Jewish Federations Evaluate Differences in Fund-raising Achievements

The discussions conducted at the workshops of the four day General Assembly of the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds, which took place here during the week-end were analyzed today by Philip Bernstein, CJFWF executive director.

Mr. Bernstein said that emphasis was on evaluation by each community to determine the reasons for the great difference in achievements, particularly in community fund-raising. He noted that some federations raised $10 per capita and others as much as $80 per capita. Some federations have gone as much as 25 per cent ahead of their best performance of the past decade while others have dropped as much or more.

He said that the findings indicated that mere exhortation was not alone the answer and that efforts must be made topic-point the key areas, such as organization, solicitation methods and particularly the effectiveness of volunteer fund solicitors whose understanding and thoroughness, rather than the generosity of contributors, often determines the level of gifts.

The workshops agreed that annual campaigns were only one phase of federation financing, with endowment development given special attention. A highlight of this discussion, he said, was the experience of the Philadelphia Federation of Jewish Agencies which obtained pledges of $8,000,000 from 450 people in less than a year, a total which was twice the achievement of the annual campaign and more than twice as much as the endowment gifts of the federation’s entire history.

Federation leaders, after considering this report, as well as endowment experiences of Chicago and Cleveland, resolved to undertake systematic endowment programs with the same planning and implementation as given to annual campaigns.

DECIDE ON COPING WITH THE PROBLEM OF MULTIPLE APPEALS

The workshop participants agreed that the problem of multiple appeals must be met by prevention of unnecessary drives and by cooperative planning with valid appeals which are outside the scope of federation programs. Another approved step was that of seeking commitment to federation drives “not only by what community leaders fail to do for other appeals but, even more important, by what they do for the federations.”

Workshop participants noted that what voluntary agencies must do and what their programs cost are greatly affected by what governmental agencies do. It was emphasized that the passage of the public welfare amendments of 1962 had opened an opportunity for a major breakthrough in replacing continued relief with rehabilitation, family service and independence. The emphasis must now be on state and local action since the states administer the public welfare programs and must implement the new amendments by voting matching funds and by setting up the needed administrative changes.

Special attention was given at the workshops to planning so that communities would be able to define what they want to happen and then take action to make it happen, Mr. Bernstein reported. Research and basic facts were stressed as a prime requirement for sound community planning and action, he said.

Workshop participants reported that federations were re-examining administrative research on fund-raising, budgeting and programs. Special studies are being undertaken on major problems. Population research is being undertaken more systematically at both the local and national levels. Means of providing more financing of research are being studied.

COLLABORATION BETWEEN SYNAGOGUES AND FEDERATIONS EXPLORED

Specific avenues of closer collaboration between federations and synagogues were explored at the workshops, Mr. Bernstein reported. Attention was paid to the Committee on Jewish Affairs and the Commission on Synagogue Relations of the New York Federation. These federation units deal with relations of rabbis and social workers, community centers and congregations, research into matters of common concern and the role of gifts of congregation members in support of federation programs.

Community relations were viewed by the workshops in the context of both national and local cooperation. Closer ties with other communal agencies at the national level was stressed. At the local level, participants considered the impact of community relations on all federation agencies through their participation in united funds and community chests, councils of social agencies and in public welfare concerns.

Another phase of such relations examined at the workshops was the implication of the fact that more than half of Jewish hospital patients are not Jewish, the involvement of non-Jews in the services of Jewish community centers and vocational guidance bureaus. Other related matters were the common concerns involved in issues of adoption across religious lines, use of tax funds for sectarian agencies, proposals of questions on religion in the federal census, and the desirability of closer national and local cooperation between the various agencies and community relations organizations.

Participants agreed that federations have responsibility for planning and coordinating the great variety of institutional and non-institutional services developed for the aged to assure that people will get the services they specifically need. These include casework, counseling, homemaker service, home medical and nursing care, friendly visiting, employment, sheltered workshops, recreation, housing, boarding homes, hospitals, nursing homes and institutions for the aged.

Jewish education was examined during the workshops in the context of total community responsibilities, directly related to the communities. Current annual federation grants totaling $5,500,000 goes primarily for central services shared by schools of various types. The services include teacher training, provision of educational materials, development of school standards, evaluation of teaching methods, parent education, cooperative arrangements with congregation schools.

Jewish day schools were also reviewed in this context, Mr. Bernstein reported. It was noted that the report on day schools prepared by the American Association for Jewish Education found that about 42 per cent of the income of 51 reporting day schools from outside New York comes from tuition and about eight per cent from federations.