For Release on Delivery

Expected at

10 a.m.

Friday,

June 30, 2000

GAO/T-AIMD-00-237

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GOVERNMENT

Management Reform

Projects Not Effectively

Monitored

Statement of Gloria L. Jarmon

Director, Health, Education, and Human Services

Accounting and Financial Management Issues

Accounting and Information Management Division

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia,

Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives

United States General Accounting Office

GAO
Page 1 GAO/T-AIMD-00-237

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to provide you with information on the

District of Columbia’s management reform initiatives. Begun in fiscal year

1998,1 management reform was seen as a way to transform the District’s

operations to provide quality services to its citizens, businesses, and

visitors. From fiscal years 1998 through 2000, the District budgeted over

$300 million, $33 million of which was federal appropriations, to fund

these initiatives. Included in the District’s budgets for this period were

projected savings of about $200 million, including $17 million in

management reform productivity savings. Because of your concern that

little information was available regarding the results achieved from these

initiatives, you asked us to provide information on the

• status of the over 2502 management reform initiatives;

• estimated $10 million in management reform productivity savings resulting

from these initiatives contained in the fiscal year 1999 budget;

• estimated $41 million in management savings outlined in the fiscal year

2000 budget; and

• $152.4 million in estimated cost savings initiatives contained in the fiscal

year 1998 budget as proposed in the previous Mayor’s plan, A Transformed

Government of the People of Washington, D.C.

In summary, over the past 3 fiscal years, the District government has

proposed hundreds of management reform initiatives that were estimated

to save millions of dollars as well as improve government services.

However, as of June 1, 2000, the District had only reported savings of

about $1.5 million related to these initiatives and had not consistently

tracked the status of these projects. Neither the District of Columbia

Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (the

1These were management reform initiatives at nine major entities within the District, including

Administrative Services, Health, Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, Public Works, Corrections,

Employment Services, Fire and Emergency Services, Housing and Community Development, and

Human Services. The Authority later added initiatives at the Metropolitan Police Department, D.C.

Public Schools, Office of Corporation Counsel, Commission on Mental Health Services, and the

University of the District of Columbia.

2The number of management reform projects undertaken by the District is somewhat unclear. The

District’s management reform teams approved 269 projects and the Authority approved 11 additional

projects for a total of 280 initiatives in fiscal year 1998 and 7 new projects in fiscal year 1999. However,

various District reports suggest that the number of projects range from 269 to 287, and there has been

no clear agreement among District officials as to how many were management reform projects.
Page 2 GAO/T-AIMD-00-237

Authority) nor the District could provide adequate details on the goals

achieved for all of the projects that had been reported as completed or in

various stages of completion. The District does not currently have a

systematic process to monitor these management reform projects and

determine where savings or customer service improvements have been

realized. Consequently, the District cannot say for certain how funds

designated for management reform have been spent or whether the key

goals of these initiatives have been realized.

Before discussing these matters in more detail, I will provide some

background information to the Subcommittee regarding management

reform in the District. A chronology of key events related to management

reform in the District is included as an attachment to the testimony.

The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement

Act, Public Law 105-33 (the Revitalization Act), approved August 5, 1997,

directed the Authority and the District of Columbia government to develop

and implement management reform plans for nine major city agencies and

four citywide functions3 during fiscal years 1998 and 1999. Funding for

management reform was to be provided, for the most part, by existing

budget authority within agencies and by the fiscal year 1998 surplus that

resulted from the federal government’s assumption of the cost of certain

functions previously financed through District revenue. The law gave the

Authority the power to allocate surplus funds to management reform

projects. The Authority reported in the Fiscal Year 1998 Annual

Performance Report: A Report on Service Improvements and Management

Reform, dated October 30, 1998, that the projects were selected using

management reform criteria of customer satisfaction; empowering

employees; long-term service delivery improvements; and greater internal

capacity (through infrastructure changes, staff training, and automation).

In September 1997, the Authority hired 11 consultants, at a cost of

$6.6 million, to develop management reform plans for these agencies and

functions. The District’s management reform team, consisting of the

Chairman of the Authority, the former Mayor, the Chairman of the City

Council, and the heads of each agency, approved the projects for

implementation. The Authority then hired a Chief Management Officer

(CMO) who was delegated responsibility for these projects. The CMO

implemented a system to manage these projects that included

3The four citywide functions are Asset Management, Personnel, Procurement, and Information

Management Technology. Also, see footnote 1 for the nine major agencies.

Background
Page 3 GAO/T-AIMD-00-237

development of operational plans, identification of the official directly

responsible for each project, and periodic monitoring of each project.

Agencies were required to report monthly on expenditures and the results

of the projects. On October 30, 1998, the Authority reported in its Fiscal

Year 1998 Annual Performance Report that 69 projects had been

completed. In January 1999, the Authority returned responsibility for the

nine city agencies and four citywide functions to the newly elected Mayor.

District officials told us that the current administration established a new

reform agenda that incorporated a small number of the remaining

management reform projects. Specifically, the District selected 204 of the

remaining 200 projects that it considered to be the best projects to be

continued in fiscal year 1999. The District also initiated 7 new projects, for

a total of 27 projects that were funded in fiscal year 1999.

To determine the status and results of the District’s management reform

initiatives, we reviewed pertinent financial documents and reports

provided by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), the

Authority, the office of the former CMO, and the D.C. City Council. We

also interviewed the Deputy Mayor for Operations, the Chief Financial

Officer, and other officials from those offices and the Authority.

We did not audit the District’s management reform funds or expenditures,

and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or any other form of

assurance on these reported amounts. Our work was done in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards between April and

June 2000.

I will now discuss in more detail the matters I highlighted earlier.

Authority and District officials have not consistently tracked the

disposition of management reform initiatives from fiscal years 1998 and

1999. These officials were unable to provide adequate information on

whether these management reform projects from fiscal years 1998 and

1999 achieved their intended goals or objectives. Although this

information may be available on an agency-by-agency basis, currently, the

District has no systematic process for monitoring and reporting on this

information.

4Twenty-one fiscal year 1998 projects were approved for continuation; however, 2 projects were

combined into a single initiative during fiscal year 1999.

Management Reform

Projects Were Not

Consistently Tracked
Page 4 GAO/T-AIMD-00-237

During fiscal years 1998 and 1999, the District budgeted over $300 million

to begin implementing over 250 management reform projects. The

reported fiscal year 1998 investment in management reform of about

$293 million included $112.6 million of operating funds5 and $180.3 million

of capital funds. For fiscal year 1999, the investment in management

reform of $36.2 million included $30.9 million of operating funds and

$5.3 million of capital funds. Of the $36.2 million, about $33 million was

federal appropriations provided to the Authority specifically for

management reform.6 Table 1 shows the total funds provided to the

District for management reform for fiscal years 1998 through 2000, the

amounts reported as obligated, estimated savings from those initiatives,

and reported savings from those initiatives.

Table 1: Management Reform Funding, Reported Obligations, Remaining

Balances, Estimated Savings, and Reported Savings Achieved for Fiscal

Years 1998, 1999, and 2000 (unaudited)

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year Total funds

budgeted

Total funds

obligated

Total funds

remaining at

year-end

Estimated

savings

included in

the budget

Reported

savings

1998 292.8 126.9 165.9 0a0

1999 36.2 29.1 7.1 10.0 1.5

2000 0 0 0 7.0b0

Totals 329.0 156.0 173.0 17.0 1.5

(Differences due to rounding)

a

While not directly related to the management reform projects identified in fiscal year

1998, $152.4 million in estimated cost savings initiatives were in the fiscal year 1998

budget as proposed by the previous Mayor’s plan, A Transformed Government of the

People of Washington, D.C.

b

This amount was part of the $41 million in management productivity savings outlined in

the fiscal year 2000 budget. The remaining $34 million was not directly related to

management reform initiatives identified for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.

Source: District of Columbia OCFO. We did not independently verify this information.

5Operating funds should be spent over the course of one fiscal year, whereas capital funds may be

carried over from year-to-year.

6Of the $33 million, $8 million was included in the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 1998,

Public Law 105-100, and $25 million was included in the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of

1999, Public Law 105-277.
Page 5 GAO/T-AIMD-00-237

The status of the funds appropriated for the management reform projects

initially identified in fiscal year 1998 and the disposition of those projects

is as follows:

• The District reported in its Final Fiscal Year 1998 Management Reform

Summary of Operating and Capital Funds, as of September 30, 1998, that

of the $292.8 million budgeted for management reform, approximately

$126.9 million had been spent and about $165.9 million was available at the

end of fiscal year 1998. Of this amount, approximately $2.3 million of

operating funds lapsed,7 resulting in about $163.6 million remaining at the

end of fiscal year 1998.

• About $3.2 million of operating funds (included in the $163.6 million

above), which was not allocated to any particular project, was carried over

to fiscal year 1999 for management reform projects in accordance with the

District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 1999, Public Law 105-277.

• The remainder was allocated to 35 former management reform initiatives

that were designated as capital projects and were no longer considered

part of the management reform program. According to the District’s

Expenditure Data on Capital Projects report, the $160.4 million in capital

funds (included in the $163.6 million previously mentioned) unspent at the

end of fiscal year 1998 was carried over into fiscal year 1999 for the 35

projects. Included in the 35 projects were initiatives for the Automated

Integrated Tax System, implementing the Real Property Inventory System,

and implementing a new Motor Vehicle Information System.

• According to the Authority, 69 projects had been completed. Included in

the completed projects were the modification of the Department of

Corrections Employee Pay Plan and an increase in the number of building

inspections.

Although the District’s Final Fiscal Year 1998 Management Reform

Summary reported fiscal year spending on these management reform

projects totaling about $127 million, the District could not specifically

identify the amount of funds spent that was used to pay consultants,

contractors, and District employees. According to District officials, the

former CMO requested information regarding funds spent for consultants

and contractors from the agencies during fiscal year 1998. This

information was reported to the OCFO on a monthly basis. However, we

found that the data was inconsistent, and no such information related to

7These funds were no longer available for use by the District.

Fiscal Year 1998

Projects
Page 6 GAO/T-AIMD-00-237

these management reform projects was requested in fiscal year 1999. The

District, however, has acknowledged that management reform funds were

used for projects other than management reform; for example, about

$11.3 million was used for the pay increase for District of Columbia Public

School teachers.

District officials told us that the new administration of Mayor Williams

inherited approximately 200 projects in various stages of completion.

Rather than continue with the entire agenda, the new administration

reviewed the projects and selected those it considered to be the best

projects for incorporation into agencies’ long-term plans. In consultations

with the Authority, the new administration chose the 20 best projects and

added 7 new projects, giving it a total of 27 projects funded in fiscal year

1999. To implement these 27 management reform projects during fiscal

year 1999, the District budgeted approximately $36.2 million, $33 million of

which was federal appropriations. Twenty-six of these projects were

funded with $30.9 million in operating funds and one project received

about $5.3 million in capital funds. The District reported in its Fiscal Year

1999 Management and Regulatory Reform Funds, Agency Expenditure

Summary as of May 15, 2000, that of the $36.2 million budgeted,

approximately $29.1 million had been spent and about $7.1 million lapsed

at the end of fiscal year 1999.

As of June 16, 2000, the District had not determined the status of the 27

management reform projects for fiscal year 1999. In February 2000, the

Office of the Deputy Mayor for Operations asked District agencies

responsible for the projects to provide information on the original project

goals and the results that had been achieved. According to District

officials, they obtained information on only a few projects. The Deputy

Mayor for Operations told us that he expected to have the status of each

project by mid-June. As of June 26, 2000, we had not received this

information.

Included in the fiscal year 1999 budget was a line item that indicated that

management reform initiatives would save approximately $10 million.

District officials told us that these estimated savings were based on

assumptions by the former CMO that an investment of about $93 million in

operating funds would yield permanent cost savings. The estimated

savings by agency were not defined in the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations

Act; therefore, District officials determined the allocated savings based on

the amount of each agency’s management reform investment. As of June 1,

Fiscal Year 1999

Projects

Projected

Management Reform

Savings Not Realized
Page 7 GAO/T-AIMD-00-237

2000, of the $10 million expected in savings, District officials reported that

about 15 percent, or $1.5 million, had been realized.

The fiscal year 2000 budget also included $41 million of projected savings

from various initiatives, including management reform productivity

savings. However, in discussions with us, District officials said that the

management reform productivity savings and other savings included in the

fiscal year 2000 budget are not likely to be realized. The $41 million in

projected savings was comprised of the following:

• $7 million in management reform productivity savings;

• $14 million in savings resulting from the implementation of the District of

Columbia Supply Schedule; and

• $20 million in productivity bank8 savings.

The District does not know whether any savings will be realized from the

$7 million of management reform productivity savings. District officials

told us that the former CMO and the Authority set the goal of $7 million;

however, no one identified the savings targets related to specific

management reform initiatives prior to the formulation of the fiscal year

2000 budget. The District does not expect any savings in fiscal year 2000

from the $14 million, which was to be derived from the District’s

establishment of a District Supply Schedule. District officials told us that

the new Chief Procurement Officer had reviewed the D.C. Supply

Schedule initiative in the summer of 1999 and determined that it did not

offer advantages beyond existing federal schedules that District agencies

were already utilizing. The District expects no savings from the $20 million

productivity bank project, nor are these savings directly related to any

management reform initiatives. The timing of congressional approval of

the federal budget resulted in productivity bank funds not being available

to agencies until the second quarter of fiscal year 2000. According to

District officials, the timing of the budget approval, combined with the

same year repayment requirement, has discouraged agencies from taking

advantage of this fund, as productivity savings are often realized in small

amounts within the first year and in increasing amounts in subsequent

years.

8The productivity bank concept, as currently structured, requires agencies to submit plans for dollarfor-dollar matching “loans” that will yield savings within the same fiscal year.

Fiscal Year 2000

Management Initiative

Savings Not Likely to

Be Realized
Page 8 GAO/T-AIMD-00-237

Originally proposed by the previous Mayor’s 1996 plan, A Transformed

Government of the People of Washington, D.C., this group of initiatives

was included as an appendix to the fiscal year 1998 budget. The projects,

which ranged from reducing the number of District employees to

streamlining services to promote economic development, were estimated

to save about $152.4 million. According to District and Authority officials,

many of the initiatives listed in the plan have not been implemented and

no savings have been realized. In many instances, the initiatives have been

overtaken by other events, such as the National Capital Improvement and

Revitalization Act of 1997. Because so few of the initiatives have been

implemented, District officials told us that information is not available to

determine the net benefit to the District either in terms of dollars saved or

improved efficiencies and effectiveness of District services.

Since fiscal year 1998, the District Government has budgeted over

$300 million to implement management reform initiatives or projects.

During this same period, District budgets have stated that management

reform initiatives and other cost-saving initiatives would save about

$200 million. To date, only $1.5 million of management reform savings

have been documented. Additional savings might have been realized, but

the Authority and District officials had not systematically assessed project

results and savings. In addition, they did not adequately track the costs of

these projects and, as a result, sufficient information is not available to

show how these funds were spent. These management reform projects and

targeted savings have been an integral part of recent District budgets and

identify important reforms needed to improve services.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any

questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have.

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Gloria L.

Jarmon at (202) 512-4476 or by e-mail at jarmong.aimd@gao.gov.

Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included Norma

Samuel, Linda Elmore, Timothy Murray, and Bronwyn Hughes.

Transformed

Government Plan

Cost-Savings

Initiatives Have Not

Been Implemented

Conclusion

Contact and

Acknowledgments
Page 9 GAO/T-AIMD-00-237

Date Event

April 17, 1995 The President signed into law the District of Columbia Financial

Responsibility and Management Assistance Act, P. L. 104-8,

creating the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and

Management Assistance Authority (Authority), to address fiscal

and management problems in the government of the District of

Columbia. The Authority and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of the

District were charged with improving the delivery of city services

and returning the District of Columbia to a position of financial

solvency as evidenced by 4 consecutive years of balanced

municipal budgets.

October 1995 The Mayor appointed Anthony Williams to the position of CFO of

the District.

January 14, 1997 The President announced his National Capital Revitalization and

Self-Government Improvement Plan, a proposal to substantially

alter the financial relationship between the District of Columbia

and the federal government. The National Capital Revitalization

and Self-Government Improvement Plan was the precursor to the

National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement

Act, Title XI of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Public Law 105-

33.

May 1997 The District CFO appointed Dr. Abdusalam Omer to the position of

Deputy CFO for Budget and Planning.

Spring 1997 The Authority conducted a Resident Satisfaction Survey to assess

the impact of management failures on service delivery to citizens

of the District.

August 5, 1997 The President signed into law the National Capital Revitalization

and Self-Government Improvement Act, P. L. 105-33, transferring

to the Authority control of the District’s nine largest agencies. The

act required the Authority to obtain consultants to develop

management reform plans for these nine agencies and for four

citywide functions. The Authority announced that the position of

Chief Management Officer (CMO) would be created. The CMO

would be charged with the responsibility of overseeing the

management reform initiatives and working on a daily basis with

agency directors. Section 11103 of the act authorized

appropriations to the Authority in amounts necessary to execute

management reform plans. The Authority issued an Order

whereby it appointed Acting Directors of each of the nine District

agencies identified in P. L. 105-33.

August 20, 1997 The Authority issued a request for proposals for assessing,

developing, and implementing management reform plans. One

hundred thirty-three solicitations were distributed and 71

proposals were received and evaluated.

September 4, 1997 In accordance with P. L. 104-8, the Authority awarded contracts to

11 consultants for development of management reform plans. The

cost was $6.6 million.

October 8, 1997 The consultants submitted organizational assessment reports to

the Authority.

October 25, 1997 The consultants submitted recommended improvement projects to

Attachment

District of Columbia Chronology of Key

Events Related to Management Reform
Attachment

District of Columbia Chronology of Key

Events Related to Management Reform

Page 10 GAO/T-AIMD-00-237

Date Event

the Authority.

November 19, 1997 The President signed into law the District of Columbia

Appropriations Act of 1998, P. L. 105-100, which provided a

federal payment to the District of Columbia for management

reform in the amount of $8 million, to remain available until

September 30, 1999. This sum was provided to help pay

consultants to develop reform plans and fund the position of CMO.

The act also provided $201.1 million resulting from a smaller

federal payment to the District government in exchange for the

federal assumption of certain District functions or expenses, in

accordance with the Revitalization Act.

November 25, 1997 The consultants submitted, through the reform teams, final

management reform plans to the Authority containing 340

management improvement projects.

January 2, 1998 The Authority submitted Management Reform in the District of

Columbia: Introduction and Summary to Congress in which it

identified 269 out of the 340 suggested management reform

projects for implementation, in collaboration with the management

reform teams, and included implementation plans for these

projects. The cost was estimated at $184.9 million.

January 15, 1998 The Office of the CMO began operations.

January 21, 1998 The CMO and CFO issued instructions to the directors of

management reform agencies for preparing implementation and

spending plans for management reform projects.

March 2, 1998 The District submitted to Congress its Comprehensive

Performance Management System and a timetable for its

implementation, which included the management reform

initiatives.

June 1, 1998 The District’s Fiscal Year 1999 Budget and Financial Plan,

submitted to Congress, included an estimated $10 million in

management reform productivity savings.

June 24, 1998 The Authority notified the Congress of the allocation of the

$201.1 million resulting from the Revitalization Act. The District

used $171 million of the $201.1 million to fund management

reform projects in fiscal year 1998.

July 31, 1998 The Chairman of the Authority sent a letter to the heads of 13

District agencies and the CMO notifying them of the Authority’s

intent to hold a series of meetings to review the status of

management reform projects.

October 21, 1998 The President signed into law the District of Columbia

Appropriations Act, 1999, P. L. 105-277, which provided a federal

payment to the District of Columbia for management reform in the

amount of $25 million to remain available until September 30,

1999. Congress authorized that $3.2 million in unspent fiscal year

1998 management reform funds could be carried over into fiscal

year 1999. Furthermore, the act provided for the CFO of the

District to make reductions of $10 million in local funds to one or

more of the appropriation headings in the act for productivity

savings.

October 30, 1998 The Authority reported in its FY 1998 Annual Performance Report:

A Report on Service Improvements and Management Reform that,
Attachment

District of Columbia Chronology of Key

Events Related to Management Reform

Page 11 GAO/T-AIMD-00-237

Date Event

of the 269 projects selected and approved for implementation, 69

were completed.

November 9, 1998 The Council of the District of Columbia’s Committee on

Government Operations issued its report on Management Reform

in areas under its purview: the Department of Employment

Services (DOES), information technology, personnel,

procurement, and real estate asset management. The committee

reported that the District was not making sufficient progress on

management reform, spending had occurred in areas outside the

scope of the Revitalization Act, management reform funds had

been used to support agency operating expenses rather than

productivity enhancements, there were structural inefficiencies in

the Office of the CMO, there was a lack of collaboration among

the Council, the Authority, and the Mayor, and management

reform efforts in the DOES and the Office of Property

Management had been almost nonexistent.

January 2, 1999 The District’s former CFO was sworn into office as Mayor of the

District of Columbia. The new Mayor and the members of the

Authority signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to convey

back to the Office of the Mayor responsibility for day-to-day

supervision, direction, control, and management of all executive

branch departments, agencies, boards, commissions, offices, and

other entities of the District government and its personnel,

excluding the District of Columbia Public Schools, as well as

programmatic and policy responsibility. The Authority retained all

of its statutory oversight responsibilities.

January 7, 1999 The CMO announced her resignation.

February 17, 1999 The Mayor, in a letter to the Authority, outlined funding proposals

for 7 new management reform projects at an estimated cost of

$10.7 million. Included in the letter was a proposal to fund a salary

increase for D.C. public school teachers with available

management reform funds at an estimated cost of $11.8 million.

March 2, 1999 The Office of Budget and Planning sent a memorandum to District

agencies notifying them of the allocation of the $10 million in

management reform productivity savings provided for in the fiscal

year 1999 District of Columbia Appropriations Act. The allocation

was based on the percentage of new operating funds an agency

invested in management reform projects in fiscal year 1998.

March 5, 1999 The President signed into law the District of Columbia

Management Restoration Act of 1999, P. L. 106-1, which repealed

the District of Columbia Management Reform Act of 1997 (Subtitle

B of Title XI of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, P.L. 104-8).

June 1, 1999 The District’s FY 2000 Operating Budget and Financial Plan,

submitted to Congress, included an estimated $7 million in

management reform productivity savings.

July 1, 1999 The Authority authorized the allocation of $11.34 million in

management reform monies to fund a salary increase for D.C.

public school teachers.

July 1999 The Office of Budget and Planning issued FY 1998 Management

Reform in which it reported that the District invested a total of

$293 million in 280 management reform projects in fiscal year

1998, and that $153 million in management reform funds were
Attachment

District of Columbia Chronology of Key

Events Related to Management Reform

Page 12 GAO/T-AIMD-00-237

Date Event

unobligated as of the end of the fiscal year.

November 29, 1999 The President signed into law the District of Columbia FY 2000

Appropriations Act, P. L. 106-113. The act directed the CFO of the

District to make reductions of $7 million for management reform

savings in local funds to one or more of the appropriation

headings in the act.

January 14, 2000 The Authority notified the Deputy Mayor for Operations that it was

conducting a closeout review of the results of the management

reform initiatives and requested information about each of the

initiatives through calendar year 1999.

February 2, 2000 The Deputy Mayor for Operations distributed a survey to the

agencies requesting the results of the fiscal year 1999

management reform initiatives.

March 27, 2000 The Deputy Mayor for Operations provided the Authority a partial

response to its January 14, 2000, request.

April 21, 2000 The Authority notified the Deputy Mayor for Operations of its intent

to finalize its closeout review of the results of the fiscal year 1999

management reform initiatives. To track the results of the

initiatives, the Authority asked the Deputy Mayor for Operations to

submit survey responses from each agency.

May 2000 The District’s proposed Fiscal Year 2001 Operating Budget and

Financial Plan includes an estimated $37 million in management

reform productivity savings.

June 28, 2000 The Deputy Mayor for Operations provided GAO with a draft

project status report of the fiscal year 1999 management reform

operating projects as of September 30, 1999.

(916354)
Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send

an 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

Contact one:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ordering Information

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs