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.  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.
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.  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.  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.

		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.”  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.
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.

		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.  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 (P.L. 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.  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.

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.

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.
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.

Summary:
Why GAO Did This Study

This report examines the progress the District of Columbia has made with its fiscal year 2001 performance accountability report and highlights continuing challenges facing our nation's capital. The District must submit a performance accountability plan with goals for the coming fiscal year and, at the end of the fiscal year, a performance accountability report on the extent to which it achieved these goals.

What GAO Found

GAO found that the District's Performance Accountability Report for Fiscal Year 2001 provided a more complete picture of its performance and made progress in complying with statutory reporting requirements by using a consistent set of goals. This allowed the District to measure and report progress toward the goals in its 2001 performance plan. Specifically, it reported information on the level of performance achieved, the titles of managers and their supervisors responsible for each goal, and described the status of certain court orders. The District has made progress over the last three years in its performance accountability reports and established positive direction for enhancements in court orders, its fiscal year 2003 performance based budgeting pilots, and performance goals and measures.