"A lot of time has been spent discussing the drop in core allocations to JAFI, JDC, and World ORT.In fact, JFNA has a lot of data which it parses out only to those it deems "worthy." The Global Planning Table has seen the same data as I -- allocations to core and total Supplemental (designated) giving. There is no breakdown as to where those dollars were allocated to in supplemental/designated fashion, but "Total Supplemental Giving 2013-2014" was $40.3 million (+/-) -- again, there has been no breakdown of the recipients. This total is not insignificant, but it nowhere approaches "more total dollars from the federation system than at any time in history" for JDC/JAFI/ORT. Far from it when one merely considers that the drop in core to JAFI since the merger now is approaching $100,000,000 annually.
For all we know, JAFI, JDC, and World ORT may, in fact, be receiving more total dollars annually from the federation system than at any time in history....or maybe not.
Doesn't JFNA have the data on not only how much each federation sends JFNA for allocations to the core, but also in addition to the core allocation, how much each federation allocates directly to JAFI, JDC, and World ORT?
That, it would seem to me, would lay all the cards on the table for a transparent analysis of the situation.
And it would seem that this information should, in fact, be public information for the members of the JFNA System."
I agree wholeheartedly with one recent correspondent who wrote:
"The conversation on advocacy needs to shift and focus on three basic truths:If JFNA could lead us here, what a change in systemic attitude might occur. But the leaders of JFNA seem to be so involved in brand and self-promotion, they appear to have no time or interest in promoting the critical work of those with which we have charged with our responsibilities.
1. The indivisible nature of local and overseas needs- hence a single Jewish agenda built around peoplehood and community
2. The unique set of deliverables provided by global partners (what we once described as "the franchise")
3. The acknowledgment that for 3/4 of our Federations or more local needs alone cannot maintain the loyalty of their biggest donors"
But, far too often, there are federation professional leaders who, when challenged about the deconstruction of the overseas allocation engage in pathetic sophistry. Here's how it works -- a donor sees the JFNA data. It shows your federation with an overseas allocation of 12.3% including Supplemental Giving. He asks the CEO how can that be? The CEO responds: "Well, JFNA's number is just wrong. You have to deduct our cost of raising the money, our overhead, from our campaign numbers first. Then you compute our percentage -- it's really...40%." Thus, you have a community whose overhead is 50% -- and there are those that even exceed that percentage -- which allocate almost nothing but under this perverse logic that community's CEO could argue that its allocates 50, 60, 70% to overseas. Sophistry, pure and simple.
JFNA's numbers, which are the same as those used by UJA before it, compare true federation-to-federation figures -- annual campaign and allocation -- applicable across the board. The results may not look good -- in fact, they look horrible -- but this data enable a fair evaluation of each federation's allocation in the absolute and relative one to every other.
You will recall that JFNA abdicated its advocacy and allocations responsibilities to the ineptitude of the Global Planning Table; and what did that leadership do? Nothing. It collected data that disclosed that over ten federations are allocating directly to overseas beneficiaries; it "eliminated" the "split" by converting it to cash; they acquiesced to the "repayment" this year of not only allocations "advances" by a few federations but of an allocations loan by JFNA. In other words, in the shadows in which JFNA and the GPT work best, these two Potemkin Villages just did what they do best...nothing. And, in doing nothing, damaged the credibility of our system even more than they did before. And, just who have been the continuity in this deconstruction over the past five years? Kathy Manning and Jerry Silverman.
Let's have transparency and let's have some honesty -- two excellent places to start.
Rwexler
Posts
7 comments:
I am on the JFNA Board (for whatever that's been worth) -- I just went back over the Minutes. I find no approval of any "advance" of allocations or any resolution for repayment of that "advance." Where was process here, or, as I suspect, there was none. Where did the money come from; and where is it going? This is malfeasance..
There's an old saying that Figures lie and liars figure. It is not at all surprising to me that the CEO can make a 12% level of overseas allocations become 40%-50% or whatever. As a former exec of different city size federations there were lots of tricks like this that were used depending on what point the exec wanted to support. CJF used to report data on salary and benefits of all professionals to help lay leaders determine proper compensation at different levels. I remember one year comparing the reported campaign levels of UJA to the comparable reporting of campaign levels when reporting salaries. UJA levels were always lower substantially. Why? So the exec could tell his lay leaders when negotiating his salary that he should be compared to another exec's reported salary who had a comparable campaign (probably both inflated reports). When discussing the overseas allocations he could compare his actual transfer of funds to other federations that raised comparable (deflated amounts.) Since UJA and CJF were two different organizations, my assumption was neither knew what the other was reporting or if they knew neither wanted to do anything about it.
Another technique that was often used was to sometimes include unrestricted funds in the endowments for allocations purposes. The way this worked was as an example the federation might have a campaign of xxxx and report only the actual dollars raised in the annual campaign. UJA would then get a percentage, let's say 40%. Then when it came time for allocations the community would take a fair amount of money out of unrestricted endowments or other sources of income and allocate it to meet all needs. The problem was that none of the unrestricted funds ever went to overseas, only to local needs (generally to support overhead of the federation, possibly.) This allowed the community to claim a higher percentage to overseas based on only the campaign, while at the same time lowering the percentage of overhead when compared to allocations which included other sources of funds such as the unrestricted endowments. So remember figures lie and liars figure.
There's an old saying that Figures lie and liars figure. It is not at all surprising to me that the CEO can make a 12% level of overseas allocations become 40%-50% or whatever. As a former exec of different city size federations there were lots of tricks like this that were used depending on what point the exec wanted to support. CJF used to report data on salary and benefits of all professionals to help lay leaders determine proper compensation at different levels. I remember one year comparing the reported campaign levels of UJA to the comparable reporting of campaign levels when reporting salaries. UJA levels were always lower substantially. Why? So the exec could tell his lay leaders when negotiating his salary that he should be compared to another exec's reported salary who had a comparable campaign (probably both inflated reports). When discussing the overseas allocations he could compare his actual transfer of funds to other federations that raised comparable (deflated amounts.) Since UJA and CJF were two different organizations, my assumption was neither knew what the other was reporting or if they knew neither wanted to do anything about it.
Another technique that was often used was to sometimes include unrestricted funds in the endowments for allocations purposes. The way this worked was as an example the federation might have a campaign of xxxx and report only the actual dollars raised in the annual campaign. UJA would then get a percentage, let's say 40%. Then when it came time for allocations the community would take a fair amount of money out of unrestricted endowments or other sources of income and allocate it to meet all needs. The problem was that none of the unrestricted funds ever went to overseas, only to local needs (generally to support overhead of the federation, possibly.) This allowed the community to claim a higher percentage to overseas based on only the campaign, while at the same time lowering the percentage of overhead when compared to allocations which included other sources of funds such as the unrestricted endowments. So remember figures lie and liars figure.
Those who bemoan the idiocy of the GPT will wax nostolgic if (a big if) the Prime Minister's/GOI initiative comes near fruition where partisan Israeli politics and private philanthropic agendas will dominate and the Federations will have only a marginal voice.
To the Second Anonymous: Are you referencing a specific federation(s)? It all sounds very familiar.
To the Third Anon, I will be updating the GOI/World Jewry fiasco shortly. Thanks for the update.
2nd anonymous here: There are several specific examples, not just one federation, but this information is now about 20 years old, so no point in naming names. The reason the examples sound familiar is that you held some very important positions in the system during these years.
OUCH!! And the same sophistry is on-going 20 years later, exactly as you have described it.
Post a Comment