District of Columbia: Comments on Fiscal Year 2000 Performance	 
Report (08-JUN-01, GAO-01-804). 				 
								 
The District of Columbia's fiscal year 2000 performance report is
an improvement over the previous year's in that it meets some of 
the statutory requirements that the previous report did not.	 
However, the extensive changes that the District made to its	 
fiscal year 2000 performance goals during the fiscal year	 
undermine the usefulness of the resulting report because the	 
District did not include critical information needed by Congress 
and other stakeholders. Such information, identifying how, when, 
and why specific goals were altered and the decision-making and  
accountability implications of those changes, is important to	 
Congress and others so that they can have confidence in the	 
validity and completeness of the reported performance data. Also,
the report does not cover all significant activities of the	 
District government. Sustained progress is needed to address the 
critical performance and other management challenges that the	 
District faces. The District recognizes the shortcomings with its
performance management efforts and has stated a commitment to	 
addressing them. The effective implementation of the various	 
initiatives underway in the District is vital to the success of  
the District's efforts to create a more focused, results-oriented
approach to management and decision-making--an approach that is  
based on clear goals, sound performance and cost information, and
a budget process that uses this information in allocating	 
resources.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-804 					        
    ACCNO:   A01154						        
  TITLE:     District of Columbia: Comments on Fiscal Year 2000       
             Performance Report                                               
     DATE:   06/08/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Internal controls					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Municipal governments				 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     District of Columbia				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-804
     
GAO United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Subcommittees

June 2001 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Comments on Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Report

GAO- 01- 804

Page 1 GAO- 01- 804 DC Government Performance Management

June 8, 2001 Congressional Subcommittees Congress has demonstrated a
sustained interest in working with the District of Columbia?s government to
ensure that a sound performance management system is in place. After holding
hearings on the District of Columbia government?s performance in serving its
residents, Congress enacted the Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994,
1 which called for the District to implement a performance management
process. Specifically, the law requires the Mayor to issue a performance
accountability plan with goals for each fiscal year and then after the
fiscal year, a performance accountability report on the extent the goals
were achieved. This law?s general approach, requiring the District
government to establish performance goals and then report on actual
performance, is similar to the requirements for executive branch federal
agencies under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).

Our extensive work on Federal agencies? implementation of GPRA highlights
the point that it takes time and continuous effort to transform the culture
of an organization to adopt a more results- oriented and customer- focused
approach. In that regard, the District has initiated a number of activities
designed to establish a viable performance planning and reporting process,
and Congress has continued to provide oversight directed at strengthening
the District?s ability to efficiently and effectively deliver results to its
taxpayers. Most recently, the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia,
House Committee on Appropriations, held an oversight hearing on May 16,
2001, to examine a range of District government management issues, including
the status of the city?s financial management system. 2 The Deputy Mayor/
City Administrator and other District officials outlined a number of planned
and ongoing initiatives intended to further strengthen the District
Government?s management efforts.

The District?s fiscal year 2000 performance report, issued on March 22,
2001, was the second issued under P. L. 103- 373. This report responds to

1 P. L. 103- 373. 2 For GAO?s statement at that hearing, see District of
Columbia: Observations on Management Issues (GAO- 01- 743T, May 16, 2001).

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 01- 804 DC Government Performance Management

the requirement mandated in that law that we evaluate the District?s annual
performance report.

Performance management remains very much a work in progress for the District
and, as a consequence, the fiscal year 2000 performance report reflects that
fact. The District?s fiscal year 2000 goals and measures were in a state of
flux during the year, changing throughout the year as the District
introduced new plans (such as agency strategic plans), goals, and measures
into its performance management process. These elements were part of its
ongoing effort to further develop and improve the District?s goal setting,
performance measurement, and performance reporting efforts. Nevertheless,
these significant and continuing revisions to the District?s performance
goals limit the usefulness of this most recent performance report for
oversight, transparency, accountability, and decision- making. In addition,
the District?s performance management process did not cover all significant
District activities, and thus the report does not capture the overall
performance of the District.

On the other hand, the fiscal year 2000 performance report addressed other
key legislatively mandated reporting requirements that were not met in the
fiscal year 1999 report. Specifically, the District provided the titles of
the managers and supervisors responsible for program goals it finally used
in fiscal year 2000. In another improvement over its first year?s report,
the District complied with the requirement that it provide information on
the status and actions taken to address court orders that affect the
District government.

The District recognizes the shortcomings in its performance management
process, has expressed a commitment to continue addressing them, and has
various initiatives underway toward that end. We are making recommendations
to the District of Columbia to further strengthen its performance management
process and provide more useful information to its citizens and Congress.
The District concurred with our recommendations.

For each fiscal year, the District is required under P. L. 103- 373 to
develop and submit to Congress a statement of measurable and objective
performance goals for all significant activities of the District government.
After each fiscal year, the District is to report on its performance. The
District?s performance report is to include: Results in Brief

Background

Page 3 GAO- 01- 804 DC Government Performance Management

 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 District
of Columbia government and the steps taken by the government to comply with
such orders.

Last year, on two occasions, we highlighted the challenges faced and
progress made by the District in implementing a sound performance management
system. In April 2000, we reported that the District?s first performance
report, covering fiscal year 1999, lacked some of the required information.
3 Specifically, the performance report did not contain (1) performance data
for most of its goals, (2) the titles of managers and their supervisors
responsible for each of the goals, and (3) information on any of the court
orders applicable to the District government during fiscal year 1999. Also,
it did not cover all significant District activities. In October 2000, we
testified before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
Restructuring and the District of Columbia, Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs, that the District had made progress in defining clear goals and
desired outcomes through its strategic planning efforts. However, we also
said that there were still opportunities to more fully integrate various
aspects of its planning process and ensure that performance information was
sufficiently credible for decisionmaking and accountability. 4

Our objectives were to ascertain the extent to which the District?s fiscal
year 2000 report was useful for understanding the District?s performance in
fiscal year 2000 and the degree to which it complies with its statutory
reporting requirements. To determine if the performance assessment itself
could provide a useful characterization of the District?s fiscal year 2000
performance, we conducted a process evaluation. This included identifying
the components of the process used to develop goals and measures, the
agencies included, when the goals were revised, and

3 District of Columbia Government: Performance Report?s Adherence to
Statutory Requirements (GAO/ GGD- 00- 107, Apr. 14, 2000). 4 District of
Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in Performance Management (GAO-
01- 96T, Oct. 3, 2000). Objectives, Scope and

Methodology

Page 4 GAO- 01- 804 DC Government Performance Management

whether the final goals were developed in a timely manner to allow valid
performance assessment during fiscal year 2000. To determine if the report
complied with reporting requirements, we compared the report contents to the
legislatively mandated requirements. To acquire additional information and
verify our findings, we interviewed a key District official responsible for
coordinating the performance assessment.

We conducted our work from March through May 2001 at the Office of the Mayor
of the District of Columbia in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. We did not verify the accuracy or reliability of the
performance data included in the District?s report.

We provided a draft of this report to the Deputy Mayor/ City Administrator
of the District of Columbia for review and comment. Comments are reflected
in the agency comments section of this report. In accordance with
requirements established in P. L. 103- 373, we consulted with a
representative for the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
concerning our review.

The District?s performance report reflects a performance management process
that led to goals continually changing throughout fiscal year 2000 as the
District worked to improve the process. The performance plan (initial goals)
for fiscal year 2000 was submitted to Congress in June 1999 along with the
District?s budget. The District subsequently implemented what became an
iterative approach for developing new goals and revising existing goals for
about 20 ?critical? agencies. 5 That is, in addition to establishing initial
performance goals, the District developed (1) agency strategic plans, (2)
performance contracts, and (3) a Mayor?s Scorecard for each of the critical
agencies. The performance goals generated as part of these efforts were
developed during the period March 1999 through March 2000. These initiatives
led to the development of the set of goals that the District considered as
its final fiscal year 2000 goals for each of the critical agencies. For
example, the Department of Health extensively revised its initial five
goals. After going through various planning exercises, the department
eliminated three of the initial goals, combined the remaining two goals
under one broader final goal, and added seven completely new

5 The District?s definition of ?critical? or ?high- impact? agencies is
those which directly affect the lives of District residents significantly on
a regular, ongoing basis. The number of agencies varied from 17 to 23 for
the plans, contracts, and scorecards. Fiscal Year 2000

Performance Report Underscores that Performance Management is a Work in
Progress

Page 5 GAO- 01- 804 DC Government Performance Management

final goals. The initial goals of the noncritical agencies changed during
the fiscal year, but without going through the same process as that for the
critical agencies. The District official responsible for coordinating the
fiscal year 2000 performance assessment estimated that between 30 to 40
percent of the noncritical agencies? goals were revised over the fiscal year
2000 performance assessment period. Although, some goals were finalized
earlier, the set of final fiscal year 2000 goals for all agencies, whose
performance was assessed, were submitted to Congress along with the
District?s fiscal year 2001 budget in June 2000.

One result of this process to redefine goals was that 54 percent of the
initial goals were not used as final goals. For example, the Department of
Motor Vehicles? goal to seek out regular feedback on the level and quality
of service was not used as a final fiscal year 2000 goal. Although the
department developed several final goals related to improving customer
service, such as wait times for vehicle registration, it did not continue
the goal to obtain feedback directly from its customers. No explanation was
provided in the report to explain why the goal was dropped or whether it had
been achieved. Many of the remaining 46 percent of the original goals were
significantly revised by the time the District issued its report, making it
difficult to determine the degree to which the original goals were achieved.

District officials have indicated they plan to use an approach similar to
fiscal year 2000?s for determining performance goals and measures in
succeeding years. That is, they plan to define each fiscal year?s goals and
measures during the fiscal year in which performance is being assessed. They
expect that performance goals and measures will not stabilize into a
consistent set until fiscal year 2003.

The District?s changing goals are reflected in its the fiscal year 2000
Performance Accountability Report, which provides information for three sets
of performance goals. It provides information regarding the

disposition of initial fiscal year 2000 goals. That is, the report indicates
which goals made it into the final set used to assess fiscal year 2000
performance and which of the remaining initial goals, which were not
considered by the District to be part of its final fiscal year 2000 goals,
were nevertheless achieved. The second set of performance goals that are
addressed in the report are those developed for the Mayor?s Scorecard. The
goals in the Mayor?s Scorecard were developed to address priorities

Page 6 GAO- 01- 804 DC Government Performance Management

set by residents at the District?s Citizen Summit and the Neighborhood
Action Forum. 6 The last set of goals addressed in the report are the
District?s final goals, which were included with the District?s fiscal year
2001 budget submittal to Congress in June 2000.

The lack of information on the extensive revisions that the District made to
its performance goals, measures, and plans, limit the usefulness of the
subsequent performance report for purposes of oversight, transparency,
accountability, and decision- making. Our review of federal agencies?
efforts to implement GPRA have shown that while it can be beneficial to
periodically reassess and revise goals, it is also important that annual
performance plans and reports provide clear information about the reasons
for these changes when they occur. This information helps provide assurance
that changes were intended to improve performance management rather than
obfuscate weak performance; that is, that the changes were from
developmental bias. Consistent with our findings, OMB?s guidance to federal
agencies on the submission of GPRA plans and reports states that goals
should be periodically modified as necessary to reflect (1) changes in
programs, (2) agency capability to collect and report information, and (3)
the importance and usefulness of any goal. 7 All three of these factors are
valid reasons to change goals. However, the District?s performance report
does not indicate if any of these or other factors were a basis for the
extensive revisions made to goals during fiscal year 2000. In addition, the
report does not discuss steps taken to ensure that reported performance data
were complete, that is, represented the entire fiscal year. For example, the
Department of Parks and Recreation added a new goal to improve the safety,
cleanliness, and accessibility of its facilities. However, it is not clear
whether data on the District?s efforts to address safety findings (within 48
hours) was collected for the entire fiscal year. According to an official
responsible for coordinating the performance assessment, the District cannot
ensure that the reported data represented the entire year?s performance for
any of the agencies; the official indicated one would have to go back and
check with each individual agency to determine whether they were complete.

6 The Citizen Summit and the Neighborhood Action Forum were held in November
1999 and January 2000, respectively, to engage the District?s citizens in
the city?s planning process.

7 OMB Circular A- 11, Part 2, Preparation and Submission of Strategic Plans,
Annual Performance Plans, and Annual Program Performance Reports.

Lack of Information on the Extensive Revisions to Goals Limits Report?s
Usefulness

Page 7 GAO- 01- 804 DC Government Performance Management

The concerns we raise are consistent with problems identified by the
District Office of the Inspector General in a report published in March
2001. 8 The Inspector General conducted a review to, in part, verify the
data supporting the reported achievements regarding the fiscal year 2000
performance contracts and the Mayor?s Scorecard goals. One of the Inspector
General?s conclusions was that agencies did not maintain records and other
supporting documentation for the accomplishments they reported and that the
Office of the City Administrator did not provide sufficient guidance to
address that problem. In response to the Inspector General?s finding, the
Office of the City Administrator said it recognized the need for standard
procedures, and it plans to issue performance review guidelines by the end
of the summer 2001.

Finally, regarding initial goals that were not carried over to the final set
used to assess fiscal year 2000 performance, many are identified in the
performance report as having been achieved. However, none of these goals had
performance data provided for them. Therefore, the specific performance
level at which these goals were met cannot be determined, that is, whether
successful performance was marginal or otherwise. For example, the District
had a goal of improving the response time for all legal services provided by
the Office of the Corporation Counsel. The District?s report indicates that
the goal was achieved, but because no data were provided, it is impossible
to know precisely how and to what extent the agency improved its response
time.

The District?s performance report does not cover all significant District
activities as required; thus, the performance report does not provide a
comprehensive snapshot of the District government?s performance. For
example, the report does not cover the performance of the District?s public
schools, which account for more than 15 percent of the District?s budget.
More important, the schools are responsible for a core local government
function- providing primary education. The District?s performance report
acknowledges this critical gap in coverage and says that subsequent reports
beginning with the fiscal year 2001 report will more fully meet the
statutory requirements.

8 Audit of Contract Performance Measures and the Mayor?s Scorecard Measures,

Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Inspector General
(OIG- 00- 2- 12MA, March 20, 2001). The Fiscal Year 2000

Performance Report Did Not Cover All Significant Activities of the District
Government

Page 8 GAO- 01- 804 DC Government Performance Management

The District?s fiscal year 2000 Performance Accountability Report improved
in two areas of compliance compared to last year?s report. First, the report
provides the titles of program managers and their supervisors. The
performance report is to include 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. The
District?s performance report provides the information for the final goals
and goals contained in the Mayor?s Scorecard. This is an improvement over
last year?s report, which contained no such information.

Second, the performance report also includes information concerning court
orders assigned to the government of the District of Columbia during the
year and the steps taken by the government to comply with such orders.
Specifically, the District?s performance report provides the status for each
of the 12 court orders by describing and identifying whether or not they
were in effect in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001. For example, in the
case of Joy Evans v. DC, the court required the District to improve the
habilitation, care, and treatment for mentally handicapped residents. The
report indicates that this court order was in effect in fiscal year 2000 and
will continue to be in effect in fiscal year 2001. The report also provides
information on the actions taken to comply with the orders. For example, in
the case of Twelve John Does v. DC, the report clearly identifies the
actions taken to address issues at the District?s Central Detention
Facility. The report states that cell doors are being repaired, ventilation
systems are being replaced, environmental matters are being corrected, and
additional staff are being added to address security needs. In addition, the
report states that the facility is scheduled to close on or before December
31, 2001. The information provided by the District on court orders is an
improvement over last year when, due to an oversight in compiling its fiscal
year 1999 performance report, the District failed to report on any of the
applicable court orders.

The District?s fiscal year 2000 performance report is an improvement over
the previous year?s in that it meets some of the statutory requirements that
the previous report did not. However, the extensive changes that the
District made to its fiscal year 2000 performance goals during the fiscal
year undermine the usefulness of the resulting report because the District
did not include critical information needed by Congress and other
stakeholders. Such information, identifying how, when, and why specific
goals were altered and the decision- making and accountability implications
of those changes, is important to Congress and others so that The District
Improved

Compliance With Other Legislative Reporting Requirements

Conclusion

Page 9 GAO- 01- 804 DC Government Performance Management

they can have confidence in the validity and completeness of the reported
performance data. In addition, the report does not cover all significant
activities of the District government.

Sustained progress is needed to address the critical performance and other
management challenges that the District faces. The District recognizes the
shortcomings with its performance management efforts and has stated a
commitment to addressing them. The effective implementation of the various
initiatives underway in the District is vital to the success of the
District?s efforts to create a more focused, resultsoriented approach to
management and decision- making- an approach that is based on clear goals,
sound performance and cost information, and a budget process that uses this
information in allocating resources.

To further strengthen the District?s performance management process and
provide more useful information to its citizens and Congress, we recommend
that the Mayor of the District of Columbia:

 Accelerate efforts to settle upon a set of results- oriented goals that
are more consistently reflected in its various planning, reporting, and
accountability efforts.

 Provide specific information in its performance reports for each goal that
changed, including a description of how, when, and why the change occurred.
In addition, the District should identify the impact of the change on the
performance assessment itself, including data collection and measurement for
the reporting period.

 Include in each year?s accountability report the performance of all
significant activities of the District.

On May 31, 2001, we received e- mail comments on our draft report on behalf
of the Deputy Mayor/ City Administrator. He stated that overall, he
concurred with our findings, appreciated the context in which they were
presented, and acknowledged that additional work is needed to make the
District?s performance management system serve the needs of its citizens and
Congress.

The Deputy Mayor acknowledged that the extent of changes and the lack of
discussion in the performance report about why specific goals were changed
hinder comparison of the District?s performance against its

initial goals. In addition, he said that using the goals that resulted from
Recommendations

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

Page 10 GAO- 01- 804 DC Government Performance Management

the development of agency strategic plans was more representative of the
District?s performance during fiscal year 2000 than the initial goals. We
agree with both of these points. Our central point, however, was that given
the timing and extent of goal revision, and the absence of a discussion
about those changes, the usefulness of the report for understanding
performance as measured against the final goals, is limited.

The Deputy Mayor said that the information we reported on the timing of the
final set of agency goals appears to exaggerate the amount of time that
agency goals were in a state of flux- leading to the impression that all of
the District?s goals were changing until June 2000. We report that goals for
the critical agencies were finalized by March 2000 and that goals for other
(noncritical) agencies were revised at other times; the District could not
specify when these goals were finalized. It could only suggest that 30 to 40
percent of these agencies? goals were revised. However, we revised our
report to reflect that although some goals were finalized earlier, they were
not submitted to Congress until June 2000.

In response to our recommendation that the District accelerate efforts to
settle upon a consistent set of goals, the Deputy Mayor said that the
District anticipates consolidating its goals during the fiscal year 2003
planning, budgeting, and reporting cycle. He further stated that goals for
fiscal years 2001 and 2002 are likely to change as the District updates its
agency- specific and citywide strategic plans in the summer of 2001. As we
note in this report, it can be beneficial to periodically reassess and
revise goals. However, it is critical that the District makes every effort
to

accelerate the process of settling upon its final goals early in a fiscal
year to ensure that the performance assessment and report are meaningful.

The Deputy Mayor concurs with our recommendation that specific information
should be provided in the District?s performance reports for each goal that
changed. The Deputy Mayor also concurs with our recommendation to include in
each year?s accountability report the performance of all significant
activities of the District. He said that the District will seek to expand
the coverage of its fiscal year 2001 report to more fully comply with its
mandated reporting requirements. He also stated that although the District
cannot compel independent agencies not under the authority of the Mayor
(including the D. C. Public Schools) to report on performance, it plans to
work with them in developing performance information.

Page 11 GAO- 01- 804 DC Government Performance Management

We are sending copies of this report to the Mayor of the District of
Columbia. Copies will be made available to others upon request.

Key contributors to this report were Kathy Cunningham, Chad Holmes, Boris
Kachura, and Bill Reinsberg. Please contact me or Mr. Kachura on (202) 512-
6806 if you have any questions on the material in this report.

Sincerely yours, J. Christopher Mihm Director, Strategic Issues

Page 12 GAO- 01- 804 DC Government Performance Management

List of Requesters

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

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

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

The Honorable Constance A. Morella Chair The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton
Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on the District of Columbia Committee
on Government Reform House of Representatives

(450025)

Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional
copies of reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to
the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington,
DC 20013

Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC

Orders by phone: (202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these
lists.

Orders by Internet: For information on how to access GAO reports on the
Internet, send an e- mail message with ?info? in the body to:

info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO?s World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov

To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact one:  Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm  e-
mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov  1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system)

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***