RNLI again.....income well spent?

[Moodyman]

With recent comments on the RNLI I had a brief look at their latest annual report, and noted the following:

Total Income £191.9M

Total Costs £171.3M

Capex £49.5 (to come from the reserves)

Gross Revenue for the year £- 28.9M

So a soundly run operation on a not for profit basis but then you look at;

Staff Costs £75.3m (39% of Revenue which is very high for any corporate organisation. Normally should be no higher than 20% for a business doing this turnover if it was tightly run so ‘rationalisation’ needed in the RNLI I think)

Of which 35 people take £2.285M

And the rest (excluding seasonal workers) of 1,608 make up the rest of the Staff Costs or approx. £73M which means an average salary of £45,407 for those 1,608.

What do they all do should be the question?

Even if you exclude all the ‘Lifeboat Service’ of 310, ‘Lifeboat Equipment & Property’ of 566 and the 65 in ‘Rescue and International’ you’re left with 104 in ‘Safety and Education’, 282 in ‘Support’ (whatever that is) 264 managing ‘Legacies and Donations’ and 17 in ‘Trading Activities’.

What do they all do, why are they paid £45K on average and are they necessary?

If I've misread or misunderstood what's in the report no doubt someone will let me know

I should say that none of the above is any criticism of the brave volunteers who put themselves at risk every time there's a "shout".

 

[Biggles Wader]

They need to spend more on French lessons so they can learn how to do the job properly.

 

[[70521]]

I'll get the popcorn out...

 

[bedouin]

Staff costs does cover more than just wages - probably adds an overhead of 10-20% on top of the salary

 

[Mark-1]

I'd say the RNLI certainly need to pay people to do the less exciting roles that people won't do for free.

Are those people good value? How would we know either way?

 

[lpdsn]

I should say that none of the above is any criticism of the brave volunteers who put themselves at risk every time there's a "shout".

Although maybe it does criticise the paid crew members who put themselves at risk.

As I understand it the RNLI were criticised for building up reserves that were too large.

I wonder how the figures compare to say a large fire brigade.

 

[akirk]

...Normally should be no higher than 20% for a business doing this turnover if it was tightly run so ‘rationalisation’ needed in the RNLI I think...

How do you model % of turnover spent on staff against size of business?
surely that totally ignores the type of business...

Company making widgets in a factory = staff costs -> smaller % of turnover
Company doing commercial and domestic cleaning = staff costs -> higher % of turnover

staff costs as a ratio of turnover is totally market dependent, and while there can be some rationalisation as an organisation grows, it is not generically linked to business size...

take for example schools - state sector - a high % of turnover will be the staffing bill (because not much is spent elsewhere) / private sector - with fee income & a need to build expensive sports halls and theatres etc then you might expect a lower % of turnover spent on staff - while still probably spending more on staff per child than in the state sector... is the private sector more efficient? no - could be less efficient, but simply have a higher turnover and more things on which to spend their money...

so, you can only analyse efficiency by understanding spend v. gain - i.e. what do you get in staff terms from that spend - is that market normal - and if not, is that because there are unique considerations?

 

[KINGFISHER 9]

Where's Sybarite when you need him? ...

 

[pvb]

And the rest (excluding seasonal workers) of 1,608 make up the rest of the Staff Costs or approx. £73M which means an average salary of £45,407 for those 1,608.

The staff costs include social security costs and pension contributions, so you can't say they earn £45K on average.

Incidentally, the pension fund was responsible for a charge of £68 million in the 2016 accounts.

 

[Robin]

SOD ALL BEAN COUNTERS, THE RNLI IS GOOD,:encouragement:

 

[[70521]]

Where's Sybarite when you need him? ...

He's getting my popcorn. :encouragement:

 

[Tranona]

With recent comments on the RNLI I had a brief look at their latest annual report, and noted the following:

Total Income £191.9M

Total Costs £171.3M

Capex £49.5 (to come from the reserves)

Gross Revenue for the year £- 28.9M

So a soundly run operation on a not for profit basis but then you look at;

Staff Costs £75.3m (39% of Revenue which is very high for any corporate organisation. Normally should be no higher than 20% for a business doing this turnover if it was tightly run so ‘rationalisation’ needed in the RNLI I think)

Of which 35 people take £2.285M

And the rest (excluding seasonal workers) of 1,608 make up the rest of the Staff Costs or approx. £73M which means an average salary of £45,407 for those 1,608.

What do they all do should be the question?

Even if you exclude all the ‘Lifeboat Service’ of 310, ‘Lifeboat Equipment & Property’ of 566 and the 65 in ‘Rescue and International’ you’re left with 104 in ‘Safety and Education’, 282 in ‘Support’ (whatever that is) 264 managing ‘Legacies and Donations’ and 17 in ‘Trading Activities’.

What do they all do, why are they paid £45K on average and are they necessary?

If I've misread or misunderstood what's in the report no doubt someone will let me know

I should say that none of the above is any criticism of the brave volunteers who put themselves at risk every time there's a "shout".

No you have not misread - you have just copied figures. You seem, though to have little understanding of what they do - trying "rule of thumb" ratios is totally inappropriate. You are "reading" into the figures what you want to see rather than seeing them in the context of the organisation and its activities.

It is a very complex organisation by anybody's standards, including raising all its funds, designing and building boats and running a wide spread and diverse rescue service. This needs people.

The figures in the annual accounts are just a record of what was done, not an attempt to determine whether it is "efficient" or not. That is the job of management and the board to evaluate. Because of its unique scope of activity, comparison with any other organisation is largely meaningless at this level. Comparisons over time are more useful, although that has limitations given that the structure and scope changes over time. For example the policy change to design and build boats in house rather than sub contract means it is a very different organisation compared with, say, 10 years ago.

As others have said, this topic is an old chestnut and has been done to death over the years. The reality is that the RNLI is generally considered by those that know as one of the best run charitable organisations in the country and equally one of the best run services of its type in the world. This does not mean it is immune from criticism - indeed its undoubted success encourages critics. However trying to base criticisms on selected bits of a set of accounts is not a good place to start.

 

[rotrax]

No you have not misread - you have just copied figures. You seem, though to have little understanding of what they do - trying "rule of thumb" ratios is totally inappropriate. You are "reading" into the figures what you want to see rather than seeing them in the context of the organisation and its activities.

It is a very complex organisation by anybody's standards, including raising all its funds, designing and building boats and running a wide spread and diverse rescue service. This needs people.

The figures in the annual accounts are just a record of what was done, not an attempt to determine whether it is "efficient" or not. That is the job of management and the board to evaluate. Because of its unique scope of activity, comparison with any other organisation is largely meaningless at this level. Comparisons over time are more useful, although that has limitations given that the structure and scope changes over time. For example the policy change to design and build boats in house rather than sub contract means it is a very different organisation compared with, say, 10 years ago.

As others have said, this topic is an old chestnut and has been done to death over the years. The reality is that the RNLI is generally considered by those that know as one of the best run charitable organisations in the country and equally one of the best run services of its type in the world. This does not mean it is immune from criticism - indeed its undoubted success encourages critics. However trying to base criticisms on selected bits of a set of accounts is not a good place to start.

An excellent post.

 

[AMCD300]

An excellent post.

+1

 

[[70521]]

No you have not misread - you have just copied figures. You seem, though to have little understanding of what they do - trying "rule of thumb" ratios is totally inappropriate. You are "reading" into the figures what you want to see rather than seeing them in the context of the organisation and its activities.

It is a very complex organisation by anybody's standards, including raising all its funds, designing and building boats and running a wide spread and diverse rescue service. This needs people.

The figures in the annual accounts are just a record of what was done, not an attempt to determine whether it is "efficient" or not. That is the job of management and the board to evaluate. Because of its unique scope of activity, comparison with any other organisation is largely meaningless at this level. Comparisons over time are more useful, although that has limitations given that the structure and scope changes over time. For example the policy change to design and build boats in house rather than sub contract means it is a very different organisation compared with, say, 10 years ago.

As others have said, this topic is an old chestnut and has been done to death over the years. The reality is that the RNLI is generally considered by those that know as one of the best run charitable organisations in the country and equally one of the best run services of its type in the world. This does not mean it is immune from criticism - indeed its undoubted success encourages critics. However trying to base criticisms on selected bits of a set of accounts is not a good place to start.

A cracking post well written.

 

[Boathook]

An excellent post.

Totally agree.

 

[Yosilas]

No you have not misread - you have just copied figures. You seem, though to have little understanding of what they do - trying "rule of thumb" ratios is totally inappropriate. You are "reading" into the figures what you want to see rather than seeing them in the context of the organisation and its activities.

It is a very complex organisation by anybody's standards, including raising all its funds, designing and building boats and running a wide spread and diverse rescue service. This needs people.

The figures in the annual accounts are just a record of what was done, not an attempt to determine whether it is "efficient" or not. That is the job of management and the board to evaluate. Because of its unique scope of activity, comparison with any other organisation is largely meaningless at this level. Comparisons over time are more useful, although that has limitations given that the structure and scope changes over time. For example the policy change to design and build boats in house rather than sub contract means it is a very different organisation compared with, say, 10 years ago.

As others have said, this topic is an old chestnut and has been done to death over the years. The reality is that the RNLI is generally considered by those that know as one of the best run charitable organisations in the country and equally one of the best run services of its type in the world. This does not mean it is immune from criticism - indeed its undoubted success encourages critics. However trying to base criticisms on selected bits of a set of accounts is not a good place to start.

Great Post!

 

[Plum]

An excellent post.

+1

Www.solocoastalsailing.co.uk

 

[ylop]

I'm no RNLI fanboy but if you had looked at the notes to the accounts you would have seen some of the detail:

https://rnli.org/-/media/rnli/downloads/annual_report_and_accounts/notes-to-the-accounts.pdf?fd=true

If you did look there then the claims you make are disingenuous, average salaries are likely only £36k ish...

but out of interest what is it you would like the RNLI to do with its money that won't involve staff to execute it? Or would you like them to employ below par employees?

 

[ianfr]

No you have not misread - you have just copied figures. You seem, though to have little understanding of what they do - trying "rule of thumb" ratios is totally inappropriate. You are "reading" into the figures what you want to see rather than seeing them in the context of the organisation and its activities.

It is a very complex organisation by anybody's standards, including raising all its funds, designing and building boats and running a wide spread and diverse rescue service. This needs people.

The figures in the annual accounts are just a record of what was done, not an attempt to determine whether it is "efficient" or not. That is the job of management and the board to evaluate. Because of its unique scope of activity, comparison with any other organisation is largely meaningless at this level. Comparisons over time are more useful, although that has limitations given that the structure and scope changes over time. For example the policy change to design and build boats in house rather than sub contract means it is a very different organisation compared with, say, 10 years ago.

As others have said, this topic is an old chestnut and has been done to death over the years. The reality is that the RNLI is generally considered by those that know as one of the best run charitable organisations in the country and equally one of the best run services of its type in the world. This does not mean it is immune from criticism - indeed its undoubted success encourages critics. However trying to base criticisms on selected bits of a set of accounts is not a good place to start.

+1