News Analysis: Resignation of Top UJA Professional is Chance to Reassess Agency Mission

The resignation of Stanley Horowitz as chief professional officer of the United Jewish Appeal comes at a time when some Jewish leaders are questioning the need for an agency of its size in light of recent shifts in the dynamics of Diaspora fund raising for Israel.

During Horowitz’s seven-year tenure, UJA staff was pared down by about 25 percent, operating costs were reduced and the agency was made into one now highly regarded for its efficient management.

Despite occasional personality clashes that are rumored to have contributed to his resignation, Horowitz is thought by most people involved in Jewish fund raising to have done a more-than-admirable job running the agency.

Horowitz, whose resignation becomes effective July 1, presided over the tremendously successful $420 million Operation Exodus campaign for Soviet Jews last year, a general campaign the same year that raised $765 million, and various other special campaigns during his tenure.

But his resignation, made public Monday, is generally believed to have been agreed upon mutually with Marvin Lender, UJA’s national chairman, and other top UJA officers. Horowitz would not comment on the terms of his departure, but according to one Jewish federation leader, he still had two years left on his contract.

Some of those involved in Jewish fund raising said Horowitz was too much of a technocrat for some officers’ tastes and that they wanted more of a public figure.

“He was hired to make it (UJA) efficient, streamlined and (to) raise more money,” said one person closely connected to UJA. Few would disagree that he accomplished most of these tasks.

GROWING CLOUT OF FEDERATIONS

But whoever is finally chosen to replace Horowitz in the position, rumored to carry a $300,000 annual salary, will face the daunting challenge of charting a path and identity for UJA in a Jewish fund-raising world that is growing increasingly crowded.

Under the current system, community federations across the United States each run combined campaigns to raise money for local, national and overseas Jewish needs.

The portion of money raised for overseas needs is turned over to UJA, which sends most of the money, via the-United Israel-Appeal, t. the Jewish Agency for Israel.

The Jewish Agency, on whose Board of Governors both Diaspora fund-raising leaders and Zionists are represented, then decides how to apportion the money to various social programs, including aliyah, immigrant absorption, neighborhood development and youth centers.

Over the decades since its founding in 1939, UJA has evolved from an organization that once unilaterally decided how much money would be raised and allocated to one whose officers now talk of the need for cooperation and consultation with local Jewish federations.

Federation leaders are demanding, and getting, the opportunity to provide more input on fund-raising decisions, such as how much money will be raised for Soviet Jewish resettlement and whether some of the money should be made available in loans rather than grants.

“More and more, UJA is bringing federations into the planning process,” said David Sacks, president of the UJA-Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York.

“Instead of saying, ‘You shall raise a billion dollars,’ they call us in and say, ‘Fellows, we need a billion and what can we do?’ “

‘WHY DO WE NEED UJA?’

Some federations still rely heavily on UJA for fund-raising techniques and information, while others are well-equipped to handle it alone. Many even run their own missions to Israel rather than rely on UJA missions.

In the process, the 179 federations nationwide have virtually taken over local fund-raising campaigns, combining local and UJA needs under one heading and deciding what percentage of the money will go to UJA for overseas needs.

“There has always been a certain tension that exists between UJA and CJF,” said a board member of the Council of Jewish Federations, which represents federations in the United States and Canada. “The reason is that in the major Jewish communities, some of the lay people and staff will say, ‘Why do we need UJA?'”

One knowledgeable Jewish fund-raising professional said Horowitz’s resignation offered the American Jewish community the opportunity to review UJA’s structure and role and ask whether the agency, with its 200 employees and $28 million operating budget, needs to stay as it is.

“If UJA is the campaign organization but the money is really being raised 90 percent by federations, what do we need a campaign organization for, and if we need it, what function should it fill?” the official asked.

While the combined federation regular campaign totals increased each year from 1983 to 1990, local federations’ allocations to UJA in the same period actually declined during some years, according to figures provided by UJA.

Fund-raising officials attribute the decline to a combination of U.S. economic woes, growing local needs and decreasing identification with Israel.

“It used to be UJA got 60 percent of the money (raised), and now it’s only 50 percent,” observed one influential federation lay leader, who, like most people interviewed for this article, asked not to be identified.

A MERGER WITH CJF?

Over the years, there has been some discussion among fund-raisers of merging the federations’ umbrella group, CJF, with UJA, as a way to minimize duplication.

Norman Lipoff, chairman of the United Israel Appeal, said he is not convinced changes need to be made now, but that, “like all things in Jewish organization life, I think it’s advantageous to explore how Jewish organizations are structured now and whether there’s a more effective way to carry out our responsibilities.”

The debate over a merger has been going on for years and is not likely to be resolved in the near future.

But while there is no consensus on UJA’s future, its critics and supporters alike agree that the unprecedented overseas demands that have arisen in the past year attest to the need for strong fund-raising management, whether UJA continues to provide it or is ultimately reconstituted in some other form.