Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grow Fund Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LFC: early GROW spending shows mixed execution; committees press agencies on reversions and operating uses
Summary
LFC told the committee that FY25 GROW pilot spending reversed about $13.8 million (19% of FY25 allocations) but FY26 encumbrances improved; members pressed whether GROW money is being used appropriately to fund recurring operating costs rather than pilots and asked for standardized reporting.
Maggie Klug and Josh Chaffin of the Legislative Finance Committee briefed the Legislative Health & Human Services committee on the state—s Government Results and Opportunity (GROW) Fund appropriations and early performance tracking.
Klug said the 2024 legislative package set aside $216 million over three years for 16 pilot projects. Of the FY25 portion ($72 million), agencies reverted roughly $13.8 million (about 19%), with the majority of reversions concentrated in four appropriations including two to the Children, Youth and Families Department.
"The intent of the GROW funding is to pilot new programs and evaluate their outcomes before funding these initiatives in an agency's recurring operating budget," Klug said, and LFC has assessed whether projects have logic models, defined outputs and outcomes, and an independent, rigorous evaluation plan. LFC reported that many agencies have developed models and measures but few have finalized robust independent evaluations yet.
Josh Chaffin described the junior/local appropriations processed through the state—s seven Councils of Governments (COGs). He said local junior projects were encumbered or spent at an 85% rate in some regions, and noted implementation lessons: contract and reimbursement timing delays, cash-flow limitations for small nonprofits, and need for technical assistance on procurement and budgeting.
Committee members raised a separate concern: agencies appear to be requesting GROW funding to cover operating costs, including salary and vacancy-reduction items that traditionally belong in recurring budgets. Several legislators described that usage as inconsistent with the statutory pilot intent. LFC acknowledged the concern, said it is reviewing requests case by case, and committed to giving agencies guidance and recommendations where GROW would not be the appropriate avenue.
Representative Kates and others asked for explanation when large percentages of GROW appropriations were unspent (for example, two CYFD pilot projects reverted roughly $3.0 million combined). LFC said initial implementation delays slowed FY25 spending but that FY26 data show more progress: roughly 32% expended and another ~31% encumbered as of the most recent report.
LFC recommended legislative options including standardized reporting templates, ongoing dashboard updates, capacity building for local grantees and streamlining contracting and reimbursement timelines to reduce delays and reversion risk.
