Strategies for Reducing Wasteful Spending
With states striving to identify waste and maximize efficiency through “DOGE” efforts, states can implement a variety of measures to curb any unnecessary expenditures. Common strategies include targeted spending reviews to identify redundant or ineffective programs; budget process reforms such as sunset laws and requirement of efficiency evaluations for new spending; cost-saving management practices like bulk purchasing and Lean process improvement to reduce operational waste; and high-profile initiatives to root out specific perceived wastes. This includes scrutinizing travel budgets, vacant positions, or controversial programs.
Key Findings
Many states encourage state employees and the public to report waste via hotlines or suggestion systems. While eliminating “wasteful spending” is an important goal, states found increased success through continuous improvement programs and oversight audits rather than one-time cuts. Key programs and examples include:
Performance Audits
Virtually every state uses performance audits to ferret out wasteful or duplicative spending. Legislative audit agencies and state auditors regularly review programs for efficiency. For instance, the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit and the Mississippi Joint Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review, known as the PEER Committee conduct audits specifically aimed at identifying inefficient spending.
These audits have flagged numerous opportunities to save money by consolidating services or ending low-value activities. In Washington, the Auditor’s Office performs Accountability Audits to check if agencies are adhering to laws and good practices, ensuring “public funds are accounted for and internal controls protect against misappropriation and misuse.” Findings from such audits often lead to corrective actions that eliminate waste or fraud.
Sunset and Outcome Reviews
Some states employ sunset laws or mandatory periodic reviews (see https://bookofthestates.org/tables/2023-3-27/.) Texas’ Sunset Advisory is a well-known example: it reviews every state agency on a rotating schedule (usually every 12 years) and recommends improvements or abolishment. This process led to the merger or elimination of numerous agencies over the years, preventing waste from outdated programs.
Other states like Nevada and Alabama have similar sunset review processes in statute, ensuring a regular check on whether programs justify their cost. Additionally, states such as Oklahoma and Virginia require that any new program include performance metrics and expiration dates unless renewed, to avoid permanent bloating of the budget.
Lean and Efficient Agencies
States adopted private-sector techniques, like Lean Six Sigma, which streamline operations and reduce waste. Utah launched the SUCCESS framework, which requires agencies to improve performance metrics and service capacity, which has led to faster service delivery and cost savings. Ohio trained its government employees in Lean Six Sigma methodologies, helping reduce waiting times, and streamline processes. The state reported that projects using these methodologies eliminated tens of thousands of backlog hours and saved nearly $140 million in potential costs related to procurement and permit processing. The Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities incorporated Lean Six Sigma principles in its Quality Improvement System which identified process inefficiencies (e.g., reducing paperwork, speeding up permit approvals).
Budgetary Controls and Efficiencies
The National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) reported eight states require agencies to justify base budgets from zero or to submit reduction options as part of the budget process. This practice, sometimes called “zero-based budgeting” or “budgeting for outcomes,” forces a review of all spending, not just new requests.
For instance, in the 2010s, Georgia mandated a form of zero-based budgeting on a rotating portion of the budget each year, leading agencies to identify low-priority expenditures that could be cut. Utah recently undertook a similar initiative, identifying almost $2 million in savings by reducing the stockpile of computers in storage.
Public Engagement and Whistleblower
Recognizing that those on the ground often spot waste first, states increasingly solicit input from both employees and the public. Many state auditors and inspectors general host “report waste, fraud, or abuse” hotlines or web portals, where tips can be submitted anonymously. For example, New York’s Office of the Medicaid Inspector General invites the public to “help stop Medicaid fraud” by calling a hotline or filing an online form. Hawaii and Tennessee have implemented formal Suggestion Award Programs that reward employees who propose money-saving ideas that are adopted.
Waste-cutting is an ongoing process. Structural drivers like healthcare, pensions, and education costs may have consequences if there are cut. The key to eliminating waste successfully is often about trimming excess while maintaining core services. States may continue refining these efforts — leveraging technology (data analytics to spot anomalies), increasing transparency (open budgets that let citizens see spending), and fostering a culture of continuous improvement within agencies.
Combining these approaches can gradually change spending patterns, directing funds away from waste and toward effective programs.
Achieving balanced budgets is closely tied to states’ ability to curb wasteful spending. Since structural costs in healthcare, pensions, and education can’t simply be cut or reduced without adverse consequences, states have adopted budgeting practices to reduce excess spending while preserving essential services. This requires continuous monitoring and adjustments throughout the fiscal year. To ensure compliance with balanced budget requirements, states leverage forecasting, ongoing budget monitoring, and year-end audits, reinforcing accountability and transparency.