Management of Human Material
Management of Human Material
Management of Human Material
Budgets are an essential feature of the control system and, as such, an integral
feature of effective management. Organizations will not improve if budgets are set the
wrong way, therefore, decision makers in an organization have to understand the
strengths and weaknesses of the budget system used in their organization so as to
ensure that prime decisions are taken at all times.
A common misconception made by management is that budgeting is wholly
the function of the accounting department, and this tends to cause inefficiencies and
problems with the budgets. A Good efficient budgeting system is a task for all
involved.
They are several budgeting system an organization can use depending on the
prevailing circumstances. These are
1. Activity based Budget 4. Incremental Budget
2. Fixed Budget 5. Rolling budget
3. Flexible budget 6. Zero Based Budget
Each one of these budgeting system carries their own unique advantages and
disadvantages, and management will have to consider them in detail before selecting
or combining them before using them.
Budgeting
William Hartman, author of School District Budgeting (1999), defines
education budgeting as a "working tool" for the successful operation of states and
local school districts, and as a "significant opportunity to plan the mission, improve
their operations, and achieve their education objectives" (p. 1). As such, the budgeting
process allows various levels of government to "make better financial and program
decisions, improve operations, and enhance relations with citizens and other
stakeholders" (National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting, p. 2).
Limitations of Budget
In more technical terms, a budget is a statement of the total educational
program for a given unit, as well as an estimate of resources necessary to carry out the
program and the revenues needed to cover those expenditures. A vertical budget
includes the various income and expenditure estimates (by line item, function, object,
and cost center) in a given fiscal year, while a horizontal budget will include current
estimates for a given fiscal year, compared to prior audited income and expenditures,
and a projection of costs into the future. Hence, the budget is a statement of purpose
and a review of income and expenditures by function–with a timeline to explain past,
current, and future financial practices.
Education agencies, like businesses and other enterprises, have experimented
with various forms of budget organization: line-item and function/object budgeting
are basic to all systems; and planning-programming-budgeting systems, zero-based
budgeting, and site-based budgeting are attempts to link the budget to goals and
objectives while devolving the budgeting process to the school level.
Line-item budgeting. Barry Mundt et al. define line-item, or "traditional,"
budgeting as "a technique in which line items, or objects of expenditures–e.g.,
personnel, supplies, contractual services, and capital outlays–are the focus of analysis,
authorization, and control" (p. 36). While helpful in tracking costs, line-item
budgeting is virtually useless for planning or management, since the functions of the
expenditures are not explained and the particular need, school site, and type of
students being served are lost in spending aggregated by "line." Thus, teachers'
salaries, for example, is a budget line-item; but which teachers, at which schools,
teaching which types of students (e.g., bilingual special needs) is not explained.
Function/object budgeting. Most districts use function/object budgeting, since
it organizes spending around the basic functions of the system, such as instruction,
student support, operations, administration, and transportation. In addition, functions
are subdivided (e.g., into elementary instruction, high school operations), while the
object being purchased (e.g., elementary textbooks, high school cleaning equipment)
is also specified. Personnel services or salaries and benefits may be handled by
function; that is, for instructional, support, or plant maintenance staff, for example.
While these broad categories, objects, and processes are generally the same for
education budgeting across the country, a strategic attempt has also been made to
determine the most effective and efficient uses of resources. These efforts have led to
such innovations as zero-based, program-planning, and site-based budgeting, which
attempt to be more mission-driven and constituent-friendly than traditional types of
budgeting in education.
Zero-based budgeting (ZBB). Popular in the 1950s and 1960s, ZBB began
with the assumption that the school system starts out yearly with a "clean slate." Thus,
each function, program, and agency has to justify its expenditures annually, relating
all costs to system goals and objectives to avoid habitual spending. Because so many
costs, such as tenured teachers' salaries and benefits, are "fixed" across annual
budgets, and because the programs are so complex, zero-based budgeting becomes
more an exercise than a practical reality. As Hartman explains, "ZBB … forces
comparisons of and choices among programs and activities that are often difficult to
compare adequately" (p. 49). In addition, most programs are not "up for grabs" on an
annual basis, since, for example, schools cannot eliminate their elementary school
classes, making such a requirement difficult to justify.
References:
https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/specedu/aep/inclusion.html
https://www.pallisersd.ab.ca/inclusive-education/inclusive-education-philosophy
https://inclusiveeducation.ca/about/what-is-ie/