Copyright 1998 by Walter G. Green III
There are three general types of budgets that you will see as a member of an agency in terms of how the money is provided to you to spend.
LUMP SUM BUDGET
A lump sum budget is an allocation of funds made to an agency, essentially with no direction on how to spend it. In a lump sum budget the County Commissioners would say "the Sheriff has $2 million to run his Office next year." This is becoming a less common model as most governments tighten their fiscal controls. It does offer a great deal of flexibility in meeting emerging needs, because no internal procedures are required to redirect money to other uses. However, the lack of controls makes it difficult to account for how money has been spent or identify future needs and do effective fiscal planning. This model provides the greatest potential for abuse as well.
PROGRAM BUDGET
The program budget model allocates funds to an agency and then to a significant major activity within that agency. All of the costs of operating that activity (or "program") are charged against the program fund allocation. The emphasis is on using budget funds to provide service as directed by the program manager. This model increases accountability for fund expenditure and program performance with those funds, while retaining some degree of flexibility to allocate funds within a program to meet its objectives. However, the level of detail is still inadequate to allow effective managerial control of finances, and the trust required by senior leadership of program managers is high.
LINE ITEM BUDGET
The most common governmental approach to budgeting is a line item budget. In this approach each type of activity is allocated a specific accounting code and a specific amount of money. For exmaple, program 019 (Disaster Response) is allocated $800 for item 11234 (uniforms). Managers can spend up to their line item authorizations, but deviation from the line items requires fairly complex procedures to reallocate funds. This approach gives the greatest control and provides the best data on how the organization is spending its money. However, it also is the most time consuming and least flexible approach.
Budgets never start as a blank sheet of paper. There is always history, and history often determines how we arrive at budgets and how those budgets get approved. There are several models of public budgeting decision making of which you need to be aware.
INCREMENTAL BUDGETING
The simplest approach to next year's budget is to take last year's budget and add a small percentage to it, regardless of what activities you have planned. This has the advantage that you have a defense for the increase, "inflation has driven our costs up 5% this past year, so we added that amount next year to adjust." Everyone understands inflation. You also can look good, "see here, the Police Department only asked for a 5% increase - public works is going to bankrupt us with this request for 20% more to replace equipment destroyed in the flooding last year."
Incremental budgeting is also a defense in bad times. If the history is 5% across the board raises, then it is much easier to argue that the cuts should be across the board cuts, not taken entirely from your agency's budget or your program.
The problem is that when you do have to spend a considerable amount of money it becomes almost impossible to break out of the limited increment. If you need a 25% increase to build a new station and buy ten new vehicles this year, every other department head will be asking for the same thing.
BUDGET BY POLITICAL DECISION
Budgets are proposed by agencies and approved generally by elected leadership. Because elected leaders have political agendas, changes in budget priorities will be set by those agendas. Controlling costs (and thereby preventing tax increases) and controlling staffing are two very common political agendas. These two would argue for, at best, hold the line budget authorizations. Other agendas ("more cops on the street," "better fire protection in my district," etc.) can either increase funding or cause redistribution of funding priorities within an agency.
The disadvantage of budgets driven by political agendas is instability over time - a change in administration can cause a complete change of philosophy. However, the advantage is that the political leadership is elected by the people to provide the level of service the people want. If the people don't want to pay for five minute response, then it is entirely proper that leadership should not fund it. We in the emergency services tend to have a view that everyone should have the best service possible; in a democracy politics tells us how our service should really be distributed and prioritized.
ZERO BASED BUDGETING
Zero based budgeting starts anew each year from a clean slate. Each program has to justify its objectives and the funding needed for each objective. The bdugeting process then rank orders each objective against all the other objectives of the agency, and then of the organization to which the agency belongs. The result is a list of all objectives, rank ordered from 1 to 10 or 100 or 1000, with a cost associated with each objective. A cut is made at the point at which the amount of income equals the cost of meeting the objectives. So, if your income this year will be $2 million, and you can fulfill objectives 1 through 17 for a cost of $1,999,999.95, then 1 through 17 get funded. Objectives 18 (the new mahogany desk for my office) through 37 don't get funded.
The advantage of zero based budgeting is that it really does allocate money to your strategic priorities to make sure that they get fulfilled. The process is clear and puts responsibility on managers to argue the case for their projects. And the process is defensible - if there isn't enough money to do something, you can look leadership in the eye and say "here is what you have funded us to do, here is what is not funded; what priority do you want changed and not funded so that your priority can be funded?" Finally, this approach eliminates half-measures and the almost-dead-but-not-quite activities. Something is either funded well enough to succeed, or you don't do it.
The disadvantage of course is that this process takes strategic vision, the willingness to kill programs that should be dead, and the willingness to fight for what you really do need. Zero based takes a lot of effort, and is not comfortable.
Agencies providing emergency services have a wide variety fo sources for funding.
THE GENERAL FUND or OPERATING BUDGET
A wide selection of taxes on the citizens generate a substantial portion of the revenue available to government to provide services. This money is normally deposited in a general fund from which the government's operating budget draws money. Some agencies may have special funds established by law that draw funds from specific revenue sources. For example, it is not unusual to use fines, fees from special licenses, or similar income to fund an agency with a related mission. As a good example, the Virginia Office of Emergency Medical Services, local jurisdiction financial support to emergency medical services agencies, and a substantial grant program for equipment are all funded from a $2.00 tax on vehicle licenses, known as Two For Life. Special tax districts are another approach to this, including fire districts and mosquito control districts.
REVENUE
Business continuity services are generally funded as overhead costs in corporate budgets, drawing their funds from the general revenue from sales of goods and services. Emergency response by some non-profit and not-for-profit organizations is also heavily funded by revenue generated by sales - hospitals are an excellent example, as is the American Red Cross, which realizes substantial income from its blood operations.
LOANS
Some agencies purchase equipment and facilities with loaned monies, either directly from a lending institution as a loan or using a bond issue. Bonds are essentially loans by purchasers of the bond to the government or corporation issuing it, with the expectation that the bond will be redeemed with interest at a future date.
GRANTS
There are a wide variety of Federal and state grant programs that can finance equipment, vehicles, communications, training, etc. Grants are generally competitive, in that more requests will be received than monies are available. Grants also typically require some percentage of matching funds to be raised by the agency requesting the grant.
CORPORATE GIVING
Some corporate giving programs will finance governmental services, although the number is generally low. Non-profit organizations generally are eligible for a more extensive range of corporate grants. Corporate and individual philanthropist giving programs vary widely in their eligibility, the types of activities funded, the application cycle, and the required contents of the application. Unlike governmental grant programs which are generally well publicized, large in amounts, and regular in their availability, corporate and private philanthropy efforts require detective work and are generally for smaller sums.
COMMUNITY GIVING
Some agencies, especially in smaller communities, have had success with the United Way and the Combined Federal Campaign. Both typically are slow processes, but once accepted, can deliver a steady cash flow over time. The United Way in larger metropolitan areas is intensely political and appear to make decisions about which organizations to include based on size and visibility factors.
FUND RAISING
Direct fund raising can generate substantial cash flow, but with some tradeoffs. The constant round of car washes, pancake suppers, bingo, turkey shoots, etc. needed to generate significant levels of funding is very wearing on the membership. However, the alternative, professional mail or telephone solicitation, can result in negative public reactions and may result in only a ten percent return to the agency when the fund raiser's fees are deducted.
It is a sad, but true, fact that every year money that is allocated to provide emergency services is stolen by agency members or wasted through poor accountability in every state. In the emergency medical services I see at least one press report a year about an officer of a volunteer rescue squad being arrested for embezzling squad funds. Employees of one state agency were cited by state auditors for purchasing supplies for their private enterprise and gifts for family members from state monies. In another case a state employee stole approximately $800,000 from a state agency over an extended period of time.
Thefts of these types have profoundly bad consequences. First, they divert resources that are badly needed to provide assistance to those in danger. Second, they create a climate of distrust in the minds of the public and of other agencies, and blacken the reputation of the entire community of emergency services. Third, they damage morale of the good people in the organization. Fourth, the ensuing investigation by law enforcement, other government agencies, and the press is overwhelmingly disruptive. And finally, they can finish the careers of innocent people who were trusting and were unlucky enough to be in leadership positions at the time of the event. Remember that the presumption will always be "they had to have known about it."
The first, and most important, defense against such theft and waste is cultural. We have to understand that public and private monies given to us are given in trust for us to do what is necessary to provide and manage the emergency services. The public doesn't intend for us to buy flowers for our wives or bottles of wine for our bosses out of public money.
The second defense is good fiscal controls. All accounts should be audited on a regular basis by people who don't regularly handle the money. All monthly statements should be examined by management as a group and all checks and other financial instruments should be accounted for. Two signatures should be required for checks, purchase orders, and other ways of spending money. And cash box operations should be very limited, with a ledger and receipts kept. There should be a clear chain of two person accountability for all money from the time it comes in the door to the time it is expended.
The third defense is a high index of suspicion. If you make $30,000 a year and can't afford to take vacations to Europe, why is an employee who makes $25,000 a year taking three friends with him or her for a week on the Riviera (and paying their way) twice a year? If someone who has responsibility for money is living at a level their salary would not normally pay for, the explanation may be that your agency's budget is footing the bill. Inheritances, scratch-and-win gambling cards, and tax refunds as an explanation should immediately raise your suspicion.
The bottom line - trust only a little bit and verify everything. A good money manager will appreciate the interest and concern and the protection the checks and balances give him or her against false accusations. If someone is offended because you want their work checked, it should be a red warning flag.