Washington Near General Fund budget and revenue by biennium, 2005-07 to 2025-27, with benchmarks, growth drivers, K-12 and cross-state comparisons

Growth from 2013-15 to 2023-25 vs. benchmarks

Question: How much did final NGF appropriations grow from 2013-15 to 2023-25, compared with population, population x inflation, and personal income?

Result: Final NGF rose 114.6% ($33.90B to $72.74B). Population rose 14.7%; population x US CPI-U rose 52.0% (Seattle CPI-U: 64.8%). Real per-capita NGF rose 41.2% (US CPI-U) or 30.2% (Seattle CPI-U). Personal income rose 90.3%. Had NGF tracked population x US CPI-U it would have been about $51.5B.

Operation: Percent change between biennia; benchmark products of population and CPI growth factors; real per-capita = NGF growth factor / (population factor x CPI factor).

Scope: tables ngf-by-biennium and benchmarks, rows 2013-15 and 2023-25

View this analysis

• Appropriations are authority to spend, not actual expenditures; some appropriations lapse unspent each biennium.
• The Near General Fund basket changed over time (2009 account merges into GF-S; NGF-P from 2013; NGF-O adds the Workforce Education Investment Account from 2019-21). Part of the measured growth is accounts moving into the basket rather than new spending; the 2019 LBN projected WEIA revenue at $773.3M for 2019-21, about 1.5% of the 2019-21 NGF-O total, so the basket change explains only a small part of the growth.
• Values are nominal; inflation adjustments use consumer prices (CPI-U), which may not match the cost of what government buys (wages, health care).
• 2013-15 was a low base after the Great Recession, which raises the measured growth.

Robustness checks

• Sensitivity analysis: Growth from 2005-07 to 2023-25 vs. benchmarks. From a pre-recession 2005-07 base, NGF grew 141.1% vs. 94.8% for population x US CPI-U, still faster; but personal income grew 166.2%, faster than NGF, so the share-of-income comparison flips.
• Sensitivity analysis: Enacted-to-enacted growth, 2013-15 to 2023-25. Using enacted rather than final budgets, growth is 107.6%: still more than double.
• Other check: NGF growth excluding K-12. Excluding K-12, NGF grew 122.5%, so growth was not driven only by the McCleary school-funding obligations.
• Sensitivity analysis: Real per-capita NGF using a government-cost deflator. Using the BEA price index for what state and local governments buy instead of CPI-U, real per-capita NGF still rose 39.6% from 2013-15; from 2005-07 the increase shrinks to 13.8% because government costs outpaced consumer prices over the longer period.
• Sensitivity analysis: Growth to 2023-25 from every base biennium. From every base biennium since 2005-07, NGF grew faster than population x inflation under all three deflators. It grew faster than personal income from 2009-11 and later bases, and slower from 2005-07 and 2007-09.

Growth from 2005-07 to 2023-25 vs. benchmarks

Question: From a pre-recession base, how did NGF growth compare with population, inflation and personal income?

Result: Final NGF rose 141.1% ($30.17B to $72.74B) over 18 years. Population x US CPI-U rose 94.8% (Seattle: 113.1%). Real per-capita NGF rose 23.8% (US CPI-U) or 13.1% (Seattle CPI-U). Personal income rose 166.2%, faster than NGF.

Operation: As growth-2013-to-2023, with 2005-07 as the base.

Scope: tables ngf-by-biennium and benchmarks, rows 2005-07 and 2023-25

View this analysis

• Appropriations are authority to spend, not actual expenditures; some appropriations lapse unspent each biennium.
• The Near General Fund basket changed over time (2009 account merges into GF-S; NGF-P from 2013; NGF-O adds the Workforce Education Investment Account from 2019-21). Part of the measured growth is accounts moving into the basket rather than new spending; the 2019 LBN projected WEIA revenue at $773.3M for 2019-21, about 1.5% of the 2019-21 NGF-O total, so the basket change explains only a small part of the growth.
• Values are nominal; inflation adjustments use consumer prices (CPI-U), which may not match the cost of what government buys (wages, health care).
• The 2005-07 NGF-S basket included several accounts (Health Services, Student Achievement, Public Safety and Education and others) that were later merged into GF-S; it is the closest available comparison but not identical to NGF-O.

Robustness check for: Growth from 2013-15 to 2023-25 vs. benchmarks

Enacted-to-enacted growth, 2013-15 to 2023-25

Question: Does the growth figure depend on using final (post-supplemental) appropriations?

Result: Enacted NGF rose 107.6% ($33.63B to $69.80B).

Operation: Percent change in enacted NGF.

Scope: table ngf-by-biennium

View this analysis

• Appropriations are authority to spend, not actual expenditures; some appropriations lapse unspent each biennium.
• The Near General Fund basket changed over time (2009 account merges into GF-S; NGF-P from 2013; NGF-O adds the Workforce Education Investment Account from 2019-21). Part of the measured growth is accounts moving into the basket rather than new spending; the 2019 LBN projected WEIA revenue at $773.3M for 2019-21, about 1.5% of the 2019-21 NGF-O total, so the basket change explains only a small part of the growth.
• Values are nominal; inflation adjustments use consumer prices (CPI-U), which may not match the cost of what government buys (wages, health care).

Robustness check for: Growth from 2013-15 to 2023-25 vs. benchmarks

Growth index by biennium, 2013-15 = 100

Question: How did NGF, population x inflation, and personal income move biennium by biennium?

Result: By 2023-25 the index reached 214.6 for NGF, 190.3 for personal income and 152.0 for population x US inflation. In 2005-07 the NGF index was 89.0, versus 78.0 for population x US inflation and 71.5 for personal income: NGF fell from 2007-09 to 2009-11 while income kept growing, so from a 2005-07 base NGF grew more than population x inflation but less than personal income.

Operation: Index each series to 2013-15 = 100.

Scope: table growth-index (2005-07 to 2023-25)

View this analysis

• Appropriations are authority to spend, not actual expenditures; some appropriations lapse unspent each biennium.
• The Near General Fund basket changed over time (2009 account merges into GF-S; NGF-P from 2013; NGF-O adds the Workforce Education Investment Account from 2019-21). Part of the measured growth is accounts moving into the basket rather than new spending; the 2019 LBN projected WEIA revenue at $773.3M for 2019-21, about 1.5% of the 2019-21 NGF-O total, so the basket change explains only a small part of the growth.
• Values are nominal; inflation adjustments use consumer prices (CPI-U), which may not match the cost of what government buys (wages, health care).
• The choice of base biennium changes how far apart the lines look; the 2005-07 values are shown so readers can see an earlier base.

NGF as a share of personal income

Question: Did NGF grow faster than the state economy?

Result: NGF was 5.95% of personal income in 2005-07, fell to 4.78% in 2013-15, and rose to 5.39% in 2023-25: above the 2013-15 low but below 2005-07.

Operation: finalNgf ($K / 1000) divided by biennial personal income ($M) x 100.

Scope: tables ngf-by-biennium and benchmarks

View this analysis

• Appropriations are authority to spend, not actual expenditures; some appropriations lapse unspent each biennium.
• The Near General Fund basket changed over time (2009 account merges into GF-S; NGF-P from 2013; NGF-O adds the Workforce Education Investment Account from 2019-21). Part of the measured growth is accounts moving into the basket rather than new spending; the 2019 LBN projected WEIA revenue at $773.3M for 2019-21, about 1.5% of the 2019-21 NGF-O total, so the basket change explains only a small part of the growth.
• Values are nominal; inflation adjustments use consumer prices (CPI-U), which may not match the cost of what government buys (wages, health care).

Where the 2013-15 to 2023-25 increase went

Question: Which functional areas account for the $38.8B NGF increase?

Result: K-12 (Public Schools) accounts for 41.3% of the increase, Other Human Services 24.2%, DSHS 13.8%, Higher Education 7.8%, Governmental Operations 4.9%, Special Appropriations 4.4%, Natural Resources 2.2%.

Operation: Difference and share of total difference by LBN functional area.

Scope: table ngf-by-area

View this analysis

• Appropriations are authority to spend, not actual expenditures; some appropriations lapse unspent each biennium.
• The Near General Fund basket changed over time (2009 account merges into GF-S; NGF-P from 2013; NGF-O adds the Workforce Education Investment Account from 2019-21). Part of the measured growth is accounts moving into the basket rather than new spending; the 2019 LBN projected WEIA revenue at $773.3M for 2019-21, about 1.5% of the 2019-21 NGF-O total, so the basket change explains only a small part of the growth.
• Values are nominal; inflation adjustments use consumer prices (CPI-U), which may not match the cost of what government buys (wages, health care).
• Functional-area totals reflect agency structure, which changed during the period.

NGF growth excluding K-12

Question: Was the growth driven only by court-ordered K-12 funding (McCleary)?

Result: K-12 NGF rose 104.9%. Everything else rose 122.5% ($18.60B to $41.39B). DSHS + Other Human Services combined rose 123.1%.

Operation: Percent change in total NGF minus Public Schools; and in DSHS + Other Human Services.

Scope: table ngf-by-area

View this analysis

• Appropriations are authority to spend, not actual expenditures; some appropriations lapse unspent each biennium.
• The Near General Fund basket changed over time (2009 account merges into GF-S; NGF-P from 2013; NGF-O adds the Workforce Education Investment Account from 2019-21). Part of the measured growth is accounts moving into the basket rather than new spending; the 2019 LBN projected WEIA revenue at $773.3M for 2019-21, about 1.5% of the 2019-21 NGF-O total, so the basket change explains only a small part of the growth.
• Values are nominal; inflation adjustments use consumer prices (CPI-U), which may not match the cost of what government buys (wages, health care).

Robustness check for: Growth from 2013-15 to 2023-25 vs. benchmarks

Real per-capita NGF using a government-cost deflator

Question: Does real per-capita growth hold when inflation is measured by the prices state and local governments pay rather than consumer prices?

Result: State and local government prices rose 34% from 2014 to 2024 (CPI-U 32.5%), so real per-capita NGF rose 39.6% from 2013-15 (CPI-U: 41.2%). From 2006 to 2024 government prices rose 69.3% vs 55.6% for CPI-U, and real per-capita NGF rose 13.8% from 2005-07 (CPI-U: 23.8%).

Operation: Real per-capita growth = NGF growth factor / (population factor x price factor) - 1, with the BEA state and local government price index and, for comparison, US CPI-U.

Scope: tables ngf-by-biennium and benchmarks, 2005-07, 2013-15 and 2023-25

View this analysis

• Appropriations are authority to spend, not actual expenditures; revenue figures are cash collections.
• A national government price index may not match Washington's cost growth; Washington-specific public wage growth was not measured.

Robustness check for: Growth from 2013-15 to 2023-25 vs. benchmarks

Growth to 2023-25 from every base biennium

Question: Do the comparisons depend on the starting biennium?

Result: NGF outgrew population x US CPI-U from every base (e.g. 2005-07: 141.1% vs 94.8%; 2013-15: 114.6% vs 52%; 2019-21: 38.4% vs 26.4%). Against personal income the result depends on the base: NGF grew slower from 2005-07 (141.1% vs 166.2%) and 2007-09, about the same from 2009-11, and faster from 2011-13 onward (2013-15: 114.6% vs 90.3%; 2021-23: 14.8% vs 12.7%). NGF as a share of personal income was 5.95% in 2005-07, 4.78% in 2013-15 and 5.39% in 2023-25.

Operation: For each base biennium, growth to 2023-25 in NGF, benchmarks, real per-capita NGF (three deflators), personal income and revenue.

Scope: table base-year-sensitivity

View this analysis

• Appropriations are authority to spend, not actual expenditures; revenue figures are cash collections.
• Basket changes over time (see dataset limitations) affect comparisons from earlier bases most.

Robustness check for: Growth from 2013-15 to 2023-25 vs. benchmarks

Spending above the population x inflation benchmark, by area

Question: How much 2023-25 spending exceeds what 2013-15 spending grown by population x inflation would be, and in which areas?

Result: 2023-25 NGF was about $21.2B above the population x inflation benchmark. K-12 accounts for $8.1B (38.2%), Other Human Services $6.2B, DSHS $2.3B, Governmental Operations $1.7B and Higher Education $1.4B.

Operation: For each functional area: 2023-25 NGF minus 2013-15 NGF x 1.52 (population x US CPI-U growth factor).

Scope: tables ngf-by-area and benchmarks

View this analysis

• Appropriations are authority to spend, not actual expenditures; revenue figures are cash collections.
• Functional areas reflect agency structure, which changed during the period; see program-group-excess for reorganization-adjusted groups.

Spending above the benchmark by program group

Question: Within human services and governmental operations, which programs account for growth above population x inflation?

Result: Above the benchmark: children, early learning and economic services (including child-care subsidies) +$3.2B; behavioral health +$2.1B; long-term care +$2.0B; developmental disabilities +$1.0B; Commerce +$0.9B; Department of Revenue (Working Families Tax Credit) +$0.5B. Low-income health care in HCA (-$0.3B) and Corrections (-$0.1B) grew less than the benchmark.

Operation: 2023-25 NGF minus 2013-15 NGF x 1.52 for each reorganization-adjusted program group.

Scope: table program-groups

View this analysis

• Appropriations are authority to spend, not actual expenditures; revenue figures are cash collections.
• The 2013-15 split of child-care subsidies within DSHS Economic Services, and of state hospitals within behavioral health, could not be separated from the LBN tables.
• Court-ordered spending (Trueblood competency services) sits inside behavioral health; its total was not quantified.

Maintenance level vs. policy changes, 2015-2025

Question: How much of the 2013-15 to 2023-25 increase came from carrying forward current services, and how much from new policy decisions?

Result: Maintenance-level changes total about $20.11B and policy changes about $18.66B, together about $38.8B against the actual $38.84B increase.

Operation: Sum of maintenance-level and policy NGF changes across all biennial and supplemental budgets, 2015-2025.

Scope: table ml-policy-steps

View this analysis

• Appropriations are authority to spend, not actual expenditures; revenue figures are cash collections.
• The 2021 and 2023 supplemental maintenance-level figures and the 2023-25 biennial maintenance level are residuals that absorb vetoes and other-legislation differences.

Revenue vs. appropriations by biennium

Question: Did NGF-O revenue keep pace with NGF appropriations?

Result: Revenue rose 95.7% from 2013-15 to 2023-25 ($34.3B to $67.1B) while appropriations rose 114.6%. The two tracked closely through 2021-23; in 2023-25 revenue rose 3.7% while appropriations rose 14.8%, and appropriations exceeded collections by about $5.6B, covered by fund balances and transfers. Revenue was 4.84% of personal income in 2013-15, peaked at 5.41% in 2021-23 and was 4.97% in 2023-25.

Operation: Compare NGF-O collections with final NGF appropriations; each as a percent of biennial personal income.

Scope: tables revenue-by-biennium, ngf-by-biennium and benchmarks

View this analysis

• Appropriations are authority to spend, not actual expenditures; revenue figures are cash collections.
• The revenue series uses one consistent basket (today's NGF-O, restated); the spending series uses the basket of its time (NGF-S, NGF-P, NGF-O). The difference is small (OPA about $0.25-0.35B a biennium).

2023-25 revenue from tax legislation enacted 2013-2024

Question: How much 2023-25 revenue came from tax increases (net of cuts) enacted after the 2013-15 base?

Result: About $8.15B of 2023-25 NGF-O revenue (range $7.05-9.25B) came from tax legislation enacted 2013-2024. The largest item is the EHB 2242 state school levy (about $4.2B); the capital gains tax and the WEIA surcharges each raised about $1.0B.

Operation: Sum of row estimates in table tax-legislation (low, mid, high).

Scope: table tax-legislation

View this analysis

• Rows marked low confidence scale first-biennium scores and were not checked against later fiscal notes.
• Whether remote-seller collection after the 2018 Wayfair decision counts as a tax increase is a judgment; it is about $0.4-0.9B.

Would the pre-2013 tax base have covered each spending path?

Question: If no tax legislation had been enacted after 2013-15, would 2023-25 revenue have covered spending that grew with population x inflation, with personal income, or as it actually did?

Result: Revenue from the pre-2013 tax base would have been about $58.99B in 2023-25 (range $57.89-60.09B). That covers spending grown by population x inflation ($51.53B) with about $7.46B to spare, but falls about $5.53B short of spending grown with personal income ($64.52B) and about $13.75B short of actual appropriations ($72.74B). No conclusion changes within the range.

Operation: Existing-base revenue = 2023-25 NGF-O collections minus post-2013 legislation (low/mid/high). Compare with 2013-15 final NGF grown by each benchmark and with actual 2023-25 NGF.

Scope: tables revenue-by-biennium, tax-legislation, ngf-by-biennium and benchmarks

View this analysis

• A static estimate: it ignores economic and behavioral feedback and the spending choices a smaller base would have forced.
• The 2013-15 base already includes about $0.24B from 2013 legislation.
• Appropriations before reversions (about $0.76B in 2023-25) are compared with cash collections.

K-12 operating revenue per student by source, 2013-14 to 2023-24

Question: How much did per-student K-12 operating resources from all sources grow, and how much of the state increase replaced local levy money?

Result: Per-student operating revenue from all sources rose 77.4% nominal, 33.9% after CPI-U inflation (32.4% with the government price index). State revenue per student rose 47.5% real; local revenue fell 12.8% real; federal rose 49.4% real, inflated by COVID relief (about $0.43B in 2023-24; excluding it, all-source growth is about 31%). Enrollment (FTE) grew 4.6%.

Operation: Per-student revenue (source / annual average FTE) for 2013-14 and 2023-24, nominal and deflated by US CPI-U (2014 to 2024) and the state and local government price index.

Scope: table k12-district-revenue

View this analysis

• School years are paired with the calendar year in which they end for price adjustment.
• General Fund only: excludes capital and debt-service levies, which grew.
• The 2013-14 row is computed from published per-pupil values and enrollment.

Washington general fund growth vs. other states (NASBO)

Question: How did Washington's general fund growth compare with other states?

Result: Washington's general fund grew 121.5% from FY2014 to FY2025 versus 76.9% for all states combined, faster than every comparison state except Utah and California. From FY2019 to FY2025 Washington grew 55.3% versus 47.2% for all states; Oregon, Utah, California and Florida grew faster.

Operation: Percent growth FY2019 to FY2025 and FY2014 to FY2025 from NASBO actual general fund expenditures.

Scope: table nasbo-general-fund

View this analysis

• States define "general fund" differently and move programs in and out of it; Washington's NASBO figure is GF-S only. Figures are nominal and not adjusted for population or inflation.
• Washington's growth from FY2014 includes the McCleary shift of school costs from local levies to the state.