This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-588 
entitled 'District Of Columbia: Performance Report Reflects Progress 
and Opportunities for Improvement' which was released on April 15, 
2002. 

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. 

United States General Accounting Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Subcommittees: 

District Of Columbia: 

Performance Report Reflects Progress and Opportunities for Improvement: 

GAO-02-588: 
	
Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The 2001 Report Included Most of the District's Significant Activities: 

The District's 2001 Plan and Report Addressed a Consistent Set of
Performance Goals: 

The Report Generally Adhered to Statutory Requirements: 

Steps Are Needed to Improve Future Performance Accountability
Reports: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

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

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

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

Tables: 

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

Table 2: Actual Expenditure Totals by Agencies Included in the 
District's Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Accountability Report: 

Table 3: Ten Agencies the District Reported That It Did Not Include in 
Its Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Accountability Report and Related 
Expenditures: 

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

Abbreviations: 

ANC: Advisory Neighborhood Commissions: 

COG: Council of Governments: 

DCPS: District of Columbia Public Schools: 

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act: 

OIG: Office of Inspector General: 

[End of section] 

United States General Accounting Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

April 15, 2002: 

Congressional Subcommittees: 

In view of continuing congressional interest in working with the 
District of Columbia's government to ensure that a sound performance 
management system is in place, this is the third year that we have 
evaluated the District's annual performance accountability report as 
mandated in law.[Footnote 1] This mandate provides a timely 
opportunity to examine the progress the District has made in 
developing and issuing its fiscal year 2001 performance accountability 
report and identify areas that the District and Congress may want to 
focus on to continue making progress in addressing the performance 
challenges facing our nation's capital. The District has continued to 
make progress in producing more useful performance documents and 
information that can help inform decision makers and improve the 
District's accountability and performance. 

The District of Columbia is required to submit to Congress a 
performance accountability plan with goals for the coming fiscal year 
and, after the end of the fiscal year, a performance accountability 
report on the extent to which the District achieved these goals. 
[Footnote 2] This requirement for the District government to issue 
performance accountability plans and reports is similar to the 
requirements for executive branch federal agencies under the 
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).[Footnote 3] Our 
objectives in this report are to examine (1) the extent to which the 
District's performance accountability report includes all significant 
activities, (2) how well the District reports progress toward a 
consistent set of goals and explains any changes in the goals, (3) the 
extent to which the report adheres to the statutory requirements, and 
(4) areas for future improvement. 

Results in Brief: 

In the District of Columbia's FY 2001 Performance Accountability 
Report, the District provided a more complete picture of its 
performance and made progress in complying with statutory reporting 
requirements. The District has expanded the report's scope to include 
most of the District government's significant activities by covering 
66 agencies-26 more than last year—that account for 83 percent of the 
District's total fiscal year 2001 general fund expenditures of $5.9 
billion. The report presented a clearer picture of performance and 
enhanced accountability by using a consistent set of goals, enabling 
the District to measure and report progress toward the goals it had 
established in its 2001 performance plan.[Footnote 4] In addition, the 
report was timely and generally adhered to Federal Payment 
Reauthorization Act requirements. Specifically, it reported 
information on the level of performance achieved toward most of its 
goals, provided the titles of managers and their supervisors 
responsible for each of the goals, and described the status of certain 
court orders. 

The progress the District has made in its performance accountability 
reports over the last 3 years establishes a positive direction for 
future enhancements, and there are three key areas where improvements 
can be made. 

* Although the District included information on the terms and status 
of certain court orders, it should take steps to update this 
information by including information on the status of court orders it 
has not previously reported on, as well as those previously reported, 
that are applicable during the fiscal year. The act mandates that the 
District's report include a statement on the status of any court 
orders applicable during the fiscal year and the steps taken to comply 
with those orders. We believe that the District, in order to more 
fully comply with the statutory requirements, needs to take steps to 
ensure that the information provided in its performance accountability 
reports is accurate and up-to-date. We are recommending that the 
District establish objective criteria for the types of court orders 
for which it will provide specific compliance information in its 
performance accountability reports. These criteria could include 
factors such as the time, effort, and cost to respond to these court 
orders. If the District government has not acted to comply with the 
court orders it should include an explanation as to why no action was 
taken. In addition, the District should provide summary information on 
other applicable court orders in its future performance accountability 
reports. 

* One of the areas that the District highlighted in its 2001 report is 
its fiscal year 2003 performance based budgeting pilot. As our work 
with executive branch agencies has shown, linking expected 
performance, resources requested, and resources consumed helps promote 
performance management efforts and increases the need for reliable 
budget and financial data.[Footnote 5] Therefore, the District will 
need to verify and validate the data it uses to support the 
achievement of performance goals and present this information in its 
performance accountability reports. The District's plan to develop 
data collection standards is a good first step in this direction. We 
are recommending that the District government improve its future 
performance accountability reports by providing assurance that its 
program and financial data are timely, complete, accurate, useful, and 
consistent. The District's performance and accountability reports 
should also include discussions of strategies to address known data 
limitations. 

* Another area that the District should work toward is including 
performance goals and measures for all of its major activities, and to 
link related expenditure information to the agencies that are 
responsible for these expenditures. For example, including information 
on the funds agencies administer would provide a more complete picture 
of the resources targeted toward achieving an agency's goals and 
therefore help ensure transparency and accountability for the 
District's expenditures. The District's 2001 report states that it 
plans to include goals and measures for major areas, such as the 
public schools and the Child and Family Services Agency, in the fiscal 
year 2003 proposed budget and financial plan that it will submit to 
Congress. The District's plan to use these goals and measures as the 
basis for the fiscal year 2002 performance and accountability report 
should help provide a more complete picture of performance for 
decision makers and the District's citizens. 

Background: 

The Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994 requires that the 
mayor of the District of Columbia submit to Congress a statement of 
measurable and objective performance goals for the significant 
activities of the District government (i.e., the performance 
accountability plan). After the end of the each fiscal year, the 
District is to report on its performance (i.e., the performance 
accountability report). The District's performance report is to 
include: 

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

* the title of the District of Columbia management employee most 
directly responsible for the achievement of each goal and the title of 
the employee's immediate supervisor or superior, and, 

* a statement of the status of any court orders applicable to the 
government of the District of Columbia during the year and the steps 
taken by the government to comply with such orders.
The law also requires that GAO, in consultation with the director of 
the Office of Management and Budget, review and evaluate the District 
performance accountability report and submit it not later than April 
15 to your committees. 

Our June 2001 report on the District's fiscal year 2000 performance 
accountability report included recommendations that the District (1) 
settle on a set of results-oriented goals that are more consistently 
reflected in its performance planning, reporting, and accountability 
efforts, (2) provide specific information in its performance reports 
for each goal that changed, including a description of how, when, and 
why the change occurred, and (3) adhere to the statutory requirement 
that all significant activities of the District government be 
addressed in subsequent performance accountability reports.[Footnote 
6] Our review had determined that the District's fiscal year 2000 
report was of limited usefulness because the District had introduced 
new plans, goals, and measures throughout the year, the goals and 
measures were in a state of flux due to these changes, and its report 
did not cover significant activities, such as the District's public 
schools, an activity that accounted for more than 15 percent of the 
District's budget. In response, the District concurred with our 
findings and acknowledged that additional work was needed to make the 
District's performance management system serve the needs of its 
citizens and Congress. The comments stated that the District planned, 
for example, to consolidate its goals and expand the coverage of its 
fiscal year 2001 report to more fully comply with its mandated 
reporting requirements. 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

We examined the progress the District has made in developing its 
performance accountability report and identified areas where 
improvements are needed. Specifically, the objectives of this report 
were to examine (1) the extent to which the District's performance 
accountability report includes its significant activities, (2) how 
well the District reports progress toward a consistent set of goals 
and explains any changes in the goals, (3) the extent to which the 
report adheres to the statutory requirements, and (4) areas for future 
improvement. 

To meet these objectives, we reviewed and analyzed the information 
presented in the District's fiscal year 2001 performance 
accountability report and interviewed key District officials. 

* To examine the extent to which the District's performance 
accountability report included significant activities, we compared the 
information in the 2001 performance and accountability report with 
budget information on actual expenditures presented in the District's 
budget.[Footnote 7] 

* To determine how well the District reported progress toward a 
consistent set of goals, we compared the report's goals with those 
contained in the District's fiscal year 2002 Proposed Budget and 
Financial Plan which served as the District's 2001 performance plan 
and then reviewed any changes. 

* To determine the extent to which the report adhered to the statutory 
requirements, we analyzed the information contained in the District's 
report in conjunction with the requirements contained in the Federal 
Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994. We also reviewed the performance 
contracts for the District's cabinet-level officials. 

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

We conducted our work from December 2001 through April 2002 at the 
Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. In 
accordance with requirements contained in P.L. 103-373, we consulted 
with a representative of the director of the Office of Management and 
Budget concerning our review. We did not verify the accuracy or 
reliability of the performance data included in the District's report, 
including information on the court orders in effect for fiscal year 
2001. 

We provided a draft of this report to the mayor of the District of 
Columbia for review and comment. The deputy mayor/city administrator 
provided oral and written comments that are summarized at the end of 
this report, along with our response. The written comments are 
reprinted in their entirety in appendix III. 

The 2001 Report Included Most of the District's Significant Activities: 

The fiscal year 2001 performance accountability report includes most 
of the District's significant activities, providing performance 
information for 66 District agencies that represent 83 percent of the 
District's total expenditures of $5.9 billion during that year. The 
District included 26 additional agencies in this year's report, 
compared with 40 in its prior report for fiscal year 2000. Appendix I 
lists the 66 agencies included in the District's 2001 performance 
accountability report, along with the 2001 actual expenditures for 
each of these agencies. However, the absence of goals and measures 
related to educational activities remains the most significant gap. 

The District reports that it is continuing its efforts to include 
performance information on its significant activities in its 
performance accountability reports. For example, the 2001 performance 
accountability report notes that the District of Columbia Public 
Schools (DCPS) did not include performance goals or measures because 
they were in the early stages of a long-term strategic planning 
process initiated by the newly installed school board. DCPS accounted 
for about 14 percent of the District's fiscal year 2001 actual 
expenditures, and public charter schools, which also were not 
included, accounted for another 2 percent of the District's 2001 
expenditures. The 2001 report states that in lieu of a formal 
performance accountability report for DCPS, the District included a 
copy of the Superintendent's testimony before the Subcommittee on the 
District of Columbia, Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of 
Representatives. The District acknowledged that the inclusion of this 
information does not fully comply with the statutory requirement and 
set forth a plan to include DCPS performance goals and measures in the 
fiscal year 2003 proposed budget and financial plan that will serve as 
the basis for the DCPS performance accountability report for fiscal 
year 2002. 

The 2001 report lists another 10 agencies that were not included, 
primarily, according to the report, because they did not publish 
performance goals and measures in the fiscal year 2002 proposed 
budget. These 10 agencies accounted for about $330 million in fiscal 
year 2001 actual expenditures, or about 6 percent of the District's 
total fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures. These agencies included 
the Child and Family Services Agency, which was under receivership 
until June 15, 2001 (with fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures of $189 
million) and public charter schools (with fiscal year 2001 
expenditures of $137 million). Although it may not be appropriate to 
include agency performance information in some cases, the performance 
accountability report should provide a rationale for excluding them. 
For example, Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, according to the 
deputy mayor, have a wide range of agendas that cannot be captured in 
a single set of meaningful measures. Table 3 lists these 10 agencies 
and their fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures. 

In addition to these 10 agencies, the District also did not 
specifically include other areas constituting 11 percent of the 
District's fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures.[Footnote 8] In view 
of the District's interest in tying resources to results, the District 
could further improve its performance accountability reports by 
linking these budget activities as appropriate to the agencies that 
are responsible for these expenditures or provide a rationale for 
exclusion. For example, the Department of Employment Services 
administers the unemployment and disability funds (with fiscal year 
2001 expenditures totaling about $32 million). Similarly, the Office 
of the Corporation Counsel administers the settlement and judgments 
fund, which was set up to settle claims and lawsuits and pay judgments 
in tort cases entered against the District (with fiscal year 2001 
expenditures of about $26 million). Table 4 contains a list of these 
budget activities and fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures. 

The District's 2001 Plan and Report Addressed a Consistent Set of 
Performance Goals: 

The goals in the fiscal year 2001 performance accountability report 
were consistent with the goals in the District's 2001 performance 
plan. Using a consistent set of goals enhanced the understandability 
of the report by demonstrating how performance measured throughout the 
year contributed toward achieving the District's goals. The District 
also used clear criteria for rating performance on a five-point scale 
and reported that these ratings were included in the performance 
evaluations of cabinet agency directors who had performance contracts 
with the mayor. In addition, according to a District official, the 
District will be able to provide information on any future changes 
made to its performance goals through its new performance management 
database. 

The District has made substantial progress in improving its 
performance planning and reporting efforts by focusing on measuring 
progress toward achieving a consistent set of goals. In our June 2001 
review of the District's 2000 performance accountability report, we 
had raised concerns that the District's performance management process 
was in flux, with goals changing continually throughout the year. 
Further, the District did not discuss the reasons for these changes. 
This year, the goals were consistent and the District provided some 
information about upcoming changes that could be anticipated in fiscal 
year 2002 goals. In addition, according to the 2001 report, the 
District has developed a performance measures database to allow it to 
document changes to individual goals and measures that are proposed in 
the agencies' fiscal year 2003 budget submissions. 

One of the District's enhancements to its 2001 performance 
accountability report was reporting on a five-point performance rating 
scale, as compared to the three-point performance rating scale it used 
in its fiscal year 2000 report. The five-point scale was designed to 
be consistent with the rating scale used in the District's Performance 
Management Program, under which management supervisory service, 
excepted service, and selected career service personnel develop 
individual performance plans against which they are evaluated at the 
end of the year. The five ratings are: (1) below expectations, (2) 
needs improvement, (3) meets expectations, (4) exceeds expectations, 
and (5) significantly exceeds expectations. According to the fiscal 
year 2001 performance accountability report, this scale was used to 
evaluate the performance of cabinet agency directors who held 
performance contracts with the mayor. It stated that 60-percent of 
each director's performance rating was based on the agency-specific 
goals included in the agency's performance accountability report, with 
the other 40-percent based on operational support requirements such as 
responsiveness to customers, risk management, and local business 
contracting. Our work has found that performance agreements can become 
an increasingly vital part of overall efforts to improve programmatic 
performance and better achieve results.[Footnote 9] We found that the 
use of results-oriented performance agreements: 

* strengthened alignment of results-oriented goals with daily 
operations, 

* fostered collaboration across organizational boundaries, 

* enhanced opportunities to discuss and routinely use performance 
information to make program improvements, 

* provided a results-oriented basis for individual accountability, and, 

* maintained continuity of program goals during leadership transitions. 

The Report Generally Adhered to Statutory Requirements: 

The District's fiscal year 2001 performance accountability report 
reflected improvement in adhering to the statutory requirements in the 
Federal Payment Reauthorization Act. The District's 2001 report was 
timely and included information on the level of performance achieved 
for most goals listed. It included the titles of the District 
management employee most directly responsible for the achievement of 
each of the goals and the title of that employee's immediate 
supervisor, as required by the statute. We also found that the names 
and titles on the performance contracts of the cabinet level officials 
we reviewed matched the names in the performance report as the 
immediate supervisor for all of the goals. Although the report 
contains information on certain court orders, the report could be 
improved by providing clearer and more complete information on the 
steps the District government has taken during the reporting year to 
comply with those orders and by including updated information on the 
court orders applicable to the District as required by the act. 

The Report Identified Performance Levels Achieved toward Most of the 
District's Goals: 

The District identified the level of performance achieved for most of 
the goals in its 2001 report. The report contains a total of 214 
performance goals that are associated with the 66 agencies covered. Of 
these 214 performance goals, 201 goals (or 94 percent) include 
information on whether or not the goal was achieved, and only 13 did 
not include information on the level of performance. 

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

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

Agency: Office of Property Management; 
Number of goals for which the level of performance achieved is not 
shown: 1. 

Agency: Board of Elections and Ethics; 
Number of goals for which the level of performance achieved is not 
shown: 1. 

Agency: Office of the Chief Financial Officer; 
Number of goals for which the level of performance achieved is not 
shown: 1. 

Agency: Board of Real Property Assessments and Appeals; 
Number of goals for which the level of performance achieved is not 
shown: 1. 
	
Agency: Office of the People's Counsel; 
Number of goals for which the level of performance achieved is not 
shown: 1. 

Agency: Citizen Complaint Review Board; 
Number of goals for which the level of performance achieved is not 
shown: 3. 

Agency: Office of the Chief Medical Examiner; 
Number of goals for which the level of performance achieved is not 
shown: 1. 

Agency: State Education Office; 
Number of goals for which the level of performance achieved is not 
shown: 4. 

Agency: Total; 
Number of goals for which the level of performance achieved is not 
shown: 13. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 
		
Information the District Included on Court Orders Has Limitations: 

Although the District's 2001 performance accountability report 
included some information on certain court orders imposed upon the 
District and the status of its compliance with those orders, the act 
calls for a statement of the status of any court orders applicable to 
the District of Columbia government during the year and the steps 
taken by the government to comply with such orders. The 2001 report 
contains information on the same 12 court orders involving civil 
actions against the District reported on for fiscal years 1999 and 
2000. Among these 12 orders are 2 orders that the fiscal year 2001 
report lists as no longer in effect in 2001. One of these court orders 
involved a receivership that terminated in May 2000. The other 
involved a maximum-security facility that closed at the end of January 
2001. The 2001 report does not disclose whether or not any new court 
orders were imposed on the District during fiscal year 2001. 

The summaries that the District provides on the status of these court 
orders could be more informative if they contained clearer and more 
complete information on the steps taken by the District government to 
comply with the court orders. For example, according to the District's 
2001 report, the case Nikita Petties v. DC relates to DCPS 
transportation services to special education students and the timely 
payment of tuition and related services to schools and providers. The 
report's summary on the status of this case states: "The School system 
has resumed most of the transportation responsibilities previously 
performed by a private contractor. A transportation Administrator with 
broad powers had been appointed to coordinate compliance with Court 
orders. He has completed his appointment and this position has been 
abolished." This summary does not provide a clear picture of what 
steps the school system is taking to comply with the requirements 
resulting from this court order. The act, however, calls for the 
District to report on the steps taken by the government to comply with 
such orders. 

Steps Are Needed to Improve Future Performance Accountability 
Reports: 	 

The District recognized in its 2001 performance and accountability 
report that its performance management system is a work-in-progress 
and stated that there are several fronts on which improvements can be 
made. In the spirit of building on the progress that the District has 
made in improving its performance accountability reports over the last 
2 years, there are three key areas where we believe that improvements 
in future performance accountability reports are needed. First, the 
District needs to be more inclusive in reporting on court orders to 
more fully comply with the act's requirements. Second, as part of the 
District's emphasis on expanding its performance-based budgeting 
approach, the District needs to validate and verify the performance 
data it relies on to measure performance and assess progress, present 
this information in its performance accountability reports, and 
describe its strategies to address any known data limitations. 
Finally, the District needs to continue its efforts to include goals 
and measures for its major activities, and it should include related 
expenditure information to provide a more complete picture of the 
resources targeted toward achieving an agency's goals and therefore 
help to enhance transparency and accountability. 

The District Should Be More Inclusive in Reporting on Court Orders: 

Since this is the third year that the District has had to develop 
performance and accountability reports, the District has had 
sufficient time to determine how best to present information on the 
status of any court orders that are applicable to the District of 
Columbia during the fiscal year and the steps taken to comply with 
those orders. However, the District has continued to report on the 
same 12 court orders for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001. 

By limiting its presentation to the same 12 court orders, the 
District's current report does not provide assurance that the 
information in its performance accountability report reflects court 
orders applicable during the fiscal year. Court orders have an 
important effect on the District's performance, as reflected by the 
chief financial officer's statement that the District's "unforeseen 
expenses are often driven by new legislative imperatives, court-
ordered mandates, and suits and settlements."[Footnote 10] As another 
indication of their importance, 1 of the 11 general clauses in 
performance contracts with agency directors addresses the directors' 
responsiveness to court orders. 

To make future reports more useful, the District should include 
information on the status of court orders it has not previously 
reported on as well as those applicable during the fiscal year, 
including those that may have been vacated during the fiscal year and 
the steps taken to comply with them. The District should establish 
objective criteria for determining the types of court orders for which 
it will provide specific compliance information for future performance 
accountability reports, and it should consider ways to provide summary 
information related to any other court orders. In establishing 
objective criteria, the factors could include the cost, time, and 
magnitude of effort involved in complying with a court order. If the 
District government has not acted to comply with a court order it 
should include an explanation as to why no action was taken. 

The District's 2001 report contains a statement that "Following the 
publication of the FY 1999 Performance Accountability Report, GAO and 
the District's Office of Corporation Counsel agreed upon a list of 12 
qualifying orders that should be included in the District's future 
Performance Accountability Reports." We did not intend to limit future 
reporting to only the 12 court orders first reported by the District 
for fiscal year 1999. We agreed on the list of 12 court orders 
because, at that time, the District had difficulty identifying all the 
court orders as required by statute. However, we believe that the 
District now has had time to develop criteria and a system for 
ensuring that updated and accurate information on the status of 
applicable court orders can be presented in its future performance 
accountability reports. Therefore, we are recommending that the mayor 
ensure that such steps are taken. 

The District Faces Challenges in Verifying and Validating Its 
Performance Information: 

The District has identified data collection standards as one of the 
areas it is working to improve. As with federal agencies, one of the 
biggest challenges the District faces is developing performance 
reports with reliable information to assess whether goals are being 
met or how performance can be improved. Data must be verified and 
validated to ensure the performance measures used are complete, 
accurate, consistent, and of sufficient quality to document 
performance and support decision making. Data verification and 
validation are key steps in assessing whether the measures are timely, 
reliable, and adequately represent actual performance. The District's 
performance and accountability reports should include information 
obtained from verification and validation efforts and should discuss 
strategies to address known data limitations. 

As reported in our June 2001 report on the District's fiscal year 2000 
performance accountability report, the District had planned to issue 
performance review guidelines by the end of the summer of 2001. These 
guidelines were to be issued in response to an Inspector General's 
finding that the agencies did not maintain records and other 
supporting documentation for the accomplishments they reported 
regarding the fiscal year 2000 performance contracts. The District 
included information in its fiscal year 2003 budget instructions 
regarding performance measures emphasizing the importance of high 
quality data. Although not required for agencies' budget submissions, 
the guidance called for every agency to maintain, at a minimum, 
documentation on how it calculated each measure and the data source 
for each measure. 

In its 2001 performance accountability report, the District said it 
plans to address the development of data collection standards. The 
District plans to begin developing manuals to document how data for 
each performance measure is collected, how the measure is calculated, 
and who is responsible for collecting, analyzing, and reporting the 
data. A further step the District can consider is ensuring that these 
data are independently verified and validated. A District official 
acknowledged that validating and verifying performance information is 
something the District would deal with in the future. Credible 
performance information is essential for accurately assessing 
agencies' progress toward the achievement of their goals and 
pinpointing specific solutions to performance shortfalls. Agencies 
also need reliable information during their planning efforts to set 
realistic goals.[Footnote 11] 

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

The District Should Enhance Its Efforts to Include Goals, Measures, 
and Related Expenditure Information: 

Although the District has made progress in presenting program 
performance goals and measures, the 2001 report did not contain goals 
and measures for all of its major activities and it did not include 
information on other areas that accounted for 11 percent of its annual 
expenditures. The District could enhance the transparency and 
accountability of its reports by continuing its efforts to ensure that 
agencies establish goals and measures that they will use to track 
performance during the year and by taking steps to ensure that 
agencies responsible for other budget activities (as shown in table 4) 
include these areas in their performance reports. 

The District did not include, for example, goals and measures for 
DCPS, although it did provide a copy of a testimony and stated that 
this was included, at least in part, to address concerns we had raised 
in our June 2001 report that the District's fiscal year 2000 
performance accountability report did not cover DCPS.[Footnote 13] The 
District also did not include another 10 agencies in its 2001 
performance accountability report and indicated that it is taking 
steps to include relevant goals and measures for some of these 
agencies in the next year's report. 

In addition to including goals and measures for the District's 
significant activities, the District should consider including related 
expenditure information to help ensure transparency and 
accountability. We found, for example, that the Department of 
Employment Services administers the unemployment and disability funds 
but this information was not linked in the District's 2001 performance 
accountability report. By linking expenditures to agencies that are 
responsible for them, the District can further improve its future 
performance accountability reports by providing a more complete 
picture of performance. 

Conclusions: 

The District, like several federal agencies, has found that it needed 
to change its performance goals—in some cases substantially—as it 
learned and gained experience during the early years of its 
performance measurement efforts. The District has continued to make 
progress in implementing a more results-oriented approach to 
management and accountability and issuing a timely and more complete 
performance accountability report. As we have seen with federal 
agencies, cultural transformations do not come quickly or easily, and 
improvements in the District's performance management system are still 
underway. Despite the important progress that has been made, 
opportunities exist for the District to strengthen its efforts as it 
moves forward. 

Recommendations: 

In order to more fully comply with the Federal Payment Reauthorization 
Act of 1994, which requires the District to provide a statement of the 
status of any court orders applicable to the government of the 
District of Columbia during the year and the steps taken by the 
government to comply with such orders, the mayor should ensure that 
the District establish objective criteria to determine the types of 
court orders for which it will provide specific compliance information 
for future performance accountability reports. In establishing 
objective criteria, the factors could include the cost, time, and 
magnitude of effort involved in complying with these court orders. If 
the District government has not acted to comply with the court orders 
it should include an explanation as to why no action was taken. In 
addition, the District should provide summary information related to 
other applicable court orders in its performance accountability 
reports. 

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

* include information on the extent to which its performance measures 
and data have been verified and validated and discuss strategies to 
address known data limitations, and; 

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

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

On April 2, 2002, we provided a draft of our report to the mayor of 
the District of Columbia for his review. In response to our request, 
the deputy mayor/city administrator met with us on April 4 to discuss 
the draft and provided us with written comments on April 8. His 
written comments appear in appendix III. 

Overall, the deputy mayor stated that he agreed with the findings of 
the report and concurred with the report's recommendations. He stated 
that clear and meaningful performance reports are essential to 
communicate the extent to which the District has or has not met its 
goals and commitments to make those improvements. Further, he stated 
that the findings and recommendations in this report were consistent 
with the District government's intent of further improving its public 
reporting. 

The deputy mayor stated that the District would adopt our 
recommendation to develop objective criteria to determine the types of 
court orders for which it will provide specific compliance information 
for future performance accountability reports. Our recommendation also 
stated that the District should more fully comply with the statute by 
reporting information on the steps taken by the District government to 
comply with these orders. The deputy mayor said that they would 
provide such additional information although he stated that the 
statute does not specifically require that this information be 
provided. However, the Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994 
(Pi. 103-373) section 456(b)(C) requires that the District's 
performance accountability report contain "a statement of the status 
of any court orders applicable to the government of the District of 
Columbia during the year and the steps taken by the government to 
comply with such orders." We encourage the District government to 
comply with this requirement and concur with its comment that 
providing this information would make the report more informative and 
useful to Congress and the general public. 

The deputy mayor also concurred with our recommendation that the 
District's future performance reports include information on the 
extent to which its performance data have been validated and verified. 
The deputy mayor said that seven District agencies participating in 
the District's performance based budgeting pilot would be developing 
data collection manuals this summer. We encourage the District to 
proceed with this effort as well as to develop and report on 
strategies for addressing limitations in its data collections efforts. 
We have suggested in prior reports that when federal agencies have low 
quality or unavailable performance data, they should discuss how they 
plan to deal with such limitations in their performance plans and 
reports. Assessments of data quality do not lead to improved data for 
accountability and program management unless steps are taken to 
respond to the data limitations that are identified. In addition, 
alerting decisionmakers and stakeholders to significant data 
limitations allows them to judge the data's credibility for their 
intended use and to use the data in appropriate ways. 

Regarding the independent verification of performance data, the deputy 
mayor stated that the District's ability to secure independent 
verification of more than selected goals and measures is limited by 
the resources available to the District's Office of the Inspector 
General (OIG). He said that the OIG conducted spot-check audits of 
selected scorecard goals in the fiscal year 2000 performance 
accountability report and although these limited audits allowed the 
District to determine the validity of only those particular measures, 
this effort provided valuable observations and suggestions on how 
District agencies could improve its data collection practices. He also 
said that his office has discussed initiating additional spot-check 
audits of selected goals and measures with the OIG during fiscal year 
2002. We agree that such spot checks would be useful. The knowledge 
that the OIG will be spot-checking some performance data during each 
fiscal year provides a good incentive to develop and use accurate, 
high-quality data. In our prior work, we have encouraged federal 
agencies to use a variety of strategies to verify and validate their 
performance information, depending upon the unique characteristics of 
their programs, stakeholder concerns, performance measures, and data 
resources.[Footnote 14] In addition to relying on inspector general 
assessments of data systems and performance measures, the District can 
use feedback from data users and external stakeholders to help ensure 
that measures are valid for their intended use. Other approaches can 
include taking steps to comply with quality standards established by 
professional organizations and/or using technical or peer review 
panels to ensure that performance data meet quality specifications. 
The District can also test the accuracy of its performance data by 
comparing it with other sources of similar data, such as data obtained 
from external studies, prior research, and program evaluations. 

The deputy mayor said that the District would be making efforts to 
include additional agencies and budget activities in future 
performance reports. We encourage the District to proceed with these 
efforts. Of the 10 agencies that were not included in the fiscal year 
2001 performance report, the District has already included 3 agencies 
(the Office of Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs, the Child and 
Family Services Agency, and the Office of Veteran Affairs) in its 
fiscal year 2002 performance plan issued in March 2002. In addition, 
the deputy mayor stated that three additional agencies (the Office of 
the Secretary, the Housing Finance Agency, and the National Capital 
Revitalization Corporation) would be included in the District's 
consensus budget to be submitted to the Council of the District of 
Columbia in June 2002. 

With regard to the budget activities that were not included in the 
District's fiscal year 2001 performance report, the deputy mayor 
agreed that it would be appropriate to develop performance measures 
for six funds, such as settlements and judgments and administration of 
the disability compensation fund. The deputy mayor acknowledged that 
establishing performance measures for administering an additional six 
funds, such as the Public Benefit Corporation, would have been 
appropriate but they no longer exist. The deputy mayor said that the 
District of Columbia Retirement Board manages two funds that had 
relevant performance measures in the District's 2001 report. We noted, 
however, that these two retirement funds were not specifically 
identified in the 2001 performance accountability report. 

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

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

Signed by: 

Patricia A. Dalton: 
Director, Strategic Issues: 

List of Congressional Subcommittees: 

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

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

The Honorable Joe Knollenberg: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Chaka Fattah: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
U.S. House of Representatives: 

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

[End of section] 

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

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

Table 2: Actual Expenditure Totals by Agencies Included in the 
District's Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Accountability Report: 

Agency: 1. D.C. Council; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $14,140. 

Agency: 2. D.C. Auditor; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $1,274. 

Agency: 3. Office of the Mayor; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $7,229. 

Agency: 4. Citywide Call Center; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $1,420. 

Agency: 5. Office of the City Administrator; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $16,561. 

Agency: 6. Office of Personnel; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $10,831. 

Agency: 7. Human Resources Development; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $3,673. 

Agency: 8. Office of Finance and Resource Management; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $147,456. 

Agency: 9. Office of Contracting and Procurement; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $12,836. 

Agency: 10. Office of Chief Technology Officer; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $23,189. 

Agency: 11. Office of Property Management; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $59,513. 

Agency: 12. Contract Appeals Board; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $738. 

Agency: 13. Board of Elections and Ethics; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $3,266. 

Agency: 14. Office of Campaign Finance; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $1,260. 

Agency: 15. Public Employee Relations Board; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $586. 

Agency: 16. Office of Employee Appeals; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $1,400. 

Agency: 17. Office of the Corporation Counsel; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $48,987. 

Agency: 18. Office of the Inspector General; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $11,652. 

Agency: 19. Office of the Chief Financial Officer; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $91,634. 

Agency: 20. Business Services and Economic Development; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $22,703. 

Agency: 21. Office of Zoning; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $1,813. 

Agency: 22. Department of Housing and Community Development; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $53,900. 

Agency: 23. Department of Employment Services; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $67,658. 

Agency: 24. Board of Appeals and Review; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $240. 

Agency: 25. Board of Real Property Assessments and Appeals; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $283. 

Agency: 26. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $25,487. 

Agency: 27. Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration[A]; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): 0. 

Agency: 28. Department of Banking and Financial Institutions; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $2,251. 

Agency: 29. Public Service Commission; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $6,093. 

Agency: 30. Office of the People's Counsel; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $3,052. 

Agency: 31. Department of Insurance and Securities Regulation; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $7,518. 

Agency: 32. Office of Cable Television and Telecommunications; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $8,190. 

Agency: 33. Metropolitan Police Department; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $325,582. 

Agency: 34. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $129,392. 

Agency: 35. Department of Corrections; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $213,452. 

Agency: 36. D.C. National Guard; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $2,044. 

Agency: 37. D.C. Emergency Management Agency; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $9,806. 

Agency: 38. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $165. 

Agency: 39. Judicial Nomination Commission; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $84. 

Agency: 40. Citizen Complaint Review Board; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $1,117. 

Agency: 41. Advisory Commission on Sentencing; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $392. 

Agency: 42. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $4,457. 

Agency: 43. State Education Office (includes D.C. Resident Tuition 
Support); 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $37,410. 

Agency: 44. University of the District of Columbia; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $46,933. 

Agency: 45. Public Library; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $27,229. 

Agency: 46. Commission on the Arts and Humanities; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $2,700. 

Agency: 47. Department of Human Services; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $390,775. 

Agency: 48. Department of Health; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $1,112,948. 

Agency: 49. Department of Parks and Recreation; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $38,577. 

Agency: 50. Office on Aging; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $19,944. 

Agency: 51. Office of Human Rights; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $1,237. 

Agency: 52. Office on Latino Affairs; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $3,035. 

Agency: 53. D.C. Energy Office; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $11,035. 

Agency: 54. Department of Public Works (includes School Transit 
Subsidy and Transportation); 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $116,667. 

Agency: 55. Department of Motor Vehicles; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $27,204. 

Agency: 56. Taxicab Commission; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $770. 

Agency: 57. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $82. 

Agency: 58. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $163,073. 

Agency: 59. Department of Mental Health; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $289,293. 

Agency: 60.Water and Sewer Authority; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $205,803. 

Agency: 61. Washington Aqueduct[B]; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): 0. 

Agency: 62. D.C. Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $227,089. 

Agency: 63. D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $3,330. 

Agency: 64. District of Columbia Retirement Board; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $6,748. 

Agency: 65. D.C. Public Schools; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $860,024. 

Agency: 66. Washington Convention Center Authority; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $24,874. 

Agency: Total; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $4,960,104. 

[A] This is a new independent agency that had been part of the 
Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs in fiscal year 2001. 

[B] The Washington Aqueduct is a division of the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers and is considered a federal entity. Congress authorizes 
funding for the aqueduct but the agency submits its budget to the 
District. 

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

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

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

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

Table 3: Ten Agencies the District Reported That It Did Not Include in 
Its Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Accountability Report and Related 
Expenditures: 

Agency: 1. Office of Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs[A]; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): 0. 

Agency: 2. National Capital Revitalization Corporation[A]; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): 0. 

Agency: 3. Office of Veterans Affairs[A]; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): 0. 

Agency: 4. Housing Finance Agency[B]; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): 0. 

Agency: 5. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG)[C]; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $367. 

Agency: 6. Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANC)[C]; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $593. 

Agency: 7. Storm Water[D]; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $326. 

Agency: 8. Office of the Secretary; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $2,352. 

Agency: 9. Public Charter Schools; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $136,867. 

Agency: 10. Child and Family Services Agency; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $189,858. 

Agency: Total; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $330,363. 

[A] This is a new office so it did not expend funds in fiscal year 
2001. 

[B] The Housing Finance Agency is funded through the issuance of 
bonds, fees, earned income, and grants, and had no general fund 
expenditures in fiscal year 2001. 

[C] These agencies may not be included in subsequent performance 
accountability reports because, according to the Deputy Mayor (1) the 
COG should be excluded because this involves membership payments to a 
regional organization, and (2) the ANC has a wide range of agendas 
that cannot be captured in a single set of meaningful measures. 

[D] According to the Deputy Mayor, storm water expenditures should be 
included in Water and Sewer Authority performance goals and measures. 

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

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

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

Budget activity: Settlements and Judgments; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $25,881. 

Budget activity: Unemployment Compensation Fund; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $3,838. 

Budget activity: Disability Compensation Fund; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $27,805. 

Budget activity: Children and Youth Investment Fund; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $5,000. 

Budget activity: Brownfield Remediation; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $983. 

Budget activity: Incentives for Adoption of Children; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $57. 

Budget activity: Police Officers' and Firefighters' Retirement 
System[A]; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $49,000. 

Budget activity: Teachers' Retirement Fund[A]; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $200. 

Budget activity: Wilson Building[A]; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $9,897. 

Budget activity: Inaugural Expenses; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $5,755. 

Budget activity: Repayment of General Fund Deficit; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $38,366. 

Budget activity: Repayment of Loans and Interest; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $228,364. 

Budget activity: Certificates of Participation; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $7,929. 

Budget activity: Section 103 Payment; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $11,000. 

Budget activity: PBC Transition[B]; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $91,599. 

Budget activity: Public Benefit Corporation[B]; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $92,731. 

Budget activity: Public Benefit Corporation Subsidy[B]; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $45,313. 

Budget activity: Corrections Medical Receiver[B]; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $10,820. 

Budget activity: Correctional Industries[B]; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $1,908. 

Budget activity: D.C. Financial Authority[B]; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $3,140. 

Budget activity: Total; 
Fiscal year 2001 actual expenditures (in thousands): $659,586. 

[A] According to the deputy mayor, these three budget activities are 
managed by agencies that have relevant performance measures. There is 
no specific mention of these activities, however, in the District's 
2001 performance accountability report. 

[B] According to the deputy mayor, these funds are no longer in 
existence. 

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

[End of section] 

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

Government Of The District Of Columbia: 
Executive Office Of The Mayor: 
Office of the City Administrator: 
The John A. Wilson Building: 
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW: 
Washington, DC 20004: 

April 8, 2002: 

Patricia Dalton: 
Director, Strategic Issues: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street, NW, Suite 2908: 
Washington, DC 20548: 
Dear Ms. Dalton: 

This letter is in response to the draft report[Footnote 15] by the 
General Accounting Office (GAO) on the level of compliance of the 
District of Columbia's FY 2001 Performance Accountability Report with 
the requirements for the Performance Accountability Report established 
in the Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994 (PL 103-373).
The GAO report notes that the District has made consistent and 
significant progress in improving its performance accountability 
reports over the last three years and we appreciate that
acknowledgement. We also appreciate the suggestions for three areas in 
which the District could continue to improve its future performance 
accountability reports: 

1. Providing more information on the status of court orders affecting 
District government activities; 

2. Establishing data collection standards and practices to improve the 
validity and reliability of performance data in future reports; and; 

3. Continuing to expand the range of agencies and activities reported 
on in performance accountability reports. 

In general, we agree with your findings and stand ready to implement 
your recommendations to the extent that current and future resources 
allow. However, as discussed in our meeting of April 4, 2002, it's 
important for the reader of the report to note that, while the format 
calls for repetition of GAO's findings and recommendations several 
times in the report, the District is now, for the first time, in 
general compliance with the requirements for performance management. 

Reporting on the Status of Court Orders: 

GAO's recommendation that the District develop criteria to determine 
whether recent court orders or civil actions should be added to the 
list of court orders that are reported on in each year's performance 
accountability report will be adopted. The proposed criteria provide 
the District with a starting point to improve this section of the FY 
2002 Performance Accountability Report that will be submitted to 
Congress in March 2003. 

In addition, GAO recommends that the District provide more detail on 
the specific actions it takes in response to court orders, although 
the statute does not specifically require that information be 
provided. The District agrees that providing such additional 
information would make the District's performance accountability 
report more informative and useful to Congress, GAO and the general 
public, and will implement this recommendation in future reports. 

Data Validity and Reliability: 

Development of Data Collection Standards: The District concurs with 
GAO's finding that the District needs to develop data collection 
standards. Development of such standards is an integral part of the 
District's performance-based budgeting initiative, which is being 
implemented in a multi-phase process over the time period FY 2001-FY 
2006. 

As stated in the District's FY 2001 Performance Accountability Report, 
the seven FY 2003 PBB agencies will develop data collection manuals in 
summer 2002 that will document how data for each performance measure 
is collected, how the measure is calculated and what staff are 
responsible for collecting, analyzing and reporting the data. While 
the Office of Budget and Planning will directly support only the seven 
PBB agencies in developing these manuals by next fall, the District 
will distribute the guidelines to the cabinet agencies engaging in 
performance-based budgeting for FY 2004 and to all non-cabinet 
agencies so they may begin to independently compile the information 
needed for such manuals. 

Independent Verification: GAO further notes that it is important that 
the District secure independent verification of its performance data. 
GAO's recommendation regarding independent verification is a viable 
option in a federal setting in which agencies have internal Inspectors 
General. However, the District's ability to secure independent 
verification of more than selected goals and measures is limited by 
the resources available to the District's Office of the Inspector 
General (OIG). As reported in the District's FY 2000 Performance 
Accountability Report, at our request the OIG conducted spot-check 
audits of selected Scorecard Goals. My office has discussed initiating 
additional spot-check audits of selected goals and measures with the 
Office of the Inspector General during FY 2002. While these limited 
audits allow the District to determine the validity of only those 
particular measures, the previous effort provided valuable 
observations and suggestions on how District agencies could improve 
their data collection practices, including the development of data 
collection manuals, discussed above. 

As a consequence of this timetable, the FY 2002 Performance 
Accountability Report that will be submitted to Congress in March 2003 
will contain limited performance data that has been externally 
validated. We will continue to work toward having the majority of 
District agencies' performance data meet basic validation criteria. 
But the Districts ability to obtain independent verification of the 
validity and reliability of its performance data will likely remain 
limited to a sample of goals and measures from a rotating pool of 
selected agencies. 

Expanded Coverage of the District's Performance Accountability Reports: 

GAO addresses two distinct areas in which the District could increase 
coverage of "significant activities" in future performance 
accountability reports: 1) expanding the number of agencies covered 
and 2) expanding coverage to include a variety of special purpose 
funds. 

Inclusion of Additional Agencies: The first suggestion is that the 
District needs to expand coverage of District agencies that have not 
been included in this year's report. Specifically, GAO cites the Child 
and Family Services Agency (CFSA) and the D.C. Public Schools (DCPS) 
as agencies whose performance was not rated, in large part because 
neither included performance goals or measures in the FY 2002 Proposed 
Budget and Financial Plan submitted to Congress in June 2001. The 
District has developed performance goals and measures for CFSA that 
appear in the Mayor's FY 2003 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, 
submitted to Council of the District of Columbia in March 2002. In 
addition, the District has requested that DCPS identify performance 
goals and measures from its Strategic Business Plan to include in the 
consensus budget, to be submitted to Council in June 2002. 

The District has also taken steps to develop FY 2002 goals and targets 
that will be published in the FY 2003 budget for the other agencies 
listed by GAO and those agencies will report on performance against 
their goals in the FY 2002 Performance Accountability Report (see 
Attachment I). 

Providing Performance Information of Special Purpose Funds: The second 
issue that GAO raises is that the District has not included 
performance information for a range of special funds that comprise 
approximately 11 percent of the District's FY 2001 budget[Footnote 16] 
The District acknowledges that the collective amount of these funds is 
a significant amount of the entire budget and that providing 
performance information in future performance accountability reports 
would present a more complete description of its activities. 

However, as discussed in our meeting of April 4, 2002, some of these 
funds are managed by other agencies that already have relevant 
performance measures. In these instances, establishing additional 
performance measures would not be appropriate. For example the DC 
Retirement Board (DCRB) manages the Teachers Retirement Fund and the 
Police and Firefighters Retirement System and has measures related to 
rates of return on its investments that are included in the FY 2001 
Performance Accountability Report. 

On the other hand, while funds related to repayment of debt would not 
have dedicated performance measures, the District agrees it would be 
appropriate for the Office of the Chief Financial Officer to consider 
supplementing its existing measures related to debt management. These 
could include the District's overall bond rating, as well as factors 
that the major rating agencies consider when setting the bond rating, 
including, but not limited to the amount of outstanding debt per 
capita and timeliness of payments. 

Attachment II is the District's initial projection of which of these 
funds it would be appropriate to set performance goals and measures 
for in future years. The District will inform GAO of the status of 
that effort prior to submitting the FY 2003 budget to Congress. 

Conclusion: 

While the District has made great strides in improving the extent to 
which its performance reports comply with the statute, our central 
motivation in this effort remains improving the performance of all 
aspects of the District government to benefit our residents, commuters 
and visitors. Clear and meaningful performance reports are essential 
to communicate the extent to which the District has or has not met its 
goals and commitments to make those improvements. GAO's findings and 
recommendations are consistent with our own aims to further improve 
our public reporting. The collegial and constructive manner in which 
this year's evaluation team worked with the District prior to the 
submission of our FY 2001 report to Congress contributed to some of 
the improvements already incorporated and we appreciate GAO's ongoing 
support and assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

John A. Koskinen: 

Attachments: 

[End of letter] 

Attachment I: 

Agencies Not Included in FY 2001 Performance Accountability Report: 

Agency: Office of Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs; 
Reason for Exclusion: No funding in FY 2001; 
Status of Goals and Measures Development: Included in March budget. 

Agency: Office of the Secretary; 
Reason for Exclusion: Did not develop goals and measures in prior 
years; 
Status of Goals and Measures Development: To be included in June 
budget. 

Agency: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments; 
Reason for Exclusion: Membership payment to regional organization; 
Status of Goals and Measures Development: Will not develop goals and 
measures. 

Agency: Public Charter Schools; 
Reason for Exclusion: Did not develop goals and measures in prior 
years; 
Status of Goals and Measures Development: To Be Determined[A]. 

Agency: Housing Finance Agency; 
Reason for Exclusion: Did not develop goals and measures in prior 
years; 
Status of Goals and Measures Development: Will request for inclusion 
in June budget. 

Agency: Advisory Neighborhood Commissions; 
Reason for Exclusion: ANCs have wide range of agendas that cannot be 
captured in a single set of meaningful measures; 
Status of Goals and Measures Development: Will not develop goals and 
measures. 

Agency: National Capital Revitalization Corporation; 
Reason for Exclusion: No funding in FY 2001; 
Status of Goals and Measures Development: Will request for inclusion 
in June budget. 

Agency: Child and Family Services Agency; 
Reason for Exclusion: CFSA in transition from receivership at time of 
FY 2002 Budget Development; 
Status of Goals and Measures Development: Included in March budget. 

Agency: Storm Water; 
Reason for Exclusion: Under management of WASA, which is included in 
FY01 report; 
Status of Goals and Measures Development: Will not develop separate 
goals and measures. 

Agency: Veterans Affairs; 
Reason for Exclusion: No funding in FY 2001; 
Status of Goals and Measures Development: Included in March budget. 

[A] As noted in the text of this letter, the District is requesting 
performance goals and measures from DC Public Schools for inclusion in 
the FY 2003 budget. The District will propose that Public Charter 
Schools review those measures when complete and consider adopting 
similar measures, especially where related to student performance. As 
a result, Charter School Measures will not be included in the FY 2003 
budget, but the District will seek to provide performance data in the 
FY 2002 performance accountability report to establish a baseline for 
2003 and beyond. 

[End of Attachment I] 

Attachment II: Special Purpose Funds for which Data Will Be Provided 
in Future Performance Reports: 

Special Purpose Fund: 1. Teachers Retirement Fund; 
Appropriateness of Performance Measures: Captured in DC Retirement 
Board. 

Special Purpose Fund: 2. Police Officers & Firefighters Retirement 
System; 
Appropriateness of Performance Measures: Captured in DC Retirement 
Board. 

Special Purpose Fund: 3. Settlements & Judgments; 
Appropriateness of Performance Measures: Goals and measures are 
appropriate to set for future years. 

Special Purpose Fund: 4. Unemployment Compensation Fund; 
Appropriateness of Performance Measures: Goals and measures are 
appropriate to set for future years. 

Special Purpose Fund: 5. Disability Compensation Fund; 
Appropriateness of Performance Measures: Goals and measures are 
appropriate to set for future years. 

Special Purpose Fund: 6. Children & Youth Investment Fund; 
Appropriateness of Performance Measures: Goals and measures are 
appropriate to set for future years. 

Special Purpose Fund: 7. Brownfield Remediation; 
Appropriateness of Performance Measures: Goals and measures are 
appropriate to set for future years. 

Special Purpose Fund: 8. Incentives for Adoption for Children; 
Appropriateness of Performance Measures: Goals and measures are 
appropriate to set for future years. 

Special Purpose Fund: 9. Wilson Building; 
Appropriateness of Performance Measures: Goals and measures related to 
Wilson Building Renovations and Occupancy included in Office of 
Property Management (AMO). 

Special Purpose Fund: 10. Section 103 Payment; 
Appropriateness of Performance Measures: Goals and measures not 
appropriate for payment of this type. 

Special Purpose Fund: 11. Repayment of Loans & Interest; 
Appropriateness of Performance Measures: Goals and measures not 
appropriate for payment of this type. 

Special Purpose Fund: 12. Certificates of Participation; 
Appropriateness of Performance Measures: Goals and measures not 
appropriate for payment of this type. 

Special Purpose Fund: 13. Repayment of General Fund Deficit; 
Appropriateness of Performance Measures: Goals and measures not 
appropriate for payment of this type. 

Special Purpose Fund: 14. Public Benefit Corporation Subsidy; 
Appropriateness of Performance Measures: Measures would have been 
appropriate but this specific fund is no longer in existence. 

Special Purpose Fund: 15. PBC Transition; 
Appropriateness of Performance Measures: Measures would have been 
appropriate but this specific fund is no longer in existence. 

Special Purpose Fund: 16. Public Benefit Corporation; 
Appropriateness of Performance Measures: Measures would have been 
appropriate but this specific fund is no longer in existence. 

Special Purpose Fund: 17. Corrections Medical Receiver; 
Appropriateness of Performance Measures: Measures would have been 
appropriate but this specific fund is no longer in existence. 

Special Purpose Fund: 18. DC Financial Authority; 
Appropriateness of Performance Measures: Measures would have been 
appropriate but this specific fund is no longer in existence. 

Special Purpose Fund: 19. Correctional Industries; 
Appropriateness of Performance Measures: Measures would have been 
appropriate but this specific fund is no longer in existence. 

Special Purpose Fund: 20. Inaugural Expenses; 
Appropriateness of Performance Measures: Once every four years; not 
likely to set performance measures beyond financial controls. 

[End of Attachment II] 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

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

[2] These requirements are contained in the Federal Payment 
Reauthorization Act of 1994, Public Law No. 103-373. 

[3] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing For Results: Using GPRA 
to Help Congressional Decisionmaking and Strengthen Oversight, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-GGD-00-95] (Washington, 
D.C.: Mar. 22, 2000). 

[4] The 2001 performance plan was contained in the District's Fiscal 
Year 2002 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan. 

[5] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Agency 
Progress in Linking Performance Plans With Budgets and Financial 
Statements, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-236] 
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 4, 2002). 

[6] 13.L. 103-373, Sec. 456 (2). 

[7] Fiscal Year 2002 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Government of 
the District of Columbia: June 4, 2001 and Fiscal Year 2003 Proposed 
Budget and Financial Plan, Government of the District of Columbia: 
Mar. 18, 2002. 

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

[9] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Emerging 
Benefits From Selected Agencies' Use of Performance Agreements, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-115] (Washington, D.C.: 
Oct. 30, 2000). 

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

[11] U.S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia Government: 
Progress and Challenges in Performance Management, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-96T] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 3, 
2000). 

[12] U.S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia: Weaknesses 
in Financial Management System Implementation, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-489] (Washington, D.C.: April 30, 
2001), and U.S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia: 
Observations on Management Issues, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-743T] (Washington, D.C.: May 16, 
2001). 

[13] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-804]. 

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

[15] Performance Report Reflects Progress and Opportunities for 
Improvement," (GAO-02-588). 

[16] GAO-02-588, Table 11.2, p. 28. Note: This is table 4 on page 26 
of this report. 

[End of section] 

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 [hyperlink, 
http://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 
[hyperlink, http://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: [hyperlink, http://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: