ME Association recruiting a fundraiser. Can charities buy in fundraising success?

C

Cinders66

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
ME association are recruiting a new fundraising officer. It’s posted on the Facebook site, I don’t know if They’re advertising through mainstream channels too.https://www.meassociation.org.uk/20...ruit-a-fundraising-manager-06-september-2019/

I read the advert it seems possibly pretty low in aspiration and is only paying ££17 000/ year for a 25 hour week. I’ve always felt our charities had more a local feel rather then national charity and wondered whether employing different professional staff in key roles, if we could recruit them to a small charity for an unpopular cause, could improve our fortunes in the way struggling schools or business have a renowned head or ceo brought in to turn things around.

Anyway, I did a brief google and my first hit was to my mind a useful charity comparison in size wise as was for children’s liver disease rather than the national heart foundation or something.
https://childliverdisease.org/join-the-team/
They have imo bigger aspirations, higher requirements eg 5 years experience of major fundraising and a lot paid more, £32-35,000 for 28 hours work per week. I have no expertise in this at all and imagine most of us would consider raising funds for ME more daunting than sick children but I posted on MEA my wondering whether paying more for a potentially high end fundraiser with track record of generating funds outside the impacted community would be a worthwhile investment

Any thoughts? Can we acquire more fundraising success by paying more and hiring the best of the best professionals?
 
Last edited:
This is something I too have wondered about. What would be interesting would be to somehow get a cost–benefit analysis of fundraising activity.

You could go the other way and ask: is 20-25 grand a year (after costs, pension?) worth it for a small charity?
 
InitialConditions said:
This is something I too have wondered about. What would be interesting would be to somehow get a cost–benefit analysis of fundraising activity.

You could go the other way and ask: is 20-25 grand a year (after costs, pension?) worth it for a small charity?
Click to expand...

Hi If the person could bring in £1m versus £2-300 for research per year then a higher wage is worth it imo.

Regarding your question i’m not sure if you Mean is paying a bit more worth it or is it worth anything paying at all? If it’s thought no matter who we employ we will struggle raising more money by anything they can do, and If fundraising is mainly going to remain facilitating people with ME and families doing general fundraising over the year is it something that could perhaps be job shared by volunteers and the salary saved?


From the children’s charity fundraising job description , it was essential to have:

“Significant experience (at least 5 years) in a fundraising environment
Proven track record of delivering fundraising income success across a number of income streams.”

And

Key Accountabilities and Responsibilities
Fundraising
• To drive new opportunities for corporate financial support of the charity’s activities.
• To support the development of and implement CLDF’s fundraising strategies to maximise income and profile, researching trends and new commercial opportunities
for CLDF.

Etc
 
Last edited:
What I'm saying is I have absolutely no idea how much return you would see from employing one more fundraising staff member. It must exceed the salary/costs but I imagine it is of the same order of magnitude. There's no real way of quantifying this because everyone works as a team.

The type of fundraising benefiting the ME Association seems to be donations of hundreds to thousands of pounds, and a steady stream of fundrasing activities bringing in roughly those sorts of figures.

Totally different kettle of fish to the larger charities who need people to spearhead large fundrasing drives and programs.

But I agree, you won't be attracting the best talent with that salary and with the low requirements.
 
InitialConditions said:
What I'm saying is I have absolutely no idea how much return you would see from employing one more fundraising staff member. It must exceed the salary/costs but I imagine it is of the same order of magnitude. There's no real way of quantifying this because everyone works as a team.

The type of fundraising benefiting the ME Association seems to be donations of hundreds to thousands of pounds, and a steady stream of fundrasing activities bringing in roughly those sorts of figures.

Totally different kettle of fish to the larger charities who need people to spearhead large fundrasing drives and programs.

But I agree, you won't be attracting the best talent with that salary and with the low requirements.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying. I’m not sure this Is about employing another fundraising staff member, my initial reading was that a vacancy had occurred due to the current fundraising staff leaving.

I think that there’s a difference between just ticking over and reaching higher, the question is perhaps is ME such a tarnished brand that even employing someone who had previously raised millions in another sphere they would struggle to raise the bar for us? Other charities like MS society has income of £30m / year so we are way behind with a larger affected community . Could an Uber effective professional with contacts and “skills” turn that around ...I don’t know
 
Cinders66 said:
Thanks for clarifying. I’m not sure this Is about employing another fundraising staff member, my initial reading was that a vacancy had occurred due to the current fundraising staff leaving.

I think that there’s a difference between just ticking over and reaching higher, the question is perhaps is ME such a tarnished brand that even employing someone who had previously raised millions in another sphere they would struggle to raise the bar for us? Other charities like MS society has income of £30m / year so we are way behind with a larger affected community . Could an Uber effective professional with contacts and “skills” turn that around ...I don’t know
Click to expand...

That's true. There is unfortunately still a stigma RE the ME 'brand'. I remember a story in a local newspaper about a volunteer who raised only £10 when collecting on the street.
 
Cinders66 said:
Thanks for clarifying. I’m not sure this Is about employing another fundraising staff member, my initial reading was that a vacancy had occurred due to the current fundraising staff leaving...
Click to expand...

From Page 13 of the year end accounts for 2017:

https://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends79/0000801279_AC_20171231_E_C.pdf

THE MYALGIC ENCEPHALOPATHY ASSOCIATION LIMITED (A company limited by guarantee)
TRUSTEES' REPORT (continued) FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2017

FUNDRAISING

Members have been periodically reminded of the basic costs of running the company and of maintaining aspects of its activities, compared to the current balance in income streams. The relative values of different scales of donation have been outlined, and the use of standing orders, the declaration of Gift Aid, and use of other tax allowances have been promoted. Fluctuations in donations have been seen over this period, but with some growth overall and funds from donations gradually increasing. These strategies continue to be tactfully promoted to members.

With a level of resources below that at which many of the fundraising activities pursued by charities are viable, the MEA had negative historical experience of employing professional fundraisers, both directly and as contractors.

Increases in smaller activities undertaken by members and supporters to raise donations had resulted in increased levels of support and administration work, leading to a part-time fundraising assistant being employed. As the amount and effectiveness of support to those raising funds to donate to the MEA has grown, the fundraising assistant’s scope has been increased and other avenues for engendering funds have been explored.

The fundraising assistant has contributed to the number of supporters undertaking repeated or larger events, and typically attracting more funds per event. The fundraising assistant has also been central to successes with forms of appeal to raise funds for a specific purpose, and has made contacts with groups and firms willing to hold fundraising events or raise donations at events.

The ways in which fundraisers are supported by advice about the development of their ventures, and about improving outreach to their potential donors, has been developing, with support offered for promoting ventures to media outlets and via social media.

The MEA had previously participated successfully in The Big Give Christmas Challenge, an annual matchfunding event in December. But given the strictures on online donating times and the low level of fundmatching achieved, it was judged that a direct crowd-funding appeal should be more successful for a suitable project.

With momentum developing in the research team at Oxford, and several useful avenues of progressing further research being proposed, it was decided to crowd-fund from late autumn 2016 to raise money for a sizable research project in 2017. This funding appeal was more successful during November and December 2016 than any previous appeal, and continued to bring in sizable donations into Spring 2017. With no similar project arising during 2017, it was decided not to use the appeal process on any less important issue for 2017/8.

Exploration of potential opportunities to apply for larger appeals though media platforms, and to apply to large funding bodies, have shown that the level of reporting required of applicants to meet such bodies’ standards for funding applications tends to be very demanding compared to the risk of being unsuccessful in any application.

The fundraising assistant continues to investigate ways in which the MEA can engage with potential supporters and funders within the scope of its resources, and to seek to improve efficiency in supporting fundraisers’ activities. While income from many of these activities fell in 2017, in line with trends across the sector, numbers of fundraising activities increased, with some performing above the norm. During 2017, the MEA continued to participate in The Weather Lottery, operated by Prize Provision Services Ltd, Suite 3, 20 Market Hill, Buckingham, MK18 1JX. The MEA holds a license for this from East Dunbartonshire District Council.

------------------------------
 
@Dx Revision Watch

Thank you for that information, that’s very useful to read the reasoning behind the current situation, frustrating as it is, do you have you any knowledge regarding the mentioned unsuccessful fundraising situation stated in The past? Quoted below...

With a level of resources below that at which many of the fundraising activities pursued by charities are viable, the MEA had negative historical experience of employing professional fundraisers, both directly and as contractors.
Click to expand...

Do you understand it to mean that income is so low in the ME sector compared to other charities, that using professional fundraisers isn’t viable because they wouldn’t have the resources to Make any major fundraising attempts with ?
or that the resources other charities have potential access to aren’t for some reason, perhaps Image /stigma, available to us therefore a professional fundraiser can’t achieve anything

I took it to mean the former , but isn’t that then a vicious circle we get trapped in where without high end professionals the income can’t increase beyond the coffee morning fundraising of members. Is it perhaps worth trying again?
.

I do find that statement incredibly depressing and wonder if it’s further reason why some of our more similar/aligned charities should merge to combine funds and prevent any waste, maximising spending potential and just having the appearance of a more major charity

I find the wording quite opaque for my foggy brain but read the following as basically saying that despite essentially giving up on professional fundraisers the fundraising activities of the community necessitated the charity employ a fundraising assistant (who’s job title does probably explain the low key Feel) and then there’s description of how the role & fundraising capability has expanded a bit.

More depressing reading for me personally is where they say

With momentum developing in the research team at Oxford, and several useful avenues of progressing further research being proposed, it was decided to crowd-fund from late autumn 2016 to raise money for a sizable research project in 2017. This funding appeal was more successful during November and December 2016 than any previous appeal, and continued to bring in sizable donations into Spring 2017. With no similar project arising during 2017, it was decided not to use the appeal process on any less important issue for 2017/8.
Click to expand...

Which I think highlights the problem in the UK., that there isn’t that fundamental research interest due to unhelpful narrative and name, put out by medical profession, to raise funds for specific burning projects, and probably charities don’t feel they can confidently raise to successfully commission research which leaves it just open for routine donations which isn’t particularly inspiring to the community.


I find it really hard to understand this
“
Exploration of potential opportunities to apply for larger appeals though media platforms, and to apply to large funding bodies, have shown that the level of reporting required of applicants to meet such bodies’ standards for funding applications tends to be very demanding compared to the risk of being unsuccessful in any application.”
Click to expand...

Are they saying that it’s too hard to jump through the hoops required to get higher level funding or that it’s simply loads of effort versus high risk of failure?

It’s this type frustrating and difficult situation that I feel should be used in arguments for more state help because we are in a hole it’s very different to get out of, And with the stigma and misinformation of the medical profession even harder. it’s in difficult situations where standard relying on plentiful applications doesn’t work, that afaic it’s entirely within remit of MRC to intervene on our behalf and I think that tax payers, paying a bill of £3+b because our illness is without treatment, whose money they distribute fir the furthering of science, would support them to.
 
Last edited:
I remember reading a few years ago in a publication of an Australian ME/CFS charity that the salaries of their grant writers were barely covered by the grant applications that were successful (i.e. the form filling was a lot of work and was often unsuccessful).
 
Cinders66 said:
@Dx Revision Watch

Thank you for that information, that’s very useful to read the reasoning behind the current situation, frustrating as it is, do you have you any knowledge regarding the mentioned unsuccessful fundraising situation stated in The past? Quoted below...
Click to expand...

With a level of resources below that at which many of the fundraising activities pursued by charities are viable, the MEA had negative historical experience of employing professional fundraisers, both directly and as contractors.
Click to expand...
Do you understand it to mean that income is so low in the ME sector compared to other charities, that using professional fundraisers isn’t viable because they wouldn’t have the resources to Make any major fundraising attempts with ?
or that the resources other charities have potential access to aren’t for some reason, perhaps Image /stigma, available to us therefore a professional fundraiser can’t achieve anything

I took it to mean the former , but isn’t that then a vicious circle we get trapped in where without high end professionals the income can’t increase beyond the coffee morning fundraising of members. Is it perhaps worth trying again?
Click to expand...

I don't know, Cinders66, but I also took it to mean the former.

From the Charity Commission register:

https://apps.charitycommission.gov....steredCharityNumber=801279&SubsidiaryNumber=0

mea.png



As you see, the MEA's annual income is subject to fluctuation and is relatively low compared with other patient orgs even during its more prosperous years. (It also holds reserves, as can be seen in the full Year End accounts.)

The MEA hit a troubled financial and management period during 2002-3 and for a couple of years after 2003, it was touch and go as to whether the charity could keep afloat or would need to fold due to lack of funds.

The MEA does not employ a CEO (and hasn't done so since the Val Hockey debacle in 2003), so there is no large CEO's salary to find. Dr Shepherd is a Trustee/Director and as such, he is not permitted to draw a salary as Medical Adviser, as he had done before he was sacked by the Board in 2003 (BMJ report) and Third Sector Report. So there is also money saved there. Staff were cut to the bone in 2003/4 and other measures put in place to reduce annual running costs; the charity got back on its feet again but with a different staffing structure to that which it had had prior to 2003 management and board of trustees debacle.

I cannot speak for the MEA Board, but it may be that current funding levels would not support committing to a part-time or full-time fundraiser of the level of say, a salary of, or equivalent to £35-£55K pa, plus employer expenses.

I do find that statement incredibly depressing and wonder if it’s further reason why some of our more similar/aligned charities should merge to combine funds and prevent any waste, maximising spending potential and just having the appearance of a more major charity
Click to expand...

When the MEA were struggling to keep afloat back in the 2004 era, a potential merger with AfME had been mooted.

I think you would find that for political reasons, the current Board of the MEA would not consider merging with AfME, who have larger funding and more staff, but are not a membership org in the sense that the MEA is a membership org. For example, Dr Shepherd, having lost his position as a salaried Medical Adviser to the MEA, went on to stand in the Trustee elections, was elected as a Trustee and was instrumental in forming a new board after most of the existing trustees bailed out. He's remained a Trustee ever since, "going round again" each time his term of office has come to an end. The MEA is largely run by its BoT, who determine its policies and direction. As a BoT they have considerable control. They also have control over who gets to join the Board, when fresh blood is being recruited. I do not see Dr S fitting comfortably within a hypothetical merger with AfME.

I can't comment on the sections of the report I posted that relate to obtaining funding for research studies.
 
Last edited:
The jobs gone to Tony Britton btw, their Retired former content & media manager, with background as local journalist from what I recall.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom