Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
Valentine Morby is pleased to present this report to Oxford University Hospitals Trust.
Background
Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust (OUH) is working with Great Western Hospital (GWH) and Milton Keynes
Hospital (MKH) NHS Foundation Trusts to develop local radiotherapy services at Swindon and Milton Keynes
respectively. A draft business case has been prepared but it is unlikely these initiatives will go ahead without
additional funding. To this end, the Trusts are looking to develop two separate cancer based charitable appeals
– one at each site – to secure the additional funding.
This report is based on a potential requirement for charitable funding of £3 million, over three years, at GWH
and £1.5 million, over two years, at MKH.
This paper reports on the following:
 What is a realistic charitable funding target, with what profile over time?
 What level of resource would the campaign need (staffing and budget)
 Once the initial appeal has reached target, what should be the longer term contribution towards charitable
fundraising?
 The critical success factors for major fundraising campaigns?
 What are the main potential income streams (donor types)?
 What would be the best way to run the campaign (Could an appeal be operated by another charity? E.g.
Macmillan?)
 What would be the level of commitment required from internal and external stakeholders to make the
appeal a success?
Assumptions
This report has been prepared making the following assumptions:
 Existing fundraising resources cannot be diverted to the appeal
 There will be good clinical and non executive and executive leadership of a funding campaign
 A new appeal for cancer will be set up in each location, with the requisite resources
 The appeal is focussed on both providing local radiotherapy services in these towns and, on wider
investment, cancer services on the hospital sites
 Appeal Fundraising teams to be in place by May 2014
Methods used:
Face-to-face and telephone interviews
Desktop research
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
Confidential
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Executive Summary
The Fundraising Potential
Managing the Appeal
Planning the Appeal
Income and Expenditure
Tables
Table 1 Returns on investment (ROI’s) for 20 NHS Charities
Table 2 Notional appeal timetables
Table 3 Fundraising over the past three years
Table 4 GWH - Income and the breakdown of income streams
Table 5 MKH - Income and the breakdown of income streams
Table 6 GWH - Income and expenditure on radiotherapy and other services
Table 7 MKH – Income and expenditure on radiotherapy and other services
Table 8 GWH - Relationship between income and expenditure
Table 9 MKH - Relationship between income and expenditure
Table 10 Proposed staff structure
Table 11 Budget and ROI’s
Appendices
I. Sources of general UK voluntary income
II. Sources of NHS voluntary income
III. Wealth research
IV. Competing charities
V. Comparisons with other NHS charities
VI. Other NHS charity appeals and lessons learned
VII. Structure of a major appeal
VIII. Interviewees
IX. Income and expenditure and ROI’s (£4million appeal example)
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 2 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
Confidential
Executive Summary

Comparisons with other NHS charities indicate both Trusts have the potential for significant growth.
However, given that the campaigns have not yet begun and the current levels of fundraising activity, it is
not thought reasonable to expect that either NHS charity can deliver the financial targets within the
timescales proposed. It is estimated that it would take GWH four years to raise the full £3million net
income and MKH would take three years to raise the full £1.5million net income.


A more realistic target for GWH would be £2.6milllion net income raised within three years.
A more realistic target for MKH would be £1.3million net income raised within two years.

At present, fundraising for cancer services is not significant at either site. However, there is active
fundraising for other services, which cannot be neglected during an appeal. With this in mind, the
income forecasts take into account a sum of £250k per year to be diverted into non-cancer services for
the duration of the appeal.

The Association of NHS Charities’ latest figures show that a reasonably well run NHS hospital charity can
expect to be raising around 0.7% of the overall parent hospital budget. This would mean that with a
Trust budget of £284 m in 2012/13, GWH’s charity could be raising around £2m annually. With MKH’s
budget at £135m, the charity could be raising around £1m annually. A successful capital appeal will be
the catalyst to set them on a path towards this growth.

It has been suggested that a third-party organisation might lead one of the appeals. However, VM
strongly recommends that the appeals are managed by their respective NHS charity. A successful appeal
will strengthen the charities, develop new internal and external networks and be the driver for a major
step-change in their fundraising capacity. Handing the appeal to a third-party would throw away the
means of effecting this change.

The timescales proposed are tight and, if the appeals are to succeed, key internal stakeholders will have
to engage the appeal planning process with energy and vigour. As soon as the Business Case is signed
off, an Appeal Development Group (ADG) should be set up at both Trusts. The ADG is responsible for
signing off the Case for Support, identifying external contacts and helping to secure the Appeal Chair.

There are issues around an additional fundraising requirement for a new Cancer Centre at MKH, which
need to be addressed. The Case for Support for each site must not only be compelling to the public, but
it must be water-tight in terms of the Trust’s strategic planning. Appeals which have met with difficulties
provide some cautionary tales. High financial targets, poor fundraising strategies and a change in NHS
priorities, resulting in the failure by the NHS to deliver the rationale (Case for Support) upon which the
campaign was launched, being the main reasons for the problems.

Interviews at both sites indicated strong support for the proposed new services and a recognition that a
significant step-change in fundraising activities was achievable. However, the question of ‘why should
we raise funds for an OUH service?’ was raised. This needs careful consideration as committed, internal,
leadership is vital for a major appeal to succeed. If staff have any reservations, or are not sufficiently
motivated, it could damage the integrity of the appeal and the ability to raise funds.

The Appeal Strategy should be structured to target major donors, grant-making trusts, corporate
adoptions and supported by a community-wide appeal.
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 3 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
Confidential

An appeal based on developing local Radiotherapy Services RT services will be attractive to donors but
the Trusts cannot assume that significant funds will be raised immediately. Charitable funding is a
mature market. It is well known in fundraising models that the potential is not reached initially and can
take several years to build. In addition, on top of delivering a major appeal from scratch, both charities
will need to maintain ongoing fundraising for other services.

Radiotherapy and other cancer services will remain a strong focus for fundraising beyond the life of the
appeal.

If targets or NHS priorities change, the financial models and staff structure can be easily be adapted for
each site depending on their needs. If the appeals do not take place as planned, the model can be used
as the basis for investment and development for long-term fundraising.

In the appeal planning stage, selective prospect research should be commissioned to provide names and
background details (including capacity and propensity to give) of the wealthy individuals identified in
desktop research.

An integrated fundraising and communications strategy is prepared to ensure all internal stakeholders
and the general public are receiving consistent messages.

Both Trusts will need to implement a legacy strategy in order to reach and maintain their full fundraising
potential.
Assuming the business case is signed off the recommended next steps would be:
 Investment in fundraising teams to be agreed and recruitment should begin as soon as possible.

Case for Support should be drafted immediately and tested internally.

Names of senior personnel who should be expected to be part of the ADG should be drawn up and notice
given in advance of initial meeting.

Presentations should be made to the Board/CFC at each site on how to deliver a major charitable appeal.
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 4 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
Confidential
1. THE FUNDRAISING POTENTIAL
1.1 General UK Fundraising Trends
The proportion of people donating to charitable causes in a typical month has decreased over the last year,
from 58% to 55%. Charitable support nevertheless remains relatively widespread, with over half of adults
giving in 2011/12, equivalent to 28.4 million adults.
‘Medical Research’, ‘hospitals and hospices’ and ‘children and young people’ continue to attract the highest
proportions of donors.
Despite the lack of growth in the economy and the squeeze on personal incomes, charities achieved a growth
in voluntary income of just over 5%. This was helped by a 6% increase in legacy income which, at 33%,
continues to provide the single largest source of voluntary income. Return on Investment (ROI) was practically
unchanged from the previous year at £4.14 per £1 invested.
1.2 Voluntary income sources – where does the money come from?
Appendix 1 shows a simple analysis of the main sources of voluntary income in 2012, compared with a
breakdown of voluntary income in the same year from 20 NHS charities.
Legacy-giving remains the best performer across general voluntary and NHS specific incomes at 33% and 25%
respectively. NHS charities perform better than general UK charities across major donor activity with 23% of
their income coming from this income stream as compared with 3% for general charities. Trust fundraising
performs less well and this is due to the fact that a large proportion of private grant-making institutions prefer
not to support NHS work. The corporate sector performs far more strongly for NHS charities and this augurs
well for both MKH and GWH Trusts, which are well represented by major national and multi-national
businesses in their respective locales.
General (community) donations also perform well within NHS charities reflecting many donors’ preference for
supporting a local cause. Self-interest is also a known donor motivator and the introduction of local RT services
will play well within both communities. Committed giving is the holy-grail for many charities; however, NHS
Charities do not perform well in this income stream as people feel they provide ongoing support the NHS
through their taxes.
Table 1 - Returns on investment (ROI) for 2012 based on research of 20 NHS Charities.
Corporates
Events
2.4
3
Trading
5.3
Comm'ty fundraising
5.9
Tribute Funds (In Mem)
General donations
Trusts & Fdns
Major Donors
Legacies
8.4
9.5
11.6
14
39.6
Legacies are by far the best ROI in NHS fundraising, showing a return of nearly £40 for every £1 invested. The
core appeal fundraising activities show up well with major donor work performing well at 1:14 and grantmaking trusts at 1:11.6. General donations hold up well at nearly £10 for every £1 invested which reflects the
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 5 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
Confidential
good service being received by the majority of people from their local trusts. Corporate donations are quite
low at 1:2.4 but this can be considerably improved upon during a focussed appeal.
Key recommendation
 The Appeal Strategy should be structured to target major donors, large grant-making trusts and
foundations and corporate approaches supported by a community-wide appeal.
 A legacy campaign to be implemented at both sites
1.3 Fundraising potential
Desktop wealth research of the two areas (see Appendix II) provides a good snapshot of fundraising potential.
It will come as no surprise that there is significant potential for GWH to develop their fundraising capacity
through a capital appeal. There is considerable wealth on their doorstep, which is being currently being mined
by numerous other charities (see Appendix IV).
There are 55 individuals in the catchment area who appear in the Sunday Times Rich List (STRL) with wealth
of between £1million - £1billion. There are 86 companies in GWH’s catchment area with turnovers in excess
of £50million and over 300 Directors (average director salary in excess of £500k). Apart from Swindon itself,
average house prices in the surrounding areas are above the Land Registry House Price Index (HPI).
MKH is not as well placed as GWH in terms of High Net Worth Individuals (HNWI) and large areas of wealth.
Average house prices in Milton Keynes are below the HPI. However, there are 15 individuals on the STRL and,
for a Trust of its size, MKH punches above its weight in terms of the corporate support it can access-40 major
employers are based in Milton Keynes, with a further 13 companies based nearby with a turnover of £50
million. 120 directors are identified as having Milton Keynes postcodes.
Recommendation
 Commissioned research will provide names and background details (including capacity and propensity to
give) of the wealthy individuals identified. This type of carefully selected ‘donor prospect’ information
would be required for any major appeal.
1.4 Competing charities
Research shows that both charities work in extremely competitive fundraising marketplaces (see Appendix
IV). Local competition relates to the pressure on the local population to give to charity. This includes national
charities, those with an affinity interest such as animals and, local, health-related charities. Hospital-based
charities therefore comprise just a small element of the charities vying for the public’s attention at any one
time.
The top 100 charities receive over 85% of all UK giving. Therefore, the local population will already be giving
substantially to these charities e.g. BHF, NSPCC and Age UK. In addition, media driven appeals such as Comic
Relief, Red Nose Day and DEC Appeals are highly successful at attracting funds.
With the more immediate competition, there are several aspects to consider:

Hospices are always a compelling cause for donors and raise significant funds. GWH’s local hospice said
‘We don’t really have any competitors in Swindon’. Air Ambulances services are also strong in both areas
and generally have a committed and loyal supporter amongst the great and the good -which is a section
of the local population both appeals will need to access.

Often, within the hospitals themselves, other charitable organisations will display their collection boxes
and materials.
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 6 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report

Confidential
Both GWH and MKH have numerous small charities registered with the Charity Commission. Consultants
with specialist interests can be closely affiliated to specialist charities that coincide with their field of
interest. This can influence the attitudes of some staff in favour of these charities in preference to the
primary hospital charity. For example, funds may be raised within specific wards for these charities.
Similarly, there is an inevitable overlap with Macmillan within the oncology units and other services
related to cancer.
1.5 Comparisons with other NHS Charities
The Association of NHS Charities’ latest figures show that a reasonably well run NHS hospital charity can expect
to be raising around 0.7% of the overall parent hospital budget. This may seem low, but can be a sizeable
challenge in fundraising terms. For example, this would mean that with a Trust budget of £284 m in 2012/13,
GWH’s charity should be raising £1.98m. With MKH’s budget at £135m, the charity should be raising £945k. In
terms of potential to deliver the proposed appeals, the comparisons indicate strong potential to raise
significant funds.
The table in Appendix V looks at some other NHS Charities to see how GWH and MKH are currently performing
against this benchmark. The table shows that both GWH and MKH’s investment in fundraising is considerably
lower than all the other NHS charities shown. This suggests there must be more potential to develop income.
Where the parent NHS Trust has invested in its charity the returns are clear. Salisbury performs well with a
relatively small fundraising team and, given the right time and resources, should be viewed by GWH as a target
they could surpass
The Royal United Hospital Bath and the Queen Elizabeth in Birmingham both perform strongly given the
fiercely competitive fundraising areas in which they operate, which shows that given the opportunity many
people will make their local NHS charity their charity of choice.
Above & Beyond (A&B) in Bristol and Derby NHS Charity perform well against big targets. A&B particularly has
invested significantly in its fundraising over the past three years to avoid over reliance on legacies.
The majority of NHS Trusts have a long tradition of receiving legacies, whilst others receive relatively little.
This is especially true of MK which, as a relatively new town, has not built up the generations of support older
cities and towns have access to, particularly the baby-boomers, currently providing many Trusts with a
considerable annual legacy income. When considering fundraising targets, it is worth noting that, over the
past three years, MKH has received legacies to the value of £140k whilst, last year alone, GWH received £500k.
Although charity governance is not in the remit of this paper, the Trusts should take into consideration the
recent DH review and report on the status of iNHS Charities. Whilst no legislation has yet taken place, the
thrust of the DH’s report is to change the regulations around SORP and encourage NHS Trusts to enable the
independence of their partner charities. Given this likely change, it is worth noting that, when a charity has
achieved independence from NHS Corporate trustee status, as a general rule they perform better and in many
cases exceed the 0.7% level, as shown by Brompton’s strong performance of 2.3%. Some charities (not
included in the table) such as Moorfield’s and the Royal Marsden, already have separate charities for their
appeals and specialist hospitals do even better e.g. GOSH (18%) and Christie (7%).
Key Recommendation:
 Given time and investment GWH could reasonably be expected to raise a minimum £2million annually
 Given time and investment MKH could reasonably be expected to raise a minimum £1million annually
1.6 NHS Charity appeals – and the lessons learned
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 7 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
Confidential
A number of NHS Charities were researched looking at their recent appeals (See Appendix IV) and highlights
examples of some appeals, which have run into difficulties.
The research reveals an interesting trend in NHS trusts and their ambitions and capacity to fundraise. It shows
that very few charities with a proactive fundraising team are undertaking any major appeals (£1million +). In
fact, the majority are focusing on low-to-medium level fundraising. Many of the appeals that are promoted in
publicity materials are rolling appeals and have no specific targets at all. This is down to a number of factors
but the historic lack of investment by many Trusts in their charities is reflected by the relatively unambitious
way many approach their fundraising.
Addenbrooke’s has recently launched a £10 million appeal. This target highlights the gulf between the Trusts
who have developed a sophisticated and well-resourced fundraising team, and those who have relied on
general donations and legacies over the years as their main source of charitable income. That it’s such a
significant figure, and only over a short (three years) timescale, indicates the depth of existing networks and
breadth of fundraising activities (e.g. legacies, lotteries, In Memoriam) all of which will be used to make up
the target.
Interestingly, whilst Addenbrooke’s has the capacity to deliver a flagship appeal, its core fundraising strategy
is similar to other Trusts, in that it continues to offer medium and low-level appeals to diversify its offer to
supporters. It is worth noting, that their smaller-scale appeal for the paediatric scanner is the one being
supported by the local press who will be looking for an appeal that will resonate with their readers and carrying
a financial target towards which they can make a meaningful contribution.
Bedford Hospital Charity has shown the capacity to deliver large appeals, including £2.35 million raised by its
Primrose Appeal to build a new Oncology Unit, and more recently £400,000 towards state-of-the-art cancer
screening equipment in the Endoscopy Department. These figures and comparisons with other NHS Trusts
show the growth potential of MKH.
Appeals which have met with difficulties provide some cautionary tales. High financial targets, poor
fundraising strategies and a change in NHS priorities resulting in the failure by the NHS to deliver the rationale,
upon which the campaign was launched, being the main reasons for the problems.
Despite running a textbook campaign, including early investment and networking Southampton’s Red & White
Appeal struggled to reach its income forecasts. The Trust underestimated the time it takes to develop donor
relationships and early ambitions were too high and so income had to be re-forecasted downwards, which
was difficult for morale and reputation internally in the first year of operation.
Above & Beyond in Bristol has also struggled despite investment and planning. Their target was £6million and
the Case for Support, based mainly around enhancements to the new Infirmary and Oncology Centre, is not
seen as compelling in the public eye as the children’s hospital, or teenagers with cancer. As well as a case that
has been perceived as weak by the public, the NHS Trust set huge, and possibly unrealistic, financial targets.
The Grand Appeal, the independent charity supporting the Bristol Children’s Hospital (part of UHBT) declined
to accept the Trust’s target and set their own at £2million, which has been reached.
Bournemouth’s Jigsaw Appeal ran into serious trouble after raising £2.2 for a new cancer unit (2006-2009),
which to date still has not been built. The well orchestrated public campaign against the Trust and its charity
shows how some members of the public will respond if they feel they have been let down. It also strikes a
warning note that while social media will continue to make these kinds of campaigns easier and more effective,
at the same time it has the potential to inflict damage should things awry. Raising funds for any NHS service,
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 8 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
Confidential
which subsequently does not take place, can create legal problems for the Trust and charity alike and, in
extreme cases, the result is having to return funds to the donors.
There is a further dimension. Prior to the approach from OUH, MKH had already developed plans for a new
Cancer Centre to be fully funded by a £4m capital appeal, which it wants in addition to the proposed RT
services. This issue needs to be addressed before any appeal can take place.
Key recommendations
 The appeal Case for Support must not only be compelling to the public, but it must be water-tight in terms
of the Trust’s strategic planning
 High-level donor relationships takes time to mature and budget and income forecasts need to be set
accordingly
 Not to expect high returns on investment within the first two years
 MKH to determine local fundraising requirement
2. MANAGING THE APPEAL
It has been suggested that Macmillan is approached and asked to deliver the appeal on behalf of one of the
sites. Whilst it is hoped that the Macmillan staff will form a key element of the new services and that Macmillan
will support the appeals financially, VM strongly advises against Macmillan, or any third party, managing an
appeal on behalf of the NHS.
A successful appeal can transform the levels of general fundraising and provide a momentum that will
continue long after the appeal has been completed. GWH’s average income in the past three years (2010-12)
has been £317k and this is expected to rise to £1.3million per year after the appeal (not including growth for
other services) and MKH’s average income over the same period has been £218k and this is expected to grow
to nearly £1million per year after the appeal. Handing the appeal to a third-party would throw away the means
of effecting this change.
An appeal should be driven by the passion and commitment of internal staff and third party fundraisers are
unlikely to be as motivated as the in-house team. No matter how closely linked to the cause, hiring in a third
party would, in essence, be a ‘contract job’. In-house knowledge and the ability to bring out senior executives
and clinicians to meet and tour with major donors will form the basis of major gift and large trust fundraising.
Donors would be surprised and confused to tour GWH or MKH with a senior executive or fundraising
representative from another charity.
The ability to be well informed on your subject is a fundamental part of any fundraiser’s job. It is difficult
enough for in-house fundraisers to get sufficiently detailed and advanced knowledge of what their own Trust
is planning. The introduction of a third-party would only extend the lines of communication – and possible
confusion.
Patient mailing is a growing area of NHS fundraising and is very sensitive given patient confidentiality issues.
This has to be driven by the NHS.
Recommendation
 Appeals to be run by NHS charities
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 9 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
Confidential
3. PLANNING THE APPEAL
3.1 Critical success factors
The following points are widely recognised as essential if any charity is to raise significant funds from the
private sector.







A compelling Case for Support
Committed institutional and volunteer leadership.
The right fundraising strategy,
A communications strategy that underpins and reinforces the fund-raising activities.
A culture of top down flawless relationship management
Investment in a professional fundraising team, with appropriate expertise, together with research and
systems support, including IT and database competence
A realistic timeframe for these building blocks to be put in place
3.2 How a carefully managed capital appeal can create a step-change in ongoing revenue fundraising
It is a common misconception that a major appeal leaves a charity exhausted and that ongoing charity income
falls below the level from which the appeal began. In fact, through a carefully managed appeal, the opposite
is true. A successful capital appeal will strengthen the charities, develop new internal and external networks
and be the catalyst for a positive step-change in ongoing fundraising. The key is to deliver flawless campaign
management across all areas of the appeal. This includes financial targets but also committed internal
leadership, donor stewardship and administrative support of the highest quality.
3.3 The four stages of a major fundraising appeal
The four stages of a major appeal are listed below and Appendix VII shows how to manage the fundraising
stages effectively with proper reporting structures for the NHS Trust, the Appeal Board and for the charity’s
fundraising team.
i)
PREPARATION – Refining and testing the Case for Support and the Appeal literature, agreeing the
fundraising strategy, setting up the administrative systems and recruiting high-calibre appeal leadership
to form an Appeal Board. This is a critical stage where senior NHS staff play a key role.
An internal Appeal Development Group (ADG) is set up to drive the appeal forward. Once the Chair has
been identified and recruited this group steps down.
ii) PRIVATE PHASE – Focus on major gifts with individual site visits and presentations, small cultivation
events. Individuals might be able to give a personal gift or representatives/trustees of a major grantmaking trust or foundation.
iii) PUBLIC APPEAL – A public appeal so that everyone can ‘play their part’. Nb. Solicitation of major gifts
continues during the public phase.
iv) CONSOLIDATION – Outstanding donations and long term pledges are brought to account and monitored
carefully and the Trusts should continue nurturing the new committed donors.
Recommendation
 Set up an Appeal Development Group at each site. Senior staff’s involvement as part of an internal Appeal
Development Group is needed to help develop contacts, identify and secure the Appeal Chair.
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 10 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
Confidential
3.4 What would be a realistic target and timescale for this appeal?
VM would usually advise for at least 1-year to be allowed for planning and preparation for a major appeal. The
timescale for the appeal itself is usually determined by the capital works schedule. Once the Case for Support
has been signed off fundraising can begin well in advance of capital works and, with the appropriate rationale
can continue some time after he works are completed. The tables below provide notional timetables for each
appeal bases upon a shorter preparation stage. Timescales are very tight and, if it is to work, all key internal
stakeholders will have to engage the planning process with energy and vigour as failure to get this stage right
will jeopardise the appeal.
3.5 Appeal timetables
Table 2 - Notional appeal timetable for both GWH and MKH.
NOTIONAL APPEAL TIMETABLE FOR GWH (3 year appeal)
1. Preparation
Date
Draft the Case for Support
Jan-14
Test case internally
Feb-14
Test the case externally
Mar-14
Research and Recruit Appeal Chair/Appeal Board
Mar-May 14
Total preparation
2. Launch Private Appeal
Jun-14
Public Appeal Planning and Preparation
Major donors, securing local media support, identify corporate
adoptions for Years 2/3
3. Launch Public Appeal
Sep-14
PR Campaign to support media, special events, DMM etc)
Public Appeal Completed
Jul-17
Total appeal
Jul-17
NOTIONAL APPEAL TIMETABLE FOR MKH (2 year appeal)
1. Preparation
Date
Draft the Case for Support
Jan-14
Test case internally
Feb-14
Test the case externally
Mar-14
Research and Recruit Appeal Chair/Appeal Board
Mar-May 14
Total preparation
2. Launch Private Appeal
Jun-14
Public Appeal Planning and Preparation
Major donors, securing local media support, identify corporate
adoptions for Years 2/3
3. Launch Public Appeal
Sep-14
PR Campaign to support media, special events, DMM etc)
Public Appeal Completed
Jul-16
Total appeal
Jul-16
Duration
1 month
1 month
1 months
2 months
6 months
30 months
3.5 years
Duration
1 month
1 month
1 months
2 months
6 months
2 years
2.5 years
3.6 The Need for Internal Commitment and the role of the fundraiser
The requirement for involvement of staff at all levels in making an appeal a success cannot be underestimated.
The key areas are:
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 11 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
Confidential







Ensuring the necessary information is given to the fundraisers promptly
Signing of the Case for Support
Identifying influential contacts and networks
Identifying and helping to secure Appeal Chair
Representation on the Appeal Board
Act as advocates for the cause
Play a key role in major donor cultivation and the solicitation of major gifts. NB. All groundwork is done by
the fundraising team and through the Appeal Board. However, senior clinicians and executives will be
required to meet major donor prospects, accompany them on site tours and talk about the work.
4
INCOME AND EXPENDITURE
4.1 Fundraising status
Before making any recommendations on potential income it is important to look at the fundraising at both
sites as it stands at present.
Table 3 - Fundraising income at both Trusts in the past three years.
Fundraising income £ 000's
Year
GWH
MKH
2012/13
814*
390
2011/12
255
388
2010/11
154
173
*Figure includes a legacy donation of £620K.
This report assumes there is no significant funds raised for cancer services but, whilst neither charity has
received significant investment, both are raising funds for other services and both have demonstrated strong
growth over the past few years.
A high appeal target can inspire supporters and galvanise a community of donors. However, the danger of
setting any appeal target too high is to set the charity and its volunteers out to fail. A failed appeal will damage
the reputation of both the Trust and the charity. It will have a detrimental effect on long-term relationships,
both internally and externally, which will affect the charities ability to maximise its fundraising in the future.
An appeal based on developing local RT services will undoubtedly be attractive to donors but we cannot
assume that significant funds will be raised immediately. Charitable funding is a mature market. It is well
known in fundraising models that the potential is not reached initially and can take several years to build. In
addition, on top of delivering a major appeal from scratch, both charities will need to maintain ongoing
fundraising for other services.
4.2 Appeal versus ongoing fundraising
Tension between existing fundraising and appeal fundraising can often be difficult to manage unless this is
factored into the appeals planning and communications strategy. Clinicians and staff in other areas of
medicine will understand if funds raised for their particular service dips whilst there is a major appeal for
cancer, but they will still expect some funds to be raised. Many members of the general public will continue
to support areas of medicine where they or a friend or relative have received excellent care and they will want
a choice about where their donation is targeted. These donations must be encouraged and these supporters
must be nurtured.
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 12 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
Confidential
There is a further dimension. Prior to the approach from OUH, MKH had developed plans for a new Cancer
Centre to be funded by a £4m capital appeal. Including the £1.5m for the RT Centre this means, with staff and
ongoing fundraising for other services, MKH would have a funding requirement of circa £6.5m over the next
three years. This figure might be reduced by a £1.5m infrastructure grant from MK County Council and support
from Macmillan and major local businesses but, even with this support in place, it is thought unlikely MKH
would not be able to raise this sum in the next three years.
Given the timescales and other factors, it is not thought reasonable to expect the two charities to deliver the
financial targets within the timescales proposed. However, the cause is strong and as identified by
comparisons with other NHS charities both Trusts have the potential for significant growth.
Key Recommendation:
 It is not thought the targets proposed are achievable in the given timescale
 It is estimated that it would take GWH four years to raise the full £3million net income and it would take
MKH would three years to raise the full £1.5million net income.
 A more realistic target for GWH would be £2.6milllion net income raised within three years.
 A more realistic target for MKH would be £1.3million net income raised for within two years.
 Any financial targets should take into account a minimum requirement of £250,000 per annum to support
non-cancer services for the duration of the appeals.
 All internal stakeholders should be given clear messages about the appeal and its positive effect on longterm fundraising for the Trust
4.3 Forecast Income
The following tables shows forecast income and the breakdown of the major income streams to be exploited.
Table 4 - Income and the breakdown of income streams at GWH.
GREAT WESTERN HOSPITAL
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
000s
Income stream
Major Gifts
50
100
200
200
Trusts & Foundations
50
100
100
100
General donations (Community)
200
350
500
400
Events
150
200
300
250
Corporates
100
250
250
150
Tribute Funds (In Mem)
10
15
30
55
Lottery
5
20
35
Patient Mailing
50
50
50
SMS/Online
10
15
20
Legacies
250
250
250
250
Gross income
810
1330
1715
1510
Year 5
Year 6
250
50
450
250
150
150
70
25
30
250
1675
300
50
500
250
150
200
100
25
50
250
1875
Table 5 - Income and the breakdown of income streams at MKH.
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 13 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
MILTON KEYNES HOSPITAL
Income stream
Major Gifts
Trusts & Foundations
General donations (Community)
Events
Corporates
Tribute Funds (In Mem)
Lottery
Patient Mailing
SMS/Online
Legacies
Gross income
Confidential
Year 1
50
25
300
200
150
10
25
760
Year 2
100
100
350
350
300
30
5
50
10
50
1345
Year 3
Year 4
000s
100
50
250
250
100
50
20
50
20
50
940
50
50
250
200
100
70
35
50
20
50
875
Year 5
Year 6
50
50
250
200
100
100
50
25
20
50
895
50
50
250
250
100
100
70
25
20
50
965
Notes to support Tables 4 and 5.
 The Trusts have the potential to raise significant major gifts from individual donors. However, as
neither Trust has a track record in this area a conservative figure at both sites has been included.
 Most charities can expect a slight dip in their fundraising following the completion of a major appeal
as the local community will feel they have done their bit and move support elsewhere. The Trusts
are recommended to set-up new, smaller, appeals in the subsequent years to attract new support.
 Trust and foundation targets are relatively low as the majority of major private sector grant-making
institutions do not fund the NHS.
 The appeal will enable the Trusts to exploit a number of new income streams which should prove
fruitful for years to come. E.g. Patient Mailings, which have to be carefully managed but have proved
hugely successful for many NHS charities.
 In Memoriam/Lotteries and SMS should all be viewed as slow-burners. Over the years these income
streams can grow considerably. One UK hospice raises over £500k net via their local lottery.
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 14 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
Confidential
4.4 Income and Expenditure on Radiotherapy
The following two tables show forecast income and expenditure at each Trust and how the funds raised might
be distributed across radiotherapy and other services.
Table 6 – Income and expenditure on Radiotherapy and other services
GREAT WESTERN HOSPITAL
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
FUNDRAISING
Gross income
Staff/appeal costs
Appeal net income (annual)
Appeal net income (cumulative)
EXPENDITURE (Annual)
Radiotherapy funding (annual)
Other charitable priorities (annual)
Total expenditure (annual)
EXPENDITURE (Cumulative
Radiotherapy funding (cumulative)
Other charitable priorities
(cumulative)
Total funding expended (cumulative)
EXPENDITURE (Annual)
Radiotherapy funding
4684
Total expenditure (annual)
EXPENDITURE (Cumulative)
Radiotherapy funding (cumulative)
Other charitable priorities
(cumulative)
Total funding expended (cumulative)
Year 5
Year 6
810
-138
672
672
1330
-167
1163
1835
1715
-190
1525
3360
1510
-195
1315
4675
1675
-200
1475
6150
1875
-206
1669
7819
422
250
672
913
250
1163
1275
250
1525
390
925
1315
1475
1475
1669
1669
422
1335
2610
3000
3000
3000
250
672
500
1835
750
3360
1675
4675
3150
6150
4819
7819
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Table 7 - Income and expenditure on Radiotherapy and other services.
MILTON KEYNES HOSPITAL
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
FUNDRAISING
Gross income
Staff/Appeal costs
Net income (annual)
Net income (cumulative)
Year 4
760
-138
622
622
1345
-167
1178
1800
940
-190
750
2550
875
-195
680
3230
895
-200
695
3925
965
-206
759
4684
372
250
622
928
250
1178
200
550
750
680
680
695
695
759
759
372
1300
1500
1500
1500
1500
250
622
500
1800
1050
2550
1730
3230
2425
3925
3184
Notes to support Tables 6 and 7.
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 15 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report





Confidential
GWH can reasonably expect to raise £2.6m net income to support radiotherapy in three years and
£3m net in four years.
MKH can reasonably expect to raise £1.3m net income to support radiotherapy in two years and
£1.5m net in three years.
Both Trusts can expect to raise an additional £250k per annum for non-cancer services. Once both
Trusts hit their basic target unrestricted funds can be allocated across all services.
With their increased profile, Radiotherapy and other cancer services will remain a strong focus for
ongoing fundraising.
Staff costs (see Table 10) at both sites are set at the same level.
4.5 Income and investment
Table 8 - Relationship between income and expenditure at GWH over the next six years.
£000's
GWH
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Expenditure
138
167
190
195
200
206
Net Income
672
1163
1525
1315
1475
1669
Gross Income
810
1330
1715
1510
1675
1875
Table 9 - Relationship between income and expenditure at MKH over the next six years.
£000's
MKH
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Expenditure
138
167
190
195
200
206
Net Income
622
1178
750
680
695
759
Gross Income
760
1345
940
875
895
965
Notes to support Tables 8 and 9.
 Given their relative lack of investment in fundraising to date the tables show the significant increase
in fundraising that the appeals will provide.
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 16 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report




Confidential
MKH can expect to reach its fundraising potential relatively quickly as their current fundraising
activities are reasonably mature.
Both Trusts can expect a slight dip in income following the end of their appeal.
GWH dip will be less pronounced as the Trust has considerable potential in its catchment area and
they can expect their fundraising to grow steadily over the following years .
The tables do not show either Trust reaching their full fundraising potential beyond the appeal as
both will need to implement a legacy strategy in order to reach and maintain the 0.7% ratio of
parent NHS Budget (outlined in Section V) that all NHS charities should be seeking to achieve as a
minimum. There well may be windfall legacies in the meantime but legacy campaigns can take up to
seven years before their effects can be seen.
4.6 Staff structure
Table 10 - Proposed staff structure
The organogram shows the fundraising structure recommended to efficiently support the appeals and
develop long-term fundraising.
Legacy
specialist
Head of Fundraising
Corporate &
Events
Community
& Events
Admin &
Finance
Community
Officer
(Year 3)
Volunteer
support
Donorbase
development
(Year 2)
Trust &
Foundations
(0.6 p/t)
Notes to support staff structure
 Head of Fundraising reports to the CFC (See Appendix VII).
 The initial three f/t posts supported by p/t Trust fundraiser would be the minimum team required before
the Trusts could support an appeal of the size proposed.
 Head of Fundraising is responsible for major donor fundraising.
 Appeals create a heavy administrative load and an experienced administrator is recommended.
 Trust Fundraiser is 3-days per week.
 If the workload becomes significantly heavy that income opportunities are being missed, the Community
Officer post can be recruited in Year 2 without making any significant changes to inc/exp forecasts.
 Major NHS charities have significant numbers of fundraising volunteers. This area will be developed over
the duration of the appeals and will help keep costs down.
 Legacies are not included in the staff posts. VM would recommend a legacy specialist to develop a strategy
for both sites.
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 17 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
Confidential
4.7 Budget
Table 11 - Appeal budget and ROI’s
APPEAL BUDGET AND ROI's
POSTS
Head of Fundraising/ Appeal
(Band 8B)
Corporate & Events (Band 5)
Community & Events (Band 5)
Community officer (Band 3)
Donorbase Development - Patient
Mailings/Tribute Funds/ In
Mem/Online (Band 5)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
45,000
46,350
47,740
49,172
50,647
52,166
25,000
25,000
25,750
25,750
26,522
26,522
18,000
27,317
27,317
18,540
28,136
28,136
19,096
28,980
28,980
19,668
25,000
25,750
26,522
27,317
28,136
15,450
18,540
10,000
166,840
15,913
19,096
10,000
189,543
16,390
19,668
10,000
194,926
16,881
20,258
10,000
200,471
17,387
20,865
10,000
206,182
Trust Officer (Band 5 0.6)
Finance/Admin
Materials/Publicity
Total costs
15,000
18,000
10,000
138,000
Forecast Income GWH (Gross)
ROI GWH
Forecast Income MKH (Gross)
ROI MKH
810,000 1330,000 1,715,000 1,510,000 1,675,000 1,875,000
5.87
8.0
9.0
7.5
8.4
9.1
760,000 1,345,000
940,000
875,000
895,000
965,000
5.5
8.0
4.9
4.5
4.5
4.7
Notes to support table 11
 Fundraising costs are set the same at both Trusts.
 GWH’s ROI’s stay high beyond the life of the appeal, which reflects the huge potential the Trust has to
grow its ongoing fundraising capacity
 MKH’s ROI’s are lower after the appeal but flexibility on recruitment can improve ROI’s e.g. not recruiting
in Year 3.
 Forecast income is gross figure as the fundraising team will be responsible for the appeal and non-cancer
services.
 Staff and appeal costs take into account a reasonable level of volunteer support, which is the mainstay
of most successful NHS charities.
Recommendations
 GWH can reasonably expect to raise £2.6m net income in three years and £3m net income by Year 4.
 MKH can reasonably expect to raise £1.3m net income in two years and £1.5m by Year 3.
 Trusts might consider extending the appeals by one year to capitalise on the momentum a capital appeal
can provide (see Appendix IX)
 Once the Business Case is agreed the Case for Support should be drafted immediately
 Names of senior personnel who should form part of the ADG should be drawn up and notice given in
advance
 Presentations should be make to the Board/CFC at each site on how to deliver a successful capital appeal
 Launching an appeal without the means to support it is to be avoided. Investment in fundraising teams
to be agreed and JD’s and recruitment should begin as soon as possible.
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 18 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
Confidential
APPENDIX 1
Sources of general voluntary income
Legacies 33%
3%
8%
9%
Major Donor
Programmes 3%
Corporates & Trusts
11%
Local Fundraising
8%
Committed Giving
16%
DMM 9%
33%
9%
16%
11%
3%
8%
Special Events 9%
(Source - Institute of Fundraising Fundratios 2012)
APPENDIX 11
NHS charity voluntary income
Legacies 25%
3%
13%
25%
Major Donors 21%
Corporates 16%
4%
General donations 13%
5%
Events 5%
Trusts & Foundations 4%
13%
21%
16%
Trading 3%
Other inc In Mem/Lotteries
(Source - Association of NHS Charities 2012)
APPENDIX III
Wealth Research
GWH
Desktop research of GWH’s wealth potential covered the following areas:
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 19 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report






Confidential
Swindon
Wiltshire (North)
Malmesbury, Chippenham, Corsham, Calne, Cricklade, Wootton Bassett
(SN11, 14, 15)
Wiltshire (East) Marlborough, Pewsy (SN8, 9)
South Gloucestershire (BS32, 34, 35, 36, 37)
South Oxfordshire
(OX9, 10, 11, 49)
West Berks
Hungerford – Theale/Calcot,Newbury/Farnborough
(RG14, 17, 20)
The area includes at least 55 people who are featured in the Sunday Times Rich List with wealth estimates
ranging from approximately £1,000,000 to approximately £1,000,000,000.
86 companies are listed in GWH’s catchment area with a turnover in excess of £50,000,000 and include Honda,
Zurich, Intel and Nationwide.
Just over 300 directors in Swindon postcodes were noted as being of interest. The reasons range from being
in Rich Lists to being well contacted e.g. via business interests, or to a grant-making trust.
Others directors in GWH’s catchment area include:
 39 directors in South Gloucestershire postcodes
 35 directors in South Oxfordshire postcodes
 57 directors in Wiltshire (East) postcodes
 66 directors in Wiltshire (North) postcodes
 65 directors in West Berks postcodes
The Land Registry House Price Index (LRHPI) for September 2013 (released 28 October 2013) reported the
average house price for England & Wales to be £167,063. Average house prices in GWH’s area were:




Swindon £128,671
Wiltshire £184,098
South Gloucestershire £180,164
West Berkshire £230,826
Within these areas there have been over 45 houses selling for in excess of £1,000,000 in the past year. Again
the areas of South Oxfordshire and West Berkshire saw the most activity
MKH
Whilst MK is not recognised as place of significant affluence it is home to a number of large national and multinational companies with large workforces who are managed by well paid executives. Many of these
executives, and other relatively wealthy individuals, live in MK the surrounding areas. Desktop research of
MKH covered the following areas:





Milton Keynes, its borough in Buckinghamshire (MK)
South Northamptonshire
Brackley (NN13)
Towcester (NN12)
North-west Bedfordshire
Research showed 145 individuals within MKH’s catchment area as being of interest. The reasons range from
being in the Sunday Times Rich Lists (STRL) to being well connected e.g. via business interests, or to grant-
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 20 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
Confidential
making trusts. The area includes at least 15 people who are featured in one or more Rich Lists. Wealth
estimates range from approximately £1,000,000 to approximately £500,000,000.
Company registers suggest approximately 40 major employers are based in Milton Keynes, including
Santander, Abbey National, Argos, BP Oil and British Telecoms.
120 directors were identified living in Milton Keynes postcodes. 27 of which were identified as directors, or
former directors, of companies paying an average annual board level salary of £500,000 or above. 25
directors were identified in the South Northamptonshire postcodes
Average house prices in MKH’s area were: Milton Keynes £157,181 and Bedford £158,318 both of which are
lower than the national average. However, the LRHPI lists 15 houses in the area have been sold for over
£1,000,000 in the past year, showing the pockets of wealth in the surrounding areas.
APPENDIX IV
GWH





MKH





Competing charities
Prospect Hospice - PH has a large and hugely successful fundraising team. They raised £6.28m in 2011
and this was increased to £7.83m last year. It is a reflection of GWH's dominance of the Swindon
fundraising area that Prospect said 'we have no real competitors in Swindon'.
Great Western Air Ambulance - Active across the area and well supported across Wiltshire.
British Heart Foundation- as GWAA, active in the region with a number of regional groups and
fundraising events.
Salisbury NHS Trust - GWH's fundraiser felt that they were a competitor in South Wiltshire. They have
a small but active fundraising team who as Table X shows perform very effectively.
Macmillan - Not active in the Swindon area but are strong in S.Glocs, S. Oxf and W. Berks
Willen Hospice - Similarly to GWH and most NHS charities, the local hospice is a serious competitor
for funds. WH raised £2.4m in voluntary income in 2011 and increased this figure to £2.7m in 2012.
WH is active across all the areas served by the Trust.
University of Buckingham - Milton Keynes Hospital is partnering with Buckingham University in their
plans to develop the country’s first independent medical school.
Henry Allen Appeal - Highly emotive and well supported local appeal supporting Henry, a 4-year old
boy, who is fighting Stage 4 High Risk Neuroblastoma.
Ride High - Based in Milton Keynes and works to help disadvantaged children. Raised £235k last year
and well supported locally
Macmillan/ Age UK/Air Ambulance All active across the area.
Appendix V
Comparisons with other NHS Trusts
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 21 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
NHS Trust
Royal Brompton and Harefield
Hospital Charitable Fund
Salisbury District Hospital Charitable
Fund
Royal United Hospital Bath NHS
Trust Charitable Funds
University Hospitals Bristol - Above
& Beyond
Derby Hospital Charitable Trust
Queen Elizabeth Hospital
Birmingham Charity
Nottingham
Royal Surrey County Hospital's
Charitable Fund
North Bristol NHS Charitable Trust
Northampton General Hospital
Charitable Fund
Heart of England Charitable Fund
Sheffield Hospitals Charitable Trust
MKH Charity
GWH Charity
Confidential
Parent
F'raising F'raising
%
Av. Income Av. Income
NHS Trust
Income
costs F'raising over 3-years
as % of
Budget
2012
2012
costs
(2010-12) NHS budget
2012
297,000
2,393
246
9.72
6,153
2.38
184,000
1,478
179
8.25
1,793
0.97
224,000
1,197
316
3.78
1,646
0.73
534,000
1,980
464
4.26
3,191
0.6
455,000
1,834
100
18.34
2,398
0.58
587,000
2,868
281
10.2
2,582
0.52
785,000
2,027
246
8.23
2,591
0.36
240,000
631
211
3
780
0.34
520,000
2,840
167
17
3,208
0.3
228,000
417
29
14.4
692
0.3
607,000
862,000
744
2,109
15
224
49.6
9.41
1,611
2,323
0.3
0.29
135,000
294,000
390
250
267
311
1.46
0.8
317
218
0.23
0.074
Notes to support Table.
A note of caution should be flagged as comparisons of how NHS charities are performing are difficult to assess
for a number of reasons. SORP allows a lot of flexibility in the way that charities prepare accounts. Levels of
support provided by related NHS organisations vary and some charge for services and others do not. Legacies
are included within fundraising income and whilst some NHS charities receive a significant numbers of legacies
others receive very few.
APPENDIX VI
A review of NHS Charitable Appeals and the lessons learned
Cambridge Addenbrooke’s
Addenbrooke’s Charitable Trust (ACT) launched ACT on Cancer in October 2013 with a target of £10 million
campaign to transform the Trust’s cancer services. ACT’s Pink Rose Appeal began in 2004 and has raised over
£450,000 to support breast cancer research and treatment at Addenbrooke's Hospital. ACT launched their
‘fundraising challenge’ challenge in July 2013 to help raise £72,000 for a new paediatric cardiac scanner. This
appeal has been adopted by the local press.
Royal Brompton & Harefield
RBMT Charity MRI Scanner Appeal reached its £1.5 million target in 2013 after several years. The charity also
raised £2.3 million for Royal Brompton Centre for Sleep, which opened in March 2013. The RBMT took on a
new identity and became independent of the NHS in April 2012. A new board of trustees was formed with a
re-launched of the charity brand and website. The new charity recently launched a, two year, capital appeal
to raise £4.5 million to build a new state-of-the-art hybrid operating theatre at Royal Brompton.
Royal United Hospital Bath
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 22 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
Confidential
In 2007, The Forever Friends Appeal (RUH) launched its largest ever campaign and raised £3.1m, over four
years, for the new Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at the RUH. On the back of that success, the RUH launched
their appeal for the new Cancer Centre in 21012with a charity target of £5 million towards a £23.5 million
project. Within 18 months of launching the Campaign the target was reached (Dyson donated £4m). The
Appeal has now been extended by and additional £3.5 million making an overall charity target of £8.5 million.
Despite the success of their recent appeals, the RUH has recently begun to invest in developing its community
fundraising activities as it recognises it cannot rely on major gifts in the long-term.
Oxford Radcliffe
The John Radcliffe (JR) Hospital has launched major capital appeals in the past, including using a fundraising
consultancy to raise £13.5 million (target £15 million) for the Children’s Hospital several years ago. There are
no major ongoing appeals at present. Donors are asked to support the John Radcliffe General Fund to help the
hospital as a whole or support individual wards / areas / research funds.
The Bedford Hospitals Charity
Founded in 1988, BHC has raised over £7½ million for a number of projects. The largest was £2.35 million
raised in the Primrose Appeal to build a new Oncology Unit, and more recently £400,000 towards state-ofthe-art cancer screening equipment in the Endoscopy Department.
Salisbury NHS Trust – Stars Appeal focuses on regular, small-scale, appeals. The current appeal is £650,000
for a new CT-Scanner and they have already exceeded their target.
Milton Keynes Hospital Charity
MKHC Launched the Little Lives Appeal in 2007 raising £250,000, over five years, for an expansion of the cot
area and redevelopment of the parent’s mews. The Touch of Pink Appeal was launched in 2012 to support
the hospital’s Breast Cancer Unit and successfully raised £80,000 for a digital x-ray machine. MKHC recently
launched (September 2013) Leo's Appeal aims to raise £200,000 to enhance children's services.
Appeals which have run into difficulties
Southampton NHS Trust
The Trust invested heavily in launching its new charity, The Red & White Appeal with a £2.2million appeal in
2010 to build a new day unit for blood cancer patients. The Trust underestimated the time it takes to develop
donor relationships and early ambitions were too high and income had to be re-forecasted downwards, which
was difficult for morale and reputation internally in the first year of operation. The charity’s current appeal is
to create a transplant centre of choice for patients with leukaemia and other blood disorders. No specific
target is set.
Bristol University Hospitals Trust
Above & Beyond (A&B) began planning their Golden Gift Appeal in 2010 and launched it publicly in 2013 with
a target of £6m, over three years, to transform the Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre (BHOC) and the
Bristol Royal Infirmary (BRI).
Despite secured a strong Appeal Board of external volunteers; A&B has only managed to raise £1.7 million to
date. They have invested in the fundraising team and have the skills and personnel to deliver the appeal but
are disadvantaged by the fact that (i) there fundraising proposition is not seen as compelling by corporates
and the general public and (2) there are 3 other large appeals taking place in Bristol for the same NHS Trust
namely; Grand Appeal £2m, Teenage Cancer Trust (£3.5million) and Friends of the BHOC (£1 million).
Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch NHS Trust
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 23 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
Confidential
RBCH’s Jigsaw Appeal is a salutary lesson for all NHS Trusts. In 2006 the RBCH launched the Jigsaw Appeal to
raise £2m for a new cancer unit. The appeal was a great success (with a giant billboard outside the Trust
showing progress) and closed in 2009. However, the unit was not built. The result was that the public grew
disillusioned with the Trust and became concerned that appeal funds were being used for charitable
administrative purposes.
A well orchestrated campaign was run against the Trust including a website printing details of funds raised
and funds spent on administration and fundraising. http://jigsawappeal.co.uk/financials/
There were a number of cases of individuals coming to the charity and asking for their donations back.
"I'm utterly disgusted that money donated to the diamond appeal as it was back then for wards 10/11 has
been swallowed up. Donations should not be used for admin costs etc! Disillusioned! Cannot fault care and
nursing I received on wards 10/11 tho." Quote from a patient on the website.
In November 2012 the Trust announced plans to merge the two Jigsaw Appeal Funds, Blood Cancer Appeal
(£1,685,600) and current Women’s Health Appeal (£930,000) and build a new purpose built cancer unit within
the next 18 months.
The Jigsaw brand has been taken down and the RBCH Charity put in its place. Despite the adverse publicity,
the Trust and its charity worked hard to rebuild relationships and regain public trust and the charity’s income
is now beginning to grow again.
APPENDIX VII
Names and roles of interviewees
GWH
Kevin McNamara
Michael Wilson
Hannah Persaud
Head of Communications & Stakeholder Engagement
Head of Cancer Services
former Fundraising Manager
MKH
John Blakesley
Sally Burnie
Vanessa Holmes
Director of Performance and Planning
Head of cancer Services and Lead Cancer Nurse
Fundraising Manager
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 24 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
Confidential
Appendix VIII
Structure of a Major Appeal
PREPARATORY PHASE
Appeal
Development Group
NHS TRUST
Board
NHS TRUST
Charitable Funds
Committee
APPEAL
BOARD
NHS TRUST
Charity
Inc Patrons
(Temporary body)
PRIVATE APPEAL
Peer-to-peer fundraising
PUBLIC
APPEAL
Employee
Fundraising; GAYE
Community focused fundraising
1.
2.
3.
Wealthy individuals,
Corporate - Charity of the Year
Major grant-making Trusts &
Foundations
Media Partners
Major Gifts
Trusts and Foundations
Community/Events
Corporates
Legacy promotion
Tribute/In Memoriam
Patient Mailings/Lottery
Online/SMS
The Appeal Development Group is made of Senior Trust members (NEDS/Senior Clinicians) to help
identify and secure the Appeal Chair. This group disbands once the Chair is secured.
It is not unusual to manage the private phase of an appeal until 60-70% of the target is raised. However,
this is not recommended for NHS charity appeals who thrive on the strong public profile of and can raise
significant sums via the public phase.
Major gift fundraising continues throughout the appeal and linked to naming opportunities once the RT
facilities are in place.
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 25 of 26
Radiotherapy Appeal Fundraising Report
Confidential
APPENDIX IX
INCOME STREAM
Major Gifts
Trusts & Foundations
General donations
(Community)
Events
Corporates
Tribute Funds (In
Mem)
Lottery
Patient Mailing
SMS/Online
Legacies
Total
Year 1
Gros
Cost
s Inc
14
50
14
50
14
14
14
ROI
APPEAL INCOME AND ROI'S 000's
APPEAL
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Cos Gros
Gros RO
Gros
ROI Cost
Cost
t
s Inc
s Inc
I
s Inc
17
50
19
150
20
250
17
100
19
150
20
125
POST APPEAL
ROI
Year 5
Gros
Cost
s Inc
20
100
20
50
RO
I
Year 6
Cos Gross
t
Inc
21
100
21
50
100
100
50
17
17
17
150
200
140
19
19
19
300
200
150
20
20
20
350
350
150
20
20
20
250
200
100
21
21
21
300
200
100
14
14
14
14
14
75
17
17
17
17
17
15
5
50
10
100
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
100
70
25
20
300
170
820
100
50
25
20
300
1,19
5
21
21
21
21
21
425
55
35
50
20
150
1,53
5
20
20
20
20
20
140
30
20
50
20
150
1,22
0
210
1,265
3.00
4.8
190
6.4
200
7.7
200
6.0
Notes to support table
Table shown shows hybrid version of the appeals and looks at an income breakdown and ROI’s of an appeal raising £4 million over four-years.
Valentine Morby Associates
Page 26 of 26
RO
I
6.2