1 / 37

WV IPG Finance Staff Or i entation Cost Allocation and Revised Budget Policies

WV IPG Finance Staff Or i entation Cost Allocation and Revised Budget Policies. World Vision International June, 2013. Key Clarifications and Changes in Cost Allocation Related Changes in the NO Budget Template Coming Tools and Resources Q & A. Agenda.

rafiki
Download Presentation

WV IPG Finance Staff Or i entation Cost Allocation and Revised Budget Policies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WV IPG Finance Staff Orientation Cost Allocation and Revised Budget Policies World Vision International June, 2013

  2. Key Clarifications and Changes in Cost Allocation • Related Changes in the NO Budget Template • Coming Tools and Resources • Q & A Agenda

  3. Basis for changes to policy and key messages

  4. Support costs were not seen as a normal part of doing business • All projects need support; few stand alone. • Think about doing a grant project without finance reporting, payroll, accounts payable, information technology, security, management oversight, quality assurance, compliance, monitoring, administration, etc.

  5. Support costs were seen primarily as overhead • All projects in WV are supported by both Technical and Program Support Costs, and some by Sponsorship Support Costs and NRD • The allocation method used by WV allows both direct costing of these support costs and allocation to projects by share of the total, through a pool

  6. One critical common mistake Previous communication about the composition of “CAM rate” has led to judgments about NO overhead & efficiency thus, put us at a disadvantage by implying NO “overhead” was higher than it is.

  7. Perception that Support Costs were not properly allocated • Audited • Generally Accepted Accounting Method • Based on Actual Expenditures • Double counting avoided

  8. Donors have limits • Most donors are able to pay Support Costs • Some have statutory or policy-based limits to costs • Others have been confused about our costs and simply see WV as “expensive”

  9. Support costs were not properly forecasted in grant proposals • CAM Rates Used • Costs not considered as part of a Go/No-Go decision • Importance for Finance and Grant/RDU Teams have not always collaborated to accurately forecast; allocated costs varied wildly in proposals

  10. Support costs have been a barrier to seeking grants • Some support offices unable to “match” support costs past donor limits • Too many grant opportunities have been missed as a result

  11. Delinking Budget & Cost Allocation

  12. 1) Costing the OrganisationalStructure • National Director decides, Regional Leader approves • Transparent and total view into NO & ZO • Standard Template • Standard cost categories: Programme Support/ Technical Support/ Sponsorship Support/ NRD • Programme Support Rate for internal discussion not for proposals; no more ‘CAM Rate’ • Responsive to changes in funding • Expectation = NO budgets to remain flat until FY16, with few exception.

  13. 2) Funding the Organisational Structure • Plan, budget and direct charge where possible (invoice, SLA, LDR etc.) • Limit allocation (Programme Support Costs and General Technical Support costs e.g. operations & ministry quality) • Apply allocation methodology thoughtfully • Recognise that Cost Allocation simply distributes costs

  14. How have the policies been revised?

  15. Budget Policy • Timeline • Organizational Structure

  16. Timeline

  17. Organizational Structure NO Staff/ Function Categories Determining the specific staff/functions categories in a NO organizational structure contributes to a better understanding of costs that are directly linked to project objectives versus costs that provide support and oversight to accomplish the project objectives.

  18. Cost Allocation Policy Basics 3 steps Principles

  19. Cost Allocation Policy Same Driver Three step process for allocation • Direct Cost, when feasible, especially incremental costs • Allocate to projects using current allocation tool to the limits of the donor • Reallocate remainder to other projects without restriction Forecasting for new project done based on estimated actual No CAM Rate Monthly allocation Reduce incremental costs at end of grant

  20. The 3-Step Cost Allocation Process • Directly charge the NO/ZO costs, where feasible • based on evidence • justifiable • Charge remaining pool of Support Cost (total support costs minus the ones directly charged) using Allocation Tool, up to the limit of the donor • Use the Reallocation Tool to re-allocate uncovered support costs to all other projects without donor restrictions

  21. Cost Allocation Standards • Cost based on the nature & purpose of the cost • Budgeting based on the best estimate of likely actual charges, including portfolio changes • Locally-funded projects must have adequate budget available to cover support costs • Fundraising costs of NRD offices should not be allocated to projects • NOs without stable funding base can be charged to the Fragile Context Special Fund (FCSF).

  22. To summarize…what’snew ? • New name: CAM to Cost Allocation Policy • New tools: Re-Allocation, Forecasting, etc. • New separate policy: Budgeting Policy for NO/ZO • Identify and charge to grants incremental costs—reduce at end of grant absent new funding • “Fair share” only in through step 2 • Step 3 is called “leveraging existing funding” • Support Offices are no longer required to provide additional match for Support Costs beyond donor limits, can provide match for competitiveness • Service Level Agreements (SLAs), especially for S23 – Technical services and sectors & S27 – ZO – technical services. Guidance pending.

  23. Does this have any impact on overall NO Costs?

  24. Potential NO Cost impacts of new polices • Existing grant budgets remain the same, but allocations to existing projects could be reduced because of flat budgets and more grants • Global Centre attempting to lower costs through flat budgets for three years, could help reduce overhead rates • NO Efficiency ratios monitored and kept at a reasonable level • Support Offices have access to the approved NO Budgets and they are reviewed annually in August

  25. What will be different about proposal budgeting in grants?

  26. Basic process: Forecasting allocated costs in grant proposals • Existing NO budget will have PSC, TSC and DPC Costs • DPC for proposed project is added to current projects to determine share of DPC • The share of DPC determines the forecast of PSC and TSC for the proposed project • Follow three step process to assess the impact of the proposed project on “other projects” • Make Go/No-Go decision; Present PSC and TSC in proposal as preferred by the donor

  27. Sample in handout • Donor budget formats are different • Allocated cost forecasting tools coming soon • Based on existing NO budgets • Trial has been successful in several USG applications

  28. What new tools are being developed?

  29. New Tools Under Development • Reallocation Tool: to distribute PSC and TSC which cannot be charged to grants • Forecasting tool: tools for use in forecasting allocated costs for proposal budgets and for Go/No-Go decisions • Refined Go/No-Go guidance for NO Directors • New allocation spreadsheets for monthly allocations • wvcentral pages with resources and training materials • Coding guidance to ensure that reallocations can be tracked

  30. Is the policy unfair to sponsorship programs?

  31. Note: instead of overhead read ‘Support Costs’ Incremental grant revenue will likely reduce the amount of programme support costs allocated to other funding streams…a simple example

  32. More on Incremental Grant Revenue

  33. NDs will anticipate impact in Go/No-Go decisions • As part of the Go/No-Go decision, NO and SO staff need to work quickly to complete a preliminary forecast of expected DPC for each proposed project so that anticipated need for “reallocation” will be forecast • If the proposed project will have too much negative impact on the implementation of sponsorship programs, ND can make a No-Go decision

  34. SOs can request tracking of reallocations to monitor impact • Reallocation tool should have proper coding to allow tracking • Depending of the size of the grant for which reallocations must be made compared to the size of the portfolio, the impacts will vary significantly

  35. Will these new policies increase burden on NOs?

  36. There is a degree of additional, necessary work… • We acknowledge that this is somewhat complicated and adds to the workload, but such efforts are needed to allow us to increase our grant portfolio and leverage more funding for the CWBOs. • More and more donors today are only willing to cover support costs where they know exactly what they are & the benefits to their project. The new protocols bring clarity

  37. How Global Finance can support • FRSC is already supporting NO by providing NO budget templates • A multi-level group (SO, GC, RO, NO) is developing more tools • FRSC is also producing analysis on NO budget

More Related