This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-940R entitled 'District of Columbia: FY 2003 Performance Report Shows Continued Improvements' which was released on July 07, 2004. This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 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. July 7, 2004: Congressional Committee and Subcommittees: This is the fifth consecutive year that we have reviewed the District of Columbia's performance accountability report as mandated by the Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994. The act requires the Mayor of the District of Columbia to submit to the Congress a performance accountability plan containing a statement of measurable and objective performance goals for the coming fiscal year for all significant activities of the District government. After the end of the fiscal year, the District is to submit a performance accountability report on the extent to which the District achieved these goals. This requirement for the District government is similar to the requirements for executive branch federal agencies under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). GAO's report focuses on the continued progress the District has made in performance reporting. Specifically, the objectives of this report were to (1) examine the extent to which the performance accountability report is in compliance with statutory requirements, and (2) summarize some of the District's other significant performance management initiatives and identify additional opportunities for improvement. To meet our objectives, we reviewed and analyzed the information presented in the District's Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Accountability Report and related budget and planning documents, and interviewed the District official primarily responsible for strategic planning and performance management. More specifically, 1. To examine the extent to which the District's performance accountability report is in compliance with 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. 2. To summarize some of the District's performance management initiatives we reviewed prior years' performance accountability reports and budget documents[Footnote 1] 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 years' performance accountability reports. We conducted our work from March through July 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. In accordance with requirements contained in the act, we consulted with a representative of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget concerning our review. We provided a draft of this report to the mayor of the District of Columbia for review and comment. The District of Columbia provided technical comments that were incorporated into the report. Results in Brief: The District of Columbia's Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Accountability Report generally complied with the statutory reporting requirements and provided a comprehensive review of the District's performance. In general, the act required the District to provide performance goals for all significant activities of the District government in its proposed budget and financial plan. Then, at the end of the fiscal year, the District is required to report on its actual performance for each goal. First, the District provided a statement of the actual level of performance achieved compared to each of the goals stated in the performance accountability plan for the year for almost all significant activities. Second, the District provided the title of the management employee most directly responsible for the achievement of each goal and the title of the employee's immediate supervisor or superior for almost all significant activities. Finally, the District provided a statement of the status of significant court orders applicable to the government of the District of Columbia during the year and the steps it took to comply with such orders. In summarizing some of the District's performance management initiatives, we found that the 2003 performance report provided an update on the expansion and implementation of several performance management programs. The District reported on the expansion of the performance-based budgeting program to 27 additional agencies. The District also reported plans to expand the recommendations and court orders tracking system to begin tracking cost of implementing recommendations and court orders. In addition, the District reported plans to implement an online budgeting and performance program to link agency budgeting and performance reporting. 2003 Performance Accountability Report Addresses Statutory RequirementS: The District generally met statutory requirements. The District's 2003 Performance Report Included Almost All Significant Activities: The Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Accountability Report includes performance goals for almost all of the District's significant activities. The District reported performance goals for 77 activities, 1 more than last year, and represented 90 percent of the District's total expenditures. This year the District included performance data for the Council of the District of Columbia. Performance measures for the council were reported by council period, which runs from January 1 in odd numbered years and is 2 years in length. The District reports on the council's actual performance but does not set goal targets, so no performance rating was assigned. The District reported the agencies' actual performance for almost all of the goals of the agencies. The 2003 report included the actual performance achieved for about 92 percent of the goals included in the performance report. The report contained actual performance information for 72 agencies with 288 goals among them. For the 5 agencies for which the District did not report actual performance, and the corresponding 18 goals, the report provided explanations for why the data were missing or unavailable. The District did not include 33 activities in the 2003 performance report, representing about 10 percent of the District's budget. Last year we recommended the District include goals for the Public Charter Schools, one of the larger activities the District had omitted in 2002. Although goals for the Public Charter Schools were not presented in the fiscal year 2003 report, the District explained that goals have been created for the schools in 2003 and the Charter Schools actual performance will be reported in the fiscal year 2004 report. The final goals and targets for the Public Charter Schools will be included in the fiscal year 2005 budget and performance plan, after agency officials review and accept the proposed goals and targets. Besides the Public Charter Schools, most of the activities not included in the performance report were District special fund activities. In our prior review of the District's performance report,[Footnote 2] we recommended the District report performance data for its special funds, to provide a more comprehensive picture of District activities. While District officials agreed with our recommendation to include goals for special funds in future reports, the special funds were not included in the 2003 report. According to the report and an interview with a District official, measures for special funds were not included because of limited staff resources and other agency priorities. The 2003 report provided explanations for other activities not included, some due to internal agency mergers or because no goals were set for them. Appendix I lists the 77 agencies and associated expenditures included in the District's 2003 performance accountability report, and appendix II lists the budget activities not included in the 2003 report. The District's 2003 Performance Report Included Names of Management Responsible for Performance: As required by statute, the 2003 report included almost all of the names and titles of the District managers most directly responsible for the achievement of each of the goals, as well as most of the names and titles of those managers' immediate supervisors. The District Reported Actions Taken to Comply with Court Orders: The law requires that the District's performance report include the status of any court orders applicable to the District during the year and the steps it took to comply with such orders. The 2003 performance report includes a more complete summary of the status of selected court orders than previous reports. In our reviews of prior performance reports, we have recommended that the District provide more descriptive updates on steps taken to respond to relevant court orders. In response to our recommendation, the 2003 report states that officials provided additional detail, but balanced full disclosure to the public with respect for court proceedings. THE DISTRICT HAS ADDED NEW PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES THAT SUPPORT PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY EFFORTS: We found that the 2003 performance report provided an update on the expansion and implementation of several performance management programs. The District Implemented the Performance-Based Budgeting Program in Additional Agencies: In 2003 the District implemented its performance-based budgeting program in 27 additional agencies, representing nearly 40 percent of the District's total expenditures. 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 those areas.[Footnote 3] For each priority area, the plan also identifies the amount of funding provided for the fiscal year. 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 to 3 years and activities and key initiatives by program within each agency. Each program includes a budget, program activities, related activities, and related key initiatives and results measures. Although the revised planning process that accompanies performance- based budgeting may result in changes in the presentation of goals and measures from prior year performance plans and reports, we found that agency goals included in the 2003 report were generally consistent with agency goals reported in the 2003 performance plan. Approximately 79 percent of the 306 goals remained consistent from the 2003 performance plan and the 2003 performance report. A District official said the performance-based budgeting program, although not yet implemented in every District agency, has already led to improved performance management and budgeting. During the formulation of the District's 2004 budget, officials charged by the District's Council with finding additional savings or making across- the-board reductions in contract spending analyzed performance-based budgeting data to identify areas where contracts could be eliminated and costs reduced while minimizing the impact on the overall program's performance. In addition to the District's initial 7 agencies that implemented performance-based budgeting for 2003 and the additional 27 agencies that implemented their initial performance-based budgets for 2004, the District plans to implement the program for 25 agencies in 2004 and anticipates all 77 agencies will be utilizing performance-based budgeting by 2006. Appendix III provides a list of the agencies and the performance-based budgeting phase that will be introduced. Implementation of Online Budgeting and Performance Reporting System: The District's implementation of an online budget development and performance reporting system, Argus, will enable the District to conduct additional performance analysis and data management. The District official we interviewed said the Argus system will be based on the Hyperion Planning, Scorecard, and Analyzer and Reports software, which will link agency budgeting and performance reporting, allow for monthly performance monitoring, and enhance data collection oversight by District management. Through Argus, agencies will prepare budget requests based on actual program costs. The Argus program will also eliminate the agency's ability to modify performance targets or past performance without management approval, thereby improving data reliability and management oversight. Prior to Argus, the Office of the City Administrator was manually identifying such changes at the end of the fiscal year and requiring agency explanations. The District official we interviewed said Argus will reduce the amount of manual tracking of performance data, freeing up staff resources to focus on additional performance analysis. The District plans to implement the performance reporting component in October 2004 for the agencies already using or implementing performance-based budgeting. Expansion of Recommendation Tracking System Will Enable the District to Report Costs of Implementing Court Orders: The District's expansion of the recommendation tracking system will enable the District to report the costs incurred through implementing court orders and other recommendations. Last year, the District's Chief Financial Officer noted that the District's unforeseen expenses are often driven by new legislative imperatives, court-ordered mandates, and suits and settlements. As a result, we recommended that the District improve tracking and monitoring the costs associated with compliance with court orders. In the fiscal year 2003 performance report, the District outlined plans to expand the recommendation tracking system, originally designed to track recommendation implementation throughout the District, to include tracking the cost of implementing court orders and other recommendations. The recommendation tracking system, administered by the District's Office of Risk Management, will begin tracking implementation costs at the end of FY 2004. The District has made steady progress over the past 5 years in implementing a more results-oriented approach to management and accountability and issuing timely and more complete performance reports. We did not find any significant areas for improvement in the District's performance accountability report. However, as we have reported, actions have not been completed on our prior recommendations related to expanding coverage of goals and measures to all activities within the Mayor's authority, and the monitoring of court costs. District of Columbia Comments: We provided the District of Columbia with a draft of this report for review and comment. The District provided technical comments that were incorporated into the report. The District concurred with our report findings. 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 Ernie Hazera and Chelsa Kenney. If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please contact me (202) 512-6737 or Ernie Hazera on (202) 512-6941. 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: Appendix I: Actual Expenditures for District Agencies Included in the District's Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Accountability Report: The District of Columbia included 77 agencies in its Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Accountability Report. These agencies accounted for about 90 percent of the District's expenditures for fiscal year 2003. The agencies are listed in the order in which they appear in the performance accountability report. Table 1: Actual Expenditures for District Agencies Included in the Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Accountability Report: Agency: Council of the District of Columbia; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $11,397. Agency: Office of the District of Columbia Auditor; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $1,429. Agency: Office of the Mayor; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $9,684. Agency: Office of the Secretary; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $2,570. Agency: Customer Service Operations; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $2,219. Agency: Office of the City Administrator; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $33,154. Agency: D.C. Office of Personnel; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $10,714. Agency: Human Resources Development; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $3,003. Agency: Office of Finance and Resource Management; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $159,180. Agency: Office of Contracting and Procurement; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $13,661. Agency: Office of the Chief Technology Officer; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $77,223. Agency: Office of Property Management; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $59,774. Agency: Contract Appeals Board; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $568. Agency: Board of Elections and Ethics; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $3,696. Agency: Office of Campaign Finance; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $1,245. Agency: Public Employee Relations Board; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $624. Agency: Office of Employee Appeals; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $1,439. Agency: Office of the Corporation Counsel; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $47,369. Agency: Office of the Inspector General; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $10,887. Agency: Office of the Chief Financial Officer; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $88,858. Agency: Office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $24,177. Agency: Office of Planning; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $7,827. Agency: Office of Local Business Development; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $959. Agency: Office of Motion Picture and Television Development; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $443. Agency: Office of Zoning; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $2,371. Agency: Department of Housing and Community Development; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $52,765. Agency: Department of Employment Services; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $85,620. Agency: Board of Appeals and Review; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $260. Agency: Board of Real Property Assessments and Appeals; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $281. Agency: Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $30,612. Agency: Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $2,712. Agency: Department of Banking and Financial Institutions; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $2,146. Agency: Public Service Commission; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $6,572. Agency: Office of the People's Counsel; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $3,779. Agency: Department of Insurance and Securities and Securities Regulation; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $9,349. Agency: Office of Cable Television and Telecommunications; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $6,531. Agency: Metropolitan Police Department; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $371,191. Agency: Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $149,837. Agency: Department of Corrections; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $101,784. Agency: District of Columbia National Guard; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $3,248. Agency: D.C. Emergency Management Agency; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $15,227. Agency: Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $181. Agency: Judicial Nomination Commission; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $113. Agency: Office of Citizen Complaint Review; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $1,324. Agency: Advisory Commission on Sentencing; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $483. Agency: Office of the Chief Medical Examiner; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $6,420. Agency: District of Columbia Public Schools; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $873,535. Agency: State Education Office; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $58,448. Agency: University of the District of Columbia (UDC Subsidy); Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $50,544. Agency: District of Columbia Public Library; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $27,029. Agency: Commission on the Arts and Humanities; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $3,233. Agency: Department of Human Services; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $418,627. Agency: Child and Family Services Agency; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $208,329. Agency: Department of Mental Health; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $286,244. Agency: Department of Health; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $1,381,646. Agency: Department of Parks and Recreation; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $41,564. Agency: D.C. Office on Aging; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $20,422. Agency: Office of Human Rights; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $1,796. Agency: Office on Latino Affairs; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $3,727. Agency: D.C. Energy Office; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $12,061. Agency: Office of Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $203. Agency: Office of Veterans Affairs; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $234. Agency: Department of Public Works; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $105,007. Agency: Department of Transportation; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $36,387. Agency: Department of Motor Vehicles; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $35,320. Agency: D.C. Taxicab Commission; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $1,087. Agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $90. Agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $154,531. Agency: School Transit Subsidy; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $3,803. Agency: Water and Sewer Authority; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $249,304. Agency: Washington Aqueduct; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $0. Agency: D.C. Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $166,185. Agency: D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $12,340. Agency: District of Columbia Retirement Board; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $7,446. Agency: Washington Convention Center Authority; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $65,217. Agency: Housing Finance Agency; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): not listed. Agency: National Capital Revitalization Corporation; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $0. Total; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $5,649,265. Sources: Agencies listed were derived from the Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Accountability Report. Agency actual expenditures were derived from the Fiscal Year 2005 District of Columbia Proposed Budget and Financial Plan. [End of table] [End of section] Appendix II: Activities Not Included in the Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Accountability Report: The District of Columbia's Fiscal Year 2003 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 2: Budget Activities Not Included in the District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Accountability Report: Agency/fund: Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions[i]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $843. Agency/fund: Office of Risk Management; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $0. Agency/fund: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments[ii]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $397. Agency/fund: Emergency Purchase Cards; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $3,000. Agency/fund: Police Officers' and Firefighters' Retirement System[iii]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $68,900. Agency/fund: Office of Administrative Hearings[iv]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $93. Agency/fund: Corrections Information Council[v]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $47. Agency/fund: Criminal Justice Coordinating Council[vi]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $491. Agency/fund: Forensic Health and Science Laboratory; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $0. Agency/fund: Office of Unified Communications; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $0. Agency/fund: Teachers' Retirement Fund[vii]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $0. Agency/fund: D.C. Public Charter Schools[viii]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $118,257. Agency/fund: PBC Transition; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $0. Agency/fund: Unemployment Compensation Fund[ix]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $8,967. Agency/fund: Disability Compensation Fund[x]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $29,991. Agency/fund: Brownfield Remediation; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $0. Agency/fund: Children and Youth Investment Fund[xi]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $7,568. Agency/fund: Medicaid Reserve[xii]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $74,138. Agency/fund: Incentives for Adoption of Children; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $1,539. Agency/fund: Reserve[xiii]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $0. Agency/fund: Repayment of Loans and Interest[xiv]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $250,649. Agency/fund: Repayment of General Fund Deficit[xv]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $39,043. Agency/fund: Short-term Borrowing[xvi]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $3,288. Agency/fund: Certificate Participation[xvii]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $2,280. Agency/fund: Settlements and Judgments[xviii]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $23,716. Agency/fund: Wilson Building[xix]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $3,875. Agency/fund: Workforce Investments[xx]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $0. Agency/fund: Non-Departmental[xxi]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $0. Agency/fund: Tobacco Trust Settlement Fund[xxii]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $0. Agency/fund: One-time Expenses[xxiii]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $0. Agency/fund: Emergency Preparedness Funds (emergency planning and security fund)[xxiv]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $10,624. Agency/fund: Storm Water[xxv]; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $1,439. Agency/fund: Correctional Industries; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $0. TOTAL; Fiscal year 2003 actual expenditures (in thousands): $649,145. Sources: Fiscal Year 2005 District of Columbia Proposed Budget and Financial Plan and District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Accountability Report. I. No fiscal year 2003 Measures set. II. Regional entity outside of authority of OCA to set goals and measures. III. Fund is managed by DC Retirement Board. Performance of the fund is captured in aggregate performance data reported by DC Retirement Board. IV. No fiscal year 2003 Measures set. V. No fiscal year 2003 Measures set. VI. No fiscal year 2003 Measures set. VII. Measures are not set for Funds. VIII. No fiscal year 2003 Measures set. State Education Office had agreed to Draft fiscal year 2004 measures that will be included in the fiscal year 2005 budget upon concurrence of DC public charter schools. IX. Measures are not set for funds. X. Measures are not set for funds. XI. Measures are not set for funds. XII. Measures are not set for funds. XIII. Measures are not set for funds. XIV. Measures are not set for funds. XV. Measures are not set for funds. XVI. Measures are not set for funds. XVII. Measures are not set for funds. XVIII. Measures are not set for funds. XIX. Measures are not set for funds. XX. Measures are not set for funds. XXI. Measures are not set for funds. XXII. Measures are not set for funds. XXIII. Measures are not set for funds. XXIV. Measures are not set for funds. XXV. Measures are not set for funds. WASA manages the Storm water activity. [End of table] Appendix III: Performance-Based Budgeting Agencies: Performance-Based Budgeting was implemented in 7 agencies for fiscal year 2003, and implemented in 27 additional agencies for 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): Office of the Mayor: Office of the City Administrator: DC Office of Personnel: Office of Contracting and Procurement: Office of the Chief Technology Officer: Office of the Property Management: Office of the Corporation Counsel: Office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development: Office of Planning: Department of Housing and Community Development: Department of Employment Services: Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs: Department of Banking and Financial Institutions[Footnote 4] Department of Insurance and Securities Regulation: Office of Cable Television and Telecommunications: Department of Corrections: Emergency Management Agency: Office of the Chief Medical Examiner: DC Public Schools: State Education Office: DC Public Library: Commission on the Arts and Humanities: Child and Family Services Agency: Department of Mental Health: Department of Health: Department of Parks and Recreation: DC Office on Aging: Office of Human Rights: (450311): 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: FOOTNOTES [1] Government of the District of Columbia, Fiscal Year 2003 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, (Washington, D.C.: March, 2002.) [2] U.S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia: Performance Report Shows Continued Progress, GAO-03-693 (Washington, D.C.: May 2003). [3] The five priorities in the District's strategic plan are: (1) Strengthening Children, Youth, Families and Elders; (2) Building Sustainable Neighborhoods; (3) Promoting Economic Development; (4) Making Government Work; and (5) Enhancing Unity of Purpose and Democracy. [4] The Department of Insurance and Securities Regulation and the Department of Banking and Financial Institutions will merge together in late fiscal year 2004 or early fiscal year 2005.