Email a copy of 'Adapting to the Future: The Changing but Critical Role of Federations' to a friend
Loading ...E-Mail 'Adapting to the Future: The Changing but Critical Role of Federations' To A Friend
Loading ... Loading ...Click here to 
Email This Post
to friends or colleagues!
Email This Post
to friends or colleagues!
Top
Michael, you are correct that Federations are very much critical to the community infrastructure, but need to learn to communicate their mission and how they are tackling it and not the typical “annual campaign.” Membership-style giving is dying and folks want to see their gift as an investment and seeing direct social impact.
However, many Federations do hide behind the notion of “big brand” and “trusted convener” and assume that this is enough to compel an annual campaign. Mission has to come first. If the professionals and lay leadership can’t compel giving based on that alone, then Federation giving will continue to decline.
If I could change one thing, it would be to require campaign staff to be forced out of the Federation office and work on site at their agencies. The agencies ARE the mission, and the fundraising staff should be in the field, cultivating relationships to showcase the work of Federation. Not sitting behind a desk creating committees, events and super sundays all year long.
Campaign staff should also be measured on their fundraising results. Every other sales job in the world requires goals and benchmarks. If campaign staff can’t hit fundraising targets of existing AND new donors, why are they the last to be let go? Mediocrity is not acceptable when it negatively impacts the community and the mission.
Yasher koach to my friend and colleague from New Orleans.
The annual campaign is not the heart of the federated system. The heart and soul of our federations is the idea of the Jewish collective. It is our Jewish community coming together to collectively decide what’s important to us as a community, what we’re willing to give in wealth, wisdom and work to achieve our collective goals and then through a network of affiliated agencies to achieve our objectives. This notion of the collective is as relevant as ever — and it’s the underpinning of our federation system.
It’s fair to say the federated system has been slow to understand and plan for the future. But change is not just in the air. It’s happening in communities across the country. It certainly doesn’t hurt that we’re still a billion dollars a year system with a strong organizational identity and marketplace credibility — a pretty strong place to look at the future with boldness and curiosity and execute with determination and neshama.
Steve, the challenge though is that the concept of “community” and “collective” is no longer synonymous with brick and mortar institutions. So a message of “invest in the community” isn’t compelling enough to get folks to open their checkbook.
Rather, folks need to see how the Federation is making it possible for the agencies to do their work, foster accountability, train leaders etc. Yes, it puts Federation as the central address when done right, but with so many self-defined communities nowadays, people need to have a better handle on what exactly their dollars are accomplishing and not hear the broad-stroked “Federation should be their central address”.
Thanks, Jonah. I am in basic agreement with you, certainly as you suggest that messaging over impact needs improvement and we ought to drop efforts at self branding (when we say we’re the central address). I do disagree that agencies are the mission. The needs are the mission — the “clients,” those whose lives are improved, supported, and transformed by the programs and services. Folks need to hear (or better worded, we need to effectively communicate) that we’re accomplishing the impact they value (of course within the framework of our mission and if we’re effective, informed if not influenced by our credible expertise). I also think that what we see in the future (namely increasing dynamic self communities and virtual institutions) is not here (or anywhere near dominant) now and there is still (and probably for some years ahead) a market for what you call brick and mortar institutions. But I’m somewhat quibbling and agree on the essence.
Hi Steve,
When I say the agencies are the mission, I refer to the work of the agencies and their staff who are the street-level professionals serving the community.
Of course brick and mortar institutions are critical, and I am definitely not suggesting to moving our community infrastructure online. I was just remarking that these institutions are measured not on the building, but on the mission. This sounds like a no-brainer, but the messaging often seems to miss this. “It’s what is on the inside that counts”.
So, we are on the same page!