Wisconsin oversight of federal grants

• Federalism
• Terms and definitions
• Laws
• Court cases
• Major arguments
• State responses to federal mandates
• State oversight of federal grants
• Federalism by the numbers
  • Federalism by the numbers: Federal mandates
  • Federalism by the numbers: Federal grants-in-aid
  • Federalism by the numbers: Federal information collection requests
  • Overview of federal spending during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic
• Index of articles

See also: State oversight of federal grants

Federal grants make up a significant portion of state budgets, providing funding for programs in health care, education, infrastructure, and public assistance. These funds are typically accompanied by policy conditions or reporting requirements that shape how states implement federally funded programs. In response, states have developed varying oversight systems to review, approve, and monitor the use of federal funding.

This page summarizes federal grant funding and oversight in Wisconsin. It includes data on how federal dollars contribute to the state budget, highlights Wisconsin’s position relative to other states, and analyzes key laws related to grant coordination, transparency, and accountability. This research was last updated in December 2025.

HIGHLIGHTS

In fiscal year 2023, 32.1% of Wisconsin’s total state revenue came from intergovernmental sources—primarily federal grants—the 11th-lowest share nationwide. The state received approximately $16.0 billion in federal funds, the 24th-lowest among the states.

Wisconsin law authorized the Governor of Wisconsin to accept and administer federal grant money and to approve federal grant applications, required agencies to report on federal grant applications to the Wisconsin State Legislature, and required agencies to notify the Wisconsin State Auditor when accepting federal money that will require auditing services.

This article includes information about the following topics:

• Federal funding to Wisconsin
  • Amount of federal grants to Wisconsin
  • Percentage of Wisconsin budget funded by the federal government

• Wisconsin statutes on federal grant oversight
  • Executive oversight of federal grants
  • Legislative oversight and transparency
  • Audit and financial oversight
  • Agency oversight of federal grants
  • Program-specific federal grant oversight

Background

Federal grants are a major source of funding for state governments, supporting programs in areas such as health care, education, transportation, and public assistance. These funds are distributed through a variety of mechanisms—including block grants, categorical grants, and formula-based programs—and are typically accompanied by policy conditions, reporting requirements, or other administrative mandates.

Federal grants are reported as part of a state’s intergovernmental revenue, a category tracked annually by the United States Census Bureau. Intergovernmental revenue includes funds transferred from both federal and local governments, but federal sources account for the vast majority. In 2022, approximately 98% of intergovernmental revenue received by states came from the federal government. In 2023—the most recent year for which data is available—states collectively received about $1.12 trillion in intergovernmental revenue, representing 36.7% of all general revenue.

Because of the scale and conditional nature of federal funding, many states have adopted statutory and administrative frameworks to oversee how agencies apply for, accept, and manage federal grants. States vary widely in how these frameworks are structured, with some centralizing authority in executive agencies and others distributing responsibilities across legislative, budget, and oversight bodies; collectively, these arrangements define the state's oversight of federal grant activity. These frameworks reflect broader federalism concerns—such as how states balance fiscal dependence with administrative autonomy, and how they respond to federal mandates that may influence state policy priorities.

This research was last updated in December 2025.

Top federal funding programs to states

In fiscal year 2023, the federal government distributed over $1 trillion in grants to states. The largest programs through which states received federal funding were Medicaid, highway funding, rental assistance, and child nutrition. Medicaid alone accounted for 56.8% of federal grants to states, and the top 20 programs combined made up approximately 87.8% of total federal grant outlays to states.

Federal funding to Wisconsin

Amount of federal grants to Wisconsin

In 2023, Wisconsin received approximately $16.0 billion in intergovernmental revenue out of a total $49.8 billion in state revenue, the 24th-lowest nationwide. The national average was approximately $22.3 billion per state. Across all states, intergovernmental revenue totaled about $1.12 trillion out of $3.04 trillion in general revenue. In 2022, approximately 98% of intergovernmental revenue states received came from the federal government.

Percentage of Wisconsin budget funded by the federal government

In fiscal year 2023, 32.1% of Wisconsin’s total state revenue came from intergovernmental sources—primarily federal grants—compared to 36.7% for state governments nationwide. Wisconsin had the 11th-lowest percentage of state revenue funded by the federal government.

Intergovernmental revenue by state

This table shows the percentage and amount of each state's total revenue that came from intergovernmental sources—primarily federal grants—in fiscal year 2023. It lists states in descending order by the share of revenue from these sources and includes total state revenue, intergovernmental revenue, and the percentage for each state. The data highlights how dependent each state is on federal funding as a portion of its overall budget.

Intergovernmental revenue by state, 2023

State	Total revenue (thousands)	Intergovernmental revenue (thousands)	Percent
Louisiana	$44,396,718	$22,899,720	51.6%
Arizona	$60,891,976	$29,948,016	49.2%
Missouri	$45,073,525	$20,888,653	46.3%
Wyoming	$8,357,625	$3,792,590	45.4%
Alaska	$11,883,137	$5,341,732	45.0%
Montana	$10,689,677	$4,710,013	44.1%
Kentucky	$46,180,553	$20,254,290	43.9%
Mississippi	$26,046,854	$11,310,571	43.4%
Rhode Island	$12,286,091	$5,288,136	43.0%
Oklahoma	$37,833,350	$16,255,253	43.0%
West Virginia	$18,871,691	$8,025,296	42.5%
Tennessee	$48,344,600	$20,223,947	41.8%
South Dakota	$6,278,267	$2,570,818	40.9%
Arkansas	$29,702,938	$12,104,414	40.8%
Georgia	$70,031,565	$28,344,731	40.5%
Indiana	$62,196,503	$25,102,743	40.4%
Alabama	$44,884,391	$17,879,389	39.8%
Maine	$13,604,269	$5,360,431	39.4%
New Hampshire	$10,340,297	$4,052,066	39.2%
South Carolina	$46,113,727	$17,785,656	38.6%
Nebraska	$15,493,777	$5,972,778	38.5%
Texas	$213,481,319	$82,164,797	38.5%
Pennsylvania	$127,986,754	$49,211,832	38.5%
Ohio	$98,348,911	$37,785,734	38.4%
Florida	$141,946,520	$53,706,466	37.8%
New York	$259,552,404	$96,814,839	37.3%
Michigan	$90,192,191	$33,060,736	36.7%
Vermont	$9,063,120	$3,293,531	36.3%
Colorado	$41,909,412	$15,138,043	36.1%
Maryland	$58,597,846	$21,004,254	35.8%
North Carolina	$81,064,214	$28,814,153	35.5%
Oregon	$51,612,303	$17,510,543	33.9%
New Mexico	$40,359,510	$13,628,893	33.8%
Nevada	$24,219,218	$8,040,101	33.2%
Iowa	$31,265,753	$10,333,642	33.1%
Washington	$74,164,396	$24,480,102	33.0%
California	$417,100,727	$137,666,813	33.0%
Minnesota	$60,090,592	$19,468,582	32.4%
Illinois	$111,409,197	$35,838,931	32.2%
Wisconsin	$49,805,740	$15,984,042	32.1%
Massachusetts	$80,850,200	$25,519,880	31.6%
New Jersey	$100,285,531	$31,191,180	31.1%
Connecticut	$38,016,037	$11,800,021	31.0%
Idaho	$14,453,559	$4,456,686	30.8%
Delaware	$13,462,717	$4,105,552	30.5%
Virginia	$81,975,174	$23,958,775	29.2%
North Dakota	$10,349,350	$2,876,346	27.8%
Utah	$31,293,027	$8,603,744	27.5%
Kansas	$27,507,628	$7,524,382	27.4%
Hawaii	$19,221,682	$5,057,226	26.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State Government Finances

Wisconsin statutes on federal grant oversight

Many states have statutory provisions that govern the oversight, approval, transparency, and auditing of federal grants received within the state. These laws typically assign responsibilities to executive agencies, the governor’s office, and the legislature to ensure proper management and accountability of federal funds. This research was last updated in December 2025.

Executive oversight of federal grants

Executive oversight of federal grants refers to statutes that assign responsibility to the governor’s office to review, approve, coordinate, or manage federal grants across the state.

Wisconsin Statute § 16.54 detailed the process of accepting federal grant money. The statute assigned the governor several oversight roles, including, authorizing the governor to accept federal funds on behalf of the state, empowering the governor to designate a state board, commission, or department to administer specific federal grants, requiring certain reports be made to the governor, and permitting the governor to approve federal grant applications.

“ (1) Whenever the United States government shall make available to this state funds for the education, the promotion of health, the relief of indigency, the promotion of agriculture or for any other purpose other than the administration of the tribal or any individual funds of Wisconsin Indians, the governor on behalf of the state is authorized to accept the funds so made available. In exercising the authority herein conferred, the governor may stipulate as a condition of the acceptance of the act of congress by this state such conditions as in the governor’s discretion may be necessary to safeguard the interests of this state. (2) (a) 1. Except as provided in subd. 2., whenever funds shall be made available to this state through an act of congress and the funds are accepted as provided in sub. (1), the governor shall designate the state board, commission or department to administer any of such funds, and the board, commission or department so designated by the governor is authorized and directed to administer such funds for the purpose designated by the act of congress making an appropriation of such funds, or by the department of the United States government making such funds available to this state. Whenever a block grant is made to this state, no moneys received as a part of the block grant may be transferred from use as a part of one such grant to use as a part of another such grant, regardless of whether a transfer between appropriations is required, unless the joint committee on finance approves the transfer. 2. Whenever a block grant is made to this state under any federal law enacted after August 31, 1995, which authorizes the distribution of block grants for the purposes for which the grant is made, the governor shall not administer and no board, commission or department may encumber or expend moneys received as a part of the grant unless the governor first notifies the cochairpersons of the joint committee on finance, in writing, that the grant has been made. The notice shall contain a description of the purposes proposed by the governor for expenditure of the moneys received as a part of the grant. If the cochairpersons of the committee do not notify the governor that the committee has scheduled a meeting for the purpose of reviewing the proposed expenditure of grant moneys within 14 working days after the date of the governor’s notification, the moneys may be expended as proposed by the governor. If, within 14 working days after the date of the governor’s notification, the cochairpersons of the committee notify the governor that the committee has scheduled a meeting for the purpose of reviewing the proposed expenditure of grant moneys, no moneys received as a part of the grant may be expended without the approval of the committee. This subdivision does not apply to the expenditure of block grant funds that are allocated under s. 49.175. 3. In this subsection, “block grant” means a multipurpose federal grant so designated under federal law. (b) Upon presentation by the department to the joint committee on finance of alternatives to the provisions under s. 16.27, the joint committee on finance may revise the eligibility criteria under s. 16.27 (5) or benefit payments under s. 16.27 (6), and the department shall implement those revisions. Benefits or eligibility criteria so revised shall take into account and be consistent with the requirements of federal regulations promulgated under 42 USC 8621 to 8629. If funds received under 42 USC 8621 to 8629 in a federal fiscal year total less than 90 percent of the amount received in the previous federal fiscal year, the department shall submit to the joint committee on finance a plan for expenditure of the funds. The department may not use the funds unless the committee approves the plan. (c) Notwithstanding s. 20.435, before using any of the funds disbursed by the federal government to the governor under 42 USC 1397 to 1397f, commencing with funds disbursed for federal fiscal year 1986, the department of health services shall submit to the joint committee on finance and to the chief clerk of each house of the legislature, for distribution to the appropriate legislative standing committees under s. 13.172 (3), the proposed state report required under 42 USC 1397c. The appropriate legislative standing committees shall review the reports, conduct public hearings on the reports and submit recommendations to the department of health services regarding the reports. The department of health services may not use the federal funds unless the joint committee on finance approves the report. (4) Any board, commission or department of the state government designated to administer any such fund, shall, in the administration of such fund, comply with the requirements of the act of congress making such appropriation and with the rules and regulations which may be prescribed by the United States government or by the department of the federal government making such funds available. (5) Whenever any agency of the federal government shall require that as a condition to obtaining federal aid the state agency entrusted with the administration of such aid shall submit a budget, plan, application, or other project proposal, then the budget, plan, application or proposal shall, before it is submitted to the federal authorities for approval, first be approved by the governor and reported to the joint committee on finance. (6) The governor may accept for the state the provisions of any act of congress whereby funds or other benefits are made available to the state, its political subdivisions, or its citizens, so far as the governor considers the provisions to be in the public interest. To this end, the governor may take or cause to be taken all necessary acts including, without limitation because of enumeration, the following: (a) The making of leases or other contracts with the federal government. (b) The preparation, adoption and execution of plans, methods, and agreements. (c) The designation of state, municipal or other agencies to perform specific duties. (7) The governor may accept for the state at all times the provisions of any act of congress whereby funds are made available to the state for any purpose whatsoever, including the school health program under the social security act, and perform all other acts necessary to comply with and otherwise obtain, facilitate, expedite, and carry out the required provisions of such acts of congress. (8) An agency may request the governor to create or abolish a full-time equivalent position or portion thereof funded from revenues specified in s. 20.001 (2) (e) in the agency. Upon receiving such a request, the governor may change the authorized level of full-time equivalent positions funded from such revenues in the agency. The governor may approve a different authorized level of positions than is requested by the agency. The governor, through the secretary, shall notify the joint committee on finance at least quarterly of any federal funds received in excess of those approved in the biennial budget process and of any positions created or abolished under this section. (8g) Subsections (1) to (8) do not apply to federal moneys made available to the board of regents of the University of Wisconsin System for instruction, extension, special projects or emergency employment opportunities. (8r) (a) Whenever the federal government makes available moneys for instruction, extension, special projects or emergency employment opportunities, the board of regents of the University of Wisconsin System may accept the moneys on behalf of the state. The board of regents shall, in the administration of the expenditure of such moneys, comply with the requirements of the act of congress making the moneys available and with the regulations prescribed by the federal government or the federal agency administering the act, insofar as the act or regulations are consistent with state law. The board of regents may submit any plan, budget, application or proposal required by the federal agency as a precondition to receipt of the moneys. The board of regents may, consistent with state law, perform any act required by the act of congress or the federal agency to carry out the purpose of the act of congress. The board of regents shall deposit all moneys received under this paragraph in the appropriation account under s. 20.285 (1) (m). (b) Annually by October 1 the board of regents shall report to the governor and the cochairpersons of the joint committee on finance concerning the date, amount and purpose of any federal moneys accepted by the board under par. (a) during the preceding fiscal year. (9) (a) In this subsection: 1. “Agency” means an office, department, independent agency, institution of higher education, association, society or other body in state government created or authorized to be created by the constitution or any law, which is entitled to expend moneys appropriated by law, including the legislature and the courts, but not including an authority created in subch. II of ch. 114 or in ch. 231, 233, 234, 237, 238, or 279. 2. “Indirect cost reimbursement” means moneys received by an agency from the federal government as reimbursement for indirect costs of administration of a federal grant or contract for which no specific use is mandated by the federal government. (b) An indirect cost reimbursement may be utilized for administrative purposes, program purposes, funding of positions, payment of federal aid disallowances, or other purposes authorized by law. If an indirect cost reimbursement is not utilized for such a purpose, the head of the agency receiving the reimbursement shall request the department to transfer the reimbursement to the general fund as general purpose revenue — earned. All transfers and other expenditures are subject to approval of the secretary under s. 16.50 (2) and the governor under this section. (c) All moneys received as indirect cost reimbursements shall be deposited in the account for the proper appropriation under ss. 20.115 to 20.855 for receipt of indirect cost reimbursements. (d) The department shall coordinate the development of a statewide indirect cost allocation plan to be used by all agencies as part of their indirect cost allocation plans prepared for federal grant applications. Upon request of the department, all agencies shall prepare individual, specific, indirect cost allocation plans in accordance with federal regulations and submit the plans to the department. Upon request of the department, all agencies shall prepare and submit to the department updated indirect cost allocation plans. The secretary may modify any plan to bring it into compliance with applicable state laws or procedures established under s. 16.52 or this section, and to maintain consistency between the plans of agencies. (10) Before acceptance of any federal grant on behalf of the state which will or may involve the provision of auditing services by the legislative audit bureau, all departments shall provide written notification to the state auditor. Each such federal grant shall, to the maximum extent permitted by federal law and regulation, include an allocation for the cost of such auditing services within the grant budget, plan, application or project proposal. (11) The state board, commission or department designated by the governor under sub. (2) to administer federal payments in lieu of taxes on national forest lands shall distribute those payments to towns, cities and villages, but not to counties, that provide general governmental services and contain national forest lands. That distribution shall reflect the level of services provided by, and the number of acres of national forest land within, the town, city or village in accordance with 31 USC 6907. (12) (a) The department of health services may not expend or encumber any moneys received under s. 20.435 (8) (mm) unless the department of health services submits a plan for the expenditure of the moneys to the department of administration and the department of administration approves the plan. (b) The department of children and families may not expend or encumber any moneys credited to the appropriation account under s. 20.437 (2) (mm) or (3) (mm) unless the department of children and families submits a plan for the expenditure of the moneys to the department of administration and the department of administration approves the plan. (c) The department of administration may approve any plan submitted under par. (a) or (b) in whole or in part. If the department approves any such plan in whole or part, the department shall notify the cochairpersons of the joint committee on finance, in writing, of the department’s action under this paragraph. (d) At the end of each fiscal year, the department of administration shall determine the amount of moneys that remain in the appropriation accounts under ss. 20.435 (8) (mm) and 20.437 (2) (mm) and (3) (mm) that have not been approved for encumbrance or expenditure by the department pursuant to a plan submitted under par. (a) or (b) and shall require that such moneys be lapsed to the general fund. The department shall notify the cochairpersons of the joint committee on finance, in writing, of the department’s action under this paragraph. (13) (a) If the state receives any interest payments from the federal government relating to the timing of transfers of federal grant funds for programs that are funded with moneys from the general fund and that are covered in an agreement between the federal department of the treasury and the state under the federal Cash Management Improvement Act of 1990, as amended, the payments, less applicable administrative costs, shall be deposited in the general fund as general purpose revenue — earned. (b) If the state is required to pay any interest payments to the federal government relating to the timing of transfers of federal grant funds for programs that are funded with moneys from the general fund and that are covered in an agreement between the federal department of the treasury and the state under the federal Cash Management Improvement Act of 1990, as amended, the secretary shall notify the cochairpersons of the joint committee on finance, in writing, that the state is required to pay an interest payment. The notice shall contain an accounting of the amount of interest that the state is required to pay. History: 1973 c. 333; 1975 c. 39 ss. 69, 732 (1); 1975 c. 224; 1977 c. 418; 1979 c. 34; 1981 c. 27; 1983 a. 27, 208, 470; 1985 a. 29; 1987 a. 4, 27, 186, 399, 403; 1989 a. 31; 1991 a. 39, 316; 1995 a. 27 ss. 303 to 307, 9126 (19); 1995 a. 132, 225; 1999 a. 9, 74; 2001 a. 16; 2003 a. 33; 2005 a. 25, 74, 335; 2007 a. 20 ss. 92b, 95, 98, 9121 (6) (a); 2007 a. 97; 2009 a. 28, 332; 2011 a. 7, 10, 32; 2013 a. 20. Wisconsin may enter into an agreement with the federal government for the development, administration, and enforcement, at the state level, of occupational safety and health laws meeting federal standards. 61 Atty. Gen. 353. Counties do not have the power to form consortiums for purposes of a federal act when the governor has not designated them as participating units of government under sub. (6). 63 Atty. Gen. 453. ”

Legislative oversight and transparency

Legislative oversight and transparency refers to statutes requiring reports to or involvement from the legislature in managing or approving federal grants.

Wisconsin Statute § 16.54 required that agencies report all budgets, plans, applications, and proposals for federal aid to the Joint Committee on Finance.

“ (5) Whenever any agency of the federal government shall require that as a condition to obtaining federal aid the state agency entrusted with the administration of such aid shall submit a budget, plan, application, or other project proposal, then the budget, plan, application or proposal shall, before it is submitted to the federal authorities for approval, first be approved by the governor and reported to the joint committee on finance. ”

Wisconsin Statute § 16.54 required the Department of Health Services to receive approval from the Joint Committee on Finance before using federal funds disbursed under the Social Services Block Grant.

“ (c) Notwithstanding s. 20.435, before using any of the funds disbursed by the federal government to the governor under 42 USC 1397 to 1397f, commencing with funds disbursed for federal fiscal year 1986, the department of health services shall submit to the joint committee on finance and to the chief clerk of each house of the legislature, for distribution to the appropriate legislative standing committees under s. 13.172 (3), the proposed state report required under 42 USC 1397c. The appropriate legislative standing committees shall review the reports, conduct public hearings on the reports and submit recommendations to the department of health services regarding the reports. The department of health services may not use the federal funds unless the joint committee on finance approves the report. ”

Audit and financial oversight

Audit and financial oversight refers to statutes related to auditing, financial tracking, or compliance for federal funds.

Wisconsin Statute § 16.54 required departments to notify the state auditor before accepting any federal grant that might involve auditing services and to include funding for those services in the grant’s budget.

“ (10) Before acceptance of any federal grant on behalf of the state which will or may involve the provision of auditing services by the legislative audit bureau, all departments shall provide written notification to the state auditor. Each such federal grant shall, to the maximum extent permitted by federal law and regulation, include an allocation for the cost of such auditing services within the grant budget, plan, application or project proposal. ”

Agency oversight of federal grants

Agency oversight of federal grant applications refers to statutes that establish procedures or requirements for how state agencies request or acknowledge federal funding.

Ballotpedia did not identify any Wisconsin statutes that assigned an oversight role of federal grants to state agencies.

Program-specific federal grant oversight

States often adopt program-specific statutes to oversee federal grants in areas like education, health, or transportation, but the following examples highlight particularly noteworthy cases.

Wisconsin Statute § 16.54 required the Department of Health Services to receive approval from the Joint Committee on Finance before using federal funds disbursed under the Social Services Block Grant.

“ (c) Notwithstanding s. 20.435, before using any of the funds disbursed by the federal government to the governor under 42 USC 1397 to 1397f, commencing with funds disbursed for federal fiscal year 1986, the department of health services shall submit to the joint committee on finance and to the chief clerk of each house of the legislature, for distribution to the appropriate legislative standing committees under s. 13.172 (3), the proposed state report required under 42 USC 1397c. The appropriate legislative standing committees shall review the reports, conduct public hearings on the reports and submit recommendations to the department of health services regarding the reports. The department of health services may not use the federal funds unless the joint committee on finance approves the report. ”

How does Wisconsin compare to other states?

This section provides an overview of how states conduct oversight of federal grants, including gubernatorial approval, legislative authority, agency coordination, public transparency, and state contingency planning. It includes summaries, comparative maps, and detailed tables showing how all 50 states structure each type of oversight. For specific details and information about a state, click here.

• State-by-state summary

  Summary table showing how each state structures its oversight of federal grants.
• Gubernatorial oversight

  Whether governors must approve federal grant applications or have no required approval role.
• Legislative oversight

  Whether legislatures must approve federal grants or have no statutory approval authority.
• Agency oversight

  How states assign grant-management duties to central agencies or multiple agencies.
• Public oversight

  Whether states require public reporting, hearings, or transparency for federal grant activity.
• Contingency plans

  States that require agencies to prepare plans for reduced or denied federal funds.

State-by-state summary of federal grants oversight

This table provides a state-by-state overview of how each state oversees federal grants, summarizing the key statutes, agencies, and approval processes involved in managing federal funds.

State oversight of federal grants

State	State oversight
Alabama	Alabama law placed federal grant oversight under the Governor of Alabama through the Office of State Planning and Federal Programs and the Executive Budget Office, which coordinate, report, and evaluate federal funding, with legislative review provided by the Legislative Council.
Alaska	Alaska law centralized federal grant oversight under the Governor of Alaska, requiring all federal funds to be included in the state budget and reviewed through the Office of Management and Budget as part of the regular executive planning and legislative appropriation process.
Arizona	Arizona law centralized federal grant oversight under the Governor of Arizona and the Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting, which coordinated, reviewed, and reported on federal aid programs. The Arizona State Legislature maintained oversight through required reports detailing all federal grants received.
Arkansas	Arkansas law assigned the Governor limited oversight of federal programs through the Office of State-Federal Relations and required all agency grant applications to be reviewed by the Department of Finance and Administration before submission, with the General Assembly retaining final approval through the appropriation of federal funds.
California	California law divided federal grant oversight among four entities: the Office of Planning and Research, the Department of Finance, the California Controller, and the California State Auditor, which together coordinated, approved, reported on, and audited federal grant activity.
Colorado	Colorado law authorized the Office of State Planning and Budgeting, with the governor’s approval, to receive and administer federal funds; required the General Assembly to appropriate block grant moneys; and directed agencies to submit annual grant reports to the Joint Budget Committee, with additional audits by the Colorado Auditor and annual expenditure reporting by the State Controller.
Connecticut	Connecticut law assigns federal grant oversight across multiple entities, giving the governor authority to apply for and administer funds, directing the Office of Policy and Management to coordinate federal impacts, requiring legislative committees to review grant applications and block grant allocations, mandating audits by the Auditors of Public Accounts, and establishing statewide grant-tracking and revenue-maximization systems.
Delaware	Delaware law divided federal grant oversight among the State Clearinghouse Committee, the State Treasurer, and the State Auditor. The Clearinghouse Committee reviewed, approved, and held public hearings on grant applications, and agencies were required to submit contingency plans and revert unused funds when federal support declined.
Florida	Florida law integrated federal grant oversight across the governor’s office, the legislature, the Chief Financial Officer, and state agencies, combining coordination, approval, appropriation, compliance monitoring, and internal reporting.
Georgia	Georgia law authorized the Governor of Georgia to enter agreements and take actions to secure and administer federal grants; required agencies to notify budget offices and the legislature before seeking new federal assistance; required fiscal impact review; and mandated that the Department of Audits and Accounts maintain a public website detailing expenditures and audits.
Hawaii	Hawaii law established an Office of Federal Programs Coordinator under the governor to manage federal grant relations; authorized agencies to accept and administer federal grants with available matching funds; and assigned the attorney general and director of finance responsibility for securing federal aid.
Idaho	Idaho law assigned federal grant oversight to the Division of Financial Management, requiring annual agency reports on federal funds, including use, expiration, and obligations, and requiring contingency planning for federal reductions.
Illinois	Illinois’s Grant Accountability and Transparency Act centralizes federal grant oversight under the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget and its Grant Accountability and Transparency Unit, requiring statewide compliance, auditing, annual reporting, and public access to grant records.
Indiana	Indiana law centralizes federal grant oversight in the State Budget Agency, which reports annually to the governor and legislature, approves all federal assistance applications, coordinates biennial federal program reviews, and ensures federal funds do not create unfunded state obligations.
Iowa	Iowa law created the Office of Grants Enterprise Management to track and report federal grants to the legislature, and Senate File 626 (2025) established contingency procedures requiring legislative notification when federal block grant amounts change.
Kansas	Kansas law requires both the Governor of Kansas and a majority of legislative members on the State Finance Council to approve federal grant spending, with the Department of Administration conducting compliance audits.
Kentucky	Kentucky law assigns federal grant oversight to the Finance and Administration Cabinet for executive coordination and to the Legislative Research Commission for review, reporting, and auditing of federal funds.
Louisiana	Louisiana law assigns federal grant reporting and coordination responsibilities to the Division of Administration, which reviews and records state and local applications for federal assistance and tracks federal agency actions; statutes do not assign explicit oversight authority to the governor or legislature.
Maine	Maine law requires legislative approval and detailed reporting for all federal fund expenditures, and directs state officials—including the governor—to file post-disbursement reports documenting how federal funds were used.
Maryland	Maryland law authorized the governor to propose block grant participation policies, required the legislature to review and comment on these proposals, and empowered the Department of Planning to establish reporting requirements for all federal grants.
Massachusetts	Massachusetts law assigns federal grant oversight to the Comptroller and the Secretary of Administration and Finance, requiring them to regulate agency applications, oversee reporting, provide quarterly updates to House and Senate Ways and Means Committees, and publish an audited annual report on all federal funds.
Michigan	Michigan law centralizes federal grant oversight in the Department of Management and Budget, which receives agency notifications of all federal applications, reports new grants to the Legislature before commitment, and provides semiannual estimates of federal revenues by program.
Minnesota	Minnesota law authorized the Legislative Advisory Commission to review and issue nonbinding recommendations on federal fund expenditure requests but did not assign grant-oversight authority to the governor or executive agencies.
Mississippi	Mississippi law authorized the Executive Director of the Department of Finance and Administration to approve new federally funded positions, required the Legislative Budget Office to review federal applications, and empowered the State Auditor to audit grant recipients and recover audit costs through a dedicated accountability fund.
Missouri	Missouri law assigns federal grant oversight to the Budget Director, legislative committees, and statewide public reporting systems. Agencies must submit grant applications to multiple budget and legislative officials, and large federal grants must be publicly disclosed on the Missouri Accountability Portal.
Montana	Montana law designated the state treasurer as the fiscal officer responsible for receiving and managing federal funds and required the legislative auditor to conduct annual audits of federal financial assistance.
Nebraska	Nebraska law requires agencies to submit biennial federal funding inventories to the Department of Administrative Services; authorizes the Legislative Fiscal Analyst to track federal revenue trends; and empowers the Auditor of Public Accounts to audit all federal funds appropriated to state programs.
Nevada	Nevada centralizes federal grant oversight in the Office of Federal Assistance, which coordinates applications, tracks unspent funds, and reports grant activity to the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
New Hampshire	New Hampshire law requires both the governor and the Fiscal Committee of the General Court to approve major federal grant expenditures, and empowers the Legislative Budget Assistant to audit federally funded programs.
New Jersey	New Jersey law assigns federal grant oversight to the Director of the Grants Management Office, who coordinates applications, oversees grant compliance and audits, and maintains a statewide database of active federal awards. Agencies seeking unappropriated federal funds must notify key legislative budget officials before applying.
New Mexico	New Mexico law tasks the State Auditor with annual audits of all state agencies, including those receiving federal funds, and directs the Department of Finance and Administration to assist with and review federal grant applications.
New York	New York law requires agencies to notify the Division of the Budget before applying for federal grants; designates the Department of Taxation and Finance as custodian of federal funds; and authorizes the Comptroller to audit and disburse those funds.
North Carolina	North Carolina law requires agencies to notify the governor before applying for or receiving federal grants; mandates that federal funds be deposited in the state treasury and appropriated by the legislature; and authorizes the State Auditor to audit any entity receiving federal funds.
North Dakota	North Dakota law requires agencies to report federal grant applications to the Office of Management and Budget, which reports to the legislature; directs the State Auditor to audit all state financial transactions; and requires agencies to ensure federal grants do not impose excessive oversight or conflict with legislative intent.
Ohio	Ohio law authorizes the governor to commit the state to federal programs and designate administering agencies; requires the General Assembly to appropriate or approve all federal expenditures; and empowers the Auditor to audit all public offices receiving federal money.
Oklahoma	Oklahoma law requires agency federal grant applications over $100,000 to be approved by Cabinet Secretaries and the Secretary of Budget; empowers the Auditor and a joint legislative committee to conduct audits and investigations; requires public disclosure of all federal funds; and mandates that federal money flow through the state treasurer.
Oregon	Oregon law authorizes the governor to apply for and disburse federal funds; requires the Legislative Assembly or Emergency Board to approve related expenditures; and empowers the Department of Administrative Services to review, modify, or approve agency grant requests before submission.
Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania law authorizes the Governor’s Office of Policy and Planning to apply for, receive, administer, and use federal grants and other federal financial assistance.
Rhode Island	Rhode Island law gives the controller authority over federal grant applications, requires the General Assembly to appropriate all federal funds, directs the Auditor General to conduct financial and compliance audits, and authorizes the Office of Management and Budget to approve grant requests requiring state matching funds.
South Carolina	South Carolina law assigns federal grant oversight to the governor, the legislature, the Comptroller General, and the State Treasurer, combining budgeting, appropriation, audit, and financial management responsibilities.
South Dakota	South Dakota law assigns federal grant oversight to the governor, the legislature’s Special Committee on Appropriations, and the State Auditor, requiring approval for federal funds exceeding the appropriations act and reporting on federal grant program audits.
Tennessee	Tennessee law assigns federal grant oversight to the governor, the Fiscal Review Committee, the Office of Legislative Budget Analysis, the Comptroller of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of Finance and Administration, combining executive approval with legislative monitoring and compliance oversight.
Texas	Texas law assigns federal grant oversight to the Governor’s Division of Planning and Coordination and the Governor’s Office of Budget and Planning; authorizes the Comptroller and State Auditor to manage and audit federal funds; requires fiscal review of federal programs; and mandates public hearings on intended uses of federal block grant funds.
Utah	Utah law requires agencies to obtain the governor’s approval before applying for or accepting new federal grants; requires legislative approval through appropriations; and assigns the State Auditor responsibility for compliance and financial oversight.
Vermont	Vermont law requires the governor to approve federal grants; authorizes the Joint Fiscal Committee or legislature to review or override those decisions; directs the Auditor of Accounts to audit federal programs; and requires the Department of Finance and Management to publish an annual public report of all grants.
Virginia	Virginia law allows agencies to manage federal grants, requires the Department of Planning and Budget to monitor fiscal impacts, authorizes the Auditor of Public Accounts to audit federal programs, and requires agencies to report major grants annually to finance officials and legislators.
Washington	Washington law requires agencies to manage federal grants and report major awards to finance officials; assigns fiscal impact monitoring to the planning and budget office; and mandates biennial compliance audits by the Auditor of Public Accounts.
West Virginia	West Virginia law requires the Secretary of Revenue to approve and report federal grant activity to the governor; subjects most federal funds to legislative appropriation; and directs the State Auditor to oversee audits and maintain a public database of state and federally funded grants.
Wisconsin	Wisconsin law authorizes the governor to accept and administer federal grant money; requires agencies to report federal grant applications to the legislature; and requires departments to notify the State Auditor when accepting federal funds that may require auditing services.
Wyoming	Wyoming law authorizes the governor to approve applications for federal aid and the acceptance and expenditure of federal funds beyond annual appropriations; subjects federal funds to the legislature’s appropriations bill; and requires biennial audits of federally aided agencies by the State Auditor.

Gubernatorial oversight of federal grants

States adopt different models for how governors participate in federal grant activity. In some states, governors must directly review or approve grant applications, while in others their role is limited to coordination, budget planning, or information-sharing. Many states assign primary authority elsewhere—such as legislatures, agencies, or budget offices—leaving governors without a required approval role.

• Explicit approval: 16 states require governors to formally approve grant applications or the acceptance of federal funds, giving them direct authority over whether federal money enters the state system.

• Partial or indirect approval: 16 states involve governors in coordination, notification, or budget oversight roles, but do not require them to approve individual grants.

• No explicit approval: 18 states assign approval and management responsibilities to agencies, budget offices, or legislatures, leaving governors with no required sign-off role on federal grants.

Governor approval of federal grants

State	Governor approval	Short description
Alabama	Partial or indirect approval	Governor oversees federal programs through planning and budget offices; legislature reviews.
Alaska	Partial or indirect approval	Governor oversees budget integration of all federal funds; legislative appropriation required.
Arizona	Partial or indirect approval	Governor’s budget office coordinates and reviews federal aid; legislature receives detailed reports.
Arkansas	Partial or indirect approval	Governor has limited oversight; finance department reviews, legislature approves appropriations.
California	Partial or indirect approval	Governor appoints grant administrator; finance department approves agency requests and reporting.
Colorado	Explicit approval	Governor must approve receipt and administration of federal funds through budget office.
Connecticut	Explicit approval	Governor authorized to apply for and administer federal funds; office coordinates and reports.
Delaware	No explicit approval	State Clearinghouse Committee reviews and approves grants; governor not directly involved.
Florida	Explicit approval	Governor’s office coordinates and approves agency grant requests; legislature controls appropriations.
Georgia	Explicit approval	Governor authorized to secure and administer federal grants; agencies must notify legislature.
Hawaii	Partial or indirect approval	Federal programs office under governor manages relations; agencies may apply independently.
Idaho	No explicit approval	Division of Financial Management oversees reporting and contingency plans; governor not mentioned.
Illinois	Partial or indirect approval	Governor receives annual reports; management office coordinates compliance and transparency.
Indiana	Partial or indirect approval	Budget agency approves federal assistance applications; governor receives annual reports.
Iowa	No explicit approval	Grants office tracks and reports; legislative notification required for changes in grant amounts.
Kansas	Explicit approval	Governor and State Finance Council must jointly approve all federal grant spending.
Kentucky	Partial or indirect approval	Finance cabinet coordinates grants; governor’s role not explicitly stated.
Louisiana	No explicit approval	Division of Administration manages coordination; no statutory authority for governor oversight.
Maine	Partial or indirect approval	Governor files post-disbursement reports; legislature approves and oversees federal expenditures.
Maryland	Partial or indirect approval	Governor proposes federal grant policies; legislature reviews and department manages reporting.
Massachusetts	No explicit approval	Comptroller and finance secretary regulate and report grants; governor not mentioned.
Michigan	No explicit approval	Budget department manages notifications and reports to legislature; governor not specified.
Minnesota	No explicit approval	Legislative commission reviews federal fund requests; governor not involved.
Mississippi	No explicit approval	Finance director approves positions funded by grants; no governor approval role noted.
Missouri	No explicit approval	Budget director and legislature oversee grant disclosure; governor not mentioned.
Montana	No explicit approval	Treasurer receives and manages federal funds; legislative auditor conducts annual audits.
Nebraska	No explicit approval	Administrative services and auditor track and audit funds; governor not cited.
Nevada	Partial or indirect approval	Office of Federal Assistance within governor’s office coordinates and reports on grants.
New Hampshire	Explicit approval	Governor and fiscal committee must jointly approve major federal grant expenditures.
New Jersey	No explicit approval	Grants management office coordinates applications and audits; governor not assigned authority.
New Mexico	Partial or indirect approval	Finance secretary reviews grant applications; audit reports shared with governor and legislature.
New York	No explicit approval	Agencies notify budget division before applying; governor not given direct approval power.
North Carolina	Explicit approval	Agencies must notify governor before applying for or receiving federal grants.
North Dakota	No explicit approval	Agencies report to budget office and legislature; governor not part of approval process.
Ohio	Explicit approval	Governor authorized to commit state to federal programs and designate administering agencies.
Oklahoma	No explicit approval	Cabinet secretaries and budget office approve large grants; governor not specified.
Oregon	Explicit approval	Governor may apply for and disburse federal funds; expenditures need legislative approval.
Pennsylvania	Explicit approval	Governor’s office authorized to apply for, receive, and administer federal grants.
Rhode Island	No explicit approval	Controller and budget office manage grant applications; governor not mentioned.
South Carolina	Partial or indirect approval	Governor reviews budget reports and recommends allocations; legislature appropriates all funds.
South Dakota	Explicit approval	Governor may receive and administer funds; legislature must approve excess appropriations.
Tennessee	Explicit approval	Governor approves and administers federal funds; legislative offices monitor and report activity.
Texas	Partial or indirect approval	Governor’s offices coordinate and track grants; comptroller and legislature oversee finances.
Utah	Explicit approval	Agencies must obtain governor’s approval before applying for or accepting new federal grants.
Vermont	Explicit approval	Governor must approve grants; joint fiscal committee may review or override decisions.
Virginia	No explicit approval	Agencies manage grants; finance department monitors fiscal impact; governor not referenced.
Washington	No explicit approval	Agencies manage and report grants; governor not included in oversight provisions.
West Virginia	Partial or indirect approval	Secretary of Revenue reports grant activity to governor; legislature appropriates most funds.
Wisconsin	Explicit approval	Governor authorized to accept and administer federal funds; agencies must notify legislature.
Wyoming	Explicit approval	Governor approves federal aid applications and expenditures beyond annual appropriations.

State legislative oversight of federal grants

States legislatures also vary in the extent of their authority over federal grants, shaped by each state's preferences for fiscal oversight and interbranch control. In some jurisdictions, lawmakers must approve federal applications or spending before funds can be used, while in others their involvement centers on monitoring, reporting, or fiscal review. A smaller number give legislatures no statutory approval role, leaving acceptance of federal funds largely to executive agencies.

• Explicit approval: 17 states require legislative bodies—often the full legislature, a fiscal committee, or an emergency board—to formally approve federal grant applications or expenditures, giving lawmakers direct authority over the acceptance and use of federal funds.

• Partial or indirect approval: 27 states involve legislatures through reporting, notification, fiscal reviews, or ongoing oversight of federal funds, but do not require them to approve specific grants.

• No explicit approval: Six states assign no statutory approval role to the legislature; federal grants are managed and accepted through executive agencies or central budget offices without legislative sign-off.

Legislative approval of federal grants

State	Legislative approval	Summary
Alabama	Partial or indirect approval	Legislative Council reviews federal funding activity but does not formally approve specific grants.
Alaska	Explicit approval	Legislature appropriates all federal funds through the regular budget process after executive review.
Arizona	Partial or indirect approval	Arizona Legislature receives detailed reports on all federal grants but lacks direct approval authority.
Arkansas	Explicit approval	General Assembly holds final approval by appropriating federal funds following executive review.
California	No explicit approval	Legislature not assigned a specific approval role; finance and audit offices oversee grants.
Colorado	Explicit approval	General Assembly appropriates block grant funds; Joint Budget Committee reviews annual federal grant reports.
Connecticut	Partial or indirect approval	Legislative committees review applications and block grant allocations; auditors and reports support oversight.
Delaware	Explicit approval	State Clearinghouse Committee, including legislative leaders, reviews and approves federal and nonfederal grant applications.
Florida	Explicit approval	Legislature retains appropriation and review authority over agency federal grant expenditures statewide.
Georgia	Partial or indirect approval	Agencies notify legislature before new federal assistance; legislative analyst reviews fiscal impacts.
Hawaii	No explicit approval	Legislature not mentioned in federal grant oversight; executive agencies manage acceptance and aid.
Idaho	No explicit approval	Legislature not assigned approval role; executive budget division manages reports and contingency plans.
Illinois	Partial or indirect approval	Illinois Legislature receives annual grant accountability reports; approval authority concentrated in GOMB and GATU.
Indiana	Partial or indirect approval	Indiana Legislature receives annual reports on federal assistance; Budget Agency approves applications independently.
Iowa	Partial or indirect approval	Grants office reports to legislature; contingency law requires legislative notification, not formal approval.
Kansas	Explicit approval	State Finance Council, including legislative members, must approve federal grant spending decisions.
Kentucky	Partial or indirect approval	Legislative Research Commission reviews, reports on, and audits federal grants without formal approval power.
Louisiana	No explicit approval	Legislature given no specific oversight authority; executive Division of Administration coordinates federal assistance.
Maine	Explicit approval	Legislature must approve all federal fund expenditures and receives detailed post-disbursement reports.
Maryland	Partial or indirect approval	Maryland Legislature reviews and comments on block grant policies; agencies follow mandated reporting rules.
Massachusetts	Partial or indirect approval	House and Senate Ways and Means receive quarterly grant updates; no statutory approval power.
Michigan	Partial or indirect approval	Department of Management and Budget reports new grants and revenue estimates to the Legislature.
Minnesota	Partial or indirect approval	Legislative Advisory Commission reviews federal fund spending requests and issues nonbinding recommendations.
Mississippi	Partial or indirect approval	Legislative Budget Office reviews and comments on federal applications; auditor enforces accountability.
Missouri	Partial or indirect approval	Legislative leaders and fiscal officer receive all grant applications; public portal discloses large awards.
Montana	No explicit approval	Legislative auditor conducts annual federal assistance audits; legislature not granted approval role.
Nebraska	Partial or indirect approval	Legislative Fiscal Analyst tracks federal revenue trends; Auditor reviews all federally funded state programs.
Nevada	Partial or indirect approval	Legislative Counsel Bureau receives coordination reports from governor’s Federal Assistance Office on grants.
New Hampshire	Explicit approval	Legislative Fiscal Committee jointly approves major federal grant expenditures with the governor.
New Jersey	Partial or indirect approval	Legislative budget director and appropriations chairs receive notice of unappropriated federal grant applications.
New Mexico	Partial or indirect approval	Legislative Finance Committee receives annual audit reports on federally funded agencies for oversight.
New York	Partial or indirect approval	Legislative finance committee chairs receive notice of planned federal grant applications and awards.
North Carolina	Explicit approval	General Assembly appropriates all federal funds; receives treasury deposits and auditor oversight reports.
North Dakota	Partial or indirect approval	Office of Management and Budget reports grant activity to Legislative Assembly; auditor oversees transactions.
Ohio	Explicit approval	Ohio General Assembly must appropriate or approve all federal expenditures funded by grants.
Oklahoma	Partial or indirect approval	Joint legislative accountability committee audits and investigates federal grants; approval handled by executive officials.
Oregon	Explicit approval	Legislative Assembly or Emergency Board approves grant applications and related federal fund expenditures.
Pennsylvania	No explicit approval	Legislature not assigned specific approval role; governor’s office administers federal grants.
Rhode Island	Explicit approval	General Assembly must appropriate all federal funds before expenditure, exercising direct approval authority.
South Carolina	Explicit approval	South Carolina General Assembly must appropriate all federal grant money before expenditure.
South Dakota	Explicit approval	Legislative Special Committee on Appropriations must approve federal funds exceeding general appropriations.
Tennessee	Partial or indirect approval	Fiscal Review Committee and legislative budget office monitor, analyze, and report federal grants.
Texas	Partial or indirect approval	Legislative Budget Board reviews fiscal impacts and public input on federal block grants.
Utah	Explicit approval	Legislature approves federal grants through appropriations after executive approval and auditor oversight.
Vermont	Partial or indirect approval	Joint Fiscal Committee or legislature reviews governor-approved grants and may override decisions.
Virginia	Partial or indirect approval	Legislative committees receive annual reports on major grants; approval authority remains with agencies.
Washington	Partial or indirect approval	Legislative committees are informed of major federal awards; management and approval stay executive.
West Virginia	Explicit approval	Legislature appropriates most federal funds and relies on statewide grant activity database.
Wisconsin	Partial or indirect approval	Agencies must report federal grant applications to legislature; auditor notified of certain funds.
Wyoming	Explicit approval	Legislature approves federal funds through annual appropriations; auditor conducts biennial agency audits.

State agency oversight of federal grants

States differ in how much responsibility they assign to agencies for managing federal grants, reflecting broader administrative and budgeting structures. Some states concentrate grant oversight in a single statewide agency or budget office, while others distribute tasks such as reporting, coordination, or review across multiple agencies. A minority provide no centralized agency role at all, relying instead on governors, legislatures, or auditors.

• Centralized agency oversight: 25 states give a single statewide administrative or budget office primary responsibility for coordinating, reviewing, or managing federal grant activity across agencies.

• Distributed or limited agency oversight: 15 states assign reporting or oversight duties to multiple agencies without designating a central coordinating authority.

• No defined agency oversight role: 10 states do not assign a central agency any specific grant-management responsibilities.

State agency oversight of federal grants

State	Agency oversight	Summary
Alabama	Centralized agency oversight	Office of State Planning and Federal Programs and Executive Budget Office coordinate federal funding.
Alaska	Centralized agency oversight	Office of Management and Budget reviews all federal funds within statewide budget process.
Arizona	Centralized agency oversight	Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting centrally coordinates, reviews, and reports on federal aid.
Arkansas	Centralized agency oversight	Department of Finance and Administration reviews all federal grant applications before submission.
California	Distributed or limited agency oversight	Multiple agencies share grant coordination, approval, reporting, and audit responsibilities.
Colorado	Centralized agency oversight	Office of State Planning and Budgeting receives and administers federal funds for state agencies.
Connecticut	Centralized agency oversight	Office of Policy and Management coordinates federal programs and maintains statewide grant inventory.
Delaware	Distributed or limited agency oversight	Clearinghouse Committee, Treasurer, and Auditor collectively manage and review federal assistance.
Florida	Distributed or limited agency oversight	Governor’s office, CFO, and agencies share coordination, approval, and reporting responsibilities.
Georgia	Distributed or limited agency oversight	Agencies notify budget offices; Department of Audits and Accounts tracks and reports on federal spending.
Hawaii	Centralized agency oversight	Office of Federal Programs Coordinator and finance officials manage statewide federal grant activities.
Idaho	Centralized agency oversight	Division of Financial Management oversees agency reporting and federal funding contingency planning.
Illinois	Centralized agency oversight	GOMB and GATU coordinate statewide federal grant compliance, auditing, and reporting.
Indiana	Centralized agency oversight	State Budget Agency approves all federal assistance applications and coordinates biannual program reviews.
Iowa	Centralized agency oversight	Office of Grants Enterprise Management tracks and reports federal grants across state agencies.
Kansas	Distributed or limited agency oversight	Department of Administration conducts compliance audits but lacks centralized grant-coordination authority.
Kentucky	Centralized agency oversight	Finance and Administration Cabinet provides statewide coordination of federal grant activities.
Louisiana	Centralized agency oversight	Division of Administration reviews, records, and tracks all state and local federal assistance.
Maine	No defined agency oversight role	State officials file post-disbursement reports; no central agency manages federal grants.
Maryland	Distributed or limited agency oversight	Department of Planning issues reporting rules but does not centrally manage federal applications.
Massachusetts	Centralized agency oversight	Comptroller and Administration and Finance oversee statewide federal grant applications and reporting.
Michigan	Centralized agency oversight	Department of Management and Budget receives notifications and tracks federal revenues statewide.
Minnesota	No defined agency oversight role	Oversight handled by legislative bodies; no central executive agency manages federal grants.
Mississippi	Distributed or limited agency oversight	Finance director and Legislative Budget Office review applications and positions tied to federal funds.
Missouri	Distributed or limited agency oversight	Budget Director, legislative entities, and public portal share oversight of federal grant activity.
Montana	Centralized agency oversight	State treasurer centrally manages receipt and administration of federal funds.
Nebraska	Distributed or limited agency oversight	Administrative Services compiles funding inventories; Auditor reviews federal funds across programs.
Nevada	Centralized agency oversight	Office of Federal Assistance coordinates applications, tracks unspent funds, and reports statewide.
New Hampshire	No defined agency oversight role	Oversight assigned to governor and Fiscal Committee; no central agency role identified.
New Jersey	Centralized agency oversight	Grants Management Office coordinates applications, oversees compliance, and maintains statewide grant database.
New Mexico	Distributed or limited agency oversight	Finance and Administration assists with applications; State Auditor conducts annual federal audits.
New York	Distributed or limited agency oversight	Budget Division receives notices; Taxation and Finance and Comptroller manage custody and disbursement.
North Carolina	No defined agency oversight role	Grant oversight handled by governor, treasury, and auditor; no statewide coordinating agency.
North Dakota	Centralized agency oversight	Office of Management and Budget collects agency grant reports and relays information to legislature.
Ohio	No defined agency oversight role	Oversight rests with governor, legislature, and auditor; no central grant-managing agency.
Oklahoma	Centralized agency oversight	Budget and Cabinet Secretaries review large grants; Treasurer and Auditor manage funds and compliance.
Oregon	Centralized agency oversight	Department of Administrative Services reviews, modifies, and approves federal grant requests statewide.
Pennsylvania	Centralized agency oversight	Governor’s Office of Policy and Planning centrally applies for, receives, and administers federal grants.
Rhode Island	Centralized agency oversight	Controller and Office of Management and Budget jointly manage applications and approve matching-fund requests.
South Carolina	No defined agency oversight role	Oversight handled by governor, legislature, and fiscal officers; no central coordinating agency.
South Dakota	No defined agency oversight role	Governor, legislative committee, and Auditor share responsibilities without a central grant agency.
Tennessee	Distributed or limited agency oversight	Comptroller and Finance and Administration address compliance issues but lack centralized authority.
Texas	Centralized agency oversight	Governor’s planning and budget offices function as statewide grant-coordination and oversight hubs.
Utah	No defined agency oversight role	Governor, legislature, and Auditor manage approvals; no centralized agency coordination assigned.
Vermont	Distributed or limited agency oversight	Department of Finance and Management publishes annual grant reports but lacks central authority.
Virginia	Distributed or limited agency oversight	Department of Planning and Budget monitors fiscal impacts while agencies manage and report grants.
Washington	Distributed or limited agency oversight	Agencies manage federal funds; planning and budget office monitors fiscal effects and compliance.
West Virginia	Centralized agency oversight	Secretary of Revenue handles federal grant approvals and reporting; Auditor maintains statewide database.
Wisconsin	No defined agency oversight role	Agencies report grant applications; no central executive agency oversees federal grant management.
Wyoming	No defined agency oversight role	Governor and legislature control approvals; no statewide administrative grant-management office.

State public oversight of federal grants

Public transparency requirements for federal grants differ considerably across states, reflecting varied approaches to openness, accountability, and public engagement. Some states require public access to grant information through hearings, online postings, or searchable databases, giving residents a direct view into how federal funds are used. Others provide only limited transparency, and many do not mandate any public-facing disclosure of federal grant activity.

• Strong public oversight: Nine states require public hearings, searchable databases, online posting of grant agreements, or other transparency tools that give the public direct access to federal grant information.

• Limited public oversight: Two states provide some public-facing disclosures—such as published financial reports or audited summaries—but do not require comprehensive public transparency or public input.

• No defined public oversight: 39 states do not mandate public reporting, public access, or public hearings related to federal grant activity.

State public oversight of federal grants

State	Public oversight	Summary
Alabama	Limited public oversight	Agency is tasked with stimulating public interest and participation in federal programs.
Alaska	No defined public oversight	Federal receipts reports go to budget office and legislators; public access not described.
Arizona	No defined public oversight	Oversight relies on internal reporting to legislature; no public reporting requirements mentioned.
Arkansas	No defined public oversight	Oversight handled by finance department and legislature without specified public disclosure mechanisms.
California	No defined public oversight	Oversight focuses on interagency coordination, finance review, audits; public transparency not specified.
Colorado	No defined public oversight	Agencies report to Joint Budget Committee and auditor; no public-facing reporting described.
Connecticut	No defined public oversight	Inventory and reporting systems serve governor and legislature; public access not mentioned.
Delaware	Strong public oversight	Block grant applications require public hearings and advance public notice on meeting calendar.
Florida	No defined public oversight	Federal funding is coordinated and reported internally; statutes do not mention public disclosure.
Georgia	Strong public oversight	State maintains a free public website showing federal grant expenditures, audits, and pass-throughs.
Hawaii	No defined public oversight	Federal grant relations and aid are managed internally; no public reporting requirement noted.
Idaho	No defined public oversight	Agencies report federal usage and contingencies to financial management; public transparency not described.
Illinois	Strong public oversight	Grant Accountability and Transparency Act provides public access to statewide grant records.
Indiana	No defined public oversight	Budget Agency reports to governor and legislature; no required public disclosure referenced.
Iowa	No defined public oversight	Grants office reports to legislature and manages contingencies; public reporting not specified.
Kansas	No defined public oversight	Finance Council and administration oversee grants and audits without described public transparency tools.
Kentucky	No defined public oversight	Finance Cabinet and Legislative Research Commission review grants; statutes omit public access provisions.
Louisiana	No defined public oversight	Division of Administration tracks applications and awards; public reporting is not mentioned.
Maine	No defined public oversight	Officials file post-disbursement reports and obtain legislative approval; public disclosure not described.
Maryland	No defined public oversight	Department of Planning sets reporting rules; texts do not mention public-facing grant information.
Massachusetts	Limited public oversight	Comptroller publishes an audited annual federal-funds report in addition to legislative updates.
Michigan	No defined public oversight	Management and Budget reports new grants and revenue estimates internally; public access not specified.
Minnesota	No defined public oversight	Legislative commission and agency reports focus on internal oversight; public disclosure not described.
Mississippi	No defined public oversight	Budget office review and audits emphasize internal accountability, not public reporting requirements.
Missouri	Strong public oversight	Large federal grants must be publicly disclosed on the Missouri Accountability Portal.
Montana	No defined public oversight	Treasurer and legislative auditor manage federal funds; statutes do not reference public reporting.
Nebraska	No defined public oversight	Administrative Services inventories funding and auditor reviews programs without stated public transparency.
Nevada	No defined public oversight	Federal Assistance Office reports to Legislative Counsel Bureau; public access requirements not mentioned.
New Hampshire	No defined public oversight	Grant approvals and audits involve governor and Fiscal Committee; no public reporting described.
New Jersey	No defined public oversight	Grants Management Office and legislative leaders oversee grants; public transparency not specified.
New Mexico	No defined public oversight	Auditor’s annual reports and finance secretary assistance are described; public access not mentioned.
New York	No defined public oversight	Budget, Taxation and Finance, and Comptroller manage grants; statutes omit public-facing requirements.
North Carolina	No defined public oversight	Treasury deposits and audits ensure control of funds; public reporting is not discussed.
North Dakota	No defined public oversight	Management and Budget and State Auditor oversee grants; texts do not mention public disclosure.
Ohio	No defined public oversight	Oversight involves governor, legislature, and auditor; statutes do not specify public access.
Oklahoma	Strong public oversight	Agencies must publicly disclose all federal funds under their control.
Oregon	No defined public oversight	Legislative approval and DAS review are outlined; no public transparency mechanisms described.
Pennsylvania	No defined public oversight	Governor’s policy office administers grants; statutes do not reference public reporting.
Rhode Island	No defined public oversight	Controller, legislature, auditor, and budget office oversee grants; public disclosure not mentioned.
South Carolina	No defined public oversight	Oversight by governor, legislature, treasurer, and comptroller lacks explicit public-reporting provisions.
South Dakota	Strong public oversight	Grant agreements and evaluation reports must be posted on a state transparency website.
Tennessee	No defined public oversight	Fiscal review, budget analysis, and audits monitor grants; public-facing requirements not specified.
Texas	Strong public oversight	Agencies must hold public hearings statewide on intended block grant uses.
Utah	No defined public oversight	Laws describe approvals and audits; no public-access or hearing requirements are mentioned.
Vermont	Strong public oversight	State publishes an online grant table; grant reports are expressly public records.
Virginia	No defined public oversight	Agencies report major grants to finance officials and legislators; public transparency not described.
Washington	No defined public oversight	Agencies report major awards; planning and audit functions are internal, not explicitly public-facing.
West Virginia	Strong public oversight	State Auditor maintains a public database of state and federally funded grants.
Wisconsin	No defined public oversight	Agencies report applications and notify auditor; texts do not mandate public disclosure.
Wyoming	No defined public oversight	Oversight centers on governor, legislature, and auditor; public reporting is not addressed.

State contingency plans for federal grants

States differ widely in whether they require agencies to prepare contingency plans for potential reductions or loss of federal funds. A small number of states have statutes requiring agencies to draft formal plans, submit mitigation strategies, or manage program adjustments when federal funding is reduced or denied. Most states, however, have no statutory requirement for contingency planning, relying instead on existing budget, audit, or reporting processes.

• Mandatory contingency plans: Four states require agencies to prepare contingency plans or take specific actions when federal funds are reduced or denied.

• No mandatory contingency plans: 46 states do not require agencies to develop contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.

Mandatory contingency plans

State	Mandatory contingency plans	Summary
Alabama	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Alaska	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Arizona	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Arkansas	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
California	Yes	Agencies must report denied federal applications and submit plans to secure or resolve issues preventing approval.
Colorado	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Connecticut	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Delaware	Yes	State may propose legislation to continue programs and must revert matching funds if federal support ends.
Florida	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Georgia	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Hawaii	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Idaho	Yes	Agencies must develop a plan when federal funding for a grant is reduced by 50 percent or more.
Illinois	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Indiana	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Iowa	Yes	Governor must reallocate reduced block-grant funds and notify legislators before implementing changes.
Kansas	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Kentucky	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Louisiana	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Maine	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Maryland	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Massachusetts	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Michigan	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Minnesota	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Mississippi	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Missouri	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Montana	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Nebraska	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Nevada	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
New Hampshire	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
New Jersey	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
New Mexico	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
New York	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
North Carolina	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
North Dakota	No	Statutes describe program-specific procedures for federal program termination between legislative sessions.
Ohio	No	Law permits employee furloughs when federal funds are unavailable but requires no agency contingency planning.
Oklahoma	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Oregon	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Pennsylvania	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Rhode Island	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
South Carolina	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
South Dakota	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Tennessee	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Texas	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Utah	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Vermont	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Virginia	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Washington	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
West Virginia	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Wisconsin	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.
Wyoming	No	State law does not require agencies to prepare contingency plans for the loss of federal funds.

State-by-state oversight of federal grants

This section provides access to all 50 state pages on federal grant oversight. Select a state to see how it reviews, approves, and manages federal funding through its statutes, executive procedures, legislative processes, and reporting requirements.

• Alabama
• Alaska
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Florida
• Georgia
• Hawaii
• Idaho
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maine
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Montana
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• New York
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Vermont
• Virginia
• Washington
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

See also

• Federalism by the numbers
• Block grant
• Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
• Regulatory mandate
• Interlocking (cooperative) federalism

External links

• Search Google News for this topic

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox