HB 2449
In CommitteeHouse
Zero-based budget reviews
Reforming the Washington state budgeting process through zero-based budget reviews.
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 zero-based budget review process for Washington state, requiring state agencies to justify programs from scratch—not just adjust from previous budgets—and sets a 10-year cycle to review all state programs. It mandates detailed program analyses and public review as part of the budget process.
- Starts a new zero-based budget review process beginning in 2026, where specific state programs are reviewed from scratch—not just adjusted from prior budgets.
- Requires the legislature to select 20% of all state programs each biennium (two-year cycle) for review, so all programs are reviewed at least once every 10 years.
- Mandates that state agencies submit detailed program analyses for review, including statutory background, performance measures, cost and staffing data, and how the program aligns with agency goals.
- Requires the governor and legislature to consider these reviews during budget development and hold at least one public hearing on the findings.
- Requires agencies to submit review materials electronically to the legislative evaluation and accountability program committee’s fiscal website.
Who is affected
- State agencies — State agencies must prepare detailed reviews of specific programs, including cost, staffing, performance, and effectiveness data, as part of their biennial budget requests.
- Governor and state legislature — The governor and legislature must review and consider agency-submitted zero-based budget analyses during budget development and hold at least one public hearing on them.
- Residents who use state services — Residents who rely on state services (e.g., education, health care, social services) may see changes in program funding or structure over time as programs are periodically re-evaluated.
- General public and watchdog organizations — The public gains more transparency, as agencies must submit detailed program analyses that are posted online and discussed in public hearings.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
Mandating performance measures and analysis of how funds actually reach intended recipients could expose inefficiencies or fraud in state programs, leading to reallocated resources that better serve communities—especially marginalized groups currently underserved.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(c), (h)Detailed cost and staffing data per program may reveal whether housing assistance programs (e.g., rental subsidies, shelter operations) are delivering value relative to cost, enabling evidence-based reforms that expand access for low-income households.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(d), (e)Posting all review materials on the state’s fiscal website enhances transparency and enables watchdog groups, researchers, and residents to monitor program effectiveness—potentially reducing waste and increasing accountability for services affecting public safety and well-being.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(b)A 10-year review cycle ensures all state education programs—including early learning, vocational training, and college access initiatives—are periodically assessed for relevance and outcomes, potentially improving alignment with workforce needs and equity goals.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)Agencies must justify how programs align with strategic goals, which could lead to more efficient business assistance programs (e.g., workforce training, small business grants) if data-driven criteria replace legacy funding formulas.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(b)
Potential Concerns (5)
State agencies (including local agencies that contract with or receive funding from the state) must divert staff time and resources to prepare detailed zero-based budget reviews, increasing administrative burden and potentially delaying regular budget submissions.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(3)Frontline public safety and human services programs—especially those serving vulnerable populations—may face heightened scrutiny and potential defunding or restructuring during review cycles, risking service disruption even if programs are effective but under-resourced.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(d), (f), (g), (h)Medicaid and other health-related programs may be subject to periodic re-evaluation without guaranteed protection for statutory entitlements, potentially leading to eligibility restrictions or benefit reductions if political will shifts.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)K-12 and higher education programs not classified as statutory entitlements (e.g., special education, college grants) may be deprioritized or restructured during review cycles, especially if politically unpopular or perceived as low-performing despite long-term value.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)The requirement for at least one public hearing per biennium on zero-based reviews may increase civic engagement but could also lead to uneven participation—well-resourced agencies and interest groups dominate hearings, while low-income and rural residents may lack access or awareness.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)
Who Is Most Affected
State agencies must invest staff time and resources to prepare detailed reviews, which may strain budgets and divert attention from service delivery—especially agencies with limited capacity (e.g., smaller departments, rural service units).
Low-income families and individuals relying on human services (e.g., TANF, SNAP, behavioral health, housing assistance) may benefit from improved program efficiency but face risk of service reduction if programs are deprioritized during reviews.
Local governments and service providers (e.g., community colleges, public hospitals, county health departments) that receive state funding may face uncertainty as program eligibility and funding levels are re-evaluated every 10 years.
Watchdog organizations, researchers, and journalists gain new data and transparency tools to evaluate program effectiveness—but impact depends on whether findings lead to meaningful reform, not just scrutiny.
Legislators gain structured analytical input for budget decisions, but the process does not guarantee policy change—political considerations may override evidence, especially for politically sensitive programs.