District of Columbia: Performance Report Reflects Progress and	 
Opportunities for Improvement (15-APR-02, GAO-02-588).		 
                                                                 
This report examines the progress the District of Columbia has	 
made with its fiscal year 2001 performance accountability report 
and highlights continuing challenges facing our nation's capital.
The District must submit a performance accountability plan with  
goals for the coming fiscal year and, at the end of the fiscal	 
year, a performance accountability report on the extent to which 
it achieved these goals. GAO found that the District's		 
Performance Accountability Report for Fiscal Year 2001 provided a
more complete picture of its performance and made progress in	 
complying with statutory reporting requirements by using a	 
consistent set of goals. This allowed the District to measure and
report progress toward the goals  in its 2001 performance plan.  
Specifically, it reported information on the level of performance
achieved, the titles of managers and their supervisors		 
responsible for each goal, and described the status of certain	 
court orders. The District has made progress over the last three 
years in its performance accountability reports and established  
positive direction for enhancements in court orders, its fiscal  
year 2003 performance based budgeting pilots, and performance	 
goals and measures.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-588 					        
    ACCNO:   A03067						        
  TITLE:     District of Columbia: Performance Report Reflects	      
Progress and Opportunities for Improvement			 
     DATE:   04/15/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Accountability					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Reporting requirements				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** 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-02-588
     
A

Report to Congressional Subcommittees

April 2002 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Performance Report Reflects Progress and
Opportunities for Improvement

GAO- 02- 588

Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 4 Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
5 The 2001 Report Included Most of the District?s Significant Activities

6 The District?s 2001 Plan and Report Addressed a Consistent Set of

Performance Goals 8 The Report Generally Adhered to Statutory Requirements
10 Steps Are Needed to Improve Future Performance Accountability

Reports 12 Conclusions 16 Recommendations 16 Agency Comments and Our
Evaluation 17

Appendixes

Appendix I: Expenditures by Agencies Included in the District?s Fiscal Year
2001 Performance Accountability Report 22

Appendix II: Agencies and Budget Activities Not Included in the District?s
Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Accountability Report 25

Appendix III: Comments from the Government of the District of Columbia 27

Tables Table 1: Instances in Which the District Has Not Reported the Level
of Performance in its Fiscal Year 2001 Performance

Accountability Report 10 Table 2: Actual Expenditure Totals by Agencies
Included in the

District?s Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Accountability Report 22 Table 3:
Ten Agencies the District Reported That It Did Not Include in Its Fiscal
Year 2001 Performance Accountability Report

and Related Expenditures 25 Table 4: Additional Budget Activities Not
Included in the District?s Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Accountability
Report and

Related Expenditure Levels 26

Abbreviations

ANC Advisory Neighborhood Commissions COG Council of Governments DCPS
District of Columbia Public Schools GPRA Government Performance and Results
Act OIG Office of Inspector General

Lett er

April 15, 2002 Congressional Subcommittees In view of continuing
congressional interest in working with the District of Columbia?s government
to ensure that a sound performance management system is in place, this is
the third year that we have evaluated the District?s annual performance
accountability report as mandated in law. 1 This

mandate provides a timely opportunity to examine the progress the District
has made in developing and issuing its fiscal year 2001 performance
accountability report and identify areas that the District and Congress may
want to focus on to continue making progress in addressing the performance
challenges facing our nation?s capital. The District has continued to make
progress in producing more useful performance

documents and information that can help inform decision makers and improve
the District?s accountability and performance. The District of Columbia is
required to submit to 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. 2 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). 3 Our objectives in
this report are to examine (1) the extent to which the District?s
performance accountability report includes all significant activities,

(2) how well the District reports progress toward a consistent set of goals
and explains any changes in the goals, (3) the extent to which the report
adheres to the statutory requirements, and (4) areas for future improvement.

1 U. S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia: Comments on Fiscal
Year 2000 Performance Report, GAO- 01- 804 (Washington, D. C. June 8, 2001);
and U. S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia Government:
Performance Report?s Adherence to Statutory Requirements, GAO/ GGD- 00- 107
(Washington, D. C.: April 14, 2000).

2 These requirements are contained in the Federal Payment Reauthorization
Act of 1994,

Public Law No. 103- 373.

3 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).

Results in Brief In the District of Columbia?s FY 2001 Performance
Accountability Report, the District provided a more complete picture of its
performance

and made progress in complying with statutory reporting requirements. The
District has expanded the report?s scope to include most of the District
government?s significant activities by covering 66 agencies- 26 more than
last year- that account for 83 percent of the District?s total fiscal year
2001

general fund expenditures of $5.9 billion. The report presented a clearer
picture of performance and enhanced accountability by using a consistent set
of goals, enabling the District to measure and report progress toward the
goals it had established in its 2001 performance plan. 4 In addition, the
report was timely and generally adhered to Federal Payment Reauthorization
Act requirements. Specifically, it reported information on the level of
performance achieved toward most of its goals, provided the titles of
managers and their supervisors responsible for each of the goals, and
described the status of certain court orders. The progress the District has
made in its performance accountability reports over the last 3 years
establishes a positive direction for future enhancements, and there are
three key areas where improvements can be made.  Although the District
included information on the terms and status of certain court orders, it
should take steps to update this information by

including information on the status of court orders it has not previously
reported on, as well as those previously reported, that are applicable
during the fiscal year. The act mandates that the District?s report include
a statement on the status of any court orders applicable during the fiscal
year and the steps taken to comply with those orders. We believe that the
District, in order to more fully comply with the statutory requirements,
needs to take steps to ensure that the information provided in its
performance accountability reports is accurate and upto- date. We are
recommending that the District establish objective criteria for the types of
court orders for which it will provide specific compliance information in
its performance accountability reports.

These criteria could include factors such as the time, effort, and cost to
respond to these court orders. If the District government has not acted to
comply with the court orders it should include an explanation as to 4 The
2001 performance plan was contained in the District?s Fiscal Year 2002
Proposed Budget and Financial Plan.

why no action was taken. In addition, the District should provide summary
information on other applicable court orders in its future performance
accountability reports.  One of the areas that the District highlighted in
its 2001 report is its

fiscal year 2003 performance based budgeting pilot. As our work with
executive branch agencies has shown, linking expected performance, resources
requested, and resources consumed helps promote performance management
efforts and increases the need for reliable budget and financial data. 5
Therefore, the District will need to verify and validate the data it uses to
support the achievement of performance goals and present this information in
its performance accountability reports. The District?s plan to develop data
collection standards is a good first step in this direction. We are
recommending that the District government improve its future performance
accountability reports by

providing assurance that its program and financial data are timely,
complete, accurate, useful, and consistent. The District?s performance and
accountability reports should also include discussions of strategies to
address known data limitations.

 Another area that the District should work toward is including performance
goals and measures for all of its major activities, and to link related
expenditure information to the agencies that are responsible for these
expenditures. For example, including information on the funds agencies
administer would provide a more complete picture of the

resources targeted toward achieving an agency?s goals and therefore help
ensure transparency and accountability for the District?s expenditures. The
District?s 2001 report states that it plans to include goals and measures
for major areas, such as the public schools and the

Child and Family Services Agency, in the fiscal year 2003 proposed budget
and financial plan that it will submit to Congress. The District?s plan to
use these goals and measures as the basis for the fiscal year 2002
performance and accountability report should help provide a more complete
picture of performance for decision makers and the District?s citizens. 5 U.
S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Agency Progress in
Linking Performance Plans With Budgets and Financial Statements, GAO- 02-
236 (Washington,

D. C.: Jan. 4, 2002).

Background The Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994 requires that the
mayor of the District of Columbia submit to Congress a statement of
measurable and objective performance goals for the significant activities of
the District government (i. e., the performance accountability plan). After
the end of the each fiscal year, the District is to report on its
performance (i. e., the performance accountability report). The District?s
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
performance accountability report and submit it not later than April 15 to
your committees.

Our June 2001 report on the District?s fiscal year 2000 performance
accountability report included recommendations that the District (1) settle
on a set of results- oriented goals that are more consistently reflected in
its performance planning, reporting, and accountability efforts, (2) provide
specific information in its performance reports for each goal that changed,
including a description of how, when, and why the change occurred, and (3)
adhere to the statutory requirement that all significant activities of the
District government be addressed in subsequent performance accountability
reports. 6 Our review had determined that the District?s fiscal year 2000
report was of limited usefulness because the District had introduced new
plans, goals, and measures throughout the year, the goals

and measures were in a state of flux due to these changes, and its report
did not cover significant activities, such as the District?s public schools,
an

6 P. L. 103- 373, Sec. 456 (2).

activity that accounted for more than 15 percent of the District?s budget.
In response, the District concurred with our findings and acknowledged that
additional work was needed to make the District?s performance management
system serve the needs of its citizens and Congress. The comments stated
that the District planned, for example, to consolidate its

goals and expand the coverage of its fiscal year 2001 report to more fully
comply with its mandated reporting requirements.

Objectives, Scope, and We examined the progress the District has made in
developing its

Methodology performance accountability report and identified areas where

improvements are needed. Specifically, the objectives of this report were to
examine (1) the extent to which the District?s performance accountability
report includes its significant activities, (2) how well the District
reports progress toward a consistent set of goals and explains any changes
in the goals, (3) the extent to which the report adheres to the statutory
requirements, and (4) areas for future improvement. To meet these
objectives, we reviewed and analyzed the information

presented in the District?s fiscal year 2001 performance accountability
report and interviewed key District officials.  To examine the extent to
which the District?s performance

accountability report included significant activities, we compared the
information in the 2001 performance and accountability report with budget
information on actual expenditures presented in the District?s budget. 7 
To determine how well the District reported progress toward a

consistent set of goals, we compared the report?s goals with those contained
in the District?s fiscal year 2002 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan which
served as the District?s 2001 performance plan and then reviewed any
changes.

 To determine the extent to which the report adhered to the statutory
requirements, we analyzed the information contained in the District?s report
in conjunction with the requirements contained in the Federal

7 Fiscal Year 2002 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Government of the
District of Columbia: June 4, 2001 and Fiscal Year 2003 Proposed Budget and
Financial Plan,

Government of the District of Columbia: Mar. 18, 2002.

Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994. We also reviewed the performance
contracts for the District?s cabinet- level officials.

 To identify areas for future improvement, we compared the fiscal year 2001
report with the District?s fiscal year 2000 and 1999 performance
accountability reports to identify baseline and trend information. We based
our analysis on the information developed from work addressing our other
objectives, recommendations from our June 8, 2001, report commenting on the
District?s fiscal year 2000 report, and our other

recent work related to performance management issues. We conducted our work
from December 2001 through April 2002 at the Office of the Mayor of the
District of Columbia, Washington, D. C., in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. In accordance with requirements
contained in P. L. 103- 373, 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 2001.

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, along
with our response. The written comments are reprinted in their

entirety in appendix III. The 2001 Report

The fiscal year 2001 performance accountability report includes most of
Included Most of the

the District?s significant activities, providing performance information for
66 District agencies that represent 83 percent of the District?s total
District?s Significant

expenditures of $5.9 billion during that year. The District included 26
Activities additional agencies in this year?s report, compared with 40 in
its prior report for fiscal year 2000. Appendix I lists the 66 agencies
included in the District?s 2001 performance accountability report, along
with the 2001

actual expenditures for each of these agencies. However, the absence of
goals and measures related to educational activities remains the most
significant gap. The District reports that it is continuing its efforts to
include performance information on its significant activities in its
performance accountability reports. For example, the 2001 performance
accountability report notes

that the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) did not include

performance goals or measures because they were in the early stages of a
long- term strategic planning process initiated by the newly installed
school board. DCPS accounted for about 14 percent of the District?s fiscal
year 2001 actual expenditures, and public charter schools, which also were
not included, accounted for another 2 percent of the District?s 2001
expenditures. The 2001 report states that in lieu of a formal performance
accountability report for DCPS, the District included a copy of the

Superintendent?s testimony before the Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia, Committee on Government Reform, U. S. House of Representatives.
The District acknowledged that the inclusion of this information does not
fully comply with the statutory requirement and set forth a plan to include
DCPS performance goals and measures in the fiscal year 2003 proposed budget
and financial plan that will serve as the basis for the DCPS performance
accountability report for fiscal year 2002. The 2001 report lists another 10
agencies that were not included, primarily, according to the report, because
they did not publish performance goals and measures in the fiscal year 2002
proposed budget. These 10 agencies accounted for about $330 million in
fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures, or about 6 percent of the District?s
total fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures. These agencies included the
Child and Family Services Agency, which was

under receivership until June 15, 2001 (with fiscal year 2001 actual
expenditures of $189 million) and public charter schools (with fiscal year
2001 expenditures of $137 million). Although it may not be appropriate to
include agency performance information in some cases, the performance
accountability report should provide a rationale for excluding them. For
example, Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, according to the deputy mayor,
have a wide range of agendas that cannot be captured in a single set of
meaningful measures. Table 3 lists these 10 agencies and their fiscal year
2001 actual expenditures. In addition to these 10 agencies, the District
also did not specifically include other areas constituting 11 percent of the
District?s fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures. 8 In view of the District?s
interest in tying resources to results, the District could further improve
its performance accountability 8 Because the District of Columbia Retirement
Board administers the Police Officers? and

Firefighters? Retirement System and the Teachers? Retirement Fund, District
officials contend that they were included in the fiscal year 2001
performance accountability report as part of the Board?s performance
measures. However, we found that there was no mention of the Police
Officers? and Firefighters? Retirement System or the Teachers? Retirement
Fund in the District?s fiscal year 2001 performance accountability report.

reports by linking these budget activities as appropriate to the agencies
that are responsible for these expenditures or provide a rationale for
exclusion. For example, the Department of Employment Services administers
the unemployment and disability funds (with fiscal year 2001 expenditures
totaling about $32 million). Similarly, the Office of the

Corporation Counsel administers the settlement and judgments fund, which was
set up to settle claims and lawsuits and pay judgments in tort cases entered
against the District (with fiscal year 2001 expenditures of about $26
million). Table 4 contains a list of these budget activities and

fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures. The District?s 2001 Plan

The goals in the fiscal year 2001 performance accountability report were and
Report Addressed consistent with the goals in the District?s 2001
performance plan. Using a consistent set of goals enhanced the
understandability of the report by a Consistent Set of demonstrating how
performance measured throughout the year Performance Goals

contributed toward achieving the District?s goals. The District also used
clear criteria for rating performance on a five- point scale and reported
that these ratings were included in the performance evaluations of cabinet
agency directors who had performance contracts with the mayor. In addition,
according to a District official, the District will be able to provide
information on any future changes made to its performance goals through

its new performance management database. The District has made substantial
progress in improving its performance planning and reporting efforts by
focusing on measuring progress toward achieving a consistent set of goals.
In our June 2001 review of the District?s 2000 performance accountability
report, we had raised concerns that the

District?s performance management process was in flux, with goals changing
continually throughout the year. Further, the District did not discuss the
reasons for these changes. This year, the goals were consistent

and the District provided some information about upcoming changes that could
be anticipated in fiscal year 2002 goals. In addition, according to the 2001
report, the District has developed a performance measures database to allow
it to document changes to individual goals and measures that are proposed in
the agencies? fiscal year 2003 budget submissions.

One of the District?s enhancements to its 2001 performance accountability
report was reporting on a five- point performance rating scale, as compared
to the three- point performance rating scale it used in its fiscal year 2000
report. The five- point scale was designed to be consistent with the rating
scale used in the District?s Performance Management Program, under which
management supervisory service, excepted service, and selected career
service personnel develop individual performance plans against which they
are evaluated at the end of the year. The five ratings are: (1) below
expectations, (2) needs improvement, (3) meets expectations,

(4) exceeds expectations, and (5) significantly exceeds expectations.
According to the fiscal year 2001 performance accountability report, this
scale was used to evaluate the performance of cabinet agency directors who
held performance contracts with the mayor. It stated that 60- percent of
each director?s performance rating was based on the agency- specific

goals included in the agency?s performance accountability report, with the
other 40- percent based on operational support requirements such as
responsiveness to customers, risk management, and local business
contracting. Our work has found that performance agreements can become an
increasingly vital part of overall efforts to improve programmatic
performance and better achieve results. 9 We found that the use of results-
oriented performance agreements:

 strengthened alignment of results- oriented goals with daily operations, 
fostered collaboration across organizational boundaries,  enhanced
opportunities to discuss and routinely use performance

information to make program improvements,  provided a results- oriented
basis for individual accountability, and  maintained continuity of program
goals during leadership transitions.

9 U. S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Emerging Benefits
From Selected Agencies? Use of Performance Agreements, GAO- 01- 115
(Washington, D. C.: Oct. 30, 2000).

The Report Generally The District?s fiscal year 2001 performance
accountability report reflected

Adhered to Statutory improvement in adhering to the statutory requirements
in the Federal

Payment Reauthorization Act. The District?s 2001 report was timely and
Requirements included information on the level of performance achieved for
most goals listed. It included the titles of the District management
employee most directly responsible for the achievement of each of the goals
and the title of that employee?s immediate supervisor, as required by the
statute. We also

found that the names and titles on the performance contracts of the cabinet
level officials we reviewed matched the names in the performance report as
the immediate supervisor for all of the goals. Although the report contains
information on certain court orders, the report could be improved by
providing clearer and more complete information on the steps the District
government has taken during the reporting year to comply with those orders
and by including updated information on the court orders applicable to the
District as required by the act.

The Report Identified The District identified the level of performance
achieved for most of the

Performance Levels goals in its 2001 report. The report contains a total of
214 performance Achieved toward Most of goals that are associated with the
66 agencies covered. Of these 214

the District?s Goals performance goals, 201 goals (or 94 percent) include
information on

whether or not the goal was achieved, and only 13 did not include
information on the level of performance.

As shown in table 1, the 13 goals that did not include the level of
performance were associated with eight agencies. For example, the District?s
State Education Office did not provide this information for four of its
seven goals because the reports and information needed to achieve the goals
had not been completed. Table 1: Instances in Which the District Has Not
Reported the Level of Performance

in its Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Accountability Report Number of goals
for which

the level of performance Agency

achieved is not shown

Office of Property Management 1 Board of Elections and Ethics 1 Office of
the Chief Financial Officer 1 Board of Real Property Assessments and Appeals
1

(Continued From Previous Page)

Number of goals for which the level of performance Agency

achieved is not shown

Office of the People?s Counsel 1 Citizen Complaint Review Board 3 Office of
the Chief Medical Examiner 1 State Education Office 4

Tot al 13

Source: GAO analysis.

Information the District Although the District?s 2001 performance
accountability report included

Included on Court Orders some information on certain court orders imposed
upon the District and

Has Limitations the status of its compliance with those orders, the act
calls for a statement of the status of any court orders applicable to the
District of Columbia government during the year and the steps taken by the
government to comply with such orders. The 2001 report contains information
on the same 12 court orders involving civil actions against the District
reported on

for fiscal years 1999 and 2000. Among these 12 orders are 2 orders that the
fiscal year 2001 report lists as no longer in effect in 2001. One of these
court orders involved a receivership that terminated in May 2000. The other
involved a maximum- security facility that closed at the end of January
2001. The 2001 report does not disclose whether or not any new

court orders were imposed on the District during fiscal year 2001. The
summaries that the District provides on the status of these court orders
could be more informative if they contained clearer and more complete
information on the steps taken by the District government to comply with the
court orders. For example, according to the District?s 2001 report, the case
Nikita Petties v. DC relates to DCPS transportation

services to special education students and the timely payment of tuition and
related services to schools and providers. The report?s summary on the
status of this case states: ?The School system has resumed most of the
transportation responsibilities previously performed by a private
contractor. A transportation Administrator with broad powers had been

appointed to coordinate compliance with Court orders. He has completed his
appointment and this position has been abolished.? This summary does not
provide a clear picture of what steps the school system is taking to comply
with the requirements resulting from this court order. The act, however,
calls for the District to report on the steps taken by the

government to comply with such orders.

Steps Are Needed to The District recognized in its 2001 performance and
accountability report

Improve Future that its performance management system is a work- in-
progress and stated

that there are several fronts on which improvements can be made. In the
Performance

spirit of building on the progress that the District has made in improving
its Accountability performance accountability reports over the last 2 years,
there are three

Reports key areas where we believe that improvements in future performance
accountability reports are needed. First, the District needs to be more
inclusive in reporting on court orders to more fully comply with the act?s

requirements. Second, as part of the District?s emphasis on expanding its
performance- based budgeting approach, the District needs to validate and
verify the performance data it relies on to measure performance and assess
progress, present this information in its performance accountability
reports, and describe its strategies to address any known data limitations.

Finally, the District needs to continue its efforts to include goals and
measures for its major activities, and it should include related expenditure
information to provide a more complete picture of the resources targeted

toward achieving an agency?s goals and therefore help to enhance
transparency and accountability. The District Should Be More Since this is
the third year that the District has had to develop performance

Inclusive in Reporting on and accountability reports, the District has had
sufficient time to determine Court Orders

how best to present information on the status of any court orders that are
applicable to the District of Columbia during the fiscal year and the steps
taken to comply with those orders. However, the District has continued to
report on the same 12 court orders for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001.

By limiting its presentation to the same 12 court orders, the District?s
current report does not provide assurance that the information in its
performance accountability report reflects court orders applicable during
the fiscal year. Court orders have an important effect on the District?s
performance, as reflected by the chief financial officer?s statement that
the

District?s ?unforeseen expenses are often driven by new legislative
imperatives, court- ordered mandates, and suits and settlements.? 10 As
another indication of their importance, 1 of the 11 general clauses in
performance contracts with agency directors addresses the directors?
responsiveness to court orders.

10 Testimony of Natwar M. Gandhi, Chief Financial Officer, Before the
Committee on Finance and Revenue, Council of the District of Columbia
(Washington, D. C.: Feb. 28, 2002).

To make future reports more useful, the District should include information
on the status of court orders it has not previously reported on as well as
those applicable during the fiscal year, including those that may have been

vacated during the fiscal year and the steps taken to comply with them. The
District should establish objective criteria for determining the types of
court orders for which it will provide specific compliance information for
future performance accountability reports, and it should consider ways to

provide summary information related to any other court orders. In
establishing objective criteria, the factors could include the cost, time,
and magnitude of effort involved in complying with a court order. If the
District government has not acted to comply with a court order it should
include an explanation as to why no action was taken. The District?s 2001
report contains a statement that ?Following the

publication of the FY 1999 Performance Accountability Report, GAO and the
District?s Office of Corporation Counsel agreed upon a list of 12 qualifying
orders that should be included in the District?s future Performance
Accountability Reports.? We did not intend to limit future reporting to only
the 12 court orders first reported by the District for fiscal year 1999. We
agreed on the list of 12 court orders because, at that time,

the District had difficulty identifying all the court orders as required by
statute. However, we believe that the District now has had time to develop
criteria and a system for ensuring that updated and accurate information on
the status of applicable court orders can be presented in its future
performance accountability reports. Therefore, we are recommending that

the mayor ensure that such steps are taken. The District Faces The District
has identified data collection standards as one of the areas it is
Challenges in Verifying and working to improve. As with federal agencies,
one of the biggest

Validating Its Performance challenges the District faces is developing
performance reports with Information

reliable information to assess whether goals are being met or how
performance can be improved. Data must be verified and validated to ensure
the performance measures used are complete, accurate, consistent, and of
sufficient quality to document performance and support decision making. Data
verification and validation are key steps in assessing whether the measures
are timely, reliable, and adequately represent actual performance. The
District?s performance and accountability reports

should include information obtained from verification and validation efforts
and should discuss strategies to address known data limitations.

As reported in our June 2001 report on the District?s fiscal year 2000
performance accountability report, the District had planned to issue
performance review guidelines by the end of the summer of 2001. These
guidelines were to be issued in response to an Inspector General?s finding

that the agencies did not maintain records and other supporting
documentation for the accomplishments they reported regarding the fiscal
year 2000 performance contracts. The District included information in its
fiscal year 2003 budget instructions regarding performance measures
emphasizing the importance of high quality data. Although not required for
agencies? budget submissions, the guidance called for every agency to
maintain, at a minimum, documentation on how it calculated each measure and
the data source for each measure. In its 2001 performance accountability
report, the District said it plans to

address the development of data collection standards. The District plans to
begin developing manuals to document how data for each performance measure
is collected, how the measure is calculated, and who is responsible for
collecting, analyzing, and reporting the data. A further step

the District can consider is ensuring that these data are independently
verified and validated. A District official acknowledged that validating and
verifying performance information is something the District would deal with
in the future. 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.
11

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

Decision makers must have reliable and timely performance and financial
information to ensure adequate accountability, manage for results, and make
timely and well- informed judgments. Data limitations should also be
documented and disclosed. Without reliable information on costs, for
example, decision makers cannot effectively control and reduce costs, assess
performance, and evaluate programs. Toward that end, the District must
ensure that its new financial management system is effectively implemented
to produce crucial financial information, such as the cost of services at
the program level, on a timely and reliable basis. 12 The District Should

Although the District has made progress in presenting program Enhance Its
Efforts to

performance goals and measures, the 2001 report did not contain goals and
Include Goals, Measures,

measures for all of its major activities and it did not include information
on and Related Expenditure

other areas that accounted for 11 percent of its annual expenditures. The
District could enhance the transparency and accountability of its reports by
Information

continuing its efforts to ensure that agencies establish goals and measures
that they will use to track performance during the year and by taking steps
to ensure that agencies responsible for other budget activities (as shown in
table 4) include these areas in their performance reports. The District did
not include, for example, goals and measures for DCPS, although it did
provide a copy of a testimony and stated that this was included, at least in
part, to address concerns we had raised in our June 2001 report that the
District?s fiscal year 2000 performance accountability report did not cover
DCPS. 13 The District also did not include another 10 agencies in its 2001
performance accountability report and indicated that it is taking steps to
include relevant goals and measures for some of these

agencies in the next year?s report. In addition to including goals and
measures for the District?s significant activities, the District should
consider including related expenditure information to help ensure
transparency and accountability. We found, for example, that the Department
of Employment Services administers the

unemployment and disability funds but this information was not linked in 12
U. S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia: Weaknesses in
Financial Management System Implementation, GAO- 01- 489 (Washington, D. C.:
April 30, 2001), and U. S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia:
Observations on Management Issues, GAO- 01- 743T (Washington, D. C.: May 16,
2001). 13 GAO- 01- 804.

the District?s 2001 performance accountability report. By linking
expenditures to agencies that are responsible for them, the District can
further improve its future performance accountability reports by providing a
more complete picture of performance.

Conclusions The District, like several federal agencies, has found that it
needed to change its performance goals- in some cases substantially- as it
learned

and gained experience during the early years of its performance measurement
efforts. The District has continued to make progress in implementing a more
results- oriented approach to management and accountability and issuing a
timely and more complete performance accountability report. As we have seen
with federal agencies, cultural transformations do not come quickly or
easily, and improvements in the

District?s performance management system are still underway. Despite the
important progress that has been made, opportunities exist for the District
to strengthen its efforts as it moves forward.

Recommendations In order to more fully comply with the Federal Payment
Reauthorization Act of 1994, which requires the District to provide 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 mayor should ensure that the District establish
objective criteria to determine the types of court orders for which it will
provide specific compliance information for future performance
accountability reports. In establishing objective criteria, the factors
could include the cost, time, and magnitude of effort involved in complying
with these court orders. If the District government has not acted to comply
with

the court orders it should include an explanation as to why no action was
taken. In addition, the District should provide summary information related
to other applicable court orders in its performance accountability reports.

The Mayor of the District of Columbia should also ensure that future
performance accountability reports  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

 include goals and performance measures for the District?s significant
activities and link related expenditure information to help ensure
transparency and accountability.

Agency Comments and On April 2, 2002, we provided a draft of our report to
the mayor of the

Our Evaluation District of Columbia for his review. In response to our
request, the deputy

mayor/ city administrator met with us on April 4 to discuss the draft and
provided us with written comments on April 8. His written comments appear in
appendix III.

Overall, the deputy mayor stated that he agreed with the findings of the
report and concurred with the report?s recommendations. He stated that clear
and meaningful performance reports are essential to communicate

the extent to which the District has or has not met its goals and
commitments to make those improvements. Further, he stated that the findings
and recommendations in this report were consistent with the District
government?s intent of further improving its public reporting.

The deputy mayor stated that the District would adopt our recommendation to
develop objective criteria to determine the types of court orders for which
it will provide specific compliance information for future performance
accountability reports. Our recommendation also stated that the District
should more fully comply with the statute by reporting information on the
steps taken by the District government to comply with these orders. The
deputy mayor said that they would provide such additional information
although he stated that the statute does not

specifically require that this information be provided. However, the Federal
Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994 (P. L. 103- 373) section 456( b)( C)
requires that the District?s performance accountability report contain ?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.? We encourage the District
government to comply with this requirement and concur with its comment that
providing this information would make the report more informative

and useful to Congress and the general public. The deputy mayor also
concurred with our recommendation that the District?s future performance
reports include information on the extent to which its performance data have
been validated and verified. The deputy mayor said that seven District
agencies participating in the District?s performance based budgeting pilot
would be developing data collection

manuals this summer. We encourage the District to proceed with this effort
as well as to develop and report on strategies for addressing limitations in
its data collections efforts. We have suggested in prior reports that when
federal agencies have low quality or unavailable performance data, they
should discuss how they plan to deal with such limitations in their
performance plans and reports. Assessments of data quality do not lead to
improved data for accountability and program management unless steps are
taken to respond to the data limitations that are identified. In addition,

alerting decisionmakers and stakeholders to significant data limitations
allows them to judge the data?s credibility for their intended use and to
use the data in appropriate ways. Regarding the independent verification of
performance data, the deputy

mayor stated that the District's ability to secure independent verification
of more than selected goals and measures is limited by the resources
available to the District's Office of the Inspector General (OIG). He said
that the OIG conducted spot- check audits of selected scorecard goals in the
fiscal year 2000 performance accountability report and although these
limited audits allowed the District to determine the validity of only those
particular measures, this effort provided valuable observations and
suggestions on

how District agencies could improve its data collection practices. He also
said that his office has discussed initiating additional spot- check audits
of selected goals and measures with the OIG during fiscal year 2002. We
agree that such spot checks would be useful. The knowledge that the OIG will
be spot- checking some performance data during each fiscal year provides a
good incentive to develop and use accurate, high- quality data. In our prior
work, we have encouraged federal agencies to use a variety of strategies to
verify and validate their performance information, depending upon the

unique characteristics of their programs, stakeholder concerns, performance
measures, and data resources. 14 In addition to relying on inspector general
assessments of data systems and performance measures, the District can use
feedback from data users and external stakeholders to help ensure that
measures are valid for their intended use. Other approaches can include
taking steps to comply with quality standards

established by professional organizations and/ or using technical or peer
review panels to ensure that performance data meet quality specifications.
The District can also test the accuracy of its performance data by

14 U. S. General Accounting Office, Performance Plans: Selected Approaches
for Verification and Validation of Agency Performance Information, GAO/ GGD-
99- 139 (Washington, D. C.: July 30, 1999).

comparing it with other sources of similar data, such as data obtained from
external studies, prior research, and program evaluations.

The deputy mayor said that the District would be making efforts to include
additional agencies and budget activities in future performance reports. We
encourage the District to proceed with these efforts. Of the 10 agencies
that were not included in the fiscal year 2001 performance report, the
District has already included 3 agencies (the Office of Asian and Pacific

Islander Affairs, the Child and Family Services Agency, and the Office of
Veteran Affairs) in its fiscal year 2002 performance plan issued in March
2002. In addition, the deputy mayor stated that three additional agencies
(the Office of the Secretary, the Housing Finance Agency, and the National
Capital Revitalization Corporation) would be included in the District?s
consensus budget to be submitted to the Council of the District of Columbia
in June 2002.

With regard to the budget activities that were not included in the
District?s fiscal year 2001 performance report, the deputy mayor agreed that
it would be appropriate to develop performance measures for six funds, such
as settlements and judgments and administration of the disability
compensation fund. The deputy mayor acknowledged that establishing
performance measures for administering an additional six funds, such as

the Public Benefit Corporation, would have been appropriate but they no
longer exist. The deputy mayor said that the District of Columbia Retirement
Board manages two funds that had relevant performance measures in the
District?s 2001 report. We noted, however, that these two retirement funds
were not specifically identified in the 2001 performance accountability
report.

We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Anthony A. Williams,
Mayor of the District of Columbia. We will make copies available to others
upon request.

Key contributors to this report were Katherine Cunningham, Steven Lozano,
Sylvia Shanks, and Susan Ragland. Please contact me or Ms. Ragland on (202)
512- 6806 if you have any questions on the material in this report.

Patricia A. Dalton Director, Strategic Issues

List of Congressional Subcommittees

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 Richard J. Durbin Chairman The Honorable George V. 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 Joe Knollenberg Chairman The Honorable Chaka Fattah Ranking
Minority Member Subcommittee on the District of Columbia Committee on
Appropriations U. S. House of Representatives

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

Appendi xes Expenditures by Agencies Included in the District?s Fiscal Year
2001 Performance

Appendi x I

Accountability Report The District?s fiscal year 2001 performance
accountability report included 66 agencies accounting for 83 percent of the
District?s operating budget for fiscal year 2001. Table 2 lists these
agencies and their fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures.

Table 2: Actual Expenditure Totals by Agencies Included in the District?s
Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Accountability Report Fiscal year 2001 actual
expenditures Agency

(in thousands)

1. D. C. Council $14, 140 2. D. C. Auditor 1, 274 3. Office of the Mayor 7,
229 4. Citywide Call Center 1, 420 5. Office of the City Administrator 16,
561 6. Office of Personnel 10, 831 7. Human Resources Development 3, 673 8.
Office of Finance and Resource Management 147, 456 9. Office of Contracting
and Procurement 12, 836 10. Office of Chief Technology Officer 23, 189 11.
Office of Property Management 59, 513 12. Contract Appeals Board 738 13.
Board of Elections and Ethics 3, 266 14. Office of Campaign Finance 1, 260
15. Public Employee Relations Board 586 16. Office of Employee Appeals 1,
400 17. Office of the Corporation Counsel 48,987 18. Office of the Inspector
General 11, 652 19. Office of the Chief Financial Officer 91, 634 20.
Business Services and Economic Development 22, 703 21. Office of Zoning 1,
813 22. Department of Housing and Community Development 53, 900 23.
Department of Employment Services 67, 658 24. Board of Appeals and Review
240 25. Board of Real Property Assessments and Appeals 283 26. Department of
Consumer and Regulatory Affairs 25, 487 27. Alcoholic Beverage Regulation
Administration a 0 28. Department of Banking and Financial Institutions
2,251

(Continued From Previous Page)

Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures Agency

(in thousands)

29. Public Service Commission 6, 093 30. Office of the People?s Counsel 3,
052 31. Department of Insurance and Securities Regulation 7, 518 32. Office
of Cable Television and Telecommunications 8, 190 33. Metropolitan Police
Department 325, 582 34. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department 129,
392 35. Department of Corrections 213, 452 36. D. C. National Guard 2, 044
37. D. C. Emergency Management Agency 9, 806 38. Commission on Judicial
Disabilities and Tenure 165 39. Judicial Nomination Commission 84 40.
Citizen Complaint Review Board 1, 117 41. Advisory Commission on Sentencing
392 42. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner 4, 457 43. State Education
Office (includes D. C. Resident Tuition

37, 410 Support) 44. University of the District of Columbia 46, 933

45. Public Library 27, 229 46. Commission on the Arts and Humanities 2,700
47. Department of Human Services 390, 775 48. Department of Health 1, 112,
948 49. Department of Parks and Recreation 38,577 50. Office on Aging 19,
944 51. Office of Human Rights 1, 237 52. Office on Latino Affairs 3, 035
53. D. C. Energy Office 11, 035 54. Department of Public Works (includes
School Transit

116, 667 Subsidy and Transportation) 55. Department of Motor Vehicles 27,
204

56. Taxicab Commission 770 57. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Commission 82 58. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 163, 073
59. Department of Mental Health 289, 293 60. Water and Sewer Authority 205,
803 61. Washington Aqueduct b 0 62. D. C. Lottery and Charitable Games
Control Board 227, 089

(Continued From Previous Page)

Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures Agency

(in thousands)

63. D. C. Sports and Entertainment Commission 3, 330 64. District of
Columbia Retirement Board 6, 748 65. D. C. Public Schools 860, 024 66.
Washington Convention Center Authority 24, 874

Tot al 4,960, 104

a This is a new independent agency that had been part of the Department of
Consumer and Regulatory Affairs in fiscal year 2001. b The Washington
Aqueduct is a division of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and is
considered a federal entity. Congress authorizes funding for the aqueduct
but the agency submits its budget to the District.

Source: Fiscal Year 2003 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Government of
the District of Columbia: March 18, 2002 and District of Columbia?s FY 2001
Performance Accountability Report, Government of the District of Columbia:
March 2002.

Agencies and Budget Activities Not Included in the District?s Fiscal Year
2001 Performance

Appendi x II

Accountability Report The District?s fiscal year 2001 performance
accountability report did not include 10 District agencies primarily because
they did not publish performance goals in the District?s 2001 performance
plan. Table 3 lists these agencies and their fiscal year 2001 actual
expenditures.

Table 3: Ten Agencies the District Reported That It Did Not Include in Its
Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Accountability Report and Related Expenditures
Fiscal year 2001 actual Agency expenditures (in thousands)

1. Office of Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs a 0 2. National Capital
Revitalization Corporation a 0 3. Office of Veterans Affairs a 0 4. Housing
Finance Agency b 0 5. Metropolitan Washington Council of 367 Governments
(COG) c 6. Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANC) c 593

7. Storm Water d 326 8. Office of the Secretary 2, 352 9. Public Charter
Schools 136, 867 10. Child and Family Services Agency 189, 858

Tot al 330, 363

a This is a new office so it did not expend funds in fiscal year 2001. b The
Housing Finance Agency is funded through the issuance of bonds, fees, earned
income, and grants, and had no general fund expenditures in fiscal year
2001. c These agencies may not be included in subsequent performance
accountability reports because, according to the Deputy Mayor (1) the COG
should be excluded because this involves membership

payments to a regional organization, and (2) the ANC has a wide range of
agendas that cannot be captured in a single set of meaningful measures. d
According to the Deputy Mayor, storm water expenditures should be included
in Water and Sewer

Authority performance goals and measures. Source: Fiscal Year 2003 Proposed
Budget and Financial Plan, Government of the District of Columbia: March 18,
2002 and District of Columbia?s FY 2001 Performance Accountability Report,

Government of the District of Columbia: March 2002.

In addition to these 10 agencies, we identified several budget activities-
accounting for 11 percent of the District?s total fiscal year 2001 actual
expenditures- that were not included in the fiscal year 2001 performance
accountability report. Table 4 lists these activities and related fiscal
year 2001 actual expenditures.

Table 4: Additional Budget Activities Not Included in the District?s Fiscal
Year 2001 Performance Accountability Report and Related Expenditure Levels

Fiscal year 2001 actual Budget activity expenditures (in thousands)

Settlements and Judgments $ 25, 881 Unemployment Compensation Fund 3,838
Disability Compensation Fund 27, 805 Children and Youth Investment Fund 5,
000 Brownfield Remediation 983 Incentives for Adoption of Children 57 Police
Officers? and Firefighters? Retirement 49, 000 System a Teachers? Retirement
Fund a 200

Wilson Building a 9,897 Inaugural Expenses 5, 755 Repayment of General Fund
Deficit 38,366 Repayment of Loans and Interest 228, 364 Certificates of
Participation 7, 929 Section 103 Payment 11, 000 PBC Transition b 91, 599
Public Benefit Corporation b 92, 731 Public Benefit Corporation Subsidy b
45, 313 Corrections Medical Receiver b 10, 820 Correctional Industries b
1,908 D. C. Financial Authority b 3,140

Tot al $659, 586

a According to the deputy mayor, these three budget activities are managed
by agencies that have relevant performance measures. There is no specific
mention of these activities, however, in the District?s 2001 performance
accountability report. b According to the deputy mayor, these funds are no
longer in existence.

Source: Fiscal Year 2003 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Government of
the District of Columbia: March 18, 2002.

Comments from the Government of the

Appendi x II I District of Columbia

Note: This is table 4 on page 26 of this report.

450109

GAO?s Mission The General Accounting Office, the 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 is through the Internet. GAO?s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains
abstracts and full- text files of GAO Reports and

current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products.
The Testimony Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
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 daily E- mail alert for newly released products? under
the GAO Reports 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: Waste, and Abuse in

Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm 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

a

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Page i GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Contents

Contents

Page ii GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 1 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report United States
General Accounting Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 1 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance
Report

A

Page 2 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 3 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 4 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 5 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 6 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 7 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 8 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 9 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 10 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 11 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 12 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 13 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 14 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 15 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 16 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 17 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 18 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 19 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 20 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 21 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 22 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Appendix I

Appendix I Expenditures by Agencies Included in the District?s Fiscal Year
2001 Performance Accountability Report

Page 23 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Appendix I Expenditures by Agencies Included in the District?s Fiscal Year
2001 Performance Accountability Report

Page 24 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 25 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Appendix II

Appendix II Agencies and Budget Activities Not Included in the District?s
Fiscal Year 2001 Performance

Accountability Report Page 26 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance
Report

Page 27 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Appendix III

Appendix III Comments from the Government of the District of Columbia

Page 28 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Appendix III Comments from the Government of the District of Columbia

Page 29 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Appendix III Comments from the Government of the District of Columbia

Page 30 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Appendix III Comments from the Government of the District of Columbia

Page 31 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report

Appendix III Comments from the Government of the District of Columbia

Page 32 GAO- 02- 588 District of Columbia Performance Report
*** End of document. ***