11.513  Program evaluation and justification review.--

(1)  Each state agency shall be subject to a program evaluation and justification review by the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability in accordance with the schedule provided in ¹s. 216.0172 or as determined by the Legislative Auditing Committee. Each state agency shall offer its complete cooperation to the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability so that such review may be accomplished.

(2)  Prior to the initiation of a state agency's program evaluation and justification review and no later than July 1 of the year in which a state agency begins operating under a performance-based program budget, the state agency's inspector general, internal auditor, or other person designated by the agency head shall develop, in consultation with the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, a plan for monitoring and reviewing the state agency's major programs to ensure that performance data are maintained and supported by agency records.

(3)  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:

(a)  The identifiable cost of each program.

(b)  The specific purpose of each program, as well as the specific public benefit derived therefrom.

(c)  Progress toward achieving the outputs and outcomes associated with each program.

(d)  An explanation of circumstances contributing to the state agency's ability to achieve, not achieve, or exceed its projected outputs and outcomes, as defined in s. 216.011, associated with each program.

(e)  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:

1.  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.

2.  Whether the program could be administered more efficiently or effectively to avoid duplication of activities and ensure that activities are adequately coordinated.

3.  Whether the program could be performed more efficiently or more effectively by another unit of government or a private entity, or whether a program performed by a private entity could be performed more efficiently and effectively by a state agency.

4.  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.

5.  Whether the cost to administer the program exceeds license and other fee revenues paid by those being regulated.

6.  Whether other changes could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the program.

(f)  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.

(g)  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.

(h)  Whether the information reported pursuant to s. 216.031(5) has relevance and utility for the evaluation of each program.

(i)  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.

(4)  No later than December 1 of the second year following the year in which an agency begins operating under a performance-based program budget, the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability shall submit a report of evaluation and justification review findings and recommendations to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the chairpersons of the appropriate substantive committees, the chairpersons of the appropriations committees, the Legislative Auditing Committee, the Governor, the head of each state agency that was the subject of the evaluation and justification review, and the head of any state agency that is substantially affected by the findings and recommendations.

(5)  The Legislature intends that the program evaluation and justification review procedure be designed to assess the efficiency, effectiveness, and long-term implications of current or alternative state policies, and that the procedure results in recommendations for the improvement of such policies and state government. To that end, whenever possible, all reports submitted pursuant to subsection (4) must include an identification of the estimated financial consequences, including any potential savings, that could be realized if the recommendations or alternative courses of action were implemented.

(6)  At any time, the Legislative Auditing Committee may direct that a program evaluation and justification review be conducted by the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. In order to allow the office the flexibility in carrying out the provisions of this act and to reduce duplicative auditing requirements, the Legislative Auditing Committee may waive the requirements of any law existing as of the effective date of this act to conduct a performance audit.

(7)  Evaluation and justification reviews may include consideration of programs provided by other agencies which are integrally related to the programs administered by the state agency or entity which is scheduled for review pursuant to ¹s. 216.0172 or the schedule determined by the Legislative Auditing Committee.

(8)  If recommended by the director of the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives may jointly direct that any program evaluation and justification review requirement existing on July 1, 1999, be postponed to allow the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability to conduct a review of another program considered more urgent.

History.--s. 5, ch. 90-110; s. 1, ch. 92-142; s. 18, ch. 94-249; s. 32, ch. 96-318; s. 19, ch. 99-333.