News & Blogs Category: From the Foundation Team

There’s no one way to innovate. In Jewish education and engagement, creating change and developing new approaches comes in many forms, often through much trial and error. In the Jim Joseph Foundation’s guest blog this month, we share the innovation approach and journey of one grantee-partner, Sefaria, which offers insights on how finding a solution to one challenge often simply means that more innovating is yet to be done. Another grantee-partner, the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America, frames its entire approach on “the hypothesis that the future of Jewish life, in a climate of personal autonomy and choice, depends entirely on whether Judaism can compete in the marketplace of ideas and identities.” This hypothesis is a call for innovation, reflected throughout SHNA; its David Hartman Fellowship, for example, focuses on “innovation in applied scholarship.” From these and many other partners, the Foundation is learning about the different approaches to innovation, as well as the different ways the Foundation can support this work.

This learning is occurring as the place of innovation has grown in our field. What was once a nascent part of Jewish learning, “innovation” now is an arguably overused term. For it not to lose its meaning, we, as a field, need to constantly examine what innovation looks like today and how organizations and individuals are pursuing it. Three additional organizations—Reboot, Upstart, and Hillel—serve as useful examples for different ways and strategies with which to approach innovation. They operate, respectively, at the “Ideas Level,” the “Implementer Level,” and the “Organizational Level.” Funders and grantees, we believe, both have something to gain by understanding how these different approaches drive innovation in our fields, and how failure and humility are requisite traits as one pursues innovation.

Ideas Level: Reboot “reimagines, reinvents and reinforces Jewish culture and traditions for wandering Jews and the world we live in.” The heartbeat of Reboot is a network of creative and successful artists, makers and thinkers, now over 600 members strong, who are organized around a conversation about Jewish inheritance and action, leading to ideas and products that remix Judaism to inspire and engage new generations of Jews and those close to them.

Reboot’s support system for its network enables individuals to bring modern themes through a Jewish lens into the world. The Foundation invested in Reboot in part because of its R&D focus, which includes increasing the activation of its network as well as the products that Reboot develops, which have touched millions of people and helped evolve the Jewish conversation. Innovation occurs because ideas and concepts can be proposed and experimented with. Reboot is developing an Ideas Festival, for example, to bring together thinkers/makers/artists to discuss new big ideas in the space of Jewish arts and culture, and what methods can be used to share them broadly.

Implementer Level: UpStart “partners with the Jewish community’s boldest leaders to expand the picture of how Jews find meaning and how we come together.” It represents a different approach to innovation, one focused primarily on fueling and connecting the many organizations and leaders driving change in Jewish life. They do this by providing targeted support for changemakers at every stage, whether they’re dreaming up a new idea, building it into a promising initiative, or ultimately growing that initiative’s impact. And they do this across the field of Jewish communal life, supporting entrepreneurs and their ventures, as well as institutional leaders working to drive change from within (“intrapreneurs”). They believe that the true impact of this work is in the coming together of these changemakers to move the needle on the many challenges—and opportunities—facing Jewish life. Convenings like their annual Collaboratory are just one of the many spaces that spur this type of collaboration.

UpStart aims to couple this program suite with more substantial financial resources flowing to the Jewish innovation field—specifically to the organizations and leaders they support. Their goal is to spur strategic and sustainable investments, ensuring that the highest impact initiatives are set up to thrive.

Organizational Level: Hillel International, which connects with students at more than 550 colleges and universities across North America and around the world, “enriches the lives of those students so that they may enrich the Jewish people and the world.” Hillel serves as a perfect final reference point, building on UpStart’s learning that any organization can spur innovation. At nearly 100 years old, Hillel is a quintessential legacy organization—although, uniquely, one that is unafraid of experimenting and of change. To create space for innovation within Hillel, the organization founded an Office of Innovation (OOI) that “is a think and do tank for the Hillel movement and the Jewish people. Modeled after successful research and innovation labs, known affectionately as ‘skunkworks,’ OOI is a group of thinkers, educators, entrepreneurs, and rabbis tasked with developing, testing, and scaling innovative approaches to serve young Jews in the Hillel movement and beyond.”

In other words, the OOI gains all the benefits of Hillel’s resources, networks, and expertise, without being hindered by people’s traditional perceptions of legacy organizations. Creating an entirely separate office helps ensure this work is carried out systemically and strategically. This is not an ad-hoc initiative or one susceptible to starts and stops. Rather, its three-step approach—exploring, incubating, and scaling—resulted in innovations going from the OOI out into the world, including Base Hillel, Fellowship for Rabbinic Entrepreneurs, and more.

A Common Denominator
While Reboot, UpStart, and Hillel, deploy different approaches to supporting innovation, undoubtedly there are similarities. One of which is that all three completed strategic and business planning over the last five years that positioned them to understand the role in innovation support they were best suited to play. They all recognize that to support innovation effectively they need to have dedicated bandwidth, and they need the right people within their own organizations—both lay and professional. The decision to become innovative was not made by a singular individual in any organization; that decision was made collectively through a planning process of lay and professional leaders over many months for each of these organizations.

Finally, each organization along with the Foundation must be humble as it works to innovate. There are and will be failures, and all parties involved know this and accept it. For each success noted above, there are myriad ideas and programs that at one point seemed promising, but in the end were not effective Jewish engagement or could not be scaled. Truly accepting that these failures are a natural part of the innovation process is an integral part of the grantee and funder building a trusting relationship. Whether an organization fits best into the “Ideas,” “Implementer,” or “Organizational,” level, each approach leverages an organization’s resources and expertise to support innovation and to create new opportunities for contemporary, meaningful, and never-before-done Jewish experiences.

Barry Finestone is President and CEO of the Jim Joseph Foundation

Equity and pay disparity are common and important themes in today’s public discourse, but their problematic presence in society is not new.  These gaps exist and have historically existed along the spectrum of diversity including, but not limited to, ability/disability, gender, geography, race, religion, and sexual orientation.

While each of these verticals is critical to explore on its own, there is a common theme among them: Equity is categorically tied to opportunity.  While the Equal Pay Act of 1963 coupled with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on most of these categories, there still remained a lack of opportunity for individuals to reach the pinnacles of their chosen field.  Educational opportunities in fields as different as business and medicine, and ranging from bachelor’s degrees to PhDs, continued to be exclusionary to the ultimate suppression of the minority.

The training and hiring of clergy—the spiritual leaders empowered to teach children, to comfort those in need, and to lead communities—was no exception to gross “opportunity disparities.”  In the Jewish world, rabbis have been the empowered leaders for more than 2,000 years, beginning with the codification of the Jewish law under Rabban Gamliel and Rabban Yohanan Ben Zakkai, among others.  Other than one noted example in the 17th century, the first ordained female rabbi was Regina Jonas in Berlin in 1935. Only in 1972 was the first American, Sally Preisand, ordained publicly through Hebrew Union College. 37 years after that, Rabba Sara Hurwitz was ordained as the first Orthodox female rabbi. Clearly, within these 2,000 years, women were not able to achieve the level of responsibility, respect, or remuneration of male rabbis because they were simply never given the opportunity to become their counterparts.

However, today, Yeshivat Maharat is the first and only Orthodox seminary in North America to ordain women as clergy. Maharat, an acronym meaning Morah Hilchatit Ruchanut Toranit, is literally translated as “Torah-based, spiritual teacher according to Jewish law.”  Since 2009, Maharat has ordained 26 women. In addition, 31 women currently are enrolled at the institution. While this is small relative to the approximately 1,000 male rabbis affiliated with the Rabbinical Council of America, the largest network of mainstream orthodoxy, Maharat has flourished since its nascent beginnings of three graduates in its inaugural class.

The demand for an institution like this existed for years. Many women were forced to seek educational advancement through other avenues such as the Drisha Institute, seminary learning, and learning within respective home communities.  None of these options, however, delivered that crucial product to those women: a degree that sufficiently elevates their position and stature and provides them with credentials that match their education and experience.

Because of the past dearth of opportunity for advancement for many talented women, Maharat created an accelerated track to provide credentials and ordination to those who already underwent significant training. This program, The Advanced Kollel: Executive Ordination Track of Yeshivat Maharat, is clear in its goal to provide in-service rabbinic ordination to highly talented educators who have already proven themselves in the field of Jewish education, but for societal reasons have not had the ability to advance and achieve full equity with their male colleagues.

The Jim Joseph Foundation recently awarded a grant of $1.1 million over five and a half years to support this program, which has three distinct but related goals for graduates:

• To garner the respect and authority that rabbinic ordination and title conveys.

• To increase earnings so that they are on par with that of their male counterparts.

• To elevate women into top leadership positions.

In certain cases, such as in synagogues, parochial schools, and college campuses, positions were specifically reserved for those with rabbinic ordination. Individuals lacking that specific credential were restricted from meaningful advancement. In cases where institutions created space room for Orthodox women, they had to make specific exceptions, such as inclusion in an all-clergy interfaith council on a college campus or a rabbinic educators program at national organizations. Now, women who find Maharat to be an ideological and cultural fit have a new opportunity to pursue, with a career pathway and no ceiling.

While undoubtedly the advances still needed to achieve equity in this area are too numerous to discuss here, Maharat is a critical start. From the women in its programs, to the institutions in which they will work, to the communities they will lead, and to the young people they will help to engage and educate—our entire community stands to benefit from this welcomed development.

Steven Green is Senior Director, Grants Management and Compliance at the Jim Joseph Foundation

CASJE – The Consortium for Applied Studies in Jewish Education – recently launched a new project supported by the William Davidson Foundation and the Jim Joseph Foundation for comprehensive research on the pipeline and “career arc”of educators working in Jewish education. This is a welcome development for all who care about supporting Jewish educators and advancing the field in which they work.

From a research and funder perspective, it is worth exploring how and why a project of this substance and level of depth was developed. Have no doubt, laying the groundwork for research of this scope takes time and resources.

We started earlier this year in New York City, in the midst of a snowstorm that would bring 8” of snow by the end of the day. CASJE convened a small group of leaders in the field of Jewish educator preparation. They came together, supported by the William Davidson Foundation, to discuss challenges that the field faces and potential research topics that could address these challenges.

This conversation was facilitated using CASJE’s signature process for a “Problem Formulation Convening (PFC).” It was the first conversation of several that would guide a proposed research agenda for the field to consider. We want to identify best practices and apply research results to make the practice of Jewish education more effective.

One of the most impressive aspects of the day was that participants raised the level of discourse to concentrate on the field as a whole. Not a single person offered opinions solely from the individual and self-serving vantage point of their own organization or program – a sign of true leadership.

Several challenges for the Jewish educator field were highlighted and appreciated. For example:

• educators across the board are not adequately valued in terms of status and recognition, compensation, and development;
• hence, it is difficult to attract and recruit potential quality educators to choose a career as a Jewish educator;
• the field’s high-quality educators are not being retained and adequately developed into education leaders; and
• the field lacks a central system or structure for policy making.

The first three challenges are known and discussed by many in the field and by field leaders. And while the last example may be obvious – yes, there is no governmental or other umbrella agency that holds itself accountable to provide a Jewish education for every Jewish child as is the case for public education – it is a challenge that largely has flown under the radar by those most likely to understand the context and be equipped to propose remedies. It is worth contemplating why this is so. One view is that it is not surprising that Jewish education is diffused, decentralized, and perhaps even chaotic, given that those adjectives apply even more powerfully to the world of general education in the U.S.

Historians and analysts of contemporary American education reform know well that policy setting and implementation are largely activities left to the states and local school districts; and that for all kinds of complicated and fascinating reasons the founders of the American republic eschewed national control of schooling, a stance that has been both a virtue and an impediment.

A second point noted by those at the PFC is that, in the context of Jewish education, private philanthropists essentially are the de-facto policy makers and influencers for the field. A parallel again can be drawn to secular education, a field where philanthropists such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation have invested significant resources to reform the public education system in the U.S. – and also have received substantial positive and negative criticism from this involvement.

This all raises a larger and important set of questions to consider:

• Are Jewish education foundations up to the task of setting policy for the field?
• Is there enough consensus across the relatively small group of funders to provide a meaningful and cohesive set of policy recommendations and investments?
• Are there commonly viewed challenges, solutions, outcomes and measures?

Undoubtedly, the answer to the last question is “no.” Those common structures, understandings, and resources simply do not exist. But even with the current lack of alignment in funders’ vision for Jewish education, one promising effort to promote and support is the application of research to practice.

The field of Jewish education can be similar to the U.S. public education system’s vision for accountability and continual improvement in that much of education research is funded by the government and by philanthropists and is conducted across universities and research firms big and small. This is the critically important role Jewish education philanthropy can play to have a real and positive influence on the field and on the future. Let’s do more of that together.

Stacie Cherner is a Senior Program Officer at the Jim Joseph Foundation. Menachem “Manny” Menchel is the Program Officer for Jewish Education at the William Davidson Foundation.

cross-posted in eJewishPhilanthropy

The Foundation is pleased to share reflections and learnings from its two recent convenings on Leadership Development and Educator Training (below), respectively, both of which stemmed from the Foundation’s first open RFP last year. 

In the last year, the Foundation has conducted an experiment of sorts with professional directors of ten programs focused on training Jewish educators. Stemming from the Foundation’s first open RFP, these ten programs offer compelling, creative, high quality, and dynamic cohort-based professional development experiences for Jewish educators across a diverse spectrum of content and audiences.  As part of the initiative’s Professional Learning Community (PLC), the Foundation convened these directors last month for the first time. Because we realized that success would lie in the synergy of the group, our risk was in not knowing quite what to expect.  What we learned and experienced may be helpful for other funders and participants considering engaging in similar communities and convenings.

The convening agenda developed by Rosov Consulting (who also are collaborating with the PLC to evaluate and provide timely learning about the initiative) provided space to 1) get to know each other and our strengths, 2) review the program participant survey results – what do the data  say about the field and each program, 3) explore and discuss a case study of one program, 4) experience a “Taste of” presentations by four programs, and 5) participate in an improv session led by Second City designed to broaden participants’ creativity in problem-solving.

Throughout these experiences, the Foundation and participants grew more comfortable and more open during our time together. The benefits of being together in-person were palpable. We could be our whole selves, committed to the moment. Contrast this sentiment with how you might be on a conference call; the difference is stark.

Here are some key insights we are thinking about and on which we are reflecting:

• From Reticence to Openness: While participants were understandably somewhat reticent—would this time away from my work and my home be worthwhile?—they all came in with open minds and open hearts. Their approach in this vein was integral to the success of the convening, as it led to more honest and deep conversations and sessions about the work they are doing.
• Diversity Leads to Learnings: The diversity of the individuals created substantial opportunities for learning. Young professionals and veteran professionals can each offer insights and important perspectives to the others. Participants from small organizations and those from large institutions can share experiences to inform the other’s approach. Even the fact that some participants were there more for personal growth, while others wanted to strengthen their professional skills, fostered healthy give-and-take.
• …And More Learnings: The diversity of the programs was quickly identified too – from delivery modes, to target audiences, to the content of the curricula. Even though this diversity may have originally been perceived as a barrier—what can I possibly learn from someone whose program is so different from mine?—it was eventually appreciated as Rosov Consulting brought relevant insights to the fore.
• Commonalities are Powerful Connections: Among this group defined by differences noted above, commonalities among participants took longer to identify. But, this meant that the process of identifying commonalities was a powerful means to strengthen relationships among professionals as they realized their convening colleagues also worked in areas and/or settings such as Israel, day schools, institutional change, millennials, and more.
• Opportunities for Continued Learning: Being together in such an immersive environment enabled the group to quickly identify areas for continued learning, such as how to support participants when they return into their work environments; the challenges of online learning and relationship building; and how different programs think about alumni support. Many convening participants noted the parallels to their own individual work. After all, these program directors form a learning cohort, just as they oversee their program’s learning cohort of educators. The irony was not lost on them that they face some of these same challenges.
• Strengthening the Foundation and Grantees’ Relationship: The Foundation-grantee relationship building was important and energized by being together. As program officers, we were excited to have face to face time with the program directors to get to know them (and they us) both professionally and personally.
• The Right Space: The space of the retreat was unique and set the tone for a few enjoyable days of reflecting, connecting with each other and connecting larger successes and challenges to individual programs, laughing and relaxing.
• Now, We Wait: It was gratifying to hear some lament that a year was too long to wait to see each other in person again.

The PLC is an integral component of the Educator Training initiative—and the convening proved to be an essential part of the PLC thus far. From past experience, the Foundation understands that program directors often work in silos, do not view their work as part of a larger field of Jewish education, and would benefit from more shared learning and networking. We are excited about the promise of the PLC and the outcomes that come from being together, in-person, for consecutive days. Yes, our experiment was worth it. Our goal is for program directors to learn from each other, for the Foundation to learn about future grantmaking, and for the field to learn too.

More to come in years two and three!

Dawne Bear Novicoff is Chief Operating Officer of the Jim Joseph Foundation. Stacie Cherner is Senior Program Officer at the Foundation. Read the piece on the Leadership Development Convening here.

The Foundation is pleased to share reflections and learnings from its two recent convenings on Leadership Development (below) and Educator Training, respectively, both of which stemmed from the Foundation’s first open RFP last year. 

Last month, the Foundation was fortunate to bring together 50 leaders in Jewish education organizations to the Catskills for 48 hours of learning, connecting and reflecting, with the goal to advance our collective thinking about how to run effective Jewish leadership development programs. Participants included CEOs, senior executives and program staff from Jim Joseph Foundation grantee partners; a handful of foundation professionals investing in Jewish leadership development; and a research team from the Center for Creative Leadership to help facilitate and document our time together. Participants included representatives from the Foundation’s 11 grants that resulted from its open-RFP process last year, along with 15 additional grantee partners working in the nebulous space of advancing Jewish leadership.

While we are still reflecting on our time together, and grateful for the opportunity to be with such a diverse group of Jewish leaders, one of the Foundation’s major takeaway is how uniquely positioned we are – as a national funder of Jewish education – to weave together such networks of leaders. As one colleague responded when asked what her/his biggest takeaway from the convening was: It is absolutely the networking, which is absolutely critical for the success of our collective work. Along with network weaving, here are other key takeaways from the convening—from the planning of it, to the issues, topics, and challenges that hit home for participants:

Embracing the Unknown
What would it look like to bring together professionals who run leadership programs to share ideas and best practices, challenges and frustrations? What topics would emerge? What collaborations would develop? We structured the time in a way to bring out open, curious and courageous conversation, with a set of rich topics, networking time, and wellness activities. And we let the participant-leaders facilitate. As someone remarked after:

I think it’s rare to be at a retreat where you don’t outsource the learning— the experts were also the learners, and it was great to see people in their element as facilitators, and then continue the conversations with them in adjacent sessions.

Cultivating Positive Organizational Culture
The sessions around culture, including the role of a CEO in defining that culture, and how leadership programs can influence the larger organizational culture, clearly resonated with participants. A remark that stood out centered on the definition of culture, which is an inherently fuzzy term, but that could be thought of as the “personality” of an organization. So why does this matter, and what does leadership have to do with culture? It starts with modeling what kind of culture you want to have, and what kind of change you’d like to seek. One participant remarked, As leaders, we need to model more vulnerability. It has the opportunity to change the culture of an entire ecosystem. Another response focused on leadership as a process, as opposed to a focus on a single leader, and leadership as culture shaping.

Finding the Right Mix of People
Another key takeaway for the Foundation was the importance of bringing together the right mix of people and organizations. Each grantee-partner was invited to bring two representatives, increasing the institutional knowledge that they were able to bring back to their team. The diversity of people and  nonprofits added to the eclectic nature of the conversations and the spontaneous ideas and connections that were made. As someone said in the post-convening survey,

[The Convening] was a mash up of orgs AND roles, which is rare.

Beware of Burnout
Finally, another interesting takeaway – obvious to many but perhaps not all – is how much burnout is challenging the growth and sustainability of our Jewish education leaders. One small breakout session discussed the idea of sabbaticals as an opportunity to mitigate this risk, whether through a 3-month sabbatical where there is no work email or phone calls; a longer sabbatical focusing on a research question or challenge to be addressed; or some time-frame in the middle to stop doing certain aspects of one’s job while focusing more heavily on others. The free-flowing exchange of ideas – and fears – underscore the comfort in the room.

Looking Ahead
Could we improve the convening and change it up next time? Of course! More open space and peer assist, more time to intentionally network with those we don’t know and learn about each other’s programs, and a heads-up about the lack of wifi and cell service are easy tactical changes. A colleague remarked that it was a pleasure to think about the big questions in Jewish leadership without necessarily having to come up with the answers. Another shared,

The casual nature of the convening combined with the seriousness of purpose was almost magical. I felt comfortable talking about important things with important people in a way that was less hindered by some of the professional trappings that sometimes impede communication.

This sums up beautifully what the Jim Joseph Foundation hoped to create, a place in which ideas, connections, and renewal were cultivated. While it remains to be seen what exactly will come from this, we can count as a success that our friends and partners relished the opportunity to be together in a beautiful setting – notwithstanding the humidity and buggy outdoors – and we look forward to our shared work in the months and years ahead.

Seth Linden and Jeff Tiell are Program Officers at the Jim Joseph Foundation. Read the piece on the Educator Training Convening here.

The following message was included in the August 2018 Jim Joseph Foundation newsletter.

With the new year approaching, many of us will both reflect on the year that was and think about what we hope to accomplish in the year, or years, to come. In other words, we will do some type of planning.  At the Jim Joseph Foundation, one tool we use to support grantee-partners in this regard is investing in strategic and business planning, which we do within a relational-grantmaking approach that establishes and strengthens long-term relationships with grantee-partners to foster trust and open dialogue, build capacity, and help scale.

In 12 years of grantmaking, the Foundation has made 15 grants for strategic or business planning. While each organization conducts a planning process unique to its specific needs, common to each is that the grantee-partner, funder, and consultant each have an important role to play. Through our experience supporting strategic and business planning, we have learned some important lessons—what our role should be; what our role shouldn’t be; where we can add value; the context in which these processes are most likely to succeed—that we believe may be helpful to others as well.

Getting Started
From the earliest conversations, the Foundation stresses that the grantee-partner owns the process. It selects the consultant. It fully maps its strategic direction. It sets the multi-year budget. It owns the plan. Though it is the Foundation’s funding that enables the grantee-partner to hire a consultant, our voice is only one of many that warrants consideration. That said, our experience allows us to guide and support our grantee-partners along the often complex and time intensive journey.

In the early stages, this guidance and support can take many forms. As just a few examples, the Foundation:

• Educates grantee-partners about which type of planning is right (strategic, business, etc.) for them and what the expected deliverables are of each
• Helps grantee-partners develop their RFPs to share with potential consultants
• Suggests potential consultants for the work based on specific needs and culture fit
• Reviews proposals and provides feedback if the grantee-partner ask for that support

From there, the grantee-partner selects the right consultant for its organization and plan. A more recent pivot of the Foundation is to advise its grantee-partners to contract directly with the consultant (as opposed to through the Foundation, which was done in our early years). This further puts the grantee-partner in the driver’s seat, exactly where they belong. This hands-off approach comes as a surprise to some but it works because of the relationship building and trust that was developed well before the planning process began.

Stepping Back
As the work unfolds, the Foundation largely stays out of the way. The consultant leads the grantee-partner through the process with the Foundation staying engaged primarily when key decision-making meetings occur or when key deliverables are drafted. One may assume that the work eases up after the consultant is brought on board. In an article last year, Elie Kaunfer of Hadar cautioned against this thinking while also highlighting one of the benefits of the planning process. Elie noted:

 …one of the most significant unintended outcomes of this process was the space it offered for some staff members to shine. Individuals who would not have normally stepped forward to play a role in organizational direction exhibited creativity, foresight, and, of course, strategic thinking. This is especially important because, as we learned, even with expert consultants, board and staff still have to do much of the heavy lifting.

This is indicative of something the Foundation has come to not just understand, but to appreciate: there are numerous positive influences and outcomes—sometimes unexpected—from a strategic planning process.

Importance of Engaging Funders
Of course, the most important outcome is the end result for the grantee-partner—a usable and fundable plan. It is critical for the grantee-partner to right-size the plan to realistic fundraising expectations. Designing a growth plan that is twice as expensive as funders are willing to support, for example, renders the plan useless. To assess potential interest, it is important to keep key funders and stakeholders engaged throughout the process by sharing updates and seeking feedback. The first time a prospective major funder learns about an organization’s new strategic direction should not be at the pitch meeting. We, too, are an important stakeholder in this regard. After all, funding the strategic planning process does not signal what we may, or may not, do to fund the plan itself. When appropriate, the Foundation looks to convene conversations with funder colleagues to solicit reactions and gauge potential interest in funding the plan. Being in dialogue with our peers, and at times, as a group in dialogue with the grantee-partner, strengthens the plan, aligns expectations, and sharpens our thinking. A best practice generally is for a funder to provide general operating support to maximize the flexibility for the nonprofit. “Buying” pieces of the plan can be problematic.

Concluding Thoughts
Supporting a grantee-partner through a strategic or business planning process at the right moment is a worthwhile investment when both parties are positioned for the project. A strong funder and grantee-partner relationship, open and ongoing communication throughout, clear understanding of what the roles are through the process, selecting the right consultant, and having a clear vision of the desired outcomes are what we have found set the project up for success.

Strategic planning of course does not occur overnight, is not always an “attention-grabbing” investment, and sometimes can reveal more challenges than solutions. But, the Foundation sees time and again that this investment, when made with a trusted grantee-partner who is positioned to undertake this endeavor, can chart a path forward that propels the organization to new heights.

Aaron Saxe is a Program Officer at the Jim Joseph Foundation

For an organization to reflect upon and convey its impact effectively, its leaders must be willing to accept and admit its imperfections. Inherently, these leaders put themselves in a vulnerable position when they take seriously the need to reflect, to assess their impact, and to share their findings.

I learned this firsthand when I partnered with Keshet to obtain stories of impact from Keshet’s Leadership Project. To do this, I interviewed eight leaders who had engaged in the leadership program and drafted summaries of their experiences. While I knew it would be difficult to work around issues of confidentiality, I did not initially realize the high level of vulnerability I was asking not just of Keshet, but of the leaders of these participating organizations. Grantee-partners of the Foundation often are interviewed and asked to present their authentic selves. But now I was requesting this vulnerability of others, outside of the Foundation’s direct grantees-partners.

I feel it only fair to share in this vulnerability, not only with Keshet, but with the field, so we may all grow and learn together. Through this process—and level of openness—I experienced my own learning and growth, in addition to gaining valuable information for Keshet. What became apparent to me were my own limitations and knowledge in the space in which Keshet operates.

To be clear, I always considered myself an inclusive person and an ally of the LGBTQ community. Through friends, family, LGBTQ trainings, and my background in psychology, I thought I was aware of the issues facing the LGBTQ community in the United States and Israel (where I completed my master’s degree). With that said—and similar to the individuals of the organizations I interviewed—I realized how much more I had to learn.

This realization first occurred to me as I began to send the summaries I had drafted to the interviewees for approval. While I know that gender identity is fluid, and an individual’s pronouns cannot be assumed, I found myself questioning if I had done just that.  Prior to each interview, I conducted a brief preliminary search of my interviewee, reading at least their biography and scanning their organization’s website to grasp a bit of the background. Once I had drafted and sent the summaries, doubts began to fill my mind regarding my own word choice. I used a feminine pronoun in one of the summaries. Had I assumed this person’s pronouns based on their name or did I understand their pronouns from their biography or our conversation? Here I was working with an organization to spread awareness and fight for LGBTQ inclusion and I, myself, had to admit I felt some uncertainty in my proficiency to navigate these situations.

Regardless if I had made an error or not, this in-depth exposure to Keshet’s work adjusted my approach and thinking. Prior to this project, I would not have asked myself the kinds of questions that began to consume my mind like how to properly reference or address someone. This experience serves as a reminder, not only of the importance of inclusion and continued learning, but also of the value in giving oneself fully to an experience. As a part of the funder community, I have spent much time reading reports and learning from grantee-partners. What I gained from immersing myself in this evaluation process, however, was invaluable. It is not enough for funders to expect vulnerability from grantees. They also need to reciprocate that vulnerability for shared experiences and learning, which can have significant benefits for the grantee, the funding organization, and the specific individuals involved in this work.

I am proud of the leaders of the organizations I interviewed, who not only took action in their own communities, but were willing to share this vulnerability in order to inspire others. I am grateful to Keshet for welcoming me to engage in this process with them. While there is much work to be done, I feel encouraged to know organizations like Keshet are making small (and larger) progress every day.

Rachel Halevi is a Program Assistant at the Jim Joseph Foundation. This is the third in a series of pieces from Foundation professionals sharing their experiences engaging with grantee-partners. Here is the first piece and second piece in the series.

One of our favorite thinkers, Buckminster Fuller, once said, “There is no such thing as a failed experiment, only experiments with unexpected outcomes.”

At the heart of this quote is the notion that experiments are about learning – and learning should never be regarded as failure.

Indeed, what would it mean for the Jim Joseph Foundation to begin to invest in some small experiments as a way of learning about the creativity and innovation that is happening in the Jewish world? Further, for a Foundation accustomed to awarding grants in the millions of dollars, what would it mean for us to make smaller bets?

These questions have been guiding our work as the Foundation explores its next chapter. Further, there is a sense at the Foundation that many organizations need support and do good work but are not equipped, or ready, to take on a large investment. However, a small investment with an approach of “let’s experiment” can be more aligned with the organization’s needs in the moment and begins to build an effective and meaningful funder–grantee relationship.

In addition, there is a nimbleness to these grants. They can be awarded relatively quickly and in response to what’s happening in the field and on the ground. More so, as the Foundation continues to work to understand and build relationships with organizations doing good work in Jewish education, vis-à-vis small grants we are inherently engaging with more organizations, more types of Jewish life and learning, more visionary leaders and educators, and more strategies and models. These touchpoints are leading to more learning here at the Foundation, which we then can share with the field.

One example of this work is a small investment to At The Well, an organization that “brings women together at the intersection of wellness and Jewish spirituality.” Founder and Executive Director Sarah Waxman describes At The Well as an organization that “connects women to body, soul, and community through wellness education and Jewish spirituality.” As wellness through a Jewish lens, delivered with Jewish wisdom, is a growing node within the Jewish education landscape, a small grant will enable the Foundation to stay proximate to this exciting work.

Another example is an investment in a new Cross Community Learning Exchange that creates a peer learning cohort so Jewish Early Childhood Education (ECE) educators in Denver/Boulder and Chicago can share their talents and increase their knowledge. Senior Program Officer Lisa Farber Miller of Rose Community Foundation, which also is supporting the Exchange, explains, “Jewish ECE centers play an influential, yet often unrecognized, role in introducing children and their families to Jewish life and provide a venue for lasting Jewish friendships.”

Similarly small experimental investments to JPRO Network; to Board Member Institute; to The Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS) Women in Leadership; and to Jewish Interactive are relatively new and represent somewhat still unknown areas for the Foundation. All of these investments are less than $100,000.

This support comes as the Foundation sees the demand for these types of smaller organizations by their beneficiaries. These organizations almost inherently are focused on a specific area of Jewish learning or engagement and are therefore highly resonant with a specific audience. An investment in them can go a long way toward building their capacity so they can meet this demand while enabling the Foundation to learn about these organizations and the spaces in which they operate.

The Jim Joseph Foundation continues to evolve in the ways in which we stay current and stay in relationship with our grantee-partners. What we learn from these small experiments will undoubtedly lead to more and better knowledge on the dynamism in the Jewish education world and continued ways to find and fund this work more effectively.

Jeff Tiell and Seth Linden are Program Officers at the Jim Joseph Foundation.

Moishe House offers mindfulness retreats a few times a year to their residents and Moishe House Without Walls participants. This past fall I had the incredible opportunity to participate in one as someone from outside of the community.

An hour outside of Portland, in Vernonia, Oregon, 25 participants from all over the country (and two from Mexico) gathered in an expansive landscape with rolling dark green hills, a layer of mist and fog that hung low on the crests, and the smell of damp earth covered with yellow and red leaves. It was an ideal setting; the natural beauty was motivation to be fully present—and to fully engage in a silent retreat.

I had a chance to speak with people in the group before we entered into silence. From the palpable energy and excitement, I knew these retreats were a highlight for residents; a way to reconnect with long distance friends made on former retreats and to build new relationships with members of the larger community. I also realized that everyone I talked with had different depths at which they identified Jewishly; from almost no religious background, to very religious, to atheist. I am not Jewish; I was raised as an Anglican, but I am not observant.  Through my colleagues at the Jim Joseph Foundation, I have had the opportunity to explore and engage with Judaism. It was clear from the way the retreat was curated that Moishe House understood that people were coming from all different depths of engagement. The retreat incorporated Jewish elements in a very accessible way. I was able to enter the space and feel welcomed and equipped to be able to follow along.

The time came to surrender our cell phones. Over the next few days our journey would be guided primarily by Zvi Bellin, a Bay Area resident and Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor with a background in mindfulness meditation. We did various forms of meditation; standing, sitting, walking, yoga, prostrations, and mindful eating. Silence was both liberating and challenging. There was no obligation to make small talk, the focus was fully on the practice and content. However, there was no external outlet to help process the experiences as were asked not to read or write during our stay. The more I sat with that discomfort, the more I learned how to accept it; which as it turns out, is a part of the process of mindfulness.

One of the most notable moments for me happened during one of our free periods. I was seated on the living room couch staring at the wall for a few minutes. I realized that I had not been bored in this way in years. It made me smile. There hadn’t been a period when I didn’t immediately grab my phone for a distraction since the day I got my first smart phone. I felt free. I noticed my thought patterns were changing a bit. The way I was engaging with the world reminded me of when I was a child. I had to create my own fun. Boredom was only relieved with creativity inspired by my surroundings. The floor tiles, birds overhead, the sound of my boots on the ground; these ordinary things I typically ignore now became questions, stories, and games.

Moishe House cultivates something special through these mindfulness retreats. They provide yet another avenue for their residents to incorporate Judaism into everyday life and they do it in an inclusive and understanding way. Since the retreat, I try to have a mindful moment every day. In doing so, I feel like every day I create a small sense of that childlike curiosity and awareness that practicing meditation at the retreat had opened me up to. I left the retreat a day before my birthday and I have so much gratitude to have been able to start off a new year in such a positive space and have the tools to carry this practice in my daily life.

Mallory Morales is a Program Assistant at the Jim Joseph Foundation. This is the second in a series of pieces from Foundation professionals sharing their experiences engaging with grantee-partners. Read the first piece here.

My participation in PresenTense Colorado has had a large impact on my Jewish identity. Before, I had little idea of any engagement for Jewish teens outside of my synagogue, and the only other Jewish kids I knew were from my B’nai Mitzvah class. PresenTense opened me up to a whole Jewish network I had never previously considered.

This sentiment from Emily Winn of last year’s PresenTense Colorado – UpStart (PTC-U) cohort reflects the deep impact the program has on participants’ lives. This six-month fellowship for Jewish high-school students sparks innovation through entrepreneurial training and mentorship. Fellows have the opportunity to develop and test an idea that makes an impact in the Denver/Boulder community, and beyond. UpStart is especially well suited to offer this experience as one of the leading national innovators in the Jewish community.

Each year, a new cohort of Jewish teenagers who are passionate about creating social change through enterprises they envision and create apply to be part of this program. Those selected engage in six months of learning and prototyping that blends Jewish values with the skills of design thinking, problem solving, and program implementation. The unique experience brings together teenagers from a variety of Jewish backgrounds to develop both personally and with professional ambitions in mind – all rooted in UpStart’s methodology of entrepreneurial leadership development.

“We attract ambitious teenagers who want to develop skills and want to challenge themselves,” says Emily Winograd, Innovation Lead, Design Services, with UpStart.” All of the concepts we teach are relevant to their lives now and what they aspire to do in the future, and we frame it all through a Jewish lens.”

As an example, when teaching about prototyping, PTC-U shared with the teens the concept of “na’aseh v’nishmah,” which references the biblical moment when the Jewish People accepted the Torah before fully understanding it. The idea, Emily explains, is that it’s ok, even necessary, to experience something even if it is not perfect. Failing can be a positive experience that can build grit and resilience. And the only way to get feedback on a program or idea is to test it—which is exactly what the Fellows do.

According to Hillel International research, 70% of Jewish teens seek to create entrepreneurial ventures so they can experiment and fail forward. PTC-U was designed to meet this interest. As alumni participant Avi Kaye says, “Before PTC-U, I was never good at accepting failure. After this experience, I learned that certain “failures” are just steps to something greater and more refined.”

Now in its third year and with 16 teens in the program, PTC-U has a central theme grounding its work in 2018: “Welcoming the Stranger.” Emily notes, “This one theme creates a holistic connection for the teens around all of their efforts. Teens are creating initiatives and programs addressing everything from refugees to foster care to autoimmune disorders.”

A Structure of Support, Learning, and Growth

Teens in PTC-U are supported and resourced in numerous ways to make their idea for social change a reality. They first are divided into “design teams” based on shared interests. A coach – a skilled young adult – works with each team to design and implement their idea by participating in teens’ meetings and by connecting them to relevant resources. Other support comes from adults who work in “community partner” organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League or Jewish Family Service. Their deep subject matter expertise in teens’ areas of interests complements the general knowledge and support of PTC-U’s staff and coaches. Along with speaking to peers, the teens also speak with these adults as part of their empathy interviews, a critical component of design thinking and an important vehicle for garnering information about stakeholders’ experience with an issue or challenge. Additionally, an alumni mentor works with the design teams to offer peer mentorship and their own insights from having been in the program themselves. All of this support helps create a learning environment in which the teens gain the skills and strategies to effectively design a program to address a communal problem.

One teen comments, “The thing I found most valuable or helpful in this seminar was realizing that in order to solve a problem, you must clearly identify the question, and then the solution is the easier part of the equation. I had never thought of this before. I also liked that we could physically diagram out our problem and all of the people involved.”

Relevant Learning Leads to Meaningful Projects

Teens, as studies show, are highly ambitious personally and want to create change where they see wrongs in society. PTC-U captures their passion and empowers them to think strategically, facilitating productive brainstorming and progress as teens bounce ideas off of one another and draw upon a pool of collective resources and experience. And, in 13 formal sessions together as cohort, teens learn skills they need to take their projects public. Teams throughout the year engage their peers outside of the program at a number of touchpoints, including through empathy interviews, a prototyping seminar, and, most importantly, their pilot tests of their project.

One teen reflected, “I thought that learning about how to do a proper business pitch was extremely helpful to my overall understanding of the process of designing and implementing a project.”

Most teams aim to raise awareness among their peers about an issue with which they may not have direct experience. One team, for example, focused on youth unemployment and ran a successful pilot test with 12 of their peers. The test gauged peers’ reaction to a website they created that provides resources on youth unemployment. In galvanizing their peers, all the teams hope to mobilize them to action as volunteers and advocates for the projects.

Impact Felt in Numerous Ways

PTC-U is positioned to show teens the many ways Jewish learning can positively influence and add value to their everyday lives and identity. Jess Miller, of the 2017 cohort, remarked, “By learning how to apply Jewish principles to my entrepreneurial endeavors, I believe I can be a more ethical businesswoman.”

Emily adds, “We hear from teens that this is the first meaningful Jewish peer group they’ve been a part of socially. It’s inspiring for them to be surrounded by Jews of different observance levels. Teens who are Jewishly connected learn from their peers the diversity of ways that one can engage with Jewish life. And less connected teens grow to understand so much about Jewish values, community, and life. All of these teens get to know each other in an environment infused with learning and growth.”

As more teens experience the program, the impact is amplified throughout the community as they in turn engage more teens in their projects. In January 2018, 16 alumni from last year’s cohort of Fellows submitted their final reports on their projects. Cumulatively, they estimated that they engaged approximately 400 people in their projects, including peers, volunteers, and other stakeholders.

Emily Winn of last year’s cohort shares how the program influenced both her Jewish identity and her outlook moving forward:

I never realized that Jewish values were so applicable to my life, and I loved being able to use them in forming a group that mattered to me. It ended up being a really moving process where I got to learn more about the Jewish community and meet Jewish teens in the Denver/Boulder area. I’m so thankful to have had this opportunity, and I know I will carry lessons from PresenTense for the rest of my life.

Final Thoughts

Our two foundations – Rose Community Foundation and Jim Joseph Foundation – are proud to support this Jewish teen social entrepreneurship fellowship, one of the first in the nation. We know there are more teens who can choose to opt in to Jewish life and we hope PTC-U will provide new avenues to engage them. PTC-U empowers teens to create social change inspired by Jewish values and to engage their Jewish peers in new ways.

PTC-U continues to be part of an expanding and exciting landscape of offerings in the Denver/Boulder area. The multi-faceted Denver/Boulder Jewish Teen Education and Engagement Initiative (Initiative) – one of the ten community initiatives in the Jewish Teen Education and Engagement Funder Collaborative – supported by Rose Community Foundation, Jim Joseph Foundation, and others, is involving more teens in Jewish life, offering them new programs they find relevant, and helping them develop leadership skills. The Initiative wants to make the greater Denver area’s Jewish life relevant and meaningful to young people both now and later in their lives, with teens serving as active partners together with their peers, adults, and community leaders in shaping their own Jewish journeys. Our ultimate goal is that every teen can answer the question: How can my Judaism inform, inspire and advance the good I seek to do in the world?’ We know that PTC-U Fellows can affirmatively answer this question.”

Lisa Farber Miller is Senior Program Officer – Jewish Life, Rose Community Foundation. Jeff Tiell is a Program Officer at the Jim Joseph Foundation.

cross-posted in eJewishPhilanthropy

Technology is spreading at ever increasing speeds.  It took the smartphone ten years to become a cultural norm, less than a third of the time that it took other everyday technologies to hit the mainstream. Other technologies like online food delivery and automated cars are expected to account for larger shares of their respective markets. The practical applications of these technologies seem limitless and save users inordinate amounts of time and energy.

Yet as technology is advancing, what is happening to human culture and interaction?  As more products are ordered from a computer or cellular device, and reliance on those devices is increasing to higher plateaus, there is less opportunity for meaningful human interaction. In 1995, Robert Putnam wrote his initial essay that led to the award-winning Bowling Alone. Putnam was able to point to a 43 percent drop in family dinners and a 35 percent reduction in having friends over in the preceding 25 years. This did not even account for the introduction of Amazon and eBay, in 1994 and 1995 respectively, or the progression of the more recent 23 years. Putnam further elucidated this point in his 2003 book Better Together: Restoring the American Community.  

Many of the daily functions that Americans undertake are reduced to transactions. While this often improves the customer’s stated satisfaction, it is arguably inhibiting the customer experience. Sitting in one’s home and ordering clothing, a kid’s toy, or food online can be efficient. But, that experience is vastly different than going into a store, particularly a neighborhood store, and engaging with a salesperson—maybe even establishing an ongoing relationship—before making a purchase.

There has been a treasure trove of literature on transactional vs. relational approaches to marketing, customer service, and, of most interest for our purposes, grantmaking.  “Transactional” is more professional, formal, singular, and direct.  “Relational” is more cordial, informal, multifaceted, and flexible.  Each can be useful at different times.

In a transactional approach to grantmaking, formality reigns supreme.  Success and failure are clearly defined, and dollars are doled out for one and rescinded for the other.  There is a clear beginning and endpoint, and the negotiation of terms is in the hands of the grantmakers rather than the grantee.  In a relational approach, there is a sacrifice of control on the part of the grantmaker that often leads to a greater mutual respect and partnership.  There can still be measurable outcomes, but as circumstances oscillate, these are subject to change as well.  Failure is also not as clearly defined as formative assessments in these instances, which can allow for mid-course corrections and pivots.

When are transactional grants appropriate?  Whenever there is a one-off approach to a particular problem with a relatively concrete solution and limited oversight, a transactional approach works. It is more efficient, clear cut, and defined.  The Jim Joseph Foundation, which fosters compelling, effective Jewish learning experiences for young Jews, has made investments in this regard following natural disasters and other emergency situations (such as financial) where a grant can help people return to their daily lives, including Jewish learning for their families.

When are relational grants appropriate?  When a funder desires to establish a longer-term interactive approach with an organization or project and has the human capital to provide meaningful feedback and oversight, a relational approach works. Moreover, when a desirable outcome is the creation of a cohesive, ongoing, system of interactions, the relational approach is more likely than a transactional one to help create this environment. Simply, “Relational” is friendlier, iterative, and lasting.  For the Jim Joseph Foundation, relational grants with grantee-partners Hillel International, BBYO, Moishe House, Foundation for Jewish Camp, and others offer the right framework to share important lessons with each other and with the field over numerous initiatives and years. As a result of this approach, new initiatives are created, evaluated, and improved that advance the missions of all parties.

As technology brings new innovations at increasingly fast rates, the appeal of transactional experiences is likely to continue increasing as well. But, from a grantmaking perspective, we should not forsake the relational approach, even with its challenges and lack of immediate efficiencies. Depending on a funder and grantee’s goals and other organizational factors, both approaches should be considered as viable options that can serve both parties well.

Steven Green is Senior Director of Grant Management and Compliance at the Jim Joseph Foundation

cross-posted in GrantCraft