Is donation to scout camp tax deductible?

Our bishop has had some dialog with a benefactor who would like to pay for scout camp for all our boys. He is not a member of the ward, in fact I'm not sure he's even a member at all. But can he write a check to cover scout camp, and have that be tax deductible?
I ask because I recall some discussion a few years about about various budget categories, some of which MLS treated as tax-deductible donation categories, some not.

Thank you.

The best way to do this and have it be tax deductible would be for the benefactor to directly pay the camp fees to the Scout Council where the camp is located.

hansg wrote:Our bishop has had some dialog with a benefactor who would like to pay for scout camp for all our boys. He is not a member of the ward, in fact I'm not sure he's even a member at all. But can he write a check to cover scout camp, and have that be tax deductible?
I ask because I recall some discussion a few years about about various budget categories, some of which MLS treated as tax-deductible donation categories, some not.

Thank you.

It won't show up as a charitable contribution on the MLS report because it would be the Other:AMFA subaccounts are mainly used to record payments received for a tangible benefit. That is, he pays for the boy's camp fees, and the boys get to attend camp. It doesn't make any difference that he doesn't personally benefit. There are also issues of control involved - if he gets to determine who gets helped by a donation, it probably isn't really a charitable contribution. The bottom line is that he needs to seek the advice of a tax professional. You can tell him that any donation to the Other:AMFA subaccount for Scout camp fees will not show up as a charitable contribution, and that he should get professional advice on whether it would be deductible.

Before you even consider tax deductibility, the first question that needs to be answered is if a donation is even allowed. The way I read the handbook, the answer is no. How are scout activities to be funded? The answer is quite clear (all these quotes are from Handbook 2, Section 13.2.8):

• "Stake and ward budget funds should be used to pay for all activities, programs, and supplies."
• "Possible exceptions to the funding policy in the preceding paragraph are listed below. If the ward budget does not have sufficient funds to pay for the following activities, leaders may ask participants to pay for part or all of them:
  1. One annual extended Scout camp or similar activity for young men...."
• "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."

That is the complete set of relevant exceptions to the foundational principle "Stake and ward budget funds should be used to pay for all activities, programs, and supplies" (except for equipment for camps, which is covered in 13.2.9, but which follows the same rules). Nowhere is the possibility of accepting donations listed. Therefore donations are not acceptable.

Of course, those with keys to interpret these policies in the specific unit involved (the bishop, stake president, and area and general authorities above them) would make the final determination. But I'm hard pressed to find even a hint in the handbooks that accepting donations to fund any activities is acceptable.

I once had someone ask if they could donate a car to a needy family and have the Bishop give them a statement showing it to be a tax-deductible, charitable donation. I had to explain that it just can't happen within the system we use in our ward. Same answer for this situation. On the ward level using MLS, there just isn't anything else you can do and no document or training to tell you otherwise.

I recently had a similar discussion with my bishop. Luckily he is an accountant and understood the law behind it. He told me that in order for a donation to be considered a charitable donation for tax purposes it must be donated with "no strings attached" meaning that the donor has no say in what actually happens with the money. Money donated to the other account such as scout camp have a specific purpose. Any money donated anywhere else on the tithing and offerings slip can be used at the church's discretion.

I think the answer is that through the MLS system, any contributions to 'other' (which includes all scouting donations) are not recognized as charitable donations. This does not mean they are not deductible, only that they will not be indicated as tax-deductible by the Church.

Donations to scouting units can be tax deductible however depending on the situation surrounding the donation. As has been mentioned, the donation cannot be for specific purpose such as "pay Johnny's camp fee", but if a donation (that happens to match the camp fees for all scouts in a unit) is made to the unit, the donation could be deductible. However, whether the funds are used to cover camp or not must remain the decision of the unit (not the donor). The unit can issue a letter/receipt for the donation, which the donor may use for tax purposes - or the donor can simply show proof of the donation from their own accounting sources.

BarryAndreasen wrote:I think the answer is that through the MLS system, any contributions to 'other' (which includes all scouting donations) are not recognized as charitable donations.

That's not entirely true. It would be true of most, if not all, of the "Other" categories that the Ward creates. They would most likely fall under "Authorized Member Funded Activities". But there are some "Other" categories created by the church that will find it's way to the year-end tax statement. Such as Temple patron assistance, Priesthood restoration site, Temple construction, Perpetual education and Book of Mormon.

aebrown wrote:Before you even consider tax deductibility, the first question that needs to be answered is if a donation is even allowed. The way I read the handbook, the answer is no. {snip} Nowhere is the possibility of accepting donations listed. Therefore donations are not acceptable.

Your reading would also preclude payment from the parents (not that that's a bad thing!), because it didn't come directly from the participants. Personally, I think parents should never be asked to shoulder the burden of paying for camp, seeing as a Scout is Thrifty - he pays his own way. Be that as it may, the common practice is that the parents write a check to the ward. I don't see any meaningful difference between parents writing a check and a third-party writing a check for the same purpose - to pay for a young man to attend an annual camp. In either case, it isn't a donation.

allenjpl wrote:Your reading would also preclude payment from the parents (not that that's a bad thing!), because it didn't come directly from the participants.

Correct. The handbook is quite clear on that. If the intent were to allow parents to pay, the handbook would not specifically say (in HB2, 13.2.8): "leaders may ask participants to pay for part or all of them" (emphasis added).

allenjpl wrote:Personally, I think parents should never be asked to shoulder the burden of paying for camp, seeing as a Scout is Thrifty - he pays his own way. Be that as it may, the common practice is that the parents write a check to the ward. I don't see any meaningful difference between parents writing a check and a third-party writing a check for the same purpose - to pay for a young man to attend an annual camp. In either case, it isn't a donation.

I don't see much difference either -- neither one is permitted by the policy in the handbook.

aebrown wrote: I don't see much difference either -- neither one is permitted by the policy in the handbook.

So if a young man cannot pay his own way to scout camp, it is "not permitted" for his parent to pay for him?

TinMan wrote:

aebrown wrote: I don't see much difference either -- neither one is permitted by the policy in the handbook.

So if a young man cannot pay his own way to scout camp, it is "not permitted" for his parent to pay for him?

Correct. The handbook is quite clear that the first option is to use budget funds. The second option is for the participant to pay his way. The third option is fundraising. There is no fourth option, but in my opinion there doesn't need to be, since the three options give the bishop plenty of latitude to make sure that every young man can attend scout camp. Note that we are also instructed: "Nor should the lack of personal funds prohibit a member from participating."

While I read this board frequently I almost never contribute, but as a father of youth and a former bishop I must say that the application of youth activity funding rules is one of the most challenging aspects of administering Church programs. I have lived in several places in the US and have family living in many more; I have yet to hear of any branch, ward or stake who runs a successful youth program while strictly following these rules. With the exception of his interpretation that parents are not permitted to pay participation fees, I generally agree that aebrown has correctly cited the policy/handbook. However, in applying the policy, it always comes down to balancing the cost versus the "quality" of certain activities, as well as the "reasonable" amount participants are asked to contribute without excluding those with fewer financial resources. My experience has been that it is often those youth who have the fewest resources or are the least likely to participate in the fundraiser who are most in need of the conference or camp experience.

I especially agree with this statement: "those with keys to interpret these policies in the specific unit involved would make the final determination". I value the things I have learned in council discussions trying to apply the rules and provide meaningful experiences for youth.

TinMan wrote:So if a young man cannot pay his own way to scout camp, it is "not permitted" for his parent to pay for him?

As a practical matter, I'd say "unenforceable". Even if the check had the parent's name on it, the youth may not have a checking account and elected to give his parents the money to cover the check.

I do think it changes how the message is communicated - that it's communicated to the youth and let them figure out how to get the money. Not to the parents unless asked.

mikepoli wrote:While I read this board frequently I almost never contribute, but as a father of youth and a former bishop I must say that the application of youth activity funding rules is one of the most challenging aspects of administering Church programs. I have lived in several places in the US and have family living in many more; I have yet to hear of any branch, ward or stake who runs a successful youth program while strictly following these rules.

Challenging but not surmountable if the guidelines are all followed and I mean all followed. Such as, having activities are simple and have little or no cost, discouraging Long-distance travel for activities which leads to excessive expenses or travel for an annual camp or similar activity, holding most activities at the ward level, planning activities with fulfill gospel-centered purposes. and ensuring activities are planned with an accurate estimate for funds.

Its been my experience as leader of youth and as a ward finance clerk that way to many activities are not planned, not planned with a purpose, expenses are not estimated correctly. Stake level activities have excessive expenses and travel distance taking way too much funds out of wards budgets.

Its also my belief and testimony that Prophet and Quorum of the Twelve are very aware of what it cost to fund youth programs and have given guidelines in which to do so. All that needs to be done is to follow them which seems to be the problem.

mikepoli wrote:With the exception of his interpretation that parents are not permitted to pay participation fees, I generally agree that aebrown has correctly cited the policy/handbook.

I'm curious what part of the handbook you think I cited incorrectly. I'm always anxious to learn how my understanding can be improved, so please point me to the handbook section I'm misunderstanding.

I know that funding youth activities can be challenging. However, I've heard many leaders make statements about how there just isn't enough money to run the program properly when you follow the guidelines, but I have yet to hear of one single ward that actually tried to follow all the policies and was unable to do so.

Amen to aebrown comment. When are leaders going to learn / be trained that the activities of the ward are to be paid for from the budget allocation, and stop allowing donations/fund raising activities that are not to occur?

I think one of the biggest problems is that many of the current leaders were just youth or young adults 20 years ago when the Budget Allowance was first implemented and do not fully understand the principles and the spirit of the Budget Allowance.

Maybe it would be good if the leader reviewed the original training conducted by the first presidency in 1990 on the budget allowance. The training can be found in the May 1990 Ensign Magazine.

After reading this topic conversation postings (which moved from tax deductibility of Boy Scout Camp payments to fundraising/parent payment thoughts) it seems to me that there are clear guidelines -Hand Book 2 13.2.8- how Youth Activities should be funded, and how/when fundraising activities can occur. First YM/YW activities are to be paid ONLY from the Ward Budget with the ONE exception. It is clear that EXCEPTION is one fundraising activity which IS allowed only for annual Scout Camp/Girls Camp/Cub Scout Day Camp upon Bishop's authorization ONLY if Ward Budget is not sufficient (in practice for these activities the Ward Budget itself is almost never sufficient due to cost of camps), and only AFTER funds from PARTICIPANTS are not sufficient. YES fundraising ONLY for BoyScout/Girls Camp is an exception to the rule and is allowed. There are some comments (in different Topics) to effect that "fundraising" activities is not allowed

xmdcpa wrote:When are leaders going to learn / be trained that the activities of the ward are to be paid for from the budget allocation, and stop allowing donations/fund raising activities that are not to occur?

I believe these types of comments can be misleading, as fundraising (and donations that are connected to that fundraising activity) are allowed under specific guidelines provided. The Letter of the Law is that the authorized fundraising is the last resort (not first) - but Spirit of Law is needed to help distinguish when "If funds from participants are not sufficient" to allow Bishop to authorize a group fund-raising activity.

As for parents making payments the Letter of the Law is they should NOT. The participants SHOULD. However The Spirit of the Law allows for Parents to help the Participants to take on the responsibility to "earn" the right to attend BoyScout/Girl Scout camp which often because of their nature are expensive (even if best efforts to keep expenses low). Parents can and should help by providing ways for their youth to "earn" the payments..e.g. pay youth for extra yard work, house cleaning, washing car, babysitting, cleaning trash from side of roads, etc...and then have youth make payment to Other-AMFA account instead of parent just paying it. It seems to me that this is the way intended for Parent to help the Participant youth pay (what the Bishop ultimately decides is their share) for attending camp.

mhearne wrote:There are some comments (in different Topics) to effect that "fundraising" activities is not allowed

xmdcpa wrote:When are leaders going to learn / be trained that the activities of the ward are to be paid for from the budget allocation, and stop allowing donations/fund raising activities that are not to occur?

I believe these types of comments can be misleading, as fundraising (and donations that are connected to that fundraising activity) are allowed under specific guidelines provided.

I agree. As long as leaders understand and follow the clear priorities of the Handbook, fundraising is allowed. Otherwise the Church leaders would never have included the sections about fundraising in the Handbook.

mhearne wrote:The Letter of the Law is that the authorized fundraising is the last resort (not first) - but Spirit of Law is needed to help distinguish when "If funds from participants are not sufficient" to allow Bishop to authorize a group fund-raising activity.

I see your point, but it actually is the Letter of the Law that you are quoting. It's a point that requires judgment as to when participant funds are sufficient, but the bishop has the keys to make that judgment.

mhearne wrote:As for parents making payments the Letter of the Law is they should NOT. The participants SHOULD. However The Spirit of the Law allows for Parents to help the Participants to take on the responsibility to "earn" the right to attend BoyScout/Girl Scout camp which often because of their nature are expensive (even if best efforts to keep expenses low). Parents can and should help by providing ways for their youth to "earn" the payments..e.g. pay youth for extra yard work, house cleaning, washing car, babysitting, cleaning trash from side of roads, etc...and then have youth make payment to Other-AMFA account instead of parent just paying it. It seems to me that this is the way intended for Parent to help the Participant youth pay (what the Bishop ultimately decides is their share) for attending camp.

As long as the youth are paying, it's wonderful for the parents to be a great support to the youth in their efforts to earn the money to pay. What is not helpful to the youth (and I would argue is actually harmful in many ways to the youth) is for the parents to simply write a check with no connection to the character-building process of working to earn your own way.

mhearne wrote:(in practice for these activities the Ward Budget itself is almost never sufficient due to cost of camps)

I have to disagree with this statement. As a long time youth leader and a Ward Financial Clerk who has seen the total cost of camps paid for out of the Ward Budget along with funding of all other activities in the ward it can be done.

The problem arises when the activity funding guidelines are not followed at all levels of the stake, thus causing funds that should be at the ward level to be diverted to other well meaning activities at the stake level. Which while fall with in the letter of funding policy fall without the principles and spirit of funding guidelines. Activities such as stake funded Aaronic priesthood camps, Youth Conferences where there is expensive long distance travel, and other activities that are required to use budget allowance funds. Which decrease the funds available of Scout and YW camps, and cause wards to have to revert to participant costs and fund raisers. All because the funds were diverted to stake activities.

Once again a exhort all leaders at every level to review the training provided by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve on the budget allowance. It can be found in the May 1990 Ensign Magazine. This will give you a much more appreciative view of the principles behind the budget allowance.

Gary_Miller wrote:

mhearne wrote:(in practice for these activities the Ward Budget itself is almost never sufficient due to cost of camps)

I have to disagree with this statement. As a long time youth leader and a Ward Financial Clerk who has seen the total cost of camps paid for out of the Ward Budget along with funding of all other activities in the ward it can be done.

Really!? The cost for summer camps in our area exceeds 71% of the entire ward annual budget for just the young men. The cost for all summer camps (YM, YW, and Cub Scout day camp) is 114% of the ward budget.

If our ward retained 100% of the budget allowance then we could fund 100% of the cost of summer camps for YM, YW, and Cub Scouts - barely. That leaves nothing for stake operations.

I have never been in a stake where wards have been able to fund 100% of the cost of summer camps.

Which opens the question to what is an appropriate level of camp activity. I've observed with events in general that left on their own, they will always have to be grander than the year before. Which means they grow in cost until they hit a funding limit.

jdlessley wrote:Really!? The cost for summer camps in our area exceeds 71% of the entire ward annual budget for just the young men. The cost for all summer camps (YM, YW, and Cub Scout day camp) is 114% of the ward budget.

If our ward retained 100% of the budget allowance then we could fund 100% of the cost of summer camps for YM, YW, and Cub Scouts - barely. That leaves nothing for stake operations.

I have never been in a stake where wards have been able to fund 100% of the cost of summer camps.

In our stake we are able to fund 100% of scout camp, high adventure, YW camp, Trek (every 4th year), cub scout day camp, youth conference, etc. out of budget funds (with a $40 contribution from each participant, except for youth conference). We strictly adhere to the principle that members cannot kick in a little extra without a reimbursement. We have never approved a fundraiser (except for Friends of Scouting drives). Our stake returns about $10,000 in unused budget funds to church headquarters every year. In the last 6 years, I have never heard a ward complain about not having enough budget funds. Granted each stake is different, but when I hear about wards in other stakes not being able to cover expenses, I just have to wonder about the scope of their activities.

mlh78 wrote:Our stake returns about $10,000 in unused budget funds to church headquarters every year.

Why the $40 contribution from each participant? And please don't tell me its for participant buy in.

If you stake has this much left over it would seem to me the "$40 contribution from each participant" would be outside the Budget allowance guidelines.

jdlessley wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote:

mhearne wrote:(in practice for these activities the Ward Budget itself is almost never sufficient due to cost of camps)

I have to disagree with this statement. As a long time youth leader and a Ward Financial Clerk who has seen the total cost of camps paid for out of the Ward Budget along with funding of all other activities in the ward it can be done.

Really!? The cost for summer camps in our area exceeds 71% of the entire ward annual budget for just the young men. The cost for all summer camps (YM, YW, and Cub Scout day camp) is 114% of the ward budget.

If our ward retained 100% of the budget allowance then we could fund 100% of the cost of summer camps for YM, YW, and Cub Scouts - barely. That leaves nothing for stake operations.

I have never been in a stake where wards have been able to fund 100% of the cost of summer camps.

I think if there was a n honest financial analyses of where the money was truly going you would find out other wise. I think you would find many areas where funds are spent that are outside budget guidelines or is a unnecessary expense or funds are used because it was a tradition. Things like purchasing food for funerals or that stake activity which cost more than need be in order to achieve the desired results. I guarantee there is always something that can be cut.

For example in my stake if our ward only had half of the money the stake held back we could have funded all the YM and YW camps out of the budget. I know this because the amount earned doing fund raisers equaled the amount held by the stake. I can also pin point several stake activities where money is spent that could be decreased or completely eliminated due to traditions that were in place before the budget allowance,

Gary_Miller wrote:

mlh78 wrote:Our stake returns about $10,000 in unused budget funds to church headquarters every year.

Why the $40 contribution from each participant? And please don't tell me its for participant buy in.

If you stake has this much left over it would seem to me the "$40 contribution from each participant" would be outside the Budget allowance guidelines.

It is for participant buy in. Just kidding. It is a little more complicated why we have ended up with a surplus the last few years. The point is, if a ward or stake can't operate within the budget, I think a hard review of the principles and policies behind the activities is in order.

mlh78 wrote:The point is, if a ward or stake can't operate within the budget, I think a hard review of the principles and policies behind the activities is in order.

Hands clapping, jumping up and down shouting; YES, YES, YES, FINALLY SOMEONE WHO SEES THE LIGHT.

I could not agree with you more. Which is why I have exhorted everyone to go and review the Training held when the guidelines first came out. The information in that training is just as relevant today as it was then.

russellhltn wrote:In our stake we are able to fund 100% of scout camp, high adventure, YW camp, Trek (every 4th year), cub scout day camp, youth conference, etc. out of budget funds (with a $40 contribution from each participant, except for youth conference). We strictly adhere to the principle that members cannot kick in a little extra without a reimbursement. We have never approved a fundraiser (except for Friends of Scouting drives).

It would be helpful to understand some background. How many YM/YW on average attend scout camp and YW camp each year and what is cost per youth for each? Out stake charges $250 for Girls Camp and Scout Camp is from $275-$375 per youth depending on year.

Gary_Miller wrote:really!? The cost for summer camps in our area exceeds 71% of the entire ward annual budget for just the young men. The cost for all summer camps (YM, YW, and Cub Scout day camp) is 114% of the ward budget.

Our Ward is in this situation where Girls Camp and Scout Camp would almost equal the entire yearly Ward budget. I would like to understand if it is the cost per attendee that is issue for our Ward (which for Girls camp is 100% driven by Stake) or maybe it is because our Ward is small but has fair amount of youth.

mhearne wrote:

russellhltn wrote:...

Gary_Miller wrote:...

Just as a side note, the attributions are incorrect. It was mlh78 and jdlessley that posted those items listed in the quote backs.

mhearne wrote: I would like to understand if it is the cost per attendee that is issue for our Ward (which for Girls camp is 100% driven by Stake) or maybe it is because our Ward is small but has fair amount of youth.

Looking at your BSA Council camp fees and the price your stake charges for girls camp. I would have to say that your problem is both cost and a small ward with a fair amount of youth. The cost of your scout camps is about twice the cost of our camps here in Idaho. And the cost of your girls camp is, well lets just say its crazy for a camp that is put on by the stake, and three times the cost of the girls camp put on by my ward. Of course we do have to consider the high costs of just living in California.

As for the budget allowance for your ward there is a provision in the allowance that allows for the stake president to give a ward more or less money than what is sent down for church HQ. Due to the make up of the ward membership a ward with more youth may need more money than a ward that has a lot of senior members. However, it up to the stake president to see the need and redistribute the funds accordingly. Not knowing the make up of the wards in your stake it hard to know if this is even and option. My experience though is stake presidents are reluctant to distribute the funds this why they tend to want to do it on an equal percentage basis, but the provision is there to do otherwise.

mhearne wrote:It would be helpful to understand some background. How many YM/YW on average attend scout camp and YW camp each year and what is cost per youth for each? Out stake charges $250 for Girls Camp and Scout Camp is from $275-$375 per youth depending on year.

Our Ward is in this situation where Girls Camp and Scout Camp would almost equal the entire yearly Ward budget. I would like to understand if it is the cost per attendee that is issue for our Ward (which for Girls camp is 100% driven by Stake) or maybe it is because our Ward is small but has fair amount of youth.

Scout camp seems high. We are in Texas and it is $200-$220 per boy. YW camp seems extraordinarily high. Ours stake YW camp works out to about $75 a head. I've noticed that YW camp seems to suffer more than other events with the "bigger and better than last year" affliction. In our stake, the stake pays the entire cost for scouts, high adventure (wards can supplement with budget funds), youth conference, Trek (every 4th year), and YW camp. That way each youth's experiences are similar to those in the other wards, creating harmony.

mlh78 wrote:Scout camp seems high. We are in Texas and it is $200-$220 per boy. YW camp seems extraordinarily high. Ours stake YW camp works out to about $75 a head.

I know that camps are not the only item on the budget, but if you're spending almost 3 times as much on scout camp as YW camp, you might want to review HB 1, 14.7.2, which teaches us that YW and YW budgets should be equitable. Of course that shouldn't mean that we artificially inflate the cost of YW camps just because scout camps are expensive, but it's a policy we should keep in mind.

aebrown wrote:

mlh78 wrote:Scout camp seems high. We are in Texas and it is $200-$220 per boy. YW camp seems extraordinarily high. Ours stake YW camp works out to about $75 a head.

I know that camps are not the only item on the budget, but if you're spending almost 3 times as much on scout camp as YW camp, you might want to review HB 1, 14.7.2, which teaches us that YW and YW budgets should be equitable. Of course that shouldn't mean that we artificially inflate the cost of YW camps just because scout camps are expensive, but it's a policy we should keep in mind.

We have considered that. The presidency believes that the YW camp experience is comparable to the scout camp experience (we think the important point is the relative experience, not the relative cost). Unfortunately, the cost of Scout Camp is somewhat out of our control. A better comparison would be the cost per head for high adventure vis a vis YW camp, where there is much more equity from strictly a financial perspective.

Of course when the question of costs comes up, I wonder what the experience is. Is this a commercial camp (with cabins), or going camping in a local wilderness park with tents? How many days? How far away? What kind of activities?

russellhltn wrote:Of course when the question of costs comes up, I wonder what the experience is. Is this a commercial camp (with cabins), or going camping in a local wilderness park with tents? How many days? How far away? What kind of activities?

For our camp, it is Tuesday afternoon through Saturday afternoon at a state park (we have liked this the last few years). Most stay in cabins, but a large group elect to use tents. It is about an hour away from the center of our stake. Just read the 2013 history, and it looks like they have the girl's on activities/service projects just about the entire time. Sounds pretty elaborate from my point of view, but nothing high cost.

aebrown wrote:I know that camps are not the only item on the budget, but if you're spending almost 3 times as much on scout camp as YW camp, you might want to review HB 1, 14.7.2, which teaches us that YW and YW budgets should be equitable.

Not have access to HB 1 any more I have no why to verify this. How ever I'm pretty confident that it talks more about the equality in activities not equality in spending.

Gary_Miller wrote:

aebrown wrote:I know that camps are not the only item on the budget, but if you're spending almost 3 times as much on scout camp as YW camp, you might want to review HB 1, 14.7.2, which teaches us that YW and YW budgets should be equitable.

Not have access to HB 1 any more I have no why to verify this. How ever I'm pretty confident that it talks more about the equality in activities not equality in spending.

It mentions both activities and budget allocations.

eblood66 wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote:

aebrown wrote:I know that camps are not the only item on the budget, but if you're spending almost 3 times as much on scout camp as YW camp, you might want to review HB 1, 14.7.2, which teaches us that YW and YW budgets should be equitable.

Not have access to HB 1 any more I have no why to verify this. How ever I'm pretty confident that it talks more about the equality in activities not equality in spending.

It mentions both activities and budget allocations.

And it is important to note that the handbook speaks in terms of equitable, not equal.

aebrown wrote: I know that camps are not the only item on the budget, but if you're spending almost 3 times as much on scout camp as YW camp, you might want to review HB 1, 14.7.2, which teaches us that YW and YW budgets should be equitable. Of course that shouldn't mean that we artificially inflate the cost of YW camps just because scout camps are expensive, but it's a policy we should keep in mind.

I know that is the ideal, Aaron, but the reality is very different. We took out "Scouting Awards" and made a separate budget category last year to help the numbers look a little more equitable . Our Awards budget alone is almost equal to the YW budget (Granted, it does include the Cubs as well.) Add into that the cost of buying a pinewood derby car for each boy, or a boat for the rain gutter regatta, it adds up quickly. We recently spent $70.00 to buy shot gun shells for the boys to get their shotgun shooting merit badge. Our last Court of honor we had 3 eagle scouts. With the merit badges and other awards for the troop, the night cost us $120, just in awards. That is over 10% of the entire Young Women's budget.

Scouts will always have a larger budget than the girls, even throwing in Activity Day's budget. Scouting is just plain expensive. When a new Scoutmaster has to spend in the neighborhood of $100 for a shirt, pants and a belt along with the numbers and patches required, it really makes you scratch your head. That would almost buy a suit for one of my priests.

Should a scoutmaster be required to buy his own uniform or should that be a budget item?

TinMan wrote:Should a scoutmaster be required to buy his own uniform or should that be a budget item?

Handbook 2 section 8.13.7 says that church funds can't be used to buy uniforms (at the very end of the section).

TinMan wrote:Should a scoutmaster be required to buy his own uniform or should that be a budget item?

This has always been a struggle for me as the cost of uniforms are very expensive and the HB states: Church funds may not be used to purchase uniforms for individuals. Where I agree on this when it comes to uniforms for the Young Men. I feel there needs to be some discretion when it comes to leaders especially when you look at the principles of the Budget Allowance. I think there maybe times when funds may have to be used in order to reduce the financial burdens on placed on YM Leaders in order to set the proper example for the Young Men.

From the Budget Allowance Training conducted in 1990.

"Not so well understood, and perhaps less appreciated, is the announcement pertaining to local unit budgets. It will be helpful if we keep in mind the principles that govern the budget allowance program:

• The budget allowance program was created to reduce financial burdens on members.
• Members should not pay fees or be assessed to participate in Church programs.
• Priesthood leaders should reduce and simplify activities whenever possible.
• Activities should be planned at little or no cost, should build testimonies and provide meaningful service to others." (The Lord’s Way, Preisident Thomas S. Monson, Budget Allowance Training, May 1990 Ensign)

TinMan wrote:I know that is the ideal, Aaron, but the reality is very different.

(It's Alan, by the way, but Aaron is a good name, too.) I certainly understand that Scouting can be expensive. You'll note that I simply brought up the Handbook section about equitable YM/YW budgets for consideration. In each ward, the bishop has the responsibility and the inspiration and the keys to determine exactly what needs to be done, considering the Handbook and the particular situation in his ward.

TinMan wrote:Should a scoutmaster be required to buy his own uniform or should that be a budget item?

eblood66 referenced the relevant Handbook section. I would also refer you to the Scouting Handbook for Church Units in the United States, which says in Section 8.14:

Young men registered in a Scouting unit are encouraged to wear the appropriate uniform. No young man or boy should be excluded from Scouting if he is unable to purchase a uniform. Units may wish to maintain a supply of used uniforms to make them available for boys. Abbreviated or simple uniforms and insignia, which have been approved by the BSA, are appropriate and encouraged. Adult leaders are also encouraged to wear appropriate Scouting uniforms, where feasible.

The fact that it uses the term "where feasible" tells me that the Church is sensitive to the burden purchasing a uniform may place on a leader. The spirit of that statement about no young man be excluded from Scouting if he is unable to purchase a uniform seems like it would apply to leaders as well. Again, the bishop should consider the totality of the situation in making this judgment call.

Sorry Alan.

But haven't you been arguing that, for example, boys/parents should not be asked to pay for scout camp? But they should be asked to buy a uniform? Is it just apples and oranges?

What about Woodbadge training? Should that come out of the ward budget or should the scout leader be expected to pay that on his own? And I won't even ask about Philmont, a week long camp for a leader and his entire family...

All these things that are "encouraged" and "where feasible" are certainly grey areas. The BSA/LDS relationship is very complicated.

And expensive. More expensive than the YW program.

TinMan wrote:And I won't even ask about Philmont, a week long camp for a leader and his entire family...

A stake president is asked to send certain members of his stake to Philmont and told he should fund it out of the stake budget. We fund the leader and let him fund his family.

Dump Scouting in favor of Duty to God

Problem Solved!

And if you think I'm just a BSA-hater, you can make that assumption, but as a boy I was all-in, worked at scout camps, the whole nine-yards... As an adult, I see it differently.

aebrown wrote:You'll note that I simply brought up the Handbook section about equitable YM/YW budgets for consideration. In each ward, the bishop has the responsibility and the inspiration and the keys to determine exactly what needs to be done, considering the Handbook and the particular situation in his ward.

We look at "equitable" as equal in what we do. For example: The boys go to scout camp for a week, we take the YW for a week of camping. Maybe 3 or 4 days of girls camp and a second 2 or 3 days of a backpacking trip. All for about half the cost of an organized scout camp.

The boys go shotgun shooting and rappelling on a Friday/Saturday, the boys have free use on Friday, but we take the girls out Saturday morning and have the boys in the background helping them "learn the ropes" so to speak. Yeah, we pay for a campground and food for the boys to stay over night, but the girls have a great experience on Saturday they would never otherwise have. Equal experiences doesn't mean the budgets are equal. And they never will be.

lajackson wrote: A stake president is asked to send certain members of his stake to Philmont and told he should fund it out of the stake budget. We fund the leader and let him fund his family.

And I assume the stake funds something similar for certain Young Women leaders and their families? Maybe a week in Florida?

Or is "equitable" only for wards and bishops to figure out?

TinMan wrote:But haven't you been arguing that, for example, boys/parents should not be asked to pay for scout camp? But they should be asked to buy a uniform? Is it just apples and oranges?

No, you must be confusing me with someone else, except on the point of asking parents to pay -- I'm strongly against that practice. I'm fine with following the Handbook, which lists options for funding scout camps when budget funds are not sufficient. The first alternative is to have youth earn the money and pay for all or part of scout camp.

And I didn't say that they should be asked to buy a uniform. I simply support the Handbook, which says that budget funds are not to be used to pay for uniforms, and the Scouting Handbook, which emphasizes that inability to buy a uniform should not prevent someone from participating in scouting, and offers suggestions for reducing or eliminating the cost of uniforms. I'm the last person you'll find saying that parents or scouts must buy a uniform. The most important thing is to have the young men participating, and any obstacle to that participation should be eliminated.

TinMan wrote:And I assume the stake funds something similar for certain Young Women leaders and their families? Maybe a week in Florida?

Or is "equitable" only for wards and bishops to figure out?

The stake does what the letter from Church headquarters says to do. There is nothing in the letter about sending certain YW leaders to Florida for a week (probably because women do not serve in this particular leadership position).

And since Florida is outside of our stake boundaries, we would have to ask permission from the Presidents of the Seventy to do that, anyway. [grin]

Some kidding aside, I do hear and understand what you are saying, and I do not have a good answer for obtaining balance between YM and YW activities. I know what I did when I was in a position to be responsible for such things. It worked for me.

I am not sure what I would to today. The laws where I live make it extremely difficult to hold any youth activity that spans more than two nights without great expense.

TinMan wrote:But they should be asked to buy a uniform?

While I feel its important that Scouts have a uniform the HB is very clear on not purchasing it using budget funds to do so. However, there are many ways to purchase a uniform for under $30 so there really no excuse for not having one. After all if it was a sports team a uniform would be purchased. Its all about priorities.

TinMan wrote:What about Woodbadge training? Should that come out of the ward budget or should the scout leader be expected to pay that on his own?

You maybe interested to know that up until Pres. Delquest's term as GYMP the budget guidelines was to not use budget allowance to fund Wood-badge.

If a Bishop wants a good scouting program he will send his scout leaders to WB.

TinMan wrote: And I won't even ask about Philmont, a week long camp for a leader and his entire family...

Priesthood Leadership Conference on Scouting at Philmont is for STAKE and DISTRICT PRESIDENCY members and their families only. I feel that if the leader wants to take his family he should pay for them out of his pocket, after all the family is just there to have a good time.

I also feel that unless a leader is willing to bring back what he has learned at the conference and train others in his stake it is just a waste of money and time.

TinMan wrote:All these things that are "encouraged" and "where feasible" are certainly grey areas. The BSA/LDS relationship is very complicated.

Once you total understand how Scouting and the Aaronic Priesthood go hand in hand its not complicated at all. A good book that helps with this understanding is "On My Honor A Guide to Scouting in the Church, by Thane J. Packer"

TinMan wrote:And expensive. More expensive than the YW program.

it is expensive but well worth the cost to help build strong faithful future leaders of the Church, community, Nation, and World. Remember the Young Men in the church are the priesthood leaders of tomorrow.

Gary_Miller wrote: While I feel its important that Scouts have a uniform the HB is very clear on not purchasing it using budget funds to do so. However, there are many ways to purchase a uniform for under $30 so there really no excuse for not having one. After all if it was a sports team a uniform would be purchased. Its all about priorities.


Priesthood Leadership Conference on Scouting at Philmont is for STAKE and DISTRICT PRESIDENCY members and their families only. I feel that if the leader wants to take his family he should pay for them out of his pocket, after all the family is just there to have a good time.

I also feel that unless a leader is willing to bring back what he has learned at the conference and train others in his stake it is just a waste of money and time.


it is expensive but well worth the cost to help build strong faithful future leaders of the Church, community, Nation, and World. Remember the Young Men in the church are the priesthood leaders of tomorrow.

Sorry, I don't know how to do all the fancy cutting and pasting...

From the top: Just to be clear: You are saying it is okay to ask parents to purchase a uniform for their sons, but not okay to ask them to pay for scout camp? I just don't see the difference.

So if a Stake is willing to send the stake leaders to Philmont and pay for it out of Stake funds, then to be equitable, shouldn't they also send Stake YW leaders to some leadership training for a week as well, paid for out of Stake funds? Like the perhaps Education week at BYU in the summer?

I have never said Scouting wasn't worth the cost. I just bristle that the YW budget should be the same as the YM budget. I can't afford to do that as Scouting costs at least twice what it costs to fund similar programs in Young Women's. And I bristle at the suggestion that parents can't share in some of the cost where they can afford it, be it scout camps or whatever. The investment is in their son's future, after all.

When 20% of my ward budget goes to support the program for 24 young men, leaving me 80% of the budget for the remaining 476 ward members, I get just a little irked at the suggestion of "equability."

There. I think I have said it every way I can. I will bow out of this discussion.

johnshaw wrote:Dump Scouting in favor of Duty to God

It's certainly not a secret that, outside the USA, there's a church youth program that doesn't include the Boy Scouts of America. It's easy to wonder if the non-U.S. program is more effective with less overhead and less potential for conflicting policies between the church and the other organization. And I wonder if the church's own program would be strengthened if the U.S. church participated too. But recent history shows that it's going to be very, very difficult to break the 100-year bond between the church and the BSA. We still get talks around our area that basically imply that if you're not an Eagle Scout you'll never really amount to much... which is a message that wouldn't be appropriate in a church setting in any other country.

TinMan wrote:Sorry, I don't know how to do all the fancy cutting and pasting...

That's OK I'll do it for you.

TinMan wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote: While I feel its important that Scouts have a uniform the HB is very clear on not purchasing it using budget funds to do so. However, there are many ways to purchase a uniform for under $30 so there really no excuse for not having one. After all if it was a sports team a uniform would be purchased. Its all about priorities.

Just to be clear: You are saying it is okay to ask parents to purchase a uniform for their sons,

The problem is the HB are clear on the subject of uniforms so our hands are tied. Other wise I would have no problem purchasing uniforms. It would be really easy for a ward or stake to establish a uniform exchange where scouts can trade uniforms when they out grow them. The problem is it can't be done using church funds. That's why I purchase every uniform I can at yard sales and Thrift Stores and give them away to scouts who need them.

TinMan wrote:but not okay to ask them to pay for scout camp?

I never said it was not okay to ask parents to pay for scout camp. The HB says "leaders may ask participants to pay for part or all" how parents handle this situation make no matter to me that's between them and there child. My experience however is that when a youth really wants it and is encouraged by the parents they can earn the money need. I have seen it on more than one occasion.

That being said you need to really understand. That I have a strong unshakable testimony that the brethren know what it cost to fund a scouting program. Many of them have been Scout Masters themselves during a period of time where the total cost of the program was sustained by fund risers, paid by participants families, or out of the leaders own pocket. So its my belief that there is more than enough funds to finance the whole program as long as budget allowance principles as taught in the training are followed.

TinMan wrote: I just don't see the difference.

The difference is the handbook allows for options with long term camps and it does not with uniforms.

TinMan wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote: Priesthood Leadership Conference on Scouting at Philmont is for STAKE and DISTRICT PRESIDENCY members and their families only. I feel that if the leader wants to take his family he should pay for them out of his pocket, after all the family is just there to have a good time.

I also feel that unless a leader is willing to bring back what he has learned at the conference and train others in his stake it is just a waste of money and time.

So if a Stake is willing to send the stake leaders to Philmont and pay for it out of Stake funds, then to be equitable, shouldn't they also send Stake YW leaders to some leadership training for a week as well, paid for out of Stake funds? Like the perhaps Education week at BYU in the summer?

I have no problem with Stake YW leaders being sent to a leadership training as long as it pertains to their calling, which education week would not. However, attending YW Auxlilary training that was previously held in conjunction with April General Conference would have been OK. To bad that has been discontinued.

However like I said: "unless a leader is willing to bring back what he has learned at the conference and train others in his stake it is just a waste of money and time."

TinMan wrote:

Gary_Miller wrote: it is expensive but well worth the cost to help build strong faithful future leaders of the Church, community, Nation, and World. Remember the Young Men in the church are the priesthood leaders of tomorrow.

I have never said Scouting wasn't worth the cost.

I know but others have and usually its only because they don't understand the good that can come when scouting is properly put into practice.

TinMan wrote: I just bristle that the YW budget should be the same as the YM budget.I can't afford to do that as Scouting costs at least twice what it costs to fund similar programs in Young Women's.

So do I because its not that the budgets should be the same its that the level of activities should be just as good. Due to the nature of YW activities the expenses is usually allot less.

TinMan wrote:And I bristle at the suggestion that parents can't share in some of the cost where they can afford it, be it scout camps or whatever. The investment is in their son's future, after all.

As you know sometimes we just have to accept and follow the principles and guidelines in the Hand Books. Even if we feel other wise. If you review the training in the May 1990 ensign you will see the wisdom in the Budget allowance as it pertains to funding of youth activities. Its in President Parker's talk titled Teach Them Correct Principles.

TinMan wrote:When 20% of my ward budget goes to support the program for 24 young men, leaving me 80% of the budget for the remaining 476 ward members, I get just a little irked at the suggestion of "equability."

Please understand I feel so strongly about the funding of youth activities that I would but most of my budget allowance in the Primary, YW and YM programs. Because its there where we need to keep the youths attentions while building testimonies. If you don't have quality activity programs where youth can practice what they learn on Sunday. You soon will not have them on Sunday as well.

I really don't care if the Elders Quorum, HP Group, or Relief Society has the funds to do socials as much as I care that we keep the youth involved during the most critical times of their lives.

TinMan wrote:There. I think I have said it every way I can. I will bow out of this discussion.

Don't bow out your incites and thoughts are important to the discussion.