What needs to be examined now is whether or not today’s Federation, as an organization, has been framed to fulfill the tasks it has assumed and whether it can be what it claims to be.
By Martin Levine
It is more than a century since the concept that is the Jewish Federation took root in Jewish communities across North America. And those roots did indeed grow strong and have provided sustenance to the remarkable vibrancy of American Jewry. Few organizations of any type have been as successful as have Federations. Key to the Federation Movement’s achievements has been its resilience and ability to change its focus and interests in response to changing times and needs. But have those changes in operations been supported by changes in the governance and engagement that are in tune with these times?
The impact of millions of poor eastern European Jews immigrating to the United States threatened to overwhelm existing communal structures. They arrived before much of today’s government sponsored “safety net” were in place, leaving new comers to rely on the support, if any, of their families and extended communities. Existing Jewish organizations struggled to adapt to a new American Jewish landscape and new organizations emerged to fill gaps in the existing community network; demand stretched supply and there was a critical need for increased philanthropic support. The leadership of the established Jewish Community mobilized in response and strived to manage an increasingly chaotic “philanthropic marketplace” and reestablish communal order and regain control of fragmented communal efforts. The Federation as we know was the product of that moment.
The assumptions of organizational ownership and a governance structure that are the Federation as we know it emerged as it was formed. “In its broadest sense, the Federation form of organization is designed to constitute a coordinated program for communal philanthropic agencies by supplying a central body for the collection and distribution of funds intended for charitable purposes… Money is not democratically spread throughout the community; and, in order to secure large funds for communal enterprises it seems (sad as it is to relate, but explainable because it is human) that it is necessary to give a disproportionate representation to the wealthy element.” (Evolutionary Tendencies in the Jewish Federation Movement, Maurice B. Hexter, Jewish Communal Service Association of North America (JCSA), National Conference of Jewish Social Service, May 1926) . Emerging Federations regulated the philanthropic marketplace by coordinating the process of raising and allocating funds and retaining communal power in the hands of the wealthy and established.
The success of the Federation movement is clearly marked by how it has been able to reshape itself over the years. In response to a changing Jewish community and the great changes in the global community, Federations broadened their purpose and took on new tasks that moved it beyond “just” effectively raising funds and coordinating their allocation to organizations providing community services. If in the beginning there was a demarcation between the Federation’s role as resource developer/allocator and the role of the service organizations which performed the actual work of community service, over time that distinction has been blurred, even obliterated. Federations have become more functional and direct providers of services. They have taken on the role of community planner, priority setter and evaluator. With the growth of public support for key social and educational services, Federation has taken on the role of advocate and spokesperson for the Jewish Community as whole. As government support for a range of human services has grown, Federation has sought to speak for the Jewish Communities needs and to ensure that our community gets its share of available government funds. With the birth of Israel, Federations assumed the responsibility for building and maintaining American support for Israel’s security and political needs. With growing evidence of the decline of traditional definers of Jewish life, Federations have stepped into the vacuum and assumed the role of Jewish Community builder and sustainer.
Federations now self-describe themselves as “… the central address of North American Jewry.”
What needs to be examined now is whether or not today’s Federation, as an organization, has been framed to fulfill the tasks it has assumed and whether it can be what it claims to be. That structure has over time remained relatively static. It continues to use the quasi-democratic structures required by the laws that govern nonprofit organizations while maintaining real power and control in the hands of the wealthy and influential. Control of the purse and access to the philanthropic community is a powerful lever to maintain communal order and control.
Writing in 2002, Judith L. Millesen, associate professor at Ohio University’s Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs observed that “few would argue against the notion that boards of directors are supposed to represent the interests of “owners.” Yet, despite the intuitive importance of specifying ownership, over 70 percent of nonprofit board members interviewed regarding their perspective on ownership and accountability believed that they were accountable only to their board – or to no one at all. ”
How would those who lead our Federations today answer that question? Who are the “owners” that they represent and are responsible to?
In speaking for the Jewish Community, Federations cannot see their accountability mostly to those who are contributors. The role of community leader requires more than being just another membership organization.
What is needed is a hard and dispassionate look at how the structure of Federation reflects the larger role they have assumed and wish to continue to play in Jewish Communal Life. It means being brave enough to change what is not yet fully broken. Rather than assuming today’s success justifies staying as we are, we (Federations???) need to build a structure that is more open and representative of whole community.
Reforming how Federations are governed so they are more fully aligned with the responsibilities they have assumed will not be a simple or painless endeavor. It will threaten the interests of those who lead today, it will risk losing the support of long time donors who like things as they are and it will require investing in more robust methods of engagement. With critical human needs being met by the great sums raised, Federations will need to find ways to smooth the period of change so that those who are most needy don’t become victims of change. Is greater engagement and power sharing worth that risk? I think it is.
If we stay as we are, we risk a loss of authority and effectiveness. As survey after survey has shown, those who feel disconnected and unengaged can and will just walk away. While the financial implications of this attrition may not be as great as the risk of major donors, it will weaken us as a community and defeat the goal of speaking with a single powerful voice.
If Federations wish to remain as more than fund raisers and allocators, this is a struggle worth engaging on.
Is a conversation about power sharing and an open process a conversation that Federations will be willing to have? I hope so but fear not.
Martin Levine is a Principal of Levine Partners LLP, a consulting group focusing on organizational change and improvement, realigning service system to allow them to be more responsive and effective. Prior to forming Levine Partners, Mr. Levine served as the CEO of JCC Chicago. He is an occasional contributor to Nonprofit Quarterly.
Alan Woronoff says
July 20, 2015 at 4:05 pmThis is a refreshing essay, because it actually invokes how Federation defined itself through decades, but I think it misses the point in that context. How did the Jewish community feel about its local federation through the decades? Are today’s critics any more numerous or vocal than the 1950s or 1920s critics? What were the critiques during the decades?
How do Jewish Federations of North America or more importantly, individual Federations throughout North America–differ from other nation’s similar organizations, both in terms of mission and in terms of percentage of donors?
How does Federation differ from United Way in its governance and impact? Its overhead? Its critiques? If Federation were to disappear, what would be the impact?
I know for me, it took me a few years to look past disillusionment of individual leaders and/or process and look at mission, and there is simply no comparison for impact throughout communities as Jewish Federation. If we as community members forget that, the entire community loses, even if we don’t like the lay leader, or professional staff so much. And I’m not sure critiques of leadership in the 2010s differs from the critiques of the 1930s or 1970s. Anyone have any direct knowledge to confirm or refute me? I’d love to know
Jerrold Landau says
July 31, 2015 at 1:10 amI have been following all these discussions on-line closely, as this is a cause I care about. Most of the discussion has happened on other sites, but probably should be continued here as well. Here is my take on the buy-in / level of closeness to the federation system. Let us break this up into 2 spectra: a) the wealth class spectrum. b) the religious spectrum.
Regarding the wealth class spectrum, and this is a very broad generalization, you have the wealthy, the poor, and the middle class.
The wealthy: They would feel well served by the Federation. They have an outlet for their philanthropic desires and wishes, they have access to leadership positions (I am not commenting on whether this is good or bad, and for the most part, it is legitimate), they have access to wonderful trips and missions, they go to dinners and at times get honored by dinners, they get designations such as Lion of Judah, their children get to go on March of the Living, etc. They feel good about what they contribute (rightly so), and feel a real sense of inclusion and power.
The poor: And we should all realize, our communities really have people who are having trouble making ends meet, to the point of not having adequate food our housing. This class is also well served by federations. And that is the way it should be — we must look after the disadvantaged. There are job fairs, employment agencies, significant subsidies for communal events, JCC memberships, etc., meals on wheels, services for those in broken homes and situations of abuse, etc. Federations do a pretty good job here — never perfect, and other organizations have to kick in. Those in this class do not need to feel inclusion, just that their real pressing needs are looked after. And for the most part — kol hakavod — they are.
The middle class: here we need to divide into 2 groups: the ‘day school parents’ middle class and the non day school parents middle class. The non-day school parents middle class, at least those who do not see the value or importance of it, are (unless highly assimilated) feeling close to federation. They have access to non-school Jewish event: MOTL, camps, JCCs, etc, they can participate in federation campaigns, they can associate with those of their same class and feel well integrated. The federation can serve as a source of community. Lets look now at the day school parents (the non-wealthy ones and the non-poor ones, as those are both covered in my analysis above)> For the most part, these people have their resources tied up in tuition, and cannot donate to federation at any meaningful level. In many cases, they receive federation subsidies (for those federations that provide such), and in such cases, they are proud middle-class people who have in a sense been reduced to ‘beggars’ (articles have been written about the psychology and sociology of turning middle class people into beggars through the tuition situation). They do not really have access to positions of power in federation, and even less so, as their donations cannot keep up to what would normally be expected of those of their income level. They are often making sacrifices on non-school Jewish activities (trips to Israel, MOTL, even camps for their children, and in some cases even synagogue membership). In many ways, their crushing tuition burden, and the stigma of being a recipient rather than a contributor, instills a feeling of distance from federation. In cases where political activism might help the situation (here in Ontario where there is a discrepancy between the public funding of Catholic vs non-Catholic education, but also in many states where vouchers are up for discussion) these people may feel that the federation shies away from the activism that would be needed to promote such changes. In short, they feel ‘dissed’. And there is a group of people who have felt the need to pull out of day school (either prematurely, or never to enter at all) and feel bitter about that. In short ,the day school parents, fervently committed to Jewish continuity, but crushed by the financial demands — often feel that the federations do not really understand their pressures and concerns (and are of course simultaneously thankful for whatever help is given — and in many cases such as here in Toronto, the help is significant).
Then there is a religious spectrum. The Orthodox often feel alienated. But much of this may be because of the financial concerns above — the non-wealthy Orthodox are making the day school choice even with large families, and therefore are affected by all of the above factors. They may want to participate more in theory, but are too burdened with the tuition crisis. In other circles, middle class people would have dropped out of the school system rather than cut back their standard of living or pursue subsidies, but the Orthodox invariably persevere. On the other hand, those members of the larger Jewish community who see their Judaism more through the Tikun Olam lens may feel distanced from federations that they feel are too Jewishly focused.
To sum up, the wealthy and the poor are well served. The middle class, especially the day school middle class, are feeling a squeeze that likely creates a feeling of distance. And those at various ends of the religious spectrum may also feel somewhat alienated. No easy answers, but all this points for the need for serious thought on the part of federations.