Criminal Justice Paper on Budget Development Analysis

Criminal Justice Paper on Budget Development Analysis

Purpose Statement

Forecasting is regarded as a key factor in all facets of business. Like all other business organizations, security firms are also required to forecast the amount of finances that they will need to properly perform their obligations. Forecasting in form of creating budget plans, therefore, allows organizations to properly set priorities in the allocation of public resources whilst establishing financial control over inputs to ensure that the employees comply with the existing rules. A vast majority of thriving organizations develop budget plans that enable them to manage operations with fiscal prudence, efficacy, and integrity. This study provides an analysis of the various budget plans developed by different security departments namely; Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Homeland Security Quadrennial Review (HSQR) and Bottom up Review (BUR).

Background Discussion

Cash flows are inseparable parts of the business operations of organizations. Hence, security firms require finances to sustain their operations that may include investments on inventory, receivables, and fixed assets. Such firms also require finances to make payments for the operating expenses that are aimed at maintaining security and peace within and outside their area of operation. State and local government security firms play a myriad of roles that revolve around preventing, protecting, responding, and carrying out security missions. In addition, most security firms are required to have the financial capacity to address and mitigate national security threats such as terrorism and natural hazards. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Homeland Security Quadrennial Review (HSQR) and Bottom Up Review (BUR) strategic plans provide vital data that enable Department of Homeland Security work towards accomplishing its goals. The Department of Homeland Security need a detailed budget plan so as to effectively train, fund, and provide technical assistance to states and localities. DHS functions with the core intent of equipping states to prepare, respond, and recover from man-made and natural disasters (Koestler-Grack, 2007). Thus, it is imperative to develop a proper budget plan that enables the Department of Homeland Security to attain its goal of providing a safer, peaceful, and sustainable nation for everyone.

Analysis Methodology Discussion

As an action officer, I intend to carry out a budget analysis of the current Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Homeland Security Quadrennial Review (HSQR) and Bottom Up Review (BUR) using the following methodology;

  • Analyzing the DHS, HSQR, and BUR documents
  • Analyzing the mission and vision of DHS
  • Addressing the short fallings
  • Identifying current trends of insecurities
  • Assessing whether the budget has been allocated in the prioritized security sectors
  • Providing security recommendations

Summary and Findings of Review for Each Specified Document

Homeland Security Quadrennial Review (HSQR)

The Quadrennial Homeland Security Review is an important document that is written to recommend the DHS on some of the effective strategies that it will need to adapt so as to attain its mission. Aside from offering long-term strategies, the HSQR also provides detailed information on the areas that DHS needs to prioritize. The HSQR report is often written after every four years, with the objective of describing the country’s security interests, homeland security’s mission, and the strategic plans for attaining the mission, goals, and objectives of DHS (Koestler-Grack, 2007). The HSQR document seeks to provide a strategic framework that will direct the department of homeland security towards attaining its missions and objectives. The strategic framework serves to ensure that America is safe and secure from terrorist attacks, cyber bullying, illegal immigration, and unlawful trade.

Bottom-Up Review (BUR)

The Bottom-up review was established in November 2009 to support and implement the vision of Quadrennial Homeland Security Reviews (QHSR). The QHSR and BUR processes aim at transforming and unifying former organizations and entities into one DHS.  The Bottom-up Review processes are primarily aimed at providing DHS with guidelines for the effective prevention and mitigation of terrorism activities within and outside the nation’s borders (Tama, 2015). BUR plays various roles in assessing whether a department’s work aligns with the Homeland security’s mission provided in the QHSR. BUR also assesses the effectiveness of the mechanisms employed by DHS in transforming the requirements developed in the QHSR into an acquisition and development plan within the DHS (Koestler-Grack, 2007).

BUR analyzes the department’s tasks and reconstructs DHS’s initiatives in order of priority. BUR is thus an integral process that is aimed at driving DHS in attaining its goals and objectives. The BUR report also assists DHS in the creation of its annual budget plan as it addresses priority capability and capacity gaps in the current fiscal year. The BUR report provides concrete and detailed data describing the activities being performed at homeland security. Aside from describing the current activities within the DHS, BUR report also addresses the arising problems in order to enlighten the DHS on how it can prevent or mitigate the problems (Tama, 2015). In essence, BUR plays a vital role in creating a platform for great innovations and advancements aimed at promoting a safe and secure nation.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Fiscal Years (FY) 2014–2018 Strategic Plan (StratPlan), and the DHS FY2015 Budget in Brief (BIB)

The Department of Homeland Security was initiated in the year 2001 after the horrific 9/11 terrorism attack in America. As an agency of the U.S. federal government, DHS was tasked with the responsibility of preparing, preventing, and appropriately responding to security attacks and natural catastrophes. This department was also tasked with the obligation of reducing America’s vulnerability to terrorism by controlling the nation’s borders, to minimize damage and speed the recovery from attacks that do occur, to develop antiterrorist technologies, and to review intelligence from all government agencies (Tama, 2015). In addition, DHS seeks to enforce and administer stringent immigration laws, safeguard and secure cyberspace, and strengthen national preparedness and resilience (Koestler-Grack, 2007). To achieve these objectives, the department for Homeland security developed a strategic plan for the fiscal years 2014-2018. The strategic plan aims at achieving unity of effort by articulating specific strategies in an attempt to achieve the set goals. DHS budget request for the fiscal year 2015 was $38.2 billion. To facilitate quick response to disasters, DHS formed the National Response Framework (NRF) that functions to provide guidelines, training, and support to all organizations responsible for preparing and responding to natural calamities and hazards.

Summary of Key Findings

The Quadrennial Homeland Security Reviews and Bottom-up reviews provide vital information that drives the DHS towards attaining its missions. The reviews which are in form of report documents provide an analysis and assessment of the current homeland security risks and security threats. Besides, the reviews offer DHS with various strategic approaches aimed at bettering its’ preparation in and response to any security threats and natural catastrophes. QHSR and BUR are therefore essential in equipping the DHS with the right information and guidelines for preventing and tackling security threats in the form of terrorist attacks, cyber-attacks, illegal migration, and maritime safety. Additionally, the reviews enable the DHS to budget and allocate funds to specific security agencies that have been tasked with the responsibility of attaining DHS mission.



Koestler-Grack, R. A. (2007). The Department of Homeland Security. Infobase Publishing.

Tama, Jordan. “Does strategic planning matter? The outcomes of US national security reviews.” Political Science Quarterly 130.4 (2015): 735-765.