[First, a little rant]
My pet peeve on topicality args:
Topical: Fulfills the res
Non-topical: Doesn't fulfill the res
Extra-topical: Fulfills the res, but then does other stuff too.
Just because you go outside of the resolution doesn't mean that you aren't fulfilling the resolution. (Now, it can be impacted to be that if you need to do stuff outside the res, then the res isn't good enough, and therefore you're denying the res. This isn't really a topicality argument, though...)
Is taking money from one program and using it to fund your plan a reform to the USFG's Criminal Justice System?
If they answer "No" Then they just admitted their plan is Not Topical
This doesn't have to always be true. For example: (note, I'm trying to relate this to the NCFCA res, but as I don't know much about CJS, the example is probably awful)
Mandate: Increase the number of U.S. Federal Courts by 50%.
Funding: Salaries for the justices will be made through cuts to Housing and Urban Development.
Is this case topical? (Yes, it does does fulfill the resolution--increasing the number of Federal Courts reforms the CJS.) Is the funding extra topical? (Yes, HUD changes != CJS reform)
Now, can you really expect an AFF to always have a purely topical funding source (no extra-t)? I don't think so--even using general federal revenues would not be a CJS reform.
I'm fine with extra-t funding, as long as no advantages are claimed from the nature of the source.
"The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits"
- G.K. Chesterton