Summary Level Budget:
Administrative Costs: 375,000
Capital or Development Costs: 8,431,000
Recurrent Costs: 457,000
Bidding and Inspection Costs: 62,000
Contingency costs 675,000
Administrative costs (Central) 275,000
Administrative costs (Direct) 100,000 375,000
Capital or Development Costs:
Conceptual design 300,000
Purchase of land 600,000
Underground utilities installed 700,000
Ground breaking and earthworks 125,000
Exterior walls erected 809,000
Interior walls erected 972,000
Plumbing installed 1,100,000
Roof installed 800,000
Electric wiring installed 1,100,000
HVAC installed 700,000
Paint and final finishes 125,000 8,431,000
Install furniture 10,000
Furniture (Light and Heavy assisted unit) 400,000
Review and approval of facility design 47,000 457,000
Bidding and Inspection Costs:
Bid furniture 2,000
Construction bid advertised and bids submitted 2,000
Construction bid preparation 12,500
Construction bids reviewed and contract
Final inspecting and approval 25,000 62,000
St. Dimas Assisted Living Facility will employ Results-based approaches (programs) that
are defined using the fundamental concepts of the results chain – also known as the logical
framework. In this framework, inputs are used in carrying out activities in order to produce
outputs and thereby achieve outcomes. St. Dimas Assisted Living Facility Results-based
approaches will bring together expenditures with a shared objective, the core of which is a
common outcome which those expenditures are intended to achieve. Thus, for example, a
preventive health program – internal to the facility, brings together a diverse range of outputs all
of which aim at the outcome of the prevention of disease and injury. These outputs might include
anti-diabetes television ads; antismoking pamphlets distributed in public health facilities.
St. Dimas Assisted Living Facility result based budget concepts are groups of outputs.
This means grouping together all the activities that individually contribute to a particular
intended common outcome. St. Dimas Assisted Living Facility could adopt a vocational
educational program for some of the beneficiaries’ children that would offer a vehicle bringing
together vocational educational benchmarks (public assistance for small businesses and formal
training). It is hoped this will down the road bring will guarantee the facility quality labor for
the economy (the by-product).
It is possible for result-based budgets to include outputs in addition to specific transfer
payments that were incurred in pursuit of St. Dimas Assisted Living Facility objectives. The
outcomes herded together under a particular umbrella have the desired outcome as a common
characteristic in addition to the desired avenue or specific focus group. A result-based budget
will thus define a group of unique St. Dimas Assisted Living Facility outcomes and or transfer
payments that show a clear common preplanned and pursued outcome together. This is assumed
to happen within the confines of a group exhibiting common characteristic like a single target
Within the budgeting system of St. Dimas Assisted Living Facility, subprograms will also
be result based. St. Dimas Assisted Living Facility subprograms will be those that represent
increasingly growing disaggregated groupings of outcomes within the parameters. Within St.
Dimas Assisted Living Facility a preventive health program would bring together a very diverse
and wide variety of services and programs targeted at preventive health. As a result of this,
subprograms will organize the services into a few specific types.
Why chose result-based budgeting as opposed to activity-based budgeting?
The choice between result-based budget and an activity-based budget is based on value
attached to outcomes and processes. In this case, an outcome will include a service or good that
is delivered by St. Dimas Assisted Living Facility to an external party, whereas an activity is a
specific type of work process performed in the production of an outcome.
Getting classification becomes critical since great care must be employed to avoid
incidences where activity-based programs could be mistaken with results-based programs. At St.
Dimas Assisted Living Facility distinguishing between the outcomes and processes will be
deemed achieved if the services offered between ministries – training human capital from a
department, are seen as processes rather than outcomes. Within the confines of St. Dimas
Assisted Living Facility, shared common services – support services, will be considered as
outcomes since they also cater to internal rather that an external stakeholders.
The logic of insisting that support services are not outputs can be seen more clearly if we
remind ourselves that an “output” is the equivalent of a private sector company’s “product.” In
the private sector context, where products are sold to customers, the distinction between products
and support services is very clear.
For St. Dimas Assisted Living Facility, the inclusion of a budget item will be a clear
indication that the support program. A support program will cover all St. Dimas Assisted Living
Facility support services. Despite championing for a result-based budget, the program structure
does adopt an activity-based approach. Despite opposition, it is now the common practice
world-over to treat support programs as significant when classifying the program with increasing
support for the adoption of this strategy. This confirms that support programs are not
components in a result-based budget. However, under GAPP, support programs are exempted
thus they should be considered as result-based.
To keep these exceptions to the minimum, and to avoid unnecessary or even wholesale
departures from the principle of results-based budgeting, it is crucial to explicitly recognize these
distinctions and to be clear about why they are necessary. It is important to remember in result-
based budgeting, Programs and subprograms should to the maximum possible extent be results-
based, grouping together outputs with a common intended outcome. This principle should be
departed from only in specific cases with clear justification.
Anderson, L. O., & Forest Products Laboratory (U.S.). (2002). Wood-frame house construction.
New York ; Hong Kong: Books for Buisiness.