by Felicia Herman
Jewish tradition warns us to stay away from prophesiers (Lev. 19:26; Dt. 18:10 and 18:14), which drove much of the collective Jewish skillset away from augury and into strategy. In that spirit, I offer not a list of predictions about what will happen in Jewish philanthropy in 2011, but rather some reflections on what I think needs to happen if the Jewish philanthropic world is going to expand and grow stronger in the coming years.
Where you stand, of course, depends on where you sit. These reflections are the product of my having had the privilege to be involved with The Natan Fund for the past seven years, working together with the exceptional young philanthropists who make up Natan’s membership, with the groundbreaking emerging organizations around the Jewish world that Natan is honored to support with our grants, and with our many dedicated partners and colleagues throughout the Jewish philanthropic and nonprofit sectors.
1. We must find new sources of philanthropic capital.
The Jewish world is in desperate need of new givers – of all ages, income levels, and philanthropic inclinations. The numbers of people giving to Jewish causes has been in decline for some time for a variety of reasons, and the “usual suspects” – the generous institutions and individuals who do so much good in the Jewish world and beyond – need partners and successors. In 2011, everyone who wants Jewish philanthropy to have a vibrant, expanding future needs to experiment with and support creative models for engaging new philanthropists who are eager to support Jewish and Israeli nonprofit organizations.
1a. This needs to happen within Federations…
Existing Jewish philanthropic institutions, especially the Federations, are still the biggest game in most towns, with unparalleled resources and infrastructure.
Federations must retool in order to meet the expectations of 21st century givers, who are conditioned by technological advances to have almost unlimited transparency, control, and access to information in their giving. One way to do this is to replicate the model of venture funds housed within Federations, such as Solelim, Bonim Atid, and Neshamot at UJA-Federation of New York, and the LA Federation’s Jewish Venture Philanthropy Fund.
But Federations must also create more comprehensive mechanisms to enable donors to understand – and even to direct – where their money goes within the system. Proactively, they must expand the opportunities for people to become involved in the intellectually, socially, and even spiritually meaningful process of allocating communal funds. And more Federations need to be driven by big-picture thinking and not limited by their particular organizational boundaries. If more Federations (and community foundations and donor-advised funds) were in the proactive donor matchmaking business – helping donors to find organizations that are the most meaningful to them, whether they are Federation agencies or not – donors would be happier and more generous, more organizations would find support, and the rising philanthropic tide would lift the collective Jewish boat. (Oops – that was a prediction.)
1b. …and it must happen independently.
At the same time, entrepreneurial philanthropists at all levels of giving and from all walks of Jewish life need to create new, parallel philanthropic vehicles that meet the needs and expectations of themselves and their peers. We need to strengthen, expand, and replicate hands-on giving collaboratives like Natan and the Slingshot Fund. And more nonprofit organizations should be experimenting with creating their own hands-on philanthropic vehicles, like PresenTense’s PT Investments.
Giving collaboratives like these are infinitely customizable according to members’ needs and desires, and they build on members’ varied personal and professional networks. They offer a transparent, direct, and inspiring opportunity to engage with philanthropic peers, in a powerful network and meaning-filled community. I believe that they hold tremendous potential for bringing new people to Jewish giving.
2. Funders of all stripes must invest – deeply, seriously, and patiently – in innovation.
Emerging nonprofit organizations are transforming the Jewish world, creating new access points to Jewish life for countless people worldwide. Yet they remain ridiculously starved for resources. To inspire new and current Jewish philanthropists, to reinvigorate the Jewish communal system and infrastructure, and to meet the demand for the program and services that new organizations provide, Jewish philanthropists and philanthropic institutions must begin to make serious, “mezzanine-level” investments in expanding the capacity of successful emerging organizations. In 2011, both Bikkurim and the Lippman-Kanfer Family Foundation will be releasing studies that will offer critical insights into the needs of organizations that have passed the startup stage. Such insights will offer a roadmap for stakeholders into how to enable successful organizations to reach their full potential.
Individual funders and foundations cannot do this alone. Federations need to begin to play a role comparable to that which governments play in innovation ecosystems outside of the Jewish world: providing the significant, long-term investments that emerging organizations need to go to scale, and “nurtur[ing] settings where brilliance can happen.” In 2011, we need to seriously discuss mechanisms for more closely linking the Federation world with the “innovation” world, such as Jeffrey Solomon’s call for a kind of Jewish Social Innovation Fund, where each Federation would set aside 10% of its annual allocations for innovation – spread evenly between local, national, and international initiatives.
3. Funders need more analysis and more data to guide their decision-making.
The Jewish philanthropic and nonprofit sectors must improve the quality and quantity of their data-gathering about both Jewish philanthropy and Jewish organizations. Aside from organization-specific data, we also need recurring sector- and field-wide studies, similar to the Giving USA Foundation’s reports on American philanthropic behavior and Blackbaud’s annual study of the nonprofit industry. While Natan, Jumpstart and The Samuel Bronfman Foundation have begun to examine new Jewish organizations such sector- or field-wide studies of organizations are inexcusably rare if we are truly striving for excellence and if we expect to inspire new funders to be inspired to join us.
Most broadly of all, the contemporary Jewish world also needs more scholars and researchers from a variety of disciplines to help us to understand the changes the community is going through within (at least) two contexts: the ongoing evolution of the Jewish people and broader trends in the contemporary societies in which Jews live. In 2011 and beyond, we need more scholars from fields like history, anthropology, religious studies, Jewish studies, cultural studies, economics, business, political science, technology and new media studies, and so on – to reflect upon the incredibly dynamic, event frenetic historical moment in which we are blessed to live and work.
4. And yet – we also need more risk-taking and giving from the heart.
Let’s not become victims of our own professionalization, data-gathering, and strategic thinking, however. There must always be room in the philanthropic portfolio for untested and/or beloved ideas. Not everything can – or should – be measured. Some ideas are too new; some are too ground-breaking; and some just speak to our hearts. The word philanthropy, of course, derives from the Greek word for love. In 2011 and always, funders of all stripes need to continue to support the things they love: missions that touch them, ideas that uplift and inspire them, and entrepreneurs with irresistible enthusiasm and passion.
Felicia Herman is Executive Director of The Natan Fund.
Top
I appreciate immensely the perspective on Jewish philanthropy from a person who is as close to the ground as Felicia is. But I think a few words reflecting a different view might add to the conversation.
First, I don’t think characterizing the field as being “in desperate need of new funders” is helpful. There is tremendous abundance in Jewish philanthropy. Staggering sums of money are donated, continuously; and restricted and endowed funds are appreciating again. New funders with signifciant resources are emerging. Approaching the challenge out of a sense of desperation likely increases the probability that we will not have reasoned discussions about ways to maximize what is given.
Secondly, many federations are under siege. Their “unparalled resources” are often locked up in designated funds and committed to a long-standing entitlement approach to allocations. Note: I am not criticizing the federation system, only cautioning about what we can fairly expect it to deliver.
Thirdly, there’s a good deal of extant scholarship on the various aspects of research in contemporary Jewish life that speaks quite directly to “the ongoing evolution of the Jewish people and broader trends in the contemporary societies in which Jews live.” The opportunity here, in my judgment, is concerted efforts (such as that being made by the Berman Center) to collect and to effectively disseminate what is available.
Finally, there is no existing rational flow of capital in Jewish philanthropy (which is also mostly the case, incidentally, in the general community). High performing organizations and institutions are no more likely to receive grants of “build capital” and to attract “equity investor” type funders than their weaker counterparts.
To be candid, we don’t yet have well-tested standards for effectiveness that enable us to reliably direct increasing shares of philanthropic largesse to the best performers. And, as Felicia correctly points out, there must always be a place for giving from the heart, one of the hallmarks of American philanthropy and a centuries old tradition in our faith.
So, let’s soldier on, being smarter in how we conduct our work and making more out of what is already available to us, even as we court new, innovative funders.
In discussing the needed new infra-structures for tomorrow’s Jewish community, Ms Herman calls due attention to the need for Federations to adjust to new realities, but seems to overlook the other highly developed current infra-structure institutions, the synagogues and the movements which undergird them.
One of the things that need to happen is for Federations and synagogues to work collaboratively, helping one another develop new mechanisms to meet the changed and changing needs of the community. The Union for Reform Judaism has taken an initiative in recognizing and encouraging synagogue-Federation collaboration through its Shutafim (Partners) program (www.urj.org/Shutafim).
We all concur that the system is, while perhaps not broken, in need of repair. We can’t overlook that the synagogue, as still the primary delivery agent of Yiddishkeit in its broadest sense, must be part of the equation of creating the new agenda and the emerging future.
Thank you, Chip, for these excellent and wise points. A few thoughts:
I use the word “desperate” very purposefully, not to induce panic or irrational thinking, but rather to convey a sense of urgency. While I agree that new funders are always emerging and that staggering sums of money are flowing into the system, there is no doubt that the need vastly outweighs the resources available to meet it – and, at the same time, that even more staggering amounts of “Jewish” philanthropic resources are directed to non-Jewish causes. But as I said – where you stand depends on where you sit – so I’m willing to concede that my perception of “desperation” may be more pronounced from primarily interacting with extraordinary yet vastly undercapitalized organizations.
I think, actually, that the dual challenge of needing to attract new contributors to Jewish philanthropy, especially younger ones, and needing (from my perspective) to properly capitalize the innovative organizations that will form a major piece of the Jewish future, can reinforce each other in a positive way. Funding these inspiring, innovative, future-focused projects, using new fundraising and allocations modalities, can bring new people and new money into the system.
On the research piece, my point is that we need more diverse sorts of explorations of the contemporary Jewish world. There is a lot of good sociological work out there, but I’d love to see it complemented by analysis from scholars from a broader range of fields. I agree completely that there’s also a distribution problem, and that the Berman Center is a great example of an institution trying to crack that nut.
I couldn’t agree with you more about the lack of a rational flow of capital in the Jewish community, or proper measures for effectiveness to guide that flow. That leads me to wonder: since we can almost get our arms around the Jewish philanthropic sector as a slice of the overall philanthropic pie, wouldn’t it be cool if we could build and pilot something like this in the Jewish community that could serve as a “light unto the nations” in these regards? Hopefully the increasing number of conversations about “mezzanine-level” organizations and their funding will lead us in this direction this year.
Thanks again, Chip.
As someone who has written many grant applications and received many rejection letters from the Jewish philanthropic world, I too hope funders will turn toward innovation. Experience tells me that sometimes fabulous ideas are not funded because they are too ahead-of-their-time or too outside-the-box.
If it sounds like I have a bone to pick, it’s because I do. I am one of the founding rabbis of http://www.OurJewishCommunity.org. We have a truly innovative solution for reaching the majority of Jews (those who are unaffiliated and underengaged) and it’s working. We’ve reached hundreds of thousands of people in 150 countries. But more than using the tools of the time, we have an evolving philosophy that focuses on a contemporary Jewish voice for the 21st century. If that alone doesn’t impress, then the fact that we are perhaps the most cost-effective Jewish organization in the world should also be of note.
Some funders will give us the courtesy of having a conversation with us after they’ve read our applications; they often say we’re on the brink of something, but they don’t see it yet. Others won’t return our calls.
We’re not on the brink of something – we’re there. The question is, is there a bold funder who will join us?
I believe Felicia’s point is that we need to encourage new individual giving, not necessarily the growth of new philanthropic institutions.
Keep in mind that most giving is made by individuals and not by philanthropic institutions. The most recent Giving USA (http://www.aafrc.org/) report notes that of the $303.75B given in 2009, 75% came from individuals while only 13% came from foundations.
To that end, the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties (JCF) just announced the launch of its Impact Grants Initiative (IGI), a creative model that engages new philanthropists in exactly the type of “hands-on-giving” experience Felicia advocates. While this Federation has been investing in innovation through our Endowment for decades, we are changing in two ways, first devoting more resources to innovative models both within and outside existing institutions, and second, we are engaging the community in the grant making process in innovative ways to develop their skills, values and interest.Modeled on venture philanthropy, the IGI (http://www.jewishfed.org/see-how-we-help/grants/IGI) combines not only a new method for engagement and philanthropic education of emerging leaders, but the first round is also targeted specifically at innovation, investing $1 million over three years on innovative approaches that will engage adults between the ages of 21 and 45 in Jewish life. And, as we re-shape the Federation, we are considering strategies to make start-up and mezzanine funding normative in the Federation.
In addition, the IGI is also charting a path to engage in outcome-based grantmaking that would re-address Chip’s point that Federations are “committed to a long-standing entitlement approach to allocation.” In the JCF’s case, we are embarking on a path that will align our funding with identified community needs that move our People forward as a whole and specific measurable goals before a dollar is raised. Funding would then support those organizations that can deliver measurable outcomes that meet those goals, which would reward high performing nonprofits.
Other areas the JCF is now considering include:
• Launching large scale initiatives (on the order of $100M+) to both raise and distribute significant capital to support very targeted goals and outcomes for community-wide progress, which aligns with Felicia’s second point on innovation;
• Developing secondary markets that will provide additional opportunities for donors and organizations to provide resources to organizations the JCF has approved for funding as well as those that warrant funding but for which resources could not be awarded. The JCF, as with almost all philanthropic institutions, sits on a trove of data related to organizations: it intends to make that available for people to use in their own charitable giving and investment decisions;
• Adopting Program Related Investments as an additional strategy available to the JCF to support local organizations; and
• Embracing impact investments as a means to further engage donors and align both charitable giving and investments resources to support local organizations and JCF initiatives.
In a traditional private foundation, many of these changes could be structured and implemented immediately. The JCF’s challenge, as with other Federations, is that it must engage its donors and lay leaders in evolving the organization, which lengthens the transition time for implementing the changes. Nevertheless, at our Federation, this transition is taking place and moving forward, and of course, we intend to share our progress with the community as it proceeds.