To begin with, it should be emphasized that construction of the budget for a criminal justice agency is the task, which requires incorporation and considering several factors, which form the budget, and influence the entire process of budget creation. The fact is that, the budget for such type of organizations is formed on the governmental level, and, is generally provided for solving the previously stated organizational tasks and assignments, which are required for solving the problems, associated with the organizational and professional activity of the department.
The aim of this paper is to analyze all the budget forming factors, related to the Washington DC Metropolitan Police department, and create the project of the budget for the Fiscal Year 2010.
As it has been already stated, the budget construction process is the complex procedure, which requires considering numerous factors and origins. The fact is that, this process for the Washington DC Metropolitan Police presupposes collection of batch and interactive procedures, which are claimed to assist the process of creating annual budget for a collection of accounts as well as sub accounts which generally entail object and sub object grounded on the accounting lines for the accounted fiscal year. Originally, the projecting of the budget generally depends on the commonly accepted practices of budget construction. Lynch (2004, p. 453) emphasizes the following on this statement:
Each Budget Construction process is associated with one and only one Account or Sub Account budget and contains base and / or request amounts for a collection of object/sub object accounting lines. Thus, Budget Construction documents are initially created by a batch process for Accounts / Sub Accounts, which generally contain base budget and / or ongoing salary commitments derived from the Calculated Salary Foundation. Thus foundation process is not part of the delivered KFS as it is specific to an institution’s payroll system. Budget construction documents are not routed using the workflow engine and thereby do not get put in any user’s Action List.
In the light of this perspective, there is strong necessity to mention that the budget creation for the Washington DC Metropolitan Police department will take into consideration the following factors:
- Local Funds
- Dedicated Tax
- Revenue Funds
- Federal Grant Fund
- Private Grant Fund
- Intra-District Fund
- Gross Fund
Originally, these factors form the incomes of the department. The expenses are defined by the necessities and requirements of the department. As the experience of previous fiscal years show, the variables for the expenses are the following:
- Regular Pay
- Additional Gross Pay
- Fringe Benefits
- Total Personal Services
- Utilities, Communications, and
- Building Rental
- Telephone, Teletype, Etc.
- Janitorial Services
- Security Services
- Occupancy Fixed Costs
- Other Services and Charges
- Subsidies and Transfers
- Purchased Assets, Minor
- Equipment and Rental
- Debt Service
- Total Non-Personal Services
Consequently, the budget creation process will be based on the comparison of the income and expense factors. In the light of this consideration is should be emphasized that the original budget construction process generally depends on the matters of the collection of Object / Sub Objects for an Account / Sub Account, the Organization Review Hierarchy. Seto (2007) claims that this process is originally accomplished by creating the sub tree of the budget construction process, while the documents, aimed to regulate and shape the process of budget shaping the process of budget creation. It is emphasized that the funding lines, which are associated with the accounts, are relevant to the original process, as they provide an opportunity of editing access to the numerals of the budget. Seto (2007, p. 194) in his turn emphasizes the following statement:
Benefits for request budget amounts contained in object codes associated with compensation are either automatically calculated or calculated on demand and stored in the appropriate accounting lines while the user is working in the Budget Construction process. Budget analysis is facilitated through a set of online reports with the ability to list budget information at various levels of aggregation and consolidation. An export tool creates local data files containing denormalized budget data, which can be imported to other systems for further analysis, or reporting. The exported data consists of accounting lines joined with associated chart information for annual or monthly budgets or funding lines for positions/incumbents.
In the light of this perspective, it should be emphasized that the Budget Construction process should entail the data import tool, which is essential for editing the incoming data in the case of mistakes. As for the Washington DC Metropolitan Police department it should be stated that this tool is integrated with the process of data check. Moreover, the integrated tool provides an opportunity for the examination of the data compensation in the case of necessity by requesting the missing data in the corresponding departments of the organization. Originally, this tool operates under the security rules of the Budget Construction Security Model.
The recommended gross FY 2010 Baseline Budget for the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) is $514,825,240, representing an increase of $17,775,235 or 3.6 percent over the agency’s FY 2009 gross budget of $497,050,005. This budget, which includes the reduction of $200,000 for nonrecurring funds from FY 2009, supports 4,925.5 FTEs, no change from FY 2009. The recommended budget includes funding for 4,200 police officers. This recommended budget is comprised of the following fund types: (Lanier and Fenty, 2009)
|Revenue Source||Budget Dollars|
|FY 2009 Approved||FY 2010 Baseline||Variance|
|Local Funds||$ 462,224,056||$ 475,693,201||$ 13,469,145||2.9%|
|Special Purpose Revenue Funds||$ 12,695,566||$ 17,075,000||$ 4,379,434||34.5%|
|Subtotal, General Fund||$ 474,919,622||$ 492,768,201||$ 17,848,579||3.8%|
|Federal Grant Funds||$ 3,066,659||$ 2,402,109||$ (664,550)||21.7%|
|Private Grant Funds||$ 85,000||$ 200,000||$ 115,000||135.3%|
|Intra-District Funds||$ 18,978,724||$ 19,454,930||$ 476,206||2.5%|
|Gross Funds||$ 497,050,005||$ 514,825,240||$ 17,775,235||3.6%|
(FY 2010 Baseline Budget, 2009)
This baseline recommendation is the result of the agency request and adjustments applied as follows:
Agency FY 2010 Submission Request and Target Adjustments MPD submitted a gross funds request of $501,156,095 supporting 4,638.5 FTEs. This request is comprised of $462,024,056 and 4,626.5 FTEs in Local funds and a total of $39,132,039 and 12.0 FTEs in all other fund types. (Lanier and Fenty, 2009)
Local Funds Target Adjustments. The Current Services Funding Level (CSFL) for MPD was $478,209,751. MPD was provided with an FY 2010 Local funds budget target of $462,024,056 by the Office of the City Administrator, and the agency’s Local funds budget request was $462,024,056. To remain within the target, the agency made the following adjustments in the budget request:
- A decrease of $14,457,334 agency-wide for salaries and benefits;
- A decrease $121,023 agency-wide in supplies and materials;
- An increase of $4,101,646 in energy;
- A decrease of $1,610,740 in telephone;
- An increase of $402,265 in rental;
- An increase of $1,242,689 in janitorial services;
- A decrease of 206,734 in security services;
- An increase of $1,573,535 in occupancy;
- A decrease of $6,225,187 in contractual services;
- A decrease of $854,139 in other services and charges; and
- A decrease of $30,673 in equipment. (Lanier and Fenty, 2009)
|Comptroller Source Group (CSG)||FY2010 |
|Regular Pay||$ 286,881,212|
|Regular Pay — Other||$ 4,573,821|
|Additional Gross Pay||$ 18,916,315|
|Fringe Benefits||$ 36,249,554|
|Total Personal Services||$ 383,298,546|
|Utilities, Communications, and||$ 3,171,301|
|Building Rental||$ 4,864,971|
|Telephone, Teletype, Etc.||$ 3,108,365|
|Rentals—Land, Buildings||$ 1,911,468|
|and Structures||$ 1,096,924|
|Janitorial Services||$ 3,242,663|
|Security Services||$ 30,027,219|
|Occupancy Fixed Costs||$ 31,053,763|
|Other Services and Charges||$ 1,634,433|
|Subsidies and Transfers||$ 39,135|
|Purchased Assets, Minor||$ 5,244,157|
|Equipment and Rental||$ 3,171,301|
|Debt Service||$ 3,108,365|
|Total Non-Personal Services||$ 89,375,302|
(FY 2010 Baseline Budget, 2009)
There is strong necessity to emphasize that Figures represent expenditures from all funding sources; all numbers rounded to the nearest dollar.
Rejected Technical Adjustments
The Office of Budget and Planning rejected the following Technical Adjustments requests and these are not included in the agency’s Recommended Baseline Budget:
1) $363,366 Fuel Cost Increases (the third component of the Technical Adjustment for Fleet Maintenance): MPD requested additional motor fuel funding for its fleet. This item is addressed through the District’s fixed cost review process.
2) $4,142,492 and 40.0 FTEs to Restore Civilian Positions (Part II): The rejected element of the partially approved Technical Adjustment was for the $2,590,243 and 40.0 FTEs rescinded during FY 2009 and offsets the vacancy savings of $1,552,219 applied to the approved 137.0 civilian FTEs. (Lanier and Fenty, 2009)
The FY 2010 Baseline Budget for the following programs increased or decreased by 10 percent (or $5 million) or more at the gross funds program level, compared to the FY 2009 Approved Budget:
|FY 2009 Approved Budget||FY 2010 Baseline Budget||Change||Percent Change|
|Investigative Services||$ 74,700,857||$ 66,960,523||$ 7,740,334||-10.4%|
|Strategic Services Bureau||$ –||$ 6,922,311||$ 6,922,311||N/A|
|Corporate Support Bureau||$ 21,549,535||$ 25,198,743||$ 3,649,208||16.9%|
|Professional Development Bureau||$ 51,718,452||$ 64,922,777||$ 13,204,325||25.5%|
(FY 2010 Baseline Budget, 2009)
The following describes the primary reason for the change from the FY 2009 approved budget to the FY 2010 recommended baseline for these programs:
- Investigative Services: The decrease of $7,740,334, or 10.4 percent, includes a decrease of 92.0 FTEs from the approved program budget of 816.0 FTEs. The agency attributes this change primarily to the realignment of activities within the MPD including the establishment of the Strategic Services Bureau.
- Strategic Services Bureau: An increase of $6,922,311 and 75.0 FTEs due to the establishment of this Bureau within the MPD. This new structure transferred activities form the Investigative Services and other Bureaus. The Strategic Services Bureau integrates research, program and policy development, and strategic analysis and planning under a single Bureau to support the Department and the city by identifying and implementing innovative policing and business practices.
- Professional Development Bureau: The increase of $13,204,325, or 25.5 percent, includes an increase of 200.5 FTEs above the FY 2009 approved budget of 622.5 FTEs. The agency attributes this change to the realignment of the activities within the MPD. (FY 2010 Baseline Budget, 2009)
Finally, there is strong necessity to emphasize that the original value of the Budget construction Process as it is described in the paper is covered in the fact, that the tool provided offer the high precision of the data, as well as there is an opportunity for checking the incoming data. Originally, it should be stated that the constructed budget might be featured with the increased proximity to the real project, as the actual data on the matters of the Washington DC Metropolitan Police department budget will be regarded by the federal government. Moreover, the actual check of the number will be provided on the basis of the actual needs and requirements of the department. The final decision, in its turn, will be made basing on the principles of financial check and with the application of the tools, described in the paper. On the other hand, it should be emphasized that the budget construction techniques, implemented in the paper offer the increased precision of the income and expenses estimation, consequently, it should be stated that the inaccuracy levels are low.
FY 2010 Baseline Budget (2009) Office of the Chief Financial Officer Office of Budget and Planning.
Lynch, T. D. (2004). Federal Budget and Financial Management Reform. New York: Quorum Books.
Lanier, C. L. & Fenty A. M. (2009) Annual Report 2009. Metropolitan Police Department.
Seto, T. P. (2007). Drafting a Balanced Budget. Yale Law Journal, 106(5), 1449-1536.