DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

GOVERNMENT

Performance Report’s

Adherence to

Statutory

Requirements

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

and Subcommittees

April 2000

GAO/GGD-00-107

United States General Accounting Office General Government Division

Washington, D.C. 20548

Page 1 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

B-284519

April 14, 2000

Congressional Committees

After holding hearings on the District of Columbia government’s

performance in serving its residents, Congress enacted a law in 1994 that

was intended to provide a disciplined approach to improving the District’s

performance. This law, which was amended in 1997, requires the Mayor to

issue no later than March 1 of each year (a) a performance accountability

plan with goals for the next fiscal year and (b) a performance

accountability report on the performance achieved the previous fiscal year

compared to the planned performance in that year’s plan.1

Under the law as amended, the first performance accountability plan was

required no later than March 1, 1998; and the first performance

accountability report was required no later than March 1, 1999. However,

for reasons explained below, the District government’s first performance

report based on a performance plan was not issued until March 2000.

Although it was originally contemplated that the Mayor would have both

planning and reporting responsibility, Congress transferred this

responsibility in 1997 to the Financial Responsibility and Management

Assistance Authority.2

 The Authority issued the fiscal year 1999 plan on

September 30, 1998—7 months later than the March 1 date required by the

law as amended.

In November 1999, Congress returned this planning and reporting

responsibility to the Mayor.3

 However, because of the 1997 temporary

transfer, the Mayor’s performance report for fiscal year 1999 was required

to be based on goals that the Authority—not the Mayor—had established.

Rather than report on all of the Authority’s goals, the Mayor chose to focus

his report mainly on short-term goals that he had established after taking

office in January 1999.

 1

 Public Law No. 103-373.

2

 Public Law No. 105-100. The Authority is also referred to as the Control Board.

3

 Public Law No. 106-113.
B-284519

Page 2 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

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

following:

• for each goal contained in the performance accountability plan for the

year, a statement of the actual level of performance achieved compared to

the stated goal for an acceptable level of performance and the goal for a

superior level of performance;

• 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 requires us to evaluate each of the annual performance reports

and provide comments to your Committees no later than April 15. Our

evaluation focused on whether the report contains all of the information

required by law and, if not, why. This report transmits our comments on

the Mayor’s performance report for fiscal year 1999, which was due on

March 1, 2000, but was issued on March 7, 2000.

The Mayor’s performance report does not contain the following required

information for any of the 542 agency goals that we identified in the plan:

(1) actual performance compared with two levels of planned performance,

and (2) titles of the management employee and immediate supervisor most

responsible for achieving each goal.

The Mayor could not comply with the requirement to compare actual

performance with two levels of planned performance because the

Authority’s plan did not provide the two levels. However, for 82 of the 542

goals, the Mayor’s report does compare performance during the year with

the one level of planned performance described in the Authority’s plan. Of

those 82 goals from the plan, the Mayor’s report shows that 51 (62 percent)

were met. The report does not contain actual performance data for the

remaining 460 goals.

Finally, the report does not describe, as required, the status of, or the steps

taken to comply with, any of the court orders pertaining to the 12 civil

actions concerning activities of the District government during fiscal year

1999.

Given the serious performance problems facing the District when the

Mayor took office in January 1999, it is reasonable to expect that several

Results in Brief
B-284519

Page 3 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

cycles of planning and reporting will be needed to achieve all of the

benefits that Congress envisioned when it passed this important law. The

law’s general approach requiring the District government to establish

performance goals and then report on actual performance, if followed, can

provide the District government with a disciplined foundation for

improving its performance over time. We have endorsed this general

approach in the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

(GPRA), which applies to federal executive branch agencies.

We make recommendations to the Mayor to help ensure that future

performance plans and reports comply with the law.

Hearings held in 1994 showed the District government faced serious

financial and management challenges. For example, the District’s

corrections facilities and the juvenile rehabilitation, child welfare, and

mental health systems were all subject to court orders. Courts had

imposed millions of dollars in fines for noncompliance with the orders.

School repairs were estimated to cost over $500 million. Environmental

Protection Agency regulations would require additional sewage facilities

costing $350 million. District officials estimated that other water and sewer

facilities would cost an additional $326 million.

In 1994, Congress passed legislation requiring the Mayor to develop and

submit to your Committees no later than March 1 of each year, beginning

in 1995, a performance accountability plan for all departments, agencies,

and programs of the government for the subsequent fiscal year. The

legislation also required the Mayor to submit no later than March 1 of each

year, beginning in 1997, a performance accountability report on activities

of the government during the fiscal year ending on the previous September

30. Congress amended these provisions in 1997 to change the date by

which the first performance accountability plan was due to no later than

March 1, 1998, and the date by which the first performance accountability

report was due to no later than March 1, 1999. The first report that the

District government issued under this law that was based on a

performance plan was dated March 7, 2000 (for fiscal year 1999).

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

• a statement of measurable, objective performance goals established for all

significant activities of the District government during the fiscal year that

describes an acceptable level of performance by the government and a

superior level of performance by the government;

Background
B-284519

Page 4 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

• a description of the performance measures, including program outcome

and results, to be used in determining whether the government has met

these goals;

• 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 description of the activities of the District government that are subject to

a court order and the requirements placed on such activities by the court

order.

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

include the following:

• for each goal contained in the performance accountability plan for the

year, a statement of the actual level of performance achieved compared to

the stated goal for an acceptable level of performance and the goal for a

superior level of performance;

• 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.

This law’s general approach requiring the District government to establish

performance goals and then report on actual performance is similar to the

approach in GPRA that we have endorsed. GPRA is aimed at improving the

performance of federal government programs by requiring federal

executive branch agencies to clarify their missions, establish goals and

strategies for reaching them, measure performance, and report on their

accomplishments. However, GPRA does not require agencies to report the

(1) titles of management employees responsible for each goal, (2) two

levels of planned performance, or (3) status of and actions taken to comply

with court orders.

The Mayor faced serious challenges after taking office in January 1999. For

example, the Mayor’s 1999 Year End Management Report refers to the

need for high-quality performance and accountability as a tool to rebuild “a

broken government—a workforce rarely held accountable in a consistent

manner, an organizational culture resistant to change, a government

devastated by years of deferred maintenance, and a lack of adequate

technology.” In addition, the report cites an entrenched bureaucracy and
B-284519

Page 5 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

poor performance resulting from years of mismanagement and neglect in

the Mental Retardation Developmental Disabilities Administration.

The law requires us, in consultation with the Director of the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB), to evaluate each of the annual

performance reports and provide comments to your Committees no later

than April 15. This report is our response to that requirement.

The overall objective of our review was to determine if the Mayor’s

performance report for fiscal year 1999 contained all of the information

required by law and, if not, why. Our specific objectives were to determine

if the report (1) compared actual performance with the two levels of

planned performance for each goal in the plan, (2) showed the titles of the

District management employee and supervisor responsible for each goal,

and (3) described the status of any court orders that apply to the District

government and the steps taken to comply with those orders.

To determine if the report compared actual performance with two levels of

performance for each goal in the plan, we first attempted to identify the

number of goals in the plan. However, the plan did not clearly identify

goals—in fact, the word “goal” does not appear anywhere in the

Authority’s plan. Therefore, we had to read the different segments of the

plan and use our judgement to identify a list of 542 potential goals for all

agencies in the plan. We identified as potential goals those parts of the

plan labeled as an “intended outcome,” “planned accomplishment,” or

“performance measure.”

For the 17 agencies that the Mayor designated as having a “high impact” on

services provided to residents, we asked officials at the Authority to

review our list and suggest any changes. The Authority suggested minor

word changes to clarify a few of the goals (which we incorporated). We

did not ask the Authority to review any of the goals for the over 40

agencies that were not high impact because the Mayor’s office told us that

their report would not contain performance data on most of these

agencies.

To determine if the report compared actual performance with planned

performance for the same goals, we counted the goals in the report that

matched the 542 goals in the plan. For the 82 goals that matched, we

determined whether the report included performance data that indicated if

the goal was met or not met.

Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology
B-284519

Page 6 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

To determine if the report contained the titles of the District management

employee and supervisor most directly responsible for each goal in the

plan, we reviewed the section of the report in which each goal appeared.

To determine if the report contained a statement of the status of court

orders and any actions taken to comply with those orders, we asked the

District’s Office of the Corporation Counsel to identify all court orders that

applied to the District government in fiscal year 1999. The Corporation

Counsel provided us with information on 12 civil actions for which court

orders were issued concerning District government activities. Then we

compared this information with the report to determine if the required

information was provided.

Because the law requires us to consult with the Director of OMB on our

review and evaluation of the report, we discussed our methodology for

evaluating the report with OMB, and OMB officials agreed with our

approach. We also discussed whether the report was in compliance with

the law.

Because the law provides only a 45-day period for us to complete and issue

our review of the report, and we were not able to review any information

in it before the report’s public release a week into this period, we did not

verify the accuracy or reliability of any of the performance data in the

Mayor’s report. It should be noted that according to the Mayor’s report, the

performance data in the report were not audited.

We conducted our work between September 19994

 and March 2000 at the

Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We

provided a draft of this report to the Mayor of the District of Columbia and

the Chairperson of the Authority for review and comment. Their comments

are reflected in the agency comments section of this report.

The fiscal year 1999 report does not compare actual performance with two

levels of planned performance for any of the 542 goals in the plan as

required. The Mayor could not comply with this requirement because the

Authority’s plan—issued September 30, 1998—did not provide two levels

of planned performance for any of the plan goals. However, for 82 of the

542 goals, the report does compare performance during the year with the

one level of planned performance from the plan. Of those 82 goals from the

 

4

 We began this assignment in September because the performance report was initially to be issued on

September 30, 1999, 1 year after the date of the Authority’s FY 1999 Performance Plan.

The Performance

Report Does Not

Contain Required

Information for Any

Goal in the Plan
B-284519

Page 7 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

plan, the Mayor’s report shows that 51 (62 percent) were met. For

example, the plan contained a goal for the Department of Human Services

to increase by 10 percent the number of children in childcare (from 6,000

to 6,600). The report indicated that this goal was met, with 7,117 children

in childcare. The report does not contain actual performance data for the

remaining 460 goals. Performance goal information is shown below for

each of the District’s agencies discussed in the plan.

Agency

Number of

goals in plan

Number of goals in

report where actual

performance data are

compared to one

 level of planned

performance

Number of

goals in

 plan that

were met

Office of the Mayor 5 0 0

Office of the Chief

Management Officera

8 0 0

Office of the Secretary 14 0 0

Board of Real Property

Assessments and Appeal

9 0 0

Office of Policy and

Evaluation

3 0 0

Board of Appeals and Review 6 0 0

Office of Latino Affairs 4 0 0

Commission on Arts and

Humanities

7 0 0

Office of Communications 3 0 0

Office of Intergovernmental

Relations

3 0 0

Office of the City

Administrator

10 0 0

Office of the District of

Columbia Auditor

8 3 3

Office on Aging 4 0 0

Office of Personnelb 14 0 0

Contract Appeals Board 5 2 2

Department of Property

Management

6 0 0

Office of Finance and

Resource Management

9 0 0

Office of Campaign Finance 6 1 1

District of Columbia Board of

Elections & Ethics

5 2 1

Office of Employee Appeals 5 3 1

Public Employees Relations

Board

11 4 3

Office of the Inspector

General

5 3 3

Table 1: Performance Goals by Agency
B-284519

Page 8 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

Agency

Number of

goals in plan

Number of goals in

report where actual

performance data are

compared to one

 level of planned

performance

Number of

goals in

 plan that

were met

Office of the Chief Financial

Officer

13 0 0

Office of Contracts and

Procurement

5 0 0

Office of the Chief

Technology Officerc

6 3 3

Office of Local Business

Development

11 3 2

Office of Economic

Development

9 0 0

Office of Planningc 13 2 2

Housing and Community

Development

7 4 2

Office of Zoning 5 0 0

Department of Employment

Services

10 4 0

Department of Consumer &

Regulatory Affairs

7 3 3

Office of Labor Relations and

Collective Bargaining

6 0 0

Office of Banking and

Financial Institutions

9 0 0

Metropolitan Police

Department

10 2 2

Fire and Emergency

Medical Services

13 4 0

Office of the Corporation

Counsel

13 0 0

Department of Correctionsc 12 2 2

District of Columbia National

Guard

7 3 1

Office of Emergency

Preparedness

11 0 0

D.C. Public Schools 13 0 0

D.C. Public Library 11 0 0

Public Charter School Board 4 0 0

University of the District of

Columbia

12 0 0

Department of Human

Services

17 5 4

Department of Health 14 0 0

Department of Recreation

and Parks

8 0 0

Department of Human Rights 11 0 0
B-284519

Page 9 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

Agency

Number of

goals in plan

Number of goals in

report where actual

performance data are

compared to one

 level of planned

performance

Number of

goals in

 plan that

were met

Department of Public

Works

16 4 0

DC Taxicab Commission 7 3 1

Water and Sewer Authority 18 8 6

Office of Cable Television &

Telecommunications

13 0 0

Public Service Commission 13 5 1

Office of the People’s

Counsel

9 0 0

D. C. Retirement Board 2 2 2

D.C. Health and Hospitals

Public Benefit Corporation

13 0 0

Washington Convention

Center Authority

9 0 0

D.C. Sports Commission 9 3 2

Commission on Mental Health

Servicesd

13 2 2

Child and Family Services

Agencyd

13 2 2

Total 542 82 51

a

This office no longer exists.

b

Those agencies that the Mayor designated as having a high impact on serving District residents are

shown in bold type. Only 16 agencies are in bold type because the 17th agency (Department of Motor

Vehicles) was part of the Department of Public Works when the plan was issued.

c

Although the report excludes a table of performance measures for this agency, the narrative section

of the report discusses and provides data for some goals from the plan.

d

This agency is in receivership and under the jurisdiction of the courts.

Source: GAO analysis of FY 1999 Performance Accountability Plan and 1999 Year End Management

Report.

The report gives various reasons for not including performance data for

most of the goals in the plan, such as (1) financial data were not available

until after the fiscal year 1999 audit, (2) data were not tracked, (3) no

response was made to the Mayor’s data request, and (4) new office

directors made significant revisions to the 1999 goals.

There are other reasons the Mayor’s office gave for the report’s

noncompliance with the law. Although it was originally contemplated that

the Mayor would have both planning and reporting responsibility,

Congress enacted legislation that transferred this responsibility in 1997 to

the Authority. The Authority issued the fiscal year 1999 plan on September

30, 1998—7 months later than the March 1 date required by law.
B-284519

Page 10 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

In November 1999, Congress enacted legislation that returned this

planning and reporting responsibility to the Mayor. However, because of

the 1997 temporary transfer, the Mayor’s performance report for fiscal year

1999 was required to be based on goals that the Authority—not the

Mayor—had established. This was an unusual—and temporary—

separation of responsibility for planning from reporting.

An official in the Mayor’s office said that the report would not discuss

some goals from the Authority’s plan that were not at an appropriate level

of significance. Rather, the Mayor chose to focus his report mainly on

short-term goals that he had established after taking office in January 1999,

as well as some goals for some of the 17 District agencies that have a high

impact on services to residents. However, the report states that the District

government will expand performance management to address all District

agencies that report directly to the Mayor. Accordingly, the fiscal year 2000

budget, issued June 1, 1999, shows goals for many other agencies. The

Mayor’s office stated that this budget would also serve as his performance

plan. The law requires the Mayor to issue his plan no later than March 1 of

each year. Accordingly, we note that the Mayor’s plan was issued 3 months

later than required by law. The Mayor’s office stated that it informed

congressional staff on both the House and Senate Appropriations

Committees about its intention to submit the performance plans with the

Mayor’s budget to the City Council in mid-March and with the consensus

budget to Congress in June. The Mayor’s office also stated its intent to

seek legislation to reconcile the March 1 date for the plan with the June 1

date for the budget cycle.

The Mayor could not comply with the requirement to compare actual

performance with two levels of planned performance because the

Authority’s plan for fiscal year 1999 provided only one level. We note that

the Mayor’s fiscal year 2000 budget also contains goals with only one level

of planned performance rather than the two levels that the law requires.

The Mayor will continue to be in noncompliance with the law in the future

unless an additional level of performance is added to the plan.

The report does not contain the title of the District management employee

most directly responsible for the achievement of any of the 542 goals in the

plan, nor does it contain the title of that employee’s immediate supervisor,

both of which are required by law. This contrasts with the Authority’s plan,

which showed the titles of responsible management employees who could

be held accountable for many of the 542 goals.

The Report Does Not Show

Required Titles of

Responsible District

Officials
B-284519

Page 11 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

An official from the Mayor’s office said that the titles of the management

employees are missing from the report because the Mayor’s administration

was not executing the Authority’s plan. However, the Mayor’s report states

that he has a performance contract with each agency director, and those

contracts require the directors to develop performance plans with staff at

all levels. The official also said that the fiscal year 2001 budget would

include the required information on managers’ titles for each goal.

The report does not describe the status of any part of most of the court

orders pertaining to the 12 civil actions concerning activities of the District

government during fiscal year 1999, nor does it describe the steps taken to

comply with any of the court orders. These court orders are described in

the table below.

Civil actiona

Summary of

order(s)

Is status of order(s)

discussed

in the report?

Are steps taken

 to comply

discussed

in the report?

John Doe v. DC (Civil

Action No 79-1726)

Affects the operation

of the Dept. of

Correction’s (DOC)

Maximum Security

Facility.

No No

Twelve John Does v.

DC (Civil Action No.

80-2136)

Affects the operation

of DOC’s Central

Facility.

No No

Joy Evans v. DC (Civil

Action No. 76-0293)

Requires the District

to improve the

habitation, care, and

treatment for

mentally retarded

residents and to

more promptly pay

vendors.

No No

Mikeisha Blackman v.

DC (Civil Action No

97-1629) consolidated

with James Jones v.

DC (Civil Action No.

97-2402)

Requires the DC

Public Schools to

eliminate its backlog

of fair hearing

requests pursuant to

the Individuals with

Disabilities Act and

cases in which

administrative

placement decisions

have not been

implemented.

No No

The Report Does Not

Provide Required

Information On Court

Orders

Table 2: Court Orders in Effect During

FY 1999
B-284519

Page 12 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

Civil actiona

Summary of

order(s)

Is status of order(s)

discussed

in the report?

Are steps taken

 to comply

discussed

in the report?

Nikita Petties v. DC

(Civil Action No. 95-

0148)

Relates to DC Public

Schools

transportation

services to special

education students

and the timely

payment of tuition

and related services

to schools and

service providers.

No No

Bessye Neal v. Dir.,

DC DOC (Civil Action

No. 93-2420)

Requires a Special

Inspector to

investigate claims of

sexual harassment

and retaliation in

DOC.

No No

Oscar Salazar v. DC

(Civil Action No. 93-

0452)

Relates to timely

processing of

Medicaid

applications and

recertifications for

Medicaid care by the

Department of

Human Services.

No No

LaShawn A. v. D. C.

(Civil Action No. 89-

1754)

Appoints a receiver

to administer the

District’s Child and

Family Services

Agency.

No No

Dixon v. Williams

(Civil Action No. 74-

285)

Appoints a receiver

to administer the

District’s

Commission on

Mental Health

Services.

No No

Campbell v.

McGruder/Inmates of

D. C. Jail v. Jackson

(Civil Action

Nos.1462-71, 75-

1668)

Appoints a receiver

to administer

medical and mental

health services.

Other orders have

been entered that

relate to

environment,

sanitation, and

security issues at

the jail.

No; however, the

reports states that

the District has

initiated capital

improvements at the

D.C. Jail to bring it

into compliance with

court orders.

No
B-284519

Page 13 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

Civil actiona

Summary of

order(s)

Is status of order(s)

discussed

in the report?

Are steps taken

 to comply

discussed

in the report?

Pearson v. Williams

(Civil Action No. 92-

14030)

Appoints a receiver

to administer the

District’s Housing

Authority.

No No

Jerry M. v. D.C. (Civil

Action No. 1519-85)

Appoints receivers

to administer

educational services

at Oak Hill Youth

Center. Other orders

have been entered

that relate to

conditions and

practices at the

Center.

No; however, the

report states that the

District is in

compliance with one

central issue of the

court order—

overcrowding at the

Oak Hill facility.

No

a

All of the actions listed below were brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

except for Pearson v. Williams and Jerry M. v. D.C. which were brought in the Superior Court of the

District of Columbia.

Source: District of Columbia Office of the Corporation Counsel.

An official from the Mayor’s office said that the report did not contain the

required information on court orders because of an oversight. He said the

Mayor’s office would issue an addendum to the report that will contain the

required information on court orders.

The Mayor’s report does not contain the information required by law on

(1) actual performance for each goal from the plan compared with two

levels of planned performance, (2) the titles of the management employees

responsible for each goal, and (3) the status of or the steps taken to

comply with court orders. However, it does report on performance

associated with 82 goals and indicates that 51 of those goals were met.

The Mayor’s performance report for fiscal year 1999 was required to be

based on goals that the Authority—not the Mayor—had established. The

Mayor’s office cited this temporary separation of responsibility for

planning from reporting as one reason for the report’s lack of compliance

with the law. In addition, an official in the Mayor’s office said that the

report does not discuss some goals from the Authority’s plan that were not

at an appropriate level of significance.

The absence of required performance data for most of the 542 goals makes

it clear that the Mayor’s administration has more work to do to gain the

full benefits of performance management. In particular, unless future plans

Conclusions
B-284519

Page 14 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

and reports that the Mayor issues include goals and performance data for

all significant activities of the District government (not mostly high-impact

agencies), the agencies will not benefit from the discipline inherent in this

process. This general approach, if followed, can provide the District

government with a road map for improving its performance. We have

endorsed this same general approach in GPRA. The Mayor’s report states

that goals will be established for all agencies that report to the Mayor in

future cycles, and his fiscal year 2000 budget shows this is happening.

However, the law requires that the Mayor’s plans and reports include goals

for all agencies—not just those that report to him.

The Mayor could not comply with the requirement to compare actual

performance with two levels of planned performance because the

Authority’s plan did not contain two levels. However, the Mayor’s fiscal

year 2000 budget, which is to also serve as his performance plan, contains

goals with only one level of planned performance rather than the two

levels required by law. If future plans do not include two levels of planned

performance, they will also not conform to the law; reporting on

performance achieved against only one level of planned performance will

also not be in compliance with the law.

With respect to not providing the titles of management employees and

information on court orders, an official in the Mayor’s office acknowledged

that this information was missing and said it would be provided in the

future.

Finally, the District’s performance plans for fiscal years 1999 and 2000

were issued months after the March 1 date required by law. If future plans

are not issued on or before the specified date, they will not conform to the

law. The Mayor’s office stated that it informed congressional staff on both

the House and Senate Appropriations Committees about its intention to

submit the performance plans with the Mayor’s budget to the City Council

in mid-March and with the consensus budget to Congress in June. The

Mayor’s office also stated its intent to seek legislation to reconcile the

March 1 date for the plan with the June 1 date for the budget cycle.

Given the serious performance problems facing the Mayor when he took

office in January 1999, it is reasonable to expect that several cycles of

planning and reporting will be needed to achieve all of the benefits that

Congress envisioned when it passed this important law. We believe the

law’s general approach requiring the District to establish performance

goals and then report on actual performance, if followed, can provide the
B-284519

Page 15 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

District government with a disciplined foundation for improving its

performance over time.

The Mayor of the District of Columbia needs to take the actions necessary

to ensure that:

• future performance plans include goals with two levels of planned

performance for all District agencies and are issued no later than the law

requires; and

• future performance reports comply with the law’s provisions to (1)

address each goal in the performance plan; (2) compare actual

performance with two levels of planned performance; (3) provide the titles

of responsible management employees; and (4) describe the status of, and

actions taken to comply with, court orders applicable to the District

government.

The necessary actions could include requesting that Congress amend the

law to reconcile the law and the Mayor’s performance planning and

reporting strategy. However, until amendments to the law are enacted, the

Mayor would still be required to meet the current legal requirements.

On April 5, 2000, the Deputy Mayor for Operations provided written

comments on our draft report. He stated that Mayor Williams’

administration is using performance management as an essential tool for

driving meaningful and lasting change throughout the District government.

He stated that for the first time in the history of the District government,

linkages are being made between strategic planning, budgeting, and

performance management and that this process provides clear standards

by which residents of the District will be able to judge the administration’s

success.

He also stated that our emphasis on a plan prepared by a prior

administration obscures the accomplishments of the Williams

administration in its first year. Following the return of agency management

by the Authority to the Mayor, the Williams administration established its

own plan and short-term actions upon entering office that superseded the

1999 performance plan prepared by the Authority. For example, he cited

the reopening of the Thomas Circle Underpass. He said that it is important

that our report note the substantial development of the District’s

performance management system during the administration’s first year.

We recognize that the Mayor has placed new and welcome emphasis on

accountability for city performance. Nonetheless, we are directed by the

Recommendations

Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation
B-284519

Page 16 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

law as enacted to conduct the evaluation we report here. Our scope did

not permit a review of the accomplishment of any goals that the Williams

administration established after taking office that were not in the

Authority’s plan. However, our draft report did acknowledge (1) the

reasons the Mayor gave for focusing his report mainly on new short-term

goals and goals for some high-impact agencies rather than the goals in the

Authority’s plan, and (2) that the District government has stated its plans

to expand performance management to address all District agencies that

report directly to the Mayor.

The Deputy Mayor for Operations also stated that the District government

chose not to identify the supervisors and managers responsible for

executing their plans because of the new administration’s substantial

changes to each agency’s leadership and responsible managers. However,

he stated that the District intends to provide this information in

subsequent plans and reports and has already done so in the FY 2001

Proposed Operating Budget and Financial Plan submitted to the Council of

the District of Columbia on March 13, 2000. In addition, the District’s fiscal

year 2000 performance report will identify the agency directors and the

most senior managers responsible for implementing the objectives when it

is published in March 2001.

He stated that the Office of the Corporation Counsel is preparing an

addendum to the Mayor’s fiscal year 1999 performance report to provide

the status of, and actions taken to comply with, the court orders applicable

to 12 major civil actions concerning the activities of the District

government during fiscal year 1999. In addition, the Mayor’s fiscal year

2001 plan to be submitted to Congress on June 1, 2000, will contain similar

information on these court orders.

The Deputy Mayor for Operations stated that the District addresses at an

aggregate level within each agency director’s performance contract the

law’s requirement for identifying levels of superior and acceptable

performance. These performance contracts establish three levels of

performance with regard to executing the entire agency plan: exceeds

expectations, meets expectations, and below expectations. These

performance levels are replicated in senior manager performance

agreements.

We do not believe that setting levels of performance at an aggregate level

within each agency Director’s performance contract will satisfy the current

requirement in the law that each goal have two planned performance

levels—acceptable and superior. Unless future performance plans
B-284519

Page 17 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

establish two planned levels of performance for each goal, it will be

impossible for the performance report to provide a comparison of actual

performance with two levels of planned performance, as the law requires.

Although the performance rating system that has been established for

senior managers may be needed, it does not satisfy the law’s requirements

for two planned performance levels for each goal.

Finally, the Deputy Mayor stated that Mayor Williams is committed to

responsive, accountable government for residents of the District. He said

the performance management strategy showed promising results in the

first year of the Williams administration and will continue to drive change

in years ahead.

On March 31, 2000, the Authority’s Executive Director provided written

comments on our draft report. He stated that the Authority agrees with our

conclusions that the performance report is not in compliance with the law

and that several cycles of planning and reporting will be needed to achieve

all of the benefits that Congress envisioned when it passed this important

law.

The Executive Director also stated that by having the Mayor prepare both

the plan and report, many of the problems identified in the draft report

would be addressed. He stated that the Authority believes that under the

leadership of the Mayor and other stakeholders, the quality of the goals

and performance measures will improve, and those who are accountable

for achieving results will be identified. The Executive Director stated that

the Authority would work with the Mayor to ensure that the issues we

identified in the draft report are addressed.

The Executive Director made three additional specific comments. First, he

stated that we should amend our conclusions to make clear that the

performance plans and reports must include goals for all significant

activities of the District government—not just goals for those agencies that

report to the Mayor. Although our draft report’s conclusions stated the

importance of all District agencies setting goals, to clarify this point, we

added a sentence and a related recommendation.

Second, the Executive Director observed that the Mayor’s intent to have

the fiscal year 2001 budget (to be issued in June 2000) serve as the

performance plan may have the effect of issuing the plan after March 1,

which is the issue date required by law. He noted that there is a chance

that the resource levels of some agencies may change during the various

iterations of the budget, and that may affect the performance levels that
B-284519

Page 18 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

can be achieved. Therefore, the Executive Director stated that the

Authority believes that consideration should be given to either changing

the law’s issuance date for the plan or clarifying in the law that the

performance plan can be amended if the plan is integrated into the budget

process.

The Mayor’s office intends to seek legislation to reconcile the different

timetables for planning versus budgeting. However, until a change is made,

we believe that the Mayor should comply with the law’s requirement to

issue annual performance plans no later than March 1, and we have added

a recommendation in our final report to that effect.

Third, the Executive Director noted that on page 5 of our draft report, in

describing our methodology, “an attempt was made to modify goals in the

FY 1999 Performance Plan to facilitate comparison with the Mayor’s FY

1999 Performance Report.” He asked that we eliminate the discussion of

this “clerical exercise” from the final report because there is no benefit, at

this time, from changing goals in the plan to “make them fit” the goals in

the Mayor’s report.

Our only purpose in asking that the Authority review our list of potential

goals was to confirm the accuracy of our judgement in identifying the

goals in its plan. As noted in our draft report, the word “goal” does not

appear anywhere in the Authority’s plan. The Mayor’s report was not

issued at the time of our request to the Authority. In order to have an

accurate description of how we conducted this work, we have not deleted

this discussion from the scope and methodology section of the final report.

We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Anthony A. Williams,

Mayor of the District of Columbia; and the Honorable Alice M. Rivlin,

Chairperson of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and

Management Assistance Authority. We will make copies available to others

upon request.
B-284519

Page 19 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

Key contributors to this report were Theresa Roberson, Jim Rebbe, and Al

Stapleton. If you have any questions about this report or would like to

discuss it further, please contact Michael Brostek or Al Stapleton on (202)

512-8676.

Nancy Kingsbury

Acting Assistant Comptroller General
B-284519

Page 20 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

List of Requesters

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchinson

Chairman

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Ernest J. Istook, Jr.

Chairman

The Honorable James P. Moran

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable George Voinovich

Chairman

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring,

and the District of Columbia

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Thomas M. Davis III

Chairman

The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on District of Columbia

Committee on Government Reform

 House of Representatives
Page 21 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports
Page 22 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

Contents

1 Letter

Appendix I 24

Comments From the

D.C. Financial

Responsibility and

Management

Assistance Authority

Appendix II 26

Comments From the

Executive Office of the

D.C. Government

Table 1: Performance Goals by Agency 7

Table 2: Court Orders in Effect During FY 1999 11 Tables
Page 23 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports
Appendix I

Comments From the D.C. Financial

Responsibility and Management Assistance

Authority

Page 24 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports

Note: We reconsidered this

title from our draft report

and changed it to be more

descriptive.
Appendix I

Comments From the D.C. Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority

Page 25 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports
Appendix II

Comments From the Executive Office of the

D.C. Government

Page 26 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports
Appendix II

Comments From the Executive Office of the D.C. Government

Page 27 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports
Appendix II

Comments From the Executive Office of the D.C. Government

Page 28 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports
Appendix II

Comments From the Executive Office of the D.C. Government

Page 29 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports
Page 30 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports
Page 31 GAO/GGD-00-107 DC Government Performance Reports
Ordering Copies of GAO Reports

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order made

out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA

and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or

more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25

percent.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using

fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to

obtain these lists.

Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

To contact GAO FraudNET use:

Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-Mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Telephone: 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100

(410466)