Mike Bath, Director
Newbury Office Wilkins Kennedy
Feb. 12, 2020
An organisation needs to know what its overheads are in order to avoid running at a deficit. However, as Wilkins Kennedy Director Mike Bath discusses, research by the Centre for Charity Effectiveness at Cass Business School showed that only around 1 in 3 charities had a firm grasp of their overheads, were good at recovering them and at negotiating with funders to cover them.
Without a full understanding of how overheads relate to different services and activities, it is easy for a gap to open up between the actual costs incurred and the amount raised, either by charges to service users or contract/grant bids: a gap that will need to be covered either by diluting unrestricted funds or by additional third-party fundraising.
When a charity looks at the cost of a project, it needs to look at what support and resources it needs from the rest of the organisation as well as the direct costs of the project itself. Adding these two cost types together gives the full cost of the project, and full cost recovery is when funders pay for the relevant proportion of support costs (i.e. the charity recovers the full cost from them). This is what charities should aim for but is often far from easy in practice.
If a charity cannot recover the full cost of a project from funders, it needs to decide if the project is still something that it wants to do. There are often very good reasons for taking on projects that aren’t fully funded, but this decision needs to be taken carefully, and with an eye to what else might be done with whatever levels of unrestricted funds will be needed to ‘top up’ the full project cost. Where a project or service is only partially funded then the level of top up required needs to be kept under constant review.
Effective cost recovery means that a charity has confidence in its:
Mark Salway of Cass has recently released a cost recovery toolkit for charities, having worked in this area for many years, building on the framework put forward by the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations as far back as 2004. The primary aims of the toolkit are:
The toolkit starts by splitting a charity’s entire cost base into three distinct categories:
Once the full costs have been identified the charity can make an informed decision on pricing. For grant awards, the amount of any grant is usually restricted to the full cost of providing the activity. In contrast, services delivered under contract may often allow an element of ‘profit’ and/or contingency. Contingency is particularly relevant if there is a significant risk that it may not be possible to deliver the contract in full due to factors which are outside of the charity’s hands: this might affect charities engaged in disaster relief or which operate in unstable regions. Pricing contingency into bids is common practice in commercial contracts and is an area that the charity sector should adopt more widely than it does currently.
The steps to full cost recovery can be summarised as:
The toolkit gives an example of a charity with a contract from a local authority worth £750,000 where the charity had originally calculated its overhead as being 7% of direct costs. Using the toolkit, the charity identified that its overhead was actually 20% - a typical figure for a charity and one which is far lower than for many commercial organisations. Armed with a robust and transparent analysis of its full cost position the charity was able to negotiate an additional £100,000 in funding.
For further information on the areas raised in this Insight, or to discuss in more detail, please speak with your usual Wilkins Kennedy contact or a member of our specialist Not for Profit team.
An organisation needs to know what its overheads are in order to avoid running at a deficit. However, as Wilkins Kennedy Director Mike Bath discusses, research by the Centre for Charity Effectiveness at Cass Business School showed that only around 1 in 3 charities had a firm grasp of their overheads, were good at recovering them and at negotiating with funders to cover them...
In an attempt to diversify income and generate much needed unrestricted reserves, an increasing number of organisations are forming trading subsidiaries to operate alongside their charity and allow them more freedom in the activities they pursue. Paul Creasey, Audit partner and member of our Not for Profit team at Wilkins Kennedy, discusses this in more detail...
HMRC have long taken the view that most holiday camps/activities offered by regulated commercial providers are subject to VAT at 20%. Several providers have been previously assessed for VAT on this basis and in light of the recent case we strongly encourage providers in the sector to review their position if VAT is being applied. Mark Doherty, VAT Director at Wilkins Kennedy, takes a closer look at this new VAT position on school holiday camps...
KPIs are a necessary component of managing any charity as they allow you to keep track of your strategic objectives, but how do you ensure they are aligned to your organisation’s goals and offer the Board the information they need?
Charitable and non-profit making bodies are often under pressure to maximise their income-generating activities through exploiting their assets to the maximum possible extent. Whilst the reason for doing this is entirely understandable, the associated potential tax consequences can be overlooked, which can, in turn, give rise to unexpected tax liabilities. In this article, John Howard, Partner and head of Not-for-Profit at Wilkins Kennedy provides some thoughts on the issues arising.
Recent research published the by the Charity Commission suggests they may not.
John Howard, Head of Charities and Not-for-Profit at Wilkins Kennedy looks at who can benefit from Theatre Tax Relief.