HB 2057
In CommitteeHouse
New programs
Concerning the identification and review of new programs.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill creates a new process to identify and review state programs launched during the 2025–27 biennium and beyond. It requires the state auditor to publish annual lists of new programs and conduct performance audits three years after they start, while also updating budget rules to ensure new programs are evaluated for effectiveness and efficiency before continued funding is approved.
- Defines a 'new program' as a newly created agency, new services, new populations served, or new activities not funded or conducted by the state in the prior biennium.
- Requires the state auditor to publish a draft list of all new programs funded in the prior fiscal year by July 1 each year, including program name, description, funding agencies, and appropriation amounts.
- Allows the legislature and Office of Financial Management 30 days to comment on the draft list, after which the auditor must publish a final list within 60 days.
- Requires the state auditor to conduct a fiscal and performance audit of each new program three years after its initial funding, evaluating its original goals, effectiveness, efficiency, and recommending changes—including possible termination.
- Amends RCW 43.88.090 to require the governor’s budget proposal to include a list of all new programs funded in the previous two years, with details like objectives, performance measures, and current and proposed funding.
- Strengthens the link between performance assessments and budget decisions, requiring agencies to propose changes to underperforming programs in their budget requests.
Who is affected
- State agencies — State agencies must now track and report new programs they create or fund, and must participate in performance audits three years after program launch.
- State auditor's office — The state auditor gains new responsibilities to identify, list, and audit new state programs on a regular schedule.
- Governor and Office of Financial Management — The governor and Office of Financial Management must integrate performance data into budget proposals and consider whether new programs are meeting goals.
- Washington State Legislature — Members of the legislature (especially fiscal committees) receive regular reports and audit findings to inform budget decisions.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
By requiring agencies to propose changes to underperforming programs, the bill creates a mechanism to redirect resources from ineffective or duplicative initiatives toward higher-impact services—potentially improving public safety outcomes for communities currently underserved.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 4(5)Mandating evaluation of program alternatives—including privatization, consolidation, or community-based delivery—could reduce bureaucratic overhead and create opportunities for small businesses and nonprofits to deliver state services more efficiently.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(f)The annual public list of new programs increases transparency and accountability, enabling community groups, journalists, and local officials to scrutinize whether state spending aligns with local priorities—especially in rural or historically marginalized areas.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)–(4)Requiring performance measures and objectives for new housing programs (e.g., RHA, DHCD grants) may improve targeting of resources to households most in need—though only if metrics are designed equitably and not narrowly focused on speed or cost per unit.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(1)Linking budget decisions to performance goals may incentivize schools and higher education to adopt data-driven improvements—though this risks over-emphasizing standardized metrics over holistic student success.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(5)
Potential Concerns (5)
State agencies—including local agencies that contract with the state or receive state funding—will face new administrative burdens to track and report program details and prepare for triennial audits, diverting staff time and resources from frontline service delivery.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)–(3)Agencies responsible for public safety (e.g., DOC, HPSC, DPSST) may be forced to reframe or scale back programs with strong community impact but limited performance data—especially those serving vulnerable populations—because the audit framework prioritizes efficiency metrics over equity or long-term social outcomes.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 4(5) & (6)Programs that serve small or hard-to-count populations (e.g., behavioral health for unhoused individuals, rural telehealth expansion) may be deprioritized or terminated not due to ineffectiveness, but because they lack scalable performance metrics—disproportionately affecting rural and low-income Washingtonians.
HealthcareLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(5)School districts and higher education institutions receiving state funding for new initiatives (e.g., mental health staff, dual enrollment) may face delays or reduced flexibility in implementation due to rigid audit timelines and performance benchmarks that don’t account for seasonal or multi-year student outcomes.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(4) & Sec. 3(3)The bill imposes unfunded mandates on state agencies and the auditor’s office, requiring additional staffing and technology to meet reporting and audit requirements—costs ultimately borne by taxpayers through higher operating budgets or reduced services elsewhere.
FinancialRef: Fiscal Impact
Who Is Most Affected
State agencies—especially those with limited data infrastructure (e.g., DSHS, ESD, Ecology)—will face new compliance costs and may deprioritize innovative but hard-to-measure programs. Smaller agencies may lack staff to meet audit timelines, potentially leading to program cuts.
The auditor’s office gains authority but faces new operational demands. Without dedicated funding, this may strain existing resources and delay other audit work—potentially reducing oversight of critical areas like Medicaid fraud or procurement integrity.
The governor and OFM gain tools to enforce performance accountability, but the requirement to list *all* new programs—including those the governor opposes— limits executive discretion and could create political friction with agencies or legislators.
Legislative fiscal committees gain structured audit data to inform budget decisions, but the 3-year lag between program launch and audit means reactive, not proactive, oversight—limiting utility for timely course correction.
Nonprofits and community-based providers that deliver state-funded services (e.g., food banks, housing navigators, mental health clinics) may be excluded from the audit process despite being on the frontlines—yet could benefit if performance data leads to more flexible funding.