DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GOVERNMENT

Progress and Challenges

in Performance

Management

Statement of J. Christopher Mihm

Director, Strategic Issues

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government

Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia

Committee on Governmental Affairs

U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery

Expected at

9:30 a.m. EDT

on Tuesday

October 3, 2000

GAO-01-96T

Statement 

District of Columbia Government: Progress

and Challenges in Performance Management

Page 1 GAO-01-96T

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Durbin, and Members of the Subcommittee:

It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss performance management in the

District of Columbia. This hearing comes at a particularly opportune time.

Two of our recent reviews on different aspects of the city’s performance

management system show that the Williams Administration, although

having made important progress, is still facing many challenges in

improving the management and performance of the District government.1

We look forward to continuing to work with the Members of this

Subcommittee, Mayor Williams, and other District officials to address the

performance challenges facing our nation’s capital.

As agreed with the Subcommittee, my testimony will cover three areas.

First, I will compare the key elements of the District’s performance

management system with common elements we found from systems used

by leading organizations around the country and the world. As part of that

comparison, I will report on whether the District met the 29 performance

goals that it scheduled for completion by the end of fiscal year 2000 that

the Subcommittee selected from the over 400 performance measures

contained in the Mayor’s fiscal year 2001 budget request.2

 I will also report

on whether the District provided evidence that the performance data are

sufficiently reliable for measuring progress toward goals.

Second, I will discuss opportunities for the District to better align its

various performance plans to ensure that it is sending District employees,

managers, citizens, Congress, and other stakeholders consistent messages

about the results the District wants to achieve, how the alignment will be

done, and how progress will be measured.

Finally, I will highlight how to improve the usefulness of the annual

performance plan and report that federal law requires the Mayor to send to

Congress no later than March 1 of every year.3

 The federal law requiring

the District to prepare annual plans and reports is similar to the approach

in the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).

Mr. Chairman, before I summarize our specific findings in each area, I

would first like to make a general observation. After nearly 2 years in

 

1

 District of Columbia Government: Performance Report’s Adherence to Statutory Requirements

(GAO/GGD-00-107, April 2000); District of Columbia Government: Management Reform Projects Not

Effectively Monitored (GAO/T-AIMD-00-237, June 30, 2000).

2

 The Mayor transmits his annual performance plan as part of his budget request to Congress.

3

 Public Law No. 103-373.
Statement

District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in Performance Management

Page 2 GAO-01-96T

office, Mayor Williams’ Administration has made considerable progress in

making the management of the District government more results-oriented.

Given the serious performance problems facing the District when the

Mayor took office in January 1999, success will continue to demand a

citywide effort in several areas simultaneously and a long-term

commitment by top city officials. We believe Mayor Williams has clearly

demonstrated his personal commitment to transforming the culture of the

District government. The histories of high-performing organizations clearly

show that cultural transformations do not come quickly or easily. Thus, as

is to be expected, improvements in the management and performance of

the District government are still works in progress.

In summary, in the first area examined, we found that the Mayor's

performance management system contains many—-but not all—of the

elements used successfully by leading organizations. The city has a

strategic planning effort that has generated largely results-oriented goals

and measures that form a clear basis for the results that the District wants

to achieve. One element that did not always appear present is processes

for ensuring that performance information is sufficiently credible for

decisionmaking and accountability. Without these processes, neither the

Mayor nor other key decisionmakers can know for certain whether

existing goals were met and, if not, what opportunities exist to improve

performance. For example, the District’s performance data—as of 1 month

before scheduled completion—show that it met 12 of the 29 selected goals

that were to be completed in fiscal year 2000. Several of the unmet goals

appeared close to being met or were likely to be met by December 2000.

However, for 7 of the 12 goals that were met, the District did not provide

evidence that the performance data were sufficiently credible for

measuring progress toward goals and making decisions.

We also found that opportunities exist for the District to more fully

integrate the various planning documents it uses. As one example, the

more complete integration of the goals in the Mayor’s strategic plan,

scorecards, and performance contracts with the annual performance plans

and reports provided to Congress is important to ensuring that Congress

and the District government have a common understanding of the results

the District wants to achieve, how it plans to achieve those results, and the

status of its efforts. In the absence of a common understanding, Congress

is hard-pressed to determine how it can best help the District achieve

results, and oversee the District’s efforts.

As a direct result, we also found that the District could improve the

usefulness of its mandated annual performance plans and reports by better
Statement

District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in Performance Management

Page 3 GAO-01-96T

ensuring that the District Government’s most significant performance

goals are included in both the annual performance plan and the annual

performance report that federal law requires the Mayor send to Congress

every year.

Now I would like to discuss each of these findings in more detail, starting

with the key elements of the District’s performance management system.

At the request of Congress, we have previously studied a number of

leading public sector organizations that were successful in pursuing

management reform initiatives and becoming more results-oriented.4

These included selected state governments as well as foreign governments,

such as Australia and the United Kingdom. We found that despite obvious

and important differences in histories, culture, and political systems, each

of the organizations commonly took three key steps as they sought to

become more results-oriented and make fundamental improvements in

performance. These were to (1) define clear missions and desired

outcomes, (2) measure performance to gauge progress, and (3) use

performance information to manage programs and support policy

decisionmaking.

Figure 1 below illustrates the various planning documents that the District

has for managing the city, including an annual plan and report to Congress,

various scorecards on selected goals that are on the District’s Internet site,

and proposed neighborhood action plans.

 

4

 Managing for Results: Experiences Abroad Suggest Insights for Federal Management Reforms

(GAO/GGD-95-120, May 1995).

Challenges the District

Faces in Becoming

More Results-Oriented
Statement

District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in Performance Management

Page 4 GAO-01-96T

Source: GAO analysis of District of Columbia data.

An official in the Mayor’s office said the District’s performance

management system consists of three key elements:

1. The District has a citywide strategic plan that consists of a vision

statement and five subordinate strategic plans that focus on a specific

priority. These five priorities are (1) building and sustaining healthy

neighborhoods; (2) strengthening children, youth, families, and

individuals; (3) making government work; (4) promoting economic

development; and (5) enhancing unity of purpose and democracy. This

plan includes specific results-oriented goals and measures associated

with each priority. Mayor Williams testified at the Subcommittee’s

hearing in May of this year that the citywide strategic plan, prepared

every 2 years, is the single, unified plan for holding agency heads

accountable. This citywide strategic plan was based, in part, on the

input of District residents, who had the opportunity to express their

concerns and priorities for the District at a Citizen Summit held in

Figure 1: District Performance

Management System
Statement

District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in Performance Management

Page 5 GAO-01-96T

November 1999 and a Neighborhood Action Forum in January 2000.

The Mayor plans to hold additional Neighborhood Action Forums and

use the results to develop Neighborhood Action Plans.

2. Agency strategic plans have been established for 15 of the 45 District

agencies under the Mayor’s jurisdiction. Although these agency

strategic plans are presented in different formats, common elements

include mission statements and key agency goals and measures.

3. The Mayor has signed performance contracts with the Directors of 21

city agencies. Under these contracts, the Directors are to be held

accountable for achieving selected performance goals and are required

to report their progress in meeting these goals on a monthly basis.

The first step used by leading organizations—defining clear missions and

desired outcomes—corresponds to the requirement in GPRA for federal

agencies to develop strategic plans containing mission statements and

outcome-related strategic goals.

The District has clearly made progress in this regard. The citywide

strategic plan contains largely outcome-related goals and measures that

relate to the District’s five strategic priorities. For example, under the

building and sustaining healthy neighborhoods priority, the strategic plan

contains nine performance goals, including the goal to enhance the

appearance and security of neighborhoods citywide. This goal contains 10

action items with intended results identified, including an initiative to

abate 1,500 nuisance properties. In addition, responsibility for each goal is

assigned to a lead agency or agencies.

Also, the District has taken some steps to align its activities, core

processes, and resources. For example, the Mayor has placed a clear

emphasis on performance management in his administration. As I noted,

one example is the signing of performance contracts with the Directors of

21 city agencies. The performance contracts are important for

underscoring the personal accountability the District Government’s top

leadership has for sound management and contributing to results. The

Mayor also created four Deputy Mayor positions to assign responsibility

for managing four critical functional areas within the government:

Government Operations; Public Safety and Justice; Children, Youth and

Families; and Economic Development.

Although the Williams Administration has made considerable progress in

setting a strategic direction for the city government, opportunities exist to

The District Has Made

Progress in Defining Clear

Missions and Desired

Outcomes

Opportunities to Strengthen the

District’s Strategic Planning
Statement

District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in Performance Management

Page 6 GAO-01-96T

ensure that the strategic plan is as useful and informative as it could be. In

developing its citywide strategic plan, the District held two meetings with

citizens, which gave District residents the opportunity to propose priorities

and to articulate a vision for the city. However, it was not clear from

reading the strategic plan that the District involved other key stakeholders,

specifically Congress, in the development of the plan. As you know, Mr.

Chairman, GPRA requires federal executive branch agencies to consult

with Congress when preparing their strategic plans. Consulting with

Congress on its strategic plan could also benefit the District because of the

appropriations and oversight role Congress plays and would be consistent

with one of the District’s action items to maintain communications with

Congress.

In addition, the District’s strategic plan contains a vision statement and

five strategic priorities. However, linking the vision statement to the

strategic priorities with a comprehensive mission statement could help

further clarify the direction the District wants to take. In our examination

of high-performing organizations here in the United States and around the

world, we have found that a clearly defined mission statement is one of the

key elements of an effective performance management system. A mission

statement is important because it brings an organization into focus and

concisely tells why it exists, what it does, and how it does it.

Finally, as the District continues its efforts to establish a clearly defined

strategic direction for the city, it can enhance the usefulness of the plan by

more fully articulating the strategies the city plans to use to achieve

results. In some cases, it was not clear what strategies the Mayor’s office

was going to use to achieve action items relating to the strategic plan’s

performance goals. For example, the goal to enhance the appearance and

security of neighborhoods citywide contained an action item of ensuring

that 75 percent of youth attend school on a regular basis. However, the

strategic plan did not give any indication how this measure would be

achieved. Similarly, the goal that all residents have opportunities for

lifelong learning contained an action item of increasing access to the

Internet, but there was no discussion of how this would be achieved.

The second key step that we found leading organizations commonly

took—measuring performance to gauge progress toward goals—-

corresponds to the GPRA requirement for federal agencies to develop

annual performance plans and goals and performance measures to gauge

progress.

The District Has

Established Performance

Measures for the Majority of

Its Goals
Statement

District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in Performance Management

Page 7 GAO-01-96T

The District has made substantial progress in establishing performance

measures for most of its goals. As it develops measures for the remaining

goals and gains experience in using the data from the measures it has

established, the experiences of high-performing organizations suggests

that the District will identify ample opportunities to improve and refine its

goals and measures. Specifically, we found that the fiscal year 2000

performance plan contained 447 measures, of which 36 (or 8 percent) had

no indicators or performance targets that could be used to determine if the

goals were achieved. When the Mayor updated this original plan several

months later, there were 30 (or 7 percent) out of 417 measures without

indicators to measure performance.

You asked us to examine 31 goals drawn from the 417 in the Mayor’s

updated performance plan for fiscal year 2000. These goals were not

meant to be a representative sample of all the District’s goals. Of these 31,

29 were to be completed not later than September 30, 2000. As shown in

the attachment to my statement, the District reported that as of August 31,

2000—1 month before scheduled completion—it had met 12 of these 29

goals, and it had not met 12 goals. An example of a goal that was met was

from the Commission on the Arts and Humanities, which reported that it

exceeded its goal of serving 35 percent of D.C. Public School students

through the Arts in Education program, stating that 55 percent of students

have been served by this program through August 2000. An example of a

goal that was not met was from the Office of Banking and Financial

Institutions (OBFI), which reported that it did not meet its goal of

obtaining baseline data by June 2000 on capital and credit available by

Ward. OBFI stated that it was not able to obtain this data from banks in

the District due to proprietary issues these banks would face, and it was

considering redefining the goal for future years.

The District did not provide performance information for one goal, and for

four goals it was unclear from the information provided whether the goal

had been met. For example, the Department of Employment Services

(DOES) had a goal of contacting 600 employers and entering them into the

DOES database. However, the data provided by DOES to report progress

on this goal showed information on the number of job orders and job

openings in the system and the number of individuals placed. It was not

clear from the information provided whether DOES accomplished its goal.

The third key step that we found leading organizations commonly took—-

using performance information to manage programs—-although much

broader, includes the requirement in GPRA for federal agencies to prepare

Early Data Suggests FY 2000

Performance Will be Uneven

Credible Performance

Information Remains a

Challenge
Statement

District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in Performance Management

Page 8 GAO-01-96T

annual performance reports with information on the extent to which the

agency has met its annual performance goals.

If policymakers in the District and in Congress are to use the information

in the District’s annual performance report to make decisions, then that

information must be credible. Credible performance information is

essential for accurately assessing agencies’ progress towards 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.

In some cases, producing credible performance data is relatively

straightforward. For example, a District goal to open three new health

centers would not normally need a systematic process to gather data that

shows if the goal was met. Far more common, however, are goals and

performance measures that would seem to depend upon the existence of a

systematic process to efficiently and routinely gather the requisite

performance data.

In that regard, we found that the District has not yet implemented a system

to provide assurance that the performance information it generates is

sufficiently credible for decisionmaking. The District’s performance report

for fiscal year 1999 stated that the performance data was “unaudited.” An

official in the Mayor’s office said that this meant the performance data had

not been independently verified. He also said that the Mayor’s office has

asked the Inspector General to begin audits of the data.

The 31 goals selected for our detailed review underscore the challenges

confronting the District.5

 In response to our request for evidence that a

system existed to ensure that the performance data were sufficiently

reliable for measuring progress toward goals, the District did not provide

such evidence for 7 of the12 goals that the District reported had been met

and for 11 of the 14 goals6

 that the District reported had not been met. As a

result, key decisionmakers cannot be certain that the seven goals reported

to have been met were in fact met. For example, the Department of Public

Works (DPW) did not provide a description of any system or procedures in

place for ensuring the credibility of performance data for measuring

progress on its goal of permanently repairing 90 percent of utility cuts

within 45 days of utility work completion.

 

5

 The District did not provide us with data for 1 of the 31 performance measures.

6

 The 14 unmet goals include 2 goals with December 2000 deadlines.
Statement

District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in Performance Management

Page 9 GAO-01-96T

As part of becoming more results-oriented, leading organizations work to

ensure that their annual performance goals and measures “link up” to the

organization's mission and long-term strategic goals as well as “link down”

to organizational components with specific duties and responsibilities.

This “up and down” linkage reinforces the connections between the longterm strategic goals and the day-to-day activities of program managers and

staff. These linkages are important to ensuring that the services

government provides contribute to results that citizens need and care

about. The linkages also are important to underscore to front-line

employees the vital role they play in meeting organizational goals.

However, we found that additional efforts are needed to ensure that the

critical linkages are in place. Specifically, the citywide strategic plan may

not yet fully serve as the single unified plan to guide the District that the

Mayor intends it to be. The strategic plan contains literally hundreds of

action items that serve in essence as detailed performance commitments,

often with specified completion dates. However, we found that these

detailed action items were not always reflected in the Mayor’s scorecard or

performance contracts. Likewise, the commitments in the scorecard and

the performance contracts were not always captured in the strategic plan.

As a result, it can be unclear to city employees and managers as well as

other decisionmakers what set of initiatives represents the District’s

highest priorities.

In addition, at the Subcommittee’s request, we determined the extent to

which the performance contracts that the Mayor signed with the directors

of three agencies are aligned with both the Mayor’s performance plan and

the Mayor’s scorecard. The three agencies we looked at were the

Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), the Department of Parks and

Recreation (DPR), and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The

three directors’ contracts that we examined had a common format, which

included a discussion of the Mayor’s rating system, the agency’s mission

statement, and a series of performance requirements upon which the

agency director was to be assessed and rated. The performance

requirements included five common requirements (e.g., alignment of

agency mission with the Mayor’s strategic plan) that each director is

responsible for meeting, as well as additional agency-specific

requirements.

However, the three agency performance contracts were not consistently or

directly aligned with the District’s FY 2000 performance plan or the

Mayor’s scorecard. For example, 13 of the 15 FY 2000 performance goals

that were attached to the DPR contract were not included in the FY 2000

The District Can Better

Align Its Key Planning

Efforts
Statement

District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in Performance Management

Page 10 GAO-01-96T

performance plan. In addition, none of the four goals in the DPR

scorecard were included in the DPR contract, and three of the four goals

were not in the FY 2000 performance plan.

For MPD, 10 of the 23 performance goals that were attached to the

contract were not included in the FY 2000 plan. Although two of the four

goals in the MPD scorecard were included in the MPD contract, these two

goals have different deadlines in the scorecard and contract. The

scorecard has a December 2000 deadline for the two goals, but the

contract has the end of fiscal year 2000 as the goals' completion date.

DMV’s performance contract contains nine FY 2000 goals, eight of which

are in the FY 2000 plan. However, for seven of these contract goals, the

targets have been revised and therefore differ from those in the FY 2000

plan. Three of DMV’s four scorecard goals are in the contract and the FY

2000 plan. According to an official in the Mayor’s office, the Mayor

appointed new directors to DMV and DPR in the summer of 1999 and they

established new goals.

The challenge confronting the District is by no means unique. As I noted,

the histories of high-performing organizations show that their

transformations do not come quickly or easily. However, we found that

high-performing organizations know how the services they produce

contribute to achieving results. In fact, this explicit alignment of daily

activities with broader results is one of the defining features of highperforming organizations. At the federal level, we have found that such

alignment is very much a work in progress. Many agencies continue to

struggle with clearly understanding how what they do on a day-to-day

basis contributes to results outside their organizations. The District is

beginning to make some progress in this regard. In a comparison of the

three District agency head contracts to the FY 2001 performance plan,

there is a much more direct alignment, as the performance measures from

each agency’s section of the FY 2001 plans have been attached to that

agency head’s contract.

As you know, Congress passed legislation in 1994 that is similar to the

performance reporting requirement in GPRA in that it requires the District

to prepare an annual performance report on each goal in the City’s annual

performance plan. This law was intended to provide a disciplined

approach to improving the District government's performance by

providing for public reporting on the District’s progress in meeting its

goals.

Opportunities to

Improve the

Usefulness of the

District’s Performance

Report
Statement

District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in Performance Management

Page 11 GAO-01-96T

On April 14 of this year, we reported to Congress that the District did not

comply with this law for fiscal year 1999.7

 Among our findings were that

the District did not report actual performance for 460 of the 542 goals in

the plan and did not provide the titles of the managers most responsible

for achieving each goal as required by law. The fiscal year 1999 report was

the first the District prepared under the legislation that was based on a

performance plan, so we can expect that subsequent reports will show

marked improvement. Moreover, the circumstances that led to this

noncompliance were unusual and are not likely to be repeated. The

Mayor’s performance report was required to be based on goals that the

Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority—not the

Mayor—had established. In November 1999, Congress returned this

reporting responsibility to the Mayor.8

In addition, the Mayor has asked Congress for legislation that will facilitate

the District’s ability to comply with this law in the future. Specifically, the

Mayor has requested that the date when the performance plan is due to

Congress be changed to correspond more directly with the District’s

budget schedule and that the requirement for reporting on two levels of

performance—acceptable and superior—for each goal be eliminated.

According to the District, its performance report for fiscal year 2000 will

include a discussion of several of the District's management reform

projects. In June of this year, we testified on these projects before the

House Appropriations Subcommittee on the District.9

 The District

budgeted over $300 million to fund these projects from fiscal year 1998

through 2000. Included in the District’s budgets for this 3-year period were

projected savings of about $200 million. However, we found that after 2-

1/2 years, the District had reported savings of only about $1.5 million.

We testified that neither the Financial 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.

Consequently, the District could not show if the initiatives had actually

contributed to improved performance and better services to the District’s

citizens. Nevertheless, as a sign of his continuing commitment to improve

the management of the District government, District documents show that

the Mayor has adopted 20 of these initiatives into his new plan for fiscal

 7

 GAO/GGD-00-107.

8

 Public Law No. 106-113.

9

 GAO/T-AIMD-00-237.
Statement

District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in Performance Management

Page 12 GAO-01-96T

year 2000 and added 7 new management reform initiatives. For example,

the Department of Public Works’ initiative to improve its correspondence

and telephone service was integrated into the Mayor’s new goal of

developing a Citywide Call Center.

Under the federal law, the Mayor is required to report on only the goals

that were in his original performance plan sent to Congress. However, the

Mayor has updated his fiscal year 2000 plan with many new or modified

goals after the plan was sent to Congress to address problems that were

not found during the original planning process. As a result, the next

performance report is not required to contain performance data on those

new or updated goals.

As expected, during the early years of a major performance measurement

initiative, some of the changes and additions the District made to its

performance goals and measures have been significant. Specifically, as of

September 27, 2000, the Mayor’s scorecard contained a total of 119 goals

assigned to agency directors and other managers, including the Mayor. Of

these 119 scorecard goals, 82 of them were not included as fiscal year 2000

performance measures in those agencies’ corresponding sections of the FY

2000 performance plan. For example, the Department of Public Works’

(DPW) scorecard goal to resurface 150 blocks of streets and alleys was not

included among the DPW’s performance measures in the FY 2000 plan.

In addition, for the remaining 37 goals that were also present in the plan,

the measures or targets for 28 of them had been revised. For the 119 goals

that were in the scorecard, the District has reported, as of September 27,

2000, that 25 have been achieved thus far. Many of the remaining 94 goals

have a completion date of December 2000.

Many of the goals appearing only in the scorecard arose during the Mayor’s

meetings with District residents, which occurred after the Mayor

completed his original performance plan. As a result, the District’s next

performance report to Congress to be issued early next year may not

contain performance data on certain scorecard goals that represent

important initiatives for the District. Although not required to do so, by

reporting information on its significant goals—whenever they were

established—the District could help Congress achieve a central aim of the

1994 legislation—having the District report on progress in meeting its

goals for all significant activities.

The District may therefore wish to consider the approach that many

federal agencies used in reporting on their performance. Like the District,
Statement

District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in Performance Management

Page 13 GAO-01-96T

federal agencies found that they needed to change their performance

goals—in some cases substantially—as they learned and gained

experience during the early years of their performance measurement

efforts. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this last March executive agencies

issued their fiscal year 1999 performance reports. However, much has

been learned about goal-setting and performance measurement since

agencies developed their fiscal year 1999 goals back in the fall of 1997. In

reviewing those performance reports issued last March, we saw examples

where agencies noted that a goal or performance measure had changed

from what had been in the original plan and reported progress in meeting

the new goal. The advantage of this approach is that it helped to ensure

that performance reports, by reporting on the agencies’ actual, as opposed

to discarded, goals, provided useful and relevant information for

congressional and other decisionmakers.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the District continues to make progress in

implementing a more results-oriented approach to management and

accountability throughout the District government. Making the necessary

changes and instilling the new culture requires sustained commitment and

effort, as the Mayor and other District leaders certainly understand. Thus,

despite the important progress that has been and is being made, ample

opportunities exist for the District to strengthen its efforts as it moves

forward. Foremost among these is (1) continuing to make progress in

implementing a results-oriented approach to management and generating

performance data that are sufficiently credible for decisionmaking, (2)

ensuring that its strategic goal-setting and performance measurement

efforts are fully aligned, and (3) using its performance plans and reports to

provide Congress with the information and perspective it needs for

effective oversight and decisionmaking.

We look forward to continuing to work with the District, this

Subcommittee, and others in Congress as you jointly seek to ensure that

the residents of the District have the world-class products and services

they so richly deserve.

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to

any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.

Contacts and Acknowledgments

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact J.

Christopher Mihm at (202) 512-8676. Individuals making key contributions

Summary
Statement

District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in Performance Management

Page 14 GAO-01-96T

to this testimony included Jeremy Latimer, Theresa Roberson, and Al

Stapleton.
Page 15 GAO-01-96T
Attachment

Information on Selected FY 2000 Performance

Goals from the District’s FY 2001 Proposed

Budget

Page 16 GAO-01-96T

The following table provides information on 31 FY 2000 performance goals

selected from the District of Columbia’s FY 2001 Proposed Budget. The

first column lists the performance goals and the District agency

responsible for each goal. The 2nd and 3rd columns provide information on

the agencies’ reported progress in meeting these goals. The 4th and 5th

columns provide information on whether or not the agencies described

any system or procedures they have in place for ensuring the credibility of

their performance data for these goals.

For the 29 selected goals that were to be completed by the end of FY 2000,

the District reported that—as of August 31, 2000 for most goals—it had

met 12 goals, and that it had not yet met 12 goals. The District did not

provide information for one goal, and for four goals it was unclear from

the information provided whether the goal had been met.

The District described a system that it had in place for ensuring the

credibility of its performance data for 8 of the 31 goals. For 21 of these

goals the District did not describe such a system that it had in place. In

addition, for one goal, it was unclear from the District’s response whether

it had such a system, and we received no information on the District’s

progress or its system for assessing data for one goal.

Did the agency or office report that the target

had been met?

Did the agency or office describe a system or

procedures that it had in place for ensuring

the credibility of its performance data?

FY 2000 performance goal

(agency or office responsible)

Yes/No Comments Yes/No Comments

Office of Personnel (DCOP)

10% of employees participating in

the new performance

management system

No DCOP reported that 6.9% of the 18,000

employees (1,248 employees) under the

authority of the Mayor participated in

kickoff training sessions on the new

performance management system.

DCOP stated that the 10% goal

published in the FY 2001 proposed

budget was based on an estimate of

1,800 individuals in managerial,

supervisory, and excepted service

positions. DCOP stated that the actual

number of individuals in these positions

is approximately 1,300.

No However, DCOP did report how it

obtained its data. DCOP stated that

attendance at training sessions was

tracked via attendance sheets

maintained by each instructor and then

logged into the Center for Workforce

Development’s course registration

database.

Table 1: Information on Selected Performance Goals
Attachment

Page 17 GAO-01-96T

Did the agency or office report that the target

had been met?

Did the agency or office describe a system or

procedures that it had in place for ensuring

the credibility of its performance data?

FY 2000 performance goal

(agency or office responsible)

Yes/No Comments Yes/No Comments

100% of agencies have FY 2001

workforce plans

No DCOP reported that there are no

agencies with complete workforce plans

for FY 2001, but it anticipates having

plans in place for all agencies by midNovember 2000. DCOP stated that the

downsizing and replacement of key

retiree positions where necessary has

been the primary staff planning focus in

the agencies and in the DC Office of

Personnel this summer.

No However, DCOP stated that service

requests contained in workforce plans

for the 2nd half of FY 2000 were tracked

manually. For FY 2001, DCOP stated

that it is implementing a new

“transaction tracking” database that will

track all staffing requests and enable it

to set target dates for the completion of

each request. DCOP stated that this

database is expected to be operational

in October 2000.

85% of all vacancy

announcements on the DCOP

Web site

Yes DCOP reported that 100% of all

announcements for civil service positions

in agencies under the authority of the

Mayor are posted on the DCOP Web

site.

Yes DCOP stated that with its current

system, the only way it can create

vacancy announcements is via a

database that automatically posts them

to its Web site, once approved by the

appropriate supervisor. DCOP stated

that it is no longer able to post paper

announcements without posting them

on the Web site.

Human Resources

Development (HRD)

64 senior managers completing

“Certified Public Manager” (CPM)

program at the Center for

Excellence in Municipal

Management

Yes DCOP reported that 68 individuals

graduated from the CPM program in FY

2000.

No DCOP reported how it obtained this

data. DCOP stated that graduates are

trained and tracked by the Center for

Excellence in Municipal Management

at George Washington University.

Office of the Chief Financial

Officer (OCFO)

24,000 electronic tax returns Yes OCFO reported that 24,570 electronic

returns have been filed through August

2000.

No However, OCFO reported how it

obtained this data. OCFO stated that

data on electronically filed returns are

tabulated daily and that ELF-systems

and the output from the Individual

Income System tracks the returns

received.

Business Services and

Economic Development (BSED)

2 Neighborhood Forums

conducted (engage 4,000

residents)

No Office of Planning data showed that

3,510 District residents had participated

in Neighborhood Action meetings

between January and September 2000.

No No information was provided in

response to this question.
Attachment

Page 18 GAO-01-96T

Did the agency or office report that the target

had been met?

Did the agency or office describe a system or

procedures that it had in place for ensuring

the credibility of its performance data?

FY 2000 performance goal

(agency or office responsible)

Yes/No Comments Yes/No Comments

Department of Housing and

Community Development

(DHCD)

6-month loan/grant processing

time for new construction and

multifamily rehabilitation

Yes DHCD reported that this goal was

achieved as of August 2000.

No DHCD stated that program offices

submit accomplishment data to the

Office of the Chief Operating Officer,

and these data are incorporated into a

monthly report. DHCD did not describe

a system for assessing the credibility of

the data that it receives.

Department of Employment

Services (DOES)

600 employers contacted and

entered in DOES database

Unclear DOES responded with data reporting the

number of job orders entered into the

system, as well as the number of job

openings and individuals placed, but not

the number of employers contacted and

entered into its database.

Unclear DOES reported that the tool that

measures this goal is the State

Employment Security Agency (SESA)

Automated Reporting System.

However, DOES did not provide data

on whether it met this goal.

1,500 youth placed in

unsubsidized summer

employment

Yes DOES reported that 2,453 persons

between the ages of 14 and 24 were

placed in unsubsidized summer

employment.

Yes DOES reported that private sector data

are validated against the youths’

hardcopy applications. All

unsubsidized placements are entered

into the SESA Automated Reporting

System and become a part of DOES’

overall job placement performance

reported annually to the U.S.

Department of Labor.

3 Job Fairs for District residents Yes DOES reported that it has participated in

job fairs held by eight different

organizations.

No DOES stated that no documentation is

generally maintained, with the

exception of Standard Employment

Service registration forms that become

a part of the SESA Reporting System.

$575,000 collected on back

wages due underpaid workers in

the District

Yes DOES reported that $660,173 in actual

back wages has been collected as of

August 31, 2000.

Yes A database is maintained containing

information on back wages collected

and the number of audits conducted.

All collections are logged in and

receipted by staff. Case files including

samplings of the employer’s payroll

records, copies of written audit

findings, and copies of collection

receipts support the integrity of the

database. Monthly reports from the

database are generated and reviewed

for accuracy.
Attachment

Page 19 GAO-01-96T

Did the agency or office report that the target

had been met?

Did the agency or office describe a system or

procedures that it had in place for ensuring

the credibility of its performance data?

FY 2000 performance goal

(agency or office responsible)

Yes/No Comments Yes/No Comments

Department of Consumer and

Regulatory Affairs (DCRA)

95% of complex building permits

processed within 30 days

No DCRA reported that 91% of complex

building permits are processed within 30

days. A District official stated that the

average processing time for complex

permits has declined from more than 30

days in October 1999 to 21.5 days in

August 2000.

No No information was provided in

response to this question.

8 inspections per day per

inspector

Yes Data provided by DCRA showed an

average of between 8 and 10 inspections

per inspector per day.

No No information was provided in

response to this question.

500 nuisance properties cleaned

and abated

Yes DCRA reported that 1,294 properties

have been cleaned and abated through

August 2000.

No No information was provided in

response to this question.

Office of Banking and Financial

Institutions (OBFI)

Baseline data on capital and

credit available by ward by June

2000

No OBFI reported that it was not able to

obtain data on ward-by-ward capital and

credit availability, due to proprietary

issues banks would face by providing this

information in such a strictly defined

manner. OBFI is considering redefining

the measure for future years.

No OBFI listed sources and documents

utilized to ensure the accuracy of data

collected, including bank officials, bank

annual reports, and the Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation.

However, OBFI was unable to obtain

the data it needed to achieve its goal

as it was defined.

Metropolitan Police Department

(MPD)

8% reduction over prior year

incidents in homicides (calendar

year goal)

No (this

is a

calendar

year

goal)

MPD reported that between January 1

and September 12, 2000, 174 homicides

were reported, representing a 7%

increase over the same period last year.

However, MPD noted in the case of

homicides the totals are so small that

monthly fluctuations significantly affect

the overall annual percentage change.

Yes MPD reported that to ensure the

accuracy and reliability of performance

data related to crime statistics, its

Central Crime Analysis Unit updates

homicide statistics each morning and

compares these figures to similar ones

generated daily by the Homicide

Investigations Unit. Further, MPD staff

crosscheck daily statistics with the

monthly performance measure figures

before releasing them.

80% of sworn positions budgeted

for civilianization with civilians in

them

No MPD reported a 61% achievement rate

for this measure, and that no further

progress is expected because of

budgetary constraints.

No However, MPD provided information on

how it obtained its data. MPD stated

that the Human Services Division

tracks the progress on civilianization

through a hiring report that is produced

by name and position.

Average telephone response time

to 911 emergency calls for

service of 5 seconds

No MPD reported that for the period January

1-August 31, 2000, the average

telephone response time was 5.3

seconds.

No No information was provided in

response to this question.
Attachment

Page 20 GAO-01-96T

Did the agency or office report that the target

had been met?

Did the agency or office describe a system or

procedures that it had in place for ensuring

the credibility of its performance data?

FY 2000 performance goal

(agency or office responsible)

Yes/No Comments Yes/No Comments

Department of Corrections

(DOC)

1,800 prisoners transferred to

Federal Bureau of Prisons

(FBOP) facilities

Yes DOC reported that it has transferred

2009 inmates to the Federal Bureau of

Prisons through September 12, 2000.

Yes DOC stated that it uses the transfer

lists from the FBOP to ensure the

accuracy of its data. DOC stated that it

checks inmates’ names on the FBOP

lists against the names of the inmates

whom it had certified as meeting the

criteria for transfer to FBOP. Office of

Case Management staff also are

present when the actual transfer of

inmates occurs.

Public Library

150 personal computers that

access the library online catalog

Data not

received

Data not

received

Commission on the Arts and

Humanities

35% of D.C. Public School

students served by the Arts in

Education Program

Yes The Commission reported that 55% of

D.C. Public Schools students have been

served by the Arts in Education Program

through August 2000.

Yes The Commission stated that the

accuracy and reliability are established

through staff visits to grantees, teacher

evaluation, and evaluation of final

report documents.

Department of Human Services

(DHS)

829 Rehabilitation Services

Administration (RSA) customers

achieving successful employment

(90 days or more)

No DHS reported that 688 RSA customers

have achieved successful employment

through August 2000. However, DHS

also stated that it expected the target to

be met by the end of the fiscal year.

Yes RSA stated that it has developed

“Program Instructions,” which involve

follow-up with the client after placement

on a job to ensure that employment

outcome data for individuals placed in

employment are accurate and reliable.

RSA also stated that random

samplings of cases are reviewed

quarterly to ensure that the case

documentation is correct and reliable.

Increase the number of early care

and education caregivers in

educational activities over prior

year to 3,168

No DHS reported that through July 2000, a

total of 2,621 caregivers had completed

relevant educational/training activities.

According to DHS, the 3,168 target was a

“Safe Passages” Task Force proposal

and was never supported in the budget.

The budgetary target should have been a

10% increase over the previous year to

2,789 caregivers.

No No information was provided in

response to this question for this goal.

However, DHS did provide information

on a goal that was included in the FY

2000 budget—“Increase children in all

child care services by 10 percent

annually.”
Attachment

Page 21 GAO-01-96T

Did the agency or office report that the target

had been met?

Did the agency or office describe a system or

procedures that it had in place for ensuring

the credibility of its performance data?

FY 2000 performance goal

(agency or office responsible)

Yes/No Comments Yes/No Comments

Department of Health (DOH)

3 school-based teen health clinics

or wellness centers opened in

D.C. Public and Charter schools

No DOH reported that one clinic has been

opened as of August 2000. However,

DOH stated that it signed a contract for

an additional two centers to be opened

by the end of the calendar year.

No No information was provided in

response to this question.

90% of schools with a school

nurse

Unclear DOH reported that all 148 D.C. Public

Schools are covered by a school nurse,

and 6 of 38 chartered schools are known

to have a school nurse. The goal did not

specify whether charter schools were to

be included in this measure.

No No information was provided in

response to this question.

Create 1,000 new drug treatment

slots

Unclear DOH responded by providing data on its

two scorecard goals to create 1,000 drug

treatment slots for the general population

and for those in the criminal justice

system, respectively, by the end of the

calendar year. DOH reported that 797

new drug treatment slots have been

created for the general population, and

832 slots have been made available to

those in the criminal justice system. The

goal did not specify whether the slots

were for the general population, for those

in the criminal justice system, or both

groups combined.

No No information was provided in

response to this question.

Department of Parks and

Recreation (DPR)

100% of playgrounds meeting

national consumer safety

standards

Unclear Although it reported that it has already

met this goal, DPR also reported that the

goal would be met as of December 30,

2000.

No However, DPR provided information on

how it obtained its data. DPR stated

that it has contracted with a certified

playground inspector to perform regular

inspections of all of its playgrounds.

Department of Public Works

(DPW)

90% of utility cuts permanently

repaired within 45 days of

completed utility work

Yes DPW reported that 100% of utility cuts

are permanently repaired within 45 days

of completed utility work. However, DPW

noted that this number excluded (1) cuts

that were held for permanent repair

because of coordination with other work,

and (2) cuts that were scheduled only for

weekend work.

No No information was provided in

response to this question.
Attachment

Page 22 GAO-01-96T

Did the agency or office report that the target

had been met?

Did the agency or office describe a system or

procedures that it had in place for ensuring

the credibility of its performance data?

FY 2000 performance goal

(agency or office responsible)

Yes/No Comments Yes/No Comments

6,000 new trees planted

(calendar year goal)

No (this

is a

calendar

year

goal)

DPW stated that this goal will be met by

the December 31, 2000, deadline. DPW

reported that it has planted 4,194 trees

between October 1999 and April 2000,

and it expects to plant an additional

2,500 trees before the end of the

calendar year.

No However, DPW provided two contracts

for tree planting.

100% of potholes filled within 72

hours of report

No DPW reported that 80.2% of potholes are

repaired within 72 hours. However, this

average covered only a recent 3-week

period, the period for which DPW stated

that reliable records existed.

No No information was provided in

response to this question.

Department of Motor Vehicles

45 car inspections completed per

hour

No DMV reported that due to changes in

operation strategies, it may not achieve

this goal. As of August 2000, the year-todate average is 44 cars per hour.

Yes DMV stated that the Lane Control

Computer System collects data for this

goal by recording the number of

vehicles that are serviced by the

inspection station.

Total Yes - 12

No - 12

Unclear - 4

Data not received - 1

(Totals do not include two calendar year goals)

Yes - 8

No - 21

Unclear - 1

Data not received - 1
Page 23 GAO-01-96T
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's Fraud Hotline use:

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

E-Mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

 (410604)