HB2057 creates a new process for identifying, publishing, and reviewing “new programs” funded by state money in Washington. For purposes of the bill, a new program generally means a newly created agency, a service not supported in the prior biennium, a service to a population not previously served, or any activity not undertaken by the state in the prior biennium. The state auditor must publish a draft list of all new programs funded in the prior fiscal year, allow comments from the legislature and the Office of Financial Management, and then publish a final list. The list must include the program name, a brief description and expected result, the agencies receiving funding, and the amount appropriated by fund or account.
The bill also requires the state auditor to conduct a fiscal and performance audit of each new program three years after initial funding. That audit must examine the program’s original objectives, whether it is constitutionally or statutorily required, what data and performance measures it uses, how effective and efficient it has been, and whether changes, alternatives, or termination should be considered. The audit results must be delivered to the fiscal committees and the Office of Financial Management by December 1 of the audit year.
In addition, HB2057 amends the state budgeting and performance-review framework to require stronger links between agency budgets, mission statements, measurable goals, and performance measures. Agencies must define missions, establish measurable goals and quality/productivity objectives, conduct continuous self-assessment, and evaluate major information technology projects as part of that process. The Office of Financial Management is directed to help integrate performance assessment into budget development, and to develop a plan to merge budget development with agency performance assessment over three fiscal biennia.
The bill’s impact on state law is to expand oversight of state spending and program creation, especially by the state auditor and the Office of Financial Management, while adding reporting and performance-based budgeting requirements for state agencies. It would affect agencies receiving state appropriations, legislative fiscal committees, budget staff, and the state auditor by creating new publication, review, and audit duties and by requiring budget submissions to include more detailed performance information.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll-call data. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears oriented toward fiscal accountability, transparency, and performance management, which suggests a generally reform-minded and oversight-focused intent. The main likely point of contention is the added administrative burden and potential scrutiny placed on agencies and new programs, including whether the audit and performance requirements are too prescriptive or could constrain program development and budgeting flexibility.
HB2057 would amend Washington’s budget, audit, and agency performance statutes to require identification, publication, and later audit of newly funded state programs, and to strengthen performance-based budgeting requirements. It adds duties for the state auditor, the Office of Financial Management, and state agencies, and it requires budget documents to include program-level performance and funding information for new programs funded in the prior two years.
No committee discussion or voting record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from the legislative process. The bill’s structure suggests a generally favorable sentiment toward government accountability, transparency, and performance measurement, with the policy goal of improving oversight of state spending and program effectiveness.
The most likely areas of contention are the scope of the new reporting and audit requirements, the workload imposed on agencies and the state auditor, and whether the bill gives too much control to performance metrics in budgeting decisions. Critics could argue that the bill adds bureaucracy and may be difficult to implement consistently across agencies, while supporters would likely emphasize fiscal discipline, transparency, and the ability to identify ineffective or inefficient programs.