(1) Each state agency shall be subject to a program evaluation and justification review by the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability 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) A state agency’s inspector general, internal auditor, or other person designated by the agency head or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall develop, in consultation with the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, a plan for monitoring and reviewing the state agency’s or the judicial branch’s major programs to ensure that performance measures and standards, as well as baseline and previous-year 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 current performance measures and standards should be reviewed or amended to assist agencies’ and the judicial branch’s efforts in achieving outputs and outcome measures.
(i) Whether the information reported as part of the state’s performance-based program budgeting system has relevance and utility for the evaluation of each program.
(j) 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 Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability may perform evaluation and justification reviews when necessary and as directed by the Legislature in order to determine whether current agency and judicial branch performance measures and standards are adequate. Reports concerning the evaluation and review of agency and judicial branch performance measures and standards shall be submitted to the Executive Office of the Governor, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the chair and vice chair of the Legislative Budget Commission. Reports concerning the evaluation and review of the judicial branch performance measures and standards shall be submitted to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
(6) 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.
(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 as determined by the Legislative Auditing Committee.