As Israeli fundraisers go, Harry was a legend. His solicitation skills were well above average. He was the guiding force in establishing and raising money for a major new Jerusalem project. And when a prospective donor would ask Harry how their donation would be used, he would place his arm around the shoulders of the questioner, bring them close, and respond, “trust me”.
There was a point in time when nothing more than “trust me” was necessary. But even before Harry’s unexpected death a few years ago, the philanthropic world was changing, donors were requiring more information on how their gifts would be utilized and even Harry was slowly coming around.
That the world has changed is apparently a lesson the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) has failed to grasp. With the passage this week of the highly controversial Global Planning Table (GPT), JFNA – and as a result the Jewish philanthropic world – has taken a significant step backwards.
Instead of openness and transparency, we’re now saddled with a new level of bureaucracy.
Instead of the nimbleness often needed in allocations, decisions will be entrusted to even more new committees and commissions.
Love, or hate, organizations such as the Jewish Agency and JDC, both have staff on the ground to evaluate and implement a range of global programs. Now, a financially challenged organization will need to spend even more donor money to duplicate that which already exists.
All to what end?
- Does JFNA really think the GPT will help grow donations (or even slow a decline)?
- Does JFNA believe the next generation of donors will embrace this type of organizational structure?
If the answer to either question is yes, JFNA has yet to make a case. In fact, other than the scheduled vote (intentionally scheduled at a historically low attendance time) JFNA held no public discussion of this much-touted plan during the just concluded GA. The fact this was a Board decision is no excuse. The potential implications are just too wide-spread.
The fundraising challenges today are very real. Many Jewish federations acknowledge that 2012 and 2013 will likely see decreases in annual campaigns. Organizations of all sizes are forced to do more with less – and many are succeeding admirably. All are concerned about the future. Donors are looking to see the impact being created. But over at 25 Broadway they’re apparently still in the last century; no-one has told them hierarchical organizations have become a dinosaur.
There are exciting initiatives underway in the global Jewish world – not only in North America, but in Europe, the countries of the former Soviet Union and in Israel. In many respects, and despite real obstacles, our Jewish future couldn’t look better. As a community, we could benefit from a strong, and bold, national Jewish federation system.
It’s long past time for JFNA to internalize we no longer reside in the 1980’s. We’re in a new century; one that requires new ways of thinking and acting. We need JFNA (with the full support of their federation owners) to recognize and then proceed in a way that would give reason to their existence. While the current method of funding overseas projects may well be broken, the Global Planning Table is not the solution, but rather a ticking time bomb that will negatively effect Jewish giving going forward.
Dan Brown is the founder of eJewish Philanthropy.
Top
Dan, it’s easy to be a critic. So very easy. Some people make whole careers out of it. Since you are a philanthropic consultant, why don’t you tell us how you would productively address this situation. Seriously – pretend for a moment that JFNA hired you and said they want to increase overseas spending, give the Federations real input into the decision making and allocations process, and hold their overseas partners accountable for the money the Federations send them. What would you advise them? Take as much space as you’d lke. Go.
I am not a philanthropic consultant – never have been and have no plans to be. I also do not pretend to have the answers. That said, as a long-time lay leader and observer of the Jewish communal world, I certainly have the right to voice my opinion.
Meanwhile, with an IP address that belongs to UJC, why hide behind the moniker? Have the guts to identify yourself as a JFNA employee if you have something to say. I don’t hide behind anonymous.
Yes, JAFI & JDC have staff on the ground and they do a lot of excellent work. But they also have institutional self-interests. (Who doesn’t?) This has made it difficult for other international organizations doing excellent work to make their case to JFNA.
If GPT levels the playing field, I think this will be an advance, and will ultimately lead to both better programs and more loyal donors. The key will be in the details of how GPT is implemented. Will JFNA really be open to hearing from the full diversity of Jewish organizations that exist in the world? How will they make this happen? I’d like to know at lot more than I’ve heard so far.
Hey! That’s my Harry! 🙂
Dan, I voted in favor of the GPT and yet I have my reservations, which I shared with the appropriate people. My point about your article is that you cannot throw the baby with the bath water. The idea of the GPT is in my opinion a sound one. My differences are about implementation, and I believe the distinction needs to be made. In an increasingly complicated – and impoverished – world, we need to be more systematic in the evaluation of needs, and most of the process described in the GPT documents do that. I agree that the world has changed and that in order to grow the pie back and bring more people around, we cannot keep behaving like Harry in your article…people today are reluctant to sign a blank check. But instead of rejecting the whole the idea, I invite you to present positive suggestions to improve it. I’m sure your comment will be welcome…
One of the best articles I’ve read this year is “Social Impact” by John Kania and Mark Kramer found in the Stanford Social Innovation Review. (You can find it on-line) The authors identify five characteristics of successful planful collaborations. From my experiences in the foundation and Federation world they are amazingly on target. Every winning Jewish initiative I have ever been a part of has met their criteria; every failed initiative has been short on multiple criteria:
1. A common agenda or shared vision (to this I would add a strong sense of urgency)
2. Continuous communication
3. A shared measurement system (that starts with a common definition of sucess)
4. Mutually reinforcing activities ( a division of labor based on the premise that no one entity can go it alone)
5. A backbone Support organization
THE JEWISH FEDERATION SYSTEM IS DEAD; LONG LIVE THE JEWISH FEDERATION
Many lay leaders and professionals who are or were part of the Federation world are looking at what is happening today with very great sadness.
In the ‘good ole days’ (were they really that good?) the Federation was the key player in all, if not most, communities. In the ‘good ole days’ the Federations attracted the top leaders, the most significant donors, and the most creative and visionary professionals. In the ‘good ole days’ the Federations were looked to for guidance and support by the entire Jewish Community.
From what I read, see and hear, with very few exceptions, this is certainly not the case today.
Most major leaders and donors have decided that institutional life is not for them. They have set up their own Foundations, decided upon their own priorities, formed their own umbrella support system and have hired top staff.
So – as many of my friends have said: ‘Yes, we all know the problem – so what is the answer?”
I may not have THE answer, but I do have a vision.
But first, as the song says, let’s start at the very beginning.
I may be wrong, but I think that the most significant event that began the slide down the slippery slope was…. Project Renewal!
Yup – that great and most effective program began the downfall of the Federation world.
In the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, the major communal organizations were the Federations and their support organizations, the UJA and CJF. They attracted the major donors, leaders and professionals. That world was where all the action happened. It was the place to be.
Outside of the Synagogue world, and as a somewhat educated guess, probably 80%++ of all Jewish giving came through the Federation world. The Israel Education Fund was a quiet way that major gifts could be given through the Federation, not be allocated through the general campaign process, and be designated for special projects in Israel. With that exception most all other charitable giving and allocation was controlled by the Federation.
In the late 1970’s Project Renewal was proposed by the Jewish Agency and accepted by the Federation world. Many voiced reservations; not because the goal was not a wonderful one, but because they felt that once donors had the ability to so specifically designate their gifts (even with the parameters being agreed upon) doors would be opened that could never be closed.
There is a story about an incident that took place in the mid-70’s during the discussion most Federations had about supporting Soviet Jewish Refuseniks who came to America (versus only funding those who went to Israel). A major Federation donor and board member, who felt strongly that all Soviet Jews should go to Israel and if they came to America should not be supported, seeing that he was in the very small minority, made the following statement: “I know that in a traditional democracy my position will be defeated, but let me redefine democracy for you: traditional democracy believes that one person has one vote; in my democracy, one dollar equals one vote.” Since his gift was more than all the rest of the Board members collectively, he felt that his position should prevail. Of course it didn’t as it should not have. But the lesson was there – he did not want others to decide how to allocate his contribution!
Whether right or wrong, whether good for the community or bad, the fact is that most people, and certainly most – if not all – major donors do not want others to allocate their contributions and certainly do not want to spend time in organizational life.
We are now thirty years later. The desire and ability to have more control over ones own gift and what Project Renewal began has resulted in the unbelievable growth and strength of dozens (if not hundreds) of niche organizations, hundreds (!) of significant family foundations and the significant weakening of the Federation world.
So – since we all know the problem, what is the solution?
My vision – or at least the beginning of a concept: We need a totally new communal structure.
• The Federation should no longer raise funds to directly allocate to other institutions, agencies or programs.
Thus it will not be seen as a competitor. This is the key.
Once the Federation is no longer an advocate for any specific organization, agency or program, it can become the ‘honest-broker’ for the donors and agencies and the effective organization the community needs.
• The Federation should be the communal organization whose responsibility it is to:
o Serve as a resource for all organizations in the areas of fundraising, leadership, staff development and management.
o Serve as a resource for all donors and provide ‘fair and balanced’ (sorry FNC) information about all programs and projects needing funding.
o Serve as the place where all organizational leaders meet to discuss the issues – not necessarily to force a consensus but to allow for open discussion in a neutral environment.
o Serve as a true ‘community relations committee/council’ in developing relationships between the Jewish and non-Jewish community and even within the Jewish community.
o Serve as the community-wide outreach organization to motivate those not involved to become involved and assist them in developing their own paths.
o Convene the community in times of crises or special need. Play the major role in the development and coordination of community action, programs, and responses.
• Federation leadership should include the top local leadership (lay and pro) of all communal organizations and, as importantly, the top donors (who may be much more willing to serve in this new institution than in what we now currently have).
• Funding for this ‘new’ Federation will have to come from the cadre of communal donors who, if they buy in to the new concept, will see this new structure as a benefit to all, not as a waste of time and money.
• This vision does not see the need for the UJC since the JAFI and the JDC will, as all other organizations, raise funds directly in the community. This vision does see the necessity for an organization much the same as the CJF was – a national umbrella resource for all communities.
This is drastic surgery for the community. However, without it, or something close to it, we will continue to see the diminution of the one community organization/structure that is so needed.
I spent several days this past week at NetWORKS Gathering in Boulder. Attended by foundation, federation, large and small organizational professionals and thinkers, the incredible level of conversations were fluid and open. All centered around building concentric networks from the ground up. This is what is so needed today – not the top-down implication of GPT and so many other initiatives around the Jewish world. This, in my opinion, is one of GPT’s major problems. A second, and following what JFNA themselves has laid out on the GPT, the funding timetable. In today’s world the ability to react faster is needed (I’m not referring to emergency situations but the regular ebb and flow of organizational life). Speaking as a nonprofit professional, the cycle times are extremely problematic. More financially challenged nonprofits will need to submit more time-consuming proposals to more commissions that are nothing more than bureaucratic overkill. Meanwhile, programs – and potential new initiatives – will have difficulty moving forward.
To a couple of points in comments above:
Bob – any real communication is a problem as all too many Jewish organizations simply do not practice. Some pay lip-service to the concept, but communication out-reach is below what is needed today.
Ron – would be nice if GPT levels the playing field. I’d like to be wrong, but I have my doubts.
Daniel – the only suggestion I have, and I’m speaking as a grantee, is the process needs to be simpler and move much quicker. Most grantees today are extremely frustrated at cycle times – it makes organizational planning unnecessarily difficult. Reading the GPT documents, it appears cycle times will increase. As an aside, the Jewish world – and especially federations – need to tone-down the frequency of grantee reports. Oversight, and reporting, is absolutely necessary. But [particularly] cash- and time-strapped nonprofits spend an abundance of time preparing reports to grantors that we all know are seldom read. GPT, as presented, appears to up the reporting process with no clear benefit to the grantor or grantee. As an example – some federations require monthly updates from grantees. No program officer with a normal range of grantees can effectively manage that level of oversight effectively.
Dan, I basically agree with you that the system needs to be rebuilt from the grassroots up. That is precisely my problem with the proposed implementation, and I voiced that concern during the Board of Trustees meeting in Denver. I disagree with you in that the GPT is just an instrument, and as such it can be used in many ways. I, for one, am among those who believe that the Federation system does have an important role to play in the process to preserve funding for the “unpopular but necessary” programs. Most Foundations do a magnificent job with the initiatives they undertake, but there are needs that would go unmet if we only focus on donor-centered approach. An objective analysis of needs is also necessary…or should we ditch the 180,000 eldelry Jews in the FSU who need their food boxes every week? or diminish the ability of JAFI and JDC to respond to emergency life saving situation which are, by definition, unplanned? A balancing point needs to be found, and I believe the GPT can help. I do agree, however, that we need to follow the KISS principle (“Keep It Simple Stupid” for those unfamiliar with the term), and I also voiced that concern. What I proposed several times was to use decision makign technology to ask directly our constituency what is that THEY believe should be our priorities, and ask the same questions to non donors as well…maybe that way we will be able to fix the draining of donors. I believe in fixing the system, even if it means drastic reconstruction. I don’t believe in ditching it…
It is possible that one of the reasons that I appreciate the posotive aspects of the system is that I grew up and started my career as a Jewish Community Professional in Buenos Aires, Argentina…talk about inefficiency!
Daniel, emergency life-saving situations do not, in my mind, belong in the GPT approach ever but rather in whatever mechanisms exist for quick, efficient, action.
As to the GPT, you have the confidence, that I also do not share, that this approach will effectively deal with the “unpopular but necessary” programs and cite elderly Jews in the FSU as an example. Having spent time in Ukraine just a few weeks back with JDC, I can say 100% of JDC’s initiatives for the FSU population of holocaust survivors are met by the Claims Conference. 80% + of JDC’s chesed total needs in the FSU are also met by the Claims Conference. Add to that the social needs provided by IFCJ in the FSU and I wonder exactly how much money the federation system is providing to help this population?
Frankly, I’d be delighted to be proven wrong. I think a strong federation system can serve us well. But in order to accomplish this, the culture at JFNA needs to change; and I do not see that happening.
First, congrats Dan for engendering a challenging and thouhtful conversation. The sages tell us that the messianic age will be “yom shekulo shabbat”, and this shabbat discussion is a hint of our collective potential to talk, listen and yes disagree, a hint I would hope of things to come.
I agree that reporting mechanisms get out of hand. The most important submissions are on the front end of a proposal, the logic model if you will, that lays out the vision, goals, delivery mechanisms and back-end mechanisms for determining success. Micro-managing ongoing operational detail is not only cumbersome but disempowering. That being said, I cannot be more encouraging of ongoing conversation and communication between partners on what’s working, what’s not, what have we learned and how do we improve. This communication needs to engage not only senior executives but project mangagers and even line staff. (especially the latter two!).
You are right Dan that real communications is all to rare. Yet it can be done and has been done. UJA-Federation of NY’s Connect to Care intiative to serve Jews dislocated by the recession (over 40,000 clients and their families served!) was planned (with significant agency involvement0 in less than 2 months, has real time evaluation and correction built in, and top to bottom communication around that which makes the most sense — problem solving and improvement. What’s more, that because Federation played the leadership and organizing role it connected services across agencies and synagogues and created a community “brand” that transcended individual agency marketing. No agency exec or Rabbi in the greater NY area would question why we need and value a Federation.
Daniel points out what I believe to be the real elephant in the room; there are needs that will not go away, are not sexy, and require long term support. Mr. Cohen, may he live to be 120, requires assistance with taking a bath twice a week – but each bath is a “new” bath. I think there are mechanisms to guarantee ongoing funding of a long term duration that have greater accountability and transparency than block grant core operating support and still does not overburden agencies with reporting and maintaining a strong degree of agency autonomy in priority setting and operations — but that is a much longer conversation.
shavuah tov!
Just great! All the back and forth comments only prove to myself and others that the philanthropic community has created a self serving network of professionals who for the most part carp at each other .
Now, supposedly there is a new plan to provide assistance to the smaller communities around the world.
Here is one that both deserves and needs your assistance. Moriah College in Wellington, NZ is a Hebrew Day School of but 27 children ranging in age from five to thirteen. Wellington has an admitted Jewish population of 1,200. We cannot support the school without outside assistance. Moriah College has done wonderful things regardless of size. Have you heard about the Button Collection of 1,500,000 buttons collected in memory of the Jewish children who perished in the Shoa?
Those of you who take an interest, these are the number. Needed immediately, $50,000. Over the next three years, $250,000. If we cannot come up with the finances for our Hebrew curriculum,
the Ministry of Education will close us down, Simple as that.
Instead of beating each other over the head, do something positive. For more information contact the writer, at “[email protected]”
thank you,
Norman Kabak
Funding Committee.
Responsibility for Klal Yisrael and caring for other Jews demands a resounding “yes”
Dan, you say that the change would require a change in organizational culture at JFNA and you don’t see it happening…I find that contradictory. Yes, the change in culture is necessary, but standing in the outside and yelling against it, it will not bring about the change. To bring the change, we need as many diverse opinions as possible around the table…if those who feel they are in a minority keep walking out, they just reinforce the prevailing culture. JFNA belongs to the community because the stakeholders are the Federations and Federation is every Jew in every community. Truth be said, in many communities the concept of transparence and bottom up process is not prevalent, but it is up to every Jew in every community to come around the table and speak up. If people do not add their voices to the discussion, what the leadership hears is that everybody agrees.
Change comes about through involvement, not through walk-out…Just my opinion.
As a non-federation persona, I’ll not speak to the quality of JFNA’s communication with federation lay and professional leadership. But for those of us who reside outside JFNA, I’m happy to join into any discussion with JFNA’s decision makers. To do that, though, JFNA needs to both set up the vehicle and demonstrate they are truly interested in hearing what is being said.
Once again, I invite Jerry Silverman to join the conversation on this, and other subjects of interest to our entire community. To paraphrase the secretive JFNA employee who chimed in above, “He can take as much space as he’d like.”
The real problem with the GPT is that the only participants are the same old donors who are ALREADY giving. Where are these committee members going to come from? They aren’t going to come from the baby boomers who have found their own giving channels because those people are outside the system and may know NO ONE inside the system. The usual practice is to pick active donors and place them on committees in hopes that they will become bigger donors and champions among their peers. Is that really going to change?
Here’s an idea- JFNA should rebrand itself. Again. It should hire a consultant for a few million, print new stationary and literature and rebrand under the moniker Jewish Federations of North’ern’ America. Because everyone cares about the name, only we can’t call it JFNA. No.
I dont care if its UJA, UJC or JFNA or AFL-CIO. Any organization that WASTES as much time and energy on crap like this without doing anything to actually help effect change on the ground deserves to be taken apart. Why would ANYONE write a blank check to ANY CAUSE anymore? For that matter, why to one that spends more time on cosmetics than actual impact?
Meet the new boss…GPT and JFNA are window dressing. Dismantle it.