Hays Medical Foundation Capital Campaign

Need for the Campaign

The Hays Medical Foundation is the goal-oriented philanthropic arm of the Hays Medical Center. The foundation is known for its enormous contribution to life-changing actions that have seen a significant impact on society. The foundation announced a funding campaign that aimed at allowing the public to be part of its humanitarian call of ensuring efficient and sufficient service to benefit people in the community through medical support, educational scholarships, structural development, and institution endowment. The foundation aimed to raise $5.7 million in funding. The fund would support acquisition of a $1.9 million CT scanner, upgrade a catheterization laboratory for $1.5 million, and acquire patient monitors for $2.3 million while reserving $1 million as endowment funds. Therefore, the foundation was confident in receiving donations through the funding campaign due to its reputation in engaging in life-transforming activities.

Did Campaign Meet its Objectives?

Hays Medical Center campaigned for a total of $5.7 to finance its medical philanthropic activities. The approach used for the campaign was realizable hence would allow the company to raise adequate funds to finance its desired objectives. Pledges and gifts collected by the foundation from well-wishers right before its launch amounted to $1,554,000 through pledges. The donations included a gift of $500,000 contribution from its affiliate Dane Hansen Foundation and an equivalent amount in gift from Hadley Foundation. The two associate foundations collected a total of $1,000,000 pledge. Other donors could have contributed the remaining $554,000 as gifts or pledges. Don and Chris Bickle donated $1,000,000 while the Hays Medical Center associates and Hays Medical Center volunteers contributed $50,000 each. The foundation also received contribution worth $25,000 from the business partner Cecil and Brenda Crawford.

An analysis of the campaign shows that the firm failed to reach the $5.7 million target on a real-time contribution by the time the update news on the foundation’s funding was made. The foundation managed to raise a $1 million in cash donation from Don and Chris Bickle. Also, the foundation received $25,000 real-time donation from the business community attributed to Cecil and Brenda Crawford. The cash collected summed to $1.025 million, excluding the first gifts and pledges made during launch, amounting to $1.554 million. Moreover, the foundation received Monterey contribution from the Hays Medical Center associates and Hays Medical Center Volunteers of $50,000 each. However, the summation of the project cannot determine the total amount given by the associates and volunteers to the foundation. Therefore, the study cannot indicate the actual amount collected from the associates and volunteers by stating that each associate and volunteers contributed $50,000 with no clarification on the number of members. Arithmetically, the assumption remains irresponsive in accounting for the volunteers’ and associates’ contributions. Therefore, it can be concluded that by the time the foundational news updates on the contribution was released, the foundation had collected a total of $1,025 million in cash, in addition to 1.554 million in gifts and pledges. With a budget estimate of $5.7 against a collection of $1.025 million in cash and $1.544 million in pledges, the foundation failed to achieve its financial objective. Moreover, the report indicates that the foundation managed to raise $1.2 million only within seven months of launching the funding campaign.

The Campaign Project Outcome

The foundation collected $1.025 million in cash, $1.544 million in pledges, and a hypothetical $100,000 from the associates and volunteers. The contribution totaled to $1.125 million in cash and $1,544 million in gifts and pledges. The calculative amount is slightly below the confirmed seven-month contribution of $1.2 million. Therefore, if the foundation proceeded to undertake its proposed development, it would work within the premise of available funds at the time the report was compiled. The situation purposed the foundation’s reference to the future procedural implementation of its plan. The foundation can implement its projects one at a time since it collected $1.2 million only in funds. None of the projects, apart from the endowed funds, have a budget line that falls within the collected amount. The implementation of the CT scanner would require $1.9 million; hence, the total contribution is $700,000 short of the planned budget. However, the CT scanner is the foundation’s main project, thus can be paid in installments starting with the $1.2 million while the organization mobilizes more funds, particularly from gifts and pledges. Therefore, the foundation cannot buy one-off the intended scanner since the funds collected are less than the desired cost of implementation.

Similarly, budgets for the renovation of the catheterization labs, the purchase of new patient monitors, and expansion of the endowment funds fall short of the available amount. As a result, the organization failed to undertake either project due to the inability to mobilize sufficient funds by the time the report was released. The foundation had managed to raise approximately $1.2 million in cash whose usage was to be deliberated against the foundation’s four competitive projects worth $5.7 million. Therefore, the foundation was unable to complete its projects and constructions as planned due to inadequate funds. In addition, the incapacitation of the foundation undermined the implementation of new programs. Previous projects had stalled; as such, the foundation showed no interest in initializing new programs. The foundation seemed to be held at a position of wait with the hope that the future would change and allow it to introduce new programs or expand existing ones. For instance, innovating the catheterization labs would have placed the foundation at a better position of developing its existing programs. As a result, the organization failed to implement new programs or expand current initiatives other than its four stalled projects.

The Financial Impact of the Campaign

The campaign had a remarkable impact on the organization even though its contributions’ update was undertaken within a short period, particularly in seven months. The foundation attained $1.544 million in pledges and gifts at the time of launching the campaign. Therefore, the campaign increased its assets and income thereby growing the financial viability of the foundation. The $1.2 million cash contributed in seven mouths increased the financial capacity of the foundation. The money can help to fund any development project (out of the four) proposed by the foundation thus increasing its worthiness in equal measure. In addition, the materialistic gifts add to the existing assets, which are worth $31.2 million. In addition, the collected funds can be used to sustain the foundation’s annual expenditure that ranges between $1.8 and $3.6 million. The contribution would be used as a residual income or complementary budget when the foundation runs short of income to support its activities. Therefore, although the organization failed to achieve its initial $5.7 million funding target, the campaign expanded the foundation’ revenue and financial freedom to finance its projects using reliable sources of income.

 

Students working on case studies or might need academic help, might find our custom Case Studies Writing Services helpful.

Also look at some of our business services
– 
Business Essay Writing Service
– 
Business Dissertation Writing Services
– 
Business Report Writing
– 
Business Assignment Help
– 
Business Planning Writing Service
– 
Business Assignment Writing Service

Share this Post