Hoffman explained how to focus on outreach planning for your online video at NTEN’s 2009 Nonprofit Technology Conference:

• Research your audience. Decide what audience the video needs to speak to, whether it’s donors, activists, a certain community or the general public. A video’s theme and message will be different depending on whom you intend on reaching.
• Define your message. Think about what language you need to use - will the video be informational or emotional, or try to do both? Craft what kind of message you will prepare for the media with releases. Make sure your call to action fits in with the message. For example, don’t make your message about blocking legislation and then ask for a $10 donation.
• Prepare outreach. This outreach planning will not happen by magic or crossing your fingers. To make a strategic campaign, outline how much staff time should be dedicated and who is responsible for outreach. Develop creative material that will continue the brand message cohesively.

courtesy The NonProfit Times

Bookmark:

I always get a kick out of that one. My sister’s preferred variation is “interrupting starfish,” which ends with an open palm smooshed into one’s face.

In his June 29th post “Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow: Key Questions on Jewish Innovation, Interruption, and Sustainability,” Seth Cohen raises the question:

“how do we ensure that…Jewish innovation isn’t interrupted?”

But I wonder - what founder of an innovative nonprofit hasn’t looked up from her desk and been stopped in her tracks by an interruption, hand smooshed into face and all?

Innovation, as defined by Felicia Herman, the Executive Director of the Natan Fund, in her recent article “Funding Innovation,” means “identifying a gap or hole in the system that no one had noticed before,” and creating something new to address that need.

Innovation often stems from an “Aha” moment, defined by psychologist John Kounios and cited in William Safire’s latest New York Times magazine piece On Language: “An‘aha’ moment is any sudden comprehension that allows you to see something in a different light.” This type of comprehension, and the ensuing process of doing something about it, must, to some extent, grapple with interruptions - tensions, challenges, and failures. As Neil Simon says, quoted Safire’s article, the “aha! can be the first part of an incompleted sneeze.” Try explaining that one to a funder.

Amongst the questions we need to ask in the sector of Jewish social entrepreneurship is: how do we foster innovative Jewish programs and organizations that are elastic and flexible enough to withstand the inevitable interruptions and make a lasting impact on the Jewish world?

One tool that can help us navigate and withstand interruptions is the capacity to “hold steady.” Marty Linsky and Ronald Heifetz, in an article entitled “Leading with an Open Heart,” explain this concept: “Confronting major change generates a great deal of conflict and resistance. Managing the conflict, dealing with the politics involved, and making people accountable requires an ability to hold steady in the heat of action.”

If you are a funder, what work do you need to do to, as Herman puts it in her Lesson #2 on Funding Innovation, take risks and tolerate failure? If you are the founder of a new Jewish nonprofit, what work do you need to do to avoid chasing the money, and stand strong in your organization’s mission and passion? If you run an established Jewish institution, what work do you need to do to examine whether or not your work is relevant and meaningful, and, holding steady in whatever emerges, begin to explore new pathways. And how can we, as a Jewish community in general, hold steady in the tensions between our denominations, generations, and institutions new and old, to explore what they teach us, and use that data to work towards a shared, sustainable purpose?

These interruptions are part and parcel of the process of innovation, and it is the extent of our ability to hold steady as they rage around us that will determine our success. We must learn to stay in the discomfort long enough to understand what the interruptions - often self imposed! - are teaching us about ourselves and our community.

Cohen implies a dichotomy between interruption and sustainability. He cautions: “we may find that our innovation is interrupted and - for a people concerned with its survival - we need innovation that is sustainable.” I would argue that interruption - an inevitability in innovation - is a contributor to sustainability. Those individuals and organizations who can tolerate interruption, hold steady in it, learn and grow from it, are, in fact, the individuals and organizations that will ultimately succeed.

Maya Bernstein is Director of Education and Leadership Initiatives at UpStart Bay Area, a San Francisco-based nonprofit whose mission is to advance early stage non-profits that offer innovative Jewish engagement opportunities. Maya is an occasional contributor to eJewish Philanthropy.

Bookmark:

Indeed, while communities across the country are rightfully galvanizing to confront the increasing cost of Jewish education at a time of diminished communal wealth, the survey suggests that individual day school boards can play a pivotal role in responding to these challenges.

The more than 60 day school presidents completing the “Survey of the Governance Practices of Jewish Day Schools” represented Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Community day schools from across the country. Their responses revealed a number of key opportunities to reduce the growing affordability gaps:

• Only about one-third of presidents strongly agree that board members give their schools their top personal philanthropic gifts or that they generate financial support for school events.
• Only about one-quarter of presidents feel that board members are actively engaged in identifying and cultivating potential major donors for their institutions.
• Only about 24% of presidents strongly agree that their schools have a comprehensive long range financial plan.
• At the same time, presidents overwhelmingly say that fundraising/advocacy and strategic planning, the two areas in which their boards are underperforming, are the two areas that impact most on overall school performance and affordability.

“Too often we hear calls for cutting core educational components of schools, from teacher salaries to professional development,” said Dr. Scott J. Goldberg, director of the Institute for University-School Partnership. “While schools must find ways to cut spending, this survey suggests that we can help preserve the educational core of the school and maintain school quality by maximizing fundraising and strategic financial planning.”

The study targeted board presidents of Jewish day schools affiliated with four school networks: Orthodox day schools that associate with YU; RAVSAK, which comprises community day schools; Solomon Schechter Day School Association, which is the umbrella for Conservative Jewish day schools; and PARDeS, the umbrella organization for Reform Jewish day schools. About one in four responded. The participating schools are diverse in terms of grades offered, size, age, location and denominational affiliation.

The Institute is finalizing a second report that will explore the relationship between board practices and school demographics and operational performance factors.

Bookmark:

Let’s Bring Innovation Into the Fold

Los Angeles is home to more than 25 startups launched in the past 10 years, part of a growing national wave of Jewish innovation…

The shifting landscape of Los Angeles is a microcosm of the Jewish future. L.A.’s Jewish community is a diffuse, non-hierarchical and self-organizing patchwork of networks and communities, each serving the fluid and porous identities of their constituents. That makes it an ideal laboratory for the Jewish communal paradigm of the 21st century.

Bookmark:

UJC’s Dilemma: When to Lead?

In the 10 years of its existence, UJC has been unable to define a clear mission. At the most basic level, there has been the question of whether UJC should lead community federations or serve them. A UJC that leads is proactive; a UJC that serves is reactive. If the mission is to serve, there is a built-in paradox: The large federations foot most of the bill for the UJC budget, but need very little service; the smaller federations pay a small share of the bill but need more service.

UJC is owned by the federations. But the owners have been ambivalent about what kind of an umbrella organization they want. Most seem to want a weak central body. At the same time, paradoxically, they want visible results that can come only if they voluntarily give up some of their power. The owners of UJC need to come to grips with their own ambivalence. If they want UJC to lead, it has to have power; if they want UJC to follow, they can’t complain if it doesn’t lead.

Bookmark:

As a donor or potential supporter, I would really enjoy and appreciate having a chance to ask the CEO a question, hear her/his ideas, and engage in a brief conversation about an issue the organization is addressing. Too many donors don’t ever get a chance to know the people running an organization, how and what they think and why they love their work. By relying primarily on newsletters and emails, CEO’s create a mostly top-down communications channel that delivers what they want to say in the format that they are most comfortable using. It’s okay as far as it goes, but newsletters and emails don’t give the CEO the easy opportunity to hear from their supporters, have a refreshing, live, open-ended conversation and strengthen their relationships with them.

Yes, the CEO does speak directly with the board, some committees and certainly the top donors. But the same engagement can be done with many more people who don’t sit at the leadership tables. The technology makes it so possible to expand the conversation, hear from people who may offer a fresh idea, give a new perspective and maybe increase their gift. I know if I got an invitation to participate in a live conversation with a CEO, I would jump at the chance. I bet lots of others would too.

Have I convinced any of you to give it whirl?

Gail Hyman is a marketing and communications professional, with deep experience in both the public and private sectors. She currently focuses her practice, Gail Hyman Consulting, on assisting Jewish nonprofit organizations increase their ranks of supporters and better leverage their communications in the Web 2.0 environment. Gail is a regular contributor to eJewish Philanthropy.

Bookmark:

The key aspect is cultivating the relationship with the potential donor and present contributor. Soliciting donations is not just about asking for money and this is one of the biggest mistakes organizations make when they are trying to raise funds. Relationship, relationship, relationship…………… it is all about relationships. The connection can be between the donor and a particular staff member, or it might be the Director or one of the administrative staff of an organization. It might be between the donor and line staff member who has a relationship with the donor and/or a family member of a donor. It is quite possible for their to be a unique connection between a board member and the contributor and this is often new donors become involved in organizations; through their relationships with members of the board or committees of the non-profit.

It really does not matter whether the person reaching out to the donor is a volunteer or a staff member of the organization. The critical piece is the person’s ability to engage with the donor and to understand his/her interest in the people served by the organization and the services provided to the clients. In some situations a contributor may not be knowledgeable about the specifics of the agency or the uniqueness of the services provided. It is the role of the person who is reaching out to establish the relationship to do some background research about who the contributor and his/her family.

When it is the board member or volunteer who is developing the connection to the potential donor then it is appropriate for the professional staff of the organization to assist in developing background information. This does not refer to a “secret document” providing all there is know about the person, but rather having a sense of their professional and volunteer interests, the kinds of organizations the person is interested in, and who on the board has had a some experience with them professionally or in other non-profit organizations.

The purpose of knowing this kind of information is so that there is some understanding of the person’s interests, involvements, and passions; in other words, what kinds of things they care about. Once this is known it becomes easier to have a conversation with them and to find a common denominator linking the donor’s interests with your non-profit organization. It does not mean there has to be a 100% overlap and often the work of the agency representative is to interest the donor in the organization based on their past experience with other organizations.

Of course it is always better to build on positive experiences and to draw the parallels based on what have done in the past and what they are involved with today. However, at times it is advantageous to discuss negative experiences the person may have had with voluntary organizations and to let them know the experience will not be repeated with your organization. A person’s experiences are often the way to understand their perspective and to build on this as you try and develop a foundation for a new relationship with your agency.

During the initial phase of engaging a potential donor or new donor, it is advisable to see if they would be interested in visiting the organization. Nothing speaks louder than seeing organizations and as they are providing services to their clients. It is when they are able to see the services on the ground that they will be able to better identify with the goals and purposes of the agency and its programs. When participating in a site visit of the programs it is the staff responsible for the program that may be the primary person to foster the possible connection between the donor and the services provided by the organization. In this situation each and every staff person and board person plays a key role in talking with the visitor and trying to create a bond between their interest and the activities they are seeing.

Once the visitor begins to identify with the clients, the services, and the assistance being provided then the focus of the discussion should be on how they would like to be involved with the organization. For some people it might be serving on a committee of the board or working as a volunteer in a suitable position. When the discussion begins to turn toward what they would like to do for the agency, then it is appropriate to present a number of options in addition to volunteering their time at which time, the issue of financial support can be discussed.

The idea of strengthening the connection between the potential contributor and the organization does not take hold during a first meeting or a first visit to the programs of the agency. Often it may be a process of several meetings or the result of a series of meetings and discussions. It is most important to be patient, to listen to what the donor’s interests really are and to form a connection between the donor’s interests, the agency’s priorities, and the programs being implemented.

This is all part of the donor cultivation process and the fruits of your efforts will be far better than trying to sell the agency’s product without understanding where the donor wants to make his contribution.

Stephen G. Donshik, D.S.W., is a lecturer at Hebrew University’s International Leadership and Philanthropy Program and has a consulting firm focused on strengthening non-profit organizations and their leadership for tomorrow. Stephen is a regular contributor to eJewish Philanthropy.

Bookmark:

First, there’s the question of generations. As a practical matter, Jewish innovation is understood by a number of funders to mean the work of people under 40. Of course imagination and originality are not limited to any age group. So if the goal for the Jewish community were simply to come up with novel, paradigm-shifting solutions to our community’s problems, funders would be equally interested in innovative solutions across the board. When the support of innovation is limited to Jews in their twenties and thirties, it points to a different end: promoting involvement in Jewish activities among a population that otherwise might be lost to Jewish communal life. That’s a laudable goal, but it is different from promoting new projects per se.

Second, innovation, like “change,” often conveys an anti-establishment subtext. Yonatan Gordis, in his superb article “On the Value and Values of Jewish Social Entrepreneurship,” situates the start of the current movement in the anti-establishment Sixties: “the Jewish social entrepreneurship of our age had its first roots in the waves of social change that began to affect almost every sector of American society in the 1960s and 1970s,” he writes. The anti-establishment understanding of innovation carries with it the implication that our institutions have failed us, and that the best hope for the future lies outside the establishment.

A corollary of that view is the notion that the establishment is ultimately incapable of innovation, which leaves the task to people who are not part of the system. Yet Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security, Nixon ended the U.S. isolation from mainland China, and Gorbachev instituted perestroika. What’s more, many social problems - such as human services, education, and public safety - can be solved only on the scale of large, established institutions, a fact that is correspondingly true in Jewish life. And as Yonatan Gordis writes, “innovation can and must be a mainstay of any existing organization that seeks to maintain its relevance to its product and its constituency.”

Third, it’s easy to romanticize the brilliance of the lone genius, but that’s a nineteenth-century conceit that is now far out of date. Though we may credit Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Sergei Brin and Mark Zuckerberg with startups that ushered in the computer/Internet revolution, the Internet would not exist without its predecessor the ARPA Net, created by government and universities 40 years ago. And personal computers would not have become ubiquitous if IBM had not first brought data processing to businesses on a large scale in the 1950s. In other words, a true innovation ecosystem requires not just startups and their funders, but also a developed and hospitable infrastructure to work within.

Fourth, innovation is not a steady process; it has distinct stages. The challenges of a startup are different from those facing a five-year-old nonprofit that is ready to raise money for institutional support, as distinct from program funding. Far more attention has been given thus far to incubating new Jewish projects than to helping successful startups secure their future as viable institutions. Building a successful program into a self-sustaining organization may not be as exciting as working with startups but it is crucial to the health of the ecosystem.

Fifth, there is sometimes a tendency for advocates of innovation to cast the issue in terms of an argument in favor of innovation per se, as if it’s a matter of being for or against it. Of course it’s really an issue of priorities, not pro or con. In any case, blaming the target audience - in this case, some philanthropists - for tepid enthusiasm for innovation is not helpful to anybody. If the case for innovation has not been as successful with potential supporters as advocates would like, it may be because the abstract value of innovation is not a sufficient or persuasive argument.

So what do we do? Here are four recommendations:

• Separate the issue of innovation from young-adult participation and make strong cases for each. It only blurs and diffuses the message when the two are tacitly linked.
• Cite examples and demonstrate the tangible, measurable, positive changes in the Jewish community as a result of innovative projects, as one would in any fund-raising case statement. Generic appeals on behalf of the virtues of innovation are a poor substitute.
• Don’t pit innovators against the establishment, and actively build active partnerships between them They need each other. It’s a classic win-win solution.
• Support a combination of training and consulting for successful startups in their fourth or fifth year of operation, to give them the tools to fund-raise for institutional stability and sustainability.

The “ecosystem” for innovation in the Jewish world is far from complete. Social entrepreneurship has become an important sector in Jewish life, but it mostly operates in small ecological niches. In order for it to thrive there needs to be a broadly favorable climate that supports its growth, as well as interdependence across the sectors of the ecosystem. Innovation can’t grow if it sets itself in opposition to the prevailing ecology. It needs to be integrated within that larger ecology, in theory and practice, and that begins with its proponents.

Bob Goldfarb is the president of the Center for Jewish Culture and Creativity, vice-president of Zeek Media, and an occasional contributor to eJewishPhilanthropy. Bob lives in Jerusalem.

Bookmark:

18 Under 18: The List is In

JVibe’s first-ever “18 Under 18” awards were years in the making; the responsibility of choosing these remarkable teens wasn’t taken lightly. We received nominations from March through May from all over North America, and the competition was fierce. Since we’ve never run an awards program before, we didn’t know what to expect. We were floored by the creative and inspiring accomplishments of the young adults who were nominated. From philanthropy to theater to helping the disadvantaged to music, we found the nominees’ talents not only varied but also deeply passionate.

The hardest part of the whole process for us was choosing only 18 teens; every teen nominated was truly inspirational. The winners, listed in alphabetical order, represent those who we felt were most extraordinary in their dedication to a cause or pursuit reflecting Jewish values and an inspiration to other teens. We hope they serve as role models for everyone, and we look forward to seeing the ways in which they make positive change in years to come. At long last, here’s our list.

Bookmark:

A Divorce in the Birthright Family

He noted that Birthright had prohibited him from using the phrase “raise your children Jewish” or encouraging aliyah to Israel. And he said he could no longer promise his free Israel honeymoon gift to brides and grooms who had met during their Oranim Birthright trips.

from The Harvard Crimson:

Accountant Accused of Stealing Nearly $780,000 from Harvard Hillel

Harvard Hillel was the victim of an alleged fraud scheme that, according to a statement issued Monday by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, robbed the Jewish student organization of nearly $780,000 between 2003 and 2008.

an editorial from the New York Jewish Week:

Taking The Helm At UJC

It’s no secret that the United Jewish Communities (UJC), the umbrella organization of the North American Jewish federation system, has been viewed as a sinking ship for some time now, plagued by a shrinking budget, low morale after large-scale staff reductions and a persistent concern among many professionals and lay leaders in the community that a decade after its creation, the organization still lacks a clearly defined mission.

Bookmark: