by Maya Rabinowitz
When you give somebody a gift, do you expect something in return? If you expect simply gratitude, what do you assume that gratitude looks like? If Shabbat is a gift from God to the Jewish people (B. Shab 10b), is it purely to benefit the people or do the laws of Shabbat observance exist to benefit God?
These are just some of the questions some colleagues and I contemplated at a recent gathering of professionals working in the field of young adult engagement. What started as text study about Shabbat as a gift transitioned into a conversation about Taglit-Birthright Israel. While in English and in North America we call the program Birthright Israel (versus Taglit, the Hebrew word for “discovery,” as it is known throughout the rest of the world), the tagline on all material is “This trip is a gift from Taglit-Birthright Israel.” Many Trip Organizers and professionals who work on the experience are quick to express in orientations and marketing materials that this gift comes with no strings attached.
And now, after 14 years of the gift and 400,000th participants, we as Jewish professionals, we as donors, and we as a community must ask the hard questions: Who are the individuals or organizations giving the gift, and do they agree with each other? Are the givers expecting something in return from those who receive the gift? If so, then is this experience truly a gift? Should this be a gift?
Last year, Rabbi Aaron Meyer questioned the gift in his op-ed “Why Birthright Israel, at $1,000,000,000, is Hafuch.” He asked “Is feeling positive about being Jewish – without translating those feelings into action – worth a billion dollar expenditure of Jewish communal resources?” It is not an uncommon question, as many professionals continue to wring their hands over “getting Birthright alumni to show up” or “getting the lists,” and as local donors and partners ask to see numbers on post-trip engagement in terms of individuals “showing up” to institutional programming.
It is crucial for our community to discuss (and argue) over the answer to Rabbi Meyer’s question. However, it is also critical to note that Taglit-Birthright Israel is fulfilling its mission: to give a free trip to Israel to as many young Jews as possible. Their mission does not include what happens after. They are truly the gift-giver with no expectations. Hopes, yes; but no expectations. When I give somebody a wedding gift, I hope that they send me a thank-you note, that they use the gift and appreciate it, that, maybe, they will give me a wedding gift in return when the time comes. But is it right for me to expect that? I chose to give the gift – what somebody does with the gift is a personal choice. (Which is why I won’t give my friend a wedding gift that I think is useless, even if they put it on their registry. Let somebody else buy you a $300 crystal ring holder.)
We have already spent money on the gift, so questioning the validity of the spending is moot. For me, the real question is: Can or should we expect something in return from Birthright Israel participants given the language we currently use? Is it fair to expect action in return for giving somebody a gift, particularly if they didn’t ask for the gift to begin with? Can we find joy and meaning in giving the gift and receiving nothing tangible or measurable in return?
While I will be the first to admit that moving towards measurable outcomes versus “good feelings” has been huge for our community and our programming, I admit that I still think there is value in doing something nice and feeling good about it. I think we can find joy and meaning in giving the gift of Birthright Israel, particularly because, compared to other immersive Jewish experiences, it’s the most bang for our buck. Jewish camping, of which I’m a huge fan, costs exponentially more – and still does not have a 100% ROI. It is not appropriate to expect a return on an investment that we are blatantly calling a gift and a right.
Alternatively, maybe Taglit-Birthright Israel is not a gift at all, and therefore we should expect something in return. From what I have heard and read throughout my field and my community, it seems our feelings about what happens after the program do not correspond with the language we use. Communal professionals and organizations use the term “investment,” which inherently expects – or demands – a return. The Israeli government, a key funder, is making the investment and seeing returns in the program’s economic stimulation. Studies out of the Cohen Center at Brandeis show stable returns in personal Jewish life and attitudes. But are we seeing the returns we want or expect in communal life?
If we, as a Diaspora community, are truly expecting ROI, I propose we stop promoting Birthright Israel as gift or a right, and instead speak openly about it as an investment or as an elite program that comes with obligations. Though not everyone accepted will ultimately fulfill their obligations, at least we will be transparent in our efforts and our language. Participants will not be surprised when a Federation professional reaches out to them to invite them to coffee or an event. They will not be surprised when they receive emails of upcoming Jewish opportunities in their city. More importantly, participants may start being more honest and flexible when presented with the opportunity to join the program. Currently, spaces on trips are being turned down because the offer isn’t the exact 100% match that a participant desires in terms of date, airport, airline, and friend requests. If Taglit were to become a competitive program (and perhaps even a resume booster), we may see more sophisticated and more grateful participants.
This is not to say that our community shouldn’t be giving gifts to all Jews, regardless of their qualifications. Every young Jew should be presented with an accessible opportunity, especially if their parents’ were unable or unwilling to give that to them in adolescence. But perhaps this new type of gift should be more cost effective than a trip to Israel.
If we become more transparent, we may not reach the numbers Taglit currently is reaching, but perhaps we will reach those individuals who will turn their pride into the action our community seemingly is seeking. We may even reach the participants who will ultimately confidently choose and do Jewish on their own, without us needing to constantly hold their hands for fear that they may wander away.
Maya Rabinowitz is a Jewish communal professional working to expand opportunities for her Millennial contemporaries.
Top
Birthright is a victim of its own success. From the start, birthright highlighted its achievements in terms of numbers. You see it clearly in the media campaign that is employed in Israel, on bus banners, radio commercials, etc. Indeed the numbers are very impressive and as such, the numbers do have a strategic significance, such as helping the Israeli economy and having a large group of Jewish young adults who have had a positive experience of Israel. But the strive for large numbers comes with a price. For having large numbers one needs to employ a very inclusive and non-demanding recruiting effort. In addition, running programs on mass scale leads to making programmatic compromises that are a result of logistical constraints. These are just some example of what happens when quantity is the lead factor.
This doesn’t mean that the birthright initiative is not trying to keep a high educational standard, it is simply not always possible and the result is a “once size fits all” method.
The Jewish world deserve a system that will enable to answer many needs and interests of different types of Jews around the world.
Having been around at the “birth” of Birthright as CEO of Israel Experience, Inc., the precursor of Birthright and Jewish community’s first major collective effort to elevate Israel experience programs to larger numbers of participants, I am only too aware of what is the unspoken flaw and truth about Birthright programs – there is a lack of content and substance. From the get-go, the only metric was numbers – get ’em on planes and buses and bring ’em to Israel. That was the ROI unto itself. As the Jewish community looks back and asks what we’ve gained from this enterprise (as expressed so well in Aaron Meyer’s article) we seem shocked that there is little to show for the effort other than 400,000 attendees over 14 years. The previous core Israel experience programs were minimally a month, some longer. Many (most) participants came from Jewish youth groups and movements that provided context for their Israel experience trip. Attendees had the benefit of up-front education, a deeper content-based actual Israel experience and a framework for subsequent follow-up. The ROI from earlier Israel experience programs was a clear continuing and intensified engagement in Jewish life. The grossly flawed assumption of Birthright Israel was that a 10-day trip could duplicate that result. The grossly flawed assumption of the Jewish community was that the ROI from Birthright Israel programs would be comparable to the ROI from earlier, Israel experience template programs. It is not and never will be. The problem is the Birthright trip was positioned and marketed as the revised ISrael experience opportunity. It isn’t. Birthright Israel was never designed to provide the kind of ROI a more traditional Israel experience program provided. At every level (upfront planning, trip content and back-end followup) it falls far short. Birthright Israel sells “Israel as Theme Park” with a 10-day vacation trip of superficial content and no meaningful pre- and post-trip programming (despite claims to the contrary). It’s a free trip for spring break to Israel rather than Cancun or Daytona beach. What’s the ROI the community would expect on those types of spring break trips? As the old adage goes – you get what you pay for. For participants, the ROI is exactly what you;d expect from a free trip – 0!
If the Jewish community learns nothing from Chabad, it should be that financial metaphors have no business in Jewish communal work. What value can you put on a Jewish soul? Each Jew has infinite worth. Thus, conversations about ROI are misplaced.
According to the warped logic of ROI we should only target communal funds to those endeavors that produce results. What results are we looking for? The traditional standards of identification deal with ritual observance. Do we say that any program that does not result in an increase in Kashrut and Shabbos observance should be de funded?
That is too radical a proposition. What about inmarriage? Can we all agree that endogamy is a standard of success? Well then according to demographic research intermarriage amongst Reform is now at 82%. Should all reform programs now be defunded? An 18% potential success rate would garner no investment in the financial world of ROI.
If we take ROI even further, there is no justification for remaining in the Diaspora. If we compare intermarriage rates between Israelis and Diaspora Jews it is clear that the only answer is to direct all communal funds into supporting mass Aliyah.
Obviously these arguments are ludicrous. So is the idea of ROI.
A Chabad Rabbi doesn’t consider ROI when choosing a lifetime position in Mississippi (1300) Jews. A shliach doesn’t consider ROI when hosting a Seder or inviting guests for Shabbos. “Hmm, let’s see. What can I get out of this person?” If that is a Jewish communal workers thinking there are better more rewarding fields to enter.
Each Jew is precious. Every moment is precious. Every Jewish memory is precious. Every mitzvah is precious. Not valuable – but precious – translatable into infinite worth.
Jews love Judaism. According to the Pew study 94% of Jews are proud and happy to be Jewish. It is up to communal professionals to create opportunities for individuals to express that pride. Birthright is one of those opportunities. If we stop worrying about ROI and value Jewish involvement for what it is worth, we may be able to create many more.
From the John Ford movie, The Man who Shot Liberty Valence: “when the legend becomes truth…print the legend”.
Joel, we were right about the Israel experience programs, about preparation and followup, length of program and youth group sponsorship and yes about the age group. I had the honor (some would say stupidity) of saying no thanks to Yossi Beilin at a meeting of the embassy when he asked the DC federation to trade our Israel Quest program for his vision of a free shorter trip for an older age cohort. But events, timing, an intifada and funding conspired against our model. And within half a decade I was charged with putting together a national Federation funding commitment to Birthright. Yes, all praise to Taglit – but now perhaps we can again begin to create that which we started 20 years ago.
Assuming that Birthright has collected decent pre-trip Jewish engagement data on its 400,000 participants, I’m just waiting to see what ROI Birthright finds a few years down the road for that cohort who had no significant trip preparation via a Youth Movement, day school and/or Hebrew School education, vs. those that did have various kinds of long term communal education preparation for the Birthright trip, as well as a significant amount of post-trip communal engagement.
Or has such research already been done and did it underlie the recent dramatic decision by the donors to open the Birthright experience to youth who had previously participated (via Youth Movement, day school and/or Hebrew School) in an organized Israel Experience Program – presumably youth for whom Birthright post-trip research will show a consistently higher ROI?