Helpful Insights From a Working Funder Collaborative

Recently, a group of 15 different organizations (15!) released a case study –Finding New Paths for Teen Engagement and Learning: A Funder Collaborative Leads the Way – detailing the two-years they’ve spent working together, learning about and investing in Jewish teen education and engagement initiatives. There are a litany of insights and interesting lessons to pull from the study, which we believe are beneficial to organizations well beyond the Jewish teen education and engagement arena (and even beyond the Jewish education arena). In fact, funders in all philanthropic sectors are increasingly pooling or coordinating funding for greater impact, or to address particularly challenging social and environmental problems. Because of this trend in collaborative efforts, we – one of us the evaluator who wrote the case study, and the other a member of the Jewish Teen Education and Engagement Funder Collaborative – want to highlight key items that have been integral to the development and initial successes of this funder collaborative.

First, let’s start from the beginning. This funder collaborative – different from many others – formed early connections around research, specifically a report, Effective Strategies for Educating and Engaging Jewish Teens. There was a mutual desire of all involved to make sense of the research learnings and to determine strategic ways to move forward, fund, and implement the best practices identified in teen education and engagement.

While other collaboratives often come together on a wave of dissatisfaction or frustration, or when one funder has a single idea and wants to build support for that alone, in this instance the research created a shared learning environment. Open discussion and creative ideas were, and are, encouraged. As a result, the various local funders “around the table” have access to many voices all focused on teen education and engagement – a rarity and a real value-added for these individuals given that their organizations focus on many areas of Jewish engagement. Now, the Collaborative is their unique space for delving deeply into this specific area.

Second, the Collaborative benefited from members’ shared beliefs, knowledge of the issue, and particularly shared experiences. The first two points admittedly are not entirely unique. Many collaboratives might bring individuals and organizations together around an issue about which all care deeply and are knowledgeable – be it homelessness, the environment, hunger, or other societal challenges. But this collaborative brought talented, passionate people together who live their work and have common experiences – Jewish life cycle events, trips to Israel, and other formidable moments – that are unique to this group. These common experiences, the close linkage between work and personal life, and the now multiple years of working together for a common goal have led to very genuine, strong relationships between Collaborative members. There is a true sense of a “team” because everyone wants to be a part of the Collaborative.

With this relationship-based environment, the Collaborative is positioned to do much more than just try to fix the problem by merely aggregating funds or aligning grants. Instead, Collaborative members aggressively tackle large challenges and problems where solutions have been frustratingly elusive. Participants say that learning and problem-solving together has been one of the reasons they stay in the group, participate actively, and take on the local initiative work. They appreciate that the Collaborative is a space beyond their home communities. It offers different voices, and similar to traditional chavruta study, members interact with each other in ways that push their thinking and creativity.

Third, the dynamic of national-local partnerships has many benefits. From a funding standpoint, the challenge that the Jim Joseph Foundation offered has been a catalyst for change in the five local communities that already have implemented initiatives. Beyond the funding, collaborative members from local communities take conversations that start within the Collaborative framework – i.e. measurement of Jewish growth outcomes, developing sustainable programs, and the like – and bring them back to colleagues working in areas outside of the specific Jewish teen education arena. In other words, local foundations and federations who commit staff time to the Collaborative are seeing benefits across their organizations.

A final key ingredient for the Collaborative’s success was clear-eyed and generous leadership. As discussed previously, the Jim Joseph Foundation committed money and time of Foundation staff, and did it looking to create something positive for all involved. The Foundation had clarity about its own objectives and hoped-for outcomes, but also a realistic appreciation that the Collaborative would have to both challenge and meet the individual needs of the funders in the group.

Now entering its third formal year, the Collaborative has an impressive number of accomplishments, which not all funder collaboratives can claim within such a short time: active participation by a consistent group; funding commitments for new initiatives in more than half of the participating communities; common measures of success adopted by all; and a cross-community evaluation that will aggregate data across multiple initiatives.

Collaborative members continue to address the common challenges that all communities face, regardless of unique characteristics or size, regarding Jewish teen education and engagement: how to increase it, how to sustain it when you get it, how to assess whether teens are gaining any lasting benefits. There is an excitement around being a part of something that is new, challenging, and, at least initially, effective all at the same time. And while we understand that no two funder collaboratives are alike, we believe that these insights can help other organizations who strive for deeper collaborations that simultaneously increase learning and strategic grantmaking.

Ellen Irie is President and CEO of Informing Change. Reuben Posner is Director of Youth Engagement at Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston. Read the full case study here about the Jewish Teen Education and Engagement Funder Collaborative, comprised of four national funders and funder representatives from ten communities.

Camp Pembroke wins Goodman Prize for Excellence in Israel Education at Camp

In rePembroke Mariner and Expresscognition of its success infusing Israel into a greater part of camp culture and overall experience, Camp Pembroke in Pembroke, was awarded the inaugural “Goodman Prize for Excellence in Israel Education at Camp” by the iCenter for Israel Education, Foundation for Jewish Camp (FJC), and the Lillian and Larry Goodman Foundations.

Along with nine other camp semi-finalists for the $1,800 cash prize award, Camp Pembroke—an all-girls pluralist Jewish summer camp—is part of the Goodman Camping Initiative for Modern Israel History. The ongoing initiative enhances and expands the commitment of Jewish overnight camps to modern Israel history and dynamic Israel education within all parts of camp, and is designed to help campers build deep and meaningful connections with Israel.

“We are honored and excited to receive the Goodman Prize for Excellence in Israel Education at Camp,” says Ellen Felcher, Director of Camp Pembroke. “Israel has always been a focal point for us, but over the last few years, Israel has infused in all the spaces in camp—from the dining hall, to the cabins, to the sports fields, to arts and culture, Israel is all around our campers. The Goodman initiative has been a driving force behind this change, giving us exciting tools and ideas to bring Israel to life at camp.”

Compared to just a few years ago, Camp Pembroke today offers campers many more opportunities for Israel engagement, with twice-a-week “Jewish life and learning” classes and dynamic, fun experiences. Among numerous activities, Goodman Fellows decorate a golf cart as an “Israeli Cash Cab” at the beginning of each summer for counselors to drive around, stopping anywhere at camp to ask Israel trivia questions. Another activity involves campers dramatizing Israeli-related inventions like the pill-cam, special irrigation techniques, cell phone technology, and more, while other campers guess the invention. And campers have designed picnic tables and benches to showcase Israeli history, heroines, and culture.

“Everything we do at Camp Pembroke now builds to a 5 and a half week trip to Israel during the campers’ ‘Counselor-in-training,’ summer.” Felcher adds. “We showcase Israel as modern state, living and breathing with excitement. The girls develop their own personal and meaningful connection to the country and the people.

Now in its third year, the Goodman Camping Initiative is a partnership between the iCenter and Foundation for Jewish Camp with generous support from The Lillian and Larry Goodman Foundations, with contributions from the Marcus Foundation and the AVI CHAI Foundation. The Initiative has engaged 36 camps at workshops, at seminars for shlichim, and with online tools that offer strategies and resources to help camps infuse modern Israel history into their camp’s educational program. As an example, Goodman curriculum details how a camp can run its own program based on the TV show “Shark Tank,” that teaches campers about social justice programs started in Israel. Beyond specific programs, the Goodman Camping Initiative helps camps incorporate Israeli themes, images, or Hebrew language into their entire camp surroundings, including their gardens, their climbing walls, and their bunks.

“Camp fosters deep connections and creates lasting memories—and we have an incredible opportunity to make Israel a focal part of this positive experience,” says Jeremy J. Fingerman, CEO of the Foundation for Jewish Camp. “We’ve seen camp staff embrace this initiative and combine their learnings with really creative ideas that bring Israel to life for their campers.  This year, as there are every year, so many camps were worthy of this prize. I am proud of the ways all of these camps have incorporated Israel into the Jewish camp experience in such effective and dynamic ways.”

As part of the prize selection, camps had to detail how they’ve utilized the resources and training provided by the Goodman Camping Initiative to offer new Israel experiences to both campers and staff, and how their participation in the initiative has an ongoing impact at camp.

“The Goodman Initiative already has created a very significant shift in culture at camps by integrating Israel into regular, everyday programming,” says Anne Lanski executive director of the iCenter. “Authentic Israel experiences can be incorporated into nearly any learning environment, and the physical, immersive space of camp presents so many great opportunities. The initiative and this prize are indicative of the continued, exciting evolution of Israel education that we see at camps, day schools, congregational schools, and other educational settings around the country.”

Source: “Camp Pembroke Wins Goodman Prize for Excellence in Israel Education at Camp,” Pembroke Mariner and Express, May 6, 2015

It Takes a Strong Field to Make a Stronger Field

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

BBYO Directors of Jewish Enrichment

JJF Photo1_300x200jpgThree years ago, BBYO set out to enhance the quality of experiential Jewish education offered to teens across its global movement. This was no small challenge, given that BBYO engages about 42,000 teens annually, but does not have the capacity to reach out and to individually connect directly with each teen. As a result, BBYO launched its Directors of Jewish Enrichment (DJE) initiative, which placed three talented Jewish educators in BBYO regions throughout North America. DJE’s are responsible for teaching, inspiring and supporting key stakeholders—including staff, teens and community volunteers—in their ability to deliver meaningful Jewish experiences.

The DJEs developed the Jewish Enrichment Team—a kind of brain-trust that drives educational capacity-building throughout the organization. The DJE’s network together as a dynamic team of educational entrepreneurs, and work with teen leaders, program professionals, and volunteer adult advisors to strengthen the quality of Jewish programming at the local, regional, and international levels. As the pilot phase of DJE comes to a close, an external evaluation shows that the DJE initiative has helped BBYO deliver a deeper, more engaging Jewish learning experience:

 ‘As a result of the DJEs’ work, BBYO has shifted to prioritize Jewish enrichment … Stakeholders have a richer, more textured understanding of what Jewish enrichment can be, and they create programs that are more relevant to teens. BBYO’s Educational Framework [Kivun] has become a lens through which regional professionals and teens see their programs, which contributes to the potential richness of programs. Meaningful or high quality Jewish enrichment is following a pattern, where relevant content is put in front of teens who then discuss it in small groups, learning from the content and from each other.’

JJF Photo2_300x200jpgThe DJEs have built important relationships and their own credibility within the organization, paving the way for dynamic new Jewish learning initiatives. The DJEs led a Jewish Enrichment Specialist Team (JEST) that hosted webinars for BBYO professionals, teen leaders and volunteer advisors.  Later, JEST evolved into The Learning Advantage (TLA), webinars designed for cohorts of regional professionals and supervisors. Whereas JEST primarily shared resources, TLA also taught skills and capacities.

Kivun—BBYO’s educational platform – guides all activities by clearly outlining goals for teens’ Jewish commitments, knowledge and attitudes; outcomes related to those goals; and indicators of teens’ Jewish growth.  Experiential Jewish programs focus on three core content areas: Shabbat, Israel and service/advocacy – each of which is supported by Jewish texts, questions and program modules.  Importantly, all major program initiatives are aligned with Kivun and designed with intentional Jewish learning outcomes in mind:

“… Kivun has become integral to the organization. The DJEs have increased Kivun’s utility by making the concepts within it more accessible with key questions and texts. As a result, stakeholders understand what Kivun is and report that it either validates or drives their program development … Kivun has also helped to make BBYO’s Jewish enrichment work more unified. An international professional shared, ‘The entire way of thinking about programming has changed… We’re driving toward the same goals, the same outcomes.’’

JJF Photo3_300x200jpgIn 2014, just before International Convention, the DJEs hosted a 24-hour seminar on Jewish enrichment—“The eXodus Games”—to show teens how Jewish enrichment can be fun and engaging. Teen and staff reflections clearly demonstrated that this was a success.

The recently released evaluation report captures the significant positive effects the DJEs have throughout BBYO:

Stakeholders are now using new approaches to program planning, which in turn make programs more meaningful for teens. There are also indications that a different, deeper understanding of Jewish enrichment is at play within the organization, one that is more complex, more engaging to teens, and more entrenched in the organization.

Read the full evaluation of the DJE initiative here.

When Jewish personal and professional lives intersect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Case Study Outlines Key Elements of Successful Funder Collaborative

PND logoA funder collaborative set up to invest in community-based Jewish teen education initiatives has been “strikingly successful” in its first two years, with all participants reporting a high level of satisfaction, a case study commissioned by the Jim Joseph Foundation finds.

The report, Finding New Paths for Teen Engagement and Learning: A Funder Collaborative (14 pages, PDF), found that the Jewish Teen Education & Engagement Funder Collaborative — which was launched in 2013 to provide a platform for shared learning and collaboration among grantmaking professionals — has established a set of shared measures of success to guide program design and intended outcomes; secured additional funders for local initiatives; and fostered sustained learning and sharing among members. Led by the Jim Joseph Foundation and comprising fifteen funders in ten communities, including the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, the UJA-Federation of New York, and the Jewish Federations of Greater Los Angeles, Metropolitan Chicago, and San Diego County, the collaborative has funded initiatives in Boston, Denver/Boulder, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles totaling nearly $32.8 million to date.

Prepared by Informing Change, the case study highlights four characteristics that have contributed to the collaborative’s success: a deep-rooted purpose, commitment to evaluation and shared learning, focus on national-local funding partnerships, and leadership. According to the study, the initial discussions benefited from strong leadership on the part of the Jim Joseph Foundation, as well as members’ early commitment of significant resources for grantmaking and initiative development. As the collaborative evolved, the report notes, members found value in its encouragement of customization to meet the needs of individual communities and its ability to raise issues such as measurement and evaluation that can be addressed collaboratively across communities.

“Bringing together ten different communities bound by the overarching pursuit of Jewish teen education and engagement — but each with their own internal structures, strategies, and goals — presents a truly unique learning opportunity,” said Ellen Irie, president and CEO of Informing Change. “The collaborative members are engaged in a dynamic, ambitious endeavor that involves learning about and implementing grantmaking strategies; understanding initiatives and programs that engage today’s teens; and creating an environment where funder representatives share challenges and insights for the benefit of others.

Source: “Case Study Outlines Key Elements of Successful Funder Collaborative,” Philanthropy News Digest, April 25, 2015

A Bridge Leading Somewhere

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

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

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

For Grantees and Potential Grantees:

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

For Funders:

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

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

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

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

Taglit Fellows Now Accepting Applications For Cohort 3

Jewish Scene Magazine   Professional development program trains exceptional staff for Taglit-Birthright Israel trips

Taglit-Birthright Israel opened registration earlier this week for Cohort 3 of Taglit Fellows, the professional development program launched in 2014 in partnership with the iCenter for Israel Education as an educational intensive for exceptional Jewish leaders and aspiring Jewish educators looking to staff Taglit-Birthright Israel trips. The first two cohorts were comprised of nearly 200 Fellows who were selected from over 1,000 applicants. The program will welcome in another group of highly motivated and talented individuals to increase the quality of the Taglit-Birthright Israel experience and to play significant roles in the ongoing Jewish journeys of young adults. Registration is at www.taglitfellows.com and is open through May 15, 2015.

“We are excited to build on the successful Taglit Fellows model and the great momentum of cohorts 1 and 2,” said Anne Lanski, Executive Director of the iCenter. “Through the program, Fellows gain new skills that help them leave a lasting impact on Birthright Israel participants and on Jewish youth in their home communities. Now a new cohort will learn directly with leading Israel and Jewish educators to create meaningful Israel experiences that help young Jews develop personal connections to the country and people.”

The Taglit Fellows program includes a four-day in-person seminar of interactive trainings and in-depth conversations with master Israel educators focusing on a range of areas, including how effective storytelling is a tool for education and engagement; how to create ritual moments with personal meaning; and what experiential education might look like at a range of sites in Israel. In addition to the seminar, Fellows engage in online learning and workshops in experiential Jewish education, and over time, form a close network of peers.

Naomi Karp, Director of Student Life at UCLA Hillel and a member of Cohort 2, reflected on her training seminar from earlier this year: “Not only did the Taglit Fellows seminar give me a number of new tools and activities to use when staffing future trips, it also provided me with an incredible community of 100 other Fellows. It was inspiring to learn from the experience of the facilitators and my peers, and I feel empowered with the responsibility of creating more intentional and meaningful experiences for Taglit-Birthright Israel participants rooted in Jewish content and Israel education.”

The program, funded by the Maimonides Fund, accepts 100 participants aged 22 and above every six months, with the majority of Fellows either professionally or personally serving as leaders, educators, and connectors in their Jewish communities. The first Fellows staffed Winter 2014/2015 trips, and Cohort 2 Fellows will begin staffing this summer.

“The bottom line is that the strength of the educational staff is a key factor that influences the quality of the trip,” says Taglit-Birthright Israel CEO Gidi Mark. “So we want to continue to raise that quality with more Fellows who are trained to impact the Taglit-Birthright Israel experience.”

Taglit-Birthright Israel has sent close to 500,000 young Jewish adults to Israel from more than 66 countries and from all 50 U.S. states, including students from nearly 1,000 North American college campuses accompanied by more than 70,000 Israelis.

Taglit Fellows enhances both Taglit-Birthright Israel experiences as well as the broader field of Israel and Jewish education by cultivating emerging Jewish professionals as role models and educators. Taglit-Birthright Israel has a unique, historical and innovative partnership with the Government of Israel, thousands of individual donors and private philanthropists, and Jewish communities around the world through Jewish Federations of North America, Keren Hayesod and the Jewish Agency of Israel. Visit taglitfellows.com and follow #TaglitFellows for more information.

Source: “Taglit Fellows Now Accepting Applications for Cohort 3,” Jewish Scene Magazine, April 16, 2015

My First Pesach at the Jim Joseph Foundation: Reflections from a Program Associate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creating 21st Century Jewish Experiences: A Look Back at the 2015 Council of American Jewish Museums Annual Conference

From March 8 – 10, 2015, The Contemporary Jewish Museum (The CJM) was delighted to host the 2015 Council of American Jewish Museums (CAJM) Annual Conference. Over 250 delegates convened at The CJM, as well as the Magnes Collection of Jewish Art and Life at UC Berkeley, for animated discussions revolving around the conference’s theme: “Open Source:  Jewish Museums and Collaborative Culture.” Inspired by the Bay Area’s status as a national symbol and a harbinger of the future, the conference explored how California’s experiments in the social, cultural, political, and economic realms can inform Jewish museum practices.

CAJM participants enjoying a performance by “The Crooked Jades,” and the activated Hardly Strictly Warren Hellman exhibition

Even before the conference began, building community was a focal point. I was so touched by the opportunity, made possible by the generous support of the Jim Joseph Foundation, to host a special dinner at my home for the early-arriving attendees, preceded by a special Havdallah ceremony and architecture tour of San Francisco’s Temple Emanu-El. It was a wonderful way to introduce the CAJM participants to our local Jewish community.

The first day of CAJM included the conference’s plenary session, which I was thrilled to moderate. “The Anticipatory Museum” keynote address explored the question of how Jewish museums must change to anticipate societal transformations—demographic, technological, and cultural. Skyping in from Warsaw was NYU Jewish historian and cultural scholar, Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett. She spoke about the new POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw, and how it acts as an agent of social change in the country by reconnecting Jews of Polish ancestry with more than 1,000 years of their history in Poland and, in turn, introducing the Polish people as a whole to their country’s and culture’s deep interconnectedness with Jews.

Rabbi Noa Cushner speaking about her spiritual “start-up,” The Kitchen, during the March 8 plenary session

Rabbi Noa Cushner speaking about her spiritual “start-up,” The Kitchen, during the March 8 plenary session

Rabbi Noa Kushner, founder of San Francisco’s The Kitchen, shared her experience creating a spiritual start-up and practicing “irreverent reverence”—the creation of a community where there are no insiders or outsiders and where the primary concern is that Jewish practices be relevant. She encouraged Jewish museums to recognize the diversity of points of view of their visitors and meet them where they are—Jewish, non-Jewish, agnostic, atheistic, believing. Along with this approach she also urged museums to de-emphasize offering opportunities for visitors to consume “Jewish culture” and instead help visitors participate in the act of “doing something Jewish.”

Hillary Moss, lead strategist and researcher for the La Placa/Cohen-New York Times study Culture Track 2014, rounded out the conversation by sharing key findings about millennials and their museum-going habits and desires.  She cited several trends that CAJM attendees would be wise to note, including that younger people don’t feel the same loyalty to cultural institutions as older generations did, and they tend to see the museum-going experience as an intensely social activity to be done (or shared digitally) with friends. Ms. Moss’ call to action was for Jewish museums to recognize this as a transitional moment and boldly experiment with new ways of engaging with younger audiences through social media and social interaction.

CAJM attendees also had the opportunity to explore Ai Weiwei’s @Large exhibition on Alcatraz Island

CAJM attendees also had the opportunity to explore Ai Weiwei’s @Large exhibition on Alcatraz Island

Among other highlights of the conference was the final session on philanthropic trends entitled “Measuring Impact:  New Directions in Philanthropy.” Lucy Bernholz, Visiting Scholar at Stanford’s Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, spoke to the intrinsic need for good measurements of philanthropic impact in the digital age—pointing to not only quantitative metrics, but also to the tremendous value of the qualitative, the affective, and learning outcomes.  Chip Edelsberg, Executive Director of the Jim Joseph Foundation, discussed the acceleration of change in the digital era, and how public measures of philanthropy are in flux.  He also discussed the rise of investment-style philanthropy, where mission alignment between the funder and the fundee is key, and mutually agreed upon outcomes are monitored, reported, and amended as organizations and circumstances evolve.  He stressed trust as a critical pre-requisite for a healthy relationship between funders and fundees, along with a shared commitment to success, and open and ongoing communication.

Stephen Smith and Michael Abramowitz, presenters during the March 10 session, “The Future of Holocaust Education”

Stephen Smith and Michael Abramowitz, presenters during the March 10 session, “The Future of Holocaust Education”

In hosting CAJM’s 2015 Annual Conference, The CJM was intentional about grounding the conference in the daily activities of The Museum. Most conferences take place in hotels or conference centers, but this one took place when The CJM was at the height of its public programming.  In addition to hearing from thought-leaders and engaging with colleagues, CAJM attendees could explore multiple exhibitions, attend gallery tours, view the new Lamp of the Covenant installation in The CJM’s Koret Taube Grand Lobby, attend education programs for preschool students and their families, and hear a live performance by local artists “The Crooked Jades.” In doing so, CAJM participants were immersed in the real work of The CJM—giving them a first-hand look at how The Museum is advancing our mission to make the diversity of the Jewish experience relevant for a 21st century audience.

Lori Starr is the Executive Director of The Contemporary Jewish Museum, San Francisco. She previously served as Executive Director of the Koffler Centre of the Arts, Toronto, and as Senior Vice President and Museum Director of the Skirball Cultural Center in Los Angeles.

A Behind-the-Scenes Look at an Evaluators’ Consortium

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Bridge Leading Somewhere

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

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

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

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

For Grantees and Potential Grantees:

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

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

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

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

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

For Funders:

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

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

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

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

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