Background
The Authority for Prevention of Violence, Alcohol and Drug Abuse became part of the Ministry for Community Empowerment and Advancement in 2020. The Ministry commissioned the Myers–JDC–Brookdale Institute to examine the Authority’s budgeting model and also to evaluate the connection between its activities and the goals of the Ministry.
Goal
This rapid response research had four primary goals:
a. to describe the budgeting model of the Authority for Prevention of Violence, Alcohol and Drug Abuse;
b. to analyze the connection between the budgeting model and the objectives of the Ministry for Community Empowerment and Advancement and the extent to which the Ministry can be expected to efficiently achieve those objectives;
c. to determine how the division of the budget is expected to affect disparities in society;
d. to present two case studies that provide initial insights into the effect of the budget on municipalities and also with respect to performance measurement.
Methodology
The study is based on an examination of the budgeting model of the Authority for Prevention of Violence, Alcohol and Drug Abuse, including detailed budget files on the level of the municipality. In addition, four in-depth interviews were held: two with senior officials at the ministry, and two with local-level directors of the Authority for Prevention of Violence, Alcohol and Drug Abuse in two municipalities: Kiryat Malahi and Tur’an. The interviews were held during November–December 2020.
Findings and insights
The budgeting model of the Authority for Prevention of Violence, Alcohol and Drug Abuse is based on three principles: (a) budgeting according to the size of the municipality, while providing a higher budget per resident in smaller municipalities; (b) increasing the budget for municipalities in which there is a high proportion of youth; and (c) requiring the municipalities to provide matching funds, where the portion of the budget financed by the municipality is dependent on its socioeconomic status and the degree of its peripherality. The aforementioned are widely accepted and reasonable principles and are similar to those used by other government ministries. In particular, these principles make it possible to provide greater support to municipalities which score lower according to the Central Bureau of Statistics’ Socioeconomic Index for Local Authorities. Nevertheless, and despite the fact that accepted principles are being applied, the actual budgeting formula can be improved to better match the needs of the municipalities. An examination of the types of programs financed by the Authority for Prevention of Violence, Alcohol and Drug Abuse shows that they are in accordance with the vision and goals of the Ministry for Community Empowerment and Advancement.
Recommendations
This evaluation of the budgeting model indicates that it is possible to fine-tune the allocation of funds more precisely according to the needs of the various municipalities and their socioeconomic situation and in order to achieve greater efficiency in the usage of funds. Following are a number of recommendations:
a. Addition of a budgeting component according to performance indices – Providing additional budget to municipalities that meet the designated levels of efficiency in the various programs.
b. Addition of a budgeting component according to actual needs – Determining the allocation of the budget among the various municipalities according to the level of need in terms of community and youth.
c. Improving the system for matching according to the municipality’s socioeconomic index – Reinforcing the connection between the municipality’s socioeconomic index and the rate of self-participation it is required to provide.
d. Mitigating the negative connection between the size of the municipality and the budget per resident – A change in the budgeting formula such that the size of the municipality will have a less significant role in budgeting.
e. Strengthening the connection between the municipality’s socioeconomic index and the level of budgeting that it receives – Putting more weight in the budgeting equation on the socioeconomic index and the degree of peripherality.