CONCLUSIONS

    The purpose of this analysis is to discover how the funding levels within Ingham County compare to other similar counties in Michigan. Population is used as the basis for comparison. The nature of this analysis is such that conclusions are quite limited, due to the methodology and limited degree of available information. Although county population serves as the best available data for estimating appropriate funding levels, it is usually not a factor which is considered by policy makers. There are many other factors which contribute to funding levels including the discretionary funding objectives of the particular county. For these reasons, this report is meant only as a tool of information and not a recommendation for altering county policies, objectives, or departmental structures.

    Furthermore, this report is a one-dimensional look at the funding levels of Ingham County departments. In does not attempt to measure whether services are effectively delivered, whether they are efficiently administered, or whether the desired outcomes are the same as departments in other counties. In cases in which a department was either noticeably higher or noticeably lower than the expected funding level, the department head was contacted to gather information regarding the departmental differences that might exist among the counties. The comments from those who responded are included in the departmental discussions. In some cases, additional information was gathered from state organizations. But the majority of the information in this report is simply the budgets of the 15 counties, as incorporated in the Saginaw report.

    For the above reasons, the conclusions that should be drawn from this analysis are limited. The fact that an Ingham County department receives more funds than similar departments in other counties does not necessarily justify a reduction in appropriation. It might, however, warrant further investigation into departmental operations and structure. Such an inquiry should be done only when all possible explanations have been thoroughly investigated. Similarly, departments with budgets that are small when compared to other counties might be in such a situation due to the nature of state funding or county budgetary policies.

    Even so, explanations for the variances in some departments could not be found. The Office of the Prosecutor and the Circuit Court are two such departments. Each receives more funds than can be explained by the differences in responsibilities among the 15 counties. Undoubtedly, multiple court facilities contributes to a heightened cost of operations for these departments. This cost might be more than previously estimated. Also, the fact that the Drain Commissioner’s budget is greater than expected can not be explained by differences among the counties. In the category of departments which receive fewer funds than expected, Child Care, FIA, and Community Corrections are three departments for which the variance can not entirely be explained by differences among the counties. Further investigation into these six departments might reveal sound reasons for the variances beyond the scope of this report. But for the most part, this report reveals that the funding levels of the majority of departments in Ingham County are similar to state averages.