§ 143E-1. Title.

This Chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "North Carolina Measurability Assessment Act of 2016."

History

(2016-123, s. 1.)

Editor's Note. - Session Laws 2017-57, s. 24.1, provides: "The Program Evaluation Division (hereinafter "Division") is directed to conduct measurability assessments, as provided in Chapter 143E of the General Statutes, and efficiency evaluations of programs and administrative activities of the Department of Administration (hereinafter "Department") to improve Department accountability reporting and to recommend potential cost savings. Prior to conducting measurability assessments and efficiency evaluations, the Division shall consult with the State Auditor, who shall recommend potential programs or potentially high-cost Department activities that, with changes, may produce cost savings. Taking into account the recommendations of the State Auditor and the results of the measurability assessments, the Division may select a contractor through a noncompetitive bid process to assist the Division in identifying potential cost savings. The State Auditor shall review draft findings and recommendations and shall provide a written response to be included in the Division's report. By March 30, 2018, the Division shall report its findings and recommendations to the Joint Legislative Program Evaluation Oversight Committee and Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on General Government and, upon request, to other committees."

Session Laws 2017-57, s. 26.3(a)-(d), as amended by Session Laws 2018-5, s. 26.1(a), provides: "(a) The General Assembly finds and declares that a nationally recognized cost-benefit analysis model will allow the General Assembly to direct public resources to cost-effective programs that deliver the best outcomes for residents. The Office of State Budget and Management shall receive periodic updates that incorporate new research and enhancements identified through work in participating states and practical technical assistance to implement this cutting-edge approach for identifying policy and budget options. The General Assembly also intends to provide necessary assistance for State agencies to align their individual efforts and resources to achieve statewide priority outcomes.

"(b) The Office of State Budget and Management may consult and work with staff from the Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative to implement a cost-benefit analysis model for use in crafting policy and budget decisions. The goal of the project is to obtain a model that will help the State invest in policies and programs that can be shown to work.

"State agencies shall provide any information requested by the Office of State Budget and management for purposes of implementing this project. Local government and non-State entities that receive State funds may also be required to provide information to their funding agency or to the Office of State Budget and Management for purposes of implementing this project.

"(c) The Office of State Budget and Management shall file an interim report with the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations, the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on General Government, and the Joint Legislative Program Evaluation Oversight Committee by April 8, 2018, on progress in implementing the cost-benefit analysis model and an annual report by October 1 of each year. The reports may include recommendations for legislation.

"(d) By October 1, 2018, the Office of State Budget and Management, in consultation with Results First partner agencies and the Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative, shall develop and publish descriptive, formal definitions for tiered-levels of evidence. Each definition shall outline the criteria needed to qualify for each tier of evidence. The Office of State Budget and Management shall also identify which program or service areas will be expected to include evidence and research to support budget proposals. The definitions may be periodically updated as needed. The definitions, and any subsequent updates, shall be included in the annual report required by subsection (c) of this section."

Session Laws 2017-57, s. 1.1, provides: "This act shall be known as the 'Current Operations Appropriations Act of 2017.'"

Session Laws 2017-57, s. 39.4, provides: "Except for statutory changes or other provisions that clearly indicate an intention to have effects beyond the 2017-2019 fiscal biennium, the textual provisions of this act apply only to funds appropriated for, and activities occurring during, the 2017-2019 fiscal biennium."

Session Laws 2017-57, s. 39.6, is a severability clause.

Session Laws 2018-5, s. 26.1(b), provides: "The Office of State Budget and Management shall research best practices in performance management from leading states, academia, and nongovernmental organizations and implement a pilot performance management initiative that is designed to inform the budget process and operational management of State programs. By November 30, 2018, the Office of State Budget and Management shall report to the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on General Government on the progress of implementing the pilot. The report may include recommendations for additional legislation. For purposes of this section, the term 'performance management' means an ongoing process of measuring, evaluating, and adjusting actions to improve outcomes."

Session Laws 2018-5, s. 1.1, provides: "This act shall be known as the 'Current Operations Appropriations Act of 2018.'"

Session Laws 2018-5, s. 39.4, provides: "Except for statutory changes or other provisions that clearly indicate an intention to have effects beyond the 2018-2019 fiscal year, the textual provisions of this act apply only to funds appropriated for, and activities occurring during, the 2018-2019 fiscal year."

Session Laws 2018-5, s. 39.7, is a severability clause.

§ 143E-2. Request for measurability assessment.

The General Assembly may require a measurability assessment of any proposed or existing State program to determine whether the program is or will be capable of reporting performance and return on investment.

History

(2016-123, s. 1.)

§ 143E-3. Definition of measurability assessment.

1. A measurability assessment is an independent evaluation conducted on a new or existing State program.
2. A measurability assessment must include or determine all of the following:
   1. Whether and to what degree the program is unique and does not duplicate or negate results of another public or private program or enterprise.
   2. The local, regional, or statewide problems or needs that the program is intended to address.
   3. Whether there is a program design portrayed by a logic model as defined by the Logic Model Development Guide by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, including an evaluation of that logic model.
   4. Whether there is evidence that the program produces results attributable to the program to remedy the problem or need. The information required by this subdivision shall include the following, as applicable:
      1. For a proposed program, whether the evidence stems from a formative evaluation of proposed activities through a field trial using a valid and reliable instrument or method to measure changes in a randomized control group that was not subjected to the proposed activities to changes in a randomized group that did receive the proposed activities.
      2. For an existing program asserting existence of evidence, whether the evidence stemmed from a post-program summative evaluation using an experimental or quasi-experimental research design.
      3. For both proposed and existing programs, if the evidence had been subjected to alternative interpretations and peer review.
   5. The capacity of the administering entity to expand the program based upon existing evidence or results.
   6. How the program proposes to engage in strategic planning.
   7. How the program proposes to measure performance, including measurement of the following:
      1. Total costs of program services with costs separately reported for each activity associated with each service.
      2. Outputs or counts of units of services and for individual activities associated with each service.
      3. Costs per unit of service and for individual activities associated with each service.
      4. Outcomes or results attributable to each program service, including results upon completion of program service; results still evident one, two, and three years after completion; ultimate or permanent results; and when and how permanent results will be determined by the program.
      5. Customer or client satisfaction with program services.
      6. Statewide impacts of program outcomes as evidenced by census data or other statewide data.
      7. Performance compared to standards and what standards the program intends to use.
   8. How the program will continuously improve quality of program services and consistency with the strategic plan.
   9. Whether the administering entity has conducted an assessment to identify financial and legal risks to the entity or the State and has plans for minimizing risk exposure.
   10. Whether the program conducts five-year forecasts of annual recurring costs and sources of funding for each year.
   11. Whether the program proposes to share costs with primary beneficiaries through a fee-for-service, co-payment, or tuition basis and the extent to which any expected cost-sharing is or will be means-tested and by what method.
   12. How program staffing requirements are determined and an evaluation of those requirements.
   13. Whether the program has or proposes to have a financial accounting system capable of accounting for all assets, liabilities, receipts, and disbursements.
   14. Whether the program is or will be post-audited and if there are any potential impediments to audits or evaluations by the State Auditor, agency internal auditors, or the Program Evaluation Division of the General Assembly.
3. The assessor must submit a written report containing the results of the measurability assessment to the Program Evaluation Division at a time and in a format required by the Program Evaluation Division.

History

(2016-123, s. 1.)

§ 143E-4. Administration of measurability assessment process.

1. The Program Evaluation Division must use a competitive process to prequalify independent measurability assessors. The assessors will be independent contractors compensated through a uniform fee system established by the Program Evaluation Division, and there will be no guarantee that any prequalified assessor will receive assessment assignments. The Program Evaluation Division shall not assign an assessor to a measurability assessment if the assessor has been employed by or contracted with the entity within five years preceding the assessment.
2. The Program Evaluation Division shall establish standards for assessor qualifications, independence, and conducting and reporting measurability assessments. Individuals who do not meet the qualifications may not be used to conduct measurability assessments.
3. Whenever a measurability assessment is required, the Program Evaluation Division shall select the assessor and require the agency or institution to reimburse the Program Evaluation Division for the assessor's costs and for a share of the Program Evaluation Division's costs for administering the measurability assessment program.

History

(2016-123, s. 1.)