Threaded Discussion:
1) In and FPO context, full-cost accounting can be used to define cost objects. However, since NPOs are not outputting products, full-cost accounting is used to serve a different purpose of cost allocation. Full-cost accounting allows an NPO to be broken down into cost centers, which Young suggests be thought of as “buckets” during the Stage 1 analysis. The two categories of centers are mission centers and cost centers. The mission centers deal with the NPO’s main purpose, generally charging for a service, which is why it can be called a “revenue center”. The other type of center is a service center, which serves the purpose of accumulating the costs of activities to support the mission center. Three methods of full-cost accounting are the direct, stepdown, and reciprocal method. Another purpose that full-cost accounting serves in an NPO is to more easily compare two NPOs that are in the same field of service. Full-cost accounting can also help to determine if a particular program is supporting itself or other programs.

2) The primary purpose served by distinguishing between direct and indirect costs is to figure out which costs get allocated to where. This could mean a cost for one NPO allocating a cost as a direct cost, while another can allocate it as an indirect cost to a service center that runs through a mission center. Young explains how this can be a subjective area that can vary from one NPO to the next.

3) The first step to allocating service center costs to mission centers in an NPO context is to choose a basis of allocation that measures its use by other cost centers; the example provided in the book is that of square feet in a cost center. The basis of allocation should be precise so that it accurately measures the cost. The next step is to allocate service center costs using one of the three methods: direct, stepdown, and