The key budgeting difference between the public and private sectors is the absence of a profit motive in the former. Budgeting practices in the public sector originated from holding public officials and agents accountable for funds’ spending. However, assuring appropriate spending of funds does not warrant to beneficial delivery of products and services. The necessity of establishing a definite relationship between input and output depends on ensuring accountability among public agencies. An adequately conceived functional budgeting establishes a system of accountability concerning ends and means and recognizes the drawbacks imposed by politics’ realities and a lack of profit.
The central public budgeting data element are objectives, activities, and resources. A detailed review of the three styles of public budgeting, management, control, and planning-programming budgeting (PPB), discloses that only the latter makes use of the three elements. This is because it joins the three critical functions of planning, management, evaluation, and execution, making budgeting the emphasis for executive decision making. There is limited viable PPB models operative in local and state criminal justice agencies. This has made considerable states encounter serious budget cuts matters resulting from poor budgeting. Budget is essential and should be handled appropriately to keep states free from criminal activity. This paper will discuss an article that addresses a budgeting issue in an area of criminal justice administration in California.
The article “Budgeting issues in criminal justice administration (California)” postulates how California has encountered considerable justice administration challenges. The main challenge pointed out is associated with the rehabilitation of adults and juvenile offenders associated with drug trafficking. According to the article, the offenders’ rehabilitation, as mentioned above, has been impoverished for decades due to the growing number that is outdoing the available resource (Criminology, 2017). For instance, the article denotes that approximately 200,000 million is allocated each year to a correction facility to cater to juvenile offenders, significantly less than the required amount.
More than 50% of the involved juveniles are brought back to the facility less than three years after release. This is an annoying trend since the facility was designed to draw them from crimes; hence having them back portrays a considerable deficit in the program. The article progresses to state that poor outcomes are also evidence in in-prison drug abuse programs meant for adults. The stated results have been associated with low local government budgeting policies and programs that lack resources appropriately and efficiently.
The rationale for addressing this is because the involved budgeting issue does affect not only the government agencies but also the general public. The state is allocating too much taxpayers money to correct young offenders. Still, all these resources will waste since it bears’ outcomes considerably lower than expected. Teenager substance abuse has been on the rise in this state, and the need for an efficient rehabilitation program is essential. If more than 50% of juveniles released from state rehabilitation programs will find their way back to the facility in less than three years, action needs to be taken (Criminology, 2017).
In the past two decades, considerable policy improvements have been undertaken to address juvenile offenders’ rehabilitation deficiencies. Some efforts included reviewing and rearranging duties to various levels of governance that can deliver pleasing results. For instance, governors had proposed shifting these criminal justice programs to local levels to develop a policy-driven reorganization of state obligations to counties worth about 1.4 billion dollars. The proposal had mainly directed that adult and young offenders charged with drug trafficking be dealt with at the local levels. The counties would be charged with catering for drug addicts since they are thought to have the ability to produce high-quality results (Criminology, 2017). The author stands for this initiative, arguing that it will minimize congestion at the state level hence improve quality since such programs would be dealing with a limited number of offenders.
Nevertheless, this recommendation requires considerable financing at the county level. The author postulates that such a devolved program’s financing would be achieved by adjusting VLF’s rates (vehicle licensing fee) by one percent. The resultant effect on revenue would be a 1.1 billion increase beyond the current 359 million, which would all be channelled to the rehabilitation programs (Criminology, 2017). This proposal will initiate a responsibility shift from the state to the local justice, which will result in a minimized annual state government expenditure. Simultaneously, the services delivered to adult and juvenile offenders would be significantly enhanced with an extra dependable repayment stream to counties administration for mandates.
Adequate resources are the key to having an efficiently running rehabilitation facility. The purpose of rehabilitation programs in states is to ensure that individuals charged with drug trafficking are delivered from drugs in their sentences. I would commend my state for having such a program, but there are considerable drawbacks associated with it since it does not efficiently deliver its duties. This is evident with the massive number of offenders who pass through the facility and find their way back there in less than three years after release. The rehabilitation efficiency would play a considerable role in correcting the state by reducing the growing number of juvenile offenders charged with drug trafficking. Therefore, I would acknowledge that proper budgeting would be a pivotal initiative to ensuring the deliverance of quality services that would impact the lives of the offenders and initiate a change in their afterlife.
To achieve this, I would recommend additional financing to the rehabilitation facilities since adequate budgeting goes a long way to establishing effective operations. In my opinion, since the issue is a product of a budgeting deficit, the state should consider ways of discouraging relapse. The regular rehabilitation guests are the reason the budgeting burden has fallen on California State. Therefore, my first recommendation is for the state to introduce harsh punishment, either financial or psychical, to relapsing individuals.
Once discharged from the rehabilitation facility, a juvenile should face harsh consequences if brought back charged with the same offence. The state should ensure they channel adequate fund that ensures the offenders are given the best services so that it will be by choice for them to relapse. This initiative will at least reduce the relapse rate from 50 per cent to around 20 percent. The other initiative will be to introduce laws that direct the courts to submit all the wealth of any drug lord found guilty of dealing in drug trafficking. Similarly, any other drug trafficker would be required to submit their wealth to the state once proven guilty. This initiative will discourage drug trafficking and therefore reduce the high number of offenders in the rehabilitation facilities.
Criminology. (2017, March 20). Budgeting issues in criminal justice administration (California). https://criminology-articles.blogspot.com/2017/03/budgeting-issues-in-criminal-justice.html?m=1Order Now