Evidence-based decision-making - budget requests - legislative declaration

2-3-210. Evidence-based decision-making - budget requests - legislative declaration. (1) The general assembly hereby finds and declares that: (a) The use of the best available research evidence in the analysis of programs and practices implemented and delivered by state agencies is an effective means through which funding decisions concerning the improvement, expansion, discontinuation, or redirection of funds can be achieved; (b) The integration of the best available research evidence regarding the effectiveness of programs, practices, or incremental changes to programs and practices within the budget process will provide members of the general assembly information that can be used in the prioritization of requests for funding for new or existing programs and practices in the state; and (c) Evidence-based decision-making is the intersection of the best available research evidence, decision-makers' expertise, constituent needs, and implementation context. Evidence-based decision-making recognizes that research evidence alone is not the only contributing factor to policy and budget decisions. (2) Repealed. (3) (a) If a state agency or the office of state planning and budgeting includes information on the best available research evidence regarding the effectiveness of a program or practice in a budget request, request for a supplemental appropriation, or budget request amendment submitted in accordance with section 2-3-208, the state agency or office shall describe the program or practice using one of the following evidence designations: (I) Evidence-informed means that the best available research evidence supports the effectiveness of the program or practice, as demonstrated by at least one quality evaluation that shows improvement over time; (II) Harmful means that the best available research evidence shows the program or practice is associated with harm, as demonstrated by at least one quality evaluation that shows harm over time; (III) Insufficient evidence means that the best available research evidence is not yet robust enough to achieve the harmful, evidence-informed, promising, or proven evidence designations outlined in this subsection (3)(a); (IV) Promising means that the best available research evidence supports the effectiveness of the program or practice, as demonstrated by at least one quality evaluation with a strong comparison group; or (V) Proven means that the best available research evidence supports the effectiveness of a program or practice, as demonstrated by at least one quality randomized controlled trial or at least two quality evaluations with strong comparison groups. (a.5) (I) If a budget request, request for a supplemental appropriation, or budget request amendment does not meet the definition of a program or practice, the state agency or the office of state planning and budgeting may include with its request that an evidence designation is not applicable. (II) If the best available research evidence regarding a program or practice in a budget request, request for a supplemental appropriation, or budget request amendment does not include an evaluation measuring relevant outcomes that meets the methodological requirements for an evidence designation set forth in subsection (3)(a) of this section, the state agency or the office of state planning and budgeting may include that the request is ineligible for an evidence designation. (b) If subsection (3)(a) of this section applies, the state agency or the office of state planning and budgeting shall also provide the following information to justify its selected evidence designation: (I) A summary of the best available research evidence about the program or practice; (II) Any plans to evaluate the program or practice to build evidence regarding its effectiveness; and (III) Information concerning how the best available research evidence is connected to the budget request, request for a supplemental appropriation, or budget request amendment. (c) If subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b) of this section apply, joint budget committee staff, as part of the responsibilities described in section 2-3-204, shall review the information provided pursuant to subsection (3)(b) of this section and other relevant evidence, as necessary. Joint budget committee staff shall include an evidence designation pursuant to subsection (3)(a) of this section or state that such designation is not applicable or that the request is ineligible pursuant to subsection (3)(a.5) of this section as part of any recommendation it makes regarding a budget request, request for a supplemental appropriation, or budget request amendment. (4) and (5) Repealed. (6) State agencies shall participate in the evidence-based decision-making process, including investing in building evidence, as applicable, to work toward the harmful, evidence-informed, promising, and proven evidence designations outlined in this section. Source: L. 2021: Entire section added, (SB 21-284), ch. 445, p. 2937, � 1, effective September 7. L. 2024: (1), IP(2), (2)(a), (2)(c), (2)(d), and (3) amended, (2)(b), (2)(f), (4), and (5) repealed, and (6) added, (HB 24-1428), ch. 89, p. 289, � 3, effective August 7. L. 2025: (2) repealed and (3)(a.5)(I) amended, (SB 25-275), ch. 377, pp. 2109, 2030, �� 336, 13, effective August 6. Editor's note: Subsection (2) was relocated to � 2-3-200.3 in 2025. PART 3 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL