By Rabbi David Eliezrie
It seems that we are in the season of Jewish community surveys. First, there was a survey published in D.C., then in the Bay Area and now its strike three, Pittsburgh. The Jewish Federation of Pittsburgh survey was conducted by the Steinhardt Social Research Institute at Brandies University. It’s the same old, same old. Chabad is again undercounted. The fact is that Chabad has had a major presence in the community for decades, the crown jewel being the Lubavitch Yeshiva established in the early forties – which has been graciously supported by the Pittsburgh Jewish Federation. Complementing the Lubavitch Educational center is a broad network of Chabad centers and programs throughout the community. Pittsburgh, as in the D.C. and the Bay Area, did not ask if local Jews are active in Chabad. The same disproven methodology of denominational self-identification in an era of post-denominational Judaism.
Today there are some 550 Conservative synagogues in North America, close to 800 Reform and about 1000 Chabad Centers. Clearly things are changing. In both D.C. and Pittsburgh, the Brandeis researchers attempt to exclude Chabad from what they call “brick-and-mortar synagogues” and lump Chabad together with “independent minyanim.” Independent minyanim usually refer to small groups of individuals who have organized in a creative, non-institutional fashion to foster community and Jewish engagement. Most do not have full-time rabbis or facilities. Comparing them to Chabad centers is simply inaccurate.
Every Chabad center is led by a full-time rabbi and rebbetzin. All have facilities, and though some of the embryonic Chabad centers may start out operating out of the rabbi’s house, they eventually graduate to storefronts, buildings, and campuses. They too are brick-and-mortar centers, and claiming otherwise flies in the face of reality. The truth is that one can easily find a great number of Chabad centers as large as nearby liberal congregations.
Like many synagogues, Chabad offers a full array of services, including holiday and life cycle events, religious services, and education for children and adults. They provide quality programming from the resources at Chabad Headquarters such as adult education by the Rohr Jewish Learning Institute, teen clubs by CTeen, activities for children with special needs by the Friendship Circle, informative websites by Chabad.org. They take advantage of other support services for Hebrew Schools, preschools, summer camps and other projects.
The real difference between Chabad centers and the traditional synagogues is the business model. Most Chabad centers do not have formal membership. They are entrepreneurial with the rabbi and rebbetzin taking the leadership role. And Chabad isn’t the only one to forgo membership. Some traditional congregations are following this trend and shifting their models to the non-membership one Chabad pioneered. Even though they may not have adopted the entrepreneurial leadership model that Chabad Shluchim have, nor the concept that for the Shliach, it’s a lifetime posting.
Groups conducting community studies need to reevaluate the repeated use of a flawed methodology in its community surveys. Some Jewish demographers have already shifted their approach to properly researching Chabad’s role in the Jewish community. Not measuring the shift of significant numbers to Chabad is a disservice. Those organizations conducting the surveys that fail to modify their methodology will only continue to foster doubts about the quality of their research and the use of their data to plan a Jewish future.
Rabbi David Eliezrie is the author of The Secret of Chabad – Inside the world most successful Jewish movement.
Top
“The real difference between Chabad centers and the traditional synagogues is the business model.” Really? You think that’s the ONLY difference? How about the lack of traditional structure and the barren emptiness of the communal message?
There’s a reason that Chabad keeps this push for a change in demographic counting. It’s because they don’t actually have real numbers. You can’t build a community with an “entrepreneurial” business message that simply raises money from a few rich men. So when the communities actually do count, Chabad gets scared.
For those of us with good memories (or google), cast your minds back to when Rabbi Eliezrie – then, as now, living in California, far far away from Pittsburgh – attacked the Pew Report results in 2013, along similar lines. In four major areas he was either incorrect, misleading, giving classic red herrings, or stating false facts:
blogs.timesofisrael.com/pew-research-center-our-research-is-sound/
Hello Avud!
Did you get a chance to read Rabbi Eliezrie’s response below it showing how the article has not answered his claims?
You mean the one in which, once again, he misleads with his answers? Yes.
I read how he once again shifts definitions to suit his needs at the moment. Sometimes “involved in Orthodoxy” is enough for the good Rabbi to be counted as full Chabad, sometimes “fully observant Shomer Shabbat person.” Other times he lumps “orthodox synagogues and Chabad centers” together in a way which he angrily would have denounced earlier (and which orthodox synagogues would never agree to).
Just because you do outreach doesn’t make you the only outreach movement.
Just because you’ve built hundreds of centers with a very small number of ultra-wealthy donors doesn’t mean you’re the same size in terms of numbers of participants.
And just because you call yourself “Orthodox” doesn’t make you so.
“You can’t build a community with an “entrepreneurial” business message that simply raises money from a few rich men.”
“Just because you’ve built hundreds of centers with a very small number of ultra-wealthy donors…”
I’m startled to see such a cheap and baseless shot trotted out multiple times on eJP, of all places, whose readership is assumed to be involved in and educated about Jewish organizations.
Firstly because it’s not true – as anyone with the slightest exposure to a Chabad center knows (or to a simple Google search), each center is responsible for its own funding and the vast majority raise all funds from numerous local donors with a wide range of giving abilities.
Secondly because the statement radiates with acerbity and hostility, suggesting that Chabad’s global reach and success is merely due to some head honcho having successfully hoodwinked “a few rich men” into funding an empty model.
It is incontrovertible that hundreds of thousands of Jews worldwide – possibly millions – have intentionally explored and expanded their Jewish identity, education, and expression through Chabad.
That the above example of vicious anti-Chabad sentiment is still prevalent amongst educated and involved Jewish professionals is exactly why Chabad must be counted in such surveys, given a seat at the proverbial table.
Yaela, you bemoan the “lack of traditional structure” – isn’t today’s generation all about disrupting, reinterpreting, and reinventing “traditional structure”? Perhaps the Lubavitcher Rebbe was, in this way as in so many others, ahead of the times.
If there’s one traditional, misogynist and static institution left in the Jewish community, that’s Chabad. To claim that Chabad is somehow reinventing and reinterpreting structure shows how anti-Orthodox and clueless its leadership is about what surveys measure and what communities do. Nice try, but no. And messianic interpretations of “perhaps this is why the Rebbe was so right” are part of the problem, not the answer.
“the vast majority raise all funds from numerous local donors with a wide range of giving abilities.”
Malka—you have to know that’s not true. Or you’re just not aware of how Chabad raises funds.
Actually it’s very controvertible. That’s why we have communal surveys that measure claims like yours that hundreds of thousands—“possibly millions” have connected to Chabad. And find them to be false.
It’s not cheap, baseless or vicious to require fair and consistent measurement of communal activity. And consistent attacks on communal measurement say more about the attackers than you may want to admit.
I disagree with Yaela’s “misogynist and static” comment,
even though I am a critic of Chabad, not one of their fans.
Ephraim, I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt. I’ve spent the past fifteen years working for Chabad centers on local, national, and international levels so I’m very, very aware of how Chabad raises funds.
Each one of Chabad’s 2500+ centers, whether in Brooklyn, Brussels, or Buenos Aires, is solely responsible for its own funding. Depending on the location and demographic of the community served, some shluchim receive a 1-3 year launch grant, but aside from those funds and after that time, the shliach and shlucha are completely on their own financially. No one’s bills get paid by HQ or mythical “central pot”. It is sink or swim for shluchim to cover their own budgets, or close up shop.
This model forces the Chabad center to be consistently relevant and valuable to the members of the community that it serves, as that is the critical donor pool without which the Chabad center can not survive.
Do shluchim sometimes fundraise outside their communities? Sure. Donors can include Alma Mater, foundations, local companies, parents/children of those they serve, or a businessman who passed through their Chabad center on a trip and was impressed by what he saw. All of the above, though, similarly require the shliach/shlucha to bring in each dollar on their own, and for the Chabad center to constantly prove its own relevance to those around it.
Do some shluchim solely fundraise outside their communities? Yes. A small number of Chabad centers exclusively serve a low-income / transient community, like backpackers. These centers can’t be sustained by local contributions and therefore focus their fundraising on donors outside of their city or country. Again: The shliach is completely responsible for their own budget; and they must prove their relevance and success to each donor they solicit from.
Does Chabad HQ ever, under any circumstances, send money to a Chabad center? Yes. There are certain situations in which Chabad HQ will help out a local shliach, such as natural disasters, government/national crisis, or personal family crisis such as a death of a child or spouse. Occasionally a central donor will distribute a number of local grants through Chabad HQ for simchas or holidays. (This is done on a very limited level, as the amount needed to give many shluchim a meaningful donation quickly becomes staggering. A one-time donation of just $5K to each of the 4700+ shluchim would require a gift exceeding $23 million.)
I’m not sure why the “mega-donor” myth keeps coming back around, but perhaps it is because it makes Chabad easier to dismiss, as the folly of few. But as the saying goes, “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” Chabad’s network has survived and thrived for 70+ years not because of a few kool-aid drinking mega-donors but by virtue of each center’s unique, ideally numerous, and predominantly local donors, which by the most minimal equation number into the tens of thousands.
I think that covers the Chabad funding model – let me know if I missed something!
Avud – you’re making the very point that Rabbi Eliezre is making, which is that he *wants* the communal surveys to actually measure the number of Jews connected to Chabad, to prove/disprove Chabad’s reach and engagement equally alongside other denominations. Exactly as you write, he is asking for “fair and consistent measurement of communal activity”.
“I’m not sure why the “mega-donor” myth keeps coming back around, …”
Is it because of the $342,000 given to Chabad by the Kushner family these past few years, or maybe the hundreds of millions from Leviev? Or Gaydamak? Or Rohr?
I’m sorry Malka, but brazen lies are just the wrong way to have this kind of conversation.
Sami Rohr, of blessed memory, gave tens of millions to Chabad.
Even the frum press puts a conservative estimate of $50 million a year for Chabad from one single donor (Leviev: https://www.vosizneias.com/22492/2008/11/13/new-york-cash-cuts-by-leviev-crisis-rocks-chabad/ )
You know (or maybe you really don’t know, which is a possibility) that there are several other major donors–generous, good Jews–who give millions to Chabad every year.
By the way, I believe you may be right. In the United States there may be tens of thousands of actual Chabad supporters. In a Jewish community of 7 million, well, that’s why you’re attacking the surveys I suppose.
In addition to the network of 2500+ local centers, there are Chabad’s central organizations in Brooklyn, which provide a plethora of central services and resources to support shluchim in their work and maximize both individual and collective impact of the shluchim network.
Off the top of my head:
Chabad.org not only provides 40 million unique visitors with Jewish knowledge/study/how-to/etc each year, but also provides shluchim with local websites, a CRM platform, marketing tools and PR support, and a lot more that I probably don’t know about.
Merkos 302 launched 3 Jewish youth networks (for kids, teens, and young professionals), a pastoral care support network, a remote community support network, and more, for all of which they are continually developing and providing shluchim with training, resources, support, events, etc. They also run a host of programs that provide personal, professional, and spiritual support to shluchim, and a lot more that you can read on their website.
The Jewish Learning Institute, Chabad’s adult education arm, I can’t even really begin to describe the depth and breadth of classes and programs that they develop, which are currently taught in 900 cities. Also recommend their website.
The cost of running central backbone organizations like these is steep, even with overhead kept to a minimum. And yet the costs are not passed on to shluchim, and any “purchase prices” for the above programs are heavily subsidized. (For the annual 5-day International Conference of Shluchim, for example, each shliach and shlucha is charged a symbolic $36.)
Chabad HQ does not fund the network of Chabad centers, and it is also not funded by them. There are no “dues” or “membership/franchise fees” that get sent to HQ. Instead, Chabad’s central organizations are funded by a numerous individuals, foundations, and organizations who appreciate Chabad’s global impact and want to partner in making it happen. These donors fund the above programs, the many ones I didn’t list, the various grants I mentioned earlier, or whatever other area they wish to allocate funding too. (For example, the Forward article you linked to mentioned Mr. Leviev’s support was to a network of 180 schools that he founded in the FSU, Eastern Europe, Germany, North America and Israel.)
Tossing out numbers like “hundreds of millions of dollars!” as accusations reminds me of the anti-vaxxer image of a baby doll stuck with dozens of syringes at once, representing the total vaccines given over the course of two years. The picture is meant to be startling, as would any image/number be if we put together the sum total of many years’ consumption.
Two Jewish Federations I googled offhand brought in $190 million and $140 million last year alone, which I’m sure wasn’t all from $18 donations. Is that something to be angry about? We should celebrate that philanthropic changemakers are willing to give substantially to support Jewish causes. The $38 million gift awarded to Hillel International last year is something to applaud, not condemn – it builds Jewish life, which is what we’re all here for.
I’m not sure why Chabad is singled out for vilification here, especially with unverified/exaggerated numbers thrown around. But none of this changes the reality of the funding model I described before. Like any Jewish organization, Chabad has budgets of all sizes and donors of all capabilities. Its central organizations are funded by numerous people passionate about the Jewish future, and its local centers are funded by numerous people passionate about the Jewish future. Just like your organization.
Good question, Malka. Chabad is “singled out for vilification here” because its representatives are attacking communal surveys and structures here, in this blog. And you’re right, none of this changes the reality of the funding model—but that’s not what you described before. Sure we raised hundreds of millions of dollars that I didn’t refer to when I said I covered everything, but hey, why’s that important. See? Sounds bad.
And the difference between Chabad and “any Jewish organization” is 990s, annual reports, audits, board of trustees. You know, transparency. That kind of thing.
Transparency? Guess you’re not talking about JFNA (and many other federations). 990s? Sure. But any serious examination of 990s from many organizations leaves more questions than answers.
Despite annual reports and a board, transparency certainly does not exist at 25 Broadway. CEO doesn’t believe in it. Board chair, despite being a lawyer, doesn’t understand the concept. And the board? They went MIA a long time ago.
And they are by no means the only Jewish organization where transparency is a joke.
Dear JPro: sure, you may be right. I don’t know the situations there. But that wasn’t the discussion at hand.
When Chabad claims to be transparent but has none of the checks and balances of traditional nonprofit budgets, and its representatives mislead and misrepresent their funding sources, and then claim “unfair treatment” when they’re counted and shown to be minimally impactful, then it’s a different situation altogether.
Most Chabad initiatives in the US have 501c3 status – meaning some legal structure. And like EVERY SYNAGOGUE is exempt from filing a 990. If you were able – which you’re not as the information simply isn’t available – to compare apples to apples, i.e. to other synagogues to Chabad, I’m not so sure they are worse. Over the years, I personally have met all too many rabbis who misrepresent themselves, from all the streams.
Dear JPro,
Here’s the problem (and thank you EJewish Philanthropy for allowing us to have this conversation, even though we’re not exactly on topic, it’s still useful): if you do a basic search for the 845 separately registered “Chabad” entities on Guidestar you’ll see that after the first 20 or so they’re all empty. There’s no reporting or auditing or real financial data.
And that would be fine, as you said, if we were comparing them to synagogues. But they themselves consistently claim to be something else. And specifically in this blog claim to be “countable” like other institutions who DO file audits and reports and 990s and are verifiable and checkable.
And that’s the hypocrisy here. It’s not an attack on Chabad. It’s Chabad holding a double standard to attack other elements of the community without putting itself up to the same scope of examination.
I believe Avud, we are missing the forest for the trees. The trees in this case being the aggressive style of the article’s author. The forest the broader communal makeup. The author has become a distraction. So too, the where, and how, they fundraise.
While all American metro areas are certainly not the same, the 2014 Greater Miami Jewish Federation Population Study showed 26% of Jewish households have engaged with Chabad, including 42% of Jewish households with children at home during the year prior to the study release. Is Miami that different from the 3 cities who just released numbers – especially DC and SF? I suspect a meaningful difference is the research methodology. Denver, which is just at the beginning stages of a study, will be using – among more traditional mehtods, “social networks to reach deep into the Jewish community to find people who may not be on any Jewish organization list.” (their words)
I have no idea what Chabad’s footprint is in the Denver catchment area, but I suspect the methodology being deployed in Denver will uncover previously undocumented communal information. And then the battle of the researchers will begin as they all compete for the next round of surveys.