When the Jim Joseph Foundation was founded in 2006, board members and other leaders in Jewish education held a series of meetings to determine a set of “strategic funding priorities.” While the foundation’s generous benefactor, Jim Joseph, z”l, ensured that Jewish education would be the sole focus of grant awards, he did not specify how the Foundation should pursue his vision. Ultimately, the Board identified three funding priorities, one of which is to increase the number and quality of Jewish educators and education leaders. This priority paved the way for the largest bet the Foundation has made to date – the recently completed $45 million, six year investment in Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion (HUC-JIR), The Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS), and Yeshiva University (YU), known collectively as the Education Initiative.

As with nearly every major Foundation grant, independent evaluation was built into the grant from the outset. Annually, American Institutes for Research (AIR) provided the Foundation with a comprehensive evaluation of nearly every aspect of the Initiative – number of program enrollees and their experience in the workplace; how the institutions were working together; progress on programs achieving sustainability; and more. Now, with the final evaluation, recently completed, we believe the field has much to learn from the Foundation’s and grant partners’ experience with this investment.

Clear Communications and Supporting Long-Term Capacity

A crucial starting point of this Initiative was conversations with the presidents of each institutions. Getting their early buy-in, clearly outlining expectations, and building trust as grant partners all proved to be key ingredients as the Initiative progressed. With an investment of this scope, length, and ambition, each grantee experienced successes and challenges along the way. A genuine, transparent relationship between the Foundation and each institution helped to overcome the challenges, to allow for course corrections, and to amplify the successes.

The Foundation’s grantmaking practices certainly evolved as the Education Initiative did. As one example, many grantees today often rely on technical assistance for various practices. The Education Initiative demonstrated how crucial this can be. With support from experts in the field, HUC-JIR, JTS, and YU, the grantees made changes in their key marketing and enrollment management practices. The grantees revamped their websites, replaced blanket policies of granting full tuition waivers with systematic processes for allocating financial assistance, and began building robust databases of prospective students. These efforts led to professionalizing key enrollment management functions at the institutional level and to a dramatic increase in the number of inquiries. The work of the Foundation with the grantees ensured that the effects of the grant are long-term and can support an infrastructure for future new programs.

Supporting Change at Multiple Levels

The Education Initiative achieved three levels of measurable impact: institutional, program–level, and individual level. The grantees did the diligent, tedious, and ongoing work to develop the infrastructure needed to move programs from start-up to sustainability. Out of 20 programs funded by the Initiative, more than 50 percent have been incorporated into core program offerings and will continue. Meeting this “viability” goal was an integral part of ensuring that the investment continues to influence Jewish education long after the grant period concludes.

This desire for long-lasting impact guided the Board’s initial thinking six years ago to make an investment that would support the professional practice of more than a thousand professionals in all kinds of Jewish education settings. Strong educators and leaders are the not-so-secret ingredient for high quality Jewish education programs. The positive effects of the Education Initiative have been confirmed by participants and their employers as well as objective measures such as salary increase and job promotions. Especially noteworthy are the programs that were a result of unprecedented collaboration among the grantees, such as the eLearning Collaborative, a set of professional learning opportunities to faculty members; The Experiential Jewish Education Network, a program for alumni of the three institutions; and The Jewish Early Childhood Education Leadership Institute.

Well-Designed Programs = Deep Influence on Participants

The independent evaluation has uncovered the key mechanisms which take place between program enrollment and post-graduation employment outcomes. Evaluation data showed that HUC-JIR, JTS, and YU have accomplished a lot more than increasing the number of prepared educators. The grantees have demonstrated what well–designed programs look like.

The high program satisfaction of participants in the new programs developed under the Education Initiative is a direct result of a positive and meaningful program experience that exceeded expectations. At enrollment, most participants were interested in programs that aligned with their learning interests and that were offered at convenient schedules and locations. They came with little or no expectations regarding the program experience or their relations with faculty and peers. After program completion, participants reported that the program experience had much more impact than they anticipated. In cohort-based programs, participants have found professional networks that they felt they belonged to; through internships and project-based learning, they have gained professional self-esteem when they saw the results of their new skills; and, through mentoring and advisory, they have sharpened their career aspirations and brought value to their workplace.

In Their Words

A participant in Yeshiva University’s Experiential Jewish Education Certificate Program told AIR researchers: “When I first went into the program I thought this is going to be just a program that puts into words what I have been doing for quite some time. But what I found was, right from the very first session, much more than that. This [program] is about really thinking about the pedagogy of experiential education and tying it to relevant research in the field. And then learning how to create experiences based on serious academic study.”

According to a participants of HUC-JIR’s Executive Master’s Program, she enrolled seeking a degree and found that her overall leadership style and organizational thinking has changed: “I came to the program because of the value of the degree and to have a seat at the table [for decision-making]. But I have gained a lot more than that. Now, I am not able to look at the world the same way I used to. The courses gave me the ability to step back and look at things from a broader scale.”

A doctoral candidate who enrolled in JTS’ Executive Doctoral Program told AIR researchers that a good program is measured not only by its content, but also by the collegial relationships that faculty and students can develop in small Jewish higher education institutions: “I came to the program as an expert in youth engagement and with the intention to focus on the post Bar Mitzvah years. This program helped me come out of the narrow box [of professional focus] and ask different questions. It really broadened my thinking. I had the confidence to explore new questions because I had the access to experts that I did not previously have. I could call a professor and pick his brain whenever I faced a challenge.”

Final Thoughts

Based on these findings and other results summarized in the final evaluation report, it is not surprising that the Education Initiative successfully advanced professionals on the career ladder. Within a very short time interval – up to one year from program completion – one third of the degree program participants and nearly 10 percent of the professional development programs participants advanced to Jewish education leadership positions.

These educators, and those who follow them in Education Initiative programs, will continue to influence Jewish education. Together, HUC-JIR, JTS, and YU, took unprecedented steps – and risks – that have genuinely changed the landscape of the field. The learners who engage in Jewish education, in its variety of settings and through countless experiences, are the ultimate beneficiaries of these advancements.

Yael Kidron is a Principal Researcher at American Institutes for Research. Dawne Bear Novicoff is Assistant Director at the Jim Joseph Foundation. The full independent evaluation of the Education Initiative is available here.

Source: “Reflections on a Big Bet: The Education Initiative with HUC-JIR, JTS, and YU,” Yael Kidron and Dawne Bear Novicoff, eJewishPhilanthropy, October 27, 2016

I bet my parents are not surprised that I work for a Jewish organization. How could they be? After all, I have been an active member of the Jewish community from my earliest days. Attending Congregational School, spending summer after summer at Jewish day and overnight camp, starring as Joseph in my synagogue’s production of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat (I couldn’t resist throwing this one in here), participating in youth group, spending time in Israel, and most recently, working at the San Francisco-based Jewish Community Federation. Being Jewish has always been an important part of who I am. Yet, reflecting back on these experiences, I note that my participation in Jewish life has never come in the way of traditional, text-based Jewish education or study.

There were many reasons that I was excited to join the Jim Joseph Foundation team in April 2015: working with a dedicated and expert staff; best in class board and professional leadership; the opportunity to contribute to the Jewish learning and growth of thousands of young people annually. But, an unexpected, yet welcome, outcome has been the Jewish learning and growth of someone else: me.

Some of the grants in my portfolio are in my sweet spot. I manage many of the Foundation’s camping grants, for example. I credit my own overnight camping experience as the one that most helped shape my Jewish identity and is the primary reason that Judaism is such an important part of my life. I can list the sessions I attended in chronological order and can still sing many of the session songs. My favorite is sung to the tune of the Friends theme song:

My friends they told me that if I went to Camp Swig
There’d be some people there that I would really dig
We’d form a bond of friendship oh so strong
And have a time creating memories that’d last a whole life looooong.

I digress.

Much of my portfolio, however, has pushed me beyond my own Jewish background. For example, managing the Foundation’s grant to Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies has shown me the importance of developing excellent day school educators; Pardes’ graduates are among the most desirable in the field. In my work with Sefaria, I navigate its online library of over 80 million words of Jewish text, explore source sheets, and learn about the important ways its technology eases and strengthens Jewish learning in day schools.

And recently, I had the opportunity to attend an evening program at Mechon Hadar, another grantee in my portfolio. While in New York for the Foundation’s board meeting, my colleague Dawne Bear Novicoff and I attended Embracing Teshuvah: A Conversation with Hadar Faculty. I’ll admit, I was a bit nervous, which was only amplified when I learned that my hevruta partner was a participant in Hadar’s full-time program and clearly way more versed in Jewish text than me. Almost immediately, the discomfort waned and was replaced by enjoyment, understanding, and personal reflection.

Perhaps my past didn’t include formal Jewish text study simply because it wasn’t how my parents and grandparents engaged in Jewish life. Or, perhaps this void was a result of never fully finding the relevance to it in my own life. But, the panel of four Hadar faculty members explained the texts in ways with which I immediately connected. In just a short evening, my appreciation for Jewish text study forever changed. I left with tools to become a better parent and husband. I left with a new appreciation for prayer and how it might be useful in my life.

My favorite part of the session included a lesson from Rabbi Elie Kaunfer about teshuvah (repentance) and the name changes of Sarai to Sarah and Avram to Avraham. Sarai gave up the letter yod (value of 10) and replaced it with the letter hey (value of 5). So, in changing her name, Sarai gave up a net value of 5. Avram only gained a letter, hey (value of 5), in becoming Avraham. Rabbi Kaunfer noted that Sarai gave up the same value of letter as Avram gained, and opined that repentance is as much about who you’re in partnership with as it is about just yourself. Pretty powerful and something that I reflected on during Yom Kippur.

Through its work increasing the number and quality of Jewish educators, expanding opportunities for effective Jewish learning, and building a strong field for Jewish learning, the Jim Joseph Foundation contributes to the Jewish growth and learning of thousands of young people annually. While perhaps unexpected, through my work with grantees like Pardes, Sefaria, and Mechon Hadar—and the deep Jewish growth and learning that it provides me—you can add one more learner to the list.

In this, my penultimate blog as Executive Director for the Jim Joseph Foundation (read the first blog in this series here), I revisit a theme I have discussed numerous times in the past decade.

For years, I have asserted that foundation personnel who conduct their business as transactions of authority and power—as opposed to a series of ongoing interactions in pursuit of partnerships to make enduring changes in the world—fail to optimize the potential of contemporary Jewish philanthropy. From both a professional grantmaking and Jewish values perspective, relational philanthropy that cultivates funder-grantee trust is an asset tangibly benefiting both participants.  The ultimate good, of course, redounds to beneficiaries of high performing Jewish 501c3 organizations and the righteous work they do.

Even a cursory review of journal articles, social media blogs, and association publications on education and philanthropy surfaces frequent references to “trust.” The references occur in diverse places: Education Week, Jewish Funders Network publications, Grantmakers for Effective Philanthropy monographs, eJewishPhilanthropy, Huffington Post, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Teachers College Record – just to name a few.

The ways in which trust is described are myriad, often invoking Jewish sources (for items in Jewish media publications), but rarely citing any of the considerable research on trust produced in the disciplines of psychology, communications, and economics. JFN’s newly released Funders and Power: Principles for Honorable Conduct in Philanthropy, for example, encourages funders to “take covenantal responsibility” for grantmaking as a relationship-based “sacred trust” with funders’ community of grantees. Stuart Mellan, CEO of the Jewish Federation of Southern Arizona, lauds network weaving as an effective community building strategy, noting that “community requires trust.” Mellan observes that “trust can be built, trust can be broken; and broken trust can be healed. In the end trust is achieved when individuals of good intention approach the building of their relationship with integrity.”[1]

In the secular world, an Education Week article from September of this year entitled “Are You Trusted? It Makes All the Difference” states flatly that “trust is the foundation for learning.”[2]  A July Huffington Post article highlights a GEO blog whose four authors claim “driven by a sheer desire to help philanthropy be most effective, leaders of philanthropy serving organizations are embracing a mindset characterized by trust, openness and generosity of spirit”[3].

We exercise trust in our daily lives. You trust your Uber driver will transport you to your desired destination efficiently and safely. You are piloted through clogged city streets by a person you have never before met in a vehicle you have no idea is fully operational with all of its functioning safety features. You bring a Task Rabbit contractor into your home for a two-hour job of assembling a freshly delivered set of Ikea bookshelves, not knowing this individual from any stranger on the street. Your doctor prescribes new medication for a chronic back pain and you dutifully ingest pills typically not having any real idea about what the chemical ingredients will do, iatrogenically, to your body. And you permit a certificated technician to take remote control of your computer to clean up a virus, never even meeting the empowered engineer face to face to whom you provide access to all kinds of confidential information.

The Science of Trust

These quotidian acts are neither baseless nor blind. There is actually science precipitating this behavior, believe it or not, that is both psychologically and biologically based. Humans could not manage their daily affairs in a viable manner without repeated acts entrusting others – and themselves – to do what is implicitly expected of them. Ultimately, “trust isn’t a luxury. It’s a tool we need to get by when we can’t make it on our own; it’s a means of survival for those that must depend on others”[4].

Moreover, while I am sometimes leery to reference research on the corporate sector for guidance in foundation work, ample study of consumer behavior and attitudes shows clearly that companies perceived to be trustworthy outperform those which fail to earn consumers’ trust.

Curiously, when it comes to philanthropy, my experience has been that trust is a currency in short reserve. Arguably, “too often, philanthropists behave like bank loan officers, giving grants in return for prescribed programs and outcomes. Instead, philanthropists should create collaborative relationships with grantees that cultivate critical thinking, learning, and adaptation”[5].

With an understanding of the importance of building trust, here is the conundrum: foundation employment confers privilege of status on its personnel, both professional and lay. Having access to largesse results in the appearance of belonging to a higher social class, which diminishes reliance on others. And “the data are clear: higher social class often equals less trustworthiness.”[6]

The Jim Joseph Foundation Approach

I realize it would be uncomfortable for my foundation colleagues who work ardently to support Jewish education to think that they might be taking advantage of their particular position of influence. My peers comport themselves with consummate professionalism. The position I have taken repeatedly, and the one I am assuming here, is a function of an approach—which I describe as relational philanthropy—the Jim Joseph Foundation has deliberately cultivated for more than a decade. Its modus operandi, as I wrote in 2012, is a one in which:

Funders, grantees, evaluators and consultants alike align around common, consensually agreed upon goals–both for projects themselves and for field-related knowledge creation and dissemination. Grantees’ transparent sharing of progress made and challenges encountered in ongoing conversations with foundation and evaluation personnel leads to real time learning. Foundations in turn become ‘conduits of the nonprofits’ knowledge’ to the field of Jewish education in what becomes effectively, a two-way distribution system[7].

I believe with conviction and a modicum of certainty that the grantmaking the practices with its grantee partners drives efficiencies and effectiveness into the field. At this moment of significant Foundation transition, to assist incoming President and CEO Barry Finestone and Foundation Directors in their future philanthropic enterprise, the Foundation is preparing to commission a meta-synthesis of 100 evaluations of grants it has awarded. This comprehensive information, coupled with feedback from two Grantee Perception studies previously completed, I am confident will create a convincing case motivating the Jim Joseph Foundation to continuously strive to improve its Relational philanthropy practices.

The kind of philanthropy the Foundation enacts is not formulaic. As I have noted in previous blog posts and articles, “business gets done in conversation. Relations develop. The philanthropic practice is one of active listening, networking, and sharing information in reciprocal exchanges of knowledge (see Ed Skloot’s Beyond the Money). Trust among all participants is paramount”[8].

Nothing is mechanistic about this work. Funders and grantee personnel, most often with appropriate technical assistance experts, interact regularly and on a scheduled basis. All individuals must bring good intention and positive attitude to every conversation:

• Foundation professionals must steadfastly evidence a propensity to accept at face-value information shared with them by grantees. They need as well to manifestly exhibit a valuing of grantees’ work experience, acknowledging grantee proximity to the initiative as a source for critically important data collection.
• Foundation professionals and evaluators ask relevant questions of grantees during update calls and/or meetings.
• Grantees contribute invaluable “on the ground” commentary and insightful self-reflections on the initiative they administer, manage, and/or implement. Grantees occasionally push back on what is seen as funder misperception of a key aspect of the initiative.
• Participants are forthcoming and candid. They devote relentless attention to the purpose of the funded initiative, its metrics and target outcomes, and its anticipated results. Midcourse corrections often occur, as is expected.

Together, funder and grantee expressly affirm shared commitment to achieving understanding of, and success in, objectives and goals of the funded initiative. The relationship is one of dynamic inter-subjectivity, in recognition of the mutual gain at stake, and without any compromise of respective professional standards of conduct.

Personal authenticity, especially as exhibited in dialogue that reveals a genuine appreciation for a world in which I/you interplay promotes mutual respect and interpersonal trust, is of superordinate importance. Conference and Skype calls, Google hangout chats, site visits and substantive grantee reporting, are woven together into a web of relationships.

Looking to the Future

The world has obviously changed in my nearly eleven years as Executive Director of the Jim Joseph Foundation. Consider the following, by way of a few examples: instant, real time access to information; field disintermediation; premiums placed on foundation transparency and accountability; blending of public, market, and social sectors; overt, verbally violent and physically destructive anti-Semitic and anti-Israel assaults on Jews and the Jewish people. Never in my lifetime have I been as aware as I am today of the benefits collaboration and carefully fashioned organizational interdependencies offer Jewish education.

“Different than the traditional approaches of coordination and cooperation, real collaboration creates the key opportunity model of today’s world,” grounded in “the ‘bedrock’ of collaboration: trust. Without trust, collaboration is merely cooperation, which fails to achieve the benefits and possibilities available to true collaborations in the knowledge worker age.”[9]

Finally, implicit in Relational philanthropy is an assumption that a community structure of knowledge production, enabling the Foundation and all of its stakeholders to interact with one another in relational contexts, creates the greatest likelihood that the Jim Joseph Foundation will be a demonstrably effective grantmaker (I will share specific examples of this knowledge production in future blogs).

My fervent hope is that founding Directors of the Jim Joseph Foundation, exceptionally dedicated professionals and staff, and I have bequeathed to successors purposeful, distinctive, practical, powerful relational approaches to strategic philanthropy in support of Jewish education.

[1] Mellan, Stuart. Weaving Community: One Perspective on Federation Work. eJewish Philanthropy. September 2016

[2] Berkowicz, Jill. Myers, Ann. Are You Trusted? It Makes All the Difference. Education Week.  September 2016

[3] Enright, Kathleen. Essel, Christine. Jamison, Nancy. LaPointe, Ellen. A Watershed Moment for Philanthropy Infrastructure. The Huffington Post. July 2016

[4] DeSteno, David. The Truth About Trust: How It Determines Success in Life, Love, Learning and More. Hudson Street Press, 2014. Pg. 126

[5] Easterling, Douglas. How Grantmaking Can Create Adaptive Organizations. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall 2016, Volume 14, Number 4. Pg. 46

[6] DeSteno, David. The Truth About Trust: How It Determines Success in Life, Love, Learning and More. Hudson Street Press, 2014. Pg. 132

[7] Frank Ellsworth and J. Lumarda in From Grantmaker to Leader. Edelsberg, Charles M. Working in a Relational Way. October 2012

[8] Edelsberg, Charles M. Working in a Relational Way. October 2012

[9] Covey, Stephen M.R. The Speed of Trust: The One Thing That Changes Everything. Free Press, 2006. pg. 256

In mid-September, we attended Service Matters: A Summit on Jewish Service hosted by Repair the World. We were there with more than 200 participants and 35 organizational partners committed to elevating the place of volunteer service in American Jewish life.

What an opportunity to see first-hand the evolution and growth of a field. Numerous observations from that day offer insights about educating and engaging young Jewish adults, how a field develops, and why Jewish service continues to offer such potential.

Jewish Service Unleashes Energy and Excitement
One of the high level observations and takeaways from the day was the particularly large number of people in their early to mid-20s who participated. Certainly at the Jim Joseph Foundation, we know that many young Jews engage in Jewish life and learning through social change and justice work. Indeed, the Pew Report published in 2013 notes that 69 percent of Jews say leading an ethical/moral life is an essential part of what being Jewish means to them. 56 percent say the same for working for justice/equality – and this report was not only on young Jews. So clearly, Jewish service and justice work is a prime way for many Jews to engage in Jewish life. However, at the Summit, we could put faces to these figures and we felt the Summit participants’ excitement and dedication to this cause. As representatives of a funder organization, this palpable energy reaffirmed how significant and essential this space is. Jewish service for young adults is a pathway for entry and for ongoing engagement with their Jewish selves and souls.

More Organizations Understand the Opportunity
Another observation from the day was the diversity of Jewish organizations present. This increasing diversity of Jewish service organizations—or of organizations that have service as an integral component of their work—helps to grow and build the Jewish service field into what we observed to be its “coming-of-age” moment. To see organizations such as Moishe House, Hillel, JDC Entwine, and BBYO, together with Avodah, Challah for Hunger, Keshet, Hazon, Bend the Arc, and so many others is a stirring testament to the power of service as a key engagement modality. This field is comprised of an astonishing variety of organizations in size, scale, mission, and vision, all of which are united in their capacity and desire to use service as a lever for their work.

These Jewish organizations also recognize they have much to learn from secular organizations with proven records engaging people on a large scale in ways that deeply impact local communities. This is why organizations like Points of Light, the Service Year Alliance and City Year not only were at the Summit, but also given time to share their strategies and learnings from their own work.

What it Means to be a Field
Certainly due in large part to many of the organizations mentioned above, the Jewish service movement is in fact a Jewish service field, replete with standards of practice, a common language, and tools that are accessible to all organizations. With these resources, more organizations can effectively engage and empower people in meaningful and authentic Jewish service learning experiences. Moreover, with the Summit as just one example, the structures and systems are in place to more easily share best practices, adapt more models and initiatives from one community to another, and overcome challenges together.

As an early investor in Repair the World, the Foundation understood both the potential of Jewish service along with the need to be patient as the field evolved. Jim Joseph Foundation grantees like Repair and JDC Entwine are building, leading, and expanding these efforts, as they test new models and continue to bring more people and organizations into the fold.

A Need for Continued Conversation and Collaborations
A final observation from the day, and one that perhaps left the most lasting effects, was the need for brave spaces such as these where individuals and organizations who care about service and social justice in the Jewish community can wrestle with deep questions together. Many in the Jewish community want to have authentic conversations about racial justice and other inequalities, addressing head on the big questions that we as Jews find ourselves asking in the context of the broader society in which we reside. We see institutions – both in the Jewish and secular service communities – reflect on what it means to do impactful work in local communities with others. How do we show up? How do act as good partners? How do we listen effectively to the needs and concerns of others?  This institutional reflection often is indicative of a generational shift in how young Jews today identify and belong both in Jewish and secular worlds simultaneously.

As a deeply relational funder, the Jim Joseph Foundation will continue to work with our grantee-partners to explore these questions to help foster compelling, effective Jewish learning experiences for young Jews.

One of the many privileges of having served as Executive Director of the Jim Joseph Foundation has been ample opportunity to contribute to the field of Jewish education. In personal conversations; at convenings, forums and conferences; through the Foundation’s website and on this blog; and in various publications, I have shared information on lessons learned by the Foundation through its $436 million of philanthropic investments. I have also opined on trends in the broader fields of education and philanthropy, all in an effort to advance the field about which the Foundation and readers of this blog care so deeply.

Over the next two months, as I step down from the position in which I have been privileged to serve, I want to make maximum use of this platform by highlighting three themes which have emerged as integral to the Foundation’s work. Each of the three blogs will offer reflections in the context of the more than twenty years of study and experience I have had participating in philanthropy to support education.

In this first blog, I discuss the benefits of a concentrated set of priority grants. In this regard, the Foundation’s evolution has resulted in a relatively limited number of major grants of very significant grant amounts over longer periods of time than are customarily awarded.

Before the Foundation began its grantmaking in 2006, the Board undertook an accelerated strategic planning process that included commissioning ten papers from established communal thought leaders as well as a landscape analysis of the field of Jewish education, led by Brandeis University professor Dr. Amy Sales. I do not recall that the Foundation set a target for the number of grants Directors anticipated they would grant on an annual basis, nor did they establish policy that stipulated amounts or duration of grant awards. Board members did make clear, however, that they wanted to honor Jim Joseph’s memory by building a legacy befitting his generosity and that, over the years, the Foundation could convincingly demonstrate philanthropic effectiveness.

Directors early on showed a determined willingness to test the hypothesis that fewer (grants awarded), greater (amounts of funding), and more (years of support) could provide results. This approach derived from the following set of key realizations and decisions the Foundation made regarding how to best pursue its mission:

1. Some organizations and institutions are better aligned with the Jim Joseph Foundation mission and strategic priorities than others.
2. Given the Foundation’s vision of “ever increasing numbers of young Jews engaged in ongoing Jewish learning and choosing to live vibrant Jewish lives,” the potential for greater growth and scale in the number of young Jews served became a critically important criteria for grant consideration.
3. Rigorous due diligence conducted by Foundation professionals on grant applications and budgets consistently revealed inadequate resources in operations, technology, evaluation, professional development, financial reserves and other functional areas of budget. This indicated a need for significant infusion of financial capital.
4. Grantee achievement of target grant objectives and goals of a Jewish educational nature take time, especially if such progress is to be assessed in reliable, valid ways.
5. Related to # 4 above, the Foundation conceptualized its philanthropy to involve continuous discovery, assuming that relationships with grantees developed over time would be most conducive to “grounded” learning.

So the Foundation from the outset accepted the proposition that if grantees’ demonstrated success would be a key measure of the Foundation’s effectiveness, then it would consider multi-year grants and potential renewal of them. Now, almost eleven years into its grantmaking, the facts are these: the average length of time of an award to a major grantee ($1M or more) is 4.1 years. 61% of these major grantees have received renewal grants and 33 grantees have received $378M of the $436M awarded by the Foundation.

Certainly, the Jim Joseph Foundation is not unique as a foundation in directing significant resources for multiple years to mission-aligned grantees. In the field generally, a good deal of what is called “social venture” and “high engagement” philanthropy feature long term commitments of funding as a staple of the style. For example, Christine Letts and William Ryan, in a study of six funders conducted in 2003, found that the foundations “funded their grantees for an average of seven years and many anticipated continuing their funding indefinitely” (Ryan, William & Letts, Christine. “Filling the Performance Gap: High Engagement Philanthropy. What grantees say about power, performance and money.” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring 2003: pg. 29). In this month’s issue of The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Elspeth Revere, former MacArthur Foundation Vice President for Media, Culture and Special Initiatives, avers that grant award durations should be “as long as possible. Three to five years should be the norm, but why not make 10-year grants to organizations that have proven their effectiveness?” (Revere, Elspeth. “After 25 Years of Grant Making, I Worry We Have Lost Sight of Nonprofit Struggles.” The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Sept. 2016: pg. 31).

The Jim Joseph Foundation essentially started with a blank slate in 2006. It could have chosen any number of approaches to its grantmaking. In retrospect, I think one of the most important patterns Directors established was to ask professional staff to bring to the Board major grant proposals from highly aligned grantee seekers that sought significant, long-term funding. The Foundation expected that its large investments would be accompanied by careful grant monitoring and evaluation. The dynamic that originally unfolded led to Foundation and grantee personnel forming close and trusting relationships with one another (about which I will write more in my next blog). Moreover, the Foundation providing renewal funding to its high performing grantees often engendered deepened relationships with these grantees and frequently stimulated other funders to seek Jim Joseph Foundation intelligence on, and experience with, a number of its grantees organizations. Co-funding and collaborative grantmaking ultimately emerged from these conversations.

The Foundation has learned in its first eleven years that multi-million dollar grants given to a relatively small numbers of organizations, renewed on a performance basis, offer distinct benefits to the field of Jewish education, including:

• effective grant implementation that—thanks to approximately 100 independent, professional evaluations—evidence greater numbers of young Jews engaged in meaningful, substantive Jewish learning;
• two dozen Jewish organizations with improved programs and systems offering more young Jews richer Jewish educational experiences than was previously the case; and
• an array of funders of Jewish education directly engaging one another as thought partners in their shared interest to build the field.

All of these positive outcomes affirm my belief that “foundations would likely be more effective if they…saw themselves as long-term strategic partners solving mutually important problems…” (Bacchetti, Ray. Ehrlich, Thomas. Reconnecting Education & Foundations: Turning Good Intentions into Educational Capital. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 2007. Pg. 76).

I am grateful to have served a Board of Directors that believes in and actively seeks to realize the Foundation’s vision. Of course, both the Board and professional team are fortunate to work with many high performing grantee partners. Together, we have endeavored to make the most of eleven years of exceptional philanthropic opportunity.