Since its inception 125 years ago, the Jewish federation model has introduced giving opportunities and access to donors at all levels. Having achieved such a degree of credibility, the system also established a distinctive and representative distribution model. One of the distinctive features core to this system has been its crisis-response mechanism, allowing federations to mobilize and deliver critical financial resources in meeting both Jewish and more generic needs in crisis settings in this country and globally.

Once a system bound by a common focus, today one finds the federation world in search of alternative visions, different sets of managing and organizing models and diverse programmatic options.  

Emergent generations of younger Jews do not hold the same loyalties and connections with our core institutions, nor do they share the same vision for community. The impact of this population gap on the federation system can be seen as part of the “great divide” over communal priorities, institutional practice and finding bridge-points that will move the millennial and Gen Z crowd closer to this enterprise.

In my work on “The Second American Jewish Revolution,” I specifically outline the core institutional and structural challenges within the Jewish community. If our traditional organizations were built around the ideas of community, affiliation, collective responsibility, a shared historical story and a common destiny, then the millennial generation is creating a new vision of the Jewish future, with the sovereign self, single-issue concerns and target marketing represent a new and different organizing basis. This generational model seeks to reconfigure Jewish life away from a shared mindset to a focus on silo-Judaism, a shift from collectivism to individualism.

As Jewish communities struggle to reenvision their communal enterprise, we are seeing federations in communities with declining Jewish populations and facing diminished resources confronting existential questions; and at the same time, in other regions of the country we are witnessing the growth of new institutional possibilities as communities demonstrate new levels of vitality.

In some settings, one can hear conversations questioning the necessity of maintaining the federated system. What would happen if federations simply went out of existence?

Indeed, one can argue that some of the “traditional” roles played by particular federations might be eliminated, but to suggest that such an entity disappear from the American Jewish landscape would be highly problematic. The notion of locality or community remains a unique and defining element of federations’ work — federations are distinctively reflective of their communities, their cultures, histories and traditions — and umbrella structures continue to provide key services. Their challenge in today’s uncertain environment and going forward is both to build upon their prior success and to mobilize their communal partners to appreciate the new avenues of Jewish giving and acknowledge the changing characteristics and priorities of our communities.

Laboratory of learning 

A whole array of philanthropic options are increasingly defining communal giving spaces. In terms of models of giving, donors are gravitating toward giving circles, mutual aid networks and grassroots initiatives that empower local leadership and rapid response. These collective giving models reflect a shift away from centralized control. 

Here are some examples of these specialized and directed giving initiatives:

1. Social enterprises and hybrid models: organizations generating  income tend to focus on one or two revenue categories, select funding initiatives that align with the work of the organization. These models enhance financial resilience while furthering impact.
2. Equity, inclusion and community-led model: A growing focus on DEI is reshaping philanthropic practice. Organizations led by or serving marginalized groups, and those practicing inclusive governance, are being prioritized. There are heightened concerns in connection with disenfranchised groups, constituencies requiring core services, and the growing reality of social divisions.
3. Collaborative and networked structures: Inter-organizational collaborations, including sharing resources, expertise,and infrastructure, are becoming increasingly essential for addressing complex, systemic challenges. 
4. Trust-based and flexible funding: Donors are moving toward grantee-centric models  offering unrestricted, multi-year, low-bureaucracy funding and fostering agency among nonprofit leaders. 
5. Impact investment and venture philanthropy: Blending philanthropic intent with financial discipline — especially in scalable ventures — is rising. Impact investment and venture philanthropy leverage business strategies to achieve lasting social outcomes.
6. Purpose-driven tech philanthropy: Influential tech philanthropists and foundations are taking more strategic, high-impact approaches, including open calls for grants or large-scale funding for specific causes. 

In terms of tools, organizations are becoming increasingly tech-driven and digital-first. Platforms employing AI, data analytics, mobile giving and crowdfunding are transforming outreach and donor engagement, especially in connection with Gen Z and millennials who seek convenience, personalization and transparency. AI-based tools are optimizing fundraising and provide input in connection with donor preferences and their giving journeys, while also improving operational efficiency. Innovations like blockchain offer tamper-proof donation tracking and decentralized governance models, including DAQs. Compelling narratives — whether shared on social media in short-form video, podcasts or through influencer partnerships — are essential for motivating donors and raising awareness. 

Partnerships: With whom are you having the pleasure?

Institutions at all levels are experimenting with new organizational partnerships as well as different models of communal organizing. Fewer institutions in general will survive in these challenging economic times, and for federations who often have responsibility not only for their own fiduciary well-being but for the general health of a network of institutions, the partnership option now becomes a major focus of its operational mandate.

Just as federations have partnered with Birthright Israel — a “Second Revolution” institutional model — why not explore other alliances with some of the more than 250 other second revolution institutions, including American Jewish World Service, Jewish World Watch), the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life) and so on? Jewish life is rich with institutional options and historical examples of collaborative arrangements. Engaging our Jewish centers of learning could represent such a model of partnership. Synagogues and other religious institutions, once seen as outside of the federation framework, ought to be invited into the conversation on re-engineering our communities.

As I have written elsewhere, in the past, highly successful movements had the luxury of ignoring their competitors or those who might challenge their position, but most great movements have learned to build alliances, create partnerships and systematically enter into arrangements where allied or competitive groups were integrated or merged into their system. Even beyond the circle of Jewish resources, federations may want to grow their business partnerships and to expand their ties with other nonprofit delivery and service organizations.

Leadership legacy 

One of the primary elements of great Jewish communities in history has been the quality of its leaders; their capacity to inspire, direct and engage our people in this sacred work represented a critical ingredient toward sustaining Jewish life. Just as UJA successfully created its National Young Leadership Cabinet some 50 years ago, so too a “leadership university” ought to be envisioned where prospective leaders — lay and professional — receive the type of preparation essential for the community development tasks.

From a movement to a marketplace 

In general, today’s U.S.-based nonprofits are navigating the challenges of reduced federal funding, heightened demand for services and economic uncertainty. Moving forward, umbrella structures will need to maintain transparency and demonstrate local relevance in order to attract support. Traditional umbrella charities must also be sensitive to and engaged with major funders increasingly supporting trust-based unrestricted multi-year grants.

If they are to remain relevant, umbrella or collective fundraising systems — including America’s Jewish federations — will be tasked with the need to be responsive to new trends, embrace flexibility, amplify local impact and offer transparent accountability. 

In the context of an emerging 21st model of Jewish life, old notions of institutional turf no longer apply — no one owns “the” Jewish response to our communal future. A marketplace of Jewish life needs to come forth, but one that practices transparency, coordination and commitment to experimentation and innovation. The competition for financial resources will require the community to revisit both its fundraising messages and its inventory of financial resource development tools. 

Movements need to constantly invoke their core messages and historical achievements as a way to affirm their legitimacy and to demonstrate continuity. And even during a “maintenance” phase of its existence, a movement needs to demonstrate that it can act. The primary injunction revolves around capacity and willingness to take action when the movement’s interests are seen to be in-play. The federation system will still need to affirm its credibility as the centerpiece in promoting community creativity, institutional partnerships and building a leadership base. Victories should be celebrated; failure to acknowledge key successes denies the movement its credibility and weakens its claim to legitimacy. 

As I have written previously, there is also a need to create a coordinated, collective Jewish communal framework where decision-making will be aligned with research-based market data. This new organizing framework needs to be built around a business model designed to produce specific and targeted outcomes, and this focus on outcomes needs to be aligned with a national Jewish communications strategy. Finally, in crafting our messaging we need to understand the information consumption habits of the audiences with whom we want to connect and how that information establishes the beliefs that inform their actions. This “remake” will be essential if the federations are to retain their role as an umbrella structure with central position within the Jewish philanthropic marketplace. 

The unfolding remake will need to take place on a number of levels simultaneously, including:

• Outreach to and inclusion of new donors
• Willingness to address the growing, very real political diversity 
• Undoing the traditional model of consensus management
• Rethinking organizing models for engaging new generations of donors 
• Focusing on community-building by inviting in new funding partners, including foundations and other regional and national players
• Incorporating religious, educational and cultural partnerships
• Forging a commitment to Jewish learning 
• Supporting public advocacy initiatives and community organizing efforts
• Launching a “Fund for Jewish Innovation” by the federations system, designed to seed, support, and study new models of community outreach and development.

As Ron Wolfson writes in his book on Relational Judaism, Jewish institutions must “rethink their value proposition”:

“[I]f our value proposition is the opportunity to be in face-to-face meaningful relationship with Jews and Judaism in a relational community that offers a path to meaning and purpose, belonging and blessing, we have a shot at engaging our people in a 21st-century relational Judaism.”

This message rings true for the federation system.

Steven Windmueller is professor emeritus of Jewish communal studies at Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion in Los Angeles.