THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUDGETING IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND BUDGETING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR IS THE LACK OF A PROFIT MOTIVE AS A MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS IN THE LATTER. PUBLIC BUDGETING PRACTICES ORIGINATED AS A MEANS OF HOLDING PUBLIC AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS. HOWEVER, ASSURING THE PROPER EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT BENEFICIAL DELIVERY OF GOODS AND SERVICES WILL RESULT. THE NEED TO DRAW A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INPUT AND OUTPUT LIES AT THE HEART OF MAKING PUBLIC AGENCIES ACCOUNTABLE. PROPERLY CONCEIVED AND CARRIED OUT, FUNCTIONAL BUDGETING BOTH PROVIDES A SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTABILITY WITH RESPECT TO MEANS AND ENDS, AND RECOGNIZES THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY LACK OF A PROFIT AND BY THE REALITIES OF POLITICS. THE KEY DATA ELEMENTS OF PUBLIC BUDGETING ARE RESOURCES, ACTIVITIES, AND OBJECTIVES. A REVIEW OF THREE PUBLIC BUDGETING STYLES -- CONTROL, MANAGEMENT, AND PLANNING-PROGRAMMINGBUDGETING (PPB) -- REVEALS THAT ONLY PPB MAKES EXPLICIT USE OF ALL THREE ELEMENTS. BECAUSE IT LINKS THE THREE PRIMARY FUNCTIONS OF MANAGEMENT -PLANNING, EXECUTION, AND EVALUATION -- BUDGETING CAN BECOME THE FOCUS FOR MANAGERIAL DECISIONMAKING. THERE ARE FEW VIABLE PPB MODELS OPERATIVE IN STATE AND LOCAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES. THE FIRST STEP TOWARD PPB, THAT OF BUDGETING IN PROGRAMATIC TERMS, HAS YET TO BE TAKEN BY MOST LOCAL AGENCIES. INTRODUCING PROGRAMATIC BUDGETING CAN OFFER THE AGENCY CONCRETE BENEFITS AND CAN FAMILIARIZE PERSONNEL WITH THE NEED TO THINK ABOUT HOW RESOURCES AND ACTIVITIES ARE RELATED TO PROGRAM OBJECTIVES. DISCUSSIONS OF SPECIFIC RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN BUDGETING AND MANAGERIAL DECISIOMAKING AND BETWEEN BUDGETING AND EVALUATION ARE INCLUDED. (LKM)