<mods xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" version="3.3" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-3.xsd" ID="P0b002ee18039c06b">
<name type="corporate">
 <namePart>United States Government Publishing Office</namePart>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">publisher</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">pbl</roleTerm>
</role>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">distributor</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">dst</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="corporate">
 <namePart>United States</namePart>
 <namePart>Government Accountability Office</namePart>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">aut</roleTerm>
</role>
 <description>Government Organization</description>
</name>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre authority="marcgt">government publication</genre>
<language>
 <languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
</language>
<extension>
 <collectionCode>GAOREPORTS</collectionCode>
 <category>Legislative Agency Publications</category>
 <waisDatabaseName>gao</waisDatabaseName>
 <branch>legislative</branch>
 <dateIngested>2010-08-12</dateIngested>
</extension>
<originInfo>
 <publisher>U.S. Government Printing Office</publisher>
 <dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2000-10-27</dateIssued>
 <issuance>monographic</issuance>
</originInfo>
<physicalDescription>
 <note type="source content type">deposited</note>
 <digitalOrigin>born digital</digitalOrigin>
 <extent>51 p.</extent>
</physicalDescription>
<classification authority="sudocs">GA 1.13:GAO-01-132</classification>
<identifier type="uri">https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-GAO-01-132</identifier>
<identifier type="local">P0b002ee18039c06b</identifier>
<identifier type="former package identifier">f:d01132</identifier>
<recordInfo>
 <recordContentSource authority="marcorg">DGPO</recordContentSource>
 <recordCreationDate encoding="w3cdtf">2010-08-12</recordCreationDate>
 <recordChangeDate encoding="w3cdtf">2011-03-24</recordChangeDate>
 <recordIdentifier source="DGPO">GAOREPORTS-GAO-01-132</recordIdentifier>
 <recordOrigin>machine generated</recordOrigin>
 <languageOfCataloging>
  <languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
</languageOfCataloging>
</recordInfo>
<accessCondition type="GPO scope determination">fdlp</accessCondition>
<extension>
 <docClass>REPORT</docClass>
 <accessId>GAOREPORTS-GAO-01-132</accessId>
 <reportNumber>GAO-01-132</reportNumber>
 <subject>Congressional oversight</subject>
 <subject>Balanced budgets</subject>
 <subject>State budgets</subject>
 <subject>Budgeting</subject>
 <subject>Future budget projections</subject>
 <identifier>Arizona</identifier>
 <identifier>Connecticut</identifier>
 <identifier>Ohio</identifier>
 <type>Letter Report</type>
</extension>
<titleInfo>
 <title>Biennial Budgeting: Three States&apos; Experiences</title>
</titleInfo>
<abstract>Members of Congress periodically have expressed interest in converting
the federal budget process from an annual to a biennial cycle. Congress
feels that the time spent on these activities has come at the expense of
congressional oversight and authorization responsibilities. To get an
understanding of states&apos; experiences with the biennial budget cycle, GAO
studied three states: Arizona, Ohio, and Connecticut. GAO found that the
states&apos; reasons for changing their budget cycles varied. For example,
Arizona adopted a biennial cycle to increase legislative oversight and
reduce time spent on the budget, and Connecticut adopted it as part of a
fiscal reform effort. In order to execute a bienneial budget
successfully, the states&apos; experiences suggest that the legislative and
executive branches must agree on how the off-year budget process will
work. Different approaches to managing the off-year budget have been
developed by states, including establishing formal guidelines for
off-year budget changes and relying on leadership control. Efforts to
increase legislative oversight in the off-year by converting to a
biennial budget process may be difficult. Ohio and Connecticut officials
have said they have not increased legislative oversight in the off-year,
and Arizona officials said that, while they formally included a process
for increasing oversight, they have faced considerable challenges.
Although state experiences can provide useful insights, the federal
budget has unique issues that must be considered before implementing a
biennial budget process.</abstract>
<location>
 <url displayLabel="HTML rendition" access="raw object">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-01-132/html/GAOREPORTS-GAO-01-132.htm</url>
 <url displayLabel="PDF rendition" access="raw object">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-01-132/pdf/GAOREPORTS-GAO-01-132.pdf</url>
</location>
<identifier type="preferred citation">GAO-01-132</identifier>
<location>
 <url displayLabel="Content Detail" access="object in context">https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-GAO-01-132</url>
</location>
<note>Letter Report</note>
<extension>
 <searchTitle>GAO-01-132; Biennial Budgeting: Three States&apos; Experiences;
            </searchTitle>
</extension>
<subject>
 <topic>Congressional oversight</topic>
 <topic>Balanced budgets</topic>
 <topic>State budgets</topic>
 <topic>Budgeting</topic>
 <topic>Future budget projections</topic>
 <topic>Arizona</topic>
 <topic>Connecticut</topic>
 <topic>Ohio</topic>
</subject>
</mods>