District of Columbia Government: Performance Report's Adherence to
Statutory Requirements (Letter Report, 04/14/2000, GAO/GGD-00-107).

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed whether the District
of Columbia's annual performance report contained all the information
required by law and, if not, why. This report transmits GAO's comments
on the Mayor's performance report for fiscal year (FY) 1999, which was
due on March 1, 2000, but was issued on March 7, 2000.

GAO noted that: (1) the Mayor's performance report does not contain the
following required information for any of the 542 agency goals that GAO
identified in the plan: (a) actual performance compared with two levels
of planned performance; and (b) titles of the management employee and
immediate supervisor most responsible for achieving each goal; (2) the
Mayor could not comply with the requirement to compare actual
performance with two levels of planned performance because the Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority's plan did not
provide the two levels; (3) however, for 82 of the 542 goals, the
Mayor's report does compare performance during the year with the one
level of planned performance described in the Authority's plan; (4) of
those 82 goals from the plan, the Mayor's report shows that 51 (62
percent) were met; (5) the report does not contain actual performance
data for the remaining 460 goals; (6) the report does not describe, as
required, the status of, or the steps taken to comply with, any of the
court orders pertaining to the 12 civil actions concerning activities of
the District government during FY 1999; (7) given the serious
performance problems facing the District when the Mayor took office in
January 1999, it is reasonable to expect that several cycles of planning
and reporting will be needed to achieve all of the benefits that
Congress envisioned when it passed this important law; and (8) the law's
general approach requiring the District government to establish
performance goals and then report on actual performance, if followed,
can provide the District government with a disciplined foundation for
improving its performance over time.

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

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-00-107
     TITLE:  District of Columbia Government: Performance Report's
	     Adherence to Statutory Requirements
      DATE:  04/14/2000
   SUBJECT:  Performance measures
	     Statutory law
	     Accountability
	     Strategic planning
	     Reporting requirements
	     Municipal governments
	     Noncompliance
	     Agency missions
IDENTIFIER:  District of Columbia

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.                 **
**                                                              **
** 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

United States General Accounting Office
GAO

Report to Congressional Committees and

Subcommittees

April 2000

GAO/GGD-00-107

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT
Performance Report's Adherence to Statutory

Requirements

Ordering Copies of GAO Reports
The first copy of each GAO report and testimony
is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders
should be sent to the following address,
accompanied by a check or money order made out
to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to
be mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent.
Order by mail:
U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013
or visit:
Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-
6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available
reports and testimony. To receive facsimile
copies of the daily list or any list from the
past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touch-tone phone. A recorded menu will provide
information on how to obtain these lists.
Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet
For information on how to access GAO reports on
the INTERNET, send e-mail message with "info" in
the body to:
[email protected]
or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov

Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs
To contact GAO FraudNET use:
Web site:
http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-Mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering
system)

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

                    Bulk Rate
               Postage & Fees Paid
                       GAO
                 Permit No. G100

(410466)

Contents
Page 221GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports
Letter                                                                      1
                                                                             
Appendix I                                                                 24
Comments From the D.C.
Financial Responsibility
and Management
Assistance Authority
                                                                             
Appendix II                                                                26
Comments From the
Executive Office of the
D.C. Government
                                                                             
Tables                     Table 1: Performance Goals by Agency             7
                           Table 2: Court Orders in Effect During          11
                           FY 1999
                                                                             

B-284519

Page 2GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Rep
orts
B-284519

April 14, 2000

Congressional Committees

After holding hearings on the District of Columbia
government's performance in serving its residents,
Congress enacted a law in 1994 that was intended
to provide a disciplined approach to improving the
District's performance. This law, which was
amended in 1997, requires the Mayor to issue no
later than March 1 of each year (a) a performance
accountability plan with goals for the next fiscal
year and (b) a performance accountability report
on the performance achieved the previous fiscal
year compared to the planned performance in that
year's plan.1

Under the law as amended, the first performance
accountability plan was required no later than
March 1, 1998; and the first performance
accountability report was required no later than
March 1, 1999. However, for reasons explained
below, the District government's first performance
report based on a performance plan was not issued
until March 2000.

Although it was originally contemplated that the
Mayor would have both planning and reporting
responsibility, Congress transferred this
responsibility in 1997 to the Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority.2 The Authority issued the fiscal year
1999 plan on September 30, 1998-7 months later
than the March 1 date required by the law as
amended.

In November 1999, Congress returned this planning
and reporting responsibility to the Mayor.3
However, because of the 1997 temporary transfer,
the Mayor's performance report for fiscal year
1999 was required to be based on goals that the
Authority-not the Mayor-had established. Rather
than report on all of the Authority's goals, the
Mayor chose to focus his report mainly on short-
term goals that he had established after taking
office in January 1999.

Under the law as amended, each report for a fiscal
year is to include the following:

ï¿½    for each goal contained in the performance
accountability plan for the year, a statement of
the actual level of performance achieved compared
to the stated goal for an acceptable level of
performance and the goal for a superior level of
performance;
ï¿½    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
ï¿½    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 requires us to evaluate each of the annual
performance reports and provide comments to your
Committees no later than April 15. Our evaluation
focused on whether the report contains all of the
information required by law and, if not, why. This
report transmits our comments on the Mayor's
performance report for fiscal year 1999, which was
due on March 1, 2000, but was issued on March 7,
2000.

Results in Brief
The Mayor's performance report does not contain
the following required information for any of the
542 agency goals that we identified in the plan:
(1) actual performance compared with two levels of
planned performance, and (2) titles of the
management employee and immediate supervisor most
responsible for achieving each goal.

The Mayor could not comply with the requirement to
compare actual performance with two levels of
planned performance because the Authority's plan
did not provide the two levels. However, for 82 of
the 542 goals, the Mayor's report does compare
performance during the year with the one level of
planned performance described in the Authority's
plan. Of those 82 goals from the plan, the Mayor's
report shows that 51 (62 percent) were met. The
report does not contain actual performance data
for the remaining 460 goals.

Finally, the report does not describe, as
required, the status of, or the steps taken to
comply with, any of the court orders pertaining to
the 12 civil actions concerning activities of the
District government during fiscal year 1999.

Given the serious performance problems facing the
District when the Mayor took office in January
1999, it is reasonable to expect that several
cycles of planning and reporting will be needed to
achieve all of the benefits that Congress
envisioned when it passed this important law. The
law's general approach requiring the District
government to establish performance goals and then
report on actual performance, if followed, can
provide the District government with a disciplined
foundation for improving its performance over
time. We have endorsed this general approach in
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(GPRA), which applies to federal executive branch
agencies.

We make recommendations to the Mayor to help
ensure that future performance plans and reports
comply with the law.

Background
Hearings held in 1994 showed the District
government faced serious financial and management
challenges. For example, the District's
corrections facilities and the juvenile
rehabilitation, child welfare, and mental health
systems were all subject to court orders. Courts
had imposed millions of dollars in fines for
noncompliance with the orders. School repairs were
estimated to cost over $500 million. Environmental
Protection Agency regulations would require
additional sewage facilities costing $350 million.
District officials estimated that other water and
sewer facilities would cost an additional $326
million.

In 1994, Congress passed legislation requiring the
Mayor to develop and submit to your Committees no
later than March 1 of each year, beginning in
1995, a performance accountability plan for all
departments, agencies, and programs of the
government for the subsequent fiscal year. The
legislation also required the Mayor to submit no
later than March 1 of each year, beginning in
1997, a performance accountability report on
activities of the government during the fiscal
year ending on the previous September 30. Congress
amended these provisions in 1997 to change the
date by which the first performance accountability
plan was due to no later than March 1, 1998, and
the date by which the first performance
accountability report was due to no later than
March 1, 1999. The first report that the District
government issued under this law that was based on
a performance plan was dated March 7, 2000 (for
fiscal year 1999).

The law requires each plan for a fiscal year to
include the following:

ï¿½    a statement of measurable, objective
performance goals established for all significant
activities of the District government during the
fiscal year that describes an acceptable level of
performance by the government and a superior level
of performance by the government;
ï¿½    a description of the performance measures,
including program outcome and results, to be used
in determining whether the government has met
these goals;
ï¿½    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
ï¿½    a description of the activities of the
District government that are subject to a court
order and the requirements placed on such
activities by the court order.

As discussed previously, the law requires each
report for a fiscal year to include the following:

ï¿½    for each goal contained in the performance
accountability plan for the year, a statement of
the actual level of performance achieved compared
to the stated goal for an acceptable level of
performance and the goal for a superior level of
performance;
ï¿½    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
ï¿½    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.

This law's general approach requiring the District
government to establish performance goals and then
report on actual performance is similar to the
approach in GPRA that we have endorsed. GPRA is
aimed at improving the performance of federal
government programs by requiring federal executive
branch agencies to clarify their missions,
establish goals and strategies for reaching them,
measure performance, and report on their
accomplishments. However, GPRA does not require
agencies to report the (1) titles of management
employees responsible for each goal, (2) two
levels of planned performance, or (3) status of
and actions taken to comply with court orders.

The Mayor faced serious challenges after taking
office in January 1999. For example, the Mayor's
1999 Year End Management Report refers to the need
for high-quality performance and accountability as
a tool to rebuild "a broken government-a workforce
rarely held accountable in a consistent manner, an
organizational culture resistant to change, a
government devastated by years of deferred
maintenance, and a lack of adequate technology."
In addition, the report cites an entrenched
bureaucracy and poor performance resulting from
years of mismanagement and neglect in the Mental
Retardation Developmental Disabilities
Administration.

The law requires us, in consultation with the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), to evaluate each of the annual performance
reports and provide comments to your Committees no
later than April 15. This report is our response
to that requirement.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
The overall objective of our review was to
determine if the Mayor's performance report for
fiscal year 1999 contained all of the information
required by law and, if not, why. Our specific
objectives were to determine if the report (1)
compared actual performance with the two levels of
planned performance for each goal in the plan, (2)
showed the titles of the District management
employee and supervisor responsible for each goal,
and (3) described the status of any court orders
that apply to the District government and the
steps taken to comply with those orders.

To determine if the report compared actual
performance with two levels of performance for
each goal in the plan, we first attempted to
identify the number of goals in the plan. However,
the plan did not clearly identify goals-in fact,
the word "goal" does not appear anywhere in the
Authority's plan. Therefore, we had to read the
different segments of the plan and use our
judgement to identify a list of 542 potential
goals for all agencies in the plan. We identified
as potential goals those parts of the plan labeled
as an "intended outcome," "planned
accomplishment," or "performance measure."

For the 17 agencies that the Mayor designated as
having a "high impact" on services provided to
residents, we asked officials at the Authority to
review our list and suggest any changes. The
Authority suggested minor word changes to clarify
a few of the goals (which we incorporated). We did
not ask the Authority to review any of the goals
for the over 40 agencies that were not high impact
because the Mayor's office told us that their
report would not contain performance data on most
of these agencies.

To determine if the report compared actual
performance with planned performance for the same
goals, we counted the goals in the report that
matched the 542 goals in the plan. For the 82
goals that matched, we determined whether the
report included performance data that indicated if
the goal was met or not met.

To determine if the report contained the titles of
the District management employee and supervisor
most directly responsible for each goal in the
plan, we reviewed the section of the report in
which each goal appeared.

To determine if the report contained a statement
of the status of court orders and any actions
taken to comply with those orders, we asked the
District's Office of the Corporation Counsel to
identify all court orders that applied to the
District government in fiscal year 1999. The
Corporation Counsel provided us with information
on 12 civil actions for which court orders were
issued concerning District government activities.
Then we compared this information with the report
to determine if the required information was
provided.

Because the law requires us to consult with the
Director of OMB on our review and evaluation of
the report, we discussed our methodology for
evaluating the report with OMB, and OMB officials
agreed with our approach. We also discussed
whether the report was in compliance with the law.

Because the law provides only a 45-day period for
us to complete and issue our review of the report,
and we were not able to review any information in
it before the report's public release a week into
this period, we did not verify the accuracy or
reliability of any of the performance data in the
Mayor's report. It should be noted that according
to the Mayor's report, the performance data in the
report were not audited.

We conducted our work between September 19994 and
March 2000 at the Office of the Mayor of the
District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., in
accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. We provided a draft of this
report to the Mayor of the District of Columbia
and the Chairperson of the Authority for review
and comment. Their comments are reflected in the
agency comments section of this report.

The Performance Report Does Not Contain Required
Information for Any Goal in the Plan
The fiscal year 1999 report does not compare
actual performance with two levels of planned
performance for any of the 542 goals in the plan
as required. The Mayor could not comply with this
requirement because the Authority's plan-issued
September 30, 1998-did not provide two levels of
planned performance for any of the plan goals.
However, for 82 of the 542 goals, the report does
compare performance during the year with the one
level of planned performance from the plan. Of
those 82 goals from the plan, the Mayor's report
shows that 51 (62 percent) were met. For example,
the plan contained a goal for the Department of
Human Services to increase by 10 percent the
number of children in childcare (from 6,000 to
6,600). The report indicated that this goal was
met, with 7,117 children in childcare. The report
does not contain actual performance data for the
remaining 460 goals. Performance goal information
is shown below for each of the District's agencies
discussed in the plan.

Table 1: Performance Goals by Agency
Agency             Number Number of goals  Number
                 of goals              in      of
                  in plan    report where   goals
                                   actual      in
                         performance data    plan
                          are compared to    that
                                      one    were
                                 level of     met
                                  planned
                              performance
Office of the        5           0           0
Mayor
Office of the        8           0           0
Chief Management
Officera
Office of the       14           0           0
Secretary
Board of Real        9           0           0
Property
Assessments and
Appeal
Office of Policy     3           0           0
and Evaluation
Board of Appeals     6           0           0
and Review
Office of Latino     4           0           0
Affairs
Commission on        7           0           0
Arts and
Humanities
Office of            3           0           0
Communications
Office of            3           0           0
Intergovernmenta
l Relations
Office of the       10           0           0
City
Administrator
Office of the        8           3           3
District of
Columbia Auditor
Office on Aging      4           0           0
Office of           14           0           0
Personnelb
Contract Appeals     5           2           2
Board
Department of        6           0           0
Property
Management
Office of            9           0           0
Finance and
Resource
Management
Office of            6           1           1
Campaign Finance
District of          5           2           1
Columbia Board
of Elections &
Ethics
Office of            5           3           1
Employee Appeals
Public Employees    11           4           3
Relations Board
Office of the        5           3           3
Inspector
General
Office of the       13           0           0
Chief Financial
Officer
Office of            5           0           0
Contracts and
Procurement
Office of the        6           3           3
Chief Technology
Officerc
Office of Local     11           3           2
Business
Development
Office of            9           0           0
Economic
Development
Office of           13           2           2
Planningc
Housing and          7           4           2
Community
Development
Office of Zoning     5           0           0
Department of       10           4           0
Employment
Services
Department of        7           3           3
Consumer &
Regulatory
Affairs
Office of Labor      6           0           0
Relations and
Collective
Bargaining
Office of            9           0           0
Banking and
Financial
Institutions
Metropolitan        10           2           2
Police
Department
Fire and            13           4           0
Emergency
Medical Services
Office of the       13           0           0
Corporation
Counsel
Department of       12           2           2
Correctionsc
District of          7           3           1
Columbia
National Guard
Office of           11           0           0
Emergency
Preparedness
D.C. Public         13           0           0
Schools
D.C. Public         11           0           0
Library
Public Charter       4           0           0
School Board
University of       12           0           0
the District of
Columbia
Department of       17           5           4
Human Services
Department of       14           0           0
Health
Department of        8           0           0
Recreation and
Parks
Department of       11           0           0
Human Rights
Department of       16           4           0
Public Works
DC Taxicab           7           3           1
Commission
Water and Sewer     18           8           6
Authority
Office of Cable     13           0           0
Television &
Telecommunicatio
ns
Public Service      13           5           1
Commission
Office of the        9           0           0
People's Counsel
D. C. Retirement     2           2           2
Board
D.C. Health and     13           0           0
Hospitals Public
Benefit
Corporation
Washington           9           0           0
Convention
Center Authority
D.C. Sports          9           3           2
Commission
Commission on       13           2           2
Mental Health
Servicesd
Child and Family    13           2           2
Services Agencyd
Total               542          82          51
aThis office no longer exists.
bThose agencies that the Mayor designated as
having a high impact on serving District residents
are shown in bold type. Only 16 agencies are in
bold type because the 17th agency (Department of
Motor Vehicles) was part of the Department of
Public Works when the plan was issued.
cAlthough the report excludes a table of
performance measures for this agency, the
narrative section of the report discusses and
provides data for some goals from the plan.
dThis agency is in receivership and under the
jurisdiction of the courts.
Source: GAO analysis of FY 1999 Performance
Accountability Plan and 1999 Year End Management
Report.

The report gives various reasons for not including
performance data for most of the goals in the
plan, such as (1) financial data were not
available until after the fiscal year 1999 audit,
(2) data were not tracked, (3) no response was
made to the Mayor's data request, and (4) new
office directors made significant revisions to the
1999 goals.

There are other reasons the Mayor's office gave
for the report's noncompliance with the law.
Although it was originally contemplated that the
Mayor would have both planning and reporting
responsibility, Congress enacted legislation that
transferred this responsibility in 1997 to the
Authority. The Authority issued the fiscal year
1999 plan on September 30, 1998-7 months later
than the March 1 date required by law.

In November 1999, Congress enacted legislation
that returned this planning and reporting
responsibility to the Mayor. However, because of
the 1997 temporary transfer, the Mayor's
performance report for fiscal year 1999 was
required to be based on goals that the
Authority-not the Mayor-had established. This was
an unusual-and temporary-separation of
responsibility for planning from reporting.

An official in the Mayor's office said that the
report would not discuss some goals from the
Authority's plan that were not at an appropriate
level of significance. Rather, the Mayor chose to
focus his report mainly on short-term goals that
he had established after taking office in January
1999, as well as some goals for some of the 17
District agencies that have a high impact on
services to residents. However, the report states
that the District government will expand
performance management to address all District
agencies that report directly to the Mayor.
Accordingly, the fiscal year 2000 budget, issued
June 1, 1999, shows goals for many other agencies.
The Mayor's office stated that this budget would
also serve as his performance plan. The law
requires the Mayor to issue his plan no later than
March 1 of each year. Accordingly, we note that
the Mayor's plan was issued 3 months later than
required by law. The Mayor's office stated that it
informed congressional staff on both the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees about its
intention to submit the performance plans with the
Mayor's budget to the City Council in mid-March
and with the consensus budget to Congress in June.
The Mayor's office also stated its intent to seek
legislation to reconcile the March 1 date for the
plan with the June 1 date for the budget cycle.

The Mayor could not comply with the requirement to
compare actual performance with two levels of
planned performance because the Authority's plan
for fiscal year 1999 provided only one level. We
note that the Mayor's fiscal year 2000 budget also
contains goals with only one level of planned
performance rather than the two levels that the
law requires. The Mayor will continue to be in
noncompliance with the law in the future unless an
additional level of performance is added to the
plan.

The Report Does Not Show Required Titles of
Responsible District Officials
The report does not contain the title of the
District management employee most directly
responsible for the achievement of any of the 542
goals in the plan, nor does it contain the title
of that employee's immediate supervisor, both of
which are required by law. This contrasts with the
Authority's plan, which showed the titles of
responsible management employees who could be held
accountable for many of the 542 goals.

An official from the Mayor's office said that the
titles of the management employees are missing
from the report because the Mayor's administration
was not executing the Authority's plan. However,
the Mayor's report states that he has a
performance contract with each agency director,
and those contracts require the directors to
develop performance plans with staff at all
levels. The official also said that the fiscal
year 2001 budget would include the required
information on managers' titles for each goal.

The Report Does Not Provide Required Information
On Court Orders
The report does not describe the status of any
part of most of the court orders pertaining to the
12 civil actions concerning activities of the
District government during fiscal year 1999, nor
does it describe the steps taken to comply with
any of the court orders. These court orders are
described in the table below.

Table 2: Court Orders in Effect During FY 1999
Civil        Summary of   Is status of    Are steps
actiona      order(s)        order(s)        taken
                            discussed    to comply
                               in the    discussed
                              report?       in the
                                           report?
                                       
John Doe v.  Affects the       No          No
DC (Civil    operation
Action No 79-of the
1726)        Dept. of
             Correction'
             s (DOC)
             Maximum
             Security
             Facility.
Twelve John  Affects the       No          No
Does v. DC   operation
(Civil       of DOC's
Action No.   Central
80-2136)     Facility.
Joy Evans v. Requires          No          No
DC (Civil    the
Action No.   District to
76-0293)     improve the
             habitation,
             care, and
             treatment
             for
             mentally
             retarded
             residents
             and to more
             promptly
             pay
             vendors.
Mikeisha     Requires          No          No
Blackman v.  the DC
DC (Civil    Public
Action No 97-Schools to
1629)        eliminate
consolidated its backlog
with James   of fair
Jones v. DC  hearing
(Civil       requests
Action No.   pursuant to
97-2402)     the
             Individuals
             with
             Disabilitie
             s Act and
             cases in
             which
             administrat
             ive
             placement
             decisions
             have not
             been
             implemented
             .
Nikita       Relates to        No          No
Petties v.   DC Public
DC (Civil    Schools
Action No.   transportat
95-0148)     ion
             services to
             special
             education
             students
             and the
             timely
             payment of
             tuition and
             related
             services to
             schools and
             service
             providers.
Bessye Neal  Requires a        No          No
v. Dir., DC  Special
DOC (Civil   Inspector
Action No.   to
93-2420)     investigate
             claims of
             sexual
             harassment
             and
             retaliation
             in DOC.
Oscar        Relates to        No          No
Salazar v.   timely
DC (Civil    processing
Action No.   of Medicaid
93-0452)     application
             s and
             recertifica
             tions for
             Medicaid
             care by the
             Department
             of Human
             Services.
LaShawn A.   Appoints a        No          No
v. D. C.     receiver to
(Civil       administer
Action No.   the
89-1754)     District's
             Child and
             Family
             Services
             Agency.
Dixon v.     Appoints a        No          No
Williams     receiver to
(Civil       administer
Action No.   the
74-285)      District's
             Commission
             on Mental
             Health
             Services.
Campbell v.  Appoints a   No; however,      No
McGruder/Inm receiver to  the reports
ates of D.   administer   states that
C. Jail v.   medical and  the District
Jackson      mental       has
(Civil       health       initiated
Action       services.    capital
Nos.1462-71, Other        improvements
75-1668)     orders have  at the D.C.
             been         Jail to
             entered      bring it
             that relate  into
             to           compliance
             environment  with court
             ,            orders.
             sanitation,
             and
             security
             issues at
             the jail.
Pearson v.   Appoints a        No          No
Williams     receiver to
(Civil       administer
Action No.   the
92-14030)    District's
             Housing
             Authority.
Jerry M. v.  Appoints     No; however,      No
D.C. (Civil  receivers    the report
Action No.   to           states that
1519-85)     administer   the District
             educational  is in
             services at  compliance
             Oak Hill     with one
             Youth        central
             Center.      issue of the
             Other        court
             orders have  order-overcr
             been         owding at
             entered      the Oak Hill
             that relate  facility.
             to
             conditions
             and
             practices
             at the
             Center.
aAll of the actions listed below were brought in
the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia except for Pearson v. Williams and Jerry
M. v. D.C. which were brought in the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia.
Source: District of Columbia Office of the
Corporation Counsel.

An official from the Mayor's office said that the
report did not contain the required information on
court orders because of an oversight. He said the
Mayor's office would issue an addendum to the
report that will contain the required information
on court orders.

Conclusions
The Mayor's report does not contain the
information required by law on (1) actual
performance for each goal from the plan compared
with two levels of planned performance, (2) the
titles of the management employees responsible for
each goal, and (3) the status of or the steps
taken to comply with court orders. However, it
does report on performance associated with 82
goals and indicates that 51 of those goals were
met.

The Mayor's performance report for fiscal year
1999 was required to be based on goals that the
Authority-not the Mayor-had established. The
Mayor's office cited this temporary separation of
responsibility for planning from reporting as one
reason for the report's lack of compliance with
the law. In addition, an official in the Mayor's
office said that the report does not discuss some
goals from the Authority's plan that were not at
an appropriate level of significance.

The absence of required performance data for most
of the 542 goals makes it clear that the Mayor's
administration has more work to do to gain the
full benefits of performance management. In
particular, unless future plans and reports that
the Mayor issues include goals and performance
data for all significant activities of the
District government (not mostly high-impact
agencies), the agencies will not benefit from the
discipline inherent in this process. This general
approach, if followed, can provide the District
government with a road map for improving its
performance. We have endorsed this same general
approach in GPRA. The Mayor's report states that
goals will be established for all agencies that
report to the Mayor in future cycles, and his
fiscal year 2000 budget shows this is happening.
However, the law requires that the Mayor's plans
and reports include goals for all agencies-not
just those that report to him.

The Mayor could not comply with the requirement to
compare actual performance with two levels of
planned performance because the Authority's plan
did not contain two levels. However, the Mayor's
fiscal year 2000 budget, which is to also serve as
his performance plan, contains goals with only one
level of planned performance rather than the two
levels required by law. If future plans do not
include two levels of planned performance, they
will also not conform to the law; reporting on
performance achieved against only one level of
planned performance will also not be in compliance
with the law.

With respect to not providing the titles of
management employees and information on court
orders, an official in the Mayor's office
acknowledged that this information was missing and
said it would be provided in the future.

Finally, the District's performance plans for
fiscal years 1999 and 2000 were issued months
after the March 1 date required by law. If future
plans are not issued on or before the specified
date, they will not conform to the law. The
Mayor's office stated that it informed
congressional staff on both the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees about its intention to
submit the performance plans with the Mayor's
budget to the City Council in mid-March and with
the consensus budget to Congress in June. The
Mayor's office also stated its intent to seek
legislation to reconcile the March 1 date for the
plan with the June 1 date for the budget cycle.

Given the serious performance problems facing the
Mayor when he took office in January 1999, it is
reasonable to expect that several cycles of
planning and reporting will be needed to achieve
all of the benefits that Congress envisioned when
it passed this important law. We believe the law's
general approach requiring the District to
establish performance goals and then report on
actual performance, if followed, can provide the
District government with a disciplined foundation
for improving its performance over time.

Recommendations
The Mayor of the District of Columbia needs to
take the actions necessary to ensure that:

ï¿½    future performance plans include goals with
two levels of planned performance for all District
agencies and are issued no later than the law
requires; and
ï¿½    future performance reports comply with the
law's provisions to (1) address each goal in the
performance plan; (2) compare actual performance
with two levels of planned performance; (3)
provide the titles of responsible management
employees; and (4) describe the status of, and
actions taken to comply with, court orders
applicable to the District government.

The necessary actions could include requesting
that Congress amend the law to reconcile the law
and the Mayor's performance planning and reporting
strategy. However, until amendments to the law are
enacted, the Mayor would still be required to meet
the current legal requirements.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
On April 5, 2000, the Deputy Mayor for Operations
provided written comments on our draft report. He
stated that Mayor Williams' administration is
using performance management as an essential tool
for driving meaningful and lasting change
throughout the District government. He stated that
for the first time in the history of the District
government, linkages are being made between
strategic planning, budgeting, and performance
management and that this process provides clear
standards by which residents of the District will
be able to judge the administration's success.

He also stated that our emphasis on a plan
prepared by a prior administration obscures the
accomplishments of the Williams administration in
its first year. Following the return of agency
management by the Authority to the Mayor, the
Williams administration established its own plan
and short-term actions upon entering office that
superseded the 1999 performance plan prepared by
the Authority. For example, he cited the reopening
of the Thomas Circle Underpass. He said that it is
important that our report note the substantial
development of the District's performance
management system during the administration's
first year.

We recognize that the Mayor has placed new and
welcome emphasis on accountability for city
performance. Nonetheless, we are directed by the
law as enacted to conduct the evaluation we report
here. Our scope did not permit a review of the
accomplishment of any goals that the Williams
administration established after taking office
that were not in the Authority's plan. However,
our draft report did acknowledge (1) the reasons
the Mayor gave for focusing his report mainly on
new short-term goals and goals for some high-
impact agencies rather than the goals in the
Authority's plan, and (2) that the District
government has stated its plans to expand
performance management to address all District
agencies that report directly to the Mayor.

The Deputy Mayor for Operations also stated that
the District government chose not to identify the
supervisors and managers responsible for executing
their plans because of the new administration's
substantial changes to each agency's leadership
and responsible managers. However, he stated that
the District intends to provide this information
in subsequent plans and reports and has already
done so in the FY 2001 Proposed Operating Budget
and Financial Plan submitted to the Council of the
District of Columbia on March 13, 2000. In
addition, the District's fiscal year 2000
performance report will identify the agency
directors and the most senior managers responsible
for implementing the objectives when it is
published in March 2001.

He stated that the Office of the Corporation
Counsel is preparing an addendum to the Mayor's
fiscal year 1999 performance report to provide the
status of, and actions taken to comply with, the
court orders applicable to 12 major civil actions
concerning the activities of the District
government during fiscal year 1999. In addition,
the Mayor's fiscal year 2001 plan to be submitted
to Congress on June 1, 2000, will contain similar
information on these court orders.

The Deputy Mayor for Operations stated that the
District addresses at an aggregate level within
each agency director's performance contract the
law's requirement for identifying levels of
superior and acceptable performance. These
performance contracts establish three levels of
performance with regard to executing the entire
agency plan: exceeds expectations, meets
expectations, and below expectations. These
performance levels are replicated in senior
manager performance agreements.

We do not believe that setting levels of
performance at an aggregate level within each
agency Director's performance contract will
satisfy the current requirement in the law that
each goal have two planned performance
levels-acceptable and superior. Unless future
performance plans establish two planned levels of
performance for each goal, it will be impossible
for the performance report to provide a comparison
of actual performance with two levels of planned
performance, as the law requires. Although the
performance rating system that has been
established for senior managers may be needed, it
does not satisfy the law's requirements for two
planned performance levels for each goal.

Finally, the Deputy Mayor stated that Mayor
Williams is committed to responsive, accountable
government for residents of the District. He said
the performance management strategy showed
promising results in the first year of the
Williams administration and will continue to drive
change in years ahead.

On March 31, 2000, the Authority's Executive
Director provided written comments on our draft
report. He stated that the Authority agrees with
our conclusions that the performance report is not
in compliance with the law and that several cycles
of planning and reporting will be needed to
achieve all of the benefits that Congress
envisioned when it passed this important law.

The Executive Director also stated that by having
the Mayor prepare both the plan and report, many
of the problems identified in the draft report
would be addressed. He stated that the Authority
believes that under the leadership of the Mayor
and other stakeholders, the quality of the goals
and performance measures will improve, and those
who are accountable for achieving results will be
identified. The Executive Director stated that the
Authority would work with the Mayor to ensure that
the issues we identified in the draft report are
addressed.

The Executive Director made three additional
specific comments. First, he stated that we should
amend our conclusions to make clear that the
performance plans and reports must include goals
for all significant activities of the District
government-not just goals for those agencies that
report to the Mayor. Although our draft report's
conclusions stated the importance of all District
agencies setting goals, to clarify this point, we
added a sentence and a related recommendation.

Second, the Executive Director observed that the
Mayor's intent to have the fiscal year 2001 budget
(to be issued in June 2000) serve as the
performance plan may have the effect of issuing
the plan after March 1, which is the issue date
required by law. He noted that there is a chance
that the resource levels of some agencies may
change during the various iterations of the
budget, and that may affect the performance levels
that can be achieved. Therefore, the Executive
Director stated that the Authority believes that
consideration should be given to either changing
the law's issuance date for the plan or clarifying
in the law that the performance plan can be
amended if the plan is integrated into the budget
process.

The Mayor's office intends to seek legislation to
reconcile the different timetables for planning
versus budgeting. However, until a change is made,
we believe that the Mayor should comply with the
law's requirement to issue annual performance
plans no later than March 1, and we have added a
recommendation in our final report to that effect.

Third, the Executive Director noted that on page 5
of our draft report, in describing our
methodology, "an attempt was made to modify goals
in the FY 1999 Performance Plan to facilitate
comparison with the Mayor's FY 1999 Performance
Report." He asked that we eliminate the discussion
of this "clerical exercise" from the final report
because there is no benefit, at this time, from
changing goals in the plan to "make them fit" the
goals in the Mayor's report.

Our only purpose in asking that the Authority
review our list of potential goals was to confirm
the accuracy of our judgement in identifying the
goals in its plan. As noted in our draft report,
the word "goal" does not appear anywhere in the
Authority's plan. The Mayor's report was not
issued at the time of our request to the
Authority. In order to have an accurate
description of how we conducted this work, we have
not deleted this discussion from the scope and
methodology section of the final report.

We are sending copies of this report to the
Honorable Anthony A. Williams, Mayor of the
District of Columbia; and the Honorable Alice M.
Rivlin, Chairperson of the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority. We will make copies available to others
upon request.

Key contributors to this report were Theresa
Roberson, Jim Rebbe, and Al Stapleton. If you have
any questions about this report or would like to
discuss it further, please contact Michael Brostek
or Al Stapleton on (202) 512-8676.

Nancy Kingsbury
Acting Assistant Comptroller General

List of Requesters

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchinson
Chairman
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
 
The Honorable Ernest J. Istook, Jr.
Chairman
The Honorable James P. Moran
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

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

The Honorable Thomas M. Davis III
Chairman
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on District of Columbia
Committee on Government Reform
 House of Representatives
 
_______________________________
1 Public Law No. 103-373.
2 Public Law No. 105-100. The Authority is also
referred to as the Control Board.
3 Public Law No. 106-113.
4 We began this assignment in September because
the performance report was initially to be issued
on September 30, 1999, 1 year after the date of
the Authority's FY 1999 Performance Plan.

Appendix I
Comments From the D.C. Financial Responsibility
and Management Assistance Authority
Page 25GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Re
ports
Note: We reconsidered this title from our draft
report and changed it to be more descriptive.

Appendix II
Comments From the Executive Office of the D.C.
Government
Page 29GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Re
ports

*** End of Document ***