What Aspects Are Left Out?

What aspects are left out?

However, the accounts stated do not present us the whole picture of the organization, as certain aspects of NOMS’ accountability are left out. First, the boundary of NOMS as an accounting entity is not and cannot be clearly defined, shaking its accountability and resulting in non-transparency and information asymmetry. In particular, the awkward position of prisoners in relation to NOMS accounting system has significant consequence for how NOMS cost are accumulated and reported. As is reported by Jewkes and Bennett, NOMS “hided” its immediate cost for new investment using PFI, a financial mechanism to obtain private finance project without affecting public funding (Panchamia, 2012), by signing long-term contract that guarantees to send its prisoners there at a negotiated per diem cost. (Jewkes and Bennett, 2007) Then came the question, are prisoners staff or asset of NOMS? Could NOMS pay its cost by making use of prisoners’ correctional service? Accounting once again arbitrarily combines, and defines, and adds, and subtracts things to serve its own purpose. (Hines, 1988) Furthermore, NOMS does not provide sufficient accounting information about resource budget measuring ongoing operations and new investment, which is required by Resource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB). In “Statement of Operating Costs by Operating Segment” section, instead of providing detail operation and new investment budget, NOMS just simply present its total annual budget and classify it to depreciation& impairment cost and other costs. While operating cost statement reports capital outturn, budgeting data evaluate the efficiency of an accounting entity. More importantly, NOMS, as a public and governmental organization, should take accountability for effectively utilizing its holding resource and making its performance transparent.