This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-693 
entitled 'District of Columbia: Performance Report Shows Continued 
Progress' which was released on May 15, 2003.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

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. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to Congressional Committees and Subcommittees:

May 2003:

District of Columbia:

Performance Report Shows Continued Progress:

GAO-03-693:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-03-693, a report to congressional committees and 
subcommittees 

Why GAO Did This Study:

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. 


What GAO Found:

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.  

What GAO Recommends:

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.

[End of section]

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

The 2002 Performance Report Includes Goals and Performance Achieved for 
Almost All of the District's Significant Activities:

The Report Complied with the Other Statutory Requirements:

The District Is Implementing Initiatives to Improve Overall Performance 
Accountability:

Peformance Reports Could Serve as a Tool for Identifying and Addressing 
Management Challenges:

Concluding Observations:

Recommendations:

District of Columbia Comments:

Appendixes:

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

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

Appendix III: Performance Based Budgeting Agencies:

Appendix IV: Comments from the District of Columbia:

Related GAO Products:

Tables:

Table 1: Special Purpose Funds to Consider Including in the
Performance Plan and Performance Accountability Report:

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

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

Table 4: Budget Activities Not Included in the District of Columbia
Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Accountability Report:

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.[Footnote 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).[Footnote 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 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.[Footnote 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.

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 Methodology:

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.

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.[Footnote 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 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 Report Includes Goals and Performance Achieved for 
Almost All of the District's Significant Activities:

The fiscal year 2002 performance accountability report includes almost 
all of the District's significant activities, providing performance 
information for 74 agencies representing about 90 percent of the 
District's expenditures of nearly $5.9 billion for that year. However, 
the report does not include budget activities that amount to $565.8 
million, or approximately 10 percent, of the city's expenditures. The 
law requires that the performance accountability plan include 
measurable and objective performance goals 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,[Footnote 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 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 District of Columbia Public Schools and 
the Child and Family Services Agency for the First Time:

For the first time, the District's 2002 report includes performance 
information for goals and measures consistent with the plan for the 
DCPS and the CFSA. Last year, the District reported that these two 
agencies had not developed performance goals and measures for the 
performance plan, but that the District planned to include them in the 
2002 performance 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 Performance Levels for Almost All Goals:

The District reported on a set of goals that is largely consistent with 
the performance plan presented in the proposed fiscal year 2003 budget-
-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,[Footnote 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 Special Purpose Funds Were Not Included in 
the 2002 Report:

While all but about 10 percent of the District's expenditures are 
represented in the performance report, there are some additional areas 
that the District should consider including in its performance plans 
and reports. 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 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:

Funds: 1. Settlements and Judgments; Fiscal year 2002 expenditures (in 
thousands): $31,360.

Funds: 2. Unemployment Compensation Fund; Fiscal year 2002 expenditures 
(in thousands): 9,182.

Funds: 3. Disability Compensation Fund; Fiscal year 2002 expenditures 
(in thousands): 27,701.

Funds: 4. Children and Youth Investment Fund; Fiscal year 2002 
expenditures (in thousands): 5,831.

Funds: 5. Brownfield Remediation; Fiscal year 2002 expenditures (in 
thousands): 198.

Funds: 6. Incentives for Adoption of Children; Fiscal year 2002 
expenditures (in thousands): 904.

Funds: Total; Fiscal year 2002 expenditures (in thousands): $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.

[End of table]

The Report Complied with the Other Statutory Requirements:

Over the last 4 years, the District has made continued improvements in 
addressing the other statutory requirements of the law. The District's 
fiscal year 1999 performance accountability report contained very 
little of the information required by the statute, and the subsequent 
reports have 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 Have Been Developed:

The District has established criteria for determining the types of 
court 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 Information on Selected Court Orders:

The District's 2002 performance report contains information on the 
status of 10 court orders to the District of Columbia that were in 
effect during the 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 Complying with Court Orders Is Incomplete:

Although the 2002 performance report contains updated information on 
selected court orders, the report does not provide complete information 
on 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 Monitoring Court Orders Has Been Developed:

While not required by the law, the District reported that the Office of 
the City Administrator's Office of Risk Management has taken the 
initiative to 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 Implementing Initiatives to Improve Overall Performance 
Accountability:

The 2002 performance report notes that the District's performance 
management system has improved but continues to be a work-in-progress. 
It summarizes several areas in which initiatives to improve performance 
accountability are under way. These initiatives include the continued 
implementation of performance based budgeting in connection with the 
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 Budgeting in the District:

Performance based budgeting links budgets to programs and activities 
and 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 Performance Management Council:

In fiscal year 2002, the District formed a Performance Management 
Council consisting of the Mayor's cabinet agencies that are primarily 
responsible 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 Implementing Data Quality Standards:

In the 2002 performance report, the District again identified data 
collection standards as one of the areas it continues to work to 
improve. During the 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 Could Serve as a Tool for Identifying and Addressing 
Management Challenges:

The District continues to face considerable management challenges, and 
performance reporting is one important tool available to decision 
makers to assist in identifying and addressing those challenges. Using 
performance management as a strategic planning tool requires balancing 
the need to set reasonable, achievable measures with the challenge of 
setting longer-term strategic goals that will move the city to an 
improved level of service in the future. This effort 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. 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 Could Be Useful in Addressing Management 
Issues:

The fiscal year 2002 performance report indicates that the District 
achieved most of the goals in the performance plan. The District 
determines the degree to which an agency achieves its goals on a six-
point rating scale as 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:

Rating category: 1. Significantly exceeded expectations; Number of 
agencies: 15; Number of goals: 24; Percentage of goals: 8.

Rating category: 2. Exceeded expectations; Number of agencies: 40; 
Number of goals: 89; Percentage of goals: 31.

Rating category: 3. Met expectations; Number of agencies: 56; Number of 
goals: 111; Percentage of goals: 38.

Rating category: 4. Needs improvement; Number of agencies: 19; Number 
of goals: 31; Percentage of goals: 11.

Rating category: 5. Below expectations; Number of agencies: 4; Number 
of goals: 4; Percentage of goals: 1.

Rating category: 6. No rating; Number of agencies: 11; Number of goals: 
29; Percentage of goals: 10.

Rating category: 7. Not rated[A] ; Number of agencies: 2; Number of 
goals: 2; Percentage of goals: 1.

Rating category: Total; Number of agencies: N/A[B]; Number of goals: 
290; Percentage of goals: 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.

[End of table]

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.[Footnote 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 Issues Facing the District:

In our work on the District of Columbia's structural fiscal issues, we 
have 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.[Footnote 
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 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 Observations:

The District has made steady progress over the past 4 years in 
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.[Footnote 9] As decision makers gain confidence in the 
performance 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 Comments:

On May 6, 2003, we provided a draft of our report to the Mayor of the 
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 Calvaresi-Barr, 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.

Signed by:

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:

[End of section]

Appendixes:

Appendix I: Actual Expenditures for District Agencies Included in the 
District's Fiscal Year 2002 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:

Agency: 1. Office of the District of Columbia Auditor; Fiscal year 2002 
actual expenditures (in thousands): $1,283.

Agency: 2. Office of the Mayor; Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 9,241.

Agency: 3. Office of the Secretary; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 2,300.

Agency: 4. Customer Service Operations; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 1,850.

Agency: 5. Office of the City Administrator; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 14,594.

Agency: 6. Office of Personnel; Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 15,582.

Agency: 7. Human Resources Development Fund; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 3,506.

Agency: 8. Office of Finance and Resource Management; Fiscal year 2002 
actual expenditures (in thousands): 152,023.

Agency: 9. Office of Contracting and Procurement; Fiscal year 2002 
actual expenditures (in thousands): 14,693.

Agency: 10. Office of the Chief Technology Officer; Fiscal year 2002 
actual expenditures (in thousands): 27,756.

Agency: 11. Office of Property Management; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 51,267.

Agency: 12. Contract Appeals Board; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 676.

Agency: 13. Board of Elections and Ethics; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 3,763.

Agency: 14. Office of Campaign Finance; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 1,290.

Agency: 15. Public Employee Relations Board; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 623.

Agency: 16. Office of Employee Appeals; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 1,485.

Agency: 17. Office of the Corporation Counsel; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 55,578.

Agency: 18. Office of the Inspector General; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 11,619.

Agency: 19. Office of the Chief Financial Officer; Fiscal year 2002 
actual expenditures (in thousands): 88,598.

Agency: 20. Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic 
Development[A]; Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 30,228.

Agency: 21. Office of Planning; Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 0.

Agency: 22. Office of Local Business Development; Fiscal year 2002 
actual expenditures (in thousands): 0.

Agency: 23. Office of Motion Picture and Television Development; Fiscal 
year 2002 actual expenditures (in thousands): 0.

Agency: 24. Office of Zoning; Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 1,892.

Agency: 25. Department of Housing and Community Development; Fiscal 
year 2002 actual expenditures (in thousands): 68,019.

Agency: 26. Department of Employment Services; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 79,321.

Agency: 27. Board of Appeals and Review; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 243.

Agency: 28. Board of Real Property Assessments and Appeals; Fiscal year 
2002 actual expenditures (in thousands): 274.

Agency: 29. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs; Fiscal year 
2002 actual expenditures (in thousands): 29,908.

Agency: 30. Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration; Fiscal year 
2002 actual expenditures (in thousands): 1,976.

Agency: 31. Department of Banking and Financial Institutions; Fiscal 
year 2002 actual expenditures (in thousands): 4,378.
 
Agency: 32. Public Service Commission; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 6,290.

Agency: 33. Office of the People's Counsel; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 3,826.

Agency: 34. Department of Insurance and Securities Regulation; Fiscal 
year 2002 actual expenditures (in thousands): 8,346.

Agency: 35. Office of Cable Television and Telecommunications; Fiscal  
year 2002 actual expenditures (in thousands): 4,013.

Agency: 36. Metropolitan Police Department; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 343,054.

Agency: 37. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department; Fiscal year 
2002 actual expenditures (in thousands): 138,332.

Agency: 38. Department of Corrections; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 125,611.

Agency: 39. D.C. National Guard; Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 1,894. 

Agency: 40. D.C. Emergency Management Agency; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 19,887.

Agency: 41. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure; Fiscal year 
2002 actual expenditures (in thousands): 182.

Agency: 42. Judicial Nomination Commission; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 93.

Agency: 43. Office of Citizen Complaint Review; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 1,168.

Agency: 44. Advisory Commission on Sentencing; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 416.

Agency: 45. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner; Fiscal year 2002 
actual expenditures (in thousands): 5,740.

Agency: 46. D.C. Public Schools; Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 899,060.

Agency: 47. State Education Office; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 48,304.

Agency: 48. University of the District of Columbia; Fiscal year 2002 
actual expenditures (in thousands): 56,068.

Agency: 49. D.C. Public Library; Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 27,366. 

Agency: 50. Commission on the Arts and Humanities; Fiscal year 2002 
actual expenditures (in thousands): 2,685.

Agency: 51. Department of Human Services; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 432,768.

Agency: 52. Child and Family Services Agency; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 216,035.

Agency: 53. Department of Mental Health; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 223,424.

Agency: 54. Department of Health; Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 1,225,718.

Agency: 55. Department of Parks and Recreation; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 42,679.

Agency: 56. D.C. Office on Aging; Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 19,824.

Agency: 57. Office of Human Rights; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures (in thousands): 1,838.

Agency: 58. Office of Latino Affairs; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures
(in thousands): 3,648.

Agency: 59. D.C. Energy Office; Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 13,015.

Agency: 60. Office of Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs; Fiscal year 
2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 172.

Agency: 61. Department of Public Works (includes Department of 
Transportation); Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 135,251.

Agency: 62. Department of Motor Vehicles; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures
(in thousands): 32,572.

Agency: 63. Taxicab Commission; Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 957.

Agency: 64. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission; Fiscal 
year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 83.

Agency: 65. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; Fiscal year 
2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 148,493.

Agency: 66. Water and Sewer Authority; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures
(in thousands): 203,027.

Agency: 67. Washington Aqueduct[B]; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures
(in thousands): 0.

Agency: 68. D.C. Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board; Fiscal 
year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 212,138.

Agency: 69. D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission; Fiscal year 2002 
actual expenditures
(in thousands): 3,741.

Agency: 70. D.C. Retirement Board; Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 7,168.

Agency: 71. Housing Finance Agency[B]; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures
(in thousands): 0.

Agency: 72. National Capital Revitalization Corporation[B]; Fiscal year 
2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 0.

Agency: 73. Washington Convention Center Authority[B]; Fiscal year 2002 
actual expenditures
(in thousands): 0.

Agency: 74. School Transit Subsidy; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures
(in thousands): 2,894.

Agency: Total; Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): $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.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix II: Activities Not Included in the Fiscal Year 2002 
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:

Agency/fund: Agency; Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): [Empty].

Agency/fund: 1. District of Columbia Public Charter Schools; Fiscal 
year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): $97,625.

Agency/fund: 2. Council of the District of Columbia[A]; Fiscal year 
2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 13,152.

Agency/fund: 3. Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANC)[B]; Fiscal year 
2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 521.

Agency/fund: 4. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 
(COG)[B]; Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 367.

Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): Agency/fund Storm Water[C]: [Empty].

Agency/fund: 5. Storm Water[C]; Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 988.

Agency/fund: 6. Settlements and Judgments Fund[D]; Fiscal year 2002 
actual expenditures
(in thousands): 31,360.

Agency/fund: 7. Unemployment Compensation Fund[D]; Fiscal year 2002 
actual expenditures
(in thousands): 9,182.

Agency/fund: 8. Disability Compensation Fund[D]; Fiscal year 2002 
actual expenditures
(in thousands): 27,701.

Agency/fund: 9. Children and Youth Investment Fund[D]; Fiscal year 2002 
actual expenditures
(in thousands): 5,831.

Agency/fund: 10. Incentives for the Adoption of Children[D]; Fiscal 
year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 904.

Agency/fund: 11. Brownfield Remediation[D]; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures
(in thousands): 198.

Agency/fund: 12. Police Officers' and Firefighters' Retirement 
System[E]; Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 74,600.

Agency/fund: 13. Repayment of Loans and Interest[F]; Fiscal year 2002 
actual expenditures
(in thousands): 233,251.

Agency/fund: 14. Repayment of General Fund Deficit[F]; Fiscal year 2002 
actual expenditures
(in thousands): 38,931.

Agency/fund: 15. Certificates of Participation[F]; Fiscal year 2002 
actual expenditures
(in thousands): 7,924.

Agency/fund: 16. Wilson Building[G]; Fiscal year 2002 actual 
expenditures
(in thousands): 5,945.

Agency/fund: 17. PBC Transition; Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): 17,312.

Agency/fund: Total; Fiscal year 2002 actual expenditures
(in thousands): $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.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix 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

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Comments from the District of Columbia:

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR:

John A. Koskinen:

Deputy Mayor and City Administrator:

May 9, 2003:

Patricia Dalton:

Director, Strategic Issues:

U.S. Government Accounting Office 441 G St. NW, Room 2938 Washington, 
DC 20548:

Dear Ms. Dalton:

This letter is in response to the draft report[NOTE 1] by the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) on the level of compliance of the District of 
Columbia's FY 2002 Performance Accountability Report with the 
requirements for the Performance Accountability Report established in 
the Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994 (PL 103-373).

First let me thank you for the acknowledgement of the accomplishments 
the District has made in complying with the statute and in going beyond 
the statute to develop a robust performance management system. As we 
discussed in our meeting of May 7, a good sign of the District's 
progress is that each year the conversations among our staffs are less 
and less about issues of compliance with the statute and more about how 
the performance management system that underlies the Performance 
Accountability Report can be leveraged to drive improvements in 
management and service delivery.

Performance Management in the District:

Before I respond to the specific recommendations in the GAO report, I 
want to address the broader issue of how the District uses the 
components of its performance management system to foster improvement 
in service delivery, to hold managers accountable and to provide public 
information on the District's progress towards its key goals. Because 
the Performance Accountability Report is designed to respond to 
specific statutory requirements, it does not include information on the 
breadth of our strategic planning and performance management system. 
Based on our conversation earlier this week, the District will include 
more information on the components of the complete performance 
management system in subsequent reports to Congress.


Components of the Performance Management System:

The District's Performance Management system is comprised of:

Planning Documents:

* Citywide Strategic Plan:
 
* Performance Based-Budget (serves as Performance Accountability Plan):

* Strategic Neighborhood Action Plans:

* Agency Strategic Business Plans:

* Agency Director Performance Contracts:

* Performance Plans for Senior and Middle Managers:

Reporting Documents:

* Performance Accountability Report to Congress:

* Individual Agency Performance Accountability Reports to Council (all 
agencies):

* Monthly Performance Reports (selected agencies):

* Scorecards (selected agencies):

Evaluation Documents:

* Performance Evaluations for Agency Directors:

* Performance Evaluations for Senior and Middle Managers:

The Strategic Management Cycle:

Planning: Since 1999, the District has held a Citizen Summit every two 
years. The next Summit will be in November 2003 and more than 3,000 
citizens will review a draft of the District's FY 2005-2006 Citywide 
Strategic Plan.[NOTE 2] The Summits provide residents with a way to 
identify citywide priorities. Leading up to the second Citizen Summit, 
the District held community-based meetings in 39 neighborhood clusters 
to identify neighborhood specific priorities to complement the citywide 
goals.

Concurrent with the development of the Citywide Strategic Plan, 
agencies that made the transition to the District's Performance-Based 
Budgeting (PBB) for FY 2003-2004[NOTE 3] prepared FY 2002-2004 
Strategic Plans. Each year, the Office of the City Administrator 
prepares agency director one-year performance contracts based on those 
strategic plans.

As OCA and agency directors negotiate the content of performance 
contracts, more than 1,300 senior and middle managers in the District's 
Excepted and Management Supervisory Services
draft performance plans that set out specific, measurable goals on 
which they will be evaluated.[NOTE 4] Agency directors are evaluated 
on the percentage of employees that complete performance plans within 
the first quarter of the fiscal year. In FY 2002, only 77 percent of 
employees eligible for the Performance Management Program completed 
performance plans; the District increased that percentage to 99 percent 
prior to the end of the first quarter of FY 2003.

Agencies will be directly involved in the review of the current 
Citywide Strategic Plan so the District has a draft plan to share with 
residents this fall. Through this work in preparing the draft FY 2005-
2006 Citywide Strategic Plan, agencies will be positioned to update 
their strategic business plans and performance-based budgets on a basis 
that is consistent with the new Citywide Strategic Plan.

Implementation and Reporting: Each month agencies whose directors have 
performance contracts with the Mayor prepare a monthly report for the 
Mayor and Deputy Mayors that indicates the agency's progress in 
achieving its strategic goals. Halfway through the year, the Office of 
the City Administrator begins issuing feedback memos to each agency 
that prepares monthly reports asking for clarifications on goals and 
measures where the agency is lagging behind projected performance. 
Agencies are required to address the areas questioned in the next 
monthly report, including proposing plans to mediate problems and, if 
possible, get back on track to meet the full-year targets. As a result, 
the Mayor and Deputy Mayors track agency performance throughout the 
entire year and are able to intervene and provide assistance to 
agencies that were experiencing challenges meeting their targets. While 
this ongoing monitoring and feedback is provided to just under half of 
the District agencies, those agencies comprise more than 80 percent of 
the District's local budget.

In addition, each agency whose director has a performance contract with 
the Mayor designates three to five performance measures as Scorecard 
Goals. The District updates the Scorecard results on a quarterly basis 
and posts them on the District website. Agencies also display posters 
of their quarterly Scorecard results in their headquarters and other 
facilities throughout the city.

Evaluation: At the end of each fiscal year, agency directors with 
performance contracts with the Mayor prepare a self-evaluation that is 
reviewed and commented on by OCA staff. OCA prepares evaluation reports 
that address each agency's strategic goals as well as 10 District-wide 
initiatives that all agencies are responsible for implementing. The 
common clauses, which we have designated "operational support," address 
areas including, but not limited to customer service, risk management, 
human resource management, performance reporting and contracting and 
procurement. Each director's performance rating consists of 60 percent 
assigned to strategic goals and 40 percent assigned to operational 
support. During November-December of each year, the Mayor meets 
individually with the 30 agency directors and five Deputy Mayors who 
have performance contracts with him to review their performance. At the 
end of the evaluation cycle, the Deputy Mayors meet as a group to 
review the OCA preliminary performance ratings and to prepare 
recommendations to the Mayor regarding performance bonuses. Due to the 
District's
financial pressures, the Mayor decided not to award FY 2002 bonuses at 
a time when agencies were making cuts in various parts of their 
budgets.

Concurrent with the directors' performance evaluation cycle, the 
employees in the Performance Management Program must complete their 
performance evaluations for the prior fiscal year. Agency directors are 
also rated on the percentage of employees that complete performance 
evaluations. 

Finally, all agencies-cabinet and non-cabinet alike-prepare 
Performance Accountability Reports for Council in January of each year 
that are the basis of annual oversight hearings. The Office of the City 
Administrator compiles those reports into the consolidated Performance 
Accountability Report to Congress, which is the report you and your 
staff review.

This brief overview is intended to give you a flavor of the scope of 
the District's performance management system, of which the Performance 
Accountability Report is only one component. The Performance 
Accountability Report is presented to Congress once a year but the 
Mayor, Deputy Mayors, agency directors and senior managers are making 
regular use of the performance data to be sure that all parties are 
progressing towards their annual goals. In effect, they are managing 
against the data.

Responses to U.S. General Accounting Office Recommendations:

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) has made four recommendations 
for the District to address the few remaining compliance issues and to 
improve the overall content of future accountability reports.

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 the coverage of the accountability report 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.

Data Quality:

The District plans to implement the data collection standards manual 
initiative with the first seven PBB agencies this summer or early fall. 
The Office of Budget and Planning (OBP) has started the hiring process 
for the two staff that will support this effort-the timing of their 
arrival will determine the start date. At a minimum, the District will 
complete the draft guidelines for the first seven PBB agencies by fall 
2003. Those agencies will complete their data collection
manuals by the second quarter of FY 2004. We will share the draft 
guidelines with all agencies when the PBB pilot agencies begin, but we 
will not require the 27 FY 2004 PBB agencies to begin work until the 
second or third quarter of FY 2004.

In addition, the FY 2003 Performance Accountability Report will include 
a discussion of the status of the data collection manual project as it 
applies to the first seven agencies' published data. Finally, the 
report will include a statement of the limitations of the performance 
data for the other 60+ agencies covered in the report.

Coverage of Significant Activities:

GAO notes that the District has not set goals or measures for the DC 
Public Charter Schools or for selected special funds.

DC Public Charter Schools: In the FY 2001 Performance Accountability 
Report, the District proposed applying the DC Public Schools (DCPS) 
goals and measures to DC Public Charter Schools (DCPCS). This solution 
proved to be unworkable. DCPS was engaged in the PBB initiative during 
the FY 2004 budget development cycle; however, they were on a timetable 
independent from the rest of the PBB cohort. The updated goals and 
measures were not prepared or shared with OBP and OCA until late in the 
process and there was not sufficient time to share them with DC Public 
Charter Schools to determine which, if any, were appropriate.

OCA will work with the State Education Office to establish FY 2004 
goals and measures for the DC Public Charter School Board prior to 
October 1, 2003. To the extent possible, the District will include FY 
2003 data for those measures without targets as we displayed DCPS data 
in the FY 2002 report.

Special Funds: During the FY 2004 budget formulation cycle, OCA and OBP 
prioritized supporting the 27 new and 7 pilot PBB agencies in 
developing their strategic business plans and identifying goals and 
measures for specialized funds was deferred until the end of the FY 
2004 budget development cycle. OCA and OBP have discussed identifying 
simple output measures for those funds to include in the FY 2004 budget 
submission to Congress. However, production time is very limited and we 
may defer that until after submission but are committed to identifying 
those measures and setting FY 2004 targets prior to October 1, 2003. As 
there are no FY 2003 targets for these funds, the District will report 
FY 2003 results without targets as described for DC Public Charter 
Schools, above.

Link performance results to financial data: In the long run, this is 
one of the benefits of the performance-based budget initiative as all 
agencies will manage and report results tied to financial data. The 
Office of the City Administrator and the Office of Budget and Planning 
had already discussed developing a pilot reporting project that 
presented performance and financial data for the seven pilot PBB 
agencies. We will begin this initiative in summer 2003 and will include 
selected financial data for those seven agencies in the FY 2003 
Performance Accountability Report. The District will continue to expand 
the agencies that present both performance and financial data in 
accountability reports consistent with the PBB implementation schedule 
that continues through FY 2006.

Reporting on Court Orders:

Detail Steps Taken to Address Court Orders: The District acknowledges 
that, although the summary status statements in the current report 
format provide some information on the steps taken to address court 
orders, they do not provide much detail. The Risk Tracking System (RTS) 
that has been established by the relatively new Office of Risk 
Management will provide a much more detailed record keeping system that 
will facilitate providing more information on at least the Qualifying 
Orders in the current report as well as any new cases/court orders that 
meet the selection criteria for inclusion in the Performance 
Accountability Report. The FY 2003 report will include additional 
detail on the steps taken for the Qualifying Orders as well as a 
general discussion of how the RTS is being used on managing and 
tracking a wide range of legal issues.

Provide Cost of Compliance Data: OCA has spoken with the director of 
the Office of Risk Management about this issue. He concurs that the RTS 
should include cost of compliance data. The Risk Management Council, 
composed of risk managers from city agencies, will begin to discuss how 
to incorporate this data into the RTS at its mid-May 2003 meeting. As 
this is an entirely new type of data for agencies to track and we are 
asking them to identify the costs more than halfway through the fiscal 
year, it is difficult to predict the nature or format of the report in 
FY 2003. At a minimum, the FY 2003 report will describe progress on 
identifying "costs of compliance" for the Qualifying Court Orders in 
Effect. If possible, we will ask the Office of Corporation Counsel and 
agencies to identify full-year costs for the Qualifying Orders.

Additional Analysis of Data:

As discussed earlier in this letter, the District reviews the 
performance data for cabinet level agencies on an ongoing basis to 
identify potential shortfalls and, if possible, correct them before the 
end of the year. In the FY 2003 Performance Accountability Report, the 
District will describe how agencies and Deputy Mayors monitor and 
respond to this data more fully than in prior reports. In addition, the 
District will provide analysis of areas not addressed in prior reports.

At a summary level, the District will discuss progress on the FY 2003 
goals specified in the Citywide Strategic Plan, provide the 
distribution of goal ratings that GAO had to compile from our report 
and highlight selected significant agency accomplishments or 
shortfalls. At an agency-by-agency level, the District will provide 
selected financial data for seven PBB pilot agencies as well as provide 
analysis of the linkages between the financial and performance data. As 
this is also a new area of analysis, it is difficult to project how 
this information will be displayed.

Financial Constraints:

As we discussed, many of your staff's suggestions are consistent with 
the direction the District would like to go to enhance its performance 
management and reporting systems. Reviewing other jurisdictions' 
performance reports for graphics and data presentation would indeed 
make the district's report more accessible. Accelerating the timetable 
by when the District will have agencies document their performance 
measurement methodologies in data collection manuals is a laudable 
goal. Actively auditing agency data prior to submitting the 
Performance
Accountability Report to Congress would indeed increase the confidence 
of Congressional committees and GAO reviewers in the reliability of the 
District's performance reports.

However, the Office of the City Administrator and the Office of Budget 
and Planning, like all District agencies, face much tighter financial 
constraints than in years past. Our performance management staff of two 
has their hands full managing the system we have in place. The City 
Council was forced by the budgetary constraints all states and cities 
are facing to cut Budget Office funds that were to be dedicated to 
benchmarking District agency performance against other jurisdictions. 
We hope to make progress on all of these fronts with the staff and 
resources we have, but there is a limit to how many new initiatives 
both offices can take on while managing the processes we have in place. 
Your offer to let the District review the statistical profiles GAO 
staff compiled for the report on the District's structural imbalance 
will position us to make some headway in benchmarking in FY 2003-2004 
that we would not have otherwise made.

As I said in our meeting earlier this week, I want to thank you and 
your staff for all of the time you have committed to working with us, 
the energy devoted to the task and the many valuable observations. Many 
of GAO's suggestions go beyond the scope of the statute but we welcome 
this collegial, advisory relationship and look forward to continuing it 
in the future.

Sincerely,

John A. Koskinen:

Signed by John A. Koskinen:

Attachment I: Web-based Components of the District's Strategic Planning 
and Performance Management System:

Planning Documents:

* Citywide Strategic Plan http://www.neighborhoodaction.dc.gov/:

* Proposed Budget and Financial Plan (serves as Performance 
Accountability Plan) http://www.dc.gov/mayor/budget/proposed/
index2.shtm:

Version on-line is Mayor's Budget submitted to Council, March 2003. 
Budget submission to Congress will be posted on-line in June 2003.

* Strategic Neighborhood Action Plans 
http://www.neighborhoodaction.dc.gov/:

* Agency Strategic Business Plans:

To be posted on the District's Website in June 2003:

Reporting Documents:

* Scorecards (selected agencies) 
http://www.dc.vov/mayor/scorecards/index.shtm#content:

NOTES:

[1] "Performance Report Shows Continued Progress," (GAO-03-693).

[2] Attachment I is a list of websites where interested parties can 
access some of the documents described in this letter. 

[3] Agencies designated PBB I or PBB II in FY 2002 Performance 
Accountabiilty Report, Table I, pp. 14-18. Seven PBB I agencies 
prepared FY 2003 performance-based budgets; 27 PBB II agencies 
prepared FY 2004 performance-based budgets.

[4] Employees who do not have managerial responsibilities, including front-
line union employees, participate in the Performance Evaluation System. 
The timing of the expansion of the Performance Management Program (PMP) 
to all District employees will be discussed in the next round of labor 
negotiations for FY 2007-2009.

[End of section]

Related GAO Products:

[End of section]

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):

FOOTNOTES

[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).

[3] This year, the deadline was extended to May 15, 2003. 

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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).

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

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 full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older 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 daily E-mail alert for newly 
released products" under the GAO Reports heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 	

	Voice: (202) 512-6000:

	TDD: (202) 512-2537:

	Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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: