National and Overseas Agencies Will Need $140,000,000 in 1946, Cjfwf Parley Told

National and overseas Jewish organizations which raised $52,000,000 in 1945 are presenting budgets that are expected to aggregate about $140,000,000 for 1946, Isidore Sobeloff, executive director of the Jewish Welfare Federation of Detroit, declared today, addressing the opening session of the 14th annual General Assembly of the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds at the Hotel Statler. Mr. Sobeloff spoke on “Community Planning for Financing 1946 Needs.”

Nearly 1,000 Jewish leaders from 234 cities in the United States and Canada which are members of the Council, plus observers from Jewish national and oversees agencies, are attending the meeting, which will define major Jewish welfare objectives and programs at home and abroad. The conference will continue through Monday.

The underlying conditions which have led the United Jewish Appeal to proclaim a $100,000,000 campaign, as compared with the $35,000,000 raised in 1945, have also stimulated other European and Palestinian programs to extend their services and increases their budgets, Mr. Sobeloff said. He also pointed out that national Jewish organizations with civic protective, health, welfare and cultural programs showed the same pattern of increased requirements for 1946.

Mr. Sobeloff predicted that American fund raising capacity will continue unimpaired. He emphasized that he made this prediction on the basis of opinions of leading American economists, that 1946 will bring a level of productivity and national income that will very substantially exceed prewar levels and compare favorably with economic activity during the war period.

THREE MAJOR ISSUES WILL BE DECIDED AT CONFERENCE

The three questions which have aroused the most interest among the delegates are: Should allocations to agencies outside of the United Jewish Appeal be “frozen” for 1946, in view of the unprecedented UJA campaign for $100,000,000? Should the national advisory budgeting plan be adopted or rejected? Does a separate list of candidates for membership on the board of directors of the Council, sponsored by a group considered Zionist, have any prospects for victory in the elections which will be held on Sunday?

This is the first time in the history of the Council that an “independent list” of candidates, in competition with the list presented by the nominating committee of the Council, has been placed before a General Assembly. The independent list was submitted on behalf of 17 small Jewish federations and welfare funds, and was initiated by the Jewish Community Council of Easton, Pennsylvania.

A joint statement on the national advisory budgeting service was submitted today to the delegates by Jacob Blaustein, chairman of the Council’s budget research committee and Issac S. Heller, a member of the Council’s board. Mr. Blaustein advocated adoption of national budgeting, while Mr. Heller presented the arguments against the proposal.

BLAUSTEIN CITES REASONS WHY COUNCIL SHOULD ADOPT NATIONAL BUDGETING

Mr. Blaustein pointed out that the Community Chests and Councils, which is the national organization of 750 non-sectarian community and war chests, has adopted a national advisory budget plan for the benefit of its member agencies, and for hundreds of national and overseas agencies which appeal to the country for financial support. He pointed out that such budgeting is necessary because the local Jewish federations and welfare funds are constantly confronted with a number of very difficult and vital questions, such as the following:

“1. Multiplication of new appeals and extension of existing agencies into fields new to them, but within the established programs of other national and overseas agencies. Sometimes these new organizations or extensions are necessary and worthwhile, but often they are not. Which of these appeals are superfluous or duplicate more effectively established services?

“2. How good a job is being done by an agency in its particular area of service, and what funds does it need to do an effective job?

“3. How much overlapping and duplication is there among national and overseas agencies, and how much of their budgets are involved?

“4. Are the agencies adjusting their programs and budgets promptly and adequately to meet rapidly changing conditions?

“5. What actually is the situation with respect to the greatly expanded growth of some of the agencies? Is the particular goal reasonable and realistic?

“6. How much of the work indicated is being done, or should reasonably be done by government or other agencies; what effort is being made to bring that about, and how much must be done by Jewish agencies because of inadequate governmental responsibility?

“7. What is the situation with respect to the increasing number of large campaigns for capital funds expenditure?”

Mr. Blaustein pointed out that no local community can independently undertake to do the work of providing the necessary data for fair and equitable decisions with respect to the more than 125 agencies which appeal to it for support. “To get this data, and appraise and correlate it, takes more time, staff and facilities than are at the disposal of any one community,” he declared. He also pointed out that when making their budgetary decisions, welfare funds are frequently subjected to pressure applied by individuals and groups.

Mr. Blaustein concluded with an appeal that the national advisory budgeting plan be given a trial for a three-year period to prove that it “can properly meet the needs of the community and the agencies, or otherwise. If it proves desirable,” he said, “all these benefit. If, on the other hand, it proves desirable in actual operation, it will fall by its own weight. I submit that this is the truly intelligent, reasonable, and common sense thing to do.”

HELLER SAYS NATIONAL BUDGETING WOULD BE DISSERVICE TO COMMUNITIES

Mr. Heller, presenting the arguments against the national advisory budgeting service, said that national budgeting will be a disservice not only to the Jewish com-

“Assuming that a committee, whose bias would not be open to question could be assembled,” he said, “any decision on size of quota or evaluation of aims, if deemed unacceptable by an agency, would bring upon the committee and the Council not only the bitterness of the agency involved, but the resentment of its adherents in the several local communities.”

Describing as “utopian” the proposal for an impartial budgeting committee, he declared that the acceptance of such a committee by all the welfare funds and national agencies is an impossibility. “It would be an impossible task to find a large committee acceptable to the multitude of national agencies and to the welfare funds,” he said.

“No matter what the composition of the committee, no matter how impartial its members would be, it would constantly face the charge of being unrepresentative, weighted, hand-picked and subjective. There would be a justifiable demand for the election of such a national committee by democratic procedure which would involve all elements of the community. The Council would face the accusation, just or unjust, that it represents certain interests, and that it is furthering this representation in the appointment of the committee.”

Continuing, Mr. Heller said that the establishment of a national budgeting committee would set up barriers between communities and agencies. He stressed that the plan cannot be implemented in face of the opposition which has already been registered. He also said that the Council is not set up as a policy-making agency, because “it is not adequately representative of all aspects of Jewish life.” The organization of a national budgeting committee, Mr. Heller asserted, will further discourage local initiative and will arrest the education of local budget committees.

“I sincerely trust that the proposal for national advisory budgeting will be decisively defeated,” he continued, urging at the same time that the Council embark on an intensive fact-finding effort “so that the local communities may have in great detail all the necessary data pertinent to arriving at decisions which will represent the interests of all elements of the local communities.”

Today’s morning session, which was devoted to discussion on the care of the aged and chronic sick, heard two authorities on that subject Joseph Folkoff, superintendent of the Levendale Home for the Aged in Baltimore, who spoke on “Community Planning for the Aged” and Dr. E.M. Bluestone, director of the Montefiore Hospital in New York City, who spoke on “Community Planning for Persons with Long-Time Ills.”