the measures, related targets, and data contained in the performance reports
and methodology, click on the link above.       may be useful to the District in planning and making decisions about
For more information, contact Patricia Dalton
at (202) 512-6806 or daltonp@gao.gov.           resource allocation as well as improving management in the future.
Contents



Letter                                                                                                       1
                             Results in Brief                                                                1
                             Background                                                                      3
                             Objectives, Scope, and Methodology                                              5
                             The 2002 Performance Report Includes Goals and Performance
                               Achieved for Almost All of the District’s Significant Activities              6
                             The Report Complied with the Other Statutory Requirements                       9
                             The District Is Implementing Initiatives to Improve Overall
                               Performance Accountability                                                   12
                             Peformance Reports Could Serve as a Tool for Identifying and
                               Addressing Management Challenges                                             15
                             Concluding Observations                                                        18
                             Recommendations                                                                19
                             District of Columbia Comments                                                  20


Appendixes
              Appendix I:    Actual Expenditures for District Agencies Included in the
                             District’s Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Accountability
                             Report                                                                         24
             Appendix II:    Activities Not Included in the Fiscal Year 2002 Performance
                             Accountability Report                                                          27
             Appendix III:   Performance Based Budgeting Agencies                                           29
             Appendix IV:    Comments from the District of Columbia                                         31


Related GAO Products                                                                                        39


Tables                       Table 1: Special Purpose Funds to Consider Including in the
                                      Performance Plan and Performance Accountability
                                      Report                                                                 9
                             Table 2: Number and Percentage of Goals Rated in Each
                                      Performance Category                                                  16
                             Table 3: Actual Expenditures for District Agencies Included in the
                                      Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Accountability Report                    24
                             Table 4: Budget Activities Not Included in the District of Columbia
                                      Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Accountability Report                    28




                             Page i                          GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
Contents




 This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
 United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further
 permission from GAO. It may contain copyrighted graphics, images or other materials.
 Permission from the copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce
 copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product.




Page ii                               GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
A
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548



                                    May 15, 2003                                                                           Leter




                                    Congressional Committees and Subcommittees

                                    This is the fourth consecutive year that we have reviewed the District of
                                    Columbia’s Performance Accountability Report as mandated by law.1 The
                                    law requires the District of Columbia to submit to the Congress a
                                    performance accountability plan with goals for the coming fiscal year, and
                                    after the end of the fiscal year, a performance accountability report on the
                                    extent to which the District achieved these goals. This requirement for the
                                    District government to issue performance accountability plans and reports
                                    is similar to the requirements for executive branch federal agencies under
                                    the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).2

                                    This report focuses on the continued progress the District has made in
                                    performance reporting. In addition, while not specifically required by the
                                    mandate, it also identifies areas that the District and the Congress may
                                    want to focus on to further develop performance management as a tool for
                                    addressing some of the challenges facing our nation’s capital. Specifically,
                                    the objectives of this report were to (1) examine the extent to which the
                                    performance accountability report is in compliance with the statutory
                                    requirements, (2) summarize some of the District’s related performance
                                    management initiatives, and (3) identify areas for future improvements.



Results in Brief                    The District has made substantial progress in its performance
                                    accountability reports over the last 4 years, and the District of Columbia
                                    Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Accountability Report was a continued
                                    improvement over both the 2001 and 2000 performance reports. The 2002
                                    report provided a more comprehensive review of the District’s
                                    performance than prior reports and generally complied with the statutory
                                    reporting requirements. Specifically, the 2002 report included almost all of
                                    the District government’s significant activities by covering 74 agencies—6
                                    more than last year—that represent about 90 percent of the District’s total
                                    fiscal year 2002 expenditures of nearly $5.9 billion. In addition, the 2002


                                    1
                                     The Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-373.
                                    2
                                    U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Help
                                    Congressional Decisionmaking and Strengthen Oversight, GAO/T-GGD-00-95 (Washington,
                                    D.C.: Mar. 22, 2000).




                                    Page 1                                GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
report was on time, and reported on the level of performance achieved
toward almost all of the goals in the performance plan. As required, it
provided the titles of managers and their supervisors responsible for each
of the goals, and described the status of court orders based on selected
criteria.

The 2002 performance report covered more of the District’s significant
activities, including, for the first time, performance information for the
District of Columbia Public Schools and the Child and Family Services
Agency—representing approximately 15 percent and 4 percent of the fiscal
year’s total expenditures, respectively. It also included the status of
selected court orders based on criteria developed in response to a GAO
2002 recommendation that objective criteria were needed to determine the
types of court orders the District includes in the performance report. In
addition, the District has undertaken other initiatives, such as
implementing performance based budgeting, creating a performance
management council, and developing data collection standards, that could
assist in improving overall performance management. While the District
continues to make noteworthy progress in a more results-oriented
approach to performance management and accountability, there are some
key areas where improvements in performance reporting can be used in
identifying and addressing management challenges.

First, while the District expanded its coverage of significant activities by
including performance results for the District of Columbia Public Schools
and the Child and Family Services Agency in the 2002 report, it should
work toward further expanding its coverage to include goals and measures
for all of its major activities as well as related expenditures. Specifically,
the District should include goals and measures for the Public Charter
Schools, and for selected special purpose funds administered by the
agencies, to provide more comprehensive information on activities. The
Public Charter Schools represented nearly $98 million, or 1.7 percent, of
the city’s total fiscal year 2002 expenditures, and the selected special
purpose funds represented approximately $75 million, or 1.3 percent, of the
city’s total fiscal year 2002 expenditures.

Second, while the District has developed criteria for reporting on court
orders—as recommended in our 2002 report—the information included in
the performance accountability reports could be more informative in
reporting on the status of and progress made in complying with court
orders. Also, the District has taken the initiative to develop a risk tracking
system for monitoring compliance with court orders, and we recommend



Page 2                           GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
             that it consider including the costs of complying with court orders with the
             areas that are monitored.

             Third, the District has acknowledged that addressing issues of data quality
             continues to be an area that needs improvement, and we believe that this
             should be a top priority for the District. While performance reports can be
             an important tool in addressing management challenges, their usefulness is
             limited by concerns about data quality. In order to use information
             gathered in the performance management process, decision makers must
             have confidence in the credibility of the data. The District’s recognition of
             this challenge and its corresponding initiative to develop data collection
             standards and guidelines for agencies converting to performance based
             budgeting is an important one, and we recommend that some level of
             guidance on data quality be provided to all agencies.

             Finally, the District faces some significant management challenges, and
             performance reporting is an important tool available for identifying and
             addressing those challenges. While the District’s additional performance
             management initiatives, such as implementing performance based
             budgeting and creating a performance management council are important
             efforts that can move the District toward the next level of performance
             management, the District should also consider further analyzing and using
             the information presented in its performance report. Using performance
             management as a strategic planning tool requires analyzing performance
             data, using the analysis to maintain a focus on outcomes, and providing
             information that is complete and well-presented so that it is useful to
             managers and decision makers. For example, the District could present a
             summary analysis of key results for strategic goals to identify areas needing
             further attention and an analysis of progress in meeting goals over time. As
             the District continues to work on data quality concerns and produces data
             on a consistent set of goals over time, the District should also move toward
             more comprehensive analysis of the data reported for use in managing
             overall performance and achieving the city’s strategic goals. In addition, as
             the District’s implementation of performance based budgeting progresses,
             it should link performance goals and measures to related expenditure
             information in the performance accountability report to enhance
             transparency and accountability.



Background   The Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994 requires that the Mayor
             of the District of Columbia submit to the Congress a statement of
             measurable and objective performance goals for all the significant



             Page 3                          GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
activities of the District government (i.e., the performance accountability
plan). After the end of each fiscal year, the District is to report on its
performance (i.e., the performance accountability report). The
performance report is to include

• a statement of the actual level of performance achieved compared to
  each of the goals stated in the performance accountability plan for the
  year,

• the title of the District of Columbia management employee most directly
  responsible for the achievement of each goal and the title of the
  employee’s immediate supervisor or superior, and

• a statement of the status of any court orders applicable to the
  government of the District of Columbia during the year and the steps
  taken by the government to comply with such orders.

The law also requires that GAO, in consultation with the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, review and evaluate the District’s
performance accountability report and submit comments no later than
April 15 to your committees.3

Last year, our report on the District’s fiscal year 2001 performance
accountability report found continued progress was made from the prior
year’s report. Specifically, it noted the expansion of the activities covered
by the report, and use of a consistent set of performance goals allowing
more effective progress reporting. While acknowledging this progress, our
report also included recommendations that future performance
accountability reports (1) more fully comply with the requirement to report
on court orders by establishing objective criteria for determining which
court orders to include and by providing more information on the status
and steps taken to comply with court orders, (2) include information on the
extent to which its performance measures and data have been verified and
validated and discuss strategies to address known data limitations, and (3)
include goals and performance measures for more of the District’s
significant activities and link related expenditure information to help
ensure transparency and accountability.




3
 This year, the deadline was extended to May 15, 2003.




Page 4                                GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
                         In response to our recommendations, the District agreed (1) to develop
                         criteria to determine which court orders should be included in the report,
                         and to provide more detail on specific actions it takes in response to court
                         orders, (2) to develop data collection standards, and stated that it would
                         begin that process by developing data collection manuals for agencies in
                         the first phase of performance based budgeting and distributing guidelines
                         to all agencies, and (3) to expand its coverage of significant activities by
                         developing and reporting on goals and measures for several additional
                         agencies and selected special purpose funds in future years.



Objectives, Scope, and   The objectives of this report were to (1) examine the extent to which the
                         performance accountability report is in compliance with the statutory
Methodology              requirements, (2) summarize some of the District’s related performance
                         management initiatives, and (3) identify areas for future improvements.

                         To meet these objectives, we reviewed and analyzed the information
                         presented in the District’s Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Accountability
                         Report and related budget and planning documents, and we interviewed
                         the District official primarily responsible for strategic planning and
                         performance management.

                         • To examine the extent to which the District’s performance
                           accountability report included all significant activities and reported
                           performance for each of the goals in the performance plan, we
                           compared the information in the 2002 performance accountability
                           report with the performance plan and with information on actual
                           expenditures presented in the District’s budget.4

                         • To determine the extent to which the report adheres to the other
                           statutory requirements, we analyzed the information contained in the
                           District’s report in conjunction with the requirements contained in the
                           Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994.

                         • To summarize some of the District’s performance management
                           initiatives and identify areas for future improvement, we reviewed prior
                           years’ performance accountability reports and budget documents and


                         4
                           Government of the District of Columbia, Fiscal Year 2003 Proposed Budget and Financial
                         Plan, (Washington, D.C.: June 2002), and Fiscal Year 2004 Mayor’s Proposed Budget and
                         Financial Plan.




                         Page 5                               GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
                             other relevant planning documents, such as the District’s Citywide
                             Strategic Plan and the Strategic Business Planning Resource Guide. We
                             also reviewed recommendations from our reports on previous year’s
                             performance accountability reports and our other recent work related
                             to performance management and the District of Columbia.

                         We conducted our work from March through May 2003 in accordance with
                         generally accepted government auditing standards. In accordance with
                         requirements contained in the law, we consulted with a representative of
                         the Director of the Office of Management and Budget concerning our
                         review. We did not verify the accuracy or reliability of the performance
                         data included in the District’s report, including information on the court
                         orders in effect for fiscal year 2002.

                         We provided a draft of this report to the Mayor of the District of Columbia
                         for review and comment. The Deputy Mayor/City Administrator provided
                         oral and written comments that are summarized at the end of this report.
                         The written comments are reprinted in appendix IV.



The 2002 Performance     The fiscal year 2002 performance accountability report includes almost all
                         of the District’s significant activities, providing performance information
Report Includes Goals    for 74 agencies representing about 90 percent of the District’s expenditures
and Performance          of nearly $5.9 billion for that year. However, the report does not include
                         budget activities that amount to $565.8 million, or approximately 10
Achieved for Almost      percent, of the city’s expenditures. The law requires that the performance
All of the District’s    accountability plan include measurable and objective performance goals
Significant Activities   for all of the significant activities of the District government, and that the
                         performance accountability report include a statement of the actual level of
                         performance achieved compared to each of the goals stated in the plan.
                         The report includes goals and measures for 6 agencies, including the
                         District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) and the Child and Family
                         Services Agency (CFSA), which were not included in the 2002 report,5 and
                         it provides information on the level of performance achieved for 99 percent
                         of the goals included in the performance plan. Among the activities not
                         included are the Public Charter Schools and selected special purpose funds


                         5
                         The 6 agencies are the District of Columbia Public Schools, the Child and Family Services
                         Agency, the Office of the Secretary, the Office of Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs, the
                         District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency, and the National Capital Revitalization
                         Corporation.




                         Page 6                                GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
                               that the District had agreed to include in future performance accountability
                               reports so that a more complete picture of significant activities was
                               provided.

                               Last year, the District stated that it would seek to provide performance data
                               for the Public Charter Schools in the fiscal year 2002 performance report to
                               establish a baseline for 2003 and beyond. In addition, the District agreed
                               that providing performance information for six selected special purpose
                               funds in future reports would present a more complete description of the
                               District’s activities. The 2002 report does not provide an explanation as to
                               why these agencies and funds were not included. Appendix I lists the 74
                               agencies included in the District’s 2002 performance accountability report
                               along with the 2002 actual expenditures for each of these agencies, and
                               Appendix II lists the budget activities not included in the 2002 report.



The District Reported on the   For the first time, the District’s 2002 report includes performance
District of Columbia Public    information for goals and measures consistent with the plan for the DCPS
                               and the CFSA. Last year, the District reported that these two agencies had
Schools and the Child and
                               not developed performance goals and measures for the performance plan,
Family Services Agency for     but that the District planned to include them in the 2002 performance
the First Time                 report. Together these agencies represented about 19 percent of the city’s
                               total 2002 expenditures.

                               Last year we stated that the absence of goals and measures related to
                               educational activities remained the most significant gap in the District’s
                               coverage of its activities. In fiscal year 2002, DCPS accounted for 15
                               percent of the District’s actual expenditures. While DCPS goals and
                               measures were included in the fiscal year 2002 performance report, five of
                               the seven goals for DCPS received no rating because DCPS did not set
                               fiscal year 2002 targets for those measures. The report notes that 2002
                               results for those measures will be used to establish a baseline to set
                               performance targets for fiscal year 2003. The inclusion of DCPS in the
                               fiscal year 2002 performance report is an important first step in closing the
                               gap on the District’s performance reporting on its educational activities.

                               In fiscal year 2002, CFSA comprised nearly 4 percent of the District’s actual
                               expenditures, and this is the first year for which performance information
                               is provided for a complete set of goals and measures consistent with the
                               plan. The District reported on all five of the goals developed for this
                               agency. While information on measures for CFSA was included in the 2000
                               performance report, the goals were not consistent with the performance



                               Page 7                          GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
                             plan. Last year, the District explained that CFSA was not included in the
                             2001 performance report because the agency was in the midst of
                             negotiating the transition from receivership, and the goals and measures
                             that had previously been developed were not consistent with the transition
                             requirements under negotiation.



The District Reported        The District reported on a set of goals that is largely consistent with the
Performance Levels for       performance plan presented in the proposed fiscal year 2003 budget—
                             about 86 percent of the goals are consistent. The District also indicated the
Almost All Goals             level of performance achieved for 99 percent of the goals in the report. The
                             report contains performance information for 74 agencies with 290 goals
                             among them. The level of performance achieved is specified for all but 2 of
                             the goals citywide,6 an improvement over last year when the level of
                             performance achieved was omitted for 13 goals. In addition, the District
                             also has reported on many goals for 2 consecutive years, thus making
                             available performance information that could be used to analyze progress
                             over time.



Public Charter Schools and   While all but about 10 percent of the District’s expenditures are
Special Purpose Funds Were   represented in the performance report, there are some additional areas that
                             the District should consider including in its performance plans and reports.
Not Included in the 2002
                             The District of Columbia Public Charter Schools and several special
Report                       purpose funds do not have goals and measures in the fiscal year 2002
                             performance report. The Public Charter Schools represent approximately
                             1.7 percent of the total fiscal year 2002 expenditures of nearly $98 million.
                             Last year, the District stated that it planned to propose that the Public
                             Charter Schools review the goals and measures developed by DCPS and
                             consider adopting similar measures, especially those related to student
                             performance. The District stated that it would seek to provide
                             performance data in the 2002 report to establish a baseline for 2003 and
                             beyond. However, goals and measures for Public Charter Schools were not



                             6
                              These two goals include a goal for the Department of Health to improve group home
                             inspections, which the report noted was not rated because adequate performance measures
                             were never agreed upon, and a goal for the Advisory Commission on Sentencing (ACS) to
                             project the impact of commission recommendations on the number of incarcerated
                             offenders and offenders on supervised release, which the report noted was not rated
                             because ACS did not provide data on the results.




                             Page 8                              GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
                      included in the performance report, and the report does not explain why
                      they are excluded.

                      Last year, we recommended that the District consider including some of
                      the city’s special purpose funds and linking these areas to the agencies that
                      are responsible for these expenditures. The District responded that it
                      would be appropriate to develop goals and measures and report on six
                      special funds, representing approximately 1.3 percent of the total fiscal
                      year 2002 expenditures of approximately $75 million. (See table 1 for a list
                      of these funds.) However, goals and measures for these funds have not yet
                      been developed, and the report does not provide an explanation as to why
                      these funds were not included, aside from, in some cases, notes stating that
                      these are funds and have no measures.



                      Table 1: Special Purpose Funds to Consider Including in the Performance Plan and
                      Performance Accountability Report

                                                                                                      Fiscal year 2002 expenditures (in
                      Funds                                                                                                thousands)
                      1. Settlements and Judgments                                                                                            $31,360
                      2. Unemployment Compensation Fund                                                                                           9,182
                      3. Disability Compensation Fund                                                                                           27,701
                      4. Children and Youth Investment Fund                                                                                       5,831
                      5. Brownfield Remediation                                                                                                      198
                      6. Incentives for Adoption of Children                                                                                         904
                      Total                                                                                                                   $75,176
                      Source: GAO analysis of the District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2003 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan and the District of Columbia
                      Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Accountability Report.




The Report Complied   Over the last 4 years, the District has made continued improvements in
                      addressing the other statutory requirements of the law. The District’s fiscal
with the Other        year 1999 performance accountability report contained very little of the
Statutory             information required by the statute, and the subsequent reports have
                      shown continued and significant improvement in complying with the
Requirements          mandate. Specifically, the 2002 report was issued by March 1, as required,
                      and in addition to reporting on performance achieved on goals for almost
                      all of the District’s significant activities, it also includes the titles of the
                      District management employee most directly responsible for the
                      achievement of each of the goals as well as the title of that employee’s



                      Page 9                                                 GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
                            immediate supervisor for almost all of the goals. Further, it also includes
                            information on the status of court orders applicable to the District during
                            the year and some of the steps taken by the District to comply with such
                            court orders. The District agreed with the recommendation in our 2002
                            report and has developed criteria for determining which court orders to
                            include in the report.



Criteria for Court Orders   The District has established criteria for determining the types of court
Have Been Developed         orders for which it will provide specific compliance information in the
                            performance reports. In our review of the District’s Fiscal Year 2001
                            Performance Accountability Report, we recommended that the District, in
                            order to more fully comply with the law, establish objective criteria to
                            determine the type of court orders for which it will provide specific
                            compliance information. The District concurred with our 2002
                            recommendation and has established two criteria that must be met for
                            court orders to be included in the performance accountability report: court
                            orders (1) that impose systemic programmatic requirements on a District
                            agency or agencies, and (2) over which the court has retained jurisdiction
                            to monitor compliance. The District reported that while this specification
                            of criteria will address our recommendation, the District’s intention is to
                            improve agency responsiveness to court orders and legal settlements to
                            shorten the time these orders and settlements are in effect.



The Report Contains         The District’s 2002 performance report contains information on the status
Information on Selected     of 10 court orders to the District of Columbia that were in effect during the
                            year. The District has been reporting on 9 of these cases since 2000, and 1
Court Orders                new case, Nelson v. the District of Columbia, was added in fiscal year 2002
                            because it meets the new reporting criteria. Since the issuance of the
                            performance report, the District announced that the consolidated civil
                            actions of Campbell v. McGruder and Inmates v. Jackson, a case related to
                            environmental and safety conditions at the D.C. jail, has been terminated.
                            On March 25, the District announced that it had received the court order
                            signed by the U.S. District Court judge terminating the case and ending 32
                            years of court oversight of the D.C. jail. According to the District, a number
                            of significant improvements initiated as a part of a 6-year $30 million
                            capital improvement plan were major contributing factors to finally ending
                            court intervention in the daily operations of the facility. And, because court
                            supervision ended in three other court cases previously included in the
                            report, they were not included in the 2002 report.




                            Page 10                         GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
Information on Progress in   Although the 2002 performance report contains updated information on
Complying with Court         selected court orders, the report does not provide complete information on
                             the progress made and steps the District government is taking to comply
Orders Is Incomplete         with those orders. The law requires that the District’s report include a
                             statement of the status of any court orders applicable to the District during
                             the year and the steps taken by the government to comply with such
                             orders. Last year, we noted in our review of the District’s 2001 performance
                             report that the summary information did not provide a clear picture of what
                             steps are being taken to comply with the requirements of the court orders.
                             Although the 2002 report includes a brief update on the status of some of
                             the court orders, it lacks complete information in terms of reporting on the
                             progress made in complying with such orders. The District’s Chief
                             Financial Officer has noted, and our ongoing work on the District’s fiscal
                             issues has confirmed, that the District’s unforeseen expenses are often
                             driven by new legislative imperatives, court-ordered mandates, and suits
                             and settlements. For example, in our work on the District’s structural fiscal
                             issues, District officials reported that complying with court orders for
                             special education services has led to large increases in costs. In view of the
                             fiscal impact of these mandates, the progress made in complying with court
                             orders, and the costs incurred in complying are important areas of
                             reporting on the District’s performance.



Risk Tracking System for     While not required by the law, the District reported that the Office of the
Monitoring Court Orders      City Administrator’s Office of Risk Management has taken the initiative to
                             develop a database to better monitor agency responsiveness to and
Has Been Developed
                             compliance with court orders as well as other findings against the District.
                             The Risk Tracking System tracks several areas related to meeting the
                             requirements of the court orders, such as

                             • identification of implementation issues and plans,

                             • implementation of and reporting on accepted findings/
                               recommendations,

                             • submission of complete court-ordered reports, and

                             • submission of a detailed exit strategy plan from court supervision.

                             The District implemented this centralized approach to monitoring agency
                             compliance with court orders to help the District emerge from existing



                             Page 11                         GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
                            court orders sooner, improve the District’s relationship with the courts, and
                            forge working partnerships with the stakeholders and the advocates who
                            have historically resorted to legal remedies.



The District Is             The 2002 performance report notes that the District’s performance
                            management system has improved but continues to be a work-in-progress.
Implementing                It summarizes several areas in which initiatives to improve performance
Initiatives to Improve      accountability are under way. These initiatives include the continued
                            implementation of performance based budgeting in connection with the
Overall Performance         citywide strategic plan, the creation of the Performance Management
Accountability              Council, and the development of data collection standards to improve the
                            availability, quality, and reliability of data used for performance
                            management. Although these initiatives are still in the implementation
                            phase, they are important efforts that could lead to overall improved
                            performance management and reporting in future years.



Performance Based           Performance based budgeting links budgets to programs and activities and
Budgeting in the District   involves developing a new program budget structure encompassing
                            programs, activities, and services as opposed to an organizational budget
                            structure. The District’s implementation of performance based budgeting
                            is aligned with the city’s strategic planning process. The city’s strategic
                            plan defines five broad priority areas and identifies goals for each of these
                            areas. For each priority area, the plan also identifies the amount of funding
                            provided in fiscal year 2003. Agency strategic plans are linked to these
                            priority areas, and in the agencies implementing performance based
                            budgeting, the agency goals and key performance measures are also linked
                            with these priority areas. The Mayor’s proposed budget describes strategic
                            goals to be achieved by the agency over the next 2-3 years and activities
                            and key initiatives by program within the agency. Each program includes a
                            budget, program activities, and related key initiatives and results measures.

                            Seven of the Mayor’s cabinet agencies, representing about 45 percent of the
                            city’s operating budget, implemented performance based budgeting in
                            fiscal year 2003, and an additional 27 agencies plan to implement
                            performance based budgeting in fiscal year 2004. These 34 agencies
                            represent more than 80 percent of the District’s budget. The District plans
                            to convert all agencies to performance based budgeting by fiscal year 2006.
                            Appendix III provides a list of the agencies in the first two phases of
                            performance based budgeting implementation.



                            Page 12                         GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
                         As part of the implementation process, each agency develops a strategic
                         business plan that includes both the agency strategic plan and an
                         operational plan for goals by defining activities, related services, and
                         performance measures. The agency strategic business plan includes more
                         detail on measures by describing outputs, demand, and efficiency, as well
                         as results for activities. The business plan also links the budget at the
                         program activity level. This linkage provides a more detailed level of
                         information than the city’s proposed budget, which aligns the budget at the
                         program level. In the process of developing the strategic business plan,
                         agencies refine their goals, link programs to goals, and develop measures
                         that are aligned to programs.

                         This revised planning process may result in changes in the presentation of
                         goals and measures from prior year performance plans and related
                         performance reports. For example, for agencies implementing
                         performance based budgeting in fiscal year 2003, we found that the goals
                         and/or measures for some agencies have been consolidated, revised, or
                         expanded from those in the District’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan and
                         the performance report. The 2002 performance report notes that
                         performance based budgeting will initially lead to an increase in the goals
                         and measures that change from year-to-year as agencies develop their
                         strategic business plans.

                         An additional component of performance based budgeting is the ability to
                         track costs for common administrative expenses across agencies,
                         beginning in fiscal year 2004. All performance based budgeting agencies
                         now include a program entitled “agency management,” which encompasses
                         13 operational functions such as personnel, contracting and procurement,
                         property management, information technology, and legal services. This
                         new program will allow for citywide monitoring, reporting, and analysis of
                         administrative costs across agencies.



Establishment of a       In fiscal year 2002, the District formed a Performance Management Council
Performance Management   consisting of the Mayor’s cabinet agencies that are primarily responsible
                         for developing and implementing the District’s performance management
Council
                         system. The council was formed as a way of engaging agencies in
                         developing the performance measurement and reporting process. While it
                         is not involved in developing or reviewing goals and measures, the council
                         is involved in developing guidelines and reviewing sample products used in
                         the performance planning and reporting process. The council also has been




                         Page 13                        GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
                            working on issues of data quality and developing guidelines for the data
                            collection manual.



The District Is             In the 2002 performance report, the District again identified data collection
Implementing Data Quality   standards as one of the areas it continues to work to improve. During the
                            summer of 2002, the District developed a preliminary template for agencies
Standards                   to document data collection. This template requires agencies to provide
                            information for each key result measure, including the data collection
                            methods, the formula used to calculate the results for measures, quality
                            assurance plans and procedures, limitations on the data, and identification
                            of the staff members responsible for data management. The District is
                            implementing data collection guidelines as agencies convert to
                            performance based budgeting. For fiscal year 2003, the 7 agencies that
                            converted to performance based budgeting will be compiling data
                            collection manuals for key result measures this summer.

                            The District acknowledges some concerns about data quality, and has
                            indicated that none of the data contained in the 2002 performance report
                            have been verified for accuracy or reliability. Improving data reliability is
                            critical to the credibility of the performance reports and should become a
                            top priority among the District’s initiatives to improve accountability.
                            While performance reports can be an important tool in addressing
                            management challenges, their usefulness is limited by concerns about data
                            quality. In order to apply information gathered in the performance
                            management process to develop plans, set realistic goals, and assess
                            whether goals are being met or how performance can be improved,
                            decision makers must be confident in the quality and credibility of the data.
                            In our work on performance management at the federal level, we have
                            noted that success in performance based budgeting is not achieved by
                            simply providing data, but is based on the quality of the discussion, the
                            transparency of the information, and how it is used in the decision-making
                            process. Furthermore, if agency managers perceive that performance data
                            will be used to make resource allocation decisions, and data can also help
                            them make better use of resources, agencies may make greater
                            investments in improving their capacity to produce quality information.




                            Page 14                         GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
Peformance Reports          The District continues to face considerable management challenges, and
                            performance reporting is one important tool available to decision makers
Could Serve as a Tool       to assist in identifying and addressing those challenges. Using
for Identifying and         performance management as a strategic planning tool requires balancing
                            the need to set reasonable, achievable measures with the challenge of
Addressing                  setting longer-term strategic goals that will move the city to an improved
Management                  level of service in the future. This effort requires analyzing performance
Challenges                  data, using the analysis to maintain a focus on outcomes, and providing
                            information that is complete and well-presented so that it is useful to
                            managers and decision makers. Performance data can have real value only
                            if they are reliable and used to identify and analyze the gap between an
                            organization’s actual performance and its goals, thus allowing managers to
                            review measures and related targets to identify areas that are most in need
                            of improvement. As a result, managers are in a better position to revise
                            measures to focus on results that may be better indicators of achieving
                            strategic goals. Additionally, for performance information to be useful, it
                            needs to be clearly presented and summarized to make it accessible to a
                            range of audiences, including program managers and decision makers.

                            In this context, there are some areas in which additional analysis of the
                            measures, related targets, and data contained in the performance reports
                            may be useful to the District in planning and making decisions about
                            resource allocation as well as improving overall management in the future.
                            For example, the District could analyze ratings for measures to identify
                            areas needing further attention and analyze progress in meeting goals over
                            time. While the District does present some analysis for selected goals in
                            cabinet agencies, known as the “scorecard” goals, this only includes 3 to 5
                            goals each for 35 cabinet agencies, out of the total 290 goals in 74 agencies
                            in the performance report. More complete performance reporting provides
                            information on programs and services as well as costs, either in terms of
                            unit costs or comprehensive program costs. Further, consideration should
                            be given to establishing more specific goals and measures for long-standing
                            management challenges.



Analysis of Data Reported   The fiscal year 2002 performance report indicates that the District achieved
Could Be Useful in          most of the goals in the performance plan. The District determines the
                            degree to which an agency achieves its goals on a six-point rating scale as
Addressing Management       follows: (1) significantly exceeded expectations, (2) exceeded
Issues                      expectations, (3) met expectations, (4) needs improvement, (5) below
                            expectations, and (6) no rating. The rating for each goal is determined by



                            Page 15                         GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
averaging the results of the measures for that goal. Table 2 summarizes our
analysis of the information on the number of agencies with ratings in each
performance category, and the number and percentage of goals rated in
each category, as indicated in the 2002 performance report.



Table 2: Number and Percentage of Goals Rated in Each Performance Category

                                                                  Number of               Number of              Percentage of
Rating category                                                    agencies                  goals                       goals
1. Significantly exceeded expectations                                         15                      24                   8
2. Exceeded expectations                                                       40                      89                  31
3. Met expectations                                                            56                    111                   38
4. Needs improvement                                                           19                      31                  11
5. Below expectations                                                            4                       4                  1
6. No rating                                                                   11                      29                  10
7. Not rateda                                                                    2                       2                  1
Total                                                                      N/Ab                      290                  100
Source: GAO analysis of data from the District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Accountability Report.
a
Two goals were not rated in one of the six categories.
b
 There are a total of 74 agencies with multiple goals rated in the categories listed above. Therefore, the
total does not add to 74.


One level of analysis the District may want to consider is the progress
reported in meeting the goals of the city’s longer-range plans in strategic
areas. For example, our analysis shows that, of the 288 goals evaluated,
224 goals, or 78 percent, were rated in the top three categories. For these
goals, it may be appropriate for the District to review the impact of
achieving the goals and whether the reported results represent improved
performance toward strategic priorities.

A related area for review may also be measures that receive no rating, or
measures for which ratings fall in the three categories below meets
expectations. Based on our analysis, nearly half of the agencies in the
report had ratings for goals that fell in the bottom three categories; 64
goals, or 22 percent, were determined as needing improvement, below
expectations, or received no rating. According to the report, a
determination of no rating was made when factors beyond an agency’s
control prevented the agency from meeting a goal or measuring
performance. A total of 29 goals received no rating, and the most frequent
reason indicated was lack of data. The explanations provided for the lack



Page 16                                                GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
                             of data were that the agency did not enforce the measure and/or did not
                             capture data.7 Further, 31 goals in 19 agencies were rated as needing
                             improvement mostly because the agencies failed to reach targets for
                             certain measures. Finally, a total of 4 goals at 4 different agencies, the
                             Alcohol and Beverage Regulation Administration, the Board of Property
                             Assessment and Appeals, the D.C. Public Library, and the Office of
                             Planning, were rated below expectations.

                             The District agreed that additional analysis could be helpful and noted that,
                             in some cases, the information reported in the performance report is
                             already used to address management issues. For example, recurring
                             changes in an agency’s goals may indicate a lack of direction within the
                             agency. In other cases, although a target for a measure may have been met,
                             it may not have resulted in improvements in service delivery. For example,
                             focusing on achieving output measures for a goal, such as purchasing
                             additional ambulances, may not result in the desired outcome of improved
                             response time to emergencies. The performance report is also used in
                             evaluating the performance of city managers, and 60 percent of an agency
                             director’s rating is based on the agency’s strategic plan goals.



Ongoing Management           In our work on the District of Columbia’s structural fiscal issues, we have
Issues Facing the District   found shortcomings in the District’s financial and personnel management
                             systems that have resulted in lost revenue or unplanned expenditures.
                             Others also have reported on similar problems.8 For example, the District
                             lost opportunities for receiving Medicaid revenue of approximately
                             $40 million in fiscal year 2002 due to inadequate processes and systems for
                             tracking services and processing claims for federal reimbursement. In the
                             District’s public school system, a lack of internal controls and clearly
                             defined and enforced policies and procedures have resulted in an inability
                             to monitor personnel vacancies and staffing levels, and in unauthorized
                             purchases at the school level. Similarly, we found that the District did not
                             have adequate procedures for tracking and reporting public safety costs


                             7
                              For example, the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration received no rating on its
                             goal to increase the number of inspections and investigations related to underage drinking
                             because it did not enforce the measure and did not capture data.
                             8
                              McKinsey & Company, Assessing the District of Columbia’s Financial Position
                             (Washington, D.C.: March 2002), and Carol O’Cleireacain and Alice Rivlin, A Sound Fiscal
                             Footing for the Nation’s Capital: A Federal Responsibility (Washington, D.C.: The
                             Brookings Institution, October 2002).




                             Page 17                               GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
               that might entitle the city to more reimbursement from the federal
               government.

               While developing adequate financial and personnel management systems
               are common challenges faced by government entities, these systems have
               been identified as “material weaknesses” in audits of the District’s financial
               statements. Although the 2002 performance report includes goals for the
               Office of the Chief Financial Officer and DCPS that are related to improving
               financial and payroll operations, these efforts could be more clearly linked
               to results. Financial and personnel management are critical areas in which
               performance plans and reports could be applied to set expectations,
               monitor specific initiatives, and report on improvements in systems.



Concluding     The District has made steady progress over the past 4 years in
               implementing a more results-oriented approach to management and
Observations   accountability and issuing a timely and more complete performance report.
               In this early stage of performance management, the District has developed
               a strategic plan and tested goals and measures for significant activities over
               several years. Performance plans have been linked to budgets, and
               performance reports are consistent with plans. The next phase of
               performance management involves ensuring data quality, linking
               expenditure information to goals and measures, and using the information
               reported to make decisions about resource allocation and address
               significant management issues.

               In our work with federal agencies in implementing the requirements of
               GPRA, we have found that, over several years, agencies have improved the
               focus of their planning and the quality of their performance information.
               However, developing credible information on outcomes achieved remains a
               work in progress. The District faces this same challenge. In working to
               strengthen the linkages between resources and results, efforts must be
               made to ensure that the measures used are grounded in a firm analytic and
               empirical base. Credible performance information is essential for
               accurately assessing agencies’ progress toward the achievement of their
               goals and pinpointing specific solutions to performance shortfalls.
               Agencies also need reliable information during their planning efforts to set
               realistic goals.9 As decision makers gain confidence in the performance

               9
               U.S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia Government: Progress and
               Challenges in Performance Management, GAO-01-96T (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 3, 2000).




               Page 18                            GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
                  information, the performance reports could become more useful to the
                  District in addressing some of the city’s ongoing management challenges.
                  Performance plans could be developed to more clearly address specific
                  concerns, and analysis and presentation of data in the reports could help to
                  make them a more useful tool to evaluate progress and review and revise
                  goals and measures. As the District moves toward this next phase of
                  performance management, we recommend improvement in specific areas
                  of the performance reports.



Recommendations   In order to build on the progress the District has made in improving its
                  performance accountability reports over the last few years, we believe
                  addressing data quality, and thereby improving the usefulness of the
                  performance reports, should become a top priority. The District should
                  continue its efforts to develop data collection standards and should
                  distribute guidelines to all city agencies. Data limitations should also be
                  documented and disclosed in the performance report.

                  In addition, we recommend that more information be included in future
                  reports in the following areas:

                  • The District should work toward further expanding its coverage to
                    include goals and measures for all of its major activities as well as
                    related expenditures. Specifically, the District should develop and
                    report on goals and measures for the Public Charter Schools and for
                    selected special purpose funds administered by the agencies to provide
                    more comprehensive information on activities. As the District’s
                    implementation of performance based budgeting progresses, it should
                    link performance goals and measures to related expenditure
                    information in the performance report to enhance transparency and
                    accountability. The District should consider including such information
                    for the 7 agencies that implemented performance based budgeting in the
                    fiscal year 2003 performance report.

                  • Information on court orders could be improved by reporting more
                    information on the steps taken to comply with court orders during the
                    year. Due to the substantial and often unexpected costs incurred in
                    complying with court orders, the District should also consider
                    monitoring these costs.

                  • The District should work toward providing additional analysis of
                    information captured in the performance reports. Reviewing the results



                  Page 19                         GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
                          reported for goals and measures and presenting a summary analysis of
                          the data as part of the performance report could improve the usefulness
                          of the reports in managing overall performance and achieving the city’s
                          strategic goals. Where specific management challenges are identified,
                          goals and measures that are more clearly linked to outcomes addressing
                          these challenges might be considered.



District of Columbia   On May 6, 2003, we provided a draft of our report to the Mayor of the
                       District of Columbia for his review. The Deputy Mayor met with us on May
Comments               7, 2003, to discuss the draft and provided us with written comments on May
                       9, 2003. His written comments are reprinted in appendix IV.

                       The Deputy Mayor agreed with the findings of the report and concurred
                       with our recommendations. He stated that our suggestions were consistent
                       with the direction the District would like to go to enhance its performance
                       management and reporting systems. He provided an overview of the
                       District’s performance management system of which the performance
                       accountability report is only one component. This summary explained the
                       ways in which the District already makes use of performance data to foster
                       improvements in management and service delivery. He stated the following
                       in response to our specific recommendations:

                       • The District plans to implement the data collection standards manual
                         beginning with the 7 agencies in Phase I of the performance based
                         budgeting initiative and will complete the draft guidelines for these
                         agencies by fall 2003, and the draft guidelines will then be shared with
                         all other agencies. In addition, the District will include a discussion of
                         the status of the data collection manual project and a statement of the
                         limitations of the data for all agencies in the fiscal year 2003
                         performance report.

                       • The District will attempt to establish fiscal year 2004 goals and
                         measures for the Public Charter Schools and selected special funds. As
                         a first step, the District will include fiscal year 2003 data for measures
                         for the Public Charter Schools without targets to the extent possible, as
                         was done for DCPS in the fiscal year 2002 performance report. The
                         District will also identify output measures for special funds and set
                         targets prior to the beginning of fiscal year 2004 and plans to include
                         results without targets in the fiscal year 2003 performance report for
                         these funds as well. Furthermore, the District plans to link
                         performance and financial data as a result of implementing performance



                       Page 20                         GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
   based budgeting. The District plans to include selected financial data
   for the 7 agencies in Phase I of performance based budgeting in the
   fiscal year 2003 performance report.

• The risk tracking system established to monitor court orders should
  facilitate providing more information on court orders, and the fiscal year
  2003 performance report will include additional detail on the steps
  taken to address court orders. In addition, the District will begin to
  discuss how to incorporate the costs of compliance with court orders
  into the risk tracking system, and will describe the progress on
  identifying costs of compliance in the fiscal year 2003 performance
  report.

• The District will provide additional data analysis and present selected
  summary information in the fiscal year 2003 performance report. The
  District will also describe how performance data are used in monitoring
  and managing performance throughout the year.

Finally, in light of the fact that the performance report is largely in
compliance with the law, the Deputy Mayor thanked GAO for our
suggestions to move the performance report from a compliance report to a
more useful tool that could assist in improving performance management.
Noting the District’s limited staff and resources dedicated to performance
management due to budget constraints, he appreciated our offer to share
information from our related work on the District’s structural fiscal issues
that could assist in identifying jurisdictions that may be useful for
benchmarking the District’s performance.


We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Anthony A. Williams,
Mayor of the District of Columbia. We will also make copies available to
others upon request. This report will also be available on GAO’s Web site at
http://www.gao.gov. Key contributors to this report were Ann Calvaresi-
Barr, Katharine Cunningham, and Amelia Shachoy. If you or your staffs




Page 21                         GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
have any questions concerning this report, please contact me or Ann
Calvaresi-Barr on (202) 512-6806.




Patricia A. Dalton
Director, Strategic Issues




Page 22                       GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
List of Congressional Committees and Subcommittees

The Honorable Mike DeWine
Chairman
The Honorable Mary Landrieu
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable George Voinovich
Chairman
The Honorable Richard Durbin
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
 the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

The Honorable Thomas M. Davis, III
Chairman
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives

The Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen
Chairman
The Honorable Chaka Fattah
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives




Page 23                      GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
Appendix I

Actual Expenditures for District Agencies                                                                                         Appendx
                                                                                                                                        ies




Included in the District’s Fiscal Year 2002
Performance Accountability Report                                                                                                  Append
                                                                                                                                        x
                                                                                                                                        Ii




                                                  The District of Columbia included 74 agencies in its fiscal year 2002
                                                  performance accountability report. These agencies accounted for 90
                                                  percent of the District’s expenditures for fiscal year 2002. Table 3 lists
                                                  these agencies and their fiscal year 2002 actual general fund expenditures.
                                                  The agencies are listed in the order in which they appear in the
                                                  performance accountability report.



Table 3: Actual Expenditures for District Agencies Included in the Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Accountability Report

                                                                                                           Fiscal year 2002 actual
                                                                                                                      expenditures
Agency                                                                                                              (in thousands)
1.   Office of the District of Columbia Auditor                                                                             $1,283
2.   Office of the Mayor                                                                                                     9,241
3.   Office of the Secretary                                                                                                 2,300
4.   Customer Service Operations                                                                                             1,850
5.   Office of the City Administrator                                                                                       14,594
6.   Office of Personnel                                                                                                    15,582
7.   Human Resources Development Fund                                                                                        3,506
8.   Office of Finance and Resource Management                                                                             152,023
9.   Office of Contracting and Procurement                                                                                  14,693
10. Office of the Chief Technology Officer                                                                                  27,756
11. Office of Property Management                                                                                           51,267
12. Contract Appeals Board                                                                                                     676
13. Board of Elections and Ethics                                                                                            3,763
14. Office of Campaign Finance                                                                                               1,290
15. Public Employee Relations Board                                                                                            623
16. Office of Employee Appeals                                                                                               1,485
17. Office of the Corporation Counsel                                                                                       55,578
18. Office of the Inspector General                                                                                         11,619
19. Office of the Chief Financial Officer                                                                                   88,598
                                                                       a
20. Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development                                                        30,228
21. Office of Planning                                                                                                           0
22. Office of Local Business Development                                                                                         0
23. Office of Motion Picture and Television Development                                                                          0
24. Office of Zoning                                                                                                         1,892
25. Department of Housing and Community Development                                                                         68,019
26. Department of Employment Services                                                                                       79,321




                                                  Page 24                        GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
                                                   Appendix I
                                                   Actual Expenditures for District Agencies
                                                   Included in the District’s Fiscal Year 2002
                                                   Performance Accountability Report




(Continued From Previous Page)
                                                                                                                    Fiscal year 2002 actual
                                                                                                                               expenditures
Agency                                                                                                                       (in thousands)
27. Board of Appeals and Review                                                                                                         243
28. Board of Real Property Assessments and Appeals                                                                                      274
29. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs                                                                                    29,908
30. Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration                                                                                      1,976
31. Department of Banking and Financial Institutions                                                                                  4,378
32. Public Service Commission                                                                                                         6,290
33. Office of the People’s Counsel                                                                                                    3,826
34. Department of Insurance and Securities Regulation                                                                                 8,346
35. Office of Cable Television and Telecommunications                                                                                 4,013
36. Metropolitan Police Department                                                                                                  343,054
37. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department                                                                                  138,332
38. Department of Corrections                                                                                                       125,611
39. D.C. National Guard                                                                                                               1,894
40. D.C. Emergency Management Agency                                                                                                 19,887
41. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure                                                                                      182
42. Judicial Nomination Commission                                                                                                       93
43. Office of Citizen Complaint Review                                                                                                1,168
44. Advisory Commission on Sentencing                                                                                                   416
45. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner                                                                                              5,740
46. D.C. Public Schools                                                                                                             899,060
47. State Education Office                                                                                                           48,304
48. University of the District of Columbia                                                                                           56,068
49. D.C. Public Library                                                                                                              27,366
50. Commission on the Arts and Humanities                                                                                             2,685
51. Department of Human Services                                                                                                    432,768
52. Child and Family Services Agency                                                                                                216,035
53. Department of Mental Health                                                                                                     223,424
54. Department of Health                                                                                                          1,225,718
55. Department of Parks and Recreation                                                                                               42,679
56. D.C. Office on Aging                                                                                                             19,824
57. Office of Human Rights                                                                                                            1,838
58. Office of Latino Affairs                                                                                                          3,648
59. D.C. Energy Office                                                                                                               13,015
60. Office of Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs                                                                                        172
61. Department of Public Works (includes Department of Transportation)                                                              135,251
62. Department of Motor Vehicles                                                                                                     32,572




                                                   Page 25                                GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
                                                                      Appendix I
                                                                      Actual Expenditures for District Agencies
                                                                      Included in the District’s Fiscal Year 2002
                                                                      Performance Accountability Report




(Continued From Previous Page)
                                                                                                                                                                Fiscal year 2002 actual
                                                                                                                                                                           expenditures
Agency                                                                                                                                                                   (in thousands)
63. Taxicab Commission                                                                                                                                                             957
64. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission                                                                                                                                 83
65. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority                                                                                                                             148,493
66. Water and Sewer Authority                                                                                                                                                  203,027
                                      b
67. Washington Aqueduct                                                                                                                                                              0
68. D.C. Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board                                                                                                                            212,138
69. D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission                                                                                                                                     3,741
70. D.C. Retirement Board                                                                                                                                                        7,168
                                           b
71. Housing Finance Agency                                                                                                                                                           0
72. National Capital Revitalization Corporationb                                                                                                                                     0
                                                                  b
73. Washington Convention Center Authority                                                                                                                                           0
74. School Transit Subsidy                                                                                                                                                       2,894
Total                                                                                                                                                                       $5,291,746
Source: Fiscal Year 2003 District of Columbia Proposed Budget and Financial Plan and District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Accountability Report.
                                                                      a
                                                                       In fiscal year 2002, the Office of Planning, the Office of Local Business Development, and the Office
                                                                      of Motion Picture and Television Development were divisions of the Office of Business Services and
                                                                      Development (BSED). In fiscal year 2003, BSED was converted to the Office of the Deputy Mayor for
                                                                      Planning and Economic Development and each of the three divisions became a separate agency.
                                                                      b
                                                                       Actual expenditures for these entities are reported in separate financial reports and are not included in
                                                                      the District of Columbia’s expenditure reports.




                                                                      Page 26                                               GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
Appendix II

Activities Not Included in the Fiscal Year 2002
Performance Accountability Report                                                                Appendx
                                                                                                       Ii




                The District of Columbia’s fiscal year 2002 performance accountability
                report did not include goals and measures for about 10 percent of the
                District’s budget. The District has explained why goals and measures have
                not been developed for some of these activities, and these explanations are
                noted.

                Table 4 lists these agencies and funds and their fiscal year 2002 actual
                expenditures.




                Page 27                         GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
                                                  Appendix II
                                                  Activities Not Included in the Fiscal Year
                                                  2002 Performance Accountability Report




Table 4: Budget Activities Not Included in the District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Accountability Report

                                                                                                                              Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
Agency/fund                                                                                                                                         (in thousands)
Agency
1.   District of Columbia Public Charter Schools                                                                                                                             $97,625
2.   Council of the District of Columbiaa                                                                                                                                     13,152
                                                        b
3.   Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANC)                                                                                                                                         521
4. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG)b                                                                                                                             367
Fund
5.   Storm Waterc                                                                                                                                                                    988
                                         d
6.   Settlements and Judgments Fund                                                                                                                                           31,360
7.   Unemployment Compensation Fundd                                                                                                                                            9,182
                                     d
8.   Disability Compensation Fund                                                                                                                                             27,701
9.   Children and Youth Investment Fundd                                                                                                                                        5,831
                                              d
10. Incentives for the Adoption of Children                                                                                                                                          904
11. Brownfield Remediationd                                                                                                                                                          198
                                                                 e
12. Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Retirement System                                                                                                                      74,600
13. Repayment of Loans and Interestf                                                                                                                                         233,251
14. Repayment of General Fund Deficitf                                                                                                                                        38,931
15. Certificates of Participationf                                                                                                                                              7,924
                      g
16. Wilson Building                                                                                                                                                             5,945
17. PBC Transition                                                                                                                                                            17,312
Total                                                                                                                                                                      $565,792
                                                  Source: District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Accountability Report, and U.S. General Accounting Office, District of
                                                  Columbia: Performance Report Reflects Progress and Opportunities for Improvement, GAO-02-588.
                                                  a
                                                      The council is not under the authority of Office of the City Administrator.
                                                  b
                                                   The District does not plan to develop goals and measures for the ANCs or COG. The ANCs have a
                                                  wide range of agendas that cannot be captured in a single set of meaningful measures, and COG is a
                                                  regional organization to which the District makes a membership payment.
                                                  c
                                                    Last year, the District noted that the Storm Water fund is managed by the Water and Sewer Authority
                                                  (WASA), and performance measures for WASA should capture activities relevant to the fund.
                                                  d
                                                   Last year, in response to a GAO recommendation, the District agreed that it would be appropriate to
                                                  develop goals and measures for these funds, but they are not included in the fiscal year 2002 report.
                                                  e
                                                   Last year, the District noted that the Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Retirement System is managed
                                                  by the District of Columbia Retirement Board, and performance measures for the board should capture
                                                  activities relevant to the retirement system.
                                                  f
                                                   Last year, the District stated that goals and measures are not appropriate for financing funds of this
                                                  type.
                                                  g
                                                  Last year, the District noted that the Wilson Building fund was managed by the Office of Property
                                                  Management, and performance measures for that office should capture activities relevant to the fund.




                                                  Page 28                                                 GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
Appendix III

Performance Based Budgeting Agencies                                                           Appendx
                                                                                                     iI




               Performance based budgeting was implemented in 7 agencies in fiscal year
               2003, and will be implemented for 27 additional cabinet agencies in fiscal
               year 2004.

               Phase I: Fiscal year 2003 (7 agencies)

               Office of the Chief Financial Officer
               Department of Public Works
               Metropolitan Police Department
               Department of Human Services
               Department of Transportation
               Department of Motor Vehicles
               Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department

               Phase II: Fiscal year 2004 (27 agencies)

               Government Operations
               Office of the Mayor
               Office of Property Management
               Office of the Corporation Counsel
               Office of the Chief Technology Officer
               Office of the City Administrator
               Office of Personnel
               Office of Contracting and Procurement

               Economic Development/Public Works
               Office of Planning
               Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
               Department of Housing and Community Development
               Department of Insurance and Securities Regulation
               Office of Banking and Financial Institutions
               Office of Cable Television and Telecommunications
               Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development

               Public Safety
               Emergency Management Agency
               Office of the Chief Medical Examiner
               Department of Corrections




               Page 29                        GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
Appendix III
Performance Based Budgeting Agencies




Health and Human Services
Office on Aging
Department of Health
Child and Family Services Agency
Department of Parks and Recreation
Office of Human Rights
Department of Mental Health

Education and Employment
Commission on the Arts and Humanities
District of Columbia Public Schools
Department of Employment Services
State Education Office




Page 30                            GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
Appendix IV

Comments from the District of Columbia                                     Appendx
                                                                                 iIV




              Page 31     GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
Appendix IV
Comments from the District of Columbia




Page 32                             GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
Appendix IV
Comments from the District of Columbia




Page 33                             GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
Appendix IV
Comments from the District of Columbia




Page 34                             GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
Appendix IV
Comments from the District of Columbia




Page 35                             GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
Appendix IV
Comments from the District of Columbia




Page 36                             GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
Appendix IV
Comments from the District of Columbia




Page 37                             GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
Appendix IV
Comments from the District of Columbia




Page 38                             GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
Related GAO Products


             Performance Budgeting: Current Developments and Future Prospects.
             GAO-03-595T. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2003.

             Performance Budgeting: Opportunities and Challenges. GAO-02-1106T.
             Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2002.

             District of Columbia: Performance Report Reflects Progress and
             Opportunities for Improvement. GAO-02-588. Washington, D.C.: April 15,
             2002.

             Managing for Results: Agency Progress in Linking Performance Plans
             With Budget and Financial Statements. GAO-02-236. Washington, D.C.:
             January 4, 2002.

             District of Columbia: Comments on Fiscal Year 2000 Performance
             Report. GAO-01-804. Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2001.

             District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in
             Performance Management. GAO-01-96T. Washington, D.C.: October 3,
             2000.

             District of Columbia Government: Performance Report’s Adherence to
             Statutory Requirements. GAO/GGD-00-107. Washington, D.C.: April 14,
             2000.

             Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Help Congressional
             Decisionmaking and Strengthen Oversight. GAO/T-GGD-00-95.
             Washington, D.C.: March 22, 2000.

             Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance
             and Results Act. GAO/GGD-96-118. Washington, D.C.: June 1996.




(450199)     Page 39                      GAO-03-693 District of Columbia Performance Report
GAO’s Mission            The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of
                         Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities
                         and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government
                         for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal
                         programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other
                         assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
                         decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
                         accountability, integrity, and reliability.


Obtaining Copies of      The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
                         through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-
GAO Reports and          text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
                         products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
Testimony                using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
                         including charts and other graphics.
                         Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
                         correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site
                         daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this
                         list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to GAO
                         Mailing Lists” under “Order GAO Products” heading.


Order by Mail or Phone   The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check
                         or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO
                         also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single
                         address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
                         U.S. General Accounting Office
                         441 G Street NW, Room LM
                         Washington, D.C. 20548
                         To order by Phone:     Voice: (202) 512-6000
                                                TDD: (202) 512-2537
                                                Fax: (202) 512-6061


To Report Fraud,         Contact:
                         Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Waste, and Abuse in      E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Federal Programs         Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470



Public Affairs           Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
                         U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
                         Washington, D.C. 20548
United States                  Presorted Standard
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. GI00
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested