Funding arrangements for human service programs are often complex, particularly when intergovernmental financing is involved. There are two financial arrangements used by human services administrators to assure that money budgeted is spent as intended. Reallocation of unspent funds among jurisdictions and carryover to the following year of unspent balances are examined in this article based on examples drawn from two programs in Minnesota.
Abstract: This study describes and assesses the recent progress (1975–83) in implementing program budgeting in South Australia. It outlines (1) the leadership of South Australia in this field in Australia, (2) the ways in which administrators adapted program budgeting for successful implementation, (3) the changing emphases which occurred in the reform process, involving parliamentarians, central control departments of government, and responses in ordinary departments, and (4) the relationships of the reforms to political change where that change was reflective of different government attitudes to social reform and to the economic management of stagflation. The study also evaluates what more needs to be done, especially in the more difficult analytical components of program budgeting. In appreciation that program budgeting is of recent origin in Australian public administration, the writing is deliberately structured to explain the essential nature of program budgeting, using the relevant general principles to assess the progress of implementation in South Australia.
Abstract: This article focuses on the divergence between the principle and the reality of program budgeting. The principle is that program budgeting is based on the "output" classification of expenditure. In reality, however, program budgets are more like hybrids between the organisational and functional classifications of expenditure. The reasons for this divergence between principle and reality are analysed by examining the costs and benefits of the output classification of expenditure, contrasted to organisational/functional classification, for the key purposes of budgeting—namely control, estimation and expenditure review and appraisal.It is concluded that, although the output classification of expenditure offers significant benefits from the standpoint of expenditure review and appraisal, it is inferior to the organisational/functional classification from a cost benefit point of view. This is essentially because of the very substantial costs of obtaining reliable information on actual expenditure in terms of output categories, relative to the lower costs of obtaining organisational/functional information.With respect to the other purposes of budgeting, two conclusions are drawn. First, output categories are much less suited to the estimation of forward expenditure than are organisational/functional categories. Second, the use of output categories for control (i.e. expenditure instruction) purposes is inappropriate, principally because it is unnecessary and creates unwarranted expenditure inflexibilities. It is argued, however, that this deficiency of the output categories for control purposes is a reflection of the general inappropriateness of prescriptive program budgets (whether based on output or organisationa/functional categories).
Much has been written about program budgeting and its relevance to improved efficiency and effectiveness. However, there is little discussion about the relationship between the use of program budgeting and accountability. While, organisations using program budgeting focus on the issues of performance, the accountability of management to an elected body, such as a local council has been given little attention. In this article three questions are posed: (1) Is the performance information available to enable councillors to form a judgment about management's performance?; (2) Is management involved in determining issues of policy, such as objectives, programs and performance measurement?; and (3) Are councillors confronted by a greater volume of budgetary documentation but with no increase in time to consider it? The results show that program budgeting does not always enhance accountability in local government.
Program budgeting has been in use for 30 years. It has had a checkered history, being considered alternately a great advancement or an unworkable system. Little has been written about the consequences for the organization that has adopted it. This study was undertaken concerning local government across the State of Victoria, Australia. A questionnaire was sent to all municipalities. There was a 60 percent response rate. Results show that information generated by planning programming budgeting (PPB) is used for decision making but in a limited way. The proposition that PPB will have an impact on the operations of councils is only partially supported.
