Monday, September 21, 2009

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

At the meetings convened by Kathy Manning that will take place in two days in New York the focus will be, at least in part, upon the collapsing federation allocations to the core budgets of the Joint and JAFI, there will be the unmentionable, the elephant in the room, if you will. The elephant is the factual context that UJC just doesn't like to talk about -- the incredible disregard of our collective system that UJC, at least in part, was constructed to strengthen. When the elephant entered the room during ONAD meetings, the facts, though daunting, better at that time, were met with shrugs and comments from some professional leaders that I greatly respect, went something like this: "Why are we wasting our time with this?" So, let's waste a little more of your time, shall we?

In the decade preceding UJC's formation, allocations dropped by 20% -- to 40% of gross campaigns -- from $353 million to $305 million while Annual Campaigns increased. Even as allocations were frozen for the first two years of UJC, they had fallen precipitously, from that $305 million level to about $220 million. And, while UJC fiddled and refused to advocate in any way for the core collective allocation, $220 million shrunk to a level never before even contemplated -- a maximum estimated allocation to JAFI/JDC of $145 million at calendar year-end 2009 with more conservative estimates placing the figure at $131 million -- this at a time when the gross annual campaigns in the aggregate stand at approximately $860 million. While it sickens me to type it, allocations that stood at almost 60% of gross Campaign in 1970 and almost 50% at 1990, now will be close to 15%, the lowest point in history.

But, you may argue, the current Board Chair claims that the federations are sending JAFI alone, $273 million in 2005 ramping up to $355 million in 2007. (UJC, at one point, urged on by some of the Large City Executives, began talking about $410 million [an imaginary figure that included $100's of millions in pass through dollars from the IEC]). That difference is between the disappearing core allocation and designated/supplemental funding of, e.g., Partnership 2000, and allocations from the Israel Emergency Campaign (for which UJC still cannot account for $10's of millions in federation direct grants). But, we respond, most of those funds (and all of the IEC dollars) were either direct pass through dollars without support to the core budgets or programs of either JAFI or JDC (or ORT), the US Government Refugee Resettlement Grant, some pass-throughs of donor direct grants and Amigour apartment sales income. The basic truth is that the collapse of collective, core funding for JDC and JAFI has been breath- and life-taking devastating the budgets of our partners. (This is not to denigrate the federations' incredible fund raising successes or UIA's remarkable achievement in sustaining the Refugee Resettlement Grant, but merely to distinguish between core/collective funding and all else.)

It is unimaginable but the current UJC leadership has watched in silence while collective responsibility died and they appear to be most willing, even eager to perform the last rites. UJC, created in substantial part, to increase the financial resources of our partners in Israel and overseas, has the shovel in hand to turn the earth as the casket that is the international rescue, social service and renewal efforts that have distinguished us, is lowered into the earth by them. It is not hyperbole, but fact, to point out that until now, while the core allocation reductions at JAFI and JDC have catastrophically weakened our partners, this iteration of UJC hasn't raised its voice, extended its hand or marshaled such forces as it has, to exercise its moral responsibilities to remind the federations of their obligations.

In so many ways, what we are observing is the mirror image of what has happened in our communities: as local campaigns stagnate or are in free fall, local agencies have seen federation resource support diminish. Left with no alternative, local agencies hire development staff or consultants and begin their own campaigns in competition with the federations. Now, extend this to national agencies which must seek public support as federation financial support literally disappears and a new bureaucracy called "the Alliance" imposes a maze of paperwork with falling financial support at the end of the day. So, national agencies are left to raise money to support their diminished budgets -- they turn to their Boards, their friends, and begin to organize parlor meetings in the federated communities while UJC watches in silence.

And, what will the Jewish Agency and the Joint be forced to do? Draconian budget cuts reflecting draconian allocation cuts will inevitably push our historic partners into direct fund raising -- not alone for allocations but for direct donor contributions. The JDC has both the cause and a body of high level donors of incredible influence totally committed to its cause; the Jewish Agency has the Israel "brand" and a growing number of men and women, lay and professional, world-wide engaged with it. Both have strong professional presence in North America. JDC has recruited some outstanding professionals in what appears to be an expanded FRD and marketing staff.

In sum, we have a prescription for fund raising chaos; the disease is a spreading cancer metastasizing in the federation body. The seeds of communal destruction have been planted, watered by UJC leadership's silence and evident disinterest. And what is UJC doing about it? Yes, what is UJC doing about it? Whatever it may be, because of the void created and perpetuated these past five years, UJC's new leadership will have to start from a standing stop.

May the meetings on the 23rd be the starting line for a revitalization of collective responsibility. May the elephant be escorted out of the room.

Rwexler


1 comment:

  1. There is another 'elephant' in every Federation room: the elephant that has been saying, w/o most of the Federation world REALLY listening, that most donors do not want others to decide where to spend their charitable dollars...

    ReplyDelete