Arnie Draiman's comment opens up another discussio...

2009-10-11T13:05:44.751-05:00

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.

From 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.

very well written. i am opposed to high overhead t...

2009-10-11T09:17:57.239-05:00

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.

best practices and best ways to give:

www.mitzvahheroesfund.org
and
www.dannysiegel.com

thanks

arnie draiman
www.draimanconsulting.com

Comments on UJ Thee and Me: DEAR KATHY AND JERRY

Arnie Draiman's comment opens up another discussio...

very well written. i am opposed to high overhead t...