California State Budget in the Area of Criminal Justice Administration, Article Review Example

The article I have chosen presents a thorough analysis of the California state budget in the area of criminal justice administration. Mac Taylor, author of the research, studies the volume of the funds spent and sources of the financial resources, also describes the significant changes that are expected to happen in the system this year. The report is rich in factual information from relevant sources and creates a detailed overview of the up to date questions that arise in the process of funding the criminal administration and adequately distributing financial resources.

Author claims that despite great efforts to improve the criminogenic situations, there is still a lot to improve. Juvenile crimes and drug-related offences among the adults are the main areas that need extra attention. Current results of the state’s law enforcement are definitely unsatisfactory: each year thousands of dollars are being spend to maintain the juvenile offenders, but with very little improvements in the effectiveness of the correction programs. Young offenders have further problems with law in as much as 50% of the cases. Various in-prison problems, broadly used in prisons are expected to reduce the recidivism rate by 6%, which unfortunately does not happen in California (Taylor, M. 2009). The article stresses lack of efficiency in the distribution of funds as one of the main problems. This seems as a logical explanation, as state government might find it difficult to control the entire system, as California is one of the largest states. The main expected shift identified in the article is extra autonomy for the local counties.

Taylor, being rather well-informed in the local budgeting proposes a program of the responsibilities redistribution. For instance, his research article advices to reassign the juvenile crime and drug-related offences programs to the responsibility of the counties. This is not simply getting rid of the liabilities, but rather using a more efficient structure to manage the problem more efficiently. State continues to transfer the necessary sums, but expects the better-informed and more flexible local authorities to use this money for the greater good.

Before explaining the nature of all the changes that are expected to happen in the Californian budgeting of the law enforcement programs, Taylor discusses the reasoning for the realignment. These tendencies are in sight for the past 20 years, as various initiatives are being transferred to the lower administrational levels. Such approach has proven its effectiveness, as local governments are reacting faster and are aware of the regional specifics. First, the state shifted the responsibility of the mental health programs to the local level, providing with all the necessary finding and authority (Taylor, M. 2009). As a result, innovative programs have emerged, improving the efficiency of the fund usage. Author claims that the choice of whether to transfer the functions of the state administration to the lower authorities is a very disputable one. Some programs are much better managed at the greater scale. There is however some set of criteria aimed to determine when the responsibility shift is reasonable:

1. Innovations and experiments are expected
2. Program is closely related to some other local ones
3. Specific district has some distinctive local issues

Budget realignment will work several ways for various programs. In case of the juvenile offenders, the funding will remain at the same level – $379 million, aimed to control and supervise violent offenders. Though the final sum remains unchanged, the source of the costs is changed – from the regular general fund, to the Vehicle Legislation Fee fund. Main correctional facilities will remain under the jurisdiction of the central government, while county authorities will purchase the places there for the juvenile offenders.

Drug-related offences cases are often split between the local and state programs, as minor offences are viewed at the county level and the appropriate correction method is chosen, while in the case of the more serious crime, state authorities take action. Financial matters are well-planned in this case as well – a special fund will be created, responsible for the correction of the adult offender. This fund is to be used by the county governments and is supposed to be $638 million, redistributed into such spheres as supervision, COPS program, incarcerating the drug-related abuse cases, etc.

Overall, the article provides the reader with a very good explanation how the Californian budget of the criminal administration is managed. The sources of the funding are adequately explained, as well as the system of government spending for these matters. Some surprising disproportions are also detected – over $200 000 per year spends the Californian budget in order to maintain and supervise one juvenile law breaker. Hopefully, the realignment plan, proposed in this article will improve the situation and make the state expenditures much more reasonable, adequate and effective.

References

Taylor, M. (2009) Criminal Justice Realignment. Budget Analysis Series. Retrieved March 22, 2009 from: http://www.lao.ca.gov/2009/crim/Realignment_012709/Realignment_012709.pdf