Congress has periodically expressed interest in converting the Fed. budget process from an annual to a biennial cycle (BC). However, proposals to move to a BC raise a number of concerns. Both opponents and proponents of a BC have used states' experiences to support their positions. Currently, 23 states have all or part of their budget on a BC. This report studies the BC process of Arizona, Connecticut, and Ohio in detail. It examines how: (1) Arizona and Connecticut implemented their transition from an annual to a BC; (2) each of the 3 states budgets in the off year of its cycle, and (3) each of the states incorporates legislative oversight and program evaluation into its BC. Charts and tables.

Biennial budgeting is a concept that may involve several variations, including two-year budget resolutions, two-year appropriations, and other changes in the timing of legislation related to revenue or spending. Biennial budgeting proposals may focus on enacting budgetary legislation for either a two-year period or two succeeding one-year periods in a single measure. This book discusses options, issues and previous Congressional action in biennial budgeting. The book provides background information on the annual character of the current process and a history of proposals to convert to multi-year budgeting; describes three bills that reflect different approaches to biennial budgeting; analyses the potential effects of converting from annual to biennial budgeting; discusses the federal budget process; and examines challenges and proposals for adopting a long-term budget focus.

Members of the Congress periodically have expressed interest in converting the federal budget process from an annual to a biennial cycle. These proposals stem in part from frustration over the amount of time spent on the annual budget and appropriations process and the feeling that budget-related actions are both endless and repetitive. Some in the Congress feel that the time spent on these activities has come at the expense of congressional oversight and authorization responsibilities. A biennial budget cycle has been advocated as a way to advance several objectives: (1) provide more focused time for congressional oversight and authorization activities by streamlining the congressional budget process, (2) shift the allocation of agency officials' time from the preparation of budget documents to improved financial management and analysis of program effectiveness, and (3) provide federal managers and state and local recipients of federal funds more certainty in funding over the longer 2- year period. However, proposals to move to a biennial budget cycle raise a number of concerns. To better understand the states' perspectives, it was requested that the General Accounting Office study the biennial budget processes of Arizona, Connecticut, and Ohio in detail. Arizona and Connecticut were selected because they are the only two states that have converted to biennial budgeting in the last 10 years. Ohio was included because among the five states with the highest general fund expenditures, it is the only one that has both a biennial budget process and a legislature that meets annually. In addition, Ohio has been cited as a successful model by advocates of biennial budgeting.

Difficulties in the timely enactment of budgetary legislation have long fueled interest in ways to structure the congressional budget process to ease time constraints. One long-discussed reform proposal would attempt to remedy this by changing the budget cycle from one to two years. Biennial budgeting is a concept that may involve several variations, including two-year budget resolutions, two-year appropriations, as well as other changes in the timing of legislation related to revenue or spending. Typically, biennial budgeting proposals include at least the first two aspects. Biennial budgeting proposals may focus on enacting budgetary legislation for two-year periods or for two one-year periods. The overall time frame for a biennial budget cycle has previously taken either a "stretch" approach, where the current budget process timetable is extended to two full years, or a split sessions approach, where all budgetary activity is expected to occur in a single year or session of Congress (typically the first), while consideration of non-budgetary matters is expected to occur primarily in the other year or session. Proponents of biennial budgeting have generally advanced three arguments--that a two-year budget cycle would (1) reduce congressional workload by eliminating the need for annual review of routine matters; (2) reserve ...

Budget Process: Issues in Biennial Budget Proposals