State of South Dakota
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, 2013
||SENATE BILL NO. 231 |
Introduced by: Senators Heineman (Phyllis), Brown, Krebs, Olson (Russell), Peters, and Tidemann and Representatives Lust, Carson, and Cronin
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to develop a systematic process for the performance management review of state agencies.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. For purposes of this Act, performance management in the public sector is an ongoing, systematic approach to improving results through evidence-based decision making, continuous organizational learning, and a focus on accountability for performance.
Section 2. There is hereby created a performance management review process that provides the Legislature a consistent system to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of state agencies and to provide additional government transparency and accountability to the public.
Section 3. The Legislature shall develop and implement a performance management review that will be the reporting prototype for all agencies and departments.
Section 4. For purposes of this Act, state agency means any department, or any other unit of state government. The term does not include any local unit of government.
Section 5. The Executive Board of the Legislative Research Council shall establish a schedule whereby the performance management of each state agency is formally reviewed once
every ten years by the Government Operations and Audit Committee with the assistance of the Legislative Audit Committee.
Section 6. The performance management review shall include at a minimum:
(1) The strategic goals of each agency with specific, quantifiable outcomes and measurements to track progress toward those goals;
(2) A description of how the resources allocated to the agency's programs and strategies will result in their defined outcomes;
(3) Identification of the performance metrics that will determine if each of the agency's activities is achieving the desired outcome;
(4) An ongoing analysis and comparison of public and private costs to determine if the state agency is delivering its services in an efficient and effective manner; and
(5) An assurance of accountability to the public regarding the setting of goals and transparency in reporting the progress to those goals.