Soliciting non-member neighbors for Fast Offering donations

[JAHS]

Someone I know(non-member) said they found this letter on their door step and wondered if it was legit.
Anyone heard of a ward doing this?

[Calm]

QR code?  Sounds like a scam to me.  No letterhead either.  I would definitely recommend calling the local ward to talk to the bishop to anyone who gets something like this. This needs to be publicized if it is a new scam.

Edited February 4 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

It's from their "neighbor", and signed? I never seen the church use QR codes, though I'm not well up to date on everything done now days. 

[Rain]

When I was doing the ward program I used QR codes. It seems like the church had them for Light the World too?  I can easily see a ward using one for this. 

That said, QR codes can definitely be a scam and just dropping a paper like this with or without a code would definitely turn me off. If you want to increase donations in your ward then at least ask in person.

[Tacenda]

Maybe because I'm not active, they've stopped sending the Deacons for fast offering collections. I miss those days of having them! But then I thought maybe it's because people don't use checks anymore? So maybe they have stopped coming around to homes. Or it depends on the Stake/Ward? 

[MrShorty]

FWIW, if it is legit, I would be concerned as a member of the church. There are some "optics" around this that could easily backfire on the local ward and the church as a whole. I think most of us are aware of the disclaimer on the bottom of the church's donation slip that states that all donations become the property of the church to be used as it sees fit. Advertising this as an opportunity to donate to a fund that will benefit the poor and needy, but without a way to demonstrate that the money actually went to those purposes could create some bad optics for the church. It isn't hard for me to imagine someone becoming "offended" if they believe their money is going to help poor people to later discover that their fast offering donation ended up paying for the ward's utilities.

One strike I see against legitimacy -- I see no mention of tax deductibility. It could have been overlooked, but I would expect any well thought out donation campaign like this would include some mention of tax deductibility.

Edited February 4 by MrShorty

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

FWIW, if it is legit, I would be concerned as a member of the church. There are some "optics" around this that could easily backfire on the local ward and the church as a whole. I think most of us are aware of the disclaimer on the bottom of the church's donation slip that states that all donations become the property of the church to be used as it sees fit. Advertising this as an opportunity to donate to a fund that will benefit the poor and needy, but without a way to demonstrate that the money actually went to those purposes could create some bad optics for the church. It isn't hard for me to imagine someone becoming "offended" if they believe their money is going to help poor people to later discover that their fast offering donation ended up paying for the ward's utilities.

One strike I see against legitimacy -- I see no mention of tax deductibility. It could have been overlooked, but I would expect any well thought out donation campaign like this would include some mention of tax deductibility.

As I understand it, fast offerings don't got to pay the church's bills.  They can definitely go to pay someone else's bills though.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe because I'm not active, they've stopped sending the Deacons for fast offering collections. I miss those days of having them! But then I thought maybe it's because people don't use checks anymore? So maybe they have stopped coming around to homes. Or it depends on the Stake/Ward? 

They stopped coming around during Covid, if not before in our Utah ward.

Though I have been sleeping to noon for a year it seems, so they may be coming and I don’t know it, lol.  Will check with my husband and get back if I am wrong.

Added:  He doesn’t know if they do or don’t, but they don’t come to us (we pay online).

Precovid, they would come by to drop off the newsletter even if we didn’t do fast offerings.

Edited February 5 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

FWIW, if it is legit, I would be concerned as a member of the church. There are some "optics" around this that could easily backfire on the local ward and the church as a whole. I think most of us are aware of the disclaimer on the bottom of the church's donation slip that states that all donations become the property of the church to be used as it sees fit. Advertising this as an opportunity to donate to a fund that will benefit the poor and needy, but without a way to demonstrate that the money actually went to those purposes could create some bad optics for the church. It isn't hard for me to imagine someone becoming "offended" if they believe their money is going to help poor people to later discover that their fast offering donation ended up paying for the ward's utilities.

One strike I see against legitimacy -- I see no mention of tax deductibility. It could have been overlooked, but I would expect any well thought out donation campaign like this would include some mention of tax deductibility.

If I recall, unlike the US Social Security, the Church funds don't co-mingle. Fast Offerings can't be used for anything else.

[JAHS]

54 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

If I recall, unlike the US Social Security, the Church funds don't co-mingle. Fast Offerings can't be used for anything else.

So does "all donations" mean all or does it actually exclude Fast Offerings?
I know that records are kept on how much fast offerings are donated in a ward and that a ward should not spend beyond what is donated within their ward.
But is that just a numbers thing and the actual money might be used for other things once it gets to Salt Lake?

[Pyreaux]

27 minutes ago, JAHS said:

So does "all donations" mean all or does it actually exclude Fast Offerings?
I know that records are kept on how much fast offerings are donated in a ward and that a ward should not spend beyond what is donated within their ward.
But is that just a numbers thing and the actual money might be used for other things once it gets to Salt Lake?

The Bishop is instructed to use these only for things like food, housing, medical bills, and essential utilities for those in need. When you donate a Fast Offering, that money is technically available for your local Bishop to help people in your own ward area first. If a wealthy ward collects more than it needs, the surplus isn't "co-mingled" with the building fund. Instead, it is sent to the Stake, then to Church Headquarters, to be redistributed to wards in poorer areas, or used for global humanitarian aid.

The "Legal Disclaimer" is mostly a legal safeguard to prevent lawsuits if a specific fund is overfilled and the money needs to be shifted. No matter how much, Church leaders and the General Handbook emphasize that they do not co-mingle Fast Offerings with general funds in practice. It is kept a distinct "welfare" resource, it won't be used to pay the electric bill.

[blackstrap]

In my area we have not had YM go around collecting Fast Offerings for many years. Each ward, however, has a project in which they go to all people within the ward boundaries and solicit funds for the YMYW program. All funds raised go specifically to the youth programs. To my knowledge, there have been no negative responses. 

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, JAHS said:

Someone I know(non-member) said they found this letter on their door step and wondered if it was legit.
Anyone heard of a ward doing this?

This sounds like some member going "off the reservation" and it needs to be reported to the local church authorities. It is not legitimate.

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

The "Legal Disclaimer" is mostly a legal safeguard to prevent lawsuits if a specific fund is overfilled and the money needs to be shifted.

I believe it also helps with tax donation concerns at the government level. i.e people are donating to the church, they are not for example buying books/pencils/paper that they will use in a lesson and trying to claim a tax benefit.

[ZealouslyStriving]

If real, it is super-cringe.

[JVW]

I think it's a really sweet idea but poorly executed. Definitely has that "local" feel. It made me realize that the church should advertise donations b/c I never realized that non-members could donate before. AFAIK there isn't any other single charity program on the planet where 100% of donated funds go to charity. AFAIK Salvation Army has 18% admin costs and United Way has 15% admin cost. One thing I love about donating to the church's charity arm is that I know all money will be used for charity work and none will end up in any admin's pockets.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

I think it's a really sweet idea but poorly executed. Definitely has that "local" feel. It made me realize that the church should advertise donations b/c I never realized that non-members could donate before. AFAIK there isn't any other single charity program on the planet where 100% of donated funds go to charity. AFAIK Salvation Army has 18% admin costs and United Way has 15% admin cost. One thing I love about donating to the church's charity arm is that I know all money will be used for charity work and none will end up in any admin's pockets.

I agree that is what is nice about church donations. The church funds the admin of charity funds through other funds. I don’t think it is necessarily bad or mismanagement that other charities do not have an umbrella entity to pay for their charity wing. Volunteers and free labor can only go so far in a large charity organization. This is why so often the church outsources its charity donation to other established charities that are prepared to fulfill a specific need. United way functions mostly as a referral agency to other community resources. So many charity criticisms are due to misunderstandings about which charities perform which functions. 
 

 

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

If I recall, unlike the US Social Security, the Church funds don't co-mingle. Fast Offerings can't be used for anything else.

There is no way of knowing this. Money is fungible. When a clerk writes checks it all comes from one account whether it is ward budget funds of Fast Offering funds. They are tracked separately so the balances might line up by category but no one can really fact-check whether that happens.

[Tacenda]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

They stopped coming around during Covid, if not before in our Utah ward.

Though I have been sleeping to noon for a year it seems, so they may be coming and I don’t know it, lol.  Will check with my husband and get back if I am wrong.

Added:  He doesn’t know if they do or don’t, but they don’t come to us (we pay online).

Precovid, they would come by to drop off the newsletter even if we didn’t do fast offerings.

Thanks for the info!!

 

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, JVW said:

I think it's a really sweet idea but poorly executed. Definitely has that "local" feel. It made me realize that the church should advertise donations b/c I never realized that non-members could donate before. AFAIK there isn't any other single charity program on the planet where 100% of donated funds go to charity. AFAIK Salvation Army has 18% admin costs and United Way has 15% admin cost. One thing I love about donating to the church's charity arm is that I know all money will be used for charity work and none will end up in any admin's pockets.

There is another charity that guarantees 100% of the donations go to the charity.  It's called Charity: Water.  They use private donors to pay for all their overhead and administration costs so that 100% of the public donations can go to providing clean water to communities without it.

But yes, it is very very rare and I love the church's humanitarian arm for that same reason.

[Rain]

10 hours ago, JVW said:

I think it's a really sweet idea but poorly executed. Definitely has that "local" feel. It made me realize that the church should advertise donations b/c I never realized that non-members could donate before. AFAIK there isn't any other single charity program on the planet where 100% of donated funds go to charity.

There are quite a few.  BlueBell mentioned one. Another is Festival of Trees in Utah (There are many Festival of Trees, but they don't all work the same.) All of the items sold there and all ticket sales go to Primary Children's Hospital.  All items sold there or used to run it are donated in some way.

There are quite a few small charities that are run by single people or families where the people are often paying to run it allowing for 100% of donations to go to the people/cause they help. By paying I mean paying for the shipping, website, electricity, tools or whatever is needed to run it.

It is difficult to have 100% go to the cause. In nearly all cases you have to have an organization or person paying necessary expenses in some way. 

 

10 hours ago, JVW said:

AFAIK Salvation Army has 18% admin costs and United Way has 15% admin cost. One thing I love about donating to the church's charity arm is that I know all money will be used for charity work and none will end up in any admin's pockets.

The interesting thing about the money the church gives to charities is that it usually goes to charities that are not 100%, including charities that are not all volunteer showing the church recognizes that a charity can be worthwhile even when not at 100%. 

But yes, 100% is difficult, but very cool when it happens.

Edited February 6 by Rain

[Pyreaux]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There is no way of knowing this. Money is fungible. When a clerk writes checks it all comes from one account whether it is ward budget funds of Fast Offering funds. They are tracked separately so the balances might line up by category but no one can really fact-check whether that happens.

That’s not how the Unit Banking System works. You're partially right about the bank, but wrong about the check. The clerk doesn't just "choose a category", the software literally locks the funds in the category. In the LCR system, Tithing and Fast Offerings are in completely different universes. It cannot co-mingle because the local ward doesn't actually hold the money. Salt Lake only release it when the software confirms it's for the right category.

I absolutely know. While the Church does not release full, line-item audited financial statements to the public to know 100%. I know because it would be dumb. Like a Bishop and a Clerk (unpaid volunteers with day jobs) would actively conspire to commit accounting fraud, know how to bypass the software locks, and lie to a stake auditor, all just to move money from a "charity" bucket to a "building" bucket, to pay for a party? Yeah, right.

I know the Church built rigorous, software-locked barriers to prevent co-mingling. The computer literally won't let a clerk pull Fast Offering money for a Ward Party. If a ward’s Fast Offering balance is low, the system doesn't just dip into the Youth Budget or the Tithing funds. The Bishop actually has to request a "transfer" or "replenishment" from the Stake, which draws from the Stake’s surplus Fast Offerings. Every six months, an outside auditor from another ward sits down and cross-references every single receipt with the specific category used. If Fast Offering money was used to buy a basketball hoop for the gym, the Bishop gets flagged for a policy violation.

The Church maintains a "Waterproof Bulkhead" policy. Fast Offerings are never sent to the general investment arm (Ensign Peak). They stay in the Welfare and Humanitarian Services stream. Even at the highest levels of the Church, these are reported as separate lines in the financial summaries.

The Church employs a massive department of professional auditors whose sole job is to ensure funds aren't co-mingled. Because co-mingling restricted funds (like Fast Offerings) with unrestricted funds (like Tithing) is an accounting nightmare that can jeopardize tax-exempt status in many countries. Also, because the Church Auditing Department is staffed by credentialed professionals (CPAs) whose careers depend on their licenses.

If they signed off on co-mingled funds, shifting "restricted" humanitarian money into "unrestricted" business or building accounts, they would be violating the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants code of ethics. Why risk losing their licenses to help a wealthy organization save a few dollars? It's a terrible trade. Intentionally co-mingling welfare funds would be providing the government with a kill switch for their tax-exempt status.

Just like at the ward level, the top level uses a "Council" system. No single person, not even the Prophet, has the checkbook in their desk. The people deciding where the money goes are physically and departmentally separate from the people who actually move the money and the people who audit the moves. To co-mingle at this level, you would need a conspiracy involving dozens of high-level professionals and leaders. There is also a very specific personality type drawn to Church employment, these are people who will all have a psychological barrier to borrowing from the Poor Fund to pay for a Temple. 

Ensign Peak whistleblowers prove that even at the highest levels of the investment arm, people talk. I may not know 100%, I do know there are hundreds of IT developers, database managers, and senior accountants who build and maintain the software that tracks these specific dollars, that know. In a group of 1,000 professional accountants, the odds that zero of them would leak a document showing Charity Funds used for Shopping Mall are basically zero.

Cynicism is not always intelligence when you think everything is a deep conspiracy and you ignore the much more boring reality.

Edited February 6 by Pyreaux

[bsjkki]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

There is another charity that guarantees 100% of the donations go to the charity.  It's called Charity: Water.  They use private donors to pay for all their overhead and administration costs so that 100% of the public donations can go to providing clean water to communities without it.

But yes, it is very very rare and I love the church's humanitarian arm for that same reason.

I think this is a wonderful thing. But, couldn’t other charities say our corporate donors pay overheard so your donation goes 100% to the cause? It’s not really 100%. It’s 100% of a category of donations. 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

That’s not how the Unit Banking System works. You're partially right about the bank, but wrong about the check. The clerk doesn't just "choose a category", the software literally locks the funds in the category. In the LCR system, Tithing and Fast Offerings are in completely different universes. It cannot co-mingle because the local ward doesn't actually hold the money. Salt Lake only release it when the software confirms it's for the right category.

I absolutely know. While the Church does not release full, line-item audited financial statements to the public to know 100%. I know because it would be dumb. Like a Bishop and a Clerk (unpaid volunteers with day jobs) would actively conspire to commit accounting fraud, know how to bypass the software locks, and lie to a stake auditor, all just to move money from a "charity" bucket to a "building" bucket, to pay for a party? Yeah, right.

I know the Church built rigorous, software-locked barriers to prevent co-mingling. The computer literally won't let a clerk pull Fast Offering money for a Ward Party. If a ward’s Fast Offering balance is low, the system doesn't just dip into the Youth Budget or the Tithing funds. The Bishop actually has to request a "transfer" or "replenishment" from the Stake, which draws from the Stake’s surplus Fast Offerings. Every six months, an outside auditor from another ward sits down and cross-references every single receipt with the specific category used. If Fast Offering money was used to buy a basketball hoop for the gym, the Bishop gets flagged for a policy violation.

The Church maintains a "Waterproof Bulkhead" policy. Fast Offerings are never sent to the general investment arm (Ensign Peak). They stay in the Welfare and Humanitarian Services stream. Even at the highest levels of the Church, these are reported as separate lines in the financial summaries.

The Church employs a massive department of professional auditors whose sole job is to ensure funds aren't co-mingled. Because co-mingling restricted funds (like Fast Offerings) with unrestricted funds (like Tithing) is an accounting nightmare that can jeopardize tax-exempt status in many countries. Also, because the Church Auditing Department is staffed by credentialed professionals (CPAs) whose careers depend on their licenses.

If they signed off on co-mingled funds, shifting "restricted" humanitarian money into "unrestricted" business or building accounts, they would be violating the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants code of ethics. Why risk losing their licenses to help a wealthy organization save a few dollars? It's a terrible trade. Intentionally co-mingling welfare funds would be providing the government with a kill switch for their tax-exempt status.

Just like at the ward level, the top level uses a "Council" system. No single person, not even the Prophet, has the checkbook in their desk. The people deciding where the money goes are physically and departmentally separate from the people who actually move the money and the people who audit the moves. To co-mingle at this level, you would need a conspiracy involving dozens of high-level professionals and leaders. There is also a very specific personality type drawn to Church employment, these are people who will all have a psychological barrier to borrowing from the Poor Fund to pay for a Temple. 

Ensign Peak whistleblowers prove that even at the highest levels of the investment arm, people talk. I may not know 100%, I do know there are hundreds of IT developers, database managers, and senior accountants who build and maintain the software that tracks these specific dollars, that know. In a group of 1,000 professional accountants, the odds that zero of them would leak a document showing Charity Funds used for Shopping Mall are basically zero.

Cynicism is not always intelligence when you think everything is a deep conspiracy and you ignore the much more boring reality.

I don’t think it is likely that the Church is diverting funds. Nor do I think local leaders are conspiring to move funds from one bucket to another. Local unit fraud is more likely to be embezzlement than moving fast offering funds into ward events.

I just don’t think we know what is going on at the highest levels. I don’t think anything nefarious is likely going on with the money. I am just not sure what is going on.

[JVW]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

There is another charity that guarantees 100% of the donations go to the charity.  It's called Charity: Water.  They use private donors to pay for all their overhead and administration costs so that 100% of the public donations can go to providing clean water to communities without it.

But yes, it is very very rare and I love the church's humanitarian arm for that same reason.

That's a beautiful charity, thanks for letting me know about it!