The 990's

[garfield]

Blue Devils Statement of Functional Expenses

NOTE: PSE = Program Service Expense, MGE = Management & General Expense, FRE = Fundraising Expense

Office Expenses

2008: PSE: $25,430, MGE: $19,207, FRE: $896,291, Total: $940,928

2009: PSE: $49,514, MGE: $31,377, FRE: $1,047,748, Total: $1,128,639

2010: PSE: $71,533, MGE: $33,429, FRE: $664,445, Total: $1,243,360

2011: PSE: $72,811, MGE: $34,160, FRE: $586,188, Total: $693,159

Edited April 18, 2013 by garfield

[garfield]

Blue Devils Statement of Functional Expenses

Occupancy

2008: PSE: $686,812, MGE: $29,071, FRE: $549,495, Total: $1,265,378

2009: PSE: $653,536, MGE: $29,158, FRE: $547,285, Total: $1,229,979

2010: PSE: $650,066, MGE: $32,257, FRE: $561,037, Total: $1,243,360

2011: PSE: $700,083, MGE: $34,264, FRE: $566,378, Total: $1,300,725

Note: This category makes me go "Huh?". Does PSE include bus expenses for the corps? Are they putting bingo winners (FSE) up in a fancy hotel or something? Dunno. (Hint: read the next post.)

Edited April 18, 2013 by garfield

[garfield]

Blue Devils Statement of Functional Expenses

Travel

2008: PSE: $65,833, MGE: $795, FRE: $11,054, Total: $77,682

2009: PSE: $72,662, MGE: $1,049, FRE: $19,765, Total: $93,476

2010: PSE: $460,595, MGE: $765, FRE: $21,041, Total: $482,401

2011: PSE: $519,393, MGE: $3,603, FRE: $21,511, Total: $544,507

Does 2010 PSE include corps travel? Dunno. Can't tell if this is an actual increase or, rather, the auditors including something in here that was not included in prior years. Ahh, the vagaries of the Form 990's.

Edited April 18, 2013 by garfield

[garfield]

Blue Devils Statement of Functional Expenses

Other Expenses

Note: This category is a hodge-podge. There's "Tour and Transporation" in here, as well as "Meals", "Telephone and Utilities", "Program Expenses", "Equipment Rental", and "Bank Charges". Unfortunately, only a couple of categories are consistent across all three years. "Equipment Rental was new in 2010, "Bingo Expenses Netted w/Rev" is a big negative number each year (like -$1.8-million in '10 and -$2.3-million in '08) yet bingo operations were profitable in each of the 3 years. ??

Just for fun, I'll show the only consistent category - Meals - then will get right to the summary of expenses.

Meals

2008: PSE: $105,628, MGE: $472, FRE: $25,118, Total: $131,218

2009: PSE: $116,862, MGE: $1,062, FRE: $29,660, Total: $147,584

2010: PSE: $137,091, MGE: $2,181, FRE: $16,903, Total: $156,175

Tidbits

"Equipment Rental" in 2010 was $390,667, of which $368,981 went to PSE

"Tour and Transportation" was $198,026 in 2008, and in 2009 was $238,720, practically all of which went to PSE in both years. (No entry for 2010).

"Other Expenses" only shows up in 2008 and was $370,639, of which $248,902 went to FRE.

"Program Expenses" shows up only in 2009. It was $548,367, of which $171,850 went to PSE, $81,615 went to MGE, and $294,902 went to FRE.

Only in year 2009 was an entry made in the "All other expenses" sub-category of "Other Expenses". It was $264,548, of which $169,238 went to PSE, $16,416 went to MGE, and $78,894 went to FRE. Presumably, everything that couldn't be categorized another way got dumped in here.

[garfield]

Blue Devils Statement of Functional Expenses

Total Function Expenses

2008: PSE: $2,031,324, MGE: $562,311, FRE: $444,542, Total: $3.038,177

2009: PSE: $2,275,111, MGE: $645,615, FRE: $504,867, Total: $3,425,593

2010: PSE: $2,867,258, MGE: $858,360, FRE: $417,260, Total: $4,142,878

2011: PSE: $2,838,035, MGE: $637,961, FRE: $405,663, Total: $3,881,659

I'm dubious of my understanding of these numbers because, in each year, the auditors added a line item called "Bingo Expenses Netted w/ Revenue" that I can't seem to rationalize.

For example, in 2010, the sum of all FRE expenses was $2,218,393, but the auditors then subtracted $1,801,133 in "Bingo Expenses Netted w/Revenue" for a net of $417,260 in FRE.

But in that same year, "Net income from gaming activities" was a positive $759,192.

The "Bingo Expenses Netted w/Revenue" shows up in all three years; I just can't figure out where it came from.

If the notes section of the 990's illuminates this further (I haven't found it yet if an explanation is there) I'll update the info.

Edited April 18, 2013 by garfield

[garfield]

Before we finish up, one final detail about Expenses. Many people compare charitable organizations based on the amount of money that actually gets to the charitable purpose of the organization vs. the administrative expenses used to get the money there. The 990's provide a look at this comparison by requiring expenses to be categorized into two categories, Program Service Expenses and Management and General Expenses.

For 2011, Total expenses were $9,429,827. Of that amount, $6,555,032 (69.5%) went to Program Service Expenses and $2,874,795 (30.5%) went to Management and General Expenses.

In 2010, Total Expenses were $8,875,705. Of that, $5,768,844 (65%) was Program Service and $3,106,861 (35%) was Management and General.

In 2009, Total Expenses were $8,542,134. $5,373,139 (62.4%) were Program Service and $3,168,985 (37.6%) were M&G.

(Sorry, just realized the order by year is reversed from prior posts.)

If this is a representation of efficiency, these numbers look pretty good. Seven percent more of DCI's Revenue was spent on Program Service in 2011 than in 2009, and Management and General expenses consumed less of the Revenue over these three years.

This would be a good thing depending on where you stand and what's behind the numbers. More money going into Program (show) expenses could mean more money is being paid out to corps, or it could mean more money went into show production (like venue costs, etc).

Anecdotally, I have noticed a decline in the number of attendants guarding the entrys to prevent fans from entering or leaving during a show. Those savings in venue costs (if my observation is a true representation) may mean the corps make more but the fans suffer more disruptions, for example.

Without an explanation of Program Expenses there's no way to tell who got the benefit of DCI's greater management "efficiency".

EDIT: If it's reasonable to presume that the corps benefited most from this increase in effeciency, I have to ask: What the heck are they complaining about? With all that DCI does to produce a tour (venue, rights, travel, etc) is it reasonable to think that a "Music in Motion" tour could be produced more efficiently?

The above is copied from the earlier posts about DCI's 990s (post #129). I bumped it here so we can make a comparison of "efficiency" as I've defined it above: "Program Service Revenues" and "Management & General Expenses" as a percentage of "Total Expenses".

Blue Devils

2008: PSE was 66.8% of total expenses

2009: PSE was 66.4% of total expenses

2010: PSE was 69.2% of total expenses

2011: PSE was 73,1% of total expenses

Edited April 18, 2013 by garfield

[garfield]

As long as you're discussing organizational efficiency, here is a metric of efficiency that is often used where I work:

Revenue Generated per $ of Personnel cost

YEA:

$ 5,103,866 Gross Receipts

$ 1,356,711 Personnel Costs (Salaries, Compensation & Benefits)

$3.76 Revenue Generated per $ of Personnel Cost

DCI:

$10,828,969 Gross Receipts

$ 1,341,278 Personnel Costs (Salaries, Compensation & Benefits)

$8.07 Revenue Generated per $ of Personnel Cost

By this metric, DCI is 114.6% more efficient at generating revenue than YEA.

We'll have to see how other corps measure up in this category.

Here's how BD stacks up in this comparison:

Blue Devils, 2010

$15,044,469 Gross Receipts

$1,413,398 "Other Salaries and Wages"

$10.64 Revenue Generated per $ of Personnel Cost

[garfield]

Here's how BD stacks up in this comparison:

Blue Devils, 2010

$15,044,469 Gross Receipts

$1,413,398 "Other Salaries and Wages"

$10.64 Revenue Generated per $ of Personnel Cost

OK, this one bothers me, and has done so since I posted it about an hour ago (I'm waiting for the Buckeyes to kick some Michigan butt and it's snowing. What else am I to do?)

This doesn't feel like a fair way to compare "efficiency". After all, something like 93% of the revenue from Bingo gets paid out to gamers, which is not spent on the Program (corps) expenses.

Looked at another way, if BD paid out all but a dollar of Bingo revenue as prizes, would it be fair to compare the $15-million to other corps with smaller gross income?

I'm not sure how to address this, but my hunch is to look at Program Revenue, not gross revenue, as a starting point, then calculating the ratio of expenses to that.

Probably Program Revenue divided by Program Expenses.

Maybe the brain trust has a thought?

Edited November 24, 2012 by garfield

[troopers1]

Blue Devils Statement of Functional Expenses

Total Function Expenses

2008: PSE: $2,031,324, MGE: $562,311, FRE: $444,542, Total: $3.038,177

2009: PSE: $2,275,111, MGE: $645,615, FRE: $504,867, Total: $3,425,593

2010: PSE: $2,867,258, MGE: $858,360, FRE: $417,260, Total: $4,142,878

I'm dubious of my understanding of these numbers because, in each year, the auditors added a line item called "Bingo Expenses Netted w/ Revenue" that I can't seem to rationalize.

For example, in 2010, the sum of all FRE expenses was $2,218,393, but the auditors then subtracted $1,801,133 in "Bingo Expenses Netted w/Revenue" for a net of $417,260 in FRE.

But in that same year, "Net income from gaming activities" was a positive $759,192.

The "Bingo Expenses Netted w/Revenue" shows up in all three years; I just can't figure out where it came from.

If the notes section of the 990's illuminates this further (I haven't found it yet if an explanation is there) I'll update the info.

Do they allow pull-tabs in California? "Bingo Expenses Netted w/Revenue" may be a way to move out income you are required to book when a patron plays back their pull-tab winning (i.e. turns in a winning tab for new pull-tabs). While technically income, the played back tab brings in no actual cash.

[troopers1]

OK, this one bothers me, and has done so since I posted it about an hour ago (I'm waiting for the Buckeyes to kick some Michigan butt and it's snowing. What else am I to do?)

This doesn't feel like a fair way to compare "efficiency". After all, something like 93% of the revenue from Bingo gets paid out to gamers, which is not spent on the Program (corps) expenses.

Looked at another way, if BD paid out all but a dollar of Bingo revenue as prizes, would it be fair to compare the $15-million to other corps with smaller gross income?

I'm not sure how to address this, but my hunch is to look at Program Revenue, not gross revenue, as a starting point, then calculating the ratio of expenses to that.

Probably Program Revenue divided by Program Expenses.

Maybe the brain trust has a thought?

I think you are on the right track there.

You should compare the corps on an apples-to-apples basis. There should be bingo metrics for those corps who have bingo, and program metrics for all corps. Bingo metrics are squirrely because the top-line revenue is very large for a legally-required tiny net income percentage. That percentage varies by state, I believe, which further distorts any comparison you can make. Actually, I think there are only two bingo metrics that matter:

1 - The net amount of cash the operation provides to it's umbrella non-profit organization. Possibly you could look at two sub-metrics, but they are probably not available in 990's

a) Total revenue less payouts. In many cases payouts are treated as negative income, rather than expenses when looking at a P&L. This is a more informative measure of income actually available to the organization after the legal payouts are met

b) The net from a), less expenses. This can give you a more interesting operational comparison

2 - A simple "yes / no" answer to the following question: Do you run your own bingo operation? If the answer is "No", that should be viewed as a negative. The companies that run bingo halls for their own personal profit and then give a miniscule fraction of a percentage to a non-profit that is related in name only to the game are, in my opinion, not honest operations.