District of Columbia: Performance Report Shows Continued Progress
(15-MAY-03, GAO-03-693).					 
                                                                 
The Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-373)
requires the District of Columbia to submit to the Congress a	 
performance accountability plan with goals for the upcoming year,
and after the end of the fiscal year, a performance		 
accountability report on the extent to which the District	 
achieved the goals in the plan. The 1994 act further requires	 
that GAO review and evaluate the District's performance 	 
accountability report.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-693 					        
    ACCNO:   A06896						        
  TITLE:     District of Columbia: Performance Report Shows Continued 
Progress							 
     DATE:   05/15/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Accountability					 
	     Congressional oversight				 
	     Financial management				 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     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-03-693

                                       A

Activities Not Included in the Fiscal Year 2002

Appendi x II

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

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

Table 4: Budget Activities Not Included in the District of Columbia Fiscal
Year 2002 Performance Accountability Report Fiscal year 2002 actual
expenditures Agency/ fund (in thousands)

Agency 1. District of Columbia Public Charter Schools $97, 625 2. Council
of the District of Columbia a 13, 152 3. Advisory Neighborhood Commissions
(ANC) b 521 4. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) b 367
Fund 5. Storm Water c 988 6. Settlements and Judgments Fund d 31, 360 7.
Unemployment Compensation Fund d 9,182 8. Disability Compensation Fund d
27, 701 9. Children and Youth Investment Fund d 5,831 10. Incentives for
the Adoption of Children d 904 11. Brownfield Remediation d 198 12. Police
Officers* and Firefighters* Retirement System e 74, 600 13. Repayment of
Loans and Interest f 233, 251 14. Repayment of General Fund Deficit f 38,
931 15. Certificates of Participation f 7,924 16. Wilson Building g 5,945
17. PBC Transition 17, 312

Tot al $565, 792

Source: District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Accountability
Report, and U. S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia:
Performance Report Reflects Progress and Opportunities for Improvement,
GAO- 02- 588.

a The council is not under the authority of Office of the City
Administrator. b The District does not plan to develop goals and measures
for the ANCs or COG. The ANCs have a wide range of agendas that cannot be
captured in a single set of meaningful measures, and COG is a regional
organization to which the District makes a membership payment. c Last
year, the District noted that the Storm Water fund is managed by the Water
and Sewer Authority

(WASA), and performance measures for WASA should capture activities
relevant to the fund. d Last year, in response to a GAO recommendation,
the District agreed that it would be appropriate to develop goals and
measures for these funds, but they are not included in the fiscal year
2002 report. e Last year, the District noted that the Police Officers* and
Firefighters* Retirement System is managed by the District of Columbia
Retirement Board, and performance measures for the board should capture
activities relevant to the retirement system. f Last year, the District
stated that goals and measures are not appropriate for financing funds of
this

type. g Last year, the District noted that the Wilson Building fund was
managed by the Office of Property

Management, and performance measures for that office should capture
activities relevant to the fund.

Appendi x III

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

Phase I: Fiscal year 2003 (7 agencies)

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

Phase II: Fiscal year 2004 (27 agencies)

Government Operations

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

Economic Development/ Public Works

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

Public Safety

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

Health and Human Services

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

Education and Employment

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

Appendi x IV Comments from the District of Columbia

Related GAO Products

Performance Budgeting: Current Developments and Future Prospects.

GAO- 03- 595T. Washington, D. C.: April 1, 2003.

Performance Budgeting: Opportunities and Challenges. GAO- 02- 1106T.
Washington, D. C.: September 19, 2002. District of Columbia: Performance
Report Reflects Progress and

Opportunities for Improvement. GAO- 02- 588. Washington, D. C.: April 15,
2002.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(450199)

GAO*s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal
government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to good
government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity,
and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost is

through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext GAO Reports and

files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
Testimony

products. The 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
GAO Mailing Lists* under *Order GAO Products* heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to
a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061

To Report Fraud, Contact:

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

Report to Congressional Committees and Subcommittees

May 2003 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Performance Report Shows Continued Progress

GAO- 03- 693

Letter 1 Results in Brief 1 Background 3 Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology 5 The 2002 Performance Report Includes Goals and Performance

Achieved for Almost All of the District*s Significant Activities 6 The
Report Complied with the Other Statutory Requirements 9 The District Is
Implementing Initiatives to Improve Overall Performance Accountability 12

Peformance Reports Could Serve as a Tool for Identifying and Addressing
Management Challenges 15 Concluding Observations 18 Recommendations 19
District of Columbia Comments 20

Appendixes

Appendix I: Actual Expenditures for District Agencies Included in the
District*s Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Accountability Report 24

Appendix II: Activities Not Included in the Fiscal Year 2002 Performance
Accountability Report 27

Appendix III: Performance Based Budgeting Agencies 29

Appendix IV: Comments from the District of Columbia 31 Related GAO
Products 39 Tables Table 1: Special Purpose Funds to Consider Including in
the

Performance Plan and Performance Accountability Report 9 Table 2: Number
and Percentage of Goals Rated in Each Performance Category 16

Table 3: Actual Expenditures for District Agencies Included in the Fiscal
Year 2002 Performance Accountability Report 24 Table 4: Budget Activities
Not Included in the District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2002 Performance
Accountability Report 28

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

Letter

May 15, 2003 Congressional Committees and Subcommittees This is the fourth
consecutive year that we have reviewed the District of Columbia*s
Performance Accountability Report as mandated by law. 1 The law requires
the District of Columbia to submit to the Congress a performance
accountability plan with goals for the coming fiscal year, and after the
end of the fiscal year, a performance accountability report on the extent
to which the District achieved these goals. This requirement for the
District government to issue performance accountability plans and reports

is similar to the requirements for executive branch federal agencies under
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). 2 This report
focuses on the continued progress the District has made in performance
reporting. In addition, while not specifically required by the

mandate, it also identifies areas that the District and the Congress may
want to focus on to further develop performance management as a tool for
addressing some of the challenges facing our nation*s capital.
Specifically, the objectives of this report were to (1) examine the extent
to which the performance accountability report is in compliance with the
statutory requirements, (2) summarize some of the District*s related
performance management initiatives, and (3) identify areas for future
improvements.

Results in Brief The District has made substantial progress in its
performance accountability reports over the last 4 years, and the District
of Columbia

Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Accountability Report was a continued
improvement over both the 2001 and 2000 performance reports. The 2002
report provided a more comprehensive review of the District*s performance
than prior reports and generally complied with the statutory

reporting requirements. Specifically, the 2002 report included almost all
of the District government*s significant activities by covering 74
agencies* 6 more than last year* that represent about 90 percent of the
District*s total fiscal year 2002 expenditures of nearly $5.9 billion. In
addition, the 2002

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

report was on time, and reported on the level of performance achieved
toward almost all of the goals in the performance plan. As required, it
provided the titles of managers and their supervisors responsible for each
of the goals, and described the status of court orders based on selected
criteria.

The 2002 performance report covered more of the District*s significant
activities, including, for the first time, performance information for the
District of Columbia Public Schools and the Child and Family Services
Agency* representing approximately 15 percent and 4 percent of the fiscal
year*s total expenditures, respectively. It also included the status of
selected court orders based on criteria developed in response to a GAO
2002 recommendation that objective criteria were needed to determine the
types of court orders the District includes in the performance report. In
addition, the District has undertaken other initiatives, such as

implementing performance based budgeting, creating a performance
management council, and developing data collection standards, that could
assist in improving overall performance management. While the District
continues to make noteworthy progress in a more results- oriented approach
to performance management and accountability, there are some key areas
where improvements in performance reporting can be used in identifying and
addressing management challenges. First, while the District expanded its
coverage of significant activities by

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

purpose funds represented approximately $75 million, or 1.3 percent, of
the city*s total fiscal year 2002 expenditures.

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

that it consider including the costs of complying with court orders with
the areas that are monitored.

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

Finally, the District faces some significant management challenges, and
performance reporting is an important tool available for identifying and
addressing those challenges. While the District*s additional performance
management initiatives, such as implementing performance based budgeting
and creating a performance management council are important efforts that
can move the District toward the next level of performance management, the
District should also consider further analyzing and using the information
presented in its performance report. Using performance management as a
strategic planning tool requires analyzing performance data, using the
analysis to maintain a focus on outcomes, and providing information that
is complete and well- presented so that it is useful to managers and
decision makers. For example, the District could present a summary
analysis of key results for strategic goals to identify areas needing
further attention and an analysis of progress in meeting goals over time.
As

the District continues to work on data quality concerns and produces data
on a consistent set of goals over time, the District should also move
toward more comprehensive analysis of the data reported for use in
managing overall performance and achieving the city*s strategic goals. In
addition, as the District*s implementation of performance based budgeting
progresses, it should link performance goals and measures to related
expenditure information in the performance accountability report to
enhance transparency and accountability. Background The Federal Payment
Reauthorization Act of 1994 requires that the Mayor of the District of
Columbia submit to the Congress a statement of

measurable and objective performance goals for all the significant

activities of the District government (i. e., the performance
accountability plan). After the end of each fiscal year, the District is
to report on its performance (i. e., the performance accountability
report). The performance report is to include

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

 the title of the District of Columbia management employee most directly
responsible for the achievement of each goal and the title of the
employee*s immediate supervisor or superior, and  a statement of the
status of any court orders applicable to the

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

The law also requires that GAO, in consultation with the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, review and evaluate the District*s
performance accountability report and submit comments no later than

April 15 to your committees. 3 Last year, our report on the District*s
fiscal year 2001 performance accountability report found continued
progress was made from the prior year*s report. Specifically, it noted the
expansion of the activities covered by the report, and use of a consistent
set of performance goals allowing more effective progress reporting. While
acknowledging this progress, our report also included recommendations that
future performance accountability reports (1) more fully comply with the
requirement to report on court orders by establishing objective criteria
for determining which court orders to include and by providing more
information on the status and steps taken to comply with court orders, (2)
include information on the extent to which its performance measures and
data have been verified and validated and discuss strategies to address
known data limitations, and (3) include goals and performance measures for
more of the District*s significant activities and link related expenditure
information to help

ensure transparency and accountability. 3 This year, the deadline was
extended to May 15, 2003.

In response to our recommendations, the District agreed (1) to develop
criteria to determine which court orders should be included in the report,
and to provide more detail on specific actions it takes in response to
court

orders, (2) to develop data collection standards, and stated that it would
begin that process by developing data collection manuals for agencies in
the first phase of performance based budgeting and distributing guidelines
to all agencies, and (3) to expand its coverage of significant activities
by developing and reporting on goals and measures for several additional

agencies and selected special purpose funds in future years. Objectives,
Scope, and The objectives of this report were to (1) examine the extent to
which the Methodology

performance accountability report is in compliance with the statutory
requirements, (2) summarize some of the District*s related performance
management initiatives, and (3) identify areas for future improvements.

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

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

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

 To summarize some of the District*s performance management initiatives
and identify areas for future improvement, we reviewed prior years*
performance accountability reports and budget documents and 4 Government
of the District of Columbia, Fiscal Year 2003 Proposed Budget and
Financial

Plan, (Washington, D. C.: June 2002), and Fiscal Year 2004 Mayor*s
Proposed Budget and Financial Plan.

other relevant planning documents, such as the District*s Citywide
Strategic Plan and the Strategic Business Planning Resource Guide. We also
reviewed recommendations from our reports on previous year*s performance
accountability reports and our other recent work related to performance
management and the District of Columbia.

We conducted our work from March through May 2003 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. In accordance with
requirements contained in the law, we consulted with a representative of
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget concerning our

review. We did not verify the accuracy or reliability of the performance
data included in the District*s report, including information on the court
orders in effect for fiscal year 2002.

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

The 2002 Performance The fiscal year 2002 performance accountability
report includes almost all

Report Includes Goals of the District*s significant activities, providing
performance information

for 74 agencies representing about 90 percent of the District*s
expenditures and Performance

of nearly $5.9 billion for that year. However, the report does not include
Achieved for Almost

budget activities that amount to $565.8 million, or approximately 10 All
of the District*s percent, of the city*s expenditures. The law requires
that the performance accountability plan include measurable and objective
performance goals Significant Activities

for all of the significant activities of the District government, and that
the performance accountability report include a statement of the actual
level of performance achieved compared to each of the goals stated in the
plan. The report includes goals and measures for 6 agencies, including the
District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) and the Child and Family
Services Agency (CFSA), which were not included in the 2002 report, 5 and

it provides information on the level of performance achieved for 99
percent of the goals included in the performance plan. Among the
activities not included are the Public Charter Schools and selected
special purpose funds

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

Corporation.

that the District had agreed to include in future performance
accountability reports so that a more complete picture of significant
activities was provided.

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

The District Reported on the For the first time, the District*s 2002
report includes performance

District of Columbia Public information for goals and measures consistent
with the plan for the DCPS

Schools and the Child and and the CFSA. Last year, the District reported
that these two agencies had

Family Services Agency for not developed performance goals and measures
for the performance plan,

but that the District planned to include them in the 2002 performance the
First Time report. Together these agencies represented about 19 percent of
the city*s total 2002 expenditures.

Last year we stated that the absence of goals and measures related to
educational activities remained the most significant gap in the District*s
coverage of its activities. In fiscal year 2002, DCPS accounted for 15
percent of the District*s actual expenditures. While DCPS goals and

measures were included in the fiscal year 2002 performance report, five of
the seven goals for DCPS received no rating because DCPS did not set
fiscal year 2002 targets for those measures. The report notes that 2002
results for those measures will be used to establish a baseline to set
performance targets for fiscal year 2003. The inclusion of DCPS in the
fiscal year 2002 performance report is an important first step in closing
the gap on the District*s performance reporting on its educational
activities. In fiscal year 2002, CFSA comprised nearly 4 percent of the
District*s actual

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

plan. Last year, the District explained that CFSA was not included in the
2001 performance report because the agency was in the midst of negotiating
the transition from receivership, and the goals and measures that had
previously been developed were not consistent with the transition
requirements under negotiation. The District Reported

The District reported on a set of goals that is largely consistent with
the Performance Levels for

performance plan presented in the proposed fiscal year 2003 budget* Almost
All Goals

about 86 percent of the goals are consistent. The District also indicated
the level of performance achieved for 99 percent of the goals in the
report. The report contains performance information for 74 agencies with
290 goals among them. The level of performance achieved is specified for
all but 2 of the goals citywide, 6 an improvement over last year when the
level of performance achieved was omitted for 13 goals. In addition, the
District also has reported on many goals for 2 consecutive years, thus
making available performance information that could be used to analyze
progress

over time. Public Charter Schools and While all but about 10 percent of
the District*s expenditures are Special Purpose Funds Were

represented in the performance report, there are some additional areas
that Not Included in the 2002

the District should consider including in its performance plans and
reports. Report The District of Columbia Public Charter Schools and
several special purpose funds do not have goals and measures in the fiscal
year 2002 performance report. The Public Charter Schools represent
approximately 1.7 percent of the total fiscal year 2002 expenditures of
nearly $98 million. Last year, the District stated that it planned to
propose that the Public Charter Schools review the goals and measures
developed by DCPS and consider adopting similar measures, especially those
related to student performance. The District stated that it would seek to
provide performance data in the 2002 report to establish a baseline for
2003 and beyond. However, goals and measures for Public Charter Schools
were not

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

included in the performance report, and the report does not explain why
they are excluded.

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

Table 1: Special Purpose Funds to Consider Including in the Performance
Plan and Performance Accountability Report Fiscal year 2002 expenditures
(in

Funds thousands)

1. Settlements and Judgments $31, 360 2. Unemployment Compensation Fund 9,
182 3. Disability Compensation Fund 27, 701 4. Children and Youth
Investment Fund 5, 831 5. Brownfield Remediation 198 6. Incentives for
Adoption of Children 904

Tot al $75, 176

Source: GAO analysis of the District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2003 Proposed
Budget and Financial Plan and the District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2002
Performance Accountability Report.

The Report Complied Over the last 4 years, the District has made continued
improvements in

with the Other addressing the other statutory requirements of the law. The
District*s fiscal year 1999 performance accountability report contained
very little of the

Statutory information required by the statute, and the subsequent reports
have

Requirements shown continued and significant improvement in complying with
the

mandate. Specifically, the 2002 report was issued by March 1, as required,
and in addition to reporting on performance achieved on goals for almost
all of the District*s significant activities, it also includes the titles
of the District management employee most directly responsible for the
achievement of each of the goals as well as the title of that employee*s

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

Criteria for Court Orders The District has established criteria for
determining the types of court

Have Been Developed orders for which it will provide specific compliance
information in the

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

The Report Contains The District*s 2002 performance report contains
information on the status

Information on Selected of 10 court orders to the District of Columbia
that were in effect during the

Court Orders year. The District has been reporting on 9 of these cases
since 2000, and 1

new case, Nelson v. the District of Columbia, was added in fiscal year
2002 because it meets the new reporting criteria. Since the issuance of
the performance report, the District announced that the consolidated civil
actions of Campbell v. McGruder and Inmates v. Jackson, a case related to
environmental and safety conditions at the D. C. jail, has been
terminated. On March 25, the District announced that it had received the
court order

signed by the U. S. District Court judge terminating the case and ending
32 years of court oversight of the D. C. jail. According to the District,
a number of significant improvements initiated as a part of a 6- year $30
million capital improvement plan were major contributing factors to
finally ending court intervention in the daily operations of the facility.
And, because court supervision ended in three other court cases previously
included in the report, they were not included in the 2002 report.

Information on Progress in Although the 2002 performance report contains
updated information on

Complying with Court selected court orders, the report does not provide
complete information on Orders Is Incomplete

the progress made and steps the District government is taking to comply
with those orders. The law requires that the District*s report include a
statement of the status of any court orders applicable to the District
during the year and the steps taken by the government to comply with such
orders. Last year, we noted in our review of the District*s 2001
performance report that the summary information did not provide a clear
picture of what

steps are being taken to comply with the requirements of the court orders.
Although the 2002 report includes a brief update on the status of some of
the court orders, it lacks complete information in terms of reporting on
the progress made in complying with such orders. The District*s Chief
Financial Officer has noted, and our ongoing work on the District*s fiscal
issues has confirmed, that the District*s unforeseen expenses are often
driven by new legislative imperatives, court- ordered mandates, and suits
and settlements. For example, in our work on the District*s structural
fiscal issues, District officials reported that complying with court
orders for special education services has led to large increases in costs.
In view of the fiscal impact of these mandates, the progress made in
complying with court orders, and the costs incurred in complying are
important areas of reporting on the District*s performance.

Risk Tracking System for While not required by the law, the District
reported that the Office of the

Monitoring Court Orders City Administrator*s Office of Risk Management has
taken the initiative to Has Been Developed

develop a database to better monitor agency responsiveness to and
compliance with court orders as well as other findings against the
District. The Risk Tracking System tracks several areas related to meeting
the

requirements of the court orders, such as  identification of
implementation issues and plans,  implementation of and reporting on
accepted findings/

recommendations,  submission of complete court- ordered reports, and 
submission of a detailed exit strategy plan from court supervision. The
District implemented this centralized approach to monitoring agency
compliance with court orders to help the District emerge from existing

court orders sooner, improve the District*s relationship with the courts,
and forge working partnerships with the stakeholders and the advocates who
have historically resorted to legal remedies. The District Is

The 2002 performance report notes that the District*s performance
Implementing management system has improved but continues to be a work-
in- progress. It summarizes several areas in which initiatives to improve
performance

Initiatives to Improve accountability are under way. These initiatives
include the continued

Overall Performance implementation of performance based budgeting in
connection with the

Accountability citywide strategic plan, the creation of the Performance
Management Council, and the development of data collection standards to
improve the

availability, quality, and reliability of data used for performance
management. Although these initiatives are still in the implementation
phase, they are important efforts that could lead to overall improved
performance management and reporting in future years. Performance Based

Performance based budgeting links budgets to programs and activities and
Budgeting in the District

involves developing a new program budget structure encompassing programs,
activities, and services as opposed to an organizational budget structure.
The District*s implementation of performance based budgeting is aligned
with the city*s strategic planning process. The city*s strategic plan
defines five broad priority areas and identifies goals for each of these
areas. For each priority area, the plan also identifies the amount of
funding provided in fiscal year 2003. Agency strategic plans are linked to
these priority areas, and in the agencies implementing performance based
budgeting, the agency goals and key performance measures are also linked
with these priority areas. The Mayor*s proposed budget describes strategic

goals to be achieved by the agency over the next 2- 3 years and activities
and key initiatives by program within the agency. Each program includes a
budget, program activities, and related key initiatives and results
measures.

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

As part of the implementation process, each agency develops a strategic
business plan that includes both the agency strategic plan and an
operational plan for goals by defining activities, related services, and
performance measures. The agency strategic business plan includes more
detail on measures by describing outputs, demand, and efficiency, as well
as results for activities. The business plan also links the budget at the
program activity level. This linkage provides a more detailed level of
information than the city*s proposed budget, which aligns the budget at
the program level. In the process of developing the strategic business
plan, agencies refine their goals, link programs to goals, and develop
measures that are aligned to programs. This revised planning process may
result in changes in the presentation of goals and measures from prior
year performance plans and related

performance reports. For example, for agencies implementing performance
based budgeting in fiscal year 2003, we found that the goals and/ or
measures for some agencies have been consolidated, revised, or expanded
from those in the District*s fiscal year 2002 performance plan and the
performance report. The 2002 performance report notes that

performance based budgeting will initially lead to an increase in the
goals and measures that change from year- to- year as agencies develop
their strategic business plans. An additional component of performance
based budgeting is the ability to

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

Establishment of a In fiscal year 2002, the District formed a Performance
Management Council

Performance Management consisting of the Mayor*s cabinet agencies that are
primarily responsible

Council for developing and implementing the District*s performance
management

system. The council was formed as a way of engaging agencies in developing
the performance measurement and reporting process. While it is not
involved in developing or reviewing goals and measures, the council is
involved in developing guidelines and reviewing sample products used in

the performance planning and reporting process. The council also has been

working on issues of data quality and developing guidelines for the data
collection manual.

The District Is In the 2002 performance report, the District again
identified data collection

Implementing Data Quality standards as one of the areas it continues to
work to improve. During the

Standards summer of 2002, the District developed a preliminary template
for agencies

to document data collection. This template requires agencies to provide
information for each key result measure, including the data collection
methods, the formula used to calculate the results for measures, quality
assurance plans and procedures, limitations on the data, and
identification of the staff members responsible for data management. The
District is implementing data collection guidelines as agencies convert to

performance based budgeting. For fiscal year 2003, the 7 agencies that
converted to performance based budgeting will be compiling data collection
manuals for key result measures this summer. The District acknowledges
some concerns about data quality, and has

indicated that none of the data contained in the 2002 performance report
have been verified for accuracy or reliability. Improving data reliability
is critical to the credibility of the performance reports and should
become a top priority among the District*s initiatives to improve
accountability. While performance reports can be an important tool in
addressing management challenges, their usefulness is limited by concerns
about data quality. In order to apply information gathered in the
performance management process to develop plans, set realistic goals, and
assess whether goals are being met or how performance can be improved,
decision makers must be confident in the quality and credibility of the
data.

In our work on performance management at the federal level, we have noted
that success in performance based budgeting is not achieved by simply
providing data, but is based on the quality of the discussion, the
transparency of the information, and how it is used in the decision-
making process. Furthermore, if agency managers perceive that performance
data will be used to make resource allocation decisions, and data can also
help them make better use of resources, agencies may make greater
investments in improving their capacity to produce quality information.

Peformance Reports The District continues to face considerable management
challenges, and

Could Serve as a Tool performance reporting is one important tool
available to decision makers

to assist in identifying and addressing those challenges. Using for
Identifying and

performance management as a strategic planning tool requires balancing
Addressing

the need to set reasonable, achievable measures with the challenge of
Management setting longer- term strategic goals that will move the city to
an improved level of service in the future. This effort requires analyzing
performance Challenges data, using the analysis to maintain a focus on
outcomes, and providing information that is complete and well- presented
so that it is useful to managers and decision makers. Performance data can
have real value only if they are reliable and used to identify and analyze
the gap between an organization*s actual performance and its goals, thus
allowing managers to

review measures and related targets to identify areas that are most in
need of improvement. As a result, managers are in a better position to
revise measures to focus on results that may be better indicators of
achieving strategic goals. Additionally, for performance information to be
useful, it needs to be clearly presented and summarized to make it
accessible to a range of audiences, including program managers and
decision makers.

In this context, there are some areas in which additional analysis of the
measures, related targets, and data contained in the performance reports
may be useful to the District in planning and making decisions about
resource allocation as well as improving overall management in the future.
For example, the District could analyze ratings for measures to identify

areas needing further attention and analyze progress in meeting goals over
time. While the District does present some analysis for selected goals in
cabinet agencies, known as the *scorecard* goals, this only includes 3 to
5

goals each for 35 cabinet agencies, out of the total 290 goals in 74
agencies in the performance report. More complete performance reporting
provides information on programs and services as well as costs, either in
terms of unit costs or comprehensive program costs. Further, consideration
should be given to establishing more specific goals and measures for long-
standing management challenges. Analysis of Data Reported

The fiscal year 2002 performance report indicates that the District
achieved Could Be Useful in

most of the goals in the performance plan. The District determines the
Addressing Management

degree to which an agency achieves its goals on a six- point rating scale
as Issues

follows: (1) significantly exceeded expectations, (2) exceeded
expectations, (3) met expectations, (4) needs improvement, (5) below
expectations, and (6) no rating. The rating for each goal is determined by

averaging the results of the measures for that goal. Table 2 summarizes
our analysis of the information on the number of agencies with ratings in
each performance category, and the number and percentage of goals rated in
each category, as indicated in the 2002 performance report.

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

Number of Percentage of Rating category agencies goals goals

1. Significantly exceeded expectations 15 24 8 2. Exceeded expectations 40
89 31 3. Met expectations 56 111 38 4. Needs improvement 19 31 11 5. Below
expectations 4 4 1 6. No rating 11 29 10 7. Not rated a 2 21

Tot al N/ A b 290 100

Source: GAO analysis of data from the District of Columbia Fiscal Year
2002 Performance Accountability Report.

a Two goals were not rated in one of the six categories. b There are a
total of 74 agencies with multiple goals rated in the categories listed
above. Therefore, the total does not add to 74.

One level of analysis the District may want to consider is the progress
reported in meeting the goals of the city*s longer- range plans in
strategic areas. For example, our analysis shows that, of the 288 goals
evaluated, 224 goals, or 78 percent, were rated in the top three
categories. For these goals, it may be appropriate for the District to
review the impact of achieving the goals and whether the reported results
represent improved performance toward strategic priorities. A related area
for review may also be measures that receive no rating, or

measures for which ratings fall in the three categories below meets
expectations. Based on our analysis, nearly half of the agencies in the
report had ratings for goals that fell in the bottom three categories; 64

goals, or 22 percent, were determined as needing improvement, below
expectations, or received no rating. According to the report, a
determination of no rating was made when factors beyond an agency*s
control prevented the agency from meeting a goal or measuring performance.
A total of 29 goals received no rating, and the most frequent

reason indicated was lack of data. The explanations provided for the lack

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

The District agreed that additional analysis could be helpful and noted
that, in some cases, the information reported in the performance report is
already used to address management issues. For example, recurring changes
in an agency*s goals may indicate a lack of direction within the agency.
In other cases, although a target for a measure may have been met,

it may not have resulted in improvements in service delivery. For example,
focusing on achieving output measures for a goal, such as purchasing
additional ambulances, may not result in the desired outcome of improved
response time to emergencies. The performance report is also used in
evaluating the performance of city managers, and 60 percent of an agency
director*s rating is based on the agency*s strategic plan goals.

Ongoing Management In our work on the District of Columbia*s structural
fiscal issues, we have

Issues Facing the District found shortcomings in the District*s financial
and personnel management systems that have resulted in lost revenue or
unplanned expenditures.

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

7 For example, the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration received
no rating on its goal to increase the number of inspections and
investigations related to underage drinking because it did not enforce the
measure and did not capture data.

8 McKinsey & Company, Assessing the District of Columbia*s Financial
Position (Washington, D. C.: March 2002), and Carol O*Cleireacain and
Alice Rivlin, A Sound Fiscal Footing for the Nation*s Capital: A Federal
Responsibility (Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institution, October
2002).

that might entitle the city to more reimbursement from the federal
government.

While developing adequate financial and personnel management systems are
common challenges faced by government entities, these systems have been
identified as *material weaknesses* in audits of the District*s financial

statements. Although the 2002 performance report includes goals for the
Office of the Chief Financial Officer and DCPS that are related to
improving financial and payroll operations, these efforts could be more
clearly linked to results. Financial and personnel management are critical
areas in which performance plans and reports could be applied to set
expectations, monitor specific initiatives, and report on improvements in
systems.

Concluding The District has made steady progress over the past 4 years in

Observations implementing a more results- oriented approach to management
and

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

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

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

information, the performance reports could become more useful to the
District in addressing some of the city*s ongoing management challenges.
Performance plans could be developed to more clearly address specific
concerns, and analysis and presentation of data in the reports could help
to make them a more useful tool to evaluate progress and review and revise

goals and measures. As the District moves toward this next phase of
performance management, we recommend improvement in specific areas of the
performance reports. Recommendations In order to build on the progress the
District has made in improving its

performance accountability reports over the last few years, we believe
addressing data quality, and thereby improving the usefulness of the
performance reports, should become a top priority. The District should
continue its efforts to develop data collection standards and should
distribute guidelines to all city agencies. Data limitations should also
be documented and disclosed in the performance report. In addition, we
recommend that more information be included in future

reports in the following areas:  The District should work toward further
expanding its coverage to include goals and measures for all of its major
activities as well as

related expenditures. Specifically, the District should develop and report
on goals and measures for the Public Charter Schools and for selected
special purpose funds administered by the agencies to provide more
comprehensive information on activities. As the District*s implementation
of performance based budgeting progresses, it should

link performance goals and measures to related expenditure information in
the performance report to enhance transparency and accountability. The
District should consider including such information

for the 7 agencies that implemented performance based budgeting in the
fiscal year 2003 performance report.  Information on court orders could
be improved by reporting more

information on the steps taken to comply with court orders during the
year. Due to the substantial and often unexpected costs incurred in
complying with court orders, the District should also consider monitoring
these costs.

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

reported for goals and measures and presenting a summary analysis of the
data as part of the performance report could improve the usefulness of the
reports in managing overall performance and achieving the city*s strategic
goals. Where specific management challenges are identified, goals and
measures that are more clearly linked to outcomes addressing

these challenges might be considered. District of Columbia

On May 6, 2003, we provided a draft of our report to the Mayor of the
Comments

District of Columbia for his review. The Deputy Mayor met with us on May
7, 2003, to discuss the draft and provided us with written comments on May
9, 2003. His written comments are reprinted in appendix IV. The Deputy
Mayor agreed with the findings of the report and concurred with our
recommendations. He stated that our suggestions were consistent

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

 The District plans to implement the data collection standards manual
beginning with the 7 agencies in Phase I of the performance based
budgeting initiative and will complete the draft guidelines for these
agencies by fall 2003, and the draft guidelines will then be shared with

all other agencies. In addition, the District will include a discussion of
the status of the data collection manual project and a statement of the
limitations of the data for all agencies in the fiscal year 2003
performance report.

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

these funds as well. Furthermore, the District plans to link performance
and financial data as a result of implementing performance

based budgeting. The District plans to include selected financial data for
the 7 agencies in Phase I of performance based budgeting in the fiscal
year 2003 performance report.  The risk tracking system established to
monitor court orders should

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

 The District will provide additional data analysis and present selected
summary information in the fiscal year 2003 performance report. The
District will also describe how performance data are used in monitoring
and managing performance throughout the year. Finally, in light of the
fact that the performance report is largely in

compliance with the law, the Deputy Mayor thanked GAO for our suggestions
to move the performance report from a compliance report to a more useful
tool that could assist in improving performance management. Noting the
District*s limited staff and resources dedicated to performance management
due to budget constraints, he appreciated our offer to share information
from our related work on the District*s structural fiscal issues that
could assist in identifying jurisdictions that may be useful for
benchmarking the District*s performance. We are sending copies of this
report to the Honorable Anthony A. Williams,

Mayor of the District of Columbia. We will also make copies available to
others upon request. This report will also be available on GAO*s Web site
at http:// www. gao. gov. Key contributors to this report were Ann
CalvaresiBarr, Katharine Cunningham, and Amelia Shachoy. If you or your
staffs

have any questions concerning this report, please contact me or Ann
Calvaresi- Barr on (202) 512- 6806. Patricia A. Dalton

Director, Strategic Issues

List of Congressional Committees and Subcommittees

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

The Honorable George Voinovich Chairman The Honorable Richard Durbin
Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia

Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate

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

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

                                       A

Appendi xes Actual Expenditures for District Agencies Included in the
District*s Fiscal Year 2002

Appendi x I

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

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

expenditures Agency

(in thousands)

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

(Continued From Previous Page)

Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures Agency

(in thousands)

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

(Continued From Previous Page)

Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures Agency

(in thousands)

63. Taxicab Commission 957 64. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Commission 83 65. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 148, 493
66. Water and Sewer Authority 203, 027 67. Washington Aqueduct b 0 68. D.
C. Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board 212, 138 69. D. C. Sports
and Entertainment Commission 3,741 70. D. C. Retirement Board 7,168 71.
Housing Finance Agency b 0 72. National Capital Revitalization Corporation
b 0 73. Washington Convention Center Authority b 0 74. School Transit
Subsidy 2,894

Tot al $5,291, 746

Source: Fiscal Year 2003 District of Columbia Proposed Budget and
Financial Plan and District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2002 Performance
Accountability Report. a In fiscal year 2002, the Office of Planning, the
Office of Local Business Development, and the Office

of Motion Picture and Television Development were divisions of the Office
of Business Services and Development (BSED). In fiscal year 2003, BSED was
converted to the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic
Development and each of the three divisions became a separate agency. b
Actual expenditures for these entities are reported in separate financial
reports and are not included in

the District of Columbia*s expenditure reports.

a

GAO United States General Accounting Office

The District of Columbia has made substantial progress in its performance
accountability reports over the last 4 years. The 2002 Performance
Accountability Report provided a more comprehensive review of its
performance than prior reports and generally complied with the statutory
reporting requirements. The report included almost all of the District*s
significant activities by covering 74 agencies representing about 90
percent of the total fiscal year

2002 expenditures of nearly $5.9 billion. In addition, the 2002 report
included the level of performance achieved toward almost all of the goals
in the performance plan and was issued on time. As required, it provided
the titles of managers and their supervisors responsible for each of the
goals, and described the status of court orders based on selected
criteria. Specifically, it reported the following: Performance results for
six agencies that had not been reported on

last year, including the District of Columbia Public Schools and the Child
and Family Services Agency, which together amount to nearly 19 percent of
the city*s total 2002 expenditures. However, the report does not include
agencies and funds that amount to approximately 10 percent of the city*s
expenditures. Among the activities not included are the Public Charter
Schools, representing about 1.7 percent of the city*s expenditures, and
selected special purpose funds, representing about 1.3 percent of the
city*s expenditures. The status of selected court orders based on criteria
developed in response to a 2002 GAO recommendation. The District has also

developed a risk tracking system to monitor agency responsiveness to
compliance with court orders. Although the report contains updated
information for selected court orders, it does not provide complete
information on the progress made and steps taken to comply with court
orders.

The District has also undertaken initiatives, such as implementing
performance based budgeting, creating a performance management council,
and developing data collection standards, that could assist in improving
overall performance management. In addition, the District*s performance
reports could serve as a tool for identifying and addressing long-
standing management challenges. However, using performance management as a
strategic planning tool requires analyzing performance data, using the
analysis to maintain a focus on outcomes, and providing information that
is complete and well- presented so that it is useful to managers and
decision makers. In this context, there are some areas in which additional
analysis of the measures, related targets, and data contained in the
performance reports may be useful to the District in planning and making
decisions about resource allocation as well as improving management in the
future. The Federal Payment Reauthorization

Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103- 373) requires the District of Columbia to submit
to the Congress a performance accountability plan with goals for the
upcoming year, and after the end of the fiscal year, a performance

accountability report on the extent to which the District achieved the
goals in the plan. The 1994 act further requires that GAO review and
evaluate the District*s performance accountability report.

To improve the usefulness of the performance reports, the District agreed
with our recommendations to do the following:

(1) Prioritize the development of data collection standards and distribute
guidelines to all city agencies. Data limitations should also be
documented and disclosed in the

report. (2) Expand its coverage to include goals and measures for all of
its major activities as well as related

expenditures. (3) Include more complete information on the steps taken to
comply with court orders during the year. The District should also

consider monitoring the costs of complying with court orders. (4) Conduct
additional analysis of information captured in the reports to assist in
managing overall performance and achieving strategic goals.

www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 693. To view the full report,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Patricia Dalton at (202) 512- 6806 or daltonp@ gao.
gov. Highlights of GAO- 03- 693, a report to

congressional committees and subcommittees

May 2003

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Performance Report Shows Continued Progress

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

Contents

Contents

Page ii GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 1 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report United States
General Accounting Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 1 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia
Performance Report

A

Page 2 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 3 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 4 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 5 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 6 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 7 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 8 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 9 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 10 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 11 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 12 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 13 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 14 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 15 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 16 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 17 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 18 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 19 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 20 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 21 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Page 22 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

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

Page 24 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Appendix I

Appendix I Actual Expenditures for District Agencies Included in the
District*s Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Accountability Report

Page 25 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Appendix I Actual Expenditures for District Agencies Included in the
District*s Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Accountability Report

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

Page 27 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Appendix II

Appendix II Activities Not Included in the Fiscal Year 2002 Performance
Accountability Report

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

Page 29 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Appendix III

Appendix III Performance Based Budgeting Agencies

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

Page 31 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Appendix IV

Appendix IV Comments from the District of Columbia

Page 32 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Appendix IV Comments from the District of Columbia

Page 33 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Appendix IV Comments from the District of Columbia

Page 34 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Appendix IV Comments from the District of Columbia

Page 35 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Appendix IV Comments from the District of Columbia

Page 36 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Appendix IV Comments from the District of Columbia

Page 37 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

Appendix IV Comments from the District of Columbia

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

Page 39 GAO- 03- 693 District of Columbia Performance Report

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001
Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard Postage & Fees Paid

GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***