Just good friends?

New Philanthropy Capital’s report “What place for mergers between charities” highlights Breast Cancer Campaign and Breakthrough Breast Cancer as two breast cancer research charities which are potential merger candidates. Our collective and individual aim is to beat breast cancer for women now and in the future, and we believe that the only way to do that is through research – we share that aspiration with Breakthrough Breast Cancer, however we may choose to word it. So whatever we do is driven by what will benefit women. We put an enormous effort into ensuring that we fund the best research in the most effective way and maximise our fundraising in order to do this. As part of our discussions as to how we might best achieve our aims, we have for the past decade discussed if we might be more effective and efficient together, rather than separate.

I have regular meetings with the Chief Executive of Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Jeremy Hughes, (and before him with his predecessor, Delyth, now Baroness, Morgan) and our meeting usually includes Samia al Qadhi, the CE of Breast Cancer Care, on a monthly basis.

Our senior management team members also have regular meetings with their counterparts and other members of staff meet regularly when we collaborate on a whole range of issues, particularly policy and public affairs. Our trustees have met and our scientists meet on other boards and other collaborations. We fund research in the Breakthrough Centre and have supported psychosocial research commissioned by Breast Cancer Care.

It is not as if the idea of merger comes as a complete surprise to us! Why wouldn’t we discuss it regularly if it makes sense – as we do? Campaign’s trustees have a discussion on enhancing effectiveness which includes collaboration and merger as a standing item once a year and have done for the last ten years.

What we need to be sure is that whatever we do achieves the best for women with breast cancer – nothing less.

What NPC’s comments about fundraising fail to mention is that both charities derive significant revenues from the corporate sector - even in these tricky times. Our corporate partners are very committed to what we do but we know that, were we to merge, some of these very substantial partners would disappear overnight as they view each other as competitors – and this is consistent throughout the voluntary sector as all of us who work in charities know. This would have a significant impact on our income without very much in the way of financial savings as this is one of the most cost effective ways to raise money. We run an extremely lean organisation and it is somewhat naïve to imagine that a merger would automatically result in instant savings – our assessment and discussions have shown that there would be less money available for breast cancer research as a result.

There is no question that donors are not always clear which breast cancer charity they are supporting – that doesn’t only apply to breast cancer or cancer – but I am as likely to be told that someone thinks they are raising money for Campaign by doing the Race for Life (a CR-UK event) as confusion with a Breakthrough event.

That does not mean that we shouldn’t always look at how we might describe and differentiate ourselves to donors, and the fact that NPC’s description of us is inaccurate, shows that this is an area we should, and will continue to monitor. We don’t support “other institutions’ research”, we are in fact a response mode funder where the money follows the best research in the UK and Ireland regardless of location. It is “research at centres of excellence” rather than “other institutions’ research” which implies a passive acceptance of others’ research, rather than a very robust, rigorous and independent peer review process.

Each grant is evaluated on its own merits so that we can direct donated funds where we believe they will benefit patients the most, and where we can be assured that the largest possible proportion of our income goes directly to research, as it is often these ratios that drive merger discussions.

Ratios do make interesting reading: one cannot deny that the CR-UK merger has been successful on many levels, yet their cost ratios are high. The total cost of raising funds is £130 million – 27% of total income and close to 40% excluding legacies. It is what is required to run the world’s largest cancer charity. In comparison, both we and Breakthrough are punching well above our weight!

I come from a business background – years in the City as a financial analyst and then some years as a management consultant – working with joint ventures and mergers. In business, merger is not the panacea – charities are no different. Wearing my business hat, this would be the moment for me to list all the failed mergers, the ones that did not add value, where brands were lost, where income declined and fewer services were delivered. I will leave you to do the research – you won’t have far to look. NPC say that their research shows that there “may” be a compelling case to “consider” merger. Somewhat hedged statement – there either is or there isn’t a compelling case and the day that we can deliver more for women with breast cancer together than apart, we will. Until then, there is still much to do; both Breast Cancer Campaign and Breakthrough continue to need support to research the most common cancer in the UK – one that steals so many of our mothers, sisters and daughters, and occasionally fathers and sons.