You asked if the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee has ever conducted a sunset review of state agencies. You want to know if the sunset review process could be linked to results based accountability efforts.

SUMMARY

The Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee (PRI) conducted and completed the initial round of sunset reviews under the law requiring it to evaluate 94 state agencies and programs over a five-year period beginning in 1979. The Sunset Law subjected each entity to another review after five years; but after completion of the first cycle, the General Assembly has postponed the series of reviews five times. Another two-year delay is proposed in a bill this year, along with a study of the sunset process, its benefits, and alternatives for measuring state agency performance.

The General Assembly could require an evaluation of state agencies and programs similar to the sunset review, using any of a variety of evaluation approaches. In fact, current law requires or authorizes some of them. The Appropriations Committee has begun a pilot program implementing Results Based Accountability (RBA), an approach to budget-making decisions using agency performance measures and data. Phase I is complete, involving two pilot projects: early childhood education and related issues and the water quality in Long Island Sound. An RBA Initiative Subcommittee plans to evaluate the pilot projects and expand RBA application to additional budget subcommittees and agencies.

In addition to RBA, the General Assembly has studied performance- based budgeting; established the Progress Council to develop a vision and benchmarks for achieving it; and required the Office of Policy and Management to consult with budgeted agencies to develop goals, objectives, and quantifiable outcome measures for every state program, service, and grant.

Since studying all the agencies subject to the Sunset Law, PRI has conducted in-depth studies of selected agencies and programs each year, reporting their findings and recommendations to the legislature. The Auditors of Public Accounts can conduct performance audits in connection with the financial audits they routinely do.

SUNSET REVIEW CYCLE

The Sunset Law (CGS §§ 2c-1 – 21) was enacted pursuant to the 1976 study of the Committee on the Structure of State Government, known as the Filer Commission, as part of its extensive recommendations. In addition to the reorganization of state government to consolidate over 200 agencies, boards, and commissions into 21 major departments, PA 77-614, § 574 required the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee to conduct “sunset” evaluations or performance audits of 94 state government entities over a five-year period. The law required PRI to conduct a performance audit to determine “whether there is a public need for the continued existence of an entity or program. ” The committee was authorized to recommend termination, modification, consolidation, or reestablishment of the entities subject to its review.

The committee conducted the first round of performance audits in 1979 to meet the January 1, 1980 reporting deadline preceding the first-year July 1, 1980 termination date. The last group of audits was completed in 1983, prior to the fifth-year termination date of July 1, 1984 – the end of the cycle.

Under the provisions of the Sunset Law, any reestablished entity was reinstated for five years, when it was to be subject to another sunset review (CGS § 2c-10). The new cycle was scheduled to begin automatically with a July 1, 1985 termination date. However, the Sunset Law has been repeatedly postponed, as shown in the table below provided by PRI.

Table 1: Legislation Postponing the Sunset Law

2007 Proposal

This year, the Program Review and Investigations Committee reported An Act Concerning the Sunset Law (HB 6997, File 100) to the floor. The bill delays for two years the review of all agencies and programs subject to termination under the Sunset Law, moving the first termination date from July 1, 2008 to July 1, 2010. It also requires the committee to study the law, addressing its needs and merits, alternatives, and other methods to measure performance. The committee must report its findings and recommendations by January 15, 2008.

OTHER ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEWS

As suggested in the scope of the proposed study under HB 6997, the goals of sunset review could be accomplished through other types of evaluations or audits. PRI continues to conduct between five and seven in-depth studies each year of agencies or programs selected by the committee. Over the past several years, the General Assembly has studied, established, and conducted evaluations using a variety of methods and procedures. Some, like the original sunset reviews, emphasize performance review and compliance with expressly stated legislative purposes; others, like the reviews by the Auditors of Public Accounts, focus on financial audit criteria; while still others, such as results based accountability or performance-based budgeting reviews, propose to use agency performance or outcome data to make agency budget decisions.

Results based accountability (RBA) is an approach for assessing the quality of state services and making budget decisions using performance measurement data. In 2005, a working group of the Appropriations Committee began to consider whether the RBA framework could be used in the Connecticut budget process. Pilot projects on early childhood education and Long Island Sound water quality involved the Governor's Cabinet on Early Child Care and Education and the Department of Environmental Protection, respectively, as participating agencies. During the 2007 session, the RBA Appropriations subcommittee plans to meet with Appropriations subcommittee co-chairmen and ranking members to discuss how to apply RBA principles in the subcommittee budget recommendation process. They will evaluate and report on this phase of the initiative. In the 2008 legislative session, the role of the RBA subcommittee will be to assist all subcommittees in expanding the application to additional agencies, provide briefings for Appropriations Committee members and training for the affected agencies.

In 1998, a legislative interim Performance Review Task Force studied the topic of performance reviews and performance-based budgeting. Over three months, the task force looked into Connecticut's efforts to monitor agency performance and other state's efforts to assess the performance of state agencies and to link performance measures to budgeting. At the time, the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) was encouraging agencies to develop strategic business plans. The task force investigated programs in Texas (the Texas Performance Review Division in the State Comptroller's Office) and Florida (the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability) that had developed comprehensive agency review measures and procedures for use in the budget decision-making process.

Since 1992, OPM has had to prepare biennial goals and objectives with quantifiable outcome measures for every state program, service, and grant (CGS § 4-67m). While not specifically charged with reviewing past performance, the Connecticut Progress Council, which has been inactive, is established to develop a long-range vision for the state and define benchmarks to measure program to achieve the vision (CGS § 4-67r).

In connection with their financial audits, the Auditors of Public Accounts are authorized to include an examination of performance in order to determine effectiveness in achieving expressed legislative purposes. The auditors must report their findings and recommendations to the governor, the state comptroller, and the Appropriations and Legislative Program Review and Investigations committees. (CGS § 2-90c).

MJ: dw

¹ P. A. 83-446 outright repealed original sunset sections 2c-2 and 2c-2a, and created new section 2c-2b with entity schedule. It set back the termination dates by five years. It directed the committee, as a pilot program, to conduct a performance audit of selected programs under DIM (now DSS). Also required JCLM to study PRI process and make recommendations re: function, usage and most effective placement of PRI staff.

² P. A. 93-250 also clarified PRI records access issue and made clear subpoenas available for both investigations and program reviews. Sec. 4 contained sunset postponement.

³ P. A. 98-30 required the PRI committee to study the need for and benefits of the Sunset Law and alternative ways of addressing those needs and benefits. The study was to decide if there should be a Sunset Law and, if so, the form the law should take, etc. and report to the CGA by 1/15/1999. The committee did the study and recommended to continue sunset, but in a modified fashion. The study recommendation was raised as a bill in 1999 and was reported out with slight amendments (sHB 1177). It was referred to GAE, where no action was taken on the bill.