Relating to the conduct of efficiency audits of state agencies.
SB 1427 would create a new Chapter 327 in the Government Code requiring every state department, including institutions of higher education, to undergo a recurring “efficiency audit” every six years. The bill defines an efficiency audit as an evaluation of a department’s economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, including whether programs are achieving intended objectives. The state auditor, with approval from the legislative audit committee, would set the audit schedule, contract with an external private auditor, and oversee the work. Audits could not occur in the same year as a Sunset review for the same department.
The bill also requires the audit to examine how state resources are used, identify cost savings, recommend reallocation of resources, and suggest ways to improve services through consolidation, outsourcing, or eliminating duplication. The state auditor and the audited department would have to publish the completed audit and recommendations online, and the department’s administrative head would have to submit an implementation plan within 90 days explaining how recommendations will be carried out or why they will not be implemented. The bill repeals Section 322.017 of the Government Code and takes effect September 1, 2025, with the audit schedule to be adopted by January 1, 2026.
SB 1427 would expand state oversight of agency operations by imposing a mandatory, recurring efficiency-audit framework on all state departments and public higher education institutions. It would add new duties for the state auditor and legislative audit committee, require departments to pay audit costs, and create a formal reporting-and-response process that could influence budgeting, staffing, outsourcing decisions, and program administration across state government. The bill would also repeal an existing Government Code provision, replacing it with a broader and more structured audit regime.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the apparent sentiment is procedural and reform-oriented rather than openly contested in the available record. The bill’s structure suggests a focus on government accountability, cost control, and performance improvement, which are typically framed as efficiency measures. No committee discussion or vote history is provided here to indicate organized support or opposition.
The main potential points of contention are the breadth and frequency of the audits, the requirement that departments pay the audit costs, and the use of outside private auditors under state auditor supervision. Agencies and higher education institutions may object to added administrative burden, duplication with existing internal audits or Sunset reviews, and recommendations involving outsourcing or consolidation. Supporters would likely emphasize transparency, cost savings, and stronger legislative oversight, while critics may question whether the audits could interfere with agency autonomy or impose new expenses without guaranteed savings.