I am so pleased that Gil–who was a federation planning colleague in our former positions and who has initiated serious conversations around shared priorities of our respective organizations–responded to my article. Indeed there is much we agree on, as Gil notes. I especially appreciate his warning that federations not permit themselves to become “an incremental overhead expense that can be easily removed through direct giving.” And even in the arena of unrestricted operating support, I suspect Gil and I share more agreement than the debate suggests; after all, CJP continues to award significant “Capacity Grants” to select agencies and “Per Capita Allocations” to day schools–indications that CJP appreciates that only strong institutions can be effective partners in strategy.
I find it difficult to take issue with Gil or CJP on the local level, where an inspired vision has led to dynamic initiatives and robust resource development. Not surprisingly, however, given our roles, our perspectives differ markedly on the international agenda. Boston has masterfully crafted its Haifa Connection and Dnepropetrovsk Kehillah Project to create vibrant living bridges between Boston’s Jewish community and Jews in Israel and Ukraine. But its broader involvements overseas are more limited than some other communities’, and its list of allocations for 2012-13 does not reflect funding for the Overseas Collective Commitment of Jewish Federations of North America. I have no doubt that this choice is reflective of a thoughtful choice of strategy. But, my imagination is unable to conjure how a collective future for the Jewish people can be forged if every community–no less than every individual donor–pursues a separate strategy. At what point does the pursuit of a separate strategy become the pursuit of a separate destiny?
Gil – Congratulations on an outstanding article about the impact that Jewish federations can have on the future of Jewish life. The Federation system in particular should be mindful of the CJP strategy to fund integrated strategies rather than individual programs; it appears that is approach has been a central ingredient to your sustained success.
I am so pleased that Gil–who was a federation planning colleague in our former positions and who has initiated serious conversations around shared priorities of our respective organizations–responded to my article. Indeed there is much we agree on, as Gil notes. I especially appreciate his warning that federations not permit themselves to become “an incremental overhead expense that can be easily removed through direct giving.” And even in the arena of unrestricted operating support, I suspect Gil and I share more agreement than the debate suggests; after all, CJP continues to award significant “Capacity Grants” to select agencies and “Per Capita Allocations” to day schools–indications that CJP appreciates that only strong institutions can be effective partners in strategy.
I find it difficult to take issue with Gil or CJP on the local level, where an inspired vision has led to dynamic initiatives and robust resource development. Not surprisingly, however, given our roles, our perspectives differ markedly on the international agenda. Boston has masterfully crafted its Haifa Connection and Dnepropetrovsk Kehillah Project to create vibrant living bridges between Boston’s Jewish community and Jews in Israel and Ukraine. But its broader involvements overseas are more limited than some other communities’, and its list of allocations for 2012-13 does not reflect funding for the Overseas Collective Commitment of Jewish Federations of North America. I have no doubt that this choice is reflective of a thoughtful choice of strategy. But, my imagination is unable to conjure how a collective future for the Jewish people can be forged if every community–no less than every individual donor–pursues a separate strategy. At what point does the pursuit of a separate strategy become the pursuit of a separate destiny?
Gil – Congratulations on an outstanding article about the impact that Jewish federations can have on the future of Jewish life. The Federation system in particular should be mindful of the CJP strategy to fund integrated strategies rather than individual programs; it appears that is approach has been a central ingredient to your sustained success.