2017 Florida Statutes
Quality improvement and cost-effectiveness; Comprehensive Accountability Report.
Quality improvement and cost-effectiveness; Comprehensive Accountability Report.
985.632 Quality improvement and cost-effectiveness; Comprehensive Accountability Report.—
(1) INTENT.—It is the intent of the Legislature that the department establish a performance accountability system for each provider who contracts with the department for the delivery of services to children. The contract shall include both output measures, such as the number of children served, and outcome measures, including program completion and postcompletion recidivism. Each contractor shall report performance results to the department annually. The department’s Bureau of Research and Planning shall summarize performance results from all contracts and report the information to the Legislature annually in the Comprehensive Accountability Report. The report shall:
(a) Ensure that information be provided to decisionmakers in a timely manner so that resources are allocated to programs that achieve desired performance levels.
(b) Provide information about the cost of such programs and their differential effectiveness so that the quality of such programs can be compared and improvements made continually.
(c) Provide information to aid in developing related policy issues and concerns.
(d) Provide information to the public about the effectiveness of such programs in meeting established goals and objectives.
(e) Provide a basis for a system of accountability so that each child is afforded the best programs to meet his or her needs.
(f) Improve service delivery to children through the use of technical assistance.
(g) Modify or eliminate activities or programs that are not effective.
(h) Collect and analyze available statistical data for the purpose of ongoing evaluation of all programs.
(2) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Program” means any facility or service for youth that is operated by the department or by a provider under contract with the department.
(b) “Program component” means an aggregation of generally related objectives which, because of their special character, related workload, and interrelated output, can logically be considered an entity for purposes of organization, management, accounting, reporting, and budgeting.
(c) “Program group” means a collection of programs with sufficient similarity of functions, services, and youth to permit appropriate comparison amongst programs within the group.
(3) COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT.—The department, in consultation with contract service providers, shall develop and use a standard methodology for annually measuring, evaluating, and reporting program outputs and youth outcomes for each program and program group. The standard methodology must:
(a) Include common terminology and operational definitions for measuring the performance of system and program administration, program outputs, and program outcomes.
(b) Specify program outputs for each program and for each program group within the juvenile justice continuum.
(c) Specify desired child outcomes and methods by which to measure child outcomes for each program and program group.
(4) COST-EFFECTIVENESS MODEL.—The department, in consultation with the Office of Economic and Demographic Research and contract service providers, shall develop a cost-effectiveness model and apply the model to each commitment program.
(a) The cost-effectiveness model shall compare program costs to expected and actual child recidivism rates. It is the intent of the Legislature that continual development efforts take place to improve the validity and reliability of the cost-effectiveness model.
(b) The department shall rank commitment programs based on the cost-effectiveness model, performance measures, and adherence to quality improvement standards and shall report this data in the annual Comprehensive Accountability Report.
(c) Based on reports of the department on child outcomes and program outputs and on the department’s most recent cost-effectiveness rankings, the department may terminate a program operated by the department or a provider if the program has failed to achieve a minimum standard of program effectiveness. This paragraph does not preclude the department from terminating a contract as provided under this section or as otherwise provided by law or contract, and does not limit the department’s authority to enter into or terminate a contract.
(d) In collaboration with the Office of Economic and Demographic Research, and contract service providers, the department shall develop a work plan to refine the cost-effectiveness model so that the model is consistent with the performance-based program budgeting measures approved by the Legislature to the extent the department deems appropriate. The department shall notify the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability of any meetings to refine the model.
(e) Contingent upon specific appropriation, the department, in consultation with the Office of Economic and Demographic Research, and contract service providers, shall:
1. Construct a profile of each commitment program that uses the results of the quality improvement data portion of the Comprehensive Accountability Report required by this section, the cost-effectiveness data portion of the Comprehensive Accountability Report required in this subsection, and other reports available to the department.
2. Target, for a more comprehensive evaluation, any commitment program that has achieved consistently high, low, or disparate ratings in the reports required under subparagraph 1. and target, for technical assistance, any commitment program that has achieved low or disparate ratings in the reports required under subparagraph 1.
3. Identify the essential factors that contribute to the high, low, or disparate program ratings.
4. Use the results of these evaluations in developing or refining juvenile justice programs or program models, child outcomes and program outputs, provider contracts, quality improvement standards, and the cost-effectiveness model.
(5) QUALITY IMPROVEMENT.—The department shall:
(a) Establish a comprehensive quality improvement system for each program operated by the department or operated by a provider under contract with the department. Each contract entered into by the department must provide for quality improvement.
(b) Provide operational definitions of and criteria for quality improvement for each specific program component.
(c) Establish quality improvement goals and objectives for each specific program component.
(d) Establish the information and specific data elements required for the quality improvement program.
(e) Develop a quality improvement manual of specific, standardized terminology and procedures to be followed by each program.
(f) Evaluate each program operated by the department or a provider under a contract with the department annually and establish minimum standards for each program component. If a provider fails to meet the established minimum standards, such failure shall cause the department to cancel the provider’s contract unless the provider achieves compliance with minimum standards within 6 months or unless there are documented extenuating circumstances. In addition, the department may not contract with the same provider for the canceled service for a period of 12 months. If a department-operated program fails to meet the established minimum standards, the department must take necessary and sufficient steps to ensure and document program changes to achieve compliance with the established minimum standards. If the department-operated program fails to achieve compliance with the established minimum standards within 6 months and if there are no documented extenuating circumstances, the department must notify the Executive Office of the Governor and the Legislature of the corrective action taken. Appropriate corrective action may include, but is not limited to:
1. Contracting out for the services provided in the program;
2. Initiating appropriate disciplinary action against all employees whose conduct or performance is deemed to have materially contributed to the program’s failure to meet established minimum standards;
3. Redesigning the program; or
4. Realigning the program.
(6) COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT SUBMISSION.—The department shall submit the Comprehensive Accountability Report to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Minority Leader of each house of the Legislature, the appropriate substantive and fiscal committees of each house of the Legislature, and the Governor, no later than February 1 of each year. The Comprehensive Accountability Report must contain, at a minimum, for each specific program component: a comprehensive description of the population served by the program; a specific description of the services provided by the program; cost; a comparison of expenditures to federal and state funding; immediate and long-range concerns; and recommendations to maintain, expand, improve, modify, or eliminate each program component so that changes in services lead to enhancement in program quality. The department shall ensure the reliability and validity of the information contained in the report.
(7) ONGOING EVAULATIONS; REPORTS.—The department shall collect and analyze available statistical data for the purpose of ongoing evaluation of all programs. The department shall provide the Legislature with necessary information and reports to enable the Legislature to make informed decisions regarding the effectiveness of, and any needed changes in, services, programs, policies, and laws.
History.—s. 72, ch. 97-238; s. 28, ch. 98-207; s. 34, ch. 2001-125; s. 1053, ch. 2002-387; s. 7, ch. 2004-333; s. 84, ch. 2006-120; s. 173, ch. 2010-102; s. 53, ch. 2010-117; s. 33, ch. 2014-162.
Note.—Former s. 985.412.