For 2019, the sad, sad totals are projected as follows:
JAFI -- $74.3
JDC -- $30.0
ORT -- $ 2.1Friends, these are not misprints -- these totals are the lowest...ever. Reflect on this: if the aggregate federation annual campaigns are at $983 million (+/-) these allocations have fallen to a little over 11%. These percentages and the actual dollars are an insult to these agencies which are our agents and which we really no longer adequately sup[port.
The system, if there still is one, is guilty of criminal neglect. Over the last two years alone, the allocations to JAFI have fallen by close to $15,000,000 -- a percentage drop of 17% -- while JDC's total over the same period -- mirabile dictu -- was flat (and actually increased minimally in 2019 from 2018).
You may recall that, rather than accepting its responsibilities for advocacy on behalf of JAFI/JDC/ORT, JFNA's Board voted, as part of its "reorganization" of UIA, to abjure -- to walk away -- from its sacred obligation for advocacy for the core budgets of the overseas partners, resolving to "let JAFI and JDC advocate for themselves." "Not our problem" has morphed from "never our problem." JFNA fled from its advocacy obligations like rainwater rushung toward a sewer.
Failure is truly an orphan. This is nothing new. Recognizing that JFNA was unwilling to engage in serious advocacy dating back to 2004 (if not earlier), when I was serving as the Chair of the Jewish Agency North America, I met with JDC's lay and professional leaders to propose a serious partnership for overseas advocacy. The Joint's leaders -- terrific women and men totally committed to JDC -- and I had serious conversations that ended with JDC determining that it would continue to hold JFNA responsible for advocacy. As they said in Pretty Woman -- mistake; bad mistake, really big mistake.
I remember well the hope that leadership had at the time of the merger two decades ago -- one of the bedrock assumptions in the merger book was that the emerging organization, now JFNA, would result in more dollars for the core budgets of the overseas partners. An entire evaluation process was designed for determining the priorities...and to support them. And, then, there was nothing./////
Rwexler
Richard, have you given ay thought to the proposition that JAFI no longer merits even the projected $74 million allpocated to it in 2019? What Jewish Agency programs (beyond the basic blocking and tackling of drastically diminioshed Aliya and Klitah) are worthy of even the funding that JAFI will receive from the Federations at the end of this year -- "Jewish unity?" "The only venue where the great issues confronting the Jewish People are debated?" "Fighting global anti-semitism?" I would respectfully suighgest that the Agency deserves less, not more. Then, again, that's true of JFNA as well.
ReplyDeleteNo Richard only believes that this is the glorious 80's where we should blindly send $ to these "historic" partners while blindfolded and gagged. Who caused global warming JFNA?
ReplyDeleteNo comparison is possible as to the value to our people of the important work of JAFI/JDC/ORT and the waste of JFNA.
ReplyDeleteSucsess and failure should be measured by adherence to stated mission and goals, making JFNA a complete failure while our overseas partners that it continues to betray continue to succeed despite dwindling financial support under the "leadership" of JFNA.
Of course it is getting worse and worse. That trend will continue all the way down, or until we finally wake up and do something about it before it is too late.
Anon at 6:59 abjectly fails to acknowledge key JAFI programs such as Shlichut (although Shlichim is largely a fee-for-service outside of the unrestricted $74M) and JAFI Security Assistance Fund (although this important work receives no support from the unrestricted $74M) or leading the international fight against anti-Semitism (ADL must be so pleased to have a new senior partner.) On second thought . . .
ReplyDeleteWell, it certainly appears that no one cared to take my suggestion a few months ago of giving Eric Fingerhut 6 months to try and figure things out at JFNA before continuing our lambasting an organization that he had literally nothing to do with until taking his current job.
ReplyDeleteAll of this happened on Rieger and Silverman and Manning, Siegel, and Kanfer's collective watches. Did I leave someone out?
I have to believe that Mark Wilf and Eric Fingerhut are aware of this history. Give them a chance to get their arms around things and create a strategy. Not one that is in response to the accurate history that has been articulated on these pages, but instead to take that history and make some decisions regarding the mission and direction of JFNA.
Perhaps there will be a session at the upcoming FedLab in DC, where some of us who contribute to this blog will participate in a discussion of the fate of our dues and overseas allocations to our historical partners.
To 2:00 - You most certainly left out Richard Sandler who, even in his days as LA's chair, believed the board should get out of the way so the professionals can screw up the organization on their own!
ReplyDeleteto Anon 2:00 PM:
ReplyDeleteWe'll soon see if you are right or not, although it appears that the damage that has been done is so deep that even if they actually try to do something about it (doubtful) their chances of success are pretty slim.
But, hey, it will be wonderful to be pleasantly surprised!
Meanwhile, though, things indeed continue to get worse and worse everywhere one looks at JFNA, so time if the essence because time is running out quickly.
Richard, as a faithful reader I am curious: has Eric Fingerhut reached out to you for advice, counsel or anything else?
ReplyDeleteRichard, it would be interesting to see what happens if you would contact Eric and ask for a meeting.
ReplyDeleteHas no one read the new JAFI mission statement:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.timesofisrael.com/at-90-jewish-agency-for-israel-to-rebrand-as-hub-for-entire-jewish-world/
So, now they are spending their $350 mill as a “convener for Jewish Unity” and the ombudsman of JFNA (and Keren Hayesod) to the Israeli government - because those two organizations could never find their way to an Israeli politician?
Does that seem like a good use of funds?
Bureaucracies never die, they just evolve so that they never have to give up funds or fire any of their political hacks or cronies.
ReplyDeleteWith Aliyah down dramatically from 25 years ago, and JAFI stripped of its role in North American, UK and Ukrainian aliyah, it is constantly in search of new missions to justify its payroll.
Most Israeli’s think it should have been split apart decades ago.
To Anon 8 PM
ReplyDeleteRead the first comment.
JAFI is very relevant.
Jewish unity?" "The only venue where the great issues confronting the Jewish People are debated?" "Fighting global anti-semitism?"
Aren’t these critical roles that are at the top of JFNA’s priorities?
To Anon 8 PM, Do you really think that Fighting Global anti-semitism should be at the top of JFNA's priorities?
ReplyDeleteReally?
I'm not saying that it isn't an urgent issue facing the Jewish People, but isn't JFNA's first priority to serve the needs of the member Federations so that they can achieve their mission statements?
What was the purpose and goal of the merger? Was it achieved or has it failed miserably? That is the only relevant question to which the answer is known to all.
ReplyDeleteWe were supposed to be supporting our overseas partners financially while influencing their performance through our active involvement in their governance.
By not properly advocating and falling so short of targets for financial support, we have forced them to spend millions on their own advocacy and fundraising efforts, now telling them that they are "on their own."
All this makes it more and more difficult for them to meet our expectations and get things done.
Our decisions and actions, especially recently, are responsible for what is happening.
Yes, it is on us. We could have and should have done better.
Anon 1:41 pm.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if your post is in response to mine of 10:14 am, but in case it is, please understand, as per my post on the 28th at 2:00, that this is all on the JFNA leadership over the last 13 or so years. And I agree with your assessment of the merger and JFNA's failure to follow through on its operating mandate, and the resulting disastrous ramifications for our historical overseas partners.
But I have a question for you. In your post, when you refer to we and our and us, are your referring to JFNA or the leadership, both lay and professional, of the individual federations?