How to raise money for treatment? Ideas please.

lizziewizzie

Hi, I am looking for some ideas on how to raise money to pay for the treatment for one of the Home Counties Boxer Welfare (reg no. 1006246) dogs.

Max is a 5 year old, neutered boxer dog, red and white, with a tail. He came into rescue with his mum Cleo. He has not had much exercise, spending most of his life in a garden, and later, on a flat balcony.
Tuesday afternoon just after Max woke from a nap he collapsed and we realised he was paralysed down his right side. The vets have said it was a neurological problem and they kept him in for more tests. He needed an MRI scan which is very expensive. HCBW speedily made the decision that Max was to have the treatment he needed whatever the cost.
Max was transfered to Bristol for his MRI scan on Thursday, the results of which show he had suffered an embolism near his spinal cord in his neck region.
He was taken home and the prognosis is positive but in no way guaranteed as he is still paralysed and cannot use his front or rear right legs.
He is eating and has tried to walk but he fell over after a few steps, to move him they have to use two towels as slings and anyone who has met Max will realise he is no lightweight. The next three weeks will be crucial to his recovery but it may be that he will get most of his movement back. He has to be nursed and given physio regularly. We will do our best but all we can do is keep our fingers crossed for him.
Max's rehabilitation is going to be a challenge, at the moment he needs to rest more than anything, with just a small amount of physio to keep his limbs supple. In a couple of days he has gone from being paralysed on the right side, to last night managing to move his front right leg slightly so he can shuffle himself around.
So far the costs have been over £1400 and that will of course increase so we are desparate to raise money to cover the treatment, so any ideas would be welcome please.
Sorry its so long.
Liz (on behalf of HCBW and Max).

borders_dude

The possibilities are endless.. ..

Organise a sponsored event, walk, run silence etc
Organise a charity auction
Organise some kind of open day

There is three ideas, im sure you can come up with more!

fengirl_2

Sorry to be harsh, but this charity had £77k in cash reserves at December 2008 - about 9 mths running costs. What has happened to this money?

borders_dude

Reasonable question.

lizziewizzie

fengirl wrote: »

Sorry to be harsh, but this charity had £77k in cash reserves at December 2008 - about 9 mths running costs. What has happened to this money?

That is a bit harsh, like all charities they are trying to do "good" and need the support of the public to do this, and that doesnt just mean financially. Unlike you I dont understand accounts that well so I dont know what you mean except you stated they had £77k in cash reserves in Dec 2008 and then you said that was 9 months running costs, so arnt you saying after 9 months that money had gone, so what are they supposed to do for the other 3 months?
Perhaps you need to explain in laymans terms what you are trying to say because I am now confused.

fengirl_2

Charity reserves are a big issue and all charities are required to have a reserves policy. In general, a charity only needs enough reserves to enable it to close down in an orderly fashion - pay redundancy to staff, satisfy leases, pay the gas bill and so on.

This charity was holding £77k in cash at Dec 2008, but its annual expenditure is only £45k (sorry I only looked quickly during my first answer).....which is almost 2 years running costs. No organisation needs that amount of money in order to close down. With that level of reserves, you would normally expect to see an explanation from the trustees as to what all that money is being saved up for, but there is nothing in the accounts to indicate this. Therefore, one must assume that they are saving up money for the sake of it and its therefore quite unfair to be asking the public for more donations.
I would suggest that,when people donate to charity, they expect to see the money used for the purpose for which it was donated, not kept in the bank. According to these accounts, this charity does not need £1400 to treat this animal, it already has it.
Of course, the 2009 accounts, which are overdue, might show that the money has been spent on the furtherance of the objects of the charity and they have reduced their reserves, but on present evidence, they are cash rich.

Savvy_Sue

lizziewizzie wrote: »

That is a bit harsh, like all charities they are trying to do "good" and need the support of the public to do this, and that doesnt just mean financially. Unlike you I dont understand accounts that well so I dont know what you mean except you stated they had £77k in cash reserves in Dec 2008 and then you said that was 9 months running costs, so arnt you saying after 9 months that money had gone, so what are they supposed to do for the other 3 months?
Perhaps you need to explain in laymans terms what you are trying to say because I am now confused.

I hope you understand what fengirl has said, but just to add to that, about the bit I've emboldened. A charity's finances are rarely static (I was going to say 'should never be', but that might be too rigid!) because money would usually be going out and coming in throughout the year. The annual accounts can only ever be like a snapshot of the position at the end of the financial year, but the Trustees should be able to explain why they appeared to have nearly two years' running costs at the end of that particular financial year.

For example, we had a major expansion of our work last financial year, when we opened a residential home part way through the year. So at the start of that financial year we appeared to be very cash rich, because we were receiving donations for that part of the work all through the previous year, which we spent very rapidly once we'd signed the lease on the house.

But that was all explained in our accounts.

Now, at the start of the current financial year we did not have enough to meet all our responsibilities all through the year, but our fundraising staff have been hard at work on this, so that month by month we aim to be able to pay the bills for further into the future.

Have the HCBW said "we won't be able to pay for Max's treament because it's too expensive"? Or have they said "We'll pay for Max's treatment, but we'd appreciate it if you did some fundraising for us"?

Was there a larger than usual number of dogs needing support since the last accounts were published? Was there a massive downturn in income in the latest financial year? As someone supporting the charity, you have a right to ask these questions.

lizziewizzie

Thanks fengirl and Savvy_Sue for your explanations, I can see I will have to look into everything you have said.

In answer to Savvy_Sue's last bit, they haven't said they wont be able to pay for the treatment, just they would appreciate the fundraising. The fundraising idea for Max has mainly come from the supporters and not HC themselves.

There has been more dogs needing support at the moment, lack of foster homes means more kennelling etc. but I don't know what effect that has really had on the finances etc. I think income has been lower because of the global problems and there have been more dogs being dumped or "let out" recently.

I will investigate, the one thing I do know, if there is lots of money it must be for the dogs because no one from HCBW is living in luxury on it, in fact far from it.

Thanks, Liz

fengirl_2

No one is suggesting that the money raised is being mis-used. The problem that I have is that it appears to be sitting in the bank!

borders_dude

fengirl wrote: »

No one is suggesting that the money raised is being mis-used. The problem that I have is that it appears to be sitting in the bank!

I concur, and why are the accounts late? Perhaps the administration of the charity isnt exactly top notch, which really does call into question the integrity of the financial managment of the charity but nobody has suggessted any deliberate wrongdoing.

edgex

some people wont like this, but so what:


why the heck are they having that amount of treatment carried out at that cost, for a dog that they are likely to have major issues rehoming?



"There has been more dogs needing support at the moment, lack of foster homes means more kennelling etc. but I don't know what effect that has really had on the finances etc. I think income has been lower because of the global problems and there have been more dogs being dumped or "let out" recently."

how about operating in the same way that the RSPCA do?
i know that people dont like it, but theres simply no other way they could afford to operate all the other services if they kept having to house more & more animals themselves.