Editor’s Note: Later this month, Foundation Associate Director Sandy Edwards will leave the position she has held since 2006. She will remain involved in Jewish education and philanthropy through consulting and volunteering efforts. Below are reflections from Sandy on her time at the Jim Joseph Foundation working with grantees, other funders, and stakeholders in the field.

Ten years can at once seem like a long time and go by in an instant. As I reflect back on my ten years at the Jim Joseph Foundation, I am flooded with memories about where the Foundation and the field were in 2005—and where we now are today.

When I joined the Foundation, nothing was in place. No infrastructure for disbursing grants. No methods for evaluation. No standards for follow-up and accountability. There is a certain satisfaction I derive from having helped build the Foundation from the ground up. While the strategies and tasks varied, the goal always was focused: Create compelling Jewish learning experiences for young Jews.

Pursuing this mission is really what brought me into our field of work in the first place. And working on behalf of the Jim Joseph Foundation was the opportunity to be part of something new, exciting, and special. I look back and take pride in the contributions to four primary areas of which I was fortunate to be a part:

Developing the “invisibles”

From the time I joined the Foundation, we established internal systems—the key “invisible” structures—that helped translate its grantmaking strategy to success on the ground. Throughout the last ten years, these systems were the vehicles by which the Board of Directors awarded more than $350 million in grants and the Foundation paid to date $301 million in grant amounts. We processed 1,741 of grant payments, participated in eight successful audits, and developed a grantmaking procedure manual.

We worked diligently to apply principles of operation in order to support grantees. Every day, I worked with a team at the Foundation that refined these systems and sought to make them as effective as possible. Over time, they became useful to grantees and a vital part of their work. Why? Because even the best intentions, best grantees, and most visionary philanthropists need these basic nuts-and-bolts mechanisms to move an idea from paper to realized outcomes.

Relationships with Grantees

As the Foundation’s philanthropy grew, I came to realize the importance of relationships—both within an office environment and, in our work, with grantees. In fact, developing relationships with grantees really has become a best practice over the last two decades. Philanthropy at its best is so much more than a transaction. Rather, when a funder and grantee have a strong relationship, premised on openness and honesty, success is more likely and better learning and sharing occur. Developing these relationships takes time, a lot of conversations, and trust—but the payoff and the outcomes are well worth this time.

In my role as Associate Director, I was privileged to engage with all of the Foundation’s major grantees. I developed strong relationships with many. Unfortunately, I don’t have the space here to mention them all. But I do want to highlight a few of the individuals who I grew to know well who spurred tremendous outcomes.

Arlene Agress and Miriam Prum Hess of BJE Los Angeles led the complex, multi-faceted LA High School Affordability Initiative, which supported five Jewish high schools as they raised $21.25 million in endowment funding, benefitting hundreds of students and their families. Foundation for Jewish Camp’s CEO Jeremy Fingerman and Michele Friedman and her team recruited nine talented camp directors and worked with them to launch nine successful Jewish specialty camps through the Specialty Camps Incubator— one of the most innovative initiatives of which I was a part. FJC and the camp directors are remarkably creative and committed to this exciting initiative.

In ten years, I saw talented leaders lead and build entire fields. In teen engagement and education, BBYO’s Matt Grossman and his team forged a deep relationship with the Foundation during my time here. Our work together resulted in enriched Jewish learning for the tens of thousands of teens in BBYO’s network. In young adult engagement, David Cygielman took Moishe House from one local house to a scalable, international vehicle for young Jewish adults to build communities and make space for Jewish learning. And Anne Lanski helped to develop the iCenter and, through that organization, greatly advance what was a nascent field of Israel education.

In the examples above, a strong relationship between funder and grantee is essential to the success that has been demonstrably achieved.

Model Documentation

A founding principle of the Foundation was the great responsibility we have to share models of Jewish education that strengthen the field. I am deeply proud of our contribution to model documentation, and I worked closely with talented individuals in this important area of work. David Waksberg of Jewish LearningWorks led the Bay Area Day School Israel Education Project (BASIS)—a major development for the field of Israel education—which we then documented online for communities across the country. Already, BASIS has informed the development of iNfuse, through which the Center disseminated an adaptation of the BASIS model to other day schools nationally.

Near Boston, Adam Smith has led the North Shore Teen Initiative (NSTI) and truly changed the landscape of teen Jewish engagement in 23 cities and towns north of the city. As NSTI’s success crystalized, we worked to document this model to be adapted in other communities. This was especially useful as the Foundation launched its ambitious Community-Based Jewish Teen Education and Engagement Initiative, designed to help ten communities implement best practices in this space. Alan Oliff, the Project Director of B’Yadenu, worked with six day schools also in the Boston area to implement school-wide change so that educators build their skills and capacity to meet the needs of diverse learners. I was privileged late last year to attend an institute at which Alan and his team welcomed other communities to Boston to share this important model first-hand.

Evaluations

Finally, the Foundation’s program of evaluation today is a defining element of our efforts. Of course, it did not just appear out of thin air, and it has expanded and evolved over ten years. A program of evaluation on this scale benefits many—grantees, potential grantees, other funders, and many others in the field—and takes a true team to ensure its viability. The Foundation and I enjoy deep relationships with very strong evaluation consultants, among them Ellen Irie at Informing Change and Wendy Rosov at Rosov Consulting who are part of the Foundation’s new—and potentially groundbreaking—evaluators’ consortium. I am most proud of my work in the area of evaluation because I know its power and potential. I hope that the field increasingly utilizes evaluation, data, and other outcome measures to inform future efforts. A tool like JData, a database and website that collects and provides census-like information about Jewish educational organizations in North America, for example, is a game changer. I would like to see its potential fully realized as part of increased use of data-driven growth and effectiveness of Jewish education.

Moving On

A lot happens in grantmaking over ten years. Strategies are tested and analyzed; successes are achieved; a field continues to grow. I was a part of this with the Jim Joseph Foundation’s dedicated Board of Directors and talented team, led by Executive Director Chip Edelsberg, and it was exciting to see the change that we made together. I am heartened at the great progress made in these four areas. In all examples above, strong relationships and a solid team dynamic were and still are integral to success. We see this dynamic more and more throughout our field—truly a positive development. And I am especially grateful for the personal relationships I had with Foundation grantees, evaluators, and other stakeholders

It is hard to believe that it was ten years ago when the Jim Joseph Foundation began. Now, I look forward to my next phase of life—starting my consulting practice and using what I learned through these wonderful experiences to help others and continue to strengthen our field.

Thank you all who have been a part of my work at the Foundation to advance the important cause of Jewish education and in creating an effective philanthropy practice.

Later this month, the Jim Joseph Foundation Board of Directors and Professional team will hold a special Board Meeting in Israel. The Foundation last held a Board meeting there in 2009, and Directors have elected to conduct another meeting in Israel as part of the Foundation’s ten-year anniversary. This is an important opportunity for the Foundation to pay respect to Jim Joseph, z”l, and to visit with grantees in affirming the prominent place of Israel in the Foundation’s grantmaking strategy.

Jim Joseph passed away suddenly in December, 2003. He had a deep connection to Israel and, as he desired, his family buried him there. A year and a half later, the Foundation as it is structured today was formed. One of its core values is “a strong commitment to the State of Israel.” It is a value that permeates the Foundation’s decision-making and informs many grants—from the iCenter, to the Bay Area Israel Education Day School Project (BASIS), to Brandeis University’s Summer Institute for Israel Studies, to Birthright, and many more.

It is against this backdrop that the Foundation embarks on this much anticipated trip. Since 2009, the Board has grown and the Foundation of course has evolved. The various “Foundation families” all have increased—grantees, individual beneficiaries, and even evaluators. We are grateful to them all (I wrote last month that I believe these elements collectively have helped to advance the field of Jewish education).

While the Foundation will conduct its regular quarterly business and welcome its newest Board members, Directors are very much looking forward to grantee site visits and personal interactions. They’ll enjoy a Shabbat dinner at Moishe House in Jerusalem. They’ll spend a portion of a day with Birthright Israel participants and Taglit Fellows, the elite cadre of American staff specially trained to enrich the Birthright Israel educational experience. They’ll hear first-hand from students and alumni of the Pardes Institute- Pardes Educators Program. And they’ll visit with the founders of SpaceIL, which is aiming to make history and land the first Israeli spacecraft on the Moon—and to inspire a generation along the way. The iCenter is incorporating the SpaceIL “story” into curricular material working with Israel educators in the U.S.

Directors also will make a visit to the Bar Ilan University Shimon Ben Joseph Building for Jewish Education. In January 2007, the Board of Directors awarded a special, one-time capital grant for this state-of-the-art building in Ramat Gan, Israel (the Foundation’s policy is to not fund capital campaigns). This building serves as the University’s School of Education, the largest school of its kind in Israel.

All of these grantees are indicative of the Foundation’s commitment to Israel education and to enabling more Jewish youth and young adults to forge personal, meaningful connections to Israel and Israelis.

Upon our return, I look forward to sharing with you our experiences and visits with grantees and beneficiaries. In a few months, we will disseminate additional items to mark the Foundation’s ten-year anniversary, including materials about our founder and a reflection on the first ten years of the Foundation’s grantmaking.

Jim Joseph bequeathed an incredible gift—this Foundation—to the Jewish community. As we prepare for this special meeting, we honor his legacy, remember his love for Israel, and celebrate his commitment to Jewish education as an essential activity of Jewish life.

One of the Jim Joseph Foundation’s three strategic funding priorities is to build the field of Jewish education. But what does this actually mean? What actions does the Foundation take to work towards this goal? With these questions in mind, I took stock recently of how the Foundation’s field building efforts have manifested themselves. What’s especially noteworthy is how a strong field has helped Jewish education continue to evolve; how offerings both for educators and learners continue to expand; and how a strong field increases the power and strength of networks.

The Foundation’s field building efforts take on various forms. In certain instances, we utilize the Foundation’s robust program of evaluation to share valuable learnings that we hope benefit the field. If a grantee identifies a new best practice, we want to share it. If an initiative achieves some goals but not others, we want to share why—both the successes and the challenges. We strive to leverage every grant to its fullest, and sharing lessons learned is an integral part of this work.

In other instances of field building, the Foundation partners with exceptional grantees dedicated to focused areas of Jewish education. For example, the iCenter builds the field of Israel education and the Foundation for Jewish Camp builds the field of Jewish camping. Hazon, Wildnerness Torah, Urban Adama, Pearlstone Center, and others work closely together to develop a field around Jewish Outdoor, Food, and Environmental Education (JOFEE). Other grantees such as JData and the Jewish Survey Question Bank assemble newly aggregated databases of information to support a range of Jewish education institutions, organizations, and initiatives.

We see the results of these investments in numerous ways. Evaluations show us that relatively new initiatives have achieved success or that vast opportunities still remain to engage individuals in Jewish learning experiences.

The Foundation also increasingly is aware that exciting collaborations occur behind the scenes, which only would be possible with a strong field of Jewish education. Organizations and individuals collaborate on new, creative endeavors that were not occurring ten years ago. They take risks because they have the infrastructure and support of a strong field. What they produce benefits the field as well. Here are a few examples that crystalize this point.

Last fall, at a convening of the Consortium for Applied Studies in Jewish Education (CASJE), Michael Feuer, PhD, Dean of George Washington University’s (GWU) Graduate School of Education and Human Development, approached Hillel’s Director of Educational Research and Innovation Laura Tomes, PhD. GWU is home to the two-year old Experiential Education and Jewish Cultural Arts (EEJCA) Master’s program, funded by the Jim Joseph Foundation. Feuer asked Tomes to design a seminar in experiential Jewish education that would help to bridge the two principal faculties teaching within the program—museum education and Jewish culture—by locating the two as components within the broader framework of experiential Jewish education.

Soon, Tomes was collaborating with Professor Ben Jacobs of New York University’s (NYU) Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development to plan the seminar as a companion to the students’ internship placements, and to allow them to locate the experiences of their internships at different Jewish cultural arts institutions in the D.C area within a broader literature. Of note, both Hillel and NYU are significant beneficiaries of the Jim Joseph Foundation. Now, EEJCA students are exposed to the broad historical arc of research on American Jewish education, and survey contemporary literature on experiential education in Jewish settings. The seminar thus bridges both halves of the M.A. program—the worlds of Museum Education and Jewish Cultural Arts—as well as the theory and the practice of Jewish experiential education in America today.

Another example of the “strength-benefits” cycle is the dynamic Jewish Education Project (JEP) and its Chief Innovation Officer Dr. David Bryfman. The Foundation is fortunate to engage with JEP on a number of initiatives and grantees. JEP leads the Incubator for Community Based Jewish Teen Education Initiatives, which supports communities that are part of the Jewish Teen Education and Engagement Funder Collaborative with ongoing strategic guidance. On a local level, JEP teamed with UJA-Federation of New York to launch a cohort of 8 new summer programs to match specific interests and needs of Jewish teens in New York. The programs are a major part of the New York Teen Initiative for Immersive Summer Experiences for Jewish Teens. Additionally, JEP and Bryfman regularly share their expertise in Jewish education with field builders like the iCenter and FJC.

Finally, after ten years of working with grantees, the Foundation increasingly encounters individuals whose careers and continued professional development are positively and, in some cases, profoundly shaped by initiatives and offerings indicative of a strong field. Earlier this year, I met Shauna Waltman at the Taglit Fellows seminar hosted by the Birthright Israel Foundation and the iCenter. Currently, Shauna is Director of Community Connect at UJA Federation of Greater Toronto. But what brought her to that position and to Taglit Fellows? First, she went on Birthright in 2004. Then, in 2009, while at Spertus studying for her Master’s Degree in Jewish Professional Studies, Shauna enrolled in the iCenter’s Master’s Concentration in Israel Education. By 2013, she was in Yeshiva University’s Certificate in Experiential Jewish Education program, which she later said was “the most impactful professional development opportunity; it transformed me as an educator and as an individual because it is a holistic educational experience.” So when I met Shauna at Taglit Fellows, she wasn’t just there as a participant. She was facilitating sessions on “storytelling” and “debriefing.” She was both a beneficiary of a field that gave her opportunities for professional development, and was contributing to its continued growth.

We actually are aware of dozens of these examples of organizational collaborations and individual beneficiaries working together—all indicative of an evolving field. These scenarios of course could not have been predicted exactly as they developed. One of the many aspects of Foundation work that makes it so rewarding is knowing that this activity has now become commonplace in the world of Jewish education. As an increasing number of grantees achieve long-term viability, find creative ways to collaborate, and position themselves to take risks with new initiatives and offerings, Jewish education—its researchers, practitioners, and learners—all will benefit in measurable and meaningful ways.

Last week marked six months since I was hired as an Administrative Assistant at the Jim Joseph Foundation. I thoroughly enjoy my work, which, as I expected, is rewarding. What I didn’t anticipate, however, is how my engagement in Jewish life professionally would lead to new opportunities for engagement and Jewish learning in my personal life.

My journey is probably similar to many other young professionals at various Jewish organizations. I was raised in a Jewish-secular household. My parents, both raised in Israel, are not religiously observant but provided me with an upbringing rich with Jewish culture, pride, and values.

I moved to San Francisco after graduating college. While being very happy in the Bay Area, after a couple of years I started to feel disconnected from Jewish life. This certainly is a common sentiment for many during their post-college years. So, I looked for new ways to engage and connect to Jewish life. I first started volunteering at the Contemporary Jewish Museum (CJM), something that I find to be very fulfilling. The museum is dedicated to focusing on Jewish artists, thinkers, and experiences. (The CJM is a major grantee of the Jim Joseph Foundation.)

I then discovered another organization funded by the Foundation—Kevah, which provides communal learning experiences for young Jews through self-organized Torah study groups. It is a relatively young organization, aligned well with the Foundation’s strategy to support organizations that concentrate on Jewish education aimed at inspiring young people to discover the joy of living vibrant Jewish lives. Kevah also is exactly what I have been seeking in my personal life, and is a vehicle through which I work toward my own personal Jewish growth.

The structure of the organization was most appealing to me. It is DIY (do-it-yourself) Jewish education—totally customizable and personalized, as you are matched with a group of people who want to learn about the same Jewish topics as you do. My group decided to focus our learning on daily mindfulness. We were then paired with a skilled instructor who has an expertise in that area. The learning takes places in an informal setting; classes are usually held in a home. And of course the group learning environment and discussion of ideas and concepts are all integral parts of Judaism. The combination of informal and traditional approaches to Jewish education appeals to my generation. Socializing, noshing, discussing Jewish texts, and recognizing how we can relate these concepts to our everyday lives helps to shape our Jewish identities and build community.

Finally, I also am a part of the JDC Entwine San Francisco Planning Group. Entwine is the young adult service division of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC), another major grantee of the Foundation. Through Entwine, I hope to take action regarding my concerns and interest in Jewish global issues. “Tikkun olam” (repair the world) is a phrase I heard a lot growing up. I take seriously the sense of shared responsibility that Judaism invokes for healing and transforming our world. This is a central theme in JDC Entwine’s efforts to provide education, trips, events, and leadership opportunities to young Jews who want to make an impact on global Jewish needs and humanitarian issues.

Jewish education has become a focal point both in my professional and now personal life. With the merging of these two spaces, I have felt more connected to Judaism and Jewish life in the past six months than I have in my five previous years living in the Bay Area. As a young adult, I am still growing and trying to shape my identity. I am developing my own values and perspectives through a Jewish lens, and I feel incredibly privileged to work at a Foundation that is committed to broadening Jewish learning experiences for young adults. I am benefiting not only professionally, but personally as well.

While usually defined by shorter grant periods, a bridge funding grant can have a significant catalyzing impact on the grantee—and often is indicative of an exciting new stage of organizational growth or direction. Bridge funding grants most commonly follow a leadership transition in the organization and often result from the development of strategic and business plans, capacity building plans, and pivots in overall mission and vision. Bridge funding also is awarded as an initial foray into capacity building when program funding has been awarded previously as a multi-year commitment.

Following bridge funding, many organizations receive multi-year grants and are arguably better positioned to capitalize on the more substantial grants as a result of that sequence. In many foundations, including the Jim Joseph Foundation, where I work, the first grant awarded generally has a notably shorter term than the second. Since the Jim Joseph Foundation’s inception nine years ago, bridge funding has been a part of the Foundation’s grantmaking strategy. While these are common characteristics of the Foundation’s bridge-funding grants, grant recipients of bridge funding include a broad array of Jewish organizations: Hillel International: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life, Jewish Student Connection, Moishe Foundation, Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies – North America, Reboot, and Repair the World.

At the same time, the ordering can also be switched; major grant recipients can receive bridge funding after receiving multi-year grants—a seemingly regressive kind of funding arrangement. But this would be an incorrect assumption. Regardless of sequence, receiving a bridge funding grant is an important development for a grantee. In thinking about bridge funding, the following insights gleaned from my time as a foundation professional may be relevant for both funding recipients and funders:

For Grantees and Potential Grantees:

1. The receipt of bridge funding creates a moment of opportunity
   The typical goal when a funder awards bridge funding is to test the ability of an organization to achieve short-term goals and measures of success. While the grantee perhaps would have rather received a multi-year commitment to show stability and success to its Board of Directors and other stakeholders, a bridge funding grant creates a unique moment of opportunity to mobilize a Board and a professional team to reach specific benchmarks. Along with the tangible dollars, bridge funding also represents an important stamp of approval. At the Jim Joseph Foundation, the 26 organizations who have received the most funding awards have been awarded 88 percent of the total grant dollars. To receive a grant from a foundation or philanthropist is a big deal and a testament to faith in the organization.
2. There are no guarantees for future funding after bridge funding is awarded
   Apart from several undecipherable MC Escher and Rube Goldberg sketches, I have yet to see a bridge that does not lead somewhere. The inevitable goal of most funders, thus, is to have a bridge that leads to greater success and subsequently further funding opportunities. But, while funders generally aspire to provide additional funding after the grant has concluded, priorities adjust, key decision-makers change, or organizational leadership may fail to execute. Essentially, funding is not infinite. Unless there is a written commitment, there is no guarantee.
3. The goals and measures of success for a bridge funding grant are not merely suggestions
   While there are no guarantees that a funder will provide future funding, there is a guarantee that if a grantee fails to take seriously the goals of the grant, it will not receive subsequent funding. As with any grant, some goals may not be reached—and some may change entirely— but they should be recognized and treated as clear objectives.
4. Be honest
   If key objectives change, a program is altered, or attendees just do not show up, it is far better to share these items in advance rather than waiting until the end of the grant for the big reveal. On the same note, if a potential grantee knows it will not be able to achieve the goals set forth in the proposal, it is best not to set them as objectives. In addition to likely forgoing future funding from this donor, failing to be honest about capabilities as an organization likely will hinder other funding opportunities in the future too.

For Funders:

1. Consider bridge funding even if an organization has always received long-term support
   Whether following a change in leadership, a pivot in an organization’s strategic priorities, or the formation of a new strategic plan/strategic business plan, bridge funding may be the appropriate step for a foundation or individual funder to make. Simply because it is funding awarded for a lesser amount of time, it is not a value judgment on an organization—nor should it be presented as one.
2. Do not call a grant bridge funding if there is no prospect of future support for the organization
   A grantee invests tremendous amounts of time and resources cultivating a relationship with a funder. Transparency, too, is critical for both the funder and the grantee to sustain this relationship. If there is no chance for future support, share this information with the grantee as early as possible. Postponing this will not make the grantee feel any better.
3. An effective bridge funding grant should not be less on a per-year basis than a multi-year grant would be
   If a foundation is asked to award $100,000 per year over a five year period, it is unlikely that awarding $50,000 for one year will be adequate to accomplish year-one goals set forth in the original grant. Often, if there is strategic planning or business planning involved, the bridge funding could be higher on a per-year basis than the proposed multi-year grant.
4. Bridge funding does not have to be for one year
   Despite the fact that a majority of grants correspond to calendar or fiscal years, the term of a grant need not fit neatly within those parameters. A bridge funding grant could be for one month or two and a half years, depending on the objectives set during that period of time.  Similarly, a one-year grant may not be bridge funding.

Bridge funding grants—with their varying characteristics and purposes—are, like other grants, an opportunity for funder and grantee to deepen a relationship and work towards a common goal. Any grant speaks to the confidence that a funder has in a grantee to think creatively and to implement strategically. The length and largess of a grant do not define an organization’s importance and are not barometers for achievement. Rather, the outcomes an organization achieves are the true measurements of success. And often, bridge funding can be an important means to that end.

Steven Green is Director of Grants Management and Administration at the Jim Joseph Foundation,which seeks to foster compelling, effective Jewish learning experiences for young Jews in the United States.

Source: “A Bridge Leading Somewhere,” Philanthropy Journal, April 27, 2015

I hope you enjoyed a meaningful Pesach with family and friends. In this month’s blog, I want to share with you several significant personnel changes at the Foundation.

Sandy Edwards, the Foundation’s Associate Director since 2006, will step down in June of this year. After I was named Executive Director, Sandy was the first person I brought on board as I built the Foundation’s professional team. If you have had the privilege to work with Sandy, you are well aware of her life-long commitment to Jewish education; her understanding of multiple ways to assess Jewish learning; and her strong desire to share best practices. Many of the Foundation’s standard operating procedures regarding its evaluation program and model documentation were conceptualized and implemented by Sandy. Thankfully, she plans to remain involved in Jewish education and philanthropy through consulting and volunteering efforts.

The Foundation also is excited to announce some new promotions and hires.

Dawne Bear Novicoff, who has been with the Foundation since 2009, is now the Foundation’s Assistant Director. Dawne is a talented, experienced, and spirited individual who is extremely well-suited for this new role. She manages an impressive portfolio of grants, including the Foundation’s six-year Education Initiative (with $45 million total funding for HUC-JIR, JTS, and YU), along with grants in critical areas such as Israel education and Jewish service learning. Dawne will assume expanded managerial and leadership responsibilities as Assistant Director—something that I believe will be a benefit to Foundation colleagues, grantees, and co-funders alike.

Just a few months ago, the Foundation welcomed Jeff Tiell as a new Program Associate. Jeff has the distinction of being the Foundation’s first-ever Program Associate. This position was created to offer a professional new to the field the opportunity to learn about Jewish education grantmaking. Jeff works closely with his direct supervisor, Senior Program Officer Josh Miller, and continues his onboarding process with colleagues and in interactions with grantees. I encourage you to read Jeff’s recent blog about his past experience and transition to the Foundation.

This week, the Foundation also welcomes Aaron Saxe to the team as Program Officer. Aaron has spent the last two and a half years as a Philanthropic Advisor at the Jewish Community Federation and Endowment Fund of San Francisco, The Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties. Some already know Aaron from his past professional and volunteer work. He is deeply committed to Jewish education and philanthropy—his family has a long legacy of giving back—and the Foundation is fortunate to have him as a member of the professional team.

I also want to share news regarding the Foundation’s Grants Management and Administration (GMA) staff. David Agam, who has been with the Foundation nearly two years, is moving on this week to become the Executive Assistant/Development Coordinator at Congregation Sherith Israel. We wish David well. It is heartwarming to see a bright, dedicated young individual grow in his skills and knowledge at the Foundation and further pursue his commitment to Jewish education.

The Foundation also welcomed two new members of the GMA team recently: Nicole Levy and Rachel Halevi. We are grateful to have them on board.

Finally, some of you saw the announcement earlier this month that I will step down as Executive Director in 2016. As I noted then, serving in this position has been the professional opportunity of a career. Coming to work every day with talented individuals who care deeply about Jewish education is a blessing. I look forward to a rigorous schedule over the next twenty months assisting the Foundation in myriad ways to hopefully advance several major Jewish educational initiatives.

Looking ahead, in just a few months the Foundation Board of Directors and professional team will hold a special June Board meeting in Israel. This is a unique opportunity for the Foundation to mark its ten-year anniversary. We look forward to various briefings in Israel, interactions with individuals who benefit from Foundation-funded Israel experiences, and a visit to the grave of Jim Joseph, z”l, to honor Jim’s memory. As part of the ten-year anniversary, in early fall the Foundation will release an online-only retrospective timeline, showcasing many grantee accomplishments and sharing a wealth of lessons learned with the field.

This is an important time of personnel change and growth for the Foundation. Our mission remains the same: to help foster compelling and effective Jewish learning experiences for youth and young adults. It is a great responsibility—one we will continue to steadfastly pursue in close partnership with an array of passionate partners.

For all Jews worldwide, it recently was Pesach. What did it mean to you? To me, every year, it means reflection on two questions emanating from the same root: Am I free and Are we free? The “we” meaning my family, my friends, my communities (Jewish and otherwise), my city, our society, our world. These questions could be unpacked in a host of different ways, discussed, argued, and contested. After all, that’s the point right? For me, these questions held special significance this Pesach because I asked them as a recent hire of the Jim Joseph Foundation.

At the end of January I began my job as Program Associate at the Foundation. The Program Associate role is a new one for the Foundation. It was conceived as a way to provide the opportunity for a professional new to the field to learn about the art and science of grantmaking dedicated to the support of Jewish education. It is one way for the Foundation to positively influence the next generation of Jewish philanthropic leadership.

During my first few months I have engaged in important onboarding work to gain an understanding of the Foundation’s practices: shadowing colleagues in meetings, participating on calls with grantees, and spending a good amount of time with my direct supervisor, Josh Miller, a Senior Program Officer at the Foundation. This time has afforded me the opportunity to discuss the business of the foundation, to ask questions, and to be mentored. Learning from and working with Jim Joseph Foundation colleagues is humbling. So, too, is my new reality that I practice through this work—the pursuit of helping to create more philanthropically funded Jewish learning experiences and sparking individuals to lead vibrant Jewish lives.

Even I wouldn’t have expected to be in this position as little as two or three years ago. My background is in the inter- and multidisciplinary worlds of research, community planning, and secular education. I have spent time in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Baltimore, and the Bay Area as an academician and practitioner interested in questions on how place and education intersect and impact one another. As many organizations and authors have noted, where you live affects how long you live, and the opportunity afforded to you during your life.[1] Put plainly, your zip code matters.

It was through these social justice and education issues that I began to understand myself as a Jew in a renewed way. When I moved to the Bay Area in the summer of 2012, I became involved in organizations such as Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice, American Jewish World Service, and The Kitchen. I sought out places to engage Jewishly with peers who had similar hearts and minds. I also began to realize that although I had previously held Judaism and “doing Jewish” at arm’s length, I now had something to say about being a Jewish millennial with a renewed desire to “do Jewish” on my own terms. And isn’t this what education and learning is about? Knowing thyself.

Building on this concept, when I saw that the Foundation was seeking a program associate, I realized that this was an opportunity to further “have my say” and add to the conversation. I’m not only tasked with professionally growing and developing within the organization. I also contribute to the Foundation’s work of providing, through its grantees, opportunities for other Jews to learn, grow, and develop; to reach Jewish youth and young adults where they are.

Amartya Sen, the Nobel scholar and economist, wrote a notable book titled Development as Freedom. Within its pages he argues that “freedom is both the end and most efficient means of sustaining economic life and the key to securing the general welfare of the world’s population.” Freedom. The ability to choose for oneself. The ability to act on one’s own behalf. As a program associate at this Foundation, I feel wholly empowered to creatively think about Jewish learning and life. I feel free. A humbling thought, especially given the notion that so many still are not. How do we as a Foundation, and I as a part of this organization, imbue freedom of Jewish opportunity? How do we imbue freedom of Jewish expression, freedom to be Jewish in the ways that resonate with each of us, freedom to learn and live a vibrant Jewish life?

It has been a privilege to be at the Foundation and ask myself these questions most every day. During Pesach, these questions took on special meaning. From my eyes, what the Jim Joseph Foundation is doing is at the heart of what the Pesach story teaches us about what it means to be a Jew. To be free to learn and understand — something I look forward to continuing to experience on the job and to seed to others through the job.

[1] For one example of this, see Robert Wood Johnson Foundation article, http://www.rwjf.org/en/culture-of-health/2014/12/why_zip_codes_matter.html.

In the midst of its tenth year, the Jim Joseph Foundation has created what might be called “a family of beneficiaries.” There are young Jews who have, as an example, traveled to Israel on Birthright, lived in a Moishe House, enrolled in HUC-JIR, Mechon Hadar, or other education institutions, and perhaps earned credentials as expert Israel educators as part of a program with the iCenter. All of these exceptional institutions and organizations are grantees of the Foundation.

Now, a new “family” is developing. And while these family members often operate behind-the-scenes, we believe they are equally as important to the Foundation’s pursuit of its mission. This family is comprised of a small number of highly skilled evaluators and researchers, which the Foundation works with as a “consortium” of evaluation advisors and providers. The “consortium” members, brought together as an experiment, complement one another’s strengths even as they all reach a consistently high level of execution. They operate collaboratively to share data, instruments, and best practices – and yet also compete as they bid for particular contracts to evaluate Foundation-supported initiatives and grantees.

There are very real benefits to forming this type of consortium that brings together – and keeps together – experts to work towards goals that undoubtedly will take years to accomplish.

At its inception, the Consortium was tasked with “framing and naming” the varieties of “Jewishness” and the parsing of those characterizations to develop a shared approach to measurement and documentation. This would ideally lead to individual evaluations becoming an extended family of connected and commensurable investigations. But, over a series of consultations, the Consortium’s goal evolved into something even bigger and more impactful: moving toward a common set of measures (survey items, interview schedules, frameworks for documenting distinctive features of programs) to be developed and used as outcomes and indicators of Jewish learning and growth for teens and young adults. No easy task, to say the least.

To further reflect on and pursue this new goal, the Consortium again convened last month. Members analyzed and discussed surveys of Jewish teens and young adults, which are being developed concurrently by a team that includes several members of the Consortium, funded by the Foundation. This includes the American Institutes for Research collaborative work with The Jewish Education Project and Rosov Consulting to develop a teen survey, a groundbreaking piece of work part of the cross-community evaluation of the Community Based Teen Education Initiative.

During the meeting, each Consortium member shared their work – from the teen surveys, to a survey being developed for Hillel, to the extensive work measuring Jewish learning and growth that resides in the NYU Berman Center’s Jewish Survey Question Bank. These efforts taken together are the building blocks for the common set of constructs and survey items for Foundation grantees. Their development would be a significant step forward for the field of Jewish education and for those who seek to effectively measure whether teen, college student, and young adult education and engagement initiatives – across different communities and different organizations – can be deemed effective.

Why is this important? Currently, simple survey questions are not asked in uniform ways to allow the Foundation (or the field in general) to look across populations (for example, participants in different programs, or teens in different communities) or to track participants across their many experiences (for example, Jews who participate in BBYO, then Hillel, then Moishe House). Complex outcomes related to Jewish learning and growth are not defined by similar metrics. All of this limits the Foundation’s ability to more deeply understand the outcomes achieved by the organizations funded.

We are excited to report that the Consortium is moving the needle in this important direction. The Foundation is in essence relying on the Consortium to support an effort to develop a coherent, interesting, persuasive and evidence-based account of what they, as evaluators, have learned about the Jewish learning and growth displayed by the “family of beneficiaries” described above: the teens, college students, and young adults who participate in the programs supported by the Foundation. Chip Edelsberg recently discussed Leap of Reason’s Performance Imperative, which offers social-sector organizations information, metrics, and tools to both measure and achieve “high performance.” The Foundation, too, strives to achieve more meaningful, measurable change, and the Consortium’s success is critical to the Foundation’s ability to hold itself accountable and to determine the success of our grantmaking strategies.

Over the next few months, the Foundation, with the Evaluators’ Consortium, will think deeply about the “sausage making”-type work of developing cross-community and cross-age evaluation metrics and survey tools. The Consortium will draw on the remarkable collective expertise of its members to develop a plan that builds on the teen and young adult Jewish learning and growth outcomes already known. Big questions need to be answered: What does an ideal “report” on the Foundation’s contribution to Jewish learning and growth for teens, college students, young adults look like? How similar do survey items need to be? How would the strategies, models and programs be documented/described to enable an understanding of survey results?

As the Consortium moves forward, the Foundation will look to share insights and important lessons learned with the field about how the Consortium members work together – and how their work is progressing. Since the Foundation’s inception, it has awarded almost $9 million towards evaluation of grants and initiatives. We hope to see tangible outcomes from the Consortium’s efforts that will leverage these dollars as effectively as possible, including:

• A plan for researchers, funders and practitioners to agree on common constructs;
• The development of a set of standardized questions that can be utilized across the Foundation’s portfolio of grantees;
• Field testing of a “universal toolkit” for collecting data on common outcomes and demographics;
• A plan for longitudinal testing, and recommending resources to disseminate and encourage the use of universal sets of tools.

This is an exciting moment of opportunity, bringing together numerous organizations and initiatives. We are in a better position than ever before, thanks to the Evaluators’ Consortium, to develop the right mechanisms and systems for doing this work. Too much is at stake to let the moment pass.

Members of the Evaluators’ Consortium include Professor Steven M. Cohen, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion; Ellen Irie, Principal, Informing Change; Yael Kidron, Ph.D, Principal Researcher, American Institutes for Research; Ezra Kopelowitz, Ph. D., Chief Executive Officer, Research Success Technologies; Alex Pomson, Ph. D., Director of Research Evaluation, Rosov Consulting; Wendy Rosov, Ph. D., Principal, Rosov Consulting; Mark Schneider, Ph. D Vice President, American Institutes for Research; Lee Shulman, Ph.D., President Emeritus, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; Charles E. Ducommun Professor of Education Emeritus, Stanford University

Since the Jim Joseph Foundation’s inception nine years ago, bridge funding has been a part of the Foundation’s grantmaking strategy. While usually defined by shorter grant periods, a bridge funding grant can have a significant catalyzing impact on the grantee—and often is indicative of an exciting new stage of organizational growth or direction.

The Foundation’s bridge funding grants have most commonly followed a leadership transition in the organization and often have also resulted from the development of strategic and business plans, capacity building plans, and pivots in overall mission and vision. Bridge funding also has been awarded as an initial foray into capacity building when program funding had been awarded previously as a multi-year commitment.

While these are common characteristics of the Foundation’s bridge-funding grants, grant recipients of bridge funding include a broad array of Jewish organizations:  Hillel International: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life, Jewish Student Connection, Moishe Foundation, Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies – North America, Reboot, and Repair the World.  Following the bridge funding (ranging from $100,000 over several months to $3,000,000 over three years), many of these organizations received multi-year grants and were arguably better positioned to capitalize on the more substantial grants as a result of that sequence.  In many foundations, including the Jim Joseph Foundation, the first grant awarded generally has a notably shorter term than the second.

At the same time, approximately 23 percent of the Foundation’s major grant recipients received bridge funding after receiving multi-year grants—a seemingly regressive kind of funding arrangement. But this would be an incorrect assumption. Regardless of sequence, receiving a bridge funding grant is an important development for a grantee. In thinking about bridge funding, the following insights gleaned from my time as a foundation professional may be relevant for both funding recipients and funders:

For Grantees and Potential Grantees:

1) The receipt of bridge funding creates a moment of opportunity
The typical goal when a funder awards bridge funding is to test the ability of an organization to achieve short-term goals and measures of success. While the grantee perhaps would have rather received a multi-year commitment to show stability and success to its Board of Directors and other stakeholders, a bridge funding grant creates a unique moment of opportunity to mobilize a Board and a professional team to reach specific benchmarks.

Along with the tangible dollars, bridge funding also represents an important stamp of approval. At the Jim Joseph Foundation, the 26 organizations who have received the most funding awards have been awarded 88 percent of the total grant dollars. To receive a grant from a foundation or philanthropist is a big deal and a testament to faith in the organization.

2) There are no guarantees for future funding after bridge funding is awarded
Apart from several undecipherable MC Escher and Rube Goldberg sketches, I have yet to see a bridge that does not lead somewhere.  The inevitable goal of most funders, thus, is to have a bridge that leads to greater success and subsequently further funding opportunities.  But, while funders generally aspire to provide additional funding after the grant has concluded, priorities adjust, key decision-makers change, or organizational leadership may fail to execute. Essentially, funding is not infinite. Unless there is a written commitment, there is no guarantee.

3) The goals and measures of success for a bridge funding grant are not merely suggestions
While there are no guarantees that a funder will provide future funding, there is a guarantee that if a grantee fails to take seriously the goals of the grant, it will not receive subsequent funding.  As with any grant, some goals may not be reached—and some may change entirely— but they should be recognized and treated as clear objectives.

4) Be honest
If key objectives change, a program is altered, or attendees just do not show up, it is far better to share these items in advance rather than waiting until the end of the grant for the big reveal. On the same note, if a potential grantee knows it will not be able to achieve the goals set forth in the proposal, it is best not to set them as objectives. In addition to likely forgoing future funding from this donor, failing to be honest about capabilities as an organization likely will hinder other funding opportunities in the future too.

For Funders:

1) Consider bridge funding even if an organization has always received long-term support
Whether following a change in leadership, a pivot in an organization’s strategic priorities, or the formation of a new strategic plan/strategic business plan, bridge funding may be the appropriate step for a foundation or individual funder to make. Simply because it is funding awarded for a lesser amount of time, it is not a value judgment on an organization—nor should it be presented as one.

2) Do not call a grant bridge funding if there is no prospect of future support for the organization
A grantee invests tremendous amounts of time and resources cultivating a relationship with a funder. Transparency, too, is critical for both the funder and the grantee to sustain this relationship. If there is no chance for future support, share this information with the grantee as early as possible. Postponing this will not make the grantee feel any better.

3) An effective bridge funding grant should not be less on a per-year basis than a multi-year grant would be
If a foundation is asked to award $100,000 per year over a five year period, it is unlikely that awarding $50,000 for one year will be adequate to accomplish year-one goals set forth in the original grant. Often, if there is strategic planning or business planning involved, the bridge funding could be higher on a per-year basis than the proposed multi-year grant.

4) Bridge funding does not have to be for one year
Despite the fact that a majority of grants correspond to calendar or fiscal years, the term of a grant need not fit neatly within those parameters.  A bridge funding grant could be for one month or two and a half years, depending on the objectives set during that period of time.  Similarly, a one-year grant may not be bridge funding.

Bridge funding grants—with their varying characteristics and purposes—are, like other grants, an opportunity for funder and grantee to deepen a relationship and work towards a common goal. Any grant speaks to the confidence that a funder has in a grantee to think creatively and to implement strategically. The length and largess of a grant do not define an organization’s importance and are not barometers for achievement. Rather, the outcomes an organization achieves are the true measurements of success. And often, bridge funding can be an important means to that end.

In 2011, social-sector thought leader Mario Morino released a book entitled Leap of Reason. In essence, Morino argued that the social-sector could be vastly improved by relentlessly measuring results for which organizations held themselves accountable to achieve. Morino subsequently created a community of stakeholders committed to this perspective and a website as a portal for conversation about Leap of Reason’s thesis and main ideas.

In the years that followed, Leap of Reason expanded from being a title of a book to the name of an ambitious initiative. Last month, this ambition was on full display as Leap of Reason’s e-newsletter asked a simple yet profound question: “Are you High Performance”? Of course, who doesn’t want to answer a resounding “Yes!”

But nonprofits organizations, including the Jim Joseph Foundation, cannot answer “yes” honestly without first determining the definition of “high performance.” More challenging is having proper tools in place for measuring any set of targeted outcomes. Perhaps even more daunting still is charting a course–and following through with pragmatic implementation–that leads a nonprofit to reach the level of “high performance.”

Leap of Reason has set out to arm organizations with information to address the key questions above. After a year of work and collaboration by its Ambassadors Community, Leap of Reason unveiled The Performance Imperative: A framework for social-sector excellence (PI) to provide clear, actionable answers. The PI is designed to help organizations not only answer the questions from a place of empirical knowledge, but to have that answer be “yes, we are high performance.”

The PI offers both a bird’s-eye view of strategic considerations—its seven pillars—accompanied with detailed operational considerations covering a range of areas, from management style and culture, to organizational financial stability, to programmatic design.

In full disclosure, I am a member in Leap of Reason Ambassadors Community. But regular readers of this blog or those who follow the Jim Joseph Foundation’s work closely know that principles encompassed in the PI have significantly informed the Foundation’s work since its inception in 2006.

Holding ourselves accountable—along with the Foundation’s grantees—is one way we believe helps to address the high performance question. Undoubtedly, thorough information gathering, concrete measurement of outcomes, and a critical analysis of data are core to the Foundation’s approach to philanthropy.

The Foundation’s understanding of best measurements and metrics to determine our level of performance and that of grantees is still evolving. I would argue that this is true for our field as a whole, given the field’s complexities and plethora of views on what constitutes successful Jewish education outcomes and experiences.

That said, we strive to set high standards and to hold ourselves and grantees accountable to those standards. Grantees attest that the Foundation not only wants to see those standards reached, but also wants to ensure that the standards identified align appropriately with the Foundation’s mission and vision. Those elements together constitute an often complex process of measurement and evaluation. But through past trials and errors and continued learning, we work closely with grantees to hold all parties accountable and to determine, as best as we can, whether standards are being met.

As one example, various grants to the Foundation for Jewish Camp (FJC) can be deemed successful based on the increase in campers; the diversity of Jewish backgrounds represented in those families; and the outcomes regarding Jewish learning and connections those campers exhibit. FJC recognizes that it must undergo this scrutiny to help determine whether its strategies are working and are worthy of continuation, or warrant a change in direction.

Secondly, the Education Initiative—comprised of the major grants to Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion (HUC-JIR), the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS) and Yeshiva University (YU)—has undergone a rigorous evaluation process each of the past three years examining a range of important areas. Obviously, reaching a benchmark of numbers of graduates is not enough to deem this grant successful. The Foundation and these institutions expect deep, long-lasting outcomes as a result of this investment, with the capacity of HUC-JIR, JTS, and YU graduate programs substantially enhanced.

As a third example, for the various Foundation grantees focused on teacher training and induction, we can point to evaluations that show increases in tenure at day schools for teachers who have participated in DeLet, the Jewish New Teacher Project, and programs offered through the Pardes Institute, among other grantees in this space.

Do these examples mean the Foundation and these particular grantees are high performance? Possibly not. But they are integral pieces of a puzzle that helps to answer the question, “is the Foundation effectively selecting grantees that perform successfully?”

I believe that the field of Jewish education has much to gain by vigorously and transparently pursuing high performance.

The PI explains:

“The journey toward high performance leads to more meaningful, measurable change – whether its lifting families out of homelessness, closing global health inequities, preserving land, inspiring artistic expression, raising educational achievement, or any of the myriad missions that give purpose to the worlds social-sector organizations…In this era of scarcity and seismic change, high performance matter more than ever. The social and public sectors are increasingly steering resources towards efforts that are based on a sound analysis of the problem, grounded assumptions about how an organization’s activities can lead to the desired change, and leadership that embraces continuous improvement. This is the formula at the core of the PI.” (page 3)

I encourage you to learn more about the PI by watching this brief video. While broad in scope, the PI’s focus on the single and critical question of “high performance” makes it a practical framework. It is a valuable resource for organizations of varying sizes, structures, and missions. And it may be a catalyst for important conversations about how our field can achieve more significant outcomes in more efficient ways.

In the Foundation’s ongoing efforts to identify and analyze best grantmaking strategies, we have seen grantees achieve outcomes that both strengthen organizational capacity and position organizations for future growth. By virtue of grantees’ strong performance, the Foundation is gaining experience as a capacity building funder.

Before I share examples of successes, it is helpful to understand what a capacity building grant actually is designed to do. The term itself is somewhat general and may refer to different types of grants, depending on the context and situation of the potential grantee.

Capacity building, broadly defined, refers to “activities that strengthen nonprofits so that they can better achieve their mission.”[1]  Tools exist to help organizations assess their capacity.[2]  Organizations at different points of relatively predictable organizational life stages[3] potentially can benefit from differentiated, targeted capacity building support.

The goals of capacity building grants are equally as general and can apply to various aspects of the grantee’s operations: “In theory, capacity building is designed to change some aspect of an organization’s existing environment, internal structure, leadership, and management systems, which, in turn, should improve employee morale, expertise, productivity, efficiency, and so forth, which should strengthen an organization’s capacity to do its work, which should increase organizational performance.”[4]

To shed light on capacity building, Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (GEO) offers detailed answers to this grantmaking strategy and to related factors such as readiness and assessment.  In general, GEO is an excellent source of information for those readers seeking insight into current trends in funding of capacity building.

For our purposes, the Foundation sees that regardless of an organization’s size, age, target audience, and goals within the arena of Jewish education, capacity building grants can be a catalyst for improved performance and major growth.

Hillel, for example, is 101 years old. The Foundation awarded Hillel a capacity building grant in 2014 that built on the success of its Senior Jewish Educators/Campus Entrepreneurs Initiative. The 2014 grant award included funding for the development of a comprehensive business plan as well as funding for efforts that are part of Hillel’s three pillars for future growth of the organization—Excellence on Campus: Supporting and Measuring Quality; Excellence in Recruiting and Developing Talent; and Excellence in Resource Development.

Under the leadership of CEO Eric Fingerhut and with support of Hillel’s Board of Directors, Hillel is taking decisive steps to grow from a $90 million per year organization to a sustainable $200 million per year organization. The Jim Joseph Foundation recent grant is assisting Hillel to determine if this aspirational future is achievable and to enable the organization to chart a path toward desirable growth.

Moishe House, an organization much younger than Hillel, has been in existence for just nine years. Yet it already has exhibited rapid growth, and it has positively influenced the lives of tens of thousands of young Jewish adults across the United States and internationally. Moishe House is poised, potentially, to accelerate its growth and positioned to reach ambitious milestones in part because a group of foundations joined together to help Moishe House design and implement a Strategic Growth Plan. The development of that plan was funded significantly by the Jim Joseph Foundation after a 2011 external evaluation of Moishe House demonstrated that the organization had developed an effective, affordable, and scalable approach to executing on its mission.

In both these cases, Hillel and Moishe House conducted careful strategic planning that was core to their capacity building. The Jim Joseph Foundation believes dedicating resources for this type of planning is an effective way for the Foundation to support not-for-profit capacity building.

The Jim Joseph Foundation also has seen that capacity building grants can actually help to advance an entire field. The clearest example is the emerging field of Israel education, which has been rapidly developed by the iCenter during the last five years. Through a series of grants, the iCenter’s capacity has grown—evidenced, for example, in its remarkable network of expert educators and skilled staff who work with major organizations and educational institutions across the country to advance Israel education.

Recently, I attended a Taglit Fellows seminar for Cohort 2, a project generously funded by the Maimonides Fund. The iCenter, in partnership with Taglit-Birthright Israel, designed the seminar, bringing together experts in Jewish education to train and support nearly 100 Taglit Fellows (for just one cohort) who will staff Taglit-Birthright Israel trips serving in a pre-trip, trip, and post-trip role to augment participants’ Birthright Israel experience. A cohort 2 Fellow and leaders of the program shared their thoughts here, indicative of the deep impact and broad reach the iCenter now enjoys.

Finally, over the last two years, the Foundation has awarded multiple grants designed to build capacity of organizations in the very active emerging field of Jewish Outdoor, Food, and Environmental Education (JOFEE). The JOFEE report, commissioned with other funders, was an important determining factor in the Foundation’s assessment that this field is ripe for maturation and further professionalization, with the potential for significant outcomes in Jewish education.

Obviously, we have much to learn still about capacity building grants. Professionally, I am of the persuasion that “in order to reach and sustain social impact, philanthropists need to assign greater value to grantees’ capacity to implement programs; encourage ongoing learning and adaptation as work unfolds; and support a foundation of organizational and operational structures, processes, and capabilities that ultimately turn vision into change on the ground.”[i] At the Jim Joseph Foundation, we are seeing that smart funding, tailored to an individual organization’s life stage, capacity building readiness, and demonstrated commitment to maximizing organizational effectiveness and field impact, creates exciting philanthropic opportunity.

[1] Connolly and York. Building the Capacity of Capacity Builders, 2003, p.3

[2] TCC’s Core Capacity Assessment Tool – the CCAT – has also had more than a decade of use.

McKinsey and Company’s Capacity Assessment Grid has been in use since 2000.

[3] Brothers. Building Nonprofit Capacity: A Guide to Managing Change Through Organizational Lifecycles. 2011.

Connolly. Navigating the Organizational Life Cycle. 2006.

Olive Grove Consulting. Characteristics of Organizational Life Cycle Stages.

[4] Light, Paul. Sustaining Nonprofit Performance, p. 46

[i] Patrizi and Thompson. Beyond the Veneer of Strategic Planning, The Foundation Review 2, no. 3 (2011): 52-60.

This week, more than 3,000 Jewish teens from around the country and across the globe will join together in Atlanta for three days of service, learning and celebration as part of BBYO and NFTY’s International Conventions. They will come from cities near and far, towns big and small, each on a leadership journey, all inspired to contribute to the future of the Jewish people.

We can think of no better moment to focus our communal attention on the vital importance of Jewish teen engagement and education.

That is why our foundations are simultaneously bringing together 250 Jewish philanthropists, foundation professionals and communal leaders for the first-ever Summit on Jewish Teens. Concurrently, the leaders of the major youth movements will run a Coalition of Jewish Teens Summit to set shared goals and present a coordinated plan for engaging and educating as many teens as possible about Jewish life and leadership.

These summits come at a time when we more fully understand the positive, long-term impact of engaging teens. Indeed, the good news is that study after study proves that when young people are involved in meaningful Jewish experiences during their teenage years, they are much more likely to be active, lifelong members of the Jewish community. They participate in Jewish life, take on Jewish professional and lay leadership roles, and build a strong connection with Israel and the global Jewish people. What’s more, they often directly credit the organizations and programs they participated in as teens for shaping their Jewish journeys throughout adulthood.

Participants at 2014 BBYO International Convention (IC); photo courtesy.

And yet, the bad news is that as far as we have come, we still have a long way to go before we fully address the disturbing fact that in most communities, an estimated 80 percent of Jewish teens drop out of Jewish life after their b’nai mitzvah.

As funders and community leaders, it is our responsibility to ensure that the post-bar/bat mitzvah years become an on ramp to, rather than exit route from, active Jewish life and leadership.

It will take continued hard work, significant additional investment and sustained commitment if we are going to realize the full potential for Jewish engagement and education during the teen years. We are sharing here a few of the lessons we have learned that we hope will encourage and guide increased investment in the teen space.

The most successful programs put teens in the driver’s seat.

Teens today are an empowered generation. They know what they want, how to find it and how to build it. That’s why teens are most attracted to opportunities that allow them to take ownership for creating experiences, rather than simply consuming one-size-fits-all programs.

BBYO, for example, has seen tremendous success basing its entire model around allowing teens to shape peer-led experiences – a philosophy that has helped them grow from engaging 12,000 to nearly 50,000 teens annually over the past decade. What they and others have found is that ownership inspires leadership and continued excitement to be part of a community that values members not just as consumers but as creators.

Likewise, Jewish teen philanthropy programs are attracting more and more participants by putting teens front and center, empowering them to make strategic philanthropic decisions that have direct impact on their local communities.

Talented Jewish youth professionals make a difference.

The North Shore Teen Initiative (NSTI), a pilot project supported by the Jim Joseph Foundation, provides another successful model, due in large part to the staff. NSTI invests in talented staff who, in turn, make a point of empowering teens to be involved in everything from event planning to recruiting friends to program implementation. Indeed, according to a 2013 study, “Effective Strategies for Educating and Engaging Jewish Teens,” it is that combination of empowerment and support from talented educators that best yields attractive and meaningful experiences.

Other organizations including BBYO, iCenter, Union for Reform Judaism, Foundation for Jewish Camp, Moving Traditions and Jewish Student Connection also understand the importance of investing in training and support to help develop professionals who serve as close mentors, role models and guides to our teens.

Service and Israel play crucial roles in teen experiences.

Service opportunities can be one of the most effective ways to engage teens in Jewish life. Teens are eager to join a community of like-minded peers and make a difference in the lives of others, as evidenced by Repair the World’s J-Serve, the American Jewish Society for Service, summer and gap year service programs and the overall increase in these opportunities and recurring findings from research about the millennial generation.

Likewise, opportunities to connect with Israel are effective catalysts for Jewish engagement. Teen Israel trips play a vital role in helping young Jews forge connections with their peers, with Israelis and with our beautiful and diverse homeland. Studies also show that the impact of an Israel trip actually grows over time, inspiring increased and ongoing involvement in Jewish life and with Israel.

Collaboration is key and leads to creative, new teen engagement opportunities.

It is fitting that the theme of BBYO’s International Convention this year is “Stronger Together.” As funders and communal leaders, we too are stronger together. As we push forward and take action to support and inspire teens, we should remember that no one foundation or organization can tackle this critical issue alone. Many of us are part of a Funder Collaborative that is focusing on how we can create local and national partnerships to help engage more teens in select communities across the country. Already we are seeing that through forming strategic partnerships, scaling innovative initiatives and strengthening the pipeline of continued engagement, we each have unique and vital roles to play.

Now is the moment for us to embrace those roles as part of a broader ecosystem with shared goals and outcomes. We have models of engagement that are working. We have teens who are hungry for opportunities to tap into something larger than themselves, to live as engaged global citizens and to find new ways to connect with Israel and to repair the world. We have studies that show the quantifiable impact of this work and its direct effect on the strength and vibrancy of the Jewish future.

But we need the communal commitment. There are many who are already doing important work in this space. We hope even more will join us, starting this week at the Summit in Atlanta.

Together we can scale successful models and seed new ones so they can reach and engage growing numbers of teens. With this strategy, a generation from now, the 80 percent figure may reflect the number of teens engaged with, rather than disengaged from, Jewish life. And we can inspire teens to have a love of Jewish life and learning, to actively work to strengthen our peoples’ future, and to draw on Jewish values as they create change in the broader world.

Source: “Investing in Jewish Teens: “A Golden Opportunity for Action,” eJewishPhilanthropy, February 9, 2015