District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in Performance
Management (Testimony, 10/03/2000, GAO/GAO-01-96T).

This testimony focuses on the District of Columbia's progress and
challenges in performance management. GAO discusses whether the
District: (1) met the 29 performance goals that it scheduled for
completion by the end of fiscal year 2000 that Congress chose from the
more than 400 performance measures contained in the Mayor's fiscal year
2001 budget request, and (2) provided evidence that the performance data
are sufficiently reliable for measuring progress toward goals. Mayor
Williams' performance management system contains many--but not all--of
the elements used successfully by leading organizations. The District
could improve the usefulness of its mandated annual performance plans
and reports by ensuring that the District government's most significant
performance goals are included in both the annual performance plan and
the annual performance report that federal law requires the Mayor to
send to Congress every year.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GAO-01-96T
     TITLE:  District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges
	     in Performance Management
      DATE:  10/03/2000
   SUBJECT:  Strategic planning
	     Budget administration
	     Municipal governments
	     Private sector practices
	     Reporting requirements
	     Performance measures
	     Productivity in government
	     Data integrity
IDENTIFIER:  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-01-96T

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT

Progress and Challenges in Performance Management

Statement of J. Christopher Mihm Director, Strategic Issues

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government

Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia Committee on
Governmental Affairs U. S. Senate

For Release on Delivery Expected at 9: 30 a. m. EDT on Tuesday October 3,
2000

GAO- 01- 96T

Statement District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in
Performance Management

Page 1 GAO- 01- 96T

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Durbin, and Members of the Subcommittee: It is a pleasure
to be here today to discuss performance management in the District of
Columbia. This hearing comes at a particularly opportune time. Two of our
recent reviews on different aspects of the city's performance management
system show that the Williams Administration, although having made important
progress, is still facing many challenges in improving the management and
performance of the District government. 1 We look forward to continuing to
work with the Members of this Subcommittee, Mayor Williams, and other
District officials to address the performance challenges facing our nation's
capital.

As agreed with the Subcommittee, my testimony will cover three areas. First,
I will compare the key elements of the District's performance management
system with common elements we found from systems used by leading
organizations around the country and the world. As part of that comparison,
I will report on whether the District met the 29 performance goals that it
scheduled for completion by the end of fiscal year 2000 that the
Subcommittee selected from the over 400 performance measures contained in
the Mayor's fiscal year 2001 budget request. 2 I will also report on whether
the District provided evidence that the performance data are sufficiently
reliable for measuring progress toward goals.

Second, I will discuss opportunities for the District to better align its
various performance plans to ensure that it is sending District employees,
managers, citizens, Congress, and other stakeholders consistent messages
about the results the District wants to achieve, how the alignment will be
done, and how progress will be measured.

Finally, I will highlight how to improve the usefulness of the annual
performance plan and report that federal law requires the Mayor to send to
Congress no later than March 1 of every year. 3 The federal law requiring
the District to prepare annual plans and reports is similar to the approach
in the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).

Mr. Chairman, before I summarize our specific findings in each area, I would
first like to make a general observation. After nearly 2 years in

1 District of Columbia Government: Performance Report's Adherence to
Statutory Requirements (GAO/ GGD- 00- 107, April 2000); District of Columbia
Government: Management Reform Projects Not Effectively Monitored (GAO/ T-
AIMD- 00- 237, June 30, 2000).

2 The Mayor transmits his annual performance plan as part of his budget
request to Congress. 3 Public Law No. 103- 373.

Statement District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in
Performance Management

Page 2 GAO- 01- 96T

office, Mayor Williams' Administration has made considerable progress in
making the management of the District government more results- oriented.
Given the serious performance problems facing the District when the Mayor
took office in January 1999, success will continue to demand a citywide
effort in several areas simultaneously and a long- term commitment by top
city officials. We believe Mayor Williams has clearly demonstrated his
personal commitment to transforming the culture of the District government.
The histories of high- performing organizations clearly show that cultural
transformations do not come quickly or easily. Thus, as is to be expected,
improvements in the management and performance of the District government
are still works in progress.

In summary, in the first area examined, we found that the Mayor's
performance management system contains many-- but not all- of the elements
used successfully by leading organizations. The city has a strategic
planning effort that has generated largely results- oriented goals and
measures that form a clear basis for the results that the District wants to
achieve. One element that did not always appear present is processes for
ensuring that performance information is sufficiently credible for
decisionmaking and accountability. Without these processes, neither the
Mayor nor other key decisionmakers can know for certain whether existing
goals were met and, if not, what opportunities exist to improve performance.
For example, the District's performance data- as of 1 month before scheduled
completion- show that it met 12 of the 29 selected goals that were to be
completed in fiscal year 2000. Several of the unmet goals appeared close to
being met or were likely to be met by December 2000. However, for 7 of the
12 goals that were met, the District did not provide evidence that the
performance data were sufficiently credible for measuring progress toward
goals and making decisions.

We also found that opportunities exist for the District to more fully
integrate the various planning documents it uses. As one example, the more
complete integration of the goals in the Mayor's strategic plan, scorecards,
and performance contracts with the annual performance plans and reports
provided to Congress is important to ensuring that Congress and the District
government have a common understanding of the results the District wants to
achieve, how it plans to achieve those results, and the status of its
efforts. In the absence of a common understanding, Congress is hard- pressed
to determine how it can best help the District achieve results, and oversee
the District's efforts.

As a direct result, we also found that the District could improve the
usefulness of its mandated annual performance plans and reports by better

Statement District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in
Performance Management

Page 3 GAO- 01- 96T

ensuring that the District Government's most significant performance goals
are included in both the annual performance plan and the annual performance
report that federal law requires the Mayor send to Congress every year.

Now I would like to discuss each of these findings in more detail, starting
with the key elements of the District's performance management system.

At the request of Congress, we have previously studied a number of leading
public sector organizations that were successful in pursuing management
reform initiatives and becoming more results- oriented. 4 These included
selected state governments as well as foreign governments, such as Australia
and the United Kingdom. We found that despite obvious and important
differences in histories, culture, and political systems, each of the
organizations commonly took three key steps as they sought to become more
results- oriented and make fundamental improvements in performance. These
were to (1) define clear missions and desired outcomes, (2) measure
performance to gauge progress, and (3) use performance information to manage
programs and support policy decisionmaking.

Figure 1 below illustrates the various planning documents that the District
has for managing the city, including an annual plan and report to Congress,
various scorecards on selected goals that are on the District's Internet
site, and proposed neighborhood action plans.

4 Managing for Results: Experiences Abroad Suggest Insights for Federal
Management Reforms (GAO/ GGD- 95- 120, May 1995). Challenges the District

Faces in Becoming More Results- Oriented

Statement District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in
Performance Management

Page 4 GAO- 01- 96T

Source: GAO analysis of District of Columbia data.

An official in the Mayor's office said the District's performance management
system consists of three key elements:

1. The District has a citywide strategic plan that consists of a vision
statement and five subordinate strategic plans that focus on a specific
priority. These five priorities are (1) building and sustaining healthy
neighborhoods; (2) strengthening children, youth, families, and individuals;
(3) making government work; (4) promoting economic development; and (5)
enhancing unity of purpose and democracy. This plan includes specific
results- oriented goals and measures associated with each priority. Mayor
Williams testified at the Subcommittee's hearing in May of this year that
the citywide strategic plan, prepared every 2 years, is the single, unified
plan for holding agency heads accountable. This citywide strategic plan was
based, in part, on the input of District residents, who had the opportunity
to express their concerns and priorities for the District at a Citizen
Summit held in

Figure 1: District Performance Management System

Statement District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in
Performance Management

Page 5 GAO- 01- 96T

November 1999 and a Neighborhood Action Forum in January 2000. The Mayor
plans to hold additional Neighborhood Action Forums and use the results to
develop Neighborhood Action Plans.

2. Agency strategic plans have been established for 15 of the 45 District
agencies under the Mayor's jurisdiction. Although these agency strategic
plans are presented in different formats, common elements include mission
statements and key agency goals and measures.

3. The Mayor has signed performance contracts with the Directors of 21 city
agencies. Under these contracts, the Directors are to be held accountable
for achieving selected performance goals and are required to report their
progress in meeting these goals on a monthly basis.

The first step used by leading organizations- defining clear missions and
desired outcomes- corresponds to the requirement in GPRA for federal
agencies to develop strategic plans containing mission statements and
outcome- related strategic goals.

The District has clearly made progress in this regard. The citywide
strategic plan contains largely outcome- related goals and measures that
relate to the District's five strategic priorities. For example, under the
building and sustaining healthy neighborhoods priority, the strategic plan
contains nine performance goals, including the goal to enhance the
appearance and security of neighborhoods citywide. This goal contains 10
action items with intended results identified, including an initiative to
abate 1,500 nuisance properties. In addition, responsibility for each goal
is assigned to a lead agency or agencies.

Also, the District has taken some steps to align its activities, core
processes, and resources. For example, the Mayor has placed a clear emphasis
on performance management in his administration. As I noted, one example is
the signing of performance contracts with the Directors of 21 city agencies.
The performance contracts are important for underscoring the personal
accountability the District Government's top leadership has for sound
management and contributing to results. The Mayor also created four Deputy
Mayor positions to assign responsibility for managing four critical
functional areas within the government: Government Operations; Public Safety
and Justice; Children, Youth and Families; and Economic Development.

Although the Williams Administration has made considerable progress in
setting a strategic direction for the city government, opportunities exist
to The District Has Made

Progress in Defining Clear Missions and Desired Outcomes

Opportunities to Strengthen the District's Strategic Planning

Statement District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in
Performance Management

Page 6 GAO- 01- 96T

ensure that the strategic plan is as useful and informative as it could be.
In developing its citywide strategic plan, the District held two meetings
with citizens, which gave District residents the opportunity to propose
priorities and to articulate a vision for the city. However, it was not
clear from reading the strategic plan that the District involved other key
stakeholders, specifically Congress, in the development of the plan. As you
know, Mr. Chairman, GPRA requires federal executive branch agencies to
consult with Congress when preparing their strategic plans. Consulting with
Congress on its strategic plan could also benefit the District because of
the appropriations and oversight role Congress plays and would be consistent
with one of the District's action items to maintain communications with
Congress.

In addition, the District's strategic plan contains a vision statement and
five strategic priorities. However, linking the vision statement to the
strategic priorities with a comprehensive mission statement could help
further clarify the direction the District wants to take. In our examination
of high- performing organizations here in the United States and around the
world, we have found that a clearly defined mission statement is one of the
key elements of an effective performance management system. A mission
statement is important because it brings an organization into focus and
concisely tells why it exists, what it does, and how it does it.

Finally, as the District continues its efforts to establish a clearly
defined strategic direction for the city, it can enhance the usefulness of
the plan by more fully articulating the strategies the city plans to use to
achieve results. In some cases, it was not clear what strategies the Mayor's
office was going to use to achieve action items relating to the strategic
plan's performance goals. For example, the goal to enhance the appearance
and security of neighborhoods citywide contained an action item of ensuring
that 75 percent of youth attend school on a regular basis. However, the
strategic plan did not give any indication how this measure would be
achieved. Similarly, the goal that all residents have opportunities for
lifelong learning contained an action item of increasing access to the
Internet, but there was no discussion of how this would be achieved.

The second key step that we found leading organizations commonly took-
measuring performance to gauge progress toward goals- corresponds to the
GPRA requirement for federal agencies to develop annual performance plans
and goals and performance measures to gauge progress. The District Has

Established Performance Measures for the Majority of Its Goals

Statement District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in
Performance Management

Page 7 GAO- 01- 96T

The District has made substantial progress in establishing performance
measures for most of its goals. As it develops measures for the remaining
goals and gains experience in using the data from the measures it has
established, the experiences of high- performing organizations suggests that
the District will identify ample opportunities to improve and refine its
goals and measures. Specifically, we found that the fiscal year 2000
performance plan contained 447 measures, of which 36 (or 8 percent) had no
indicators or performance targets that could be used to determine if the
goals were achieved. When the Mayor updated this original plan several
months later, there were 30 (or 7 percent) out of 417 measures without
indicators to measure performance.

You asked us to examine 31 goals drawn from the 417 in the Mayor's updated
performance plan for fiscal year 2000. These goals were not meant to be a
representative sample of all the District's goals. Of these 31, 29 were to
be completed not later than September 30, 2000. As shown in the attachment
to my statement, the District reported that as of August 31, 2000- 1 month
before scheduled completion- it had met 12 of these 29 goals, and it had not
met 12 goals. An example of a goal that was met was from the Commission on
the Arts and Humanities, which reported that it exceeded its goal of serving
35 percent of D. C. Public School students through the Arts in Education
program, stating that 55 percent of students have been served by this
program through August 2000. An example of a goal that was not met was from
the Office of Banking and Financial Institutions (OBFI), which reported that
it did not meet its goal of obtaining baseline data by June 2000 on capital
and credit available by Ward. OBFI stated that it was not able to obtain
this data from banks in the District due to proprietary issues these banks
would face, and it was considering redefining the goal for future years.

The District did not provide performance information for one goal, and for
four goals it was unclear from the information provided whether the goal had
been met. For example, the Department of Employment Services (DOES) had a
goal of contacting 600 employers and entering them into the DOES database.
However, the data provided by DOES to report progress on this goal showed
information on the number of job orders and job openings in the system and
the number of individuals placed. It was not clear from the information
provided whether DOES accomplished its goal.

The third key step that we found leading organizations commonly took- using
performance information to manage programs-- although much broader, includes
the requirement in GPRA for federal agencies to prepare Early Data Suggests
FY 2000

Performance Will be Uneven Credible Performance Information Remains a
Challenge

Statement District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in
Performance Management

Page 8 GAO- 01- 96T

annual performance reports with information on the extent to which the
agency has met its annual performance goals.

If policymakers in the District and in Congress are to use the information
in the District's annual performance report to make decisions, then that
information must be credible. Credible performance information is essential
for accurately assessing agencies' progress towards 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.

In some cases, producing credible performance data is relatively
straightforward. For example, a District goal to open three new health
centers would not normally need a systematic process to gather data that
shows if the goal was met. Far more common, however, are goals and
performance measures that would seem to depend upon the existence of a
systematic process to efficiently and routinely gather the requisite
performance data.

In that regard, we found that the District has not yet implemented a system
to provide assurance that the performance information it generates is
sufficiently credible for decisionmaking. The District's performance report
for fiscal year 1999 stated that the performance data was
“unaudited.” An official in the Mayor's office said that this
meant the performance data had not been independently verified. He also said
that the Mayor's office has asked the Inspector General to begin audits of
the data.

The 31 goals selected for our detailed review underscore the challenges
confronting the District. 5 In response to our request for evidence that a
system existed to ensure that the performance data were sufficiently
reliable for measuring progress toward goals, the District did not provide
such evidence for 7 of the12 goals that the District reported had been met
and for 11 of the 14 goals 6 that the District reported had not been met. As
a result, key decisionmakers cannot be certain that the seven goals reported
to have been met were in fact met. For example, the Department of Public
Works (DPW) did not provide a description of any system or procedures in
place for ensuring the credibility of performance data for measuring
progress on its goal of permanently repairing 90 percent of utility cuts
within 45 days of utility work completion.

5 The District did not provide us with data for 1 of the 31 performance
measures. 6 The 14 unmet goals include 2 goals with December 2000 deadlines.

Statement District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in
Performance Management

Page 9 GAO- 01- 96T

As part of becoming more results- oriented, leading organizations work to
ensure that their annual performance goals and measures “link
up” to the organization's mission and long- term strategic goals as
well as “link down” to organizational components with specific
duties and responsibilities. This “up and down” linkage
reinforces the connections between the longterm strategic goals and the day-
to- day activities of program managers and staff. These linkages are
important to ensuring that the services government provides contribute to
results that citizens need and care about. The linkages also are important
to underscore to front- line employees the vital role they play in meeting
organizational goals.

However, we found that additional efforts are needed to ensure that the
critical linkages are in place. Specifically, the citywide strategic plan
may not yet fully serve as the single unified plan to guide the District
that the Mayor intends it to be. The strategic plan contains literally
hundreds of action items that serve in essence as detailed performance
commitments, often with specified completion dates. However, we found that
these detailed action items were not always reflected in the Mayor's
scorecard or performance contracts. Likewise, the commitments in the
scorecard and the performance contracts were not always captured in the
strategic plan. As a result, it can be unclear to city employees and
managers as well as other decisionmakers what set of initiatives represents
the District's highest priorities.

In addition, at the Subcommittee's request, we determined the extent to
which the performance contracts that the Mayor signed with the directors of
three agencies are aligned with both the Mayor's performance plan and the
Mayor's scorecard. The three agencies we looked at were the Metropolitan
Police Department (MPD), the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), and
the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The three directors' contracts that
we examined had a common format, which included a discussion of the Mayor's
rating system, the agency's mission statement, and a series of performance
requirements upon which the agency director was to be assessed and rated.
The performance requirements included five common requirements (e. g.,
alignment of agency mission with the Mayor's strategic plan) that each
director is responsible for meeting, as well as additional agency- specific
requirements.

However, the three agency performance contracts were not consistently or
directly aligned with the District's FY 2000 performance plan or the Mayor's
scorecard. For example, 13 of the 15 FY 2000 performance goals that were
attached to the DPR contract were not included in the FY 2000 The District
Can Better

Align Its Key Planning Efforts

Statement District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in
Performance Management

Page 10 GAO- 01- 96T

performance plan. In addition, none of the four goals in the DPR scorecard
were included in the DPR contract, and three of the four goals were not in
the FY 2000 performance plan.

For MPD, 10 of the 23 performance goals that were attached to the contract
were not included in the FY 2000 plan. Although two of the four goals in the
MPD scorecard were included in the MPD contract, these two goals have
different deadlines in the scorecard and contract. The scorecard has a
December 2000 deadline for the two goals, but the contract has the end of
fiscal year 2000 as the goals' completion date. DMV's performance contract
contains nine FY 2000 goals, eight of which are in the FY 2000 plan.
However, for seven of these contract goals, the targets have been revised
and therefore differ from those in the FY 2000 plan. Three of DMV's four
scorecard goals are in the contract and the FY 2000 plan. According to an
official in the Mayor's office, the Mayor appointed new directors to DMV and
DPR in the summer of 1999 and they established new goals.

The challenge confronting the District is by no means unique. As I noted,
the histories of high- performing organizations show that their
transformations do not come quickly or easily. However, we found that high-
performing organizations know how the services they produce contribute to
achieving results. In fact, this explicit alignment of daily activities with
broader results is one of the defining features of highperforming
organizations. At the federal level, we have found that such alignment is
very much a work in progress. Many agencies continue to struggle with
clearly understanding how what they do on a day- to- day basis contributes
to results outside their organizations. The District is beginning to make
some progress in this regard. In a comparison of the three District agency
head contracts to the FY 2001 performance plan, there is a much more direct
alignment, as the performance measures from each agency's section of the FY
2001 plans have been attached to that agency head's contract.

As you know, Congress passed legislation in 1994 that is similar to the
performance reporting requirement in GPRA in that it requires the District
to prepare an annual performance report on each goal in the City's annual
performance plan. This law was intended to provide a disciplined approach to
improving the District government's performance by providing for public
reporting on the District's progress in meeting its goals. Opportunities to

Improve the Usefulness of the District's Performance Report

Statement District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in
Performance Management

Page 11 GAO- 01- 96T

On April 14 of this year, we reported to Congress that the District did not
comply with this law for fiscal year 1999. 7 Among our findings were that
the District did not report actual performance for 460 of the 542 goals in
the plan and did not provide the titles of the managers most responsible for
achieving each goal as required by law. The fiscal year 1999 report was the
first the District prepared under the legislation that was based on a
performance plan, so we can expect that subsequent reports will show marked
improvement. Moreover, the circumstances that led to this noncompliance were
unusual and are not likely to be repeated. The Mayor's performance report
was required to be based on goals that the Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority- not the Mayor- had established. In November
1999, Congress returned this reporting responsibility to the Mayor. 8

In addition, the Mayor has asked Congress for legislation that will
facilitate the District's ability to comply with this law in the future.
Specifically, the Mayor has requested that the date when the performance
plan is due to Congress be changed to correspond more directly with the
District's budget schedule and that the requirement for reporting on two
levels of performance- acceptable and superior- for each goal be eliminated.

According to the District, its performance report for fiscal year 2000 will
include a discussion of several of the District's management reform
projects. In June of this year, we testified on these projects before the
House Appropriations Subcommittee on the District. 9 The District budgeted
over $300 million to fund these projects from fiscal year 1998 through 2000.
Included in the District's budgets for this 3- year period were projected
savings of about $200 million. However, we found that after 21/ 2 years, the
District had reported savings of only about $1.5 million.

We testified that neither the Financial Authority nor the District could
provide adequate details on the goals achieved for all of the projects that
had been reported as completed or in various stages of completion.
Consequently, the District could not show if the initiatives had actually
contributed to improved performance and better services to the District's
citizens. Nevertheless, as a sign of his continuing commitment to improve
the management of the District government, District documents show that the
Mayor has adopted 20 of these initiatives into his new plan for fiscal

7 GAO/ GGD- 00- 107. 8 Public Law No. 106- 113. 9 GAO/ T- AIMD- 00- 237.

Statement District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in
Performance Management

Page 12 GAO- 01- 96T

year 2000 and added 7 new management reform initiatives. For example, the
Department of Public Works' initiative to improve its correspondence and
telephone service was integrated into the Mayor's new goal of developing a
Citywide Call Center.

Under the federal law, the Mayor is required to report on only the goals
that were in his original performance plan sent to Congress. However, the
Mayor has updated his fiscal year 2000 plan with many new or modified goals
after the plan was sent to Congress to address problems that were not found
during the original planning process. As a result, the next performance
report is not required to contain performance data on those new or updated
goals.

As expected, during the early years of a major performance measurement
initiative, some of the changes and additions the District made to its
performance goals and measures have been significant. Specifically, as of
September 27, 2000, the Mayor's scorecard contained a total of 119 goals
assigned to agency directors and other managers, including the Mayor. Of
these 119 scorecard goals, 82 of them were not included as fiscal year 2000
performance measures in those agencies' corresponding sections of the FY
2000 performance plan. For example, the Department of Public Works' (DPW)
scorecard goal to resurface 150 blocks of streets and alleys was not
included among the DPW's performance measures in the FY 2000 plan.

In addition, for the remaining 37 goals that were also present in the plan,
the measures or targets for 28 of them had been revised. For the 119 goals
that were in the scorecard, the District has reported, as of September 27,
2000, that 25 have been achieved thus far. Many of the remaining 94 goals
have a completion date of December 2000.

Many of the goals appearing only in the scorecard arose during the Mayor's
meetings with District residents, which occurred after the Mayor completed
his original performance plan. As a result, the District's next performance
report to Congress to be issued early next year may not contain performance
data on certain scorecard goals that represent important initiatives for the
District. Although not required to do so, by reporting information on its
significant goals- whenever they were established- the District could help
Congress achieve a central aim of the 1994 legislation- having the District
report on progress in meeting its goals for all significant activities.

The District may therefore wish to consider the approach that many federal
agencies used in reporting on their performance. Like the District,

Statement District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in
Performance Management

Page 13 GAO- 01- 96T

federal agencies found that they needed to change their performance goals-
in some cases substantially- as they learned and gained experience during
the early years of their performance measurement efforts. As you know, Mr.
Chairman, this last March executive agencies issued their fiscal year 1999
performance reports. However, much has been learned about goal- setting and
performance measurement since agencies developed their fiscal year 1999
goals back in the fall of 1997. In reviewing those performance reports
issued last March, we saw examples where agencies noted that a goal or
performance measure had changed from what had been in the original plan and
reported progress in meeting the new goal. The advantage of this approach is
that it helped to ensure that performance reports, by reporting on the
agencies' actual, as opposed to discarded, goals, provided useful and
relevant information for congressional and other decisionmakers.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the District continues to make progress in
implementing a more results- oriented approach to management and
accountability throughout the District government. Making the necessary
changes and instilling the new culture requires sustained commitment and
effort, as the Mayor and other District leaders certainly understand. Thus,
despite the important progress that has been and is being made, ample
opportunities exist for the District to strengthen its efforts as it moves
forward. Foremost among these is (1) continuing to make progress in
implementing a results- oriented approach to management and generating
performance data that are sufficiently credible for decisionmaking, (2)
ensuring that its strategic goal- setting and performance measurement
efforts are fully aligned, and (3) using its performance plans and reports
to provide Congress with the information and perspective it needs for
effective oversight and decisionmaking.

We look forward to continuing to work with the District, this Subcommittee,
and others in Congress as you jointly seek to ensure that the residents of
the District have the world- class products and services they so richly
deserve.

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any
questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.

Contacts and Acknowledgments

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact J.
Christopher Mihm at (202) 512- 8676. Individuals making key contributions
Summary

Statement District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in
Performance Management

Page 14 GAO- 01- 96T

to this testimony included Jeremy Latimer, Theresa Roberson, and Al
Stapleton.

Page 15 GAO- 01- 96T

Attachment Information on Selected FY 2000 Performance Goals from the
District's FY 2001 Proposed Budget

Page 16 GAO- 01- 96T

The following table provides information on 31 FY 2000 performance goals
selected from the District of Columbia's FY 2001 Proposed Budget. The first
column lists the performance goals and the District agency responsible for
each goal. The 2 nd and 3 rd columns provide information on the agencies'
reported progress in meeting these goals. The 4 th and 5 th columns provide
information on whether or not the agencies described any system or
procedures they have in place for ensuring the credibility of their
performance data for these goals.

For the 29 selected goals that were to be completed by the end of FY 2000,
the District reported that- as of August 31, 2000 for most goals- it had met
12 goals, and that it had not yet met 12 goals. The District did not provide
information for one goal, and for four goals it was unclear from the
information provided whether the goal had been met.

The District described a system that it had in place for ensuring the
credibility of its performance data for 8 of the 31 goals. For 21 of these
goals the District did not describe such a system that it had in place. In
addition, for one goal, it was unclear from the District's response whether
it had such a system, and we received no information on the District's
progress or its system for assessing data for one goal.

Did the agency or office report that the target had been met? Did the agency
or office describe a system or

procedures that it had in place for ensuring the credibility of its
performance data? FY 2000 performance goal

(agency or office responsible) Yes/ No Comments Yes/ No Comments Office of
Personnel (DCOP)

10% of employees participating in the new performance management system

No DCOP reported that 6.9% of the 18, 000 employees (1,248 employees) under
the authority of the Mayor participated in kickoff training sessions on the
new performance management system. DCOP stated that the 10% goal published
in the FY 2001 proposed budget was based on an estimate of 1,800 individuals
in managerial, supervisory, and excepted service positions. DCOP stated that
the actual number of individuals in these positions is approximately 1,300.

No However, DCOP did report how it obtained its data. DCOP stated that
attendance at training sessions was tracked via attendance sheets maintained
by each instructor and then logged into the Center for Workforce
Development's course registration database.

Table 1: Information on Selected Performance Goals

Attachment Page 17 GAO- 01- 96T

Did the agency or office report that the target had been met? Did the agency
or office describe a system or

procedures that it had in place for ensuring the credibility of its
performance data? FY 2000 performance goal

(agency or office responsible) Yes/ No Comments Yes/ No Comments

100% of agencies have FY 2001 workforce plans No DCOP reported that there
are no

agencies with complete workforce plans for FY 2001, but it anticipates
having plans in place for all agencies by midNovember 2000. DCOP stated that
the downsizing and replacement of key retiree positions where necessary has
been the primary staff planning focus in the agencies and in the DC Office
of Personnel this summer.

No However, DCOP stated that service requests contained in workforce plans
for the 2 nd half of FY 2000 were tracked manually. For FY 2001, DCOP stated
that it is implementing a new “transaction tracking” database
that will track all staffing requests and enable it to set target dates for
the completion of each request. DCOP stated that this database is expected
to be operational in October 2000.

85% of all vacancy announcements on the DCOP Web site

Yes DCOP reported that 100% of all announcements for civil service positions
in agencies under the authority of the Mayor are posted on the DCOP Web
site.

Yes DCOP stated that with its current system, the only way it can create
vacancy announcements is via a database that automatically posts them to its
Web site, once approved by the appropriate supervisor. DCOP stated that it
is no longer able to post paper announcements without posting them on the
Web site.

Human Resources Development (HRD)

64 senior managers completing “Certified Public Manager” (CPM)
program at the Center for Excellence in Municipal Management

Yes DCOP reported that 68 individuals graduated from the CPM program in FY
2000.

No DCOP reported how it obtained this data. DCOP stated that graduates are
trained and tracked by the Center for Excellence in Municipal Management at
George Washington University.

Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)

24,000 electronic tax returns Yes OCFO reported that 24,570 electronic
returns have been filed through August 2000.

No However, OCFO reported how it obtained this data. OCFO stated that data
on electronically filed returns are tabulated daily and that ELF- systems
and the output from the Individual Income System tracks the returns
received.

Business Services and Economic Development (BSED)

2 Neighborhood Forums conducted (engage 4,000 residents)

No Office of Planning data showed that 3,510 District residents had
participated in Neighborhood Action meetings between January and September
2000.

No No information was provided in response to this question.

Attachment Page 18 GAO- 01- 96T

Did the agency or office report that the target had been met? Did the agency
or office describe a system or

procedures that it had in place for ensuring the credibility of its
performance data? FY 2000 performance goal

(agency or office responsible) Yes/ No Comments Yes/ No Comments Department
of Housing and Community Development (DHCD)

6- month loan/ grant processing time for new construction and multifamily
rehabilitation

Yes DHCD reported that this goal was achieved as of August 2000. No DHCD
stated that program offices

submit accomplishment data to the Office of the Chief Operating Officer, and
these data are incorporated into a monthly report. DHCD did not describe a
system for assessing the credibility of the data that it receives.

Department of Employment Services (DOES)

600 employers contacted and entered in DOES database

Unclear DOES responded with data reporting the number of job orders entered
into the system, as well as the number of job openings and individuals
placed, but not the number of employers contacted and entered into its
database.

Unclear DOES reported that the tool that measures this goal is the State
Employment Security Agency (SESA) Automated Reporting System. However, DOES
did not provide data on whether it met this goal. 1,500 youth placed in
unsubsidized summer employment

Yes DOES reported that 2,453 persons between the ages of 14 and 24 were
placed in unsubsidized summer employment.

Yes DOES reported that private sector data are validated against the youths'
hardcopy applications. All unsubsidized placements are entered into the SESA
Automated Reporting System and become a part of DOES' overall job placement
performance reported annually to the U. S. Department of Labor. 3 Job Fairs
for District residents Yes DOES reported that it has participated in

job fairs held by eight different organizations.

No DOES stated that no documentation is generally maintained, with the
exception of Standard Employment Service registration forms that become a
part of the SESA Reporting System. $575,000 collected on back wages due
underpaid workers in the District

Yes DOES reported that $660,173 in actual back wages has been collected as
of August 31, 2000.

Yes A database is maintained containing information on back wages collected
and the number of audits conducted. All collections are logged in and
receipted by staff. Case files including samplings of the employer's payroll
records, copies of written audit findings, and copies of collection receipts
support the integrity of the database. Monthly reports from the database are
generated and reviewed for accuracy.

Attachment Page 19 GAO- 01- 96T

Did the agency or office report that the target had been met? Did the agency
or office describe a system or

procedures that it had in place for ensuring the credibility of its
performance data? FY 2000 performance goal

(agency or office responsible) Yes/ No Comments Yes/ No Comments Department
of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA)

95% of complex building permits processed within 30 days

No DCRA reported that 91% of complex building permits are processed within
30 days. A District official stated that the average processing time for
complex permits has declined from more than 30 days in October 1999 to 21. 5
days in August 2000.

No No information was provided in response to this question.

8 inspections per day per inspector

Yes Data provided by DCRA showed an average of between 8 and 10 inspections
per inspector per day.

No No information was provided in response to this question.

500 nuisance properties cleaned and abated Yes DCRA reported that 1,294
properties

have been cleaned and abated through August 2000.

No No information was provided in response to this question.

Office of Banking and Financial Institutions (OBFI)

Baseline data on capital and credit available by ward by June 2000

No OBFI reported that it was not able to obtain data on ward- by- ward
capital and credit availability, due to proprietary issues banks would face
by providing this information in such a strictly defined manner. OBFI is
considering redefining the measure for future years.

No OBFI listed sources and documents utilized to ensure the accuracy of data
collected, including bank officials, bank annual reports, and the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation. However, OBFI was unable to obtain the data
it needed to achieve its goal as it was defined.

Metropolitan Police Department (MPD)

8% reduction over prior year incidents in homicides (calendar year goal)

No (this is a calendar year goal)

MPD reported that between January 1 and September 12, 2000, 174 homicides
were reported, representing a 7% increase over the same period last year.
However, MPD noted in the case of homicides the totals are so small that
monthly fluctuations significantly affect the overall annual percentage
change.

Yes MPD reported that to ensure the accuracy and reliability of performance
data related to crime statistics, its Central Crime Analysis Unit updates
homicide statistics each morning and compares these figures to similar ones
generated daily by the Homicide Investigations Unit. Further, MPD staff
crosscheck daily statistics with the monthly performance measure figures
before releasing them. 80% of sworn positions budgeted for civilianization
with civilians in them

No MPD reported a 61% achievement rate for this measure, and that no further
progress is expected because of budgetary constraints.

No However, MPD provided information on how it obtained its data. MPD stated
that the Human Services Division tracks the progress on civilianization
through a hiring report that is produced by name and position. Average
telephone response time to 911 emergency calls for service of 5 seconds

No MPD reported that for the period January 1- August 31, 2000, the average
telephone response time was 5.3 seconds.

No No information was provided in response to this question.

Attachment Page 20 GAO- 01- 96T

Did the agency or office report that the target had been met? Did the agency
or office describe a system or

procedures that it had in place for ensuring the credibility of its
performance data? FY 2000 performance goal

(agency or office responsible) Yes/ No Comments Yes/ No Comments Department
of Corrections (DOC)

1,800 prisoners transferred to Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) facilities

Yes DOC reported that it has transferred 2009 inmates to the Federal Bureau
of Prisons through September 12, 2000.

Yes DOC stated that it uses the transfer lists from the FBOP to ensure the
accuracy of its data. DOC stated that it checks inmates' names on the FBOP
lists against the names of the inmates whom it had certified as meeting the
criteria for transfer to FBOP. Office of Case Management staff also are
present when the actual transfer of inmates occurs.

Public Library

150 personal computers that access the library online catalog

Data not received

Data not received

Commission on the Arts and Humanities

35% of D. C. Public School students served by the Arts in Education Program

Yes The Commission reported that 55% of D. C. Public Schools students have
been served by the Arts in Education Program through August 2000.

Yes The Commission stated that the accuracy and reliability are established
through staff visits to grantees, teacher evaluation, and evaluation of
final report documents.

Department of Human Services (DHS)

829 Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) customers achieving
successful employment (90 days or more)

No DHS reported that 688 RSA customers have achieved successful employment
through August 2000. However, DHS also stated that it expected the target to
be met by the end of the fiscal year.

Yes RSA stated that it has developed “Program Instructions,”
which involve follow- up with the client after placement on a job to ensure
that employment outcome data for individuals placed in employment are
accurate and reliable. RSA also stated that random samplings of cases are
reviewed quarterly to ensure that the case documentation is correct and
reliable. Increase the number of early care and education caregivers in
educational activities over prior year to 3,168

No DHS reported that through July 2000, a total of 2,621 caregivers had
completed relevant educational/ training activities. According to DHS, the
3, 168 target was a “Safe Passages” Task Force proposal and was
never supported in the budget. The budgetary target should have been a 10%
increase over the previous year to 2,789 caregivers.

No No information was provided in response to this question for this goal.
However, DHS did provide information on a goal that was included in the FY
2000 budget-“ Increase children in all child care services by 10
percent annually.”

Attachment Page 21 GAO- 01- 96T

Did the agency or office report that the target had been met? Did the agency
or office describe a system or

procedures that it had in place for ensuring the credibility of its
performance data? FY 2000 performance goal

(agency or office responsible) Yes/ No Comments Yes/ No Comments Department
of Health (DOH)

3 school- based teen health or wellness centers opened in D. C. Public and
Charter schools

clinicsNo DOH reported that one clinic has been opened as of August 2000.
However, DOH stated that it signed a contract for an additional two centers
to be opened by the end of the calendar year.

No No information was provided in response to this question.

90% of schools with a school nurse Unclear DOH reported that all 148 D. C.
Public

Schools are covered by a school nurse, and 6 of 38 chartered schools are
known to have a school nurse. The goal did not specify whether charter
schools were to be included in this measure.

No No information was provided in response to this question.

Create 1, 000 new drug treatment slots

Unclear DOH responded by providing data on its two scorecard goals to create
1,000 drug treatment slots for the general population and for those in the
criminal justice system, respectively, by the end of the calendar year. DOH
reported that 797 new drug treatment slots have been created for the general
population, and 832 slots have been made available to those in the criminal
justice system. The goal did not specify whether the slots were for the
general population, for those in the criminal justice system, or both groups
combined.

No No information was provided in response to this question.

Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR)

100% of playgrounds meeting national consumer safety standards

Unclear Although it reported that it has already met this goal, DPR also
reported that the goal would be met as of December 30, 2000.

No However, DPR provided information on how it obtained its data. DPR stated
that it has contracted with a certified playground inspector to perform
regular inspections of all of its playgrounds.

Department of Public Works (DPW)

90% of utility cuts permanently repaired within 45 days of completed utility
work

Yes DPW reported that 100% of utility cuts are permanently repaired within
45 days of completed utility work. However, DPW noted that this number
excluded (1) cuts that were held for permanent repair because of
coordination with other work, and (2) cuts that were scheduled only for
weekend work.

No No information was provided in response to this question.

Attachment Page 22 GAO- 01- 96T

Did the agency or office report that the target had been met? Did the agency
or office describe a system or

procedures that it had in place for ensuring the credibility of its
performance data? FY 2000 performance goal

(agency or office responsible) Yes/ No Comments Yes/ No Comments

6,000 new trees planted (calendar year goal) No (this

is a calendar year goal)

DPW stated that this goal will be met by the December 31, 2000, deadline.
DPW reported that it has planted 4,194 trees between October 1999 and April
2000, and it expects to plant an additional 2,500 trees before the end of
the calendar year.

No However, DPW provided two contracts for tree planting.

100% of potholes filled within 72 hours of report

No DPW reported that 80. 2% of potholes are repaired within 72 hours.
However, this average covered only a recent 3- week period, the period for
which DPW stated that reliable records existed.

No No information was provided in response to this question.

Department of Motor Vehicles

45 car inspections completed per hour

No DMV reported that due to changes in operation strategies, it may not
achieve this goal. As of August 2000, the year- todate average is 44 cars
per hour.

Yes DMV stated that the Lane Control Computer System collects data for this
goal by recording the number of vehicles that are serviced by the inspection
station.

Total Yes - 12 No - 12 Unclear - 4 Data not received - 1 (Totals do not
include two calendar year goals)

Yes - 8 No - 21 Unclear - 1 Data not received - 1

Page 23 GAO- 01- 96T

Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet For information on how to access GAO
reports on the INTERNET, send 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 Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs To contact
GAO's Fraud Hotline use: Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/
fraudnet. htm E- Mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov Telephone: 1- 800- 424- 5454
(automated answering system)

(410604)
*** End of document ***