Jump to content

Menu

Parents wanting quality classes, but not wanting to pay for teachers


Shellydon
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have know piano teachers that required recital participation, and then charged recital fees on top of tuition. I didn't like it at all. When I had my studio, the cost of putting on recitals was built into the tuition fee, and though I put on absolutely gorgeous recitals that were the talk of a five county area, I managed them on a budget so that if students moved, dropped out of lessons, etc. before the recital, there was still enough to cover the cost of the recital for everyone else.

 

 

We have a teacher that does this also.  I really don't care if my child does a recital.  Personally, I'd rather skip it, yet there is the required fee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

ETA: the other thing that got to me about was the incessant guilt trip. "If you donated the amount you spend on a daily cup of coffee, you could cover XYZ expenses." "If you gave up eating out just one night a month, you could cover ABC expenses."

 

 

I always find this sentiment annoying also.  The guilt trip about the daily Starbucks or the eating out thing.  "You could fund a child in Africa!"  or "You can save $200 extra a month!"   The thing is, my Starbucks habit was once every other month if that.  If we ever went out to eat as a family, it was once or twice a year.  This doesn't work for everyone.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always find this sentiment annoying also.  The guilt trip about the daily Starbucks or the eating out thing.  "You could fund a child in Africa!"  or "You can save $200 extra a month!"   The thing is, my Starbucks habit was once every other month if that.  If we ever went out to eat as a family, it was once or twice a year.  This doesn't work for everyone.

 

I think it's rude because it makes assumptions about other people's finances.  I think that's one place you just. don't. go.  I think you have to take a person at face value when they say "I don't have the $" and not start questioning or judging them on that.  Money issues are deeply personal and often painful. 

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to be. A boy in our town can choose to join the LDS troop. They aren't allowed to fundraise. Their books and their uniforms are handed to them. Of course, they don't actually have meetings where anything is accomplished because they haven't had a Scoutmaster for over a year. Oh, there's one listed on the recharter, but he's a petroleum engineer in Bahrain and is gone for 9 months at a time. Their boys haven't camped in over a year. I did a "this is your Eagle book" seminar for a group of LDS Scouts about 3 hours away one time and their troop had not camped IN OVER TWO YEARS! They'd plan a trip, but then little Jimmy couldn't go, so they'd cancel, over and over. I'll see Eagle candidates with SPL listed for their PoR but it will turn out that there's only one boy in the "troop". Who is he leading? Himself? I had to lower the boom on the District Chairman who wanted to recharter a dead troop by moving the one remaining boy into another community troop, but keep him on the charter for 480. There is no 480! The boy can't advance in a troop that does not exist. And he can't Lone Scout because he doesn't live on a boat nor is a hser with an disagreement with youth groups. When the LDS troop shoots with us they always comment, "Wow! You guys DO stuff!" Yes, we do. 

 

So, yeah, Scouts that want to cool trips have to find the money. There are troops that do "camping" in the local park. We camp on the top of 14ers, then hit the hot springs and maybe stop for a raft trip on the way home. We live in Scouting paradise--85% of our county is federally owned: national forest, BLM, national park, state forest, etc. 

 

So I have a son in an LDS troop and one that I moved to a community troop so I have seen both sides of Scouting and while that may be what you have seen, a lot of it isn't Church-wide. LDS Troops & Packs are allowed to do one fundraiser a year--usually the money goes to pay for the boys to go to summer camp. Eleven-year-olds can go on three campouts/year. Cubs can go on family campouts. Obviously each troop and pack will vary (just like they do in community troops & packs) as far as activity goes. My boys camped monthly in both types of troops. It does change when they turn 14 and start doing Varsity, but I can say having a son in the Venture Crew it changed there too. Last year my oldest went to Philmont with the LDS troop that he left for the community troop. My younger son is planning to go in a few years.

 

We also pay for all of their uniforms and books. The Church does not. We may hand down shirts and stuff like that, but I don't think that's unheard of. I know the reputation of LDS troops--believe me. I get to hear about it when I take my older son to his meetings. But I think that to generalize that to every LDS troop and pack is unfair.

 

On the whole though, as a Girl Scout leader and Boy Scout Committee member, and a mom, I totally agree with you on fundraising. I'm sitting here looking at the last few cookies we have to sell, knowing that my youngest is carrying her troop and the parents are going to balk at the fees I'm about to tell them for new uniforms, an encampment, and a trip to a pottery studio.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that all LDS troops are not that way, but it's way too common here. And the boys are the ones who are cheated. Our local troop has asked our OA boys to do an election. I pointed out to the troop rep that he has to make sure the boy has had 15 nights of camping in the last two years, with 5 at a long-term camp, and has to be put up by the SM. There is no way that they will have anyone eligible, and that is sad. Our troop rep won't be able to even try to set up an election as they have to be done by April 15th and the troop meets only once a month. I wish it wasn't that way. I'm surprised that you were allowed to move to a community troop. Our ward will not let the boys do that. 

 

Very few boys here in LDS Troops are in OA but that's mostly because the majority of OA activities are on Sundays and we don't camp or do Scout activities on Sunday. That doesn't concern me too much--my oldest is in OA and my younger son isn't. Both are fine and have a great time doing their Scout-y things. We do run our troops differently and for a different purpose. I wish the Church would do away with the Scouting program as their YM's program altogether--we only use it in the US but that's a different discussion.

 

I don't understand when you said that they don't allow boys to move to community troops. I didn't ask and the only feedback I got was, "I hope it works out and if he ever wants to do stuff with this troop he is more than welcome." So he has. I do think the not camping or doing anything on Sundays makes community troops difficult for most LDS members to figure out. It just doesn't work for most members to have a son in a community troop. I'm a little different in that my dh left the Church years ago and Sunday stuff is negotiable in our family. I can say that my son who is still in the LDS troop is very happy there, camps, wears a uniform, works hard on badges, and will work hard to achieve Eagle. I'm proud of both of my boys and thrilled that they are able to be in a program that works for both of them in different ways. And I'm thankful for all of the leaders that have done so much for both of them.

 

And I promise that we do our bit for fundraising in both troops. And in my daughters troops. And we pay our dues and I still end up paying out of pocket for some activities. But I try to keep that to the minimum. But after reading this thread, I am going to attempt to plan my next year of GS earlier so the parents have a better idea of what money might be due when. It's not easy since we don't actually know how much the encampments will be, but I can estimate based on the last few years fees. That will be good for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes yes yes.

 

This basically turned me off of dance. I'm OK with a costume fee, but come on, recital fee AND tickets for parents? Ya gotta be kidding me. Either tickets or recital fee, not both.

 

Emily

Recital venues usually are not free. Dance teachers are usually paid hourly and are still working at recitals. The money has to come from somewhere.

 

If the class fees are raised to recital auditorium rental and staff costs it becomes very uneven for the student, and not every student does the recital.

 

Personally, I prefer knowing that $25 recital fee covers teachers time, venue rental, and other staff needed to run the show. I also prefer paying per ticket to attend. Some families have 20+ relatives come to watch Little Snowflake pick her nose through "Broadway Baby" when we're lucky to have four of us come to see a teen in 7+ dances.

 

If tickets and recital fees were included in class prices, let's say $5/30min class each month, then BabySnowflake might generate $50 each year toward recital that 20+ people came to see. A teen in 7+ classes, 60-90 minutes each could then end up paying nearly $100/month in addition to cost of classes. It makes more sense to me that the recital fees be separate from the class costs. Although I do believe that they should be stated up front (along with anticipated costume costs) so that people know in advance.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Faith, as a percentage of income, the affluent give the least money to charity in any form.  The average low income household gives away more than 3% of their annual income, nearly 3 times as much as people in the top income quintile do.

 

  

 

How is it even possible to know this? People don't always talk about or even document everything they've given. If these numbers include tithing that's a whole different discussion/psychology. In this discussion we're not even comparing the poor to the top 1%. Mostly people have brought up comparisons between a working class neighborhood and an UMC one. I'm not sure you can confidently make a camparison on charitable giving between those two.

 

If we're talking about personal accounts of people "in the big houses" buying less from your kid than your own neighbors, that doesn't really help. The neighbors know your kid, or at least know of the community organization you're funding. The people in "the big houses" don't know you, or your organization, and have likely grown weary of strangers constantly canvassing their neighborhoods or people not being able to understand a "no soliciting" sign.

 

I can commiserate.  We have lovely co-op and we teach for like $4/week/child and we have some families who won't pay.  They put their kids in and then don't pay the bill.  Families that can pay but don't.  The director will have to ask and ask and ask and then finally give up.

 

This co-op needs to get the money up front before any child sets foot into the classroom. This is easier for everyone and there is no chasing down people later. If it's a financial hardship to pay it all up front, and you NEED monthly payments to make it happen, then you delay your entry for a year and budget out those monthly payments to yourself so you have it saved up.

 

I honestly don't get the mentality that someone should tell me EVERYTHING the day I sign my kid up for something. When are we having this conversation? In the registration line? Is it good for business to put an expected yearly bill in the brochure when the competitor down the road isn't doing it? Isn't it my responsibility to do my research before I let my kid get involved in something? Shouldn't I expect a learning curve in ANY new situation? It just doesn't seem reasonable to me to walk through life getting upset whenever I discover that I didn't know something. Learning these things IS life. No adult wants to run interference for me to shield me from that.

 

I can see getting upset when a fee is clearly extravagant and goes way beyond the fair market cost of covering the trip/stage rental/uniform price/whatever. Then it may be time to investigate and use my time and energy to learn the normal price range of these things. However, getting all flustered and looking for someone to blame when I learn that my kid's tuition covers only the teacher's salary and the facility rental, but nothing special outside of that, seems a little strange to me. There has to come a point in adulthood where you just expect everything to cost something.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quintile is top 20%

 

It is a luxury to be able to say, well, I'll just deal with whatever extra costs they are when they come up

 

when DD was in preschool we were quite poor; I really loved the preschool and cut every corner possible to come up with the $170/month to send her there.  I mean, we were eating rice and beans, quite literally.  I found it very irritating that every couple of weeks there was a new fee - send something for a party, or buy some supplies, or do this fundraising drive.  It was a private school!  I had figured that they knew how much money it cost to run the school and were charging me that much money as tuition.  I had never gone to a private school and she was my first kid so I had no idea that these schools often charge tuition that does not cover their actual operating costs, then ask for money here and there throughout the year to cover the rest of the cost.  Crazy to me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is absolutely true about not knowing how much people actually give. My husband donates money every week to the church, always in cash and anonymously.

 

 

 

How is it even possible to know this? People don't always talk about or even document everything they've given. If these numbers include tithing that's a whole different discussion/psychology. In this discussion we're not even comparing the poor to the top 1%. Mostly people have brought up comparisons between a working class neighborhood and an UMC one. I'm not sure you can confidently make a camparison on charitable giving between those two.

 

If we're talking about personal accounts of people "in the big houses" buying less from your kid than your own neighbors, that doesn't really help. The neighbors know your kid, or at least know of the community organization you're funding. The people in "the big houses" don't know you, or your organization, and have likely grown weary of strangers constantly canvassing their neighborhoods or people not being able to understand a "no soliciting" sign.

 

 

This co-op needs to get the money up front before any child sets foot into the classroom. This is easier for everyone and there is no chasing down people later. If it's a financial hardship to pay it all up front, and you NEED monthly payments to make it happen, then you delay your entry for a year and budget out those monthly payments to yourself so you have it saved up.

 

I honestly don't get the mentality that someone should tell me EVERYTHING the day I sign my kid up for something. When are we having this conversation? In the registration line? Is it good for business to put an expected yearly bill in the brochure when the competitor down the road isn't doing it? Isn't it my responsibility to do my research before I let my kid get involved in something? Shouldn't I expect a learning curve in ANY new situation? It just doesn't seem reasonable to me to walk through life getting upset whenever I discover that I didn't know something. Learning these things IS life. No adult wants to run interference for me to shield me from that.

 

I can see getting upset when a fee is clearly extravagant and goes way beyond the fair market cost of covering the trip/stage rental/uniform price/whatever. Then it may be time to investigate and use my time and energy to learn the normal price range of these things. However, getting all flustered and looking for someone to blame when I learn that my kid's tuition covers only the teacher's salary and the facility rental, but nothing special outside of that, seems a little strange to me. There has to come a point in adulthood where you just expect everything to cost something.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people donate labor instead of cash. Literacy tutors, youth group leaders, hospital transport, office help, accountants, drivers, etc.

 

I stopped participating in trick or treat after an irate family was upset when I ran out of candy as they approached. I had given out five hundred pieces, one per customer, in less than two hours. There aren't that many children in this neighborhood or in the ele. school. That made me a cheap rich person in their eyes, bc poor people dont stay home and hand out candy. I failed, because I didn't spend enough on strangers. Had they actually lived in my area, they would have recognized me from other community activities, or my neighbors from school. And maybe they would have said 'thanks' since we all made the effort to decorate. Can you imagine? Over five hundred children and less than a dozen parents said thank you...all the ones who actually live here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

 

How is it even possible to know this? People don't always talk about or even document everything they've given. If these numbers include tithing that's a whole different discussion/psychology. In this discussion we're not even comparing the poor to the top 1%. Mostly people have brought up comparisons between a working class neighborhood and an UMC one. I'm not sure you can confidently make a camparison on charitable giving between those two.

 

Most of the studies are based upon income tax returns.  It isn't totally accurate because:

 

1) it focuses on those individuals who itemize

2) it focuses only on giving that is reported

3) it focuses on giving only to 501c3 organizations   

4) it is based on current year's income, not wealth

 

This leads to issues like:

my neighbor who gave $3000 to a family in need to buy a car so that they could go to needed doctor's appointments is not included.  

my neighbor who gives $200 to the local group so that a needy child can participate is not included because the group (choir, debate team, sports team, etc.) is not a 501c3

my neighbor who buys lunch for the homeless outside the restaurant is not included

my neighbor who is a multi-millionaire who is retired is not in an upper-middle class income bracket--his primary income is his social security check.  His income for the year may only be $50,000.  But, he gives $25,000 worth of stock to the local art museum (he originally paid $5000 for the stock) The $20,000 gain on the stock is not taxable income for him.  So, he is lumped in with the $50,000 pear year income group and shows up as being very generous with 50% giving

the doctor who makes $200,000 per year but spends two weeks per year giving care for free; she is foregoing a huge amount of income, but she will show up with a $200,000 income without giving anything.  

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the studies are based upon income tax returns.  It isn't totally accurate because:

 

1) it focuses on those individuals who itemize

2) it focuses only on giving that is reported

3) it focuses on giving only to 501c3 organizations   

4) it is based on current year's income, not wealth

 

This leads to issues like:

my neighbor who gave $3000 to a family in need to buy a car so that they could go to needed doctor's appointments is not included.  

my neighbor who gives $200 to the local group so that a needy child can participate is not included because the group (choir, debate team, sports team, etc.) is not a 501c3

my neighbor who buys lunch for the homeless outside the restaurant is not included

my neighbor who is a multi-millionaire who is retired is not in an upper-middle class income bracket--his primary income is his social security check.  His income for the year may only be $50,000.  But, he gives $25,000 worth of stock to the local art museum (he originally paid $5000 for the stock) The $20,000 gain on the stock is not taxable income for him.  So, he is lumped in with the $50,000 pear year income group and shows up as being very generous with 50% giving

the doctor who makes $200,000 per year but spends two weeks per year giving care for free; she is foregoing a huge amount of income, but she will show up with a $200,000 income without giving anything.  

 

I agree with this.  I can think of hundreds of instances where people gave cash to a hurting family,  or bought Sunday Schools supplies and didn't turn the receipt in, or take a Saturday morning to cut firewood for a family who needs it.  These things don't factor into any % of giving equations.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it even possible to know this? People don't always talk about or even document everything they've given. If these numbers include tithing that's a whole different discussion/psychology. In this discussion we're not even comparing the poor to the top 1%. Mostly people have brought up comparisons between a working class neighborhood and an UMC one. I'm not sure you can confidently make a camparison on charitable giving between those two.

There's extensive data collection and studies on this. The Chronicle of Philanthropy and the National Philotrophic Trust, among many other sources, publishes a comprehensive report regularly. Do we know every dime? No. But the data on giving rates isn't pulled out of the air. And multiple sources over time come up with similar data. The lastest figures aren't substantially different than they were when I started in this field 15 years ago.

 

In short we know this the same why we know about how many Americans have pre-diabetes or how the consumer confidence index is heading.

 

I have compared the bottom two income quintiles to the top quintile, not the very poor to the 1%. For 2014, The top quintile are those above about $113K, with a median of around $170k. The bottom two quintiles are those under $42K a year. The third and fourth quintiles (so more than $42k and less than $113k) also out give the top quintile.

 

Some places the lowest end of the top quintile is upper middle class, in some places that is barely enough to support a family in a the acrchtype of the American middle class, so location matters.

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's extensive data collection and studies on this. The Chronicle of Philanthropy and the National Philotrophic Trust, among many other sources, publishes a comprehensive report regularly. Do we know every dime? No. But the data on giving rates isn't pulled out of the air. And multiple sources over time come up with similar data. The lastest figures aren't substantially different than they were when I started in this field 15 years ago.

 

The numbers are probably correct. I am just not sure what conclusion should be drawn from these data about percentage of income given to charity. 

If percentage is lower in higher income brackets, absolute amount is still higher.

Taxes are progressive; so the higher income families contribute to a larger extent to public services through their taxes.

Property taxes depend on property value. I could imagine that some families with the high property tax bill might feel they are already contributing much more to the public school than others and don't see a need to donate in addition.

It would be interesting to look at (taxes plus charitable donations) as percentage of income.

 

I do not believe the data allow any conclusion like "higher income folks are heartless and selfish". It's more complex than that.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's extensive data collection and studies on this. The Chronicle of Philanthropy and the National Philotrophic Trust, among many other sources, publishes a comprehensive report regularly. Do we know every dime? No. But the data on giving rates isn't pulled out of the air. And multiple sources over time come up with similar data. The lastest figures aren't substantially different than they were when I started in this field 15 years ago.

 

In short we know this the same why we know about how many Americans have pre-diabetes or how the consumer confidence index is heading.

All of types of estimates are limited in one way or another.  It is important to know what those limitations are before conclusions are made as to how to use the results.  

 

These numbers are probably useful to someone working in the endowment office of a university, for example.  It provides some information of the demographic from which the university might be most likely to receive dollar donations.

 

These numbers, however, are not as useful in drawing conclusions that some socioeconomic groups are more generous than others.  

 

I think paying for the gasoline for family who needs to get their child to a hospital is more charitable than donating $100 to Harvard.  I think many people would be surprised if they realized all of the "charitable" funds that are not counted in giving, but how $$ given to a university for a scholarship that goes to a student in the top 1% of the income distribution.  Or, donating $$ to the art museum that is most frequented by people in the top quintile of the income distribution is charitable.  Or, donating $$$ to the boy scout troop when all of the boys come from families in the top quintile of the income distribution is charitable.

 

What is being counted as charitable is a function of US tax law, not on my personal views on what is charitable.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of types of estimates are limited in one way or another. It is important to know what those limitations are before conclusions are made as to how to use the results.

 

These numbers are probably useful to someone working in the endowment office of a university, for example. It provides some information of the demographic from which the university might be most likely to receive dollar donations.

 

These numbers, however, are not as useful in drawing conclusions that some socioeconomic groups are more generous than others.

 

I think paying for the gasoline for family who needs to get their child to a hospital is more charitable than donating $100 to Harvard. I think many people would be surprised if they realized all of the "charitable" funds that are not counted in giving, but how $$ given to a university for a scholarship that goes to a student in the top 1% of the income distribution. Or, donating $$ to the art museum that is most frequented by people in the top quintile of the income distribution is charitable. Or, donating $$$ to the boy scout troop when all of the boys come from families in the top quintile of the income distribution is charitable.

 

What is being counted as charitable is a function of US tax law, not on my personal views on what is charitable.

Given that low income donors give the most to direct social services and children's programs and they generally receive no tax or estate planning benefits for it, I do think it's notable that they give more of their income. I'm not drawing any conclusion that they have a different level of giving. Not a value judgment.

 

It's donors in the top quintile who primarily fund elite universities and arts organizations. Food banks, shelters and service organizations derive most of their donor dollars from people who earn less than $100k a year.

 

These numbers are immensely helpful to non-profits of all kinds. Often a client would want to get the big gifts from the wealthy donors that they really didn't have access to and I was able to rejigger their appeals so they weren't minimizing the importance of cultivating their middle class/moderate means donor base. Rather than chase a CEO for $5000, I could bring them many more times that securing $500+ commitments from ordinary people who had previously volunteered there. People think that the rich drive the charitable sector but the data shows a much more nuanced picture. Kim Klein's Reliable Fundraising in Unreliable Times is a good look at this.

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that low income donors give the most to direct social services and children's programs and they generally receive no tax or estate planning benefits for it, I do think it's notable that they give more of their income. I'm not drawing any conclusion that they have a different level of giving. Not a value judgment.

 

It's donors in the top quintile who primarily fund elite universities and arts organizations. Food banks, shelters and service organizations derive most of their donor dollars from people who earn less than $100k a year.

 

These numbers are immensely helpful to non-profits of all kinds. Often a client would want to get the big gifts from the wealthy donors that they really didn't have access to and I was able to rejigger their appeals so they weren't minimizing the importance of cultivating their middle class/moderate means donor base. Rather than chase a CEO for $5000, I could bring them many more times that securing $500+ commitments from ordinary people who had previously volunteered there. People think that the rich drive the charitable sector the data shows a much more nuanced picture. Kim Klein's Reliable Fundraising in Unreliable Times is a good look at this.

 

I do find it odd, that almost all the financial donations to the local public library come from a few very large donations from people who don't use the library. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that low income donors give the most to direct social services and children's programs and they generally receive no tax or estate planning benefits for it, I do think it's notable that they give more of their income. I'm not drawing any conclusion that they have a different level of giving. Not a value judgment.

 

I am not seeing how these statistics show that.  If the statistics are based upon itemized deductions on tax forms, then these donors ARE receiving tax benefits. Because of the alternative minimum tax, the low income donors may be receiving a bigger tax incentive than higher income individuals.

 

In fact these people may be "low income" because of the estate planning they are doing. Our tax code encourages certain types of behavior (and discourages other types), including how and when income is taken, which then impacts what income quintile someone is placed in.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing not being figured in is the disparity in income between a person with a pension and one without. While working, one will be in a lower tax bracket than the other, even though total compensation is similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not seeing how these statistics show that. If the statistics are based upon itemized deductions on tax forms, then these donors ARE receiving tax benefits. Because of the alternative minimum tax, the low income donors may be receiving a bigger tax incentive than higher income individuals.

 

In fact these people may be "low income" because of the estate planning they are doing. Our tax code encourages certain types of behavior (and discourages other types), including how and when income is taken, which then impacts what income quintile someone is placed in.

The data is not just extrapolated from tax information. It's a much larger topic than I have time for on a message board but there is literally no shortage of information that backs up my very brief summary statements.

 

When I talk about this topic I am not saying what I want to believe (for example, I'm an urban dwelling liberal and freely acknowledge the data shows that conservatives in rural states tend to give at higher rates of their income than people in my demographic), it's coming from more than a decade of professional experience and reading specialized publications, journals and books. Wealthy donors *are* less likely than middle class ones to give to direct social services that aid the poor and more likely than middle class ones to give the greatest share of their gifts to academic and arts institutions compared to donors with fewer resources. Note that nowhere am I saying "all". I know full well there are middle class people contributing to the opera and their alma matter and exceedingly well off people giving gobs of money to social justice organizations for homeless people. I just need to scroll through my contacts to see every iteration of donor type, lol.

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find it odd, that almost all the financial donations to the local public library come from a few very large donations from people who don't use the library.

The library is leaving big money on the table by not asking their patrons and cultivating giving in their natural allies. This is a common problem for community organizations, because of the myth that fundraising has to focus on people of high means.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find it odd, that almost all the financial donations to the local public library come from a few very large donations from people who don't use the library.

I don't find it odd that large donations come from people who don't use the libraries. Places like the libraries, youth/teen activity center, YMCA are viewed as safe places for kids to go to until parents come home from work. Some libraries have extended hours during exam season. People feel good donating to help pay the staff for longer library hours.

 

When my local library said they could not open for more hours due to cost, people are willing to donate so that the community event room can stay open later for free family events while the main section of the library close at the usual time.

 

ETA:

Apple, Cisco and Google donate to schools PTA fund and friends of libraries fund here. Applied Materials, Intel and Kaiser contributed over $100k to the library.

Edited by Arcadia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The data is not just extrapolated from tax information. It's a much larger topic than I have time for on a message board but there is literally no shortage of information that backs up my very brief summary statements.

 

Could you point me to some source that does not depend primarily on tax information?  I am having trouble finding any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Felicity, I am so glad that your boys have found good spots for Scouting! As to the not moving to community troops, I was told that by an LDS bishop and the SM for the 11yos and the District Chairman. So, maybe it's not a decision from on high, but handled within each ward. We had a young man from our local ward who tried to switch to our community troop and was told no. Too bad, as he really wanted to camp.

 

Our OA stuff is never on Sundays. Callouts, Ordeals, and Fellowships are Friday night/Saturday (and done by 4:00) for that very reason. Our troop tries hard not to camp on Saturday nights, but sometimes it's unavoidable. This weekend, for example, Saturday night is the ONLY night the adults can make snowcave camping. It's Band Bingo and something that escapes me at the moment, so Saturday night it is. Camporee is Friday into Saturday, but troops have the option to stay over. None of the LDS troops will. It willl depend on adults and weather for us. If we get another blizzard in, they'll pull out Saturday to get over the passes before they close. This is being a hard year, with dh's cancer--he just can't commit to trips right now. The other adults are really stepping up to help.

 

btw, most districts and councils do awards in the spring. You might look to see if you have a SM or CM eligible for the District Award of Merit or the Unit Leader Award or the Training Award. There's the Silver Beaver too! And the LDS has the On My Honor. In our district and council, we don't give out enough of those. I'd encourage you to look at them.

I am LDS and my kids scout with a community scouting group. Personally I would have many words to say it a bishop tried to tell me that I couldn't as it is an extra curricular activity. It would be like telling me my girls couldn't be Girl Guides (they aren't, they are in scouting too.... Scouts Canada is co-ed with a few exceptions like the LDS groups). Now I don't expect the ward to pay for my son's scouting registration and they do not. (It is $200 registration here per year per scout.).

 

Or ward right now is struggling with scouting. I am actually the cub leader now (not quite a year for the church group) and it is being hard to fix it. The scouts is not happening (the 11yo scout leader is doing ok) and the Venturer agreed books are not even registered. Right now we direct any inquires about scouting too one of the community groups because of program isn't good enough right now. And the 11 yo scout leader is thinking of putting her 11yo into a community group next year.

 

But our Ward used to have an excellent group. I used to run about 12 years ago the ward cub pack and we had a great running pack with Lds and non-LDS kids and lots going on. It was a great deal.... We paid half registration at that time (full now), there was the one fundraiser (Spaghetti Dinner... Venturers helped cook, cubs and scouts set up and cleaned up), no dues, no charges for activities, we provided the handbooks and had used uniforms available. The one drawback was no camping for cubs (done with Scouts Canada, but not allowed with LDS cubs). Or scouts camped a fair bit, and the Venturers were very active. In fact, they got 2nd place one year for the Amory Adventure Award, which is a Canada wide competition for Venturers for an adventure. The winning group that year did a trip to cleanup the Base Camp at Mount Everest)

 

So I've seen the great LDS Scout groups and the horrible ones, and over time the one can become the other.

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

I honestly don't get the mentality that someone should tell me EVERYTHING the day I sign my kid up for something. When are we having this conversation? In the registration line? Is it good for business to put an expected yearly bill in the brochure when the competitor down the road isn't doing it? Isn't it my responsibility to do my research before I let my kid get involved in something? Shouldn't I expect a learning curve in ANY new situation? It just doesn't seem reasonable to me to walk through life getting upset whenever I discover that I didn't know something. Learning these things IS life. No adult wants to run interference for me to shield me from that.

 

I can see getting upset when a fee is clearly extravagant and goes way beyond the fair market cost of covering the trip/stage rental/uniform price/whatever. Then it may be time to investigate and use my time and energy to learn the normal price range of these things. However, getting all flustered and looking for someone to blame when I learn that my kid's tuition covers only the teacher's salary and the facility rental, but nothing special outside of that, seems a little strange to me. There has to come a point in adulthood where you just expect everything to cost something.

 

"Our participation fees are kept low by hosting four to five fundraisers every year.  Parent volunteers and donations for these fundraisers ensure that coaching staff salaries and facility fees are covered for the team. Please plan on donating 3-4 volunteer hours and one item for our silent auction held in January."  Anything like that would have been helpful in the myraid of policies, handbooks, and liability waivers that I was required to read and sign before we joined.

 

I expected a learning curve in this sport. I expect everything to cost something. I'm not flustered or looking for someone to blame. I have not complained to anyone on our team.  I wrote it down here in reference to the idea that expectations play a large role in getting parents on board with paying the necessary fees and dues in order to get the group to run smoothly.

 

I'm not sure how disclosing expected team commitments before parents sign up is somehow running interference for me or shielding me from adulthood. I mean, if an extra $50-$150 dollars out of your budget is no big thing, then that is amazing and I don't begrudge anyone that.  It's just not the reality for our family.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The numbers are probably correct. I am just not sure what conclusion should be drawn from these data about percentage of income given to charity. 

If percentage is lower in higher income brackets, absolute amount is still higher.

Taxes are progressive; so the higher income families contribute to a larger extent to public services through their taxes.

Property taxes depend on property value. I could imagine that some families with the high property tax bill might feel they are already contributing much more to the public school than others and don't see a need to donate in addition.

It would be interesting to look at (taxes plus charitable donations) as percentage of income.

 

I do not believe the data allow any conclusion like "higher income folks are heartless and selfish". It's more complex than that.

 

I don't think I would say it's a simple conclusion, either.  But even beyond the numbers, it's been a comon observance of social workers and charitable oeganization workers I've known.  The pattern even seems to hold when looked at across geographic population groups - areas that are poorer, like poorer provinces, often give a higher % per person. 

 

It may be as simple as there is a fixed sense of the lowest amount that would be useful to donate - say $5, and even very poor people won't go below that, though it represents a larger portion of income. 

 

That being said, there is a fair bit of research around the psychological aspects of this which are pretty clear that increased income seems to create an increased sense of privilege.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

We had a young lady down valley who wanted to be a Venturer. She was told no by her bishop. No in VERY emphatic terms. She ended up joining a WONDERFUL community crew, but man, the fallout! The dad encouraged her, and it almost got him kicked out of the ward. She had a great experience, earned her Silver Award (analogous to Eagle) and graduated high school. She came up her to college and was told that she wasn't welcome at their ward if she continued in Venturing. She ended up leaving school, the crew, and left the church for several years. Very messy. I don't know where she is now, as I don't want to ask her dad. He's very involved with Scouting, but not anything to do with Venturing any more. The crew has all but disbanded--dd is the only actual member any more. The other kids are aged out and all married or engaged. I don't have time to sink into trying to reorganize the crew, so I hear you on units going up and down. Dd is about to graduate and is in far too much stuff already. We're in survival mode here.

 

I was interested to hear why LDS isn't in Scouts Canada, that it was because of a different structure without the chartering organization that handpicks leaders. Since it is their YM's program, I can see why the church wants to retain the control of leaders.

The LDS Church IS in Scouts Canada. Scouting is supposed to be the Young Men's program in Canada as well in the U.S. The ward would be the Chartering Organization.

 

Horrible to hear that there is so much pressure against that girl being in scouting. I was a Rover (youth scouting member agreed 18-26l and also a leader in a community group when I was younger. In fact my YSA Bishop signed me off on the Adult On My Honour Award (Adult Religion in Life Badge). (And before that my Rover level Religion in Life Badge). One of the requirements of the Adult on my Honour Award was to be a leader for a church sponsored scouting section. As a YSA Ward has no scouting sections, he signed it off because my community group was sponsored by an Anglican Church... Lol. Another Bishop signed off my step-daughter for her Scout level Religion in Life Badge. My girls even attend the Stake B.P. dinner and cub car rally (Pinewood Derby) in uniform and race their cars, and no one has said a thing about it.

 

Oh, btw, my oldest daughter, who is now a scout, had a great time at the BSA scout camp this summer; our troop always goes to the States to attend a nearby one. About 5 Canadian girls in a sea of boys....

 

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Our participation fees are kept low by hosting four to five fundraisers every year. Parent volunteers and donations for these fundraisers ensure that coaching staff salaries and facility fees are covered for the team. Please plan on donating 3-4 volunteer hours and one item for our silent auction held in January." Anything like that would have been helpful in the myraid of policies, handbooks, and liability waivers that I was required to read and sign before we joined.

 

I expected a learning curve in this sport. I expect everything to cost something. I'm not flustered or looking for someone to blame. I have not complained to anyone on our team. I wrote it down here in reference to the idea that expectations play a large role in getting parents on board with paying the necessary fees and dues in order to get the group to run smoothly.

 

I'm not sure how disclosing expected team commitments before parents sign up is somehow running interference for me or shielding me from adulthood. I mean, if an extra $50-$150 dollars out of your budget is no big thing, then that is amazing and I don't begrudge anyone that. It's just not the reality for our family.

I would also add that extra travel should be disclosed. DD moved to a higher level cheer team, and one big difference was that the higher level teams have a mandatory state-wide stunt clinic. At a venue almost 5 hours away. Since I don't drive after dark if at all possible, we got a hotel room, but that's a big financial cost on top of a $50 clinic fee. It would have been kind of nice to know that up front.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Our participation fees are kept low by hosting four to five fundraisers every year. Parent volunteers and donations for these fundraisers ensure that coaching staff salaries and facility fees are covered for the team. Please plan on donating 3-4 volunteer hours and one item for our silent auction held in January." Anything like that would have been helpful in the myraid of policies, handbooks, and liability waivers that I was required to read and sign before we joined.

 

I expected a learning curve in this sport. I expect everything to cost something. I'm not flustered or looking for someone to blame. I have not complained to anyone on our team. I wrote it down here in reference to the idea that expectations play a large role in getting parents on board with paying the necessary fees and dues in order to get the group to run smoothly.

 

I'm not sure how disclosing expected team commitments before parents sign up is somehow running interference for me or shielding me from adulthood. I mean, if an extra $50-$150 dollars out of your budget is no big thing, then that is amazing and I don't begrudge anyone that. It's just not the reality for our family.

A hearty and loud clapping agreement from me. And when to have this conversation? At any point in the recruitment. At any point in the opening night stuff. At any point when people are signing up. It shouldn't be that dadblum difficult to explain to parents what they are signing up for. A flyer with bullet points would suffice. And if they can't or won't explain it up front? Then they have zero sympathy from me when parents don't get on board with it afterward. None.

 

Far far too often I've heard "oh it'll all work out!" Or "God will provide when the time comes!" *happy happy smile smile* Like it's rude to even ask about expenses and time commitments. But it does not always work out and more often than not, it's not God's fault.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My daughter started an activity this year that I knew would stretch our budget. Before we signed up, the head of the activity had a parent meeting and passed out information detailing every expected expense and volunteer commitment. In some cases, he could only give an estimate based on previous experience, but it was pretty accurate. They also set up regular payments into an account and then took money out of the account when competition season began. They gave us the option to decline to attend events that were far away and would require hotel accommodations. I really appreciated knowing what I was getting into and being able to plan expenses.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then, I was misinformed. So do LDS wards have the right to pick their leaders in Scouts Canada? And congrats on that OMH Award!

The scout leaders are called by the Bishop. I think our Group Commissioner (volunteer member of the ward) will make suggestions to the Bishop, along with the Primary President / Young Men's President.

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are the LDS troops in Scout Canada coed?

No. Scouts Canada is Mansory co-ed UNLESS, on a national level, a sponsor require single-gender membership because of religious reasons. The main sponsor that does that is the LDS Church, but I think there is at least one other. Scouts Canada would have lost a huge percentage of is membership without that exception.

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...