GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Subcommittees

June 2001 DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA

Comments on

Fiscal Year 2000 

Performance Report

GAO-01-804
Page 1 GAO-01-804 DC Government Performance Management

June 8, 2001

Congressional Subcommittees

Congress has demonstrated a sustained interest in working with the

District of Columbia’s government to ensure that a sound performance

management system is in place. After holding hearings on the District of

Columbia government’s performance in serving its residents, Congress

enacted the Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994, 1 which called

for the District to implement a performance management process.

Specifically, the law requires the Mayor to issue a performance

accountability plan with goals for each fiscal year and then after the fiscal

year, a performance accountability report on the extent the goals were

achieved. This law’s general approach, requiring the District government

to establish performance goals and then report on actual performance, is

similar to the requirements for executive branch federal agencies under

the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).

Our extensive work on Federal agencies’ implementation of GPRA

highlights the point that it takes time and continuous effort to transform

the culture of an organization to adopt a more results-oriented and

customer-focused approach. In that regard, the District has initiated a

number of activities designed to establish a viable performance planning

and reporting process, and Congress has continued to provide oversight

directed at strengthening the District’s ability to efficiently and effectively

deliver results to its taxpayers. Most recently, the Subcommittee on the

District of Columbia, House Committee on Appropriations, held an

oversight hearing on May 16, 2001, to examine a range of District

government management issues, including the status of the city’s financial

management system.2

 The Deputy Mayor/City Administrator and other

District officials outlined a number of planned and ongoing initiatives

intended to further strengthen the District Government’s management

efforts.

The District’s fiscal year 2000 performance report, issued on March 22,

2001, was the second issued under P.L. 103-373. This report responds to

 1

 P.L. 103-373.

2

 For GAO’s statement at that hearing, see District of Columbia: Observations on

Management Issues (GAO-01-743T, May 16, 2001).

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-01-804 DC Government Performance Management

the requirement mandated in that law that we evaluate the District’s

annual performance report.

Performance management remains very much a work in progress for the

District and, as a consequence, the fiscal year 2000 performance report

reflects that fact. The District’s fiscal year 2000 goals and measures were

in a state of flux during the year, changing throughout the year as the

District introduced new plans (such as agency strategic plans), goals, and

measures into its performance management process. These elements were

part of its ongoing effort to further develop and improve the District’s goal

setting, performance measurement, and performance reporting efforts.

Nevertheless, these significant and continuing revisions to the District’s

performance goals limit the usefulness of this most recent performance

report for oversight, transparency, accountability, and decision-making. In

addition, the District’s performance management process did not cover all

significant District activities, and thus the report does not capture the

overall performance of the District.

On the other hand, the fiscal year 2000 performance report addressed

other key legislatively mandated reporting requirements that were not met

in the fiscal year 1999 report. Specifically, the District provided the titles of

the managers and supervisors responsible for program goals it finally used

in fiscal year 2000. In another improvement over its first year’s report, the

District complied with the requirement that it provide information on the

status and actions taken to address court orders that affect the District

government.

The District recognizes the shortcomings in its performance management

process, has expressed a commitment to continue addressing them, and

has various initiatives underway toward that end. We are making

recommendations to the District of Columbia to further strengthen its

performance management process and provide more useful information to

its citizens and Congress. The District concurred with our

recommendations.

For each fiscal year, the District is required under P.L. 103-373 to develop

and submit to Congress a statement of measurable and objective

performance goals for all significant activities of the District government.

After each fiscal year, the District is to report on its performance. The

District’s performance report is to include:

Results in Brief

Background
Page 3 GAO-01-804 DC Government Performance Management

• a statement of the actual level of performance achieved compared to each

of the goals stated in the performance accountability plan for the year,

• the title of the District of Columbia management employee most directly

responsible for the achievement of each goal and the title of the

employee’s immediate supervisor or superior, and

• a statement of the status of any court orders applicable to the District of

Columbia government and the steps taken by the government to comply

with such orders.

Last year, on two occasions, we highlighted the challenges faced and

progress made by the District in implementing a sound performance

management system. In April 2000, we reported that the District’s first

performance report, covering fiscal year 1999, lacked some of the required

information.3

 Specifically, the performance report did not contain

(1) performance data for most of its goals, (2) the titles of managers and

their supervisors responsible for each of the goals, and (3) information on

any of the court orders applicable to the District government during fiscal

year 1999. Also, it did not cover all significant District activities. In

October 2000, we testified before the Subcommittee on Oversight of

Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia,

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, that the District had made

progress in defining clear goals and desired outcomes through its strategic

planning efforts. However, we also said that there were still opportunities

to more fully integrate various aspects of its planning process and ensure

that performance information was sufficiently credible for decisionmaking and accountability.4

Our objectives were to ascertain the extent to which the District’s fiscal

year 2000 report was useful for understanding the District’s performance

in fiscal year 2000 and the degree to which it complies with its statutory

reporting requirements. To determine if the performance assessment itself

could provide a useful characterization of the District’s fiscal year 2000

performance, we conducted a process evaluation. This included

identifying the components of the process used to develop goals and

measures, the agencies included, when the goals were revised, and

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

Requirements (GAO/GGD-00-107, Apr. 14, 2000).

4 District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in Performance

Management (GAO-01-96T, Oct. 3, 2000).

Objectives, Scope and

Methodology
Page 4 GAO-01-804 DC Government Performance Management

whether the final goals were developed in a timely manner to allow valid

performance assessment during fiscal year 2000. To determine if the

report complied with reporting requirements, we compared the report

contents to the legislatively mandated requirements. To acquire additional

information and verify our findings, we interviewed a key District official

responsible for coordinating the performance assessment.

We conducted our work from March through May 2001 at the Office of the

Mayor of the District of Columbia in accordance with generally accepted

government auditing standards. We did not verify the accuracy or

reliability of the performance data included in the District’s report.

We provided a draft of this report to the Deputy Mayor/City Administrator

of the District of Columbia for review and comment. Comments are

reflected in the agency comments section of this report. In accordance

with requirements established in P.L. 103-373, we consulted with a

representative for the Director of the Office of Management and Budget

concerning our review.

The District’s performance report reflects a performance management

process that led to goals continually changing throughout fiscal year 2000

as the District worked to improve the process. The performance plan

(initial goals) for fiscal year 2000 was submitted to Congress in June 1999

along with the District’s budget. The District subsequently implemented

what became an iterative approach for developing new goals and revising

existing goals for about 20 “critical” agencies.5

 That is, in addition to

establishing initial performance goals, the District developed (1) agency

strategic plans, (2) performance contracts, and (3) a Mayor’s Scorecard for

each of the critical agencies. The performance goals generated as part of

these efforts were developed during the period March 1999 through March

2000. These initiatives led to the development of the set of goals that the

District considered as its final fiscal year 2000 goals for each of the critical

agencies. For example, the Department of Health extensively revised its

initial five goals. After going through various planning exercises, the

department eliminated three of the initial goals, combined the remaining

two goals under one broader final goal, and added seven completely new

 5

 The District’s definition of “critical” or “high-impact” agencies is those which directly

affect the lives of District residents significantly on a regular, ongoing basis. The number of

agencies varied from 17 to 23 for the plans, contracts, and scorecards.

Fiscal Year 2000

Performance Report

Underscores that

Performance

Management is a

Work in Progress
Page 5 GAO-01-804 DC Government Performance Management

final goals. The initial goals of the noncritical agencies changed during the

fiscal year, but without going through the same process as that for the

critical agencies. The District official responsible for coordinating the

fiscal year 2000 performance assessment estimated that between 30 to 40

percent of the noncritical agencies’ goals were revised over the fiscal year

2000 performance assessment period. Although, some goals were finalized

earlier, the set of final fiscal year 2000 goals for all agencies, whose

performance was assessed, were submitted to Congress along with the

District’s fiscal year 2001 budget in June 2000.

One result of this process to redefine goals was that 54 percent of the

initial goals were not used as final goals. For example, the Department of

Motor Vehicles’ goal to seek out regular feedback on the level and quality

of service was not used as a final fiscal year 2000 goal. Although the

department developed several final goals related to improving customer

service, such as wait times for vehicle registration, it did not continue the

goal to obtain feedback directly from its customers. No explanation was

provided in the report to explain why the goal was dropped or whether it

had been achieved. Many of the remaining 46 percent of the original goals

were significantly revised by the time the District issued its report, making

it difficult to determine the degree to which the original goals were

achieved.

District officials have indicated they plan to use an approach similar to

fiscal year 2000’s for determining performance goals and measures in

succeeding years. That is, they plan to define each fiscal year’s goals and

measures during the fiscal year in which performance is being assessed.

They expect that performance goals and measures will not stabilize into a

consistent set until fiscal year 2003.

The District’s changing goals are reflected in its the fiscal year 2000

Performance Accountability Report, which provides information for three

sets of performance goals. It provides information regarding the

disposition of initial fiscal year 2000 goals. That is, the report indicates

which goals made it into the final set used to assess fiscal year 2000

performance and which of the remaining initial goals, which were not

considered by the District to be part of its final fiscal year 2000 goals, were

nevertheless achieved. The second set of performance goals that are

addressed in the report are those developed for the Mayor’s Scorecard.

The goals in the Mayor’s Scorecard were developed to address priorities
Page 6 GAO-01-804 DC Government Performance Management

set by residents at the District’s Citizen Summit and the Neighborhood

Action Forum.6

 The last set of goals addressed in the report are the

District’s final goals, which were included with the District’s fiscal year

2001 budget submittal to Congress in June 2000.

The lack of information on the extensive revisions that the District made

to its performance goals, measures, and plans, limit the usefulness of the

subsequent performance report for purposes of oversight, transparency,

accountability, and decision-making. Our review of federal agencies’

efforts to implement GPRA have shown that while it can be beneficial to

periodically reassess and revise goals, it is also important that annual

performance plans and reports provide clear information about the

reasons for these changes when they occur. This information helps

provide assurance that changes were intended to improve performance

management rather than obfuscate weak performance; that is, that the

changes were from developmental bias. Consistent with our findings,

OMB’s guidance to federal agencies on the submission of GPRA plans and

reports states that goals should be periodically modified as necessary to

reflect (1) changes in programs, (2) agency capability to collect and report

information, and (3) the importance and usefulness of any goal.7

 All three

of these factors are valid reasons to change goals. However, the District’s

performance report does not indicate if any of these or other factors were

a basis for the extensive revisions made to goals during fiscal year 2000. In

addition, the report does not discuss steps taken to ensure that reported

performance data were complete, that is, represented the entire fiscal

year. For example, the Department of Parks and Recreation added a new

goal to improve the safety, cleanliness, and accessibility of its facilities.

However, it is not clear whether data on the District’s efforts to address

safety findings (within 48 hours) was collected for the entire fiscal year.

According to an official responsible for coordinating the performance

assessment, the District cannot ensure that the reported data represented

the entire year’s performance for any of the agencies; the official indicated

one would have to go back and check with each individual agency to

determine whether they were complete.

 6

 The Citizen Summit and the Neighborhood Action Forum were held in November 1999

and January 2000, respectively, to engage the District’s citizens in the city’s planning

process.

7

 OMB Circular A-11, Part 2, Preparation and Submission of Strategic Plans, Annual

Performance Plans, and Annual Program Performance Reports.

Lack of Information

on the Extensive

Revisions to Goals

Limits Report’s

Usefulness
Page 7 GAO-01-804 DC Government Performance Management

The concerns we raise are consistent with problems identified by the

District Office of the Inspector General in a report published in March

2001.8 The Inspector General conducted a review to, in part, verify the data

supporting the reported achievements regarding the fiscal year 2000

performance contracts and the Mayor’s Scorecard goals. One of the

Inspector General’s conclusions was that agencies did not maintain

records and other supporting documentation for the accomplishments

they reported and that the Office of the City Administrator did not provide

sufficient guidance to address that problem. In response to the Inspector

General’s finding, the Office of the City Administrator said it recognized

the need for standard procedures, and it plans to issue performance

review guidelines by the end of the summer 2001.

Finally, regarding initial goals that were not carried over to the final set

used to assess fiscal year 2000 performance, many are identified in the

performance report as having been achieved. However, none of these

goals had performance data provided for them. Therefore, the specific

performance level at which these goals were met cannot be determined,

that is, whether successful performance was marginal or otherwise. For

example, the District had a goal of improving the response time for all

legal services provided by the Office of the Corporation Counsel. The

District’s report indicates that the goal was achieved, but because no data

were provided, it is impossible to know precisely how and to what extent

the agency improved its response time.

The District’s performance report does not cover all significant District

activities as required; thus, the performance report does not provide a

comprehensive snapshot of the District government’s performance. For

example, the report does not cover the performance of the District’s public

schools, which account for more than 15 percent of the District’s budget.

More important, the schools are responsible for a core local government

function—providing primary education. The District’s performance report

acknowledges this critical gap in coverage and says that subsequent

reports beginning with the fiscal year 2001 report will more fully meet the

statutory requirements.

 8 Audit of Contract Performance Measures and the Mayor’s Scorecard Measures,

Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Inspector General (OIG-00-2-12MA,

March 20, 2001).

The Fiscal Year 2000

Performance Report

Did Not Cover All

Significant Activities

of the District

Government
Page 8 GAO-01-804 DC Government Performance Management

The District’s fiscal year 2000 Performance Accountability Report

improved in two areas of compliance compared to last year’s report. First,

the report provides the titles of program managers and their supervisors.

The performance report is to include 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.

The District’s performance report provides the information for the final

goals and goals contained in the Mayor’s Scorecard. This is an

improvement over last year’s report, which contained no such information.

Second, the performance report also includes information concerning

court orders assigned to the government of the District of Columbia during

the year and the steps taken by the government to comply with such

orders. Specifically, the District’s performance report provides the status

for each of the 12 court orders by describing and identifying whether or

not they were in effect in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001. For

example, in the case of Joy Evans v. DC, the court required the District to

improve the habilitation, care, and treatment for mentally handicapped

residents. The report indicates that this court order was in effect in fiscal

year 2000 and will continue to be in effect in fiscal year 2001. The report

also provides information on the actions taken to comply with the orders.

For example, in the case of Twelve John Does v. DC, the report clearly

identifies the actions taken to address issues at the District’s Central

Detention Facility. The report states that cell doors are being repaired,

ventilation systems are being replaced, environmental matters are being

corrected, and additional staff are being added to address security needs.

In addition, the report states that the facility is scheduled to close on or

before December 31, 2001. The information provided by the District on

court orders is an improvement over last year when, due to an oversight in

compiling its fiscal year 1999 performance report, the District failed to

report on any of the applicable court orders.

The District’s fiscal year 2000 performance report is an improvement over

the previous year’s in that it meets some of the statutory requirements that

the previous report did not. However, the extensive changes that the

District made to its fiscal year 2000 performance goals during the fiscal

year undermine the usefulness of the resulting report because the District

did not include critical information needed by Congress and other

stakeholders. Such information, identifying how, when, and why specific

goals were altered and the decision-making and accountability

implications of those changes, is important to Congress and others so that

The District Improved

Compliance With

Other Legislative

Reporting

Requirements

Conclusion
Page 9 GAO-01-804 DC Government Performance Management

they can have confidence in the validity and completeness of the reported

performance data. In addition, the report does not cover all significant

activities of the District government.

Sustained progress is needed to address the critical performance and

other management challenges that the District faces. The District

recognizes the shortcomings with its performance management efforts and

has stated a commitment to addressing them. The effective

implementation of the various initiatives underway in the District is vital

to the success of the District’s efforts to create a more focused, resultsoriented approach to management and decision-making—an approach that

is based on clear goals, sound performance and cost information, and a

budget process that uses this information in allocating resources.

To further strengthen the District’s performance management process and

provide more useful information to its citizens and Congress, we

recommend that the Mayor of the District of Columbia:

• Accelerate efforts to settle upon a set of results-oriented goals that are

more consistently reflected in its various planning, reporting, and

accountability efforts.

• Provide specific information in its performance reports for each goal that

changed, including a description of how, when, and why the change

occurred. In addition, the District should identify the impact of the change

on the performance assessment itself, including data collection and

measurement for the reporting period.

• Include in each year’s accountability report the performance of all

significant activities of the District.

On May 31, 2001, we received e-mail comments on our draft report on

behalf of the Deputy Mayor/City Administrator. He stated that overall, he

concurred with our findings, appreciated the context in which they were

presented, and acknowledged that additional work is needed to make the

District’s performance management system serve the needs of its citizens

and Congress.

The Deputy Mayor acknowledged that the extent of changes and the lack

of discussion in the performance report about why specific goals were

changed hinder comparison of the District’s performance against its

initial goals. In addition, he said that using the goals that resulted from

Recommendations

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
Page 10 GAO-01-804 DC Government Performance Management

the development of agency strategic plans was more representative of the

District’s performance during fiscal year 2000 than the initial goals. We

agree with both of these points. Our central point, however, was that given

the timing and extent of goal revision, and the absence of a discussion

about those changes, the usefulness of the report for understanding

performance as measured against the final goals, is limited.

The Deputy Mayor said that the information we reported on the timing of

the final set of agency goals appears to exaggerate the amount of time that

agency goals were in a state of flux—leading to the impression that all of

the District’s goals were changing until June 2000. We report that goals for

the critical agencies were finalized by March 2000 and that goals for other

(noncritical) agencies were revised at other times; the District could not

specify when these goals were finalized. It could only suggest that 30 to 40

percent of these agencies’ goals were revised. However, we revised our

report to reflect that although some goals were finalized earlier, they were

not submitted to Congress until June 2000.

In response to our recommendation that the District accelerate efforts to

settle upon a consistent set of goals, the Deputy Mayor said that the

District anticipates consolidating its goals during the fiscal year 2003

planning, budgeting, and reporting cycle. He further stated that goals for

fiscal years 2001 and 2002 are likely to change as the District updates its

agency-specific and citywide strategic plans in the summer of 2001. As we

note in this report, it can be beneficial to periodically reassess and revise

goals. However, it is critical that the District makes every effort to

accelerate the process of settling upon its final goals early in a fiscal year

to ensure that the performance assessment and report are meaningful.

The Deputy Mayor concurs with our recommendation that specific

information should be provided in the District’s performance reports for

each goal that changed. The Deputy Mayor also concurs with our

recommendation to include in each year’s accountability report the

performance of all significant activities of the District. He said that the

District will seek to expand the coverage of its fiscal year 2001 report to

more fully comply with its mandated reporting requirements. He also

stated that although the District cannot compel independent agencies not

under the authority of the Mayor (including the D.C. Public Schools) to

report on performance, it plans to work with them in developing

performance information.
Page 11 GAO-01-804 DC Government Performance Management

We are sending copies of this report to the Mayor of the District of

Columbia. Copies will be made available to others upon request.

Key contributors to this report were Kathy Cunningham, Chad Holmes,

Boris Kachura, and Bill Reinsberg. Please contact me or Mr. Kachura on

(202) 512-6806 if you have any questions on the material in this report.

Sincerely yours,

J. Christopher Mihm

Director, Strategic Issues
Page 12 GAO-01-804 DC Government Performance Management

List of Requesters

The Honorable Mary L. Landrieu

Chair

The Honorable Mike DeWine

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Joe Knollenberg

Chairman

The Honorable Chaka Fattah

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin

Chairman

The Honorable George Voinovich

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,

 Restructuring, and the District of Columbia

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Constance A. Morella

Chair

The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on the District of Columbia

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

(450025)
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of 

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. 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.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

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.

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

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact one:

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

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 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

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00