LockedNo Unit Budget Allowance for summer camps

My ward has zero funds for any kind of extended youth activity (ie: scout or YW camp); maybe we never have.
It's not like other activities are using up the funds. The activities we have are cost-free or near to it.

Here's my challenge.
When I read funding guidelines, I find segments like this:

"The increase in the local unit budget allowance is intended to fund activities more effectively and to relieve the financial burden on families.
With this increase, fund-raising activities should be substantially reduced or eliminated."

Local Unit Budget Allowance Increase [Apr. 6, 2004]

This announcement doesn't reflect our reality at all.

There's a lot of LDS Fundraising information on the Internet.
Is that a sign that no wards can fund their summer youth activities, from the local unit budget allowance?


Last Friday, our ward had a fundraising dinner, to fund Scout & YW camps.
This Wednesday, our YM are preparing for a Saturday yardsale. It's to fund the same camps.
These are in-state, moderately priced camps.

Our Priests and Laurels have a stake fundraising dinner in two weeks.
In the mean time, a multipage chart is being circulated by the stake; it lists youth, the work they do and rates to hire.

A flag drive is planned and I forget what else.

I wish our youth programs weren't dominated by fundraising, year after year after year.
But I'm about the only one who feels that way.

I'm curious - do folks here think I should just resign myself to this?

Thank you for reading.

NoahVail wrote:My ward has zero funds for any kind of extended youth activity (ie: scout or YW camp); maybe we never have.

Is there "ZERO" funds because there us not enough Budget funds, or is it the Bishop has not budgeted the funds to camps.

NoahVail wrote:It's not like other activities are using up the funds. The activities we have are cost-free or near to it.

If other activities are not using up the funds where are the funds going.

NoahVail wrote:Here's my challenge.
When I read funding guidelines, I find segments like this:

"The increase in the local unit budget allowance is intended to fund activities more effectively and to relieve the financial burden on families.
With this increase, fund-raising activities should be substantially reduced or eliminated."

Local Unit Budget Allowance Increase [Apr. 6, 2004]

This announcement doesn't reflect our reality at all.

I will agree with you there. My experience is that the stake is holding to much budget money for stake activities that are not inline with the Budget guidelines.

NoahVail wrote:There's a lot of LDS Fundraising information on the Internet.
Is that a sign that no wards can fund their summer youth activities, from the local unit budget allowance?

If we funded the youth camps we would break the ward budget. I need approx $3000 more to fund everything and that's being conservative.

NoahVail wrote:Last Friday, our ward had a fundraising dinner, to fund Scout & YW camps.
This Wednesday, our YM are preparing for a Saturday yardsale. It's to fund the same camps.
These are in-state, moderately priced camps.

Our Priests and Laurels have a stake fundraising dinner in two weeks.
In the mean time, a multipage chart is being circulated by the stake; it lists youth, the work they do and rates to hire.

A flag drive is planned and I forget what else.

I suggest you check the guidelines on what types of fund risers are excitable and how many you are allowed to have.

NoahVail wrote:I wish our youth programs weren't dominated by fundraising, year after year after year.
But I'm about the only one who feels that way.

That's because no one is following the guidelines. Fund raisers are to be an exception.

NoahVail wrote:I'm curious - do folks here think I should just resign myself to this?

No. But you can take yourself out of the picture by making it the Bishops and ward councils responsibilities and not the clerks.

I know some wards that are able to fund the annual camps out of the budget. They are usually, but not always, larger wards.

For those who are not able, the second option is to ask the member to participate in the cost.

When there is still not enough, the Handbook then authorizes one annual group fundraiser, with specific guidelines.

Those are the guiding principles.

Unless your stake is not sharing, your unit is receiving the same budget per member and youth that every other unit in the Church receives.

What you have described almost cries out for a careful reading of the Handbook, and a review of the budgeting process. If you are not in a leadership position, but simply a concerned parent, I would begin by asking which of the many fundraisers is the one authorized annual fundraiser, to which I would then provide my support.

But start with the Handbook. It is online for all the world to see, which Elder Oaks once said was the best place to hide it from the leaders and members.

I spent quite a while composing a reply only to discover that the forum software logged me out and gave me no way to recover what I wrote.

How pointlessly frustrating.

NoahVail wrote:I spent quite a while composing a reply only to discover that the forum software logged me out and gave me no way to recover what I wrote.

How pointlessly frustrating.

The time out is something like 20 minutes. However, if you try to do some research and go to lds.org with http and not https, you'll be logged out immediately.

I often "compose" thoughts for this forum in an external text editor like Notepad and then paste the text here. I've been burned too many times by the timeout deadline.

lajackson wrote:What you have described almost cries out for a careful reading of the Handbook, and a review of the budgeting process. If you are not in a leadership position, but simply a concerned parent, I would begin by asking which of the many fundraisers is the one authorized annual fundraiser, to which I would then provide my support.

But start with the Handbook. It is online for all the world to see, which Elder Oaks once said was the best place to hide it from the leaders and members.

Although I agree they should review the Handbook, perhaps a more important issue is whether the activities are being planned with the proper lead time. The scouting programs should have an activity calendar that stretches 12 months into the future. The planning for this year's scout camps should have begun last fall. With that amount of lead time, and with proper planning, the YM and YW have ample time to earn the money themselves, with fundraising efforts aimed at picking up the shortfall or for equipment. The idea of a stake circulating a sheet that lists employment rates and work offered strikes me as a bit too much like an employment agency, which the church most definitely is not.

allenjpl wrote:Although I agree they should review the Handbook, perhaps a more important issue is whether the activities are being planned with the proper lead time. The scouting programs should have an activity calendar that stretches 12 months into the future. The planning for this year's scout camps should have begun last fall. With that amount of lead time, and with proper planning, the YM and YW have ample time to earn the money themselves, with fundraising efforts aimed at picking up the shortfall or for equipment.

After years of begging and pleading, as a Scout committee member, chairman and now the fiance clerk, for this type of planning from the YMs organization, and getting no where. I have finally given up and placed the whole affair on the Bishoprics back. I put together the budget, which clearly shows there is insufficient fund for camps, and then I manager the funds to ensure our ward does not go into the red. I refuse to worry about how to fund the camps something that someone else should be concerned about, but don't seem to care. As long as there is sufficient funds in the bottom line and the Bishop has approved the expense then I write the check.

Trying again - Some background first (unsure what's relevant):

Our stake has 4 wards, ours is in a neighboring county.
I'd guess our ward comprises ~5% total stake member income.
Our sacrament meetings avg 150-200 members.

I've never been Financial Clerk.

I've 5 sons and have spent 15 years in BSA leadership including 4 as a Scoutmaster and 4 as a Unit Commissioner over LDS units.

Our latest Bishopric is comprised of move-ins (Thank you Jesus!).
The Bishop and 1 Counselor were each (briefly) our YM leaders. We had then discussed what I felt our YM program needed.

This year's scout camp was planned by the Stake and intro'd to us in Jan. We were given about 3 weeks turn to in 1st payment and secure the YM's spot, the last payment to follow a month later.
This isn't typical behavior for our Stake Presidency.

(Lastly: Don't try this at home.) I used my Jan tithing to make the 1st scout camp installment.
Partially I did that because there was no other money.
But more to the point: I'm gratified to know that (for once) some tithing-money actually arrived in our YM's scout camp fund.

lajackson wrote:What you have described almost cries out for a careful reading of the Handbook, and a review of the budgeting process.

Everyone's read the handbook.
I've discussed the fundraising sections with every new Bishopric and YM leader and have for years.

This year, our YM leadership claims the different fundraising activities are part of a single fundraiser. I thought that was a novel approach to ignoring the guidelines.

I suspect our Bishopric counselor over YM agrees with me (1st time ever!)
The new Scoutmaster might also.

But our Bishop authorized the fundraising and seems to support it.
I believe he wants to fix other long-broken YM stuff, so maybe he'll come around.

allenjpl wrote:a more important issue is whether the activities are being planned with the proper lead time. The scouting programs should have an activity calendar that stretches 12 months into the future.

I've long been asking that the YM program be scheduled a year in advance. I know how to do that and am willing to help.
Until 6 months ago, most YM leadership simply refused, saying that a calendar wasn't necessary.

Lately, I've seen some YM calendaring taking place; maybe a month's worth.
I'm hoping that means the Bishop feels calendaring is important.

russellhltn wrote:The time out is something like 20 minutes.

I think that isn't terrific. What's really awful is not being able to go back and recover my text.

Thanks for responses+reading.

NoahVail wrote:This year's scout camp was planned by the Stake and intro'd to us in Jan. We were given about 3 weeks turn to in 1st payment and secure the YM's spot, the last payment to follow a month later.
This isn't typical behavior for our Stake Presidency.

It looks as if the stake leaders need a careful reading of the Handbooks as well.

From Scouting Handbook for Church Units in the United States Revised May 2012

8.17 Specialty Programs and Stake Camps

Latter-day Saint Scouting units do not organize “specialty” or similar programs that focus exclusively on a particular skill, hobby, or career. Also, camps organized by stakes should not be advertised as “Scout” camps and are not covered by BSA liability insurance.

NoahVail wrote:

lajackson wrote:What you have described almost cries out for a careful reading of the Handbook, and a review of the budgeting process.

Everyone's read the handbook.
I've discussed the fundraising sections with every new Bishopric and YM leader and have for years.

This year, our YM leadership claims the different fundraising activities are part of a single fundraiser. I thought that was a novel approach to ignoring the guidelines.

I suspect our Bishopric counselor over YM agrees with me (1st time ever!)
The new Scoutmaster might also.

But our Bishop authorized the fundraising and seems to support it.
I believe he wants to fix other long-broken YM stuff, so maybe he'll come around.

Maybe everyone should go back and read for understanding.

13.2.8 Funding for Activities

.........................If funds from participants are not sufficient,
the bishop may authorize one group fund-raising
activity annually that complies with the guidelines
in 13.6.8

13.6.8 Fund-Raising Activities

Fund-raising activities are not usually approved
because expenses for stake and ward
activities are paid with budget funds. As an exception,
a stake president or bishop may authorize
one group fund-raising activity each year.
Such an activity may be held to raise funds for
the following purposes only:

It clearly states ONE fund raiser per group per year. When we discussed this in our ward we to determined that each YW Class and each YM Scouting Unit could each do their own fund-raiser. Since they are considered separate groups. However if they did a fund-raise as a combined YW or YM organization then they would be considered a group and could only do one fund-raiser.

Figuring out funding for Scout Camps deciding how they will be funded is not a hard thing to do in advance.

All you need to do is use the local scout council camp fees as the base figure.

Using the camp cost times the number of young men will give you a good estimate of what it will cost the unit to attend summer camps.

Camp Cost X YM = Total Estimate

Using these figures along with the guidelines in the Hand Book a unit should be able to make a decision in September on how camps for the following year will be funded.

Gary_Miller wrote:Maybe everyone should go back and read for understanding.
If funds from participants are not sufficient, the bishop may authorize one group fund-raising activity annually that complies with the guidelines in 13.6.8

13.6.8 Fund-Raising Activities

Fund-raising activities are not usually approved because expenses for stake and ward activities are paid with budget funds. As an exception, a stake president or bishop may authorize one group fund-raising activity each year.

It clearly states ONE fund raiser per group per year. When we discussed this in our ward we to determined that each YW Class and each YM Scouting Unit could each do their own fund-raiser. Since they are considered separate groups. However if they did a fund-raise as a combined YW or YM organization then they would be considered a group and could only do one fund-raiser.

One challenge is that our current YM leadership is redefining reality by saying 2=1.
There's no push-back because most of our parents are past youth leaders and they really, really, really, really want to fundraise.

My experience:
Discussing guidelines - when my fellow members mind is set - needs to be done carefully, else I risk the 'c word' (contention) getting brought out in response.

Even so, your points are dead on. I made the same points clearly (and positively) to our Bishop, back when he was called to YM President.
I soon made them again to the 1st Counselor back when he was YM President.

So why then is our Bishop supporting multiple fundraisers? I don't really know.
We were only given 3 weeks to get the money in. Maybe he feels we're backed into a corner and doesn't see an alternative.

NoahVail wrote:My experience:
Discussing guidelines - when my fellow members mind is set - needs to be done carefully, else I risk the 'c word' (contention) getting brought out in response.

Even so, your points are dead on. I made the same points clearly (and positively) to our Bishop, back when he was called to YM President.
I soon made them again to the 1st Counselor back when he was YM President.

So why then is our Bishop supporting multiple fundraisers? I don't really know.
We were only given 3 weeks to get the money in. Maybe he feels we're backed into a corner and doesn't see an alternative.

I have found that the only thing you can do as a clerk is point the leaders to the guidelines, give your interpretation, and then let them decide what to do from there. If they are wrong they are the ones who will have to answer for their decision.

The one thing I do have control over is how its put in the computer. I create a separate AMFA- subcategory for each fund-riser, so at least there is an audit trail.

NoahVail wrote:Trying again - Some background first (unsure what's relevant):
I've never been Financial Clerk.

I've 5 sons and have spent 15 years in BSA leadership including 4 as a Scoutmaster and 4 as a Unit Commissioner over LDS units.

Might I ask what your current calling is?

This year's scout camp was planned by the Stake and intro'd to us in Jan. We were given about 3 weeks turn to in 1st payment and secure the YM's spot, the last payment to follow a month later.
This isn't typical behavior for our Stake Presidency.

You have my very deepest sympathies for having to deal with this. We had a similar experience last year, where the YM attended an LDS encampment at a local scout camp. Although the camp was not where the YM had intended to go, and it wasn't required that the YM attend, it was Strongly Encouraged. They went to the stake encampment.

But our Bishop authorized the fundraising and seems to support it.
I believe he wants to fix other long-broken YM stuff, so maybe he'll come around.

I suspect that the fundraising is a direct result of the compressed timeframe given to you by the stake. Although the participants can be asked to pay for some or all of the cost of the activity, when you only have a few weeks to provide what can be several hundred dollars, it makes it difficult for the YM/YW to come up with it. What typically happens is their parents pay for it, but given the time crunch, even the parents might be hard-pressed to pull out that much.

I've long been asking that the YM program be scheduled a year in advance. I know how to do that and am willing to help.
Until 6 months ago, most YM leadership simply refused, saying that a calendar wasn't necessary.

Again, you have my sympathies. A calendar is an essential part of any program, especially one where activities are intended to be planned and carried out by youth. My experience is that a lack of support tends to result in a program that is adult-led, which is the opposite of the program as written.

It sounds like you've made your feelings known, and at this point, the decision has been made. If you're a clerk, there's not much left to do at this point except make sure the records are as clear as possible. I agree with Gary_Miller that separate Other:AMFA accounts might be wise. In that way, expenses associated with a particular fundraiser are paid for from that fundraiser, and the ward can see which ones are effective, and which ones are not. I would treat any funds earned by the youth through the employment rate sheet as their own, not as part of a fundraiser (meaning, if the donations + fundraising is insufficient to pay for the full activity, and your ward does not participate, they get those funds back.) A spreadsheet would be extremely useful to you in that respect. I've done one in the past where whenever a donation was earmarked for a youth's camp, I record the donor, the youth, the date of the donation, and the amount. It makes it easier to double-check against the MLS accounts, and also makes it easier to create a list of Subtotals for each youth so you can tell who has paid in full. With 3 weeks, I expect you'll be getting a bunch of contributions very quickly, so you've got to be ready and organized when they come pouring in.

allenjpl wrote:Might I ask what your current calling is?

My last Bishop released me 3 years ago from my YM callings and wouldn't extend another.
My new Bishop extended a calling as Sunday School Counselor to me a few months ago.

After 15 years, I believe I have gained an understanding of how the Church expects YM and Scouting to be organized. I'm not sure anyone else agrees with that, though.

allenjpl wrote:We had a similar experience last year, where the YM attended an LDS encampment at a local scout camp. Although the camp was not where the YM had intended to go, and it wasn't required that the YM attend, it was Strongly Encouraged. They went to the stake encampment.

Most everyone is OK with camp selection - except for my own son. LDS Scouts picked up a really bad reputation, at least in the South East. He's afraid of being mistreated.

It's been 4 years since our last all-LDS camp. Our Stake Presidency honesty spoke about the behavior issues a couple of years back. That was a pretty big change and maybe it indicates things will be better this year.

allenjpl wrote:It sounds like you've made your feelings known, and at this point, the decision has been made. If you're a clerk, there's not much left to do at this point except make sure the records are as clear as possible.

I've never held a financial clerk calling. I'm a father of 5 boys w/ lots of Scout experience (YM exp too).

I've spent years trying to help get our YM/Scout program to operate as instructed and never really made any headway. You can't imagine how much I wish my leadership would shown even the smallest bit of trust in me.

It's not meant to be though. I've always found that difficult to accept.

NoahVail, I feel your pain your last post sounds just like my experience. With over 27 years experience in Scouting I can't seem to get the current leadership in my ward to see the light. Things do seem to be changing though, just not fast enough for me.

However, I love my calling as a clerk and hope to stay here a long time. I still serve the YM at the district level trying to help leaders building better programs.

NoahVail wrote:I've spent years trying to help get our YM/Scout program to operate as instructed and never really made any headway.

Gary_Miller wrote:I feel your pain your last post sounds just like my experience. With over 27 years experience in Scouting I can't seem to get the current leadership in my ward to see the light. Things do seem to be changing though, just not fast enough for me.

As you all know, it is difficult to run a good scouting program. If the leaders didn't have a good scouting experience as a boy or a leader, it gets even harder, since it is hard to see the value per work/cost.

In my many years in scouting, I have seen it (scouting) absolutely change boys lives. I have seen young men choose to serve a mission because of their experience in scouting.

In my tiny/isolated branch, it is very difficult to have a working scouting program. Since I have been here, I haven't seen it work yet, but I have not given up. It takes patience and perseverance. I know it can work, because years ago, I served as scoutmaster in a ward with one boy (in Utah even). It was hard, but I/we made it work.

Gary_Miller wrote:I love my calling as a clerk and hope to stay here a long time.

Don't worry, if you do a good job there are only three ways to get released from a clerk calling:
1) Called to Bishopric (my case).
2) Move, die or go inactive.
3) Do something really wrong.

ggllbb wrote:As you all know, it is difficult to run a good scouting program. If the leaders didn't have a good scouting experience as a boy or a leader, it gets even harder, since it is hard to see the value per work/cost.

Its been my experience that leaders make it hard on themselves. The do this by not getting trained, not reading the handbooks (church and BSA), not attending monthly round tables, not holding PLC meetings, and most important not praying to have the spirit of scouting.

ggllbb wrote:In my many years in scouting, I have seen it (scouting) absolutely change boys lives. I have seen young men choose to serve a mission because of their experience in scouting.

I think all scout leaders who have did their best to run the program according to the guidelines have see this.

ggllbb wrote:In my tiny/isolated branch, it is very difficult to have a working scouting program. Since I have been here, I haven't seen it work yet, but I have not given up. It takes patience and perseverance. I know it can work, because years ago, I served as scoutmaster in a ward with one boy (in Utah even). It was hard, but I/we made it work.

Small units are difficult to say the least, however having a good program is passable if your leaders are willing to magnify their calling, no matter how many boys you have.

ggllbb wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote:I love my calling as a clerk and hope to stay here a long time.

Don't worry, if you do a good job there are only three ways to get released from a clerk calling:
1) Called to Bishopric (my case).
2) Move, die or go inactive.
3) Do something really wrong.

Moving is what happened to me last time. I went to Korea for a year on military duty when I returned (back to the same ward) I had the best calling in the church (nursery) for six month, the bishop said don't get comfortable it not going to be permanent. Nest thing I knew I was put in a HP Group Leader, had to move (retired) to get released from that.

When I was called as the assistant clerk this time the bishop was surprised when I told him I had been a clerk before. I know I'm not getting released from clerking while this bishop is in. In the four and half years he has been bishop he has had 3 clerks and at least 2 finance clerks. One clerk was release because of a senior missionary, the others because they were not wiling to put in the time it takes to do the job.

This is how we do it in our stake:

Stake pays the cost of a stake YW camp (no ward camps); participants kick in $35 for food.

Stake reimburses wards for the cost of Scout Camp; participants kick in $35

Stake gives wards $35/head for high adventure; participants kick in another $35 for food; ward budget funds cover any excess.

We have not had a single fund raiser in 15 years. We have not had a single complaint, except that every once in a while a YM leader is chagrined that they don't have enough funds to do something over-the-top extravagant for high adventure.

I honestly cannot see how stakes/wards cannot run these programs on the allotted funds.

mlh78 wrote:Stake reimburses wards for the cost of Scout Camp; participants kick in $35

Either your stake must be retaining a significant portion of each ward's quarterly allowance to do this or your stake is finding a real cheap location for summer camp. It costs $270 per Scout for summer camp this year. And that is an average for Scout camps that we have looked into within a reasonable distance of our ward. If the stake funded just our ward Scout summer camp less the $35 per Scout, that comes out to $3,055 just for Scout summer camp. That is more than 1/3 of our entire ward budget allocation for the year. If the stake withheld a percentage needed to fund that amount, our ward budget would only be able to support 80% of one ward organization's budget for the year (it its the highest organization budget for the ward). There would be nothing left for other ward organizations or other ward budget expenses.

So in the case of our ward and stake the significant part of funding just the Scout summer camp either falls to the participants or through a fundraiser or both.

jdlessley wrote:

mlh78 wrote:Stake reimburses wards for the cost of Scout Camp; participants kick in $35

Either your stake must be retaining a significant portion of each ward's quarterly allowance to do this or your stake is finding a real cheap location for summer camp.

Our camps are a little less expensive, maybe $240. Our system is a little unorthodox, but I think it works best - hope we aren't getting off topic. The stake projects the cost of youth activities (YW camp, scout camp, high adventure, youth conference, Trek, etc.) and the administrative costs of the stake (which are extremely lean). It then projects annual budget allocations for the stake as a whole for the coming year (i.e., how much budget the wards will generate based on formula). We subtract from this amount the costs of stake admin and youth camps; the remainder is allocated to the wards. In other words, we tell the wards exactly how much budget they will get for the year and guarantee it; no projections are necessary on their part and major youth activities are fully funded. We then set the sharing percentage to zero for each ward and send them their annual budget by check (usually 1/4 in January, 1/2 in April, and 1/4 in October).

This may not work for everyone, but it has been tremendously successful in our stake and has helped ensure that youth experiences are relatively uniform in qualify throughout the wards in the stake.

mlh78 wrote:This is how we do it in our stake:

Stake pays the cost of a stake YW camp (no ward camps); participants kick in $35 for food.

Stake reimburses wards for the cost of Scout Camp; participants kick in $35

Stake gives wards $35/head for high adventure; participants kick in another $35 for food; ward budget funds cover any excess.

We have not had a single fund raiser in 15 years. We have not had a single complaint, except that every once in a while a YM leader is chagrined that they don't have enough funds to do something over-the-top extravagant for high adventure.

I honestly cannot see how stakes/wards cannot run these programs on the allotted funds.

There is no good reason for the stake to hold all this back just to turn around and give it back to the wards. They just need to give to them upfront.

Gary_Miller wrote:There is no good reason for the stake to hold all this back just to turn around and give it back to the wards. They just need to give to them upfront.

I wouldn't see anything against it. One could make the case that the budget really is under the stake president's direction. The money goes to the sake and he's the one that makes the decisions.

Seems to me that it's one way to make sure the directions in the handbook are followed. Maybe not the best way. But I can see that after a few years of this and re-calibrating everyone's sense of "normal", it could transition to the Bishop having greater control.

jdlessley wrote:If the stake funded just our ward Scout summer camp less the $35 per Scout, that comes out to $3,055 just for Scout summer camp. That is more than 1/3 of our entire ward budget allocation for the year. If the stake withheld a percentage needed to fund that amount, our ward budget would only be able to support 80% of one ward organization's budget for the year (it its the highest organization budget for the ward). There would be nothing left for other ward organizations or other ward budget expenses.

Last year I figured our stake held back $5000 out our our total allotment. If Our ward had received $3,000 of the money we would have been able to totally fund all our camps without any participation or fundraisers.

jdlessley wrote:So in the case of our ward and stake the significant part of funding just the Scout summer camp either falls to the participants or through a fundraiser or both.

I would guess its because because your stake hold money form the ward to fund things like girls camp, Youth conference and possible an AP camp. If they just gave that money to the wards and let them decide how they are going to fund camps, I think you would find out there is more than enough.

Gary_Miller wrote:I would guess its because because your stake hold money form the ward to fund things like girls camp, Youth conference and possible an AP camp.

Not even close. We have no girls camp, only a young women camp. This year the fee per participant was raised from $25 to $75. I have no idea how much of that covers the actual cost per participant. Youth conference is once every four years. I have no idea what the per participant cost will be for the next one. But last year it was $25. If the increase for young women camp is any indication it will be considerably higher in 2016 but adjusted for inflation. There is no AP camp. There is a Cub camp of which 100% is on the participant. There is an 11-year-old camp of which 100% is on the participant. I already mentioned our Boy Scout camp cost. The ward funds $50 of that total cost. None of that cost is covered by the stake. So the stake only funds a portion of young women camp and a portion (probably a significant portion) of the quadrennial youth conference.

Gary_Miller wrote:If they just gave that money to the wards and let them decide how they are going to fund camps, I think you would find out there is more than enough.

This year our allocation percentage of the quarterly allowance was reduced, only slightly, yet stake funding for camps was decreased or eliminated and more placed on the shoulders of the participants.

Gary_Miller wrote:There is no good reason for the stake to hold all this back just to turn around and give it back to the wards. They just need to give to them upfront.

There are plenty of good reasons - chief among them is that the man with the keys made the decision. We have been doing this for about 15 years (or so). Each year we revisit this methodology and the bishops are completely on board. We are not just withholding money and then turning it over; we are guaranteeing that each ward's youth camps are fully funded and that youth in each ward have equal access to the same quality of camp/conference experiences to bless their lives. There are a whole host of other benefits to doing it this way; but I think the results speak for themselves: our youth have quality activities that I would not have dreamed of growing up; bishops are free to minister to youth instead of worrying about how to fund their camps; our members are able to abide by the handbook's preference for no fundraisers (which are typically a colossal waste of member's time); and each ward and the stake has run a budget surplus for the last five years that I have been a stake clerk.

I'm not saying this is the best way for everyone; but it just works well in our stake.

mlh78 wrote:our youth have quality activities that I would not have dreamed of growing up; bishops are free to minister to youth instead of worrying about how to fund their camps;..........; and each ward and the stake has run a budget surplus for the last five years that I have been a stake clerk.

With a surplus one has to wonder about the quality of the overall youth programs not just the once a year camps along with ensuring members reimbursed for expenses. What is the activity level of weekly and monthly Scout Camp, Cub Scout Packs, Girls Achievement days, YW programs?

Gary_Miller wrote:With a surplus one has to wonder about the quality of the overall youth programs not just the once a year camps along with ensuring members reimbursed for expenses. What is the activity level of weekly and monthly Scout Camp, Cub Scout Packs, Girls Achievement days, YW programs?

They are excellent - much better than any stake I have ever lived in. I can't say for sure why the wards do not spend all their money (we have consistently preached that members must be reimbursed and are not to supplement activities with their own funds). But I think a lot of it is due to our stake and ward leaders emphasizing that youth programs are meant to allow youth to feel the Spirit and serve together; not to entertain. The former takes very little money and produces great results; the latter can take quite a bit, but produces mediocre results. Also, we run our stake extremely lean, so aside from money for stake youth camps, almost all money goes to the wards. Also, because the camps are handled by the stake, they cost much less than if handled individually by wards (e.g., economy of scale, institutional experience).

mlh78 wrote:They are excellent - much better than any stake I have ever lived in.

Good I always worry about the quality of the programs when there are surplus funds at the EOY.

mlh78 wrote:I can't say for sure why the wards do not spend all their money (we have consistently preached that members must be reimbursed and are not to supplement activities with their own funds).

That is all you can do after that it is up to the members if they ask for reimbursement or not. Although its hard to know what it really costs to run the programs when members don't ask for reimbursement.

mlh78 wrote: But I think a lot of it is due to our stake and ward leaders emphasizing that youth programs are meant to allow youth to feel the Spirit and serve together; not to entertain. The former takes very little money and produces great results; the latter can take quite a bit, but produces mediocre results.

It sounds as if your leaders have been listening and doing what the brethren have been preaching for years.

mlh78 wrote:Also, we run our stake extremely lean, so aside from money for stake youth camps, almost all money goes to the wards.

Obvious a stake full of leaders who have studied principles behind the LUBA and placed them into action.

mlh78 wrote: Also, because the camps are handled by the stake, they cost much less than if handled individually by wards (e.g., economy of scale, institutional experience).

I can see YW camps working this way. But its hard to get around the costs of for scout camps when they are BSA camps.

mlh78 wrote:This is how we do it in our stake:

Stake pays the cost of a stake YW camp (no ward camps); participants kick in $35 for food.

Stake reimburses wards for the cost of Scout Camp; participants kick in $35

Stake gives wards $35/head for high adventure; participants kick in another $35 for food; ward budget funds cover any excess.

So if your wards and stake has had a surplus of funds for the last 5 years why the $35 from participants for food? With a surplus of funds there is no need for this and it takes you out of compliance with the activity funding guidelines in Handbook 2.

I need better understanding about this stuff, so I sincerely appreciate your posts.

This year, we have to come up with $275 per YM for our (multi-stake LDS) Scout Camp.
(Note: If our ward arranged the camp, the amount per YM would be similar and we'd still be fundraising the full amount.)

Now - I have no idea what our ward allotment amount is or what it goes to (outside of our low-budget activities).

So if we assume my ward exercises wise fiscal management, what are possible reasons that my ward consistently has zero funds for youth camps?

Gary_Miller wrote:So if your wards and stake has had a surplus of funds for the last 5 years why the $35 from participants for food? With a surplus of funds there is no need for this and it takes you out of compliance with the activity funding guidelines in Handbook 2.

We don't plan for surpluses, and they aren't big enough to enable us to just drop the food charge. In any event, they quickly disappear due to our compliance with Handbook I 14.7.2, third to last paragraph.

NoahVail wrote:This year, we have to come up with $275 per YM for our (multi-stake LDS) Scout Camp.

I don't know what the norm is for Scout Camps. But given the amount of funding on a per-person basis that that church gives out, it seems like a real stretch to fully fund that amount in many, if not most, situations.

NoahVail wrote:So if we assume my ward exercises wise fiscal management, what are possible reasons that my ward consistently has zero funds for youth camps?

Taken at face value, if the ward doesn't have enough, then that suggests the stake is taking too much. Note that all funds given by the church goes to the stake, where the SP decides how much to keep for stake activities and how much goes to the wards. But, I wouldn't be so quick to give the ward a free pass. The activities don't have to be at all extravagant to be more then what can be afforded.

But given that a single camp for youth is the only one that's allowed to fund raise, any shortages in the system gravitate to that area.

But bottom line is that the church leaders are responsible - each in their own area. Individually we have to carry on the best we can.

russellhltn wrote:

NoahVail wrote:This year, we have to come up with $275 per YM for our (multi-stake LDS) Scout Camp.

I don't know what the norm is for Scout Camps.

This is about the norm. Its about $40 higher than our council camps, however we have not had an increase in about 4 years and I heard that its currently being looked at do to food costs.

russellhltn wrote:But given the amount of funding on a per-person basis that that church gives out, it seems like a real stretch to fully fund that amount in many, if not most, situations.

While it may seem to be a stretch its been my experience that its possible just takes some planning ahead of time from both the stake and ward levels. I don't believe for a minute that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve does not know what it cost to run a scout program and has figured that cost into the LUBA.

NoahVail wrote:So if we assume my ward exercises wise fiscal management, what are possible reasons that my ward consistently has zero funds for youth camps?

Several people here will disagree with me but my take is. Its an inappropriate use of funds at the stake level in order to fund traditional activities, as well as equipment that should be funded from other sources. From my experience it stems from stake leaders not fully understanding the principles behind the the LUBA. Stake leaders still want to fund large stake activities, Aaronic Priesthood camps, and extravagant youth conferences that require long distance travel. All of which are not within the guidelines of the Handbooks and or which the Brethren have cautioned against.

russellhltn wrote:Note that all funds given by the church goes to the stake, where the SP decides how much to keep for stake activities and how much goes to the wards. But, I wouldn't be so quick to give the ward a free pass. The activities don't have to be at all extravagant to be more then what can be afforded.

Typically, our activities are at free/cheap venues with the members providing refreshments. ie: One of the auxiliaries may rent a park pavilion for $20 (once a year). YM may rent a tent camp for $10 (6x/yr) but it's up to the families to bring their own food.

The exception is that we put on a big Christmas dinner (400 attending) at the ward each year. The ward pays for the food and the members cook it in their homes.

russellhltn wrote:But given that a single camp for youth is the only one that's allowed to fund raise, any shortages in the system gravitate to that area.

I understand.

russellhltn wrote:But bottom line is that the church leaders are responsible - each in their own area. Individually we have to carry on the best we can.

I get that too.

I don't worry so much about someone not following procedure. My concern is that I have 5 sons. The first two passed through a non-existent YM program and are now wondering what the point was.

Our YM program has gained some momentum since then. My 3rd son is 14 and he genuinely enjoys it.

But he also spends more of his YM time focused on on fundraising, than anything else.

I wish we would shift our YM priority more toward magnifying priesthood responsibilities
(ie: activating Quorum Presidencies, exercising Troop Patrol leadership),
to better help them learn Mission-Critical leadership skills.

Gary_Miller wrote:

russellhltn wrote:But given the amount of funding on a per-person basis that that church gives out, it seems like a real stretch to fully fund that amount in many, if not most, situations.

While it may seem to be a stretch its been my experience that its possible just takes some planning ahead of time from both the stake and ward levels. I don't believe for a minute that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve does not know what it cost to run a scout program and has figured that cost into the LUBA.

Well, if you take the entire amount for one youth attending church, use the entire "base" amount and "youth" amount, you're still less then 50% of the way there even with your cheaper camp. And that's assuming that the stake takes nothing and the other youth activities are funded in a different way.

So it's clear to me that a large ward with few youth may do well, but a ward with a high percentage of active youth is going to really struggle. The bigger the YM/YW, the more it struggles financially.

I'm sure that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve knows what it cost to run a scout program, but that doesn't mean that a $200/person camp was part of their vision. And the numbers in the current budgeting system doesn't doesn't strike me as consistent with that idea.

russellhltn wrote:I'm sure that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve knows what it cost to run a scout program, but that doesn't mean that a $200/person camp was part of their vision. And the numbers in the current budgeting system doesn't doesn't strike me as consistent with that idea.

Just looking at the structure and numbers behind the current budget system, I can only come to one of two conclusions:

1) If the budget was to pay for everything, then Youth camps were envisioned to be much cheaper.
-or-
2) The budget wasn't really intended to cover youth camps, but that any ward "surplus" was to be used to help defray the costs.

Otherwise the current system doesn't make much sense to me when trying to apply it so broadly across the church where you can have so much variability between the number of youth in a given ward.

russellhltn wrote:Otherwise the current system doesn't make much sense to me when trying to apply it so broadly across the church where you can have so much variability between the number of youth in a given ward.

An astute stake president will take this into account when deciding how much to skim from the various wards.

russellhltn wrote:Well, if you take the entire amount for one youth attending church, use the entire "base" amount and "youth" amount, you're still less then 50% of the way there even with your cheaper camp.

The single amount for an individuals attendance was never meant to fund the whole program for that individual. Its an accumulation of the entire ward that ensures there is enough funds to fund the programs of the church.

russellhltn wrote:And that's assuming that the stake takes nothing

The stake still needs funds in order to administer the stake, they just don't need as much as some stakes seem to hold back. For instance my stake alone held 34% of our wards allowance for stake operations, a little over $5000. Calculate that by 7 wards its a substantiate amount of money for stake administrations.

russellhltn wrote: and the other youth activities are funded in a different way.

As you well know other youth activities can only be funded using the LUBA.

russellhltn wrote:So it's clear to me that a large ward with few youth may do well, but a ward with a high percentage of active youth is going to really struggle. The bigger the YM/YW, the more it struggles financially.

This is why the stake pres has an option to fund ward budgets by percentages. Early guidelines stated that a ward with more youth may need more funds than a ward with more elderly persons. Giving the option to provide more funds to the wards in the stake that may need more funds to fund youth programs. That would be one of the principles behind the budget allowance.

russellhltn wrote:I'm sure that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve knows what it cost to run a scout program, but that doesn't mean that a $200/person camp was part of their vision. And the numbers in the current budgeting system doesn't doesn't strike me as consistent with that idea.

When the budget allowance first started the cost of a scout camp was $150 to $175 per boy, I think the Brethren knew what it costs. Especially Pres Monson being he was on the BSA Board of Directors at the time. The increase of providing funds per youth and primary children that came about later was to off set the increase in camp costs.

russellhltn wrote:

russellhltn wrote:I'm sure that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve knows what it cost to run a scout program, but that doesn't mean that a $200/person camp was part of their vision. And the numbers in the current budgeting system doesn't doesn't strike me as consistent with that idea.

Just looking at the structure and numbers behind the current budget system, I can only come to one of two conclusions:

1) If the budget was to pay for everything, then Youth camps were envisioned to be much cheaper.
-or-
2) The budget wasn't really intended to cover youth camps, but that any ward "surplus" was to be used to help defray the costs.

Otherwise the current system doesn't make much sense to me when trying to apply it so broadly across the church where you can have so much variability between the number of youth in a given ward.

Just using the guidelines for funding youth activities in the Handbooks tells me different. It uses the terms "possible exceptions", "may ask", may authorize", and "not usually approved". You can bet your hat the Brethren knew what they were doing and what it cost to fund a ward. You can also bet your hat that they also knew that stake and ward leaders would not always follow the principles as they are only human.

Let me ask a different question - how does one determine what the "right" cost for a scout camp is? I see the church as still coming down from the large locally-raised budgets of the past. That create a clash between the traditionalist and the guidelines.

Clearly, if the camp price is still too high, then fundraising will be necessary. Even if some wards are able to fully fund it by gutting other activities doesn't mean that the camp cost isn't excessive.

I find mlh78's statement that they charge to just cover the food an interesting take on the situation.

russellhltn wrote:Let me ask a different question - how does one determine what the "right" cost for a scout camp is? I see the church as still coming down from the large locally-raised budgets of the past. That create a clash between the traditionalist and the guidelines.

Clearly, if the camp price is still too high, then fundraising will be necessary. Even if some wards are able to fully fund it by gutting other activities doesn't mean that the camp cost isn't excessive.

I find mlh78's statement that they charge to just cover the food an interesting take on the situation.

The "Right" cost for a scout camp is the cost the camp charges, plus whatever you need for incidental expenses that aren't included in the camp fee. Institutional experience or not, the cost is set by an outside party. I suppose the troop could shop around and check out the costs of a variety of camps, but ultimately, the cost is what it is. It's like asking what the right cost for paper is, or the right cost for toner. If mlh's stake intends to fully fund camps, minus the amount it's asking participants to pay, the stake would need to verify that its budget could accommodate that. I'm not sure how the stake would handle a unit going to a different camp with a different cost. If the price went up, so would the amount the stake would need to allocate to it.

But that money has to come from somewhere. If it comes from the stake, that's less money that can be used for ward/stake expenses. If it comes from the participants / fundraising because the stewards of those funds have determined they are insufficient to pay for the camp, the stake/wards can use the funds it saved for other purposes. Seems to me like that's the call of those who are called to be the stewards over the funds. Can a good, solid youth program run on a lean budget? Sure. Can it run on vapors? Not without doing serious damage to the program, or resulting in leaders funding it out of their own pockets. There are expenses that occur even without doing extravagant things to entertain the youth.

I'll tell you right now, $275 is on the cheap end of camps. And I can't think of any high adventure camps that can be had for $70. If your wards are able to successfully pull off quality high adventures for that amount, I take my hat off to them.

allenjpl wrote:The "Right" cost for a scout camp is the cost the camp charges, plus whatever you need for incidental expenses that aren't included in the camp fee.

That's pretty open-ended. I know of people who are in a financial bind, not because they spend lavishly on silly things, but because they are spending more then they can afford.

allenjpl wrote:It's like asking what the right cost for paper is, or the right cost for toner.

I think there's a lot more competition to keep those prices down. That's not to say that a ward can't go crazy and run up excessive costs by printing a lot.

allenjpl wrote:I'll tell you right now, $275 is on the cheap end of camps.

But for the price of one or two youth to a camp, I could throw a dance for the whole stake - even a multi-stake dance for the YSA.

Bottom line, given the "accepted" costs of a camp, I wouldn't consider a unit as being deficient in their financing if they're unable to foot the whole bill. If they did, I'd wonder what program is suffering to make it happen.

russellhltn wrote:

allenjpl wrote:The "Right" cost for a scout camp is the cost the camp charges, plus whatever you need for incidental expenses that aren't included in the camp fee.

That's pretty open-ended. I know of people who are in a financial bind, not because they spend lavishly on silly things, but because they are spending more then they can afford.

I don't think its open ended at. If your going to attend a BSA council camp the cost is set by council BOD. How the cost is funded is limited to the Handbook guidelines on funding activities.

russellhltn wrote:

allenjpl wrote:I'll tell you right now, $275 is on the cheap end of camps.

But for the price of one or two youth to a camp, I could throw a dance for the whole stake - even a multi-stake dance for the YSA.

But the program is to have a Scouting and YW Program. While dances are nice to have they should not be the priority when it comes to funding youth programs.

russellhltn wrote: Bottom line, given the "accepted" costs of a camp, I wouldn't consider a unit as being deficient in their financing if they're unable to foot the whole bill. If they did, I'd wonder what program is suffering to make it happen.

When a unit can't foot the whole bill for their youth programs, including camps, shows a lack in judgement of what is most important. Building the testimonies of the youth is the most important thing we can do in out local units. The home and then the ward is the most effective places for building and maintaining that testimony. The youth activity programs are what keep the youth coming back to church on Sundays. There is no better place to put the funds than in strengthening our youth programs.

Gary_Miller wrote:

russellhltn wrote: Bottom line, given the "accepted" costs of a camp, I wouldn't consider a unit as being deficient in their financing if they're unable to foot the whole bill. If they did, I'd wonder what program is suffering to make it happen.

When a unit can't foot the whole bill for their youth programs, including camps, shows a lack in judgement of what is most important.

I beg to differ. I also think it's not our place to pass that kind of judgement.

Gary_Miller wrote:Building the testimonies of the youth is the most important thing we can do in out local units.

Important, yes. But when people say something is "most important" I keep remembering the talk about the hobby key.

Gary_Miller wrote:The home and then the ward is the most effective places for building and maintaining that testimony. The youth activity programs are what keep the youth coming back to church on Sundays. There is no better place to put the funds than in strengthening our youth programs.

I've seen similar impassioned pleas. Many times calling to prepare youth to receive the higher priesthood, to serve missions and to marry in the temple. There's just one problem. Youth don't do those things. They become Young Single Adults first. High school graduation and advancement to YSA is quite disruptive. If you don't have a functioning YSA program, you may see the work on the youth come undone.

Yes, youth are important. The level of leadership resources focused on the youth program makes it clear. But that doesn't allow the unit leaders to sacrifice the other needs in the unit - including that of the former youth.

We all have the same Handbook, but units large and small, under stakes of various sizes and needs, all have different challenges when it comes to budgeting. I think we have outlined most of the options in this topic.

We have certainly covered the principles involved, and now leave the details to those priesthood leaders who hold the keys.

So, thank you to everyone for your contributions to this topic. The discussion has run its course and this topic is now closed.