Okla. Stat. tit. 62, § 62-45.9

state agencies – Duties of Joint Legislative Committee on Budget and

Program Oversight – Required elements of review - Reports.

A. 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.

Oklahoma Statutes - Title 62. Public Finance Page 169

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

Oklahoma Statutes - Title 62. Public Finance Page 170

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
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; and

8. 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.