Missionary Donation Deficit

Missionary funds were taken from our Ward, but the missionary family moved, so there is a deficit. The donations were in the families new unit. How do I balance the deficit.

See Transferring missionary funding to another ward. That can be done retroactively. And when that's done, they will "refund" the funds that were taken out.

davishope4us wrote:Missionary funds were taken from our Ward, but the missionary family moved, so there is a deficit. The donations were in the families new unit. How do I balance the deficit.

Your bishop needs to contact the bishop of the family's new ward and ask that ward to take financial responsibility for the missionary. Financial responsibility doesn't transfer automatically when the records move. The bishops should also agree on a date when the change will be effective. The effective date should be at some point after the family last made a payment in your ward and when your account was zero (before it started going negative).

Then someone in one of the two units needs to call Local Unit Support and let them know that the bishops have agreed to transfer responsibility and the effective date for the transfer. LUS will make the change and also automatically make a transfer based on that effective date so that your account will be zero again.

eblood66 wrote:Then someone in one of the two units needs to call Local Unit Support and let them know that the bishops have agreed to transfer responsibility and the effective date for the transfer.

I believe this would go more smoothly if it was the new unit that called. I believe you can accept responsibility, but attempting to transfer responsibility to someone else requires them to verify that the new ward will accept it.

russellhltn wrote:

eblood66 wrote:Then someone in one of the two units needs to call Local Unit Support and let them know that the bishops have agreed to transfer responsibility and the effective date for the transfer.

I believe this would go more smoothly if it was the new unit that called. I believe you can accept responsibility, but attempting to transfer responsibility to someone else requires them to verify that the new ward will accept it.

I don't know how things are nowadays, but the couple times I did it several years ago it went fine when I (as the old unit) called. They believed me when I said the bishops had talked and agreed. The time I relied on the other unit to call it took about 6 months before things were resolved correctly. Although the other bishop agreed readily, the clerk in the new ward took several reminders before he took care of it.

But I've heard of cases where LUS was stricter about making sure the new bishop accepted responsibility.

I keep harping on this but I think the clerks really need to treat the Ward Missionary Fund like the "Other" pass-through categories. Any time there's a donation that isn't going to a specific sub-category (a.k.a. to support a specific missionary) just take a moment to think about it. If it's $5 here or $20 there it might not be a big deal but if it's $400 then, yes, it probably should go to a specific missionary and you should find out which one. (Whenever a member donates even small amounts to the Ward Mission Fund and not a specific sub-category the chances are high that the money will eventually not be used in that ward's mission funding. Do members know this?)

So, when a new family moves into the ward and they donate $400 for the Ward Missionary Fund then, yes, you should immediately find out what it's really for (and not wait for their previous ward to ask you to take over financial responsibility for a specific missionary).

Bottom line: I think there should be some additional and/or emphasized training about the Ward Missionary Fund. When you know a family is moving away and there's a missionary attached to that family, the Bishop and finance clerk should take a quick look at the missionary fund and determine if that family is donating the full $400 per month or if it's coming from different sources. If it's a typical situation, then gently remind the family that "Hey, when you get to your new ward, be sure to tell them you're going to be donating to their mission fund and they should request that your son/daughter's mission fund is transferred to their ward." By the same token, when a family moves into your ward and you find out they have a missionary, the Bishop can discretely say "So, that usually means that we'll have people start donating missionary support funds to our ward. Should we make that change now?" The Bishop has the right/duty to ask the nosy questions.

mrrad wrote:Bottom line: I think there should be some additional and/or emphasized training about the Ward Missionary Fund.

I agree completely. Unfortunately, I think there is a general perception among missionary families and many clerks that the ward where the missionary's records are will be the ward that gets charged for the missionary and that this will transfer automatically.

Some additional training in the Help Center might help some. It would probably be even better if CHQ would send a message to both units involved when a missionary's record is moved and remind them that they need to consider whether the financial responsibility should change.

This process was the BANE of my existence when I was a stake clerk - If a clerk and Bishop are not on top of these these accounts it is very easy to let them slip and have big trouble brewing (BTW, wouldn't it be nice to know if a family might be falling behind? Maybe an indicator of something else going? I think there should be some kind of missionary reconciliation done MONTHLY. Validate all monies went to the correct place, review move-in and move-out families... Review ++ balances, Review -- balances, etc.. Now there are other complications like senior missionaries, and a sharp uptick in missionaries serving....

This is an easy process to be proactive about. But with the absolute zero training (at least in my 20 years of experience) that Bishops get about this process. And the zero training clerks get around this as well. The last time I looked at the document at the clerksupport.lds.org site it was very minimalistic and didn't cover all the scenarios. I corresponded with the people who published it who mentioned that it was so hard to get something published, and translated that it wasn't worth the effort to re-do

In the future, when the church rolls out new stuff, there needs to be accompanying notification, training, and a sense of urgency among ecclesiastical leaders that record-keeping was important.

The bishops and ward clerks in my stake will be relieved when I am released. During the second week of each month, I print the combined financial statement for the stake, and review all ward missionary fund balances and all Fast Offering disbursements. I mark up a copy of the statement for the stake president to use during his PPIs with the bishops. I send e-mails to each bishop and ward clerk if I find an excess or deficit in the ward missionary fund. I do this each month because our Area Seventy has repeatedly asked us to send excess funds to HQ. As stated in previous posts, I also bird-dog any movements of mission funding into or out of the stake, ensuring both bishops communicate and resolve any issues. I also ensure the missionary accounts for each returned missionary are zeroed out.

I know others on this forum have said they really hate to have their stake leaders nag them about these things each month. I'm just trying to do my part to ensure nothing gets dropped. I have found that many bishops and clerks think that all they need to do is to sign the monthly financial statement -- they totally ignore the part where they are to read, review, and understand the statement.

Dana,

While the process was a BANE for me, I, like you, was a BANE of my Bishops and Clerks. However, I took another route and started doing clerk training alongside the Bishopric training. I was not very successful in my efforts, even though training was attended, we were very direct with how things should be done, it just wasn't coming from the Bishops. I believe that the biggest issue was that my SP and I didn't see eye-to-eye about the process. He saw me as someone that managed the ward clerks, like the clerks were an auxiliary who's president was the stake clerk. I figured the handbook was pretty clear that Bishops have the role to train and task the ward clerks.... unfortunately, I never did figure it out until the personal interview I had with my SP when I was released so I think he was sending signals that I wasn't getting to Bishops, I'd love to have that one as a do-over.

From a mistake proofing perspective, the whole premise of the Missionary Funding is backwards. Think about it. When a family moves to a new ward, everything changes (ward assignment, HT, VT, callings, etc) EXCEPT missionary funding. The Missionary funding concept is the exception to the rule so I am not surprised at the confusion. I would hazard a guess that (at least in the US), the fund moves to the new ward with the family more often than not.

From that premise, it would cause fewer problems to automatically move the funds and then have the few exceptions fixed by the clerks than the current process that requires EVERY missionary family move to be addressed by two wards (especially given the lack of training given to Bishops and Clerks in most cases).

But, that is just my opinion and I no longer have the Ward Clerk calling.

davesudweeks wrote:From a mistake proofing perspective, the whole premise of the Missionary Funding is backwards. Think about it. When a family moves to a new ward, everything changes (ward assignment, HT, VT, callings, etc) EXCEPT missionary funding. The Missionary funding concept is the exception to the rule so I am not surprised at the confusion. I would hazard a guess that (at least in the US), the fund moves to the new ward with the family more often than not.

From that premise, it would cause fewer problems to automatically move the funds and then have the few exceptions fixed by the clerks than the current process that requires EVERY missionary family move to be addressed by two wards (especially given the lack of training given to Bishops and Clerks in most cases).

As a practical matter I expect you're right. But I wonder if this process isn't at least partly to help ensure that missionary donations remain tax deductible. The process emphasizes that the ward is paying for the missionary, not the family. If the IRS looks at how missionary funding is handled, the church can provide this process as evidence that there isn't a direct tie between the family's donation and the missionary's support.

Of course, I could be completely wrong about that. But from a tax layman's perspective it does make some sense to me at least.

Another reason, I believe, is that it is very common for the contributions in the former ward to be out of sync with the actual sweep of the missionary fund. The family may have paid ahead. The ward may be helping with a significant amount of the monthly payment. Others may be contributing. I think it is easier to resolve those differences before the transfer, rather than after.

eblood66 wrote:[But I wonder if this process isn't at least partly to help ensure that missionary donations remain tax deductible. The process emphasizes that the ward is paying for the missionary, not the family.

This has always been my theory, which is further strengthened by the fact that no missionary is supported by exactly the $400 his ward is responsible to pay each month.

I think we make a mistake when we regard the Ward Mission Fund the same way we do Tithing or other charitable categories. The Ward Mission Fund actually does need to be watched and even maintained. With Tithing, on the other hand, you just record the donations and never think about them again, usually without getting into trouble.

All good points, and insightful. All the more reason to have good training for Clerks and Bishops.

davesudweeks wrote:All good points, and insightful. All the more reason to have good training for Clerks and Bishops.

Unfortunately there seems to need to be a bit of obfuscation on this one, we want to keep the idea that the missionary funds his own mission (we're so proud to say that) but tax implications are better if we say that a ward sends a missionary. No Stake President or Bishop I ever worked with had the notion that a ward sends a missionary... none, nada, only stake clerk who provides some training to ward clerks, and then helps work through the issues.

If the ward is really responsible, shouldn't there be a bigger call to contribute to that fund and help relieve the stress of families? I'd much rather pay $100 a month to a ward fund for the 20 years while I'm raising my children rather than the $800 a month that might hit me with two out at a time in a very short period of time. Seems more like a way we'd do it in a zion community to me.

johnshaw wrote:If the ward is really responsible, shouldn't there be a bigger call to contribute to that fund and help relieve the stress of families?

But the way we're doing it now is already designed to take stress away from families. When I was a full-time missionary (ancient history) you and/or your family just paid whatever it cost. So the millionaire's son might be in Peru where it cost less than $100 per month to survive while the strapped, farmer's family had to struggle to support a son in Japan where it cost $1,000 per month. That money didn't pass through the ward at all (and was not easily claimed as a charitable contribution… and there was a high-profile lawsuit involving an LDS family and the IRS… before the system we have now). So we've moved a lot closer to the system you're advocating than we were during ancient times.

The question, I suppose, is what actually happens to the money which goes to the General Missionary Fund. What if that fund suddenly received much bigger donations? Would the church eventually use it to support missionaries instead of using the ward fund? There's no real accounting for how much is needed in the General Fund… or at least nothing that the average donor knows about.

I was a missionary when the change happened, in fact, I was at BYU when one of my roommates father showed up with a new porsche... he told us that the $82 per month it was going to cost for his son's mission was going to be the cheapest two years of his son's life to that point....

The general missionary fund is used OUTSIDE the area where ward missionary funds are used. When a ward has excessive ward missionary monies, they send to the stake, they stake then sends to the church and that money is converted to the general fund. The General fund pays to send missionaries that serve in areas where the budget allocation system isn't in play.... (mostly outside the western world)

The problem is that nobody really knows this stuff. We had wards that were sending me excess ward missionary contributions where (1) they had multiple individual missionary accounts that were in the negative thousands of dollars, and (2) that same ward was contributing significantly to the general missionary fund (we looked back in the electronic record, not a single member of their ward (who didn't have a serving missionary) had contributed to the 'ward missionary fund'.

The Bishop, myself and the SP counseled about instructing the members about the funds and what they were used for. The Bishop then challenged the members to pray about their donations and if they felt they could help the ward missionary fund to start contributing in that way.... The negative balances in ward missionary quickly evaporated, and the excess started making it to the general fund quickly.

My point is, I saw some pretty desperate situations where a family was sending a missionary out, knowing they couldn't fund the entire mission themselves, The family committed to contributing $100 a month, but the Bishop didn't 'make up the difference' - Which is the way it should be done. We don't deficit spend with a missionary, we shouldn't force a family to pay the rest of their lives for not having enough to send a faithful son/daughter on a mission. I saw out-of-work families trying to figure out what to do, no family, should ever be in the position of feeling BAD that they have a missionary serving.

I wonder what would happen if I showed a Bishop a receipt that in the 20 years of my marriage I've paid $24,000 @ $100 per month and explained that I was planning on paying $100 per month for the time that my missionaries were serving... Even if I maybe had moved several times... how do you think that reaction would go?

I curr

johnshaw wrote:The general missionary fund is used OUTSIDE the area where ward missionary funds are used. When a ward has excessive ward missionary monies, they send to the stake, they stake then sends to the church and that money is converted to the general fund.

…but maybe that could change someday. When I was in college (ancient history) we still donated to the Ward Budget directly and the Bishop would ask us for specific commitments to support that fund. But shortly after that it was decided that Tithing funds would be sufficient and no additional funding would be donated to the Ward Budget. I'm just suggesting that, if there were somehow enough money in the General Missionary Fund then maybe the Ward Missionary Fund could cease to be (but I'm not holding my breath for that).

johnshaw wrote:I wonder what would happen if I showed a Bishop a receipt that in the 20 years of my marriage I've paid $24,000 @ $100 per month and explained that I was planning on paying $100 per month for the time that my missionaries were serving... Even if I maybe had moved several times... how do you think that reaction would go?

The trouble is that, as it's designed right now, the Ward Mission Fund is for pass-through money. It is not a savings account for any individual nor for the ward. Trying to use it like that will only cause problems for individuals and for clerks. But you're welcomed to keep your own savings account going for 20 years and still have that $24,000 ready to use. Another problem is that perhaps the son or daughter we intend to support on a mission won't be able to serve for some reason and/or dies before they're old enough. Then our heartbreak is compounded by the fact that we "lost" the money that was meant to help support their missionary service. (…money that may be needed for other expenses given that the person's plans have changed.)

In short, I believe that the church encourages the use of personal savings accounts in anticipation of the expense of missionary service. And I really can't see how doing it that way is any more difficult than the idea of donating $100 per month to the church for 20 years.

mrrad wrote:…but maybe that could change someday. When I was in college (ancient history) we still donated to the Ward Budget directly and the Bishop would ask us for specific commitments to support that fund. But shortly after that it was decided that Tithing funds would be sufficient and no additional funding would be donated to the Ward Budget. I'm just suggesting that, if there were somehow enough money in the General Missionary Fund then maybe the Ward Missionary Fund could cease to be (but I'm not holding my breath for that).

I believe this could eventually be the case, but the prerequisite is that ALL areas of the world be on the same tithing-paid budgeting system we are on in the western world. The blog posts of missionaries serving in South American countries are seeing an emphasis on tithing, IMHO, in advance, I hope, of preparing those countries to be on this same system. The Perpetual Education Fund was a 'start' for this process, again IMHO... But it doesn't seem, as you've said, this doesn't seem to be something that we'll see in any near future I could anticipate.

mrrad wrote:The trouble is that, as it's designed right now, the Ward Mission Fund is for pass-through money. It is not a savings account for any individual nor for the ward. Trying to use it like that will only cause problems for individuals and for clerks. But you're welcomed to keep your own savings account going for 20 years and still have that $24,000 ready to use. Another problem is that perhaps the son or daughter we intend to support on a mission won't be able to serve for some reason and/or dies before they're old enough. Then our heartbreak is compounded by the fact that we "lost" the money that was meant to help support their missionary service. (…money that may be needed for other expenses given that the person's plans have changed.)

In short, I believe that the church encourages the use of personal savings accounts in anticipation of the expense of missionary service. And I really can't see how doing it that way is any more difficult than the idea of donating $100 per month to the church for 20 years.

I don't think you are understanding my point here. The context of the discussion is whether a Family/individual is responsible for missionary funding or whether it is the ward. Every time as a Stake Clerk, that I called the Missionary Department, or the Finance Department they ALWAYS indicated that it was the ward that was responsible for the missionary funding and that is why the decision was made not to transfer funds automatically, because those funds are ward funds and not funds for individual missionaries. (I believe this is required to keep these as charitable donations that qualify for tax benefits) This is why Bishops must have a conversation or through the automated tool agree upon the transfer of financial responsibility, they are agreeing onbehalf of the ward and not the individual. At least that was the impression I was given.

So, given that the funding is really WARD and not individual responsibility (as seems to be the case from a tax-perspective), and here is the paradigm shift required for my posts above. Why not adjust and CHANGE (not keep the same understanding as you've been answering) the way we think about it. In your thinking, the money is still 'the family's or the individual's' money' and not the Bishops money. Like I said, if we as a ward, seeking for zion, participating in a zion community cannot bear one another's burdens, sharing the cost of missionaries, etc.. what are we here for anyway? If I donated $100 a month and helped missionaries that are serving when my son or daughter is 12 years old, and the missionary is 18... why can't the families that have 12 year olds when my son or daughter is missionary age, help pay for my missionaries? I'm not talking about a 'savings account' for 'my missionary's expenses' - I'm talking about thinking of this as a WARD Responsibility, a community that supports the missionary, not the individual.

The problem is that we still associate the equalized-pay - the $400 per month with an individual, everything we are led to think about, to account for, etc.. is individual. Your responses prove this point pretty clearly. But, this is the fuzzy stuff... it seems to be a very fine line we tread when we continue to administer the program.

BTW, do I think this will ever happen? No, of course not, we're too invested in seeing this as a mission funded by an individual and family, its in our mythos, it's part of our culture, and we have a way to 'obfuscate' it for tax benefits, so that's nice...

A family that joins the church with grown kids, the not-well-off families that have kids approaching mission age.. the family that is inactive that comes back to activity... just a few reasons why a $400 burden for a mission could really overwhelm a family that had no opportunity, or had no means, to finance a mission ahead of time.

johnshaw wrote:The general missionary fund is used OUTSIDE the area where ward missionary funds are used. When a ward has excessive ward missionary monies, they send to the stake, they stake then sends to the church and that money is converted to the general fund.

I once had a discussion with someone in the Church Finance Department, and they said that the last part of your statement is incorrect. The Church handles surplus Ward Missionary funds differently from General Missionary Funds. If they were equivalent, then stakes or wards could simply deposit surplus Ward Missionary funds into the General Missionary fund, and there would be no need for the Church to be involved. Yet stakes are given specific instructions as to what to do with surplus Ward Missionary funds. I don't know if some of those surplus funds might make it into the General Missionary fund eventually, but it's not as simple as you stated.

johnshaw wrote:BTW, do I think this will ever happen? No, of course not, we're too invested in seeing this as a mission funded by an individual and family, its in our mythos, it's part of our culture, and we have a way to 'obfuscate' it for tax benefits, so that's nice...

You make some excellent points. But I would note that the notion that a mission is funded by an individual and family is not just in "our mythos" -- each missionary application specifically asks about the Source of Funds, and the applicant is required to "indicate how much money will be contributed per month in support of your mission from [Self, Family, Ward/Branch, Other]." I've always found that wording to be at odds with my understanding (which matches yours) that the obligation is fundamentally the ward's. But given that these funding commitments were made at the time of the missionary application, it makes sense that it is helpful to provide reports along the way to those making the commitments, and we can only do that if we track those donations and expenses per missionary.

aebrown wrote:each missionary application specifically asks about the Source of Funds, and the applicant is required to "indicate how much money will be contributed per month in support of your mission from [Self, Family, Ward/Branch, Other]." I've always found that wording to be at odds with my understanding (which matches yours) that the obligation is fundamentally the ward's.

I think that's just financial planning - making sure that donations are lined up to cover the cost. Just making an announcement over the pulpit and hoping enough will show up has a high chance of failure. If the family will cover it, then the search for commitments stops there. Having been in a YSA/Student ward, I've seen cases involving converts where the stake payed for it.

So I'd say that fundamentally it is the ward's - it's just that most of the time the family will step up and cover it so we don't see the ward at work.

johnshaw wrote:The general missionary fund is used OUTSIDE the area where ward missionary funds are used. When a ward has excessive ward missionary monies, they send to the stake, they stake then sends to the church and that money is converted to the general fund. The General fund pays to send missionaries that serve in areas where the budget allocation system isn't in play.... (mostly outside the western world)

While the church doesn't release detailed information, there is anecdotal evidence that the money collected from all of the wards just isn't enough to support the missionaries worldwide. When the missionary age was lowered to 18 for men and 19 for women, we immediately heard stories about how other church budgets (not directly related to the missionary program) were slashed. I suppose this only testifies of the complexity of the missionary program. More missionaries means more mission offices, more missionary cars, etc. that are probably not a part of what's covered by ward missionary funds taken by CHQ. It might have seemed (to some) that increasing the ward mission funds in direct proportion to increasing the number of missionaries would be sufficient to support the missionary efforts of the church, and it's clear that this is not the case.

My point? We're kidding ourselves when we think that the $400 we donate each month to the ward is covering the cost of our family member's mission. It's simply the price of participation for the missionary which, one way or another, is provided by ward members (which are usually from the same families as the missionaries).

…unless you shouldn't trust the anecdotal evidence.

I have been notified by the Stake that we have 2 returned missionaries (many years ago) whose names no longer appear on the Ward Missionary rolls that show a deficit. The Ward can pay the balance do, but how do we transfer the funds to the Stake? The drop down for the Stake only list Ward Missionary Fund. Is this what we use to transfer the funds to the Stake or is there something else we would do?

ShipesRA wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:30 pm I have been notified by the Stake that we have 2 returned missionaries (many years ago) whose names no longer appear on the Ward Missionary rolls that show a deficit.

I'm assuming by "missionary rolls" you're referring to the sub-account under Ward Missionary.

I'd question the stake on that. It's my understanding that a missionary sub-account with a non-zero any balance will remain indefinitely. Long past the time the missionaries returned. Were these ever being supported by the ward?

Note that the unit that ended with financial responsibility for the missionary isn't always the same as where the membership was/or is now, or where they left from. Or who had responsibility at the beginning of the mission. As such, it's possible that the account is with some other unit. Perhaps there's been a mix-up that routed the notice to your unit. Then again, perhaps they're asking your unit to discuss the situation with the parents and/or missionary.

Bottom line, if it was me, I'd call the stake clerk and have a chat.

But, if you still have that sub-account, then I'd transfer money from the top-level Ward Missionary account to that sub-account to zero it out.

ShipesRA wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:30 pm I have been notified by the Stake that we have 2 returned missionaries (many years ago) whose names no longer appear on the Ward Missionary rolls that show a deficit. The Ward can pay the balance do, but how do we transfer the funds to the Stake? The drop down for the Stake only list Ward Missionary Fund. Is this what we use to transfer the funds to the Stake or is there something else we would do?

This sounds like it might be the same as reported in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=46&t=39490

If so, then it may be a bug in LCR rather than an actual problem.

eblood66 wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:14 am

ShipesRA wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:30 pm I have been notified by the Stake that we have 2 returned missionaries (many years ago) whose names no longer appear on the Ward Missionary rolls that show a deficit. The Ward can pay the balance do, but how do we transfer the funds to the Stake? The drop down for the Stake only list Ward Missionary Fund. Is this what we use to transfer the funds to the Stake or is there something else we would do?

This sounds like it might be the same as reported in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=46&t=39490

If so, then it may be a bug in LCR rather than an actual problem.

I’ve just reported this to the GSC and they said that a few others are reporting similar issues!

This is a bug in the Church systems.

There always have been and probably always will be bugs. Unfortunately, some of the recent ones are effecting important systems which have worked right in the past.