Dear Kathy and Jerry:
Last week a Dialogue erupted on the pages of this Blog. That dialogue (which consisted of Comments to three Posts on "RELEVANCE" and the potential impacts of turning our federations over to the "designated givers" culminated in a responsa to numerous observations of Paul Jeser, a leader experienced in so many aspects of our system. That responsa, from an Anonymous correspondent so beautifully and perfectly summarized my own sense of where some would take us that I wanted to reprint it here for you and The Jewish Federations of North America to consider. I wish that I could write so beautifully. And, at one and the same time, may those who believe that because their communities face obstacles that appear insurmountable at this time, who believe the federation construct is irreparably damaged, working together, as we have time and again, we will find solutions that preserve the best of in what we have built.
Here is what Anonymous wrote last Thursday night:
"(It has been suggested ) that Federations have to get on the band wagon of designated giving or go out of business.
I suggest that if designated giving is the panacea for Jewish Giving than there is no need for Federations at all. Let’s all designate and save the overhead. We do not need a central address – just an occasional symposium on “Giving Wisely.”
How will we defend ourselves with no central address? How will we work collectively in a time of crisis? How will we organize major movements of our people? How will we prevent 100 schools for 100 children? How will we succeed when we disorganize form the collective?
I have the ultimate tool of designated giving in the form of my checkbook. I can designate to my heart's content.
If I do that with all my Tzedaka - I will lose my community. The strength of the community is that we come together to act together. We act as central address and we plan for the best use of our collective funds. We can intelligently plan for the best uses of our Tzedaka and act with the power of the collective - like a family.
Embrace a Jewish form of Rugged Individualism and we will lose our very Jewish Community. Give up central planning and we relegate our giving to being nothing more than a Beauty Contest or sales contest. The sexiest and loudest organization gets the money. Put a Rabbi with a big smile in front of my desk and I can no longer hear the small voice of the needy Jew far away from my home? A totality of Free Market Tzedaka is worse than spoiled gribenes – all the grease and none of the crunch. Designated Giving is survival of the fittest.
There is no Tikkun Olam in the Jungle. This diminishes us to be nothing more than a recreation of the shtetl's shnorer with a pushka. The Pushka of the shtetl took care of all of our community’s needs because we did not have the freedom of geography nor the knowledge of effective global communication. If you do not know about the plague in Minsk you are fine with throwing big parties in Pinsk. We know better today.
If we wish to remain a covenantal people – than we have a responsibility to the Brit. Our Brit creates a responsibility for collective action of the Edah - our community. Individual action, no matter how enlightened or fulfilling, can never take the place of collective responsibility."
October 8, 2009 6:32 PM
*****
Amen. Selah.
Kathy and Jerry....the next steps are truly in your hands.
Rwexler
very well written. i am opposed to high overhead tzedakah. but i am in favor of federation IF AND ONLY IF they can do it for 10% - 15% overhead and NOT the current 30% - 50%....that is a real halachic crime.
ReplyDeletebest practices and best ways to give:
www.mitzvahheroesfund.org
and
www.dannysiegel.com
thanks
arnie draiman
www.draimanconsulting.com
Arnie Draiman's comment opens up another discussion - that of overhead. For decades the Federation world has been getting away with not sharing the full picture. When I was a Federation Exec we were proud of saying that our overhead was @ 18%: true but not true.
ReplyDeleteFrom that 82% net we sent funds to national UJA (100% - or close to that figure - of whose expenses accurately should be have been booked as 'overhead'). The UJA allocated to JAFI & JDC (more overhead), and, in some cases, they allocated to organizations/institutions (more overhead).
So how much of the $1 that was actually sent to a program overseas was far less than the 82% net we as a Federation reported. Not much different with Federation allocations to local agencies - just less middlemen.
When I was the national campaign director of the JNF I had an ongoing correspondence with Brian Lurie, then head of national UJA about 'overhead.' Comparing apples to apples I think that I was able to prove the net funds raised by JNF that went directly to its programs here and overseas was actually higher than the net from Federation campaigns. I will guess the same is true if you compare the net from the many American Friends groups to net overseas funds from the Federation world.
Then, there is the 'other' discussion. What successful company expects to net a 82% profit. We, as a Jewish community, were foolish to fall into that trap.
When Ruth Popkin (another great) was national President of the JNF, and we began our direct mail campaign, we had the discussion of net income. Our DM was netting about 10% (I think), all from previous non-donors - a very high percentage for that type of campaign. When Ruth questioned the net expense, we responded "would you rather have 10% of a million dollars, or 100% of no dollars?"
Today, with fewer lay leadership involvement in actual fundraising, and more and more sophisticated competition, low net expense means going out of business.
Of course it should not be this way, however the reality is that those organizations who invest more in lay leadership, hire 'better' staff and do a 'better' job of marketing will raise more funds, no matter the cause, than those who don't.
This is why I have been advocating a completely different federation system. I do not see it surviving within the current structure.