Unfortunately your financial analysis is missing some key details. I am a CPA with nearly twenty years of audit experience, mostly auditing not-for-profits. Most the the funding contracts allow the organization to cover administrative costs. The amount can vary depending on the contract. If you read note 2(g) on page 10 of the 2023 finan…
Unfortunately your financial analysis is missing some key details. I am a CPA with nearly twenty years of audit experience, mostly auditing not-for-profits. Most the the funding contracts allow the organization to cover administrative costs. The amount can vary depending on the contract. If you read note 2(g) on page 10 of the 2023 financial statements it states that the administrative costs relating to the migrant resettlement services (MRS) are included with the related MRS expenses. So, the fact that administrative costs are being included in program costs are going to skew the "program expense ratio". I would also argue that since the government contracts are funding administrative costs, the USCCB's bottom line is being helped.
The other thing you need to realize is the allocation of administrative costs between programs is subject to significant professional judgment. Some important questions is what percentage of the contract can be used to cover administrative costs and what procedures the USCCB uses to allocate administrative costs between programs.
"Some important questions is what percentage of the contract can be used to cover administrative costs and what procedures the USCCB uses to allocate administrative costs between programs."
As to the admin expense point, you're right. the bishops' admin costs are seemingly the pass through admin costs, not that the resettlement admin costs. but since their job is as a pass through for a largely admin function ,that seems to track.
As a former auditor (mostly for-profit but occasionally non-profit), your second paragraph is what I was thinking about as I was reading. Getting into the minutia of the classification of each financial statement line item and classification within that line item is extremely difficult--even for for-profit companies that invest in their accounting departments. I would be shocked if most non-profits had dedicated resources at that level. However, I am not here to disparage either the accounting department of the USCCB or the fine folks of the KPMG DC office (their auditors). I mention simply to say not everything you read in audited financial statements is as precise or cookie cutter as you would like it to be.
As a former non profit worker, I can confirm that the amount of time I spent squinting at an expense report asking myself "Are these ballpoint pens for the kickoff meeting 'Office Supplies' or 'Program Supplies' or 'Meetings' makes me take all such reports with a grain of salt. There is a reason field office staff love the Other-Miscellaneous budget code (and yes, we know the accountants don't love it. Sorry!)
Thank you for this comment as I was wondering the same thing for much the same reasons. I admit to wondering what would it take for the USSCB (or the Pillar) to make the counter claim and, by the way, what evidence did Vance have for his claim.
Unfortunately your financial analysis is missing some key details. I am a CPA with nearly twenty years of audit experience, mostly auditing not-for-profits. Most the the funding contracts allow the organization to cover administrative costs. The amount can vary depending on the contract. If you read note 2(g) on page 10 of the 2023 financial statements it states that the administrative costs relating to the migrant resettlement services (MRS) are included with the related MRS expenses. So, the fact that administrative costs are being included in program costs are going to skew the "program expense ratio". I would also argue that since the government contracts are funding administrative costs, the USCCB's bottom line is being helped.
The other thing you need to realize is the allocation of administrative costs between programs is subject to significant professional judgment. Some important questions is what percentage of the contract can be used to cover administrative costs and what procedures the USCCB uses to allocate administrative costs between programs.
this, i agree, is a hugely important question:
"Some important questions is what percentage of the contract can be used to cover administrative costs and what procedures the USCCB uses to allocate administrative costs between programs."
As to the admin expense point, you're right. the bishops' admin costs are seemingly the pass through admin costs, not that the resettlement admin costs. but since their job is as a pass through for a largely admin function ,that seems to track.
As a former auditor (mostly for-profit but occasionally non-profit), your second paragraph is what I was thinking about as I was reading. Getting into the minutia of the classification of each financial statement line item and classification within that line item is extremely difficult--even for for-profit companies that invest in their accounting departments. I would be shocked if most non-profits had dedicated resources at that level. However, I am not here to disparage either the accounting department of the USCCB or the fine folks of the KPMG DC office (their auditors). I mention simply to say not everything you read in audited financial statements is as precise or cookie cutter as you would like it to be.
As a former non profit worker, I can confirm that the amount of time I spent squinting at an expense report asking myself "Are these ballpoint pens for the kickoff meeting 'Office Supplies' or 'Program Supplies' or 'Meetings' makes me take all such reports with a grain of salt. There is a reason field office staff love the Other-Miscellaneous budget code (and yes, we know the accountants don't love it. Sorry!)
Thank you! It’s like Planned Parenthood claiming not to spend tax dollars on abortion as if money were not fungible.
Money is fungible and what they spend on refugees and migrants is just having fun with numbers
Thank you for this comment as I was wondering the same thing for much the same reasons. I admit to wondering what would it take for the USSCB (or the Pillar) to make the counter claim and, by the way, what evidence did Vance have for his claim.