Section 45.9 - Schedule of program evaluation and performance review of state agencies - Duties of Joint Legislative Committee on Budget and Program Oversight - Required elements of review - ReportsA. The Joint Legislative Committee on Budget and Program Oversight shall annually establish a schedule of program evaluation and performance review for state agencies. In establishing this schedule the Joint Legislative Committee on Budget and Program Oversight shall take into consideration the work plan of studies, program evaluations and other related performance reviews developed by the Joint Committee on Accountability in Government. Where appropriate, the Joint Legislative Committee on Budget and Program Oversight shall coordinate its schedule with related work plan items of the Joint Accountability in Government Committee. The Joint Legislative Committee on Budget and Program Oversight may request the Joint Committee on Accountability in Government to include additional evaluations or reviews to their schedule or expand any scheduled evaluation or review to include issues of interest to the Joint Legislative Committee on Budget and Program Oversight.
The Joint Legislative Committee on Budget and Program Oversight may request any assistance necessary from the Office of the State Auditor and Inspector in regard to program evaluations or performance reviews scheduled by the Committee.
B. The program evaluation and justification review shall be conducted on major programs, but may include other programs. The review shall be comprehensive in its scope but, at a minimum, must be conducted in such a manner as to specifically determine the following, and to consider and determine what changes, if any, are needed with respect thereto: 1. The specific purpose of each program, as well as the specific public benefit derived therefrom;2. The progress toward achieving the outputs and outcomes associated with each program;3. An explanation of circumstances contributing to the state agency's ability to achieve, not achieve, or exceed its projected outputs and outcomes associated with each program;4. The identifiable cost of each program;5. Alternate courses of action that would result in administration of the same program in a more efficient or effective manner. The courses of action to be considered must include, but are not limited to:a. whether the program could be organized in a more efficient and effective manner, whether the program's mission, goals, or objectives should be redefined, or, when the state agency cannot demonstrate that its efforts have had a positive effect, whether the program should be reduced in size or eliminated,b. whether the program could be administered more efficiently or effectively to avoid duplication of activities and ensure that activities are adequately coordinated,c. whether the program could be performed more efficiently or more effectively by another unit of government, including political subdivisions of the state, or a private entity, or whether a program performed by a private entity could be performed more efficiently and effectively by a state agency,d. when compared to costs, whether effectiveness warrants elimination of the program or, if the program serves a limited interest, whether it should be redesigned to require users to finance program costs,e. whether the cost to administer the program exceeds license and other fee revenues paid by those being regulated, and f. whether other changes could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the program;6. The consequences of discontinuing such program. If any discontinuation is recommended, such recommendation must be accompanied by a description of alternatives to implement such recommendation, including an implementation schedule for discontinuation and recommended procedures for assisting state agency employees affected by the discontinuation;7. Determination as to public policy, which may include recommendations as to whether it would be sound public policy to continue or discontinue funding the program, either in whole or in part, in the existing manner; and8. Whether state agency management has established control systems sufficient to ensure that performance data are maintained and supported by state agency records and accurately presented in state agency performance reports.C. Evaluations and reviews may include consideration of programs provided by other agencies which are integrally related to the programs administered by the state agency.D. Reports issued upon the completion of any performance evaluations and program reviews by the Joint Legislative Committee on Budget and Program Oversight shall be submitted to the Governor, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the State Senate. All reports issued shall be available to the public once they have been submitted to the parties listed in this section.Okla. Stat. tit. 62, § 45.9
Added by Laws 1999, c. 358, § 9, eff. 7/1/1999.