Budget Incease for New Youth Program?

It is our understanding that for the new youth program beginning Jan 1 that funds should not be solicited from members to pay for youth activities such as camps. Is the intent for the youth leaders to spend less on weekly youth activities to preserve budget funds to cover the cost of youth camps and other larger outings, or will there be a larger budget allocation to cover these more expensive activities?

Our stake and ward do not anticipate any real changes in budget needs for the change in programs. We will still have one large event, typically a summer camp for the YW, one for the YM, and one day camp for the primary children. All other activities will require essentially the same funds. The direction from the bishop has been to submit a proposed budget based on a planned annual program and work within the budget allocated. The need for additional funds to cover the one summer camp will be as it has been done in the past with budget as the primary source, individual participants contributing as needed, and a fund-raiser as a last resort.

Where do you see an increase in funding required for the new programs? Has your ward planned next year's programs and estimated the funding required? Does the budget needed to support those programs exceed the anticipated ward budget?

In the wards of our stake the funds to support a girls and boys camp as well as a primary day camp have been paid for by a fee/head by the parents of the youth attending. If I understand correctly, we are not to request funds from members for these activities any longer. So in order to have these events in 2020 and onward the funds will have to come from our youth budget which is not accustom to covering them. If there isn't an increased allocation from headquarters to cover these events (not to mention the "6 other larger activities" suggested) then the existing allocation will have to be stretched painfully thinner across the year, or, forego the camps, or, take funds from other organizations within the wards and stake.

ckmcdonald wrote:It is our understanding that for the new youth program beginning Jan 1 that funds should not be solicited from members to pay for youth activities such as camps.

I think that "Members should not pay fees to participate." has been a part of Handbook 2: 13.2.8 for some time. The current version on-line indicates it was last updated in October. I don't think it has the new youth program yet. This might be a case of leadership noticing what's always been there. Unless there's a new directive that says fund-raising is off the table, I doubt if many wards will see a difference.

Edit: See comments below.

The Aaronic Priesthood Camp Guide (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... w?lang=eng) indicates that camps should be planned ahead so there is time to (among other things) 'raise the necessary funds according to Church policies'. This would indicate that fund-raising is still allowed. Unless and until we hear differently I would assume that the same fund-raising policies that have applied to scout and girls camp previously will apply to Aaronic Priesthood and Young Women's camps now.

As jdlessley indicated, It has long been the policy that budget should be used first, then funds raised individually by the youth and finally from a single group fundraiser as a last resort. But in my experience that order is not always followed and often parents just pay even though that is not actually one of the options listed. But the policy has said differently for quite a long time.

I'm not aware of any mention of an increase in the budget allocation so I'd plan on working what is currently given.

The current handbook allows for the collection of funds from participating members for one girls camp, one boys camp and one day-camp per year. (HB#2 13.2.8)
It is this policy that the wards in our stake have used in the past to fund camps (collect from members). It might be a rumor but we were led to believe that the above 3 exceptions to the "Members should not pay fees to participate" rule are not going to be allowed beginning in 2020. Can anyone validate whether this is true or not?

ckmcdonald wrote:It might be a rumor but we were led to believe that the above 3 exceptions to the "Members should not pay fees to participate" rule are not going to be allowed beginning in 2020. Can anyone validate whether this is true or not?

I have neither seen nor heard of any change to the way youth programs are funded. I believe the fundraising option is still in 3rd place.

ckmcdonald wrote:The current handbook allows for the collection of funds from participating members for one girls camp, one boys camp and one day-camp per year. (HB#2 13.2.8)

I stand corrected. I missed that.

I haven't followed the changes closely, but I didn't notice any changes in funding. So, at this point, I'd gently ask the leadership about "chapter and verse" on where these changes are spelled out. If nothing else, it will clarify at what level this is coming from.

I also thought it is allowed a request youth to contribute to their FSY trips. The ward covers half, from what I remember. One fundraiser per year has always been allowed which we almost always take advantage of.

The change we see in our ward is the without organized scout camps and scout awards (which are expensive) AND with the direction to allocate funds evenly between YW and YM based on headcount, that the YW are going to have more money than they have had in the past IF we leave the total combined allocation the same. Mainly it is the deacons that are getting less money than previous years. Also, the YW are thinking out of the box about doing more things and possibly an occasional overnight activity that they haven't done before. None of this has been approved yet but that's the discussions going on with the YW presidency.

As a Stake Finance Clerk, we've been grappling with how to fund the new youth programs. From our perspective the big new element is the FSY funding.

We've been relying on the:

• FSY Planning Guide https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/you ... nload=true
  FSY FAQ (This was sent with some area specific details, so I won't share it here, but it's probably not difficult to find individually), and
  LDS Newsroom information https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/chu ... 0?lang=eng

From the Planning Guide and FAQ

Areas should be self-sufficient in funding FSY and should adapt conference plans according to the local resources that are available (see pages 6–8 for adaptation guidelines). To that end, funding for conferences should not be requested through new and expanded budgets but should come from the following sources: a. Local Unit Budget Allowance (LUBA) b. Participant Funds c. Fund-Raising.

From the Newsroom and FSY FAQ

Each participant will be asked to pay U.S. $75. In addition, the stake or ward will pay U.S. $75 from the local unit budget allowance (LUBA) for each individual. The bishop may also use LUBA to help individuals when necessary. If desired, wards may use the annual fundraising effort to help offset the cost.

As a Stake, we have over 200 youth ages 14-18 that could potentially attend (practically they all won't); the maximum impact to our LUBA would be $15K. That is not an insignificant amount of funds compared to our allocations; many stake organizations are being cut back as well as the possibility of tinkering with the allocation percentages to lessen the administrative burden between the stake and its units. Additionally, we have run a Stake Girl's Camp for many years and will now begin a new Stake Young Men's Camp. Since the fundraising guidelines are restrictive to raise funds for only one annual activity, we're going to attempt to fully fund FSY from the Stake (and Ward) LUBA. Traditionally Girl's Camp and the former scouting program have conducted their own fundraiser. We're under the impression that either FSY or the youth camps could do a fundraiser, not both.

So its a big pinch on our LUBA, but we also seem to have gotten the message loud and clear not to expect an increase in the LUBA at this point. Positively, the Facilities Management budget is picking up the tab for renting the college campus where FSY will be held; that is likely the biggest ticket item for operating FSY which then doesn't have to be passed on to the local units.

**Some of the figures I quoted could certainly vary by region. We happen to be in North America Northwest**

ElliotQuinton wrote:As a Stake Finance Clerk, we've been grappling with how to fund the new youth programs. From our perspective the big new element is the FSY funding.

We've been relying on the:

• FSY Planning Guide https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/you ... nload=true
  FSY FAQ (This was sent with some area specific details, so I won't share it here, but it's probably not difficult to find individually), and
  LDS Newsroom information https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/chu ... 0?lang=eng

From the Planning Guide and FAQ

Areas should be self-sufficient in funding FSY and should adapt conference plans according to the local resources that are available (see pages 6–8 for adaptation guidelines). To that end, funding for conferences should not be requested through new and expanded budgets but should come from the following sources: a. Local Unit Budget Allowance (LUBA) b. Participant Funds c. Fund-Raising.

From the Newsroom and FSY FAQ

Each participant will be asked to pay U.S. $75. In addition, the stake or ward will pay U.S. $75 from the local unit budget allowance (LUBA) for each individual. The bishop may also use LUBA to help individuals when necessary. If desired, wards may use the annual fundraising effort to help offset the cost.

As a Stake, we have over 200 youth ages 14-18 that could potentially attend (practically they all won't); the maximum impact to our LUBA would be $15K. That is not an insignificant amount of funds compared to our allocations; many stake organizations are being cut back as well as the possibility of tinkering with the allocation percentages to lessen the administrative burden between the stake and its units. Additionally, we have run a Stake Girl's Camp for many years and will now begin a new Stake Young Men's Camp. Since the fundraising guidelines are restrictive to raise funds for only one annual activity, we're going to attempt to fully fund FSY from the Stake (and Ward) LUBA. Traditionally Girl's Camp and the former scouting program have conducted their own fundraiser. We're under the impression that either FSY or the youth camps could do a fundraiser, not both.

So its a big pinch on our LUBA, but we also seem to have gotten the message loud and clear not to expect an increase in the LUBA at this point. Positively, the Facilities Management budget is picking up the tab for renting the college campus where FSY will be held; that is likely the biggest ticket item for operating FSY which then doesn't have to be passed on to the local units.

**Some of the figures I quoted could certainly vary by region. We happen to be in North America Northwest**

Question for you.... are you doing one camp then for all YM quorums together? Our stake hasn't given us any direction for the YM so we're planning the traditional camp per quorum. Our Young Women do have a stake YW camp this year as typical every other year. I don't think we've thought about combining the YM. Interesting idea.

Our stake is doing FSY this year. We're using our fundraising to cover the ward portion ($75/per).

In the year with FSY you don't have Youth Conference. The policy has always been that Youth Conference is paid completely by budget funds. Now if a ward/stake didn't follow that policy or managed to keep Youth Conferences down below $75 I can see FSY being a budget problem. But it seems to me that the intent is that the ward/stake portion of FSY should pretty much be covered by savings from not doing Youth Conference.

chriswoodut wrote:Question for you.... are you doing one camp then for all YM quorums together? Our stake hasn't given us any direction for the YM so we're planning the traditional camp per quorum. Our Young Women do have a stake YW camp this year as typical every other year. I don't think we've thought about combining the YM. Interesting idea.

Our stake is doing FSY this year. We're using our fundraising to cover the ward portion ($75/per).

It's all very much in flux at this point. My understanding is the current plan is to have separate YM and YW camps, although we have limited recreational facilities so the location may be the same, and possibly the timing as well (but that's all subject to a lot of logistics, etc). The proposed model is for all of the Stake's young men to have a 1 or 2 night campout all combined, with separate outdoor adventure breakouts at the quorum level. There is a lot of "cultural inertia" around scouting and ward high adventure for which we are trying to signal that it is a new day with the youth programs.

For many years the Young Women of our stake have had some tangible camaraderie due largely in part to their participation in an annual camp. The Young Men only interact through more rare and distant church affiliations; additionally we have some disparity between large and small youth programs as well as more and less financially capable units. Bringing everything online for equity sake is also a challenge were addressing. Presently we're trying to shift away from ward level young men camps; a quote from Elder Cook's Oct 19 conference address (I've probably reread this one more than all the others combined at this point) on the Adjustments to Strengthen the Youth crystallized a few of these points for us, particularly:

At the general and stake levels, we will continue to have Young Men presidencies. At the stake level, a high councilor will be the Young Men president and will, with the high councilors assigned to Young Women and Primary, be part of the stake Aaronic Priesthood–Young Women committee. These brethren will work with the stake Young Women presidency on this committee. With a counselor to the stake president as chair, this committee will have increased importance because many of the programs and activities in the new Children and Youth initiative will be at the stake level.

The additional component for FSY is we're planning on running a 4 year cycle of FSY, Stake Youth Conf, FSY, Stake Trek. Previously we were able to budget Stake youth conferences on a 2 year cycle (we were not doing a stake level youth conference annually), but now its as if we're doing a youth conference every year (I know it's our choice to handle it this way, but it seems that's the direction we've been given as well). If we allocate a particular sum per year to those activities, the budgeting is pretty smooth. Also of note is that the LUBA only receives $12.50 per quarterly report per youth ($50 annually) and $12 per sacrament attendance ($48 annually); so a youth attending all of their meeting nets $98 for the LUBA, some of which is withheld for the Stake budget. So a $75 per youth (ages 14-18) charge for FSY is not insignificant. We've always shifted funds in favor of the youth and primary, and will continue to do so; but it's certainly impacting our budget in other areas.

ElliotQuinton wrote:
The additional component for FSY is we're planning on running a 4 year cycle of FSY, Stake Youth Conf, FSY, Stake Trek. Previously we were able to budget Stake youth conferences on a 2 year cycle (we were not doing a stake level youth conference annually), but now its as if we're doing a youth conference every year (I know it's our choice to handle it this way, but it seems that's the direction we've been given as well). If we allocate a particular sum per year to those activities, the budgeting is pretty smooth. Also of note is that the LUBA only receives $12.50 per quarterly report per youth ($50 annually) and $12 per sacrament attendance ($48 annually); so a youth attending all of their meeting nets $98 for the LUBA, some of which is withheld for the Stake budget. So a $75 per youth (ages 14-18) charge for FSY is not insignificant. We've always shifted funds in favor of the youth and primary, and will continue to do so; but it's certainly impacting our budget in other areas.

Mmm.. I've never seen the breakdown per youth as defined by the report. I don't know if that is good or bad. It's always worked out each year as the ward typically has a bit left over after taking all organizations into account.

I've had to explain to quite a few leaders and clerks lately just how the allocations are derived from the quarterly reports. Even though they get a report sent through LCR and MLS quarterly for the sole purpose of explaining the allocation, few in our stake have taken the time to understand the details.

It's great if it has always worked out for you that there happened to be funds to spare, but with the changes we couldn't "just give everybody about what we did last year" and stay anywhere in the black.

ElliotQuinton wrote:I've had to explain to quite a few leaders and clerks lately just how the allocations are derived from the quarterly reports. Even though they get a report sent through LCR and MLS quarterly for the sole purpose of explaining the allocation, few in our stake have taken the time to understand the details.

It's great if it has always worked out for you that there happened to be funds to spare, but with the changes we couldn't "just give everybody about what we did last year" and stay anywhere in the black.

Well, we could be surprised at the end of the year when it doesn't work out for us. We have changed this year to do a $ per youth approach. In the past we based it on previous year's budgets with an adjustment if the youth numbers really moved around.

Really the challenge for us has been that the budget can be a moving target. People don't turn in receipts, those people get new callings, which org uses their budget one year may not use it as much next year due to callings changing, the amount raised in the fundraiser can move around. To be honest, we over allocate more than our total income knowing there's a bunch of the budget that won't be consumed with reimbursement requests. I know it's not a great approach but if we didn't over allocate, we'd have even more money at the end of the year not used. And, we are not accurate at guessing which budget category won't be used the next year.

I should probably note allocations likely vary by region from what I mentioned and the %withheld will be individual to each stake. Consult your MLS finance statements or LCR reports: budget to see your own details

Is there a way to see on LCR which youth have and have not signed up for FSY?

jvanvleet22 wrote:Is there a way to see on LCR which youth have and have not signed up for FSY?

I believe Bishops have that visibility. The menu option isn't there for ward clerks and executive secretaries. A couple weeks ago this came up in bishopric meeting and only the bishop had the menu item when we were discussing it.