by Aaron Strauss

In their guide “How to Mobilize Young Voters,” Rock the Vote (a nonprofit that engages and builds the political power of young people) states, “Young adults are more likely than older adults to identify as independent, a commonsense [sic] situation for a group of voters new to politics.” Young Jews, though, seem to have seen enough of politics to know where to stand: In 2008, 62 percent of Jewish voters under the age of 35 identified with the Democratic Party; 22 percent eschewed a major party label; and 16 percent identified with Republicans. This breakdown is virtually identical to the Jewish electorate as a whole: 61 percent Democratic; 22 percent independent; and 17 percent Republican.

How will the Jewish vote – especially among young people – trend in the future?

Young American Jews (under 35 years old) are pulled in two different directions – not individually, but as a group. On the one hand, demographically, there are more young Orthodox Jews, most likely because their parents have children in greater numbers. Orthodox Jews are much more likely than other Jews to identify as conservative and vote for Republicans.

On the other hand, like younger voters of all religious backgrounds, young Jews tend to be more liberal than their parents or grandparents. These two tendencies – the fact that Orthodox voters (whose proportion grows faster than non-Orthodox) lean conservative and the fact that younger voters tend to be more liberal than their parents – balance the scorecard.

By aggregating publically available data from organizations(1) that conducted independent polling during the 2008 election, it is possible – with some margin of error(2) – to quantify these trends.

Here is what we know: Among young Jewish voters, those who self-identify as Orthodox (14 percent) and attend synagogue more than weekly (10 percent) are about double the analogous proportions for the Jewish electorate as a whole. (About 7 percent of all Jewish voters are Orthodox and about 5 percent attend synagogue more than weekly.) The American Jewish Committee confirms this two-to-one ratio in their latest survey, which includes nonvoters as well as voters.

Despite this sizable number of Orthodox individuals within the newest generation of Jewish voters, younger Jews are more liberal than their parents. A majority of younger Jews (57 percent) identify as liberal. This proportion dwarfs the much lower proportions of self-identified moderates (29 percent) and conservatives (13 percent). Among Jews of all ages, the difference between the percentages that identify as liberal vs. moderate is much less stark (47 percent to 36 percent), though self-identified conservatives are still a distinct minority (18 percent).

This tension between demography and ideology evens out when it comes to voting and party affiliation. Though the lack of data does not allow for precise analysis, the increasing number of young Orthodox Jews – who are more apt to be conservative – drives the aggregate young Jewish vote to the right with approximately the same force that increased liberalism among young people drives the vote to the left. Thus, the newest cohort of Jews appears to be as firmly a base for the Democratic Party as previous generations.

During September and October of 2008, of all Jewish voters who had picked one of the two major party candidates, 75 percent preferred Barack Obama over John McCain. This proportion was nearly exactly the same for younger Jewish voters (74 percent).

The enthusiasm for the 2008 Democratic nominee spread down the ballot as well. In the congressional races that year, a post-election survey indicates that Democrats running for Congress garnered about 78 percent of the two-party vote. This percentage is higher than the analogous number for the entire Jewish electorate (72 percent), demonstrating a strong commitment by young Jews to a variety of Democratic candidates.

Like the rest of the country in 2008, a large majority (61 percent) of young Jews thought the economy was the most important issue. One issue on which young Jews stood out is on Iraq – a higher percentage (7 percent) felt the war was the most pressing problem than did Jews of all ages (3 percent). But young Jews are hardly hawks on this issue – a super-majority thought the war was either a mistake from the beginning (48 percent) or too costly (14 percent).

The nonprofit Rock the Vote also comments, “Several studies and electoral history show that partisanship develops in early adulthood.” Thus, one may surmise that Jews, who reveal their political preferences at a younger age, are likely to remain Democrats. Young Jews have undoubtedly soured toward Obama since his inauguration, as have all demographic groups. The Gallup Poll has tracked Jewish approval toward Obama throughout his presidency and his approval among Jews has declined proportionately with the rest of the country. Nothing in the 2008 surveys, or the data since, suggests that Jewish voters (or younger Jewish voters) will swing more or less than other groups. Further, nothing suggests that Obama’s stances on Israel have disproportionately affected the Jewish vote. The data does suggest that a larger proportion of Jewish voters – young or old – are apt to support Democratic candidates and their issues.

To borrow from my fellow pollster Jim Gerstein, Obama’s problem with young Jews is the same as his problem with Jewish voters of any age: “There aren’t more of them.”

(1) The Pew Research Center, the National Annenberg Election Survey, and the Cooperative Congressional Election Study

(2) Combined, these surveys include 204 Jews under the age of 35, which translates to a margin of error of 6.9 percent.

Aaron Strauss is a senior analyst at the Mellman Group, a public opinion research firm that works with Democrats and progressive organizations. The magazine Campaign & Elections named him a 2011 Rising Star.

This article is reprinted with permission from the journal Sh’ma, January 2012, as part of a larger conversation on the Jewish electorate.

from BostonHerald.com:

Boston’s Jewish institutions on alert

A security alert warning of possible extremist attacks on “soft targets” amid increased tensions between Israel and Iran has Boston police as well as the city’s Israeli consulate on high alert.

… Boston police said they were aware of the possible threat posed to the Back Bay offices of the Israeli government and were responding with extra patrols to that and other prominent Jewish locations in the city.

“In light of increased tensions in the Middle East, Boston Police are adding directed patrols and premise checks,” Boston Police spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll said in a statement. “There is no specific threat locally, but we do maintain close contact and constant communication with the Department of Homeland Security and our other federal partners.”

Bringing Taglit Birthright Israel to Smaller Communities

by Evan Levitt

When I was growing up in the suburbs of Baltimore, my parents had picture of a bicycle and a motorcycle on a wall in our basement. The caption read “You can tell the men from the boys, by the price of their toys.” I was always attracted to this picture, most likely because it was hanging near the table where I completed my homework assignments.

Twenty years later, I found myself talking to a Major Donor and Board member from the Monmouth County Jewish community. He and I were sharing stories about my recent experience leading a Taglit Birthright Israel trip, and his grandson’s experience on a Taglit Birthright Israel trip. And then he pops the question, which sounded something like this … “I know that large metropolitan areas offer community trips through local Federation’s, can we do the same in Monmouth County?” A pretty pricey toy … so we thought.

Still caught up in the passion of our conversation I said “Sure, why not?” A short time later, the Major Donor, Alan, announced to the Board of Directors that he plans on seeing this through and makes the first official pledge to the project. Another Major Donor and board member, Lauren, joined him as co-chair and a few others followed with their own pledges. Lauren has three children, all Birthright Israel alumni, and had been working on plans to engage families. We were sitting in Monmouth County, NJ, a community of 70,000 Jews which like many other communities struggles to figure out how to be relevant, how to engage new leaders, and how to raise additional funds to meet the growing needs in the community. And now on top of everything we are going to be like communities three times our size, and raise money on top of the declining annual campaign to sponsor buses to send young adults who may or may not exist to Israel for ten days?

Trading in the Ten-Speed for a Harley

Well there was no turning back, and how could we possibly afford such a pricey toy in Monmouth County? We determined that there was in fact a significant need in the community. More than 500 young adults were wait-listed during the prior season, and some members of our board had children and relatives who fit in the age bracket and had never been to Israel. In fact, some young adults were about to age out and miss their opportunity to participate. In about six months we raised the funds for our first trip and took advantage of a dollar for dollars match from the Taglit Birthright Israel Foundation. I went along with Alan to meet with people who had already made annual campaign pledges to ask them to support this project. Some people pledged a few more dollars, some matched their campaign gifts. We even incorporated the ask into our Super Sunday pitch. Alan would ask people to increase their gift by 10% to the annual campaign, and when they insisted on keeping their annual gift flat, he would tell them about “the project” and they would give $1,000! Alan likes to say “it’s amazing, nobody ever tells me no.”

Recruitment was a bit of a challenge, and we learned some lessons about promoting, but raising the funds was a primary concern the first year. In January of 2011, and June of 2011, we partnered with Metrowest and sent two groups of twenty young adults to Israel. Selfishly, I wanted to lead the trip. For a Jewish communal professional, no experience can top taking a group of young adults to the Western Wall for the first time or helping a 26 year old prepare for a Bar or Bat Mitzvah.

Enter Moses

Around the time we were determining staff options for the trip (each trip includes two American staff) one of my colleagues suggested I set up a meeting with a young business owner, last name Moses of all last names. Moses was 28 at the time and he told me about his own Jewish journey which started when he was 23 as a participant on Taglit Birthright Israel. It changed his life. He is also involved with Jewish boy scouts and is an amazing leader. After a short meeting I asked Moses to lead our trip. I knew that while the experience may have changed his life, the experience of leading a group to Israel would complete his Jewish journey. Today, Moses has been the leader on two of three Monmouth community trips (our second trip was during his wedding) and he is now the co-chair of Monmouth County’s budding Young Leadership program. Moses’ most recent trip was a full bus for forty young adults from Monmouth County.

How Did Monmouth County Benefit?

Engaging Donors

I engaged two Major Donors to lead this initiative. Alan raised the money and Lauren supported our programs which promoted our trips and engaged parents of participants. It is critical that Jewish Federation’s identify meaningful ways to engage major donors. Every community has grandparents and parents like Alan and Lauren.

In less than two years we raised over $120,000 in supplemental dollars. Donors were required to sustain their giving to the annual campaign prior to supporting the project. Alan and Lauren inspired our donors to give more and support the Jewish Federation in a dynamic way, and the Federation was able to provide a return on their investment. Some donors donated $18, some donated $500, some donated $1,000 and some gave an additional $6,000. The bottom line is we demonstrated that donors feel good about giving more, and that is important.

The Parents and the Participants

In less than two years the Jewish Federation impacted the lives of 80 young adults and their parents. While some of the parents were already involved with the Jewish community, the majority had never heard of the Jewish Federation. The Jewish Federation is acquiring new donors and will be developing creative ways to engage the parents including inviting them on a community trip to Israel. The families and participants will always be linked to the Jewish Federation.

Events and Programs

Under Lauren’s leadership we developed creative programs to introduce people of all ages to the Jewish Federation and Taglit Birthright Israel at the same time. These included community wide events and orientations for all Monmouth County residents and their parents experience Taglit Birthright Israel … over 200 families per year.

Young Leadership

Like many suburban communities engaging young leadership can be a challenge. Many young adults travel to metropolitan communities for work, and many move permanently to surrounding cities. This initiative has provided a portal for young adults to connect to the Jewish Federation. The community is also able to position itself to engage these young adults and develop lasting relationships with them, especially by selecting young leaders to lead the trips. The big challenge; however, is to demonstrate that many of these young adults are living Jewishly and participating in the Jewish community.

The Most Critical Way that a Jewish Federation Can Benefit

eJP recently published an article by Joel Frankel which generated a substantive dialogue about a number of issues. I applaud Joel for his efforts to assist Birthright Israel alumni to continue their journey. Too often these experiences end at the departure gate of Ben Gurion International; however, the paradigm is not unique to Taglit Birthright Israel. Let’s face it … our Jewish Federation system is not the greatest when it comes to engaging new people, especially people who are between the ages of 22 and 30. But there is hope … In response to Joel’s article, Mike Meyerheim opined from Israel “ … we need not bury the Federations, synagogues, Hebrew schools and call them useless or view them as historic relics, rather take a look at how we need to move them forward into today’s society and needs and make them useful for the present Jewish communities.”

Well I promise you this, and I think this is especially true for small and intermediate communities, if we start offering these opportunities, we will have the opportunity to capitalize on them. My colleague Keith Krivitzky likes to say “If you offer a compelling Jewish option, people will exercise that option.” Over the course of one year … 80 young adults (and families) from Monmouth County have exercised the option. I believe this is an option that then can help move our Federation system forward. When you bring a pricey toy (which is manageable for small and intermediate communities) to your community, and you identify leaders like Moses your Jewish Federation will need to move forward and we will need to develop creative ways to engage these young adults.

Evan Levitt is a graduate of Quinnipiac University and Gratz College where he earned a B.A. in Sociology and an M.A. in Jewish Communal Service. Evan has worked on behalf of the Jewish Federations in New Jersey and Philadelphia as a Senior Major Gifts Officer and FRD Director, along with Jewish National Fund. He looks forward to consulting with other communities that are interested in developing Taglit Birthright Israel initiatives like in Monmouth County. evan.m.levitt@gmail.com

by Isaac Yerushalmi and Tzvi Raviv

About one hundred years ago, the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto realized that 80% of Italy’s wealth was owned by 20% of the population. Now known as Pareto’s principle, this concept is universal in nature. For example, in a supermarket, roughly 20% of customers will generate 80% of the income. Building on this principle, is it possible that 20% of the campuses in North America inspire 80% of anti-Israel activity?

If we look at patterns of anti-Israel activism, the same campuses appear over and over again. Two campuses from California, two campuses from the northeast area, and two Canadian schools. The pro-Israel network tries to respond to all the anti-Israel activities across the continent, but in reality, only a handful of schools actually serve as hubs for anti-Israel activism, while the rest of the schools simply follow their lead. Therefore, 10% of the schools inspire 90% of the anti-Israel activity. While nodes of the anti-Israel network are not actively innovating and spearheading anti-Israel initiatives, the hubs of the network are generating initiatives that are subsequently used by the 90%.

The University of California, Irvine (UCI) is an example of one major campus-hub for anti-Israel activity. For many years, anti-Israel activists at UCI were innovators and pioneers in the delegitimization network. They were amongst the first campus activists to use the apartheid and holocaust analogies. Their tactics quickly spread to other campuses. Noteworthy was their systematic disruptions of Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren during his visit to UCI in February 2010. Thousands of anti-Israel campus activists around the world rallied together in Facebook groups in solidarity with the UCI activists, many declaring that they would replicate the same strategy on their campus if any Israeli were ever to visit.

What does this mean for the pro-Israel network? We have a limited pool of resources to combat anti-Israel activities on North American campuses. These resources tend to be disbursed in a fairly equal way throughout approximately fifty campuses. In this equal resource allocation system, the pro-Israel activists on hub campuses get equal resources and attention as pro-Israel activists on other, less influential campuses. As a community, we can learn from Pareto. If we want to undermine and paralyze the anti-Israel network, we must focus our resources disproportionately on the campus-hubs for anti-Israel activity.

Rutgers Hillel adopted an on-campus Israel activism approach that takes into account Pareto’s principle. Over the years, Rutgers has become a hotbed for anti-Israel activity. At the same time, an estimated ½ of New Jersey’s Jewish student population attends Rutgers University. The influence of anti-Israel programs coupled with the centrality of Rutgers University makes Rutgers Hillel a natural place for the pro-Israel community to invest. This summer, Rutgers Hillel launched a Center for Israel Engagement (RHCIE), their newest initiative to promote Israel on campus. Currently, Rutgers Hillel is the only Hillel in the county with two full time staff members devoted exclusively to promoting Israel on campus. The establishment of RHCIE required a disproportionate allocation of resources, and was done so with Pareto’s principle in mind. If pro-Israel activists at Rutgers can neutralize degelegitimization activity on their campus, it will have a rippling effect.

Theoretically, for every dollar invested in combating delegitimization on hub campuses, we will get a significantly higher return on investment than we would investing that dollar on a non-hub campus. Does this mean we should neglect non-hub campuses? Absolutely not. But the time has certainly come to reassess strategically where our money will be best spent.

Tzvi Raviv is the Director of Rutgers Hillel Center for Israel Engagement
Isaac Yerushalmi is Rose project program Manager and Jewish Federations and Family services Orange County, CA

All nonprofit organizations are concerned with developing their financial resources and raising funds for their ongoing budget, capital projects and endowment funds, among other purposes. It is not unusual for there to be a difference of opinion among the members of the board as to what comes first: Does an organization plan for its future once there is a sense of financial security or does it achieve financial sustainability only after utilizing a strategic planning process?

This question is asked by both chief executive officers and volunteer leaders. Quite frequently, one or more people involved in a nonprofit organization will balk at spending the time, effort and funds on a planning process when they have to stretch to complete the month in the black. Their reasoning is that they cannot afford the time or money to figuring out where the organization “should be” when they are not even sure whether they will continue to exist in a few months.

Having said this, I would maintain that agencies cannot afford to wait until there is a more secure fiscal situation to initiate a process that involves the board, staff, stakeholders and others to determine their financial planning. The main reason for this approach is the fact that nonprofits’ financial sustainability cannot be separated from the agency’s purpose, its services and where it wants to be in the next three to five to seven years. It is not merely a matter of having a “plan” written down and having articulated a particular direction for the organization’s development, but rather it is more related to the impact of the planning process on these key players.

It is true that the board of directors is accountable for the fiscal management of the nonprofit and it cannot afford to ignore the difficulties they face in balancing the budget and knowing where the funds will come from to support next month’s program. At the same time, if the perspective is limited to only what needs to be done to finish the month in the black, then the organization may never achieve that preferred position where the daily overdraft is not worrying everyone. Of course, the staff and the board need to be fiscally responsible, but they also need to maintain both a perspective on the day-to-day while keeping an eye on the not too distant future.

One of the most important contributions a strategic planning process offers the nonprofit organization is its comprehensive approach to dealing with the organization’s present situation and future direction. No one person can sit down, produce a strategic plan and have it unanimously accepted by the board and implemented by the staff. What is really most important is the planning process itself?

A well developed and implemented strategic planning process will involve all of the major players. They will work together to review the organization’s purpose and function, its values and practices, its management structure and its human resources, as well as its approach to responsible fiscal management and financial planning. Part and parcel of this approach is to analyze and develop an approach to financial resource development that will ensure the organization’s sustainability.

When the organization’s key players are involved and committed to this process the efforts to secure additional and solid sources of support will reflect the purposes and goals of the organization. An approach that seeks to solicit those “big donors” who will donate huge amounts of money and rescue the agency from its present financial situation is not only a “dream,” it is also fiscally irresponsible. In today’s environment, an integrated approach that provides the board and the staff with the opportunity to revisit the organization and its standing in the community has the potential to strengthen the organization’s foundation including its ability to develop its financial resources.

The added value of this process is the opportunity to invite and involve people who can provide leadership to the organization. The strength of voluntary organizations is found in the way its committed leadership invests in securing the future of the organization. This is achieved both through their participating in meetings and providing guidance and advice as the agency’s policies are developed, as well as working to secure sources of financial support for the organization’s services and programs.

Even when the miracle does happen and the unexpected large gift appears out of the blue this may only relieve the overbearing financial burden that is felt by the organization for the present time. Essentially, it means that the senior staff and the volunteer leadership will breathe easier for a short period of time; however, it does not alter the agency’s quest for financial sustainability and fiscal security. Building a secure base through an integrated strategic planning process is the way to ensure the agency will not only maintain its present function but will also continue providing the community with needed and valued services.

Stephen G. Donshik, D.S.W., is a lecturer at Hebrew University’s International Nonprofit Management and Leadership 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.

In a breaking news story, The Forward is reporting that allegations of mishandling funds have been raised against Hadassah president Marcie Natan and immediate past president Nancy Falchuk:

“The allegations came in a letter sent to the organization’s board members on January 12 by Larry Blum, Hadassah’s top staff member. Blum was placed on administrative leave in November amidst separate charges relating to his alleged misuse of his corporate credit card. He declined comment.

… Blum alleged that Natan, who was elected as Hadassah’s national president in July, used Hadassah funds to buy favors for members who supported her candidacy for national president. Those favors allegedly included flight upgrades to business class and the unnecessary extension of trips to Israel made on Hadassah business.

Blum charged that Falchuk, who served as Hadassah’s national president from 2007 to 2011, moved furniture and fixtures valued between $10,000 and $20,000 from a Hadassah-owned apartment to her own home without the approval of the organization’s leadership.

Blum also accused Falchuk of charging thousands of dollars in wine, entertainment, and personal trips to Florida to Hadassah’s credit card.”

Read more on The Forward.

by Seth Cohen

Watching the unfolding events related to the Susan B. Komen for the Cure’s decision (and subsequent reversal) to stop funding Planned Parenthood, one couldn’t help but realize that we were watching our own revolution of the masses.

Unlike Tahrir Square and the Occupy movement, however, this latest chapter in our era of mass mobilization never really moved from cyberspace to the streets. It didn’t have to. As the nation of pink ribbons turned into a sea of red faces, Komen realized the rebellion in its midst and decided to change course.

There is no question that there are many lessons to be learned from Komen’s unplanned Planned Parenthood experience. Politics aside, even while assessing all of the steps and missteps Komen has made (and, we hope, continues to learn from), the Pink Ribbon Rebellion demonstrated one thing Komen actually did right: it built a social network of activists bound together by a collective identity built on education, empowerment and interconnectedness. And this network, as we saw, doesn’t need Komen at its center – it is quite capable of taking on a life all its own.

Indeed, the Pink Ribbon Rebellion’s unique facts and storyline shed deep insight on the power of pink and the network of individuals who wear it. Herewith, I offer four key lessons we can derive from network deployment in the Pink Ribbon Rebellion and what its recent success teaches us about network-building for the future.

1. Network success requires knowledge and empowerment. In his seminal book Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, social network expert Clay Shirky writes:“Information sharing produces shared awareness among the participants, and collaborative production relies on shared creation, but collective action creates shared responsibility, by tying the user’s identity to the identity of the group.”In many ways, the Pink Ribbon Rebellion reflects Shirky’s observation almost perfectly. On one hand, pink ribbon activists have a substantial amount of shared awareness about the fight against breast cancer and the importance of early assessment and prevention. On the other hand, by participating in the Susan B. Komen Races for the Cure, the associated fundraising and planning activities that are involved in the races, activists are also deeply familiar with collaborative production and collective responsibility.Combining the two in a network where a deeply personal tapestry of stories are inextricably bound up in the narrative of the whole, and you get a pink-ribbon nation well resourced to collaboratively respond to a decision with which it also had enough knowledge to disagree. In essence, a perfect combination for a perfect storm of protest.
2. Creating a network doesn’t mean you own the network. Komen has long been known for its careful cultivation, deployment and protection of its brand. It’s not every organization, after all, that has NFL players dressed in pink. But while Komen is often able to exercise control over how the pink ribbon is licensed, it does not have the same ability to control the passion and participation of the people that wear the pink ribbon. It is exactly the empowerment of that group that makes them so unpredictable. So while networks can be animated intentionally by carefully scripting campaigns, they can also be enflamed unintentionally. In fact, rather than Komen owning the pink-ribbon nation, in the mind of the activists, the opposite is true: the pink-ribbon nation feels a deep sense of collective ownership over the policies and decisions of Komen. This sense of ownership is, in no small measure, the purest catalyst of the Pink Ribbon Rebellion. The network stood up to say, “This decision does not represent me.”
3. Individuals spanning multiple networks can serve as powerful network-weavers. Even though it was Komen’s policy change that inspired the strong reaction by the pink-ribbon nation, it wasn’t Komen that initially lit the spark that spread the wildfire. It was Planned Parenthood. In fact, all Planned Parenthood had to do was simply send out a few emails, and its network of supporters took it from there. Komen Did What?! Komen Can Kiss My Mammogram! read just some of the headlines and petitions.But the conversations didn’t stay within the Planned Parenthood network for long. Boundary-spanning activists – or those who crossover activist bases of both Planned Parenthood and Komen – played a significant role in cross-pollinating information across various networks, many of which included Komen supporters. Using Twitter, Facebook and good old-fashioned email, they stitched together a patchwork network of activists with common interests but different circles of friends and inspired them to act. The crescendo (or perhaps the dénouement) of this network-weaving narrative was on the night of the Super Bowl, when individuals across both social networks used the twitter hashtag #TakeBackThePink, coupled with the Komen-marketed #SuperCure hashtag, as well as other Super Bowl-related tags, weaving the message into broader social networks. (For more, check out, takebackthepink.wikispaces.com).
4. Networks don’t just “Like;” they can “Dislike” too. As noted above, one of the biggest stories related to the success of the revolt of the pink ribbon nation is its powerful use of social media to express its displeasure at the Komen decision. In many ways, the use of social media by the pink-ribbon nation is nothing new – with over 540,000 “likes” on its Facebook page (as opposed to the approximately 235,000 “likes” for Planned Parenthood), and thousands of active tweeters, Komen has long harnessed the power of social media to advance its message.Nevertheless, the same medium that can create legions of support also can be a powerful transmitter of criticism. Which is what makes the social media usage in the Pink Ribbon Rebellion so interesting; it was more than a reaction, it was a reversal. For many of the online evangelists of Komen, this was an essential redirection; they had long been leveraging their social capital individually and collectively on behalf of Komen and, accordingly, their feeling of betrayal instigated a personal imperative to exercise their social capital in a critical manner as well. So, in many ways, the social media storm was not just about the credibility of Komen, but the credibility of the network as well, and the challenge to that credibility was something the pink-ribbon nation definitely did not like.

As we continue to experience an era of social change inspired by the masses, the Pink Ribbon Rebellion is another case study as to how personal passion, network-thinking and dynamic communication mediums can come together in explosive and unpredictable ways.

The lessons from these case studies may be as fluid as the networks from which they are derived, but they hold valuable insights into how we can empower individuals, instigate change and address what we individually or collectively perceive as wrong. They are an especially powerful reflection on what can happen when a network of individuals feel so intimately tied to the wrong that they believe it to be a reflection on their personal integrity and are thus driven to act. Most of all, they help us understand that the power of a movement is more than the ribbon we wear, but the passion with which we collectively wear it, regardless of its color.

Seth Cohen is the Director of Network Initiatives for the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation and can be found on Twitter at @sethacohen33.

Cross-posted at Working Wikily (Monitor Institute).

by Jeremy J. Fingerman

One of the hottest topics of today’s Jewish communal conversation has been success of experiential learning experiences, and how synagogues, day schools, and others can transform their programs to embrace this trend and be even more effective. On the eve of Tu B’Shevat, Jewish Arbor Day, it is very appropriate to ask what we as a community can learn from this holiday and Jewish camping.

The Gemara in Taanit (23a) teaches that Honi HaMagel was journeying on the road when he saw a man planting a carob tree. Honi asked him, “How long does it take [for this tree] to bear fruit?” The man replied “Seventy years.” Honi then asked him, “Are you certain that you will live another seventy years?” The man replied, “I found carob trees in the world; as my forefathers planted these for me, so I also plant these for my children.”

While this coming summer will celebrate the milestone 110th season for Surprise Lake Camp in New York and Tamarack Camps in Michigan; those trees planted many year ago continue to provide us great lessons in the ways we effectively engage Jewish youth.

In 2011, FJC released new research, CAMP WORKS: The Long-Term Impact of Jewish Overnight Camp and The AVI CHAI Foundation released Limud by the Lake Revisited. For the first time, we are able to provide systematic and quantitative evidence that summers at Jewish camp create adults who are committed to the Jewish community and engaged in Jewish practice – the cornerstones of a vibrant Jewish future. This research shows that camp works, yet as a field, Jewish camp refuses to rest on its laurels. We at the Foundation for Jewish Camp will not be complacent; we must refresh and renew and lead the innovation within the field and beyond it.

Based in part on this research, our new strategic plan sets our course for the next five years. We remain firmly committed to our focused goal: to significantly increase the number of children experiencing the transformative power of Jewish summer camp. To do so, though, we know we operate in an ever-changing world and we must remain flexible, resourceful, and entrepreneurial in order to continue to serve the Jewish community in a high-performing, meaningful way.

I want to highlight just one of the innovative projects that is planting trees for the next generation. In 2006, we provided the first seed funding to create a communal-based program to provide incentives for more families to try Jewish camp for the first time. Over the last five years, a total of 33 communities and over 30 other partners have participated in the One Happy Camper program, and thus far over 30,000 kids have experienced Jewish camp as a result of these efforts.

In 2011, Columbus, Indianapolis, and Philadelphia “graduated,” to self-funded programs, introducing new and increased support on the local level for Jewish camp initiatives, and creating sustainability in the long-term. This year, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Middlesex, New Hampshire, and Palm Beach have also reached sustainability. All of this success is the result of the hard work of federation professionals acting as ambassadors for Jewish camp and local philanthropists who made an investment and commitment to support the camp enterprise in their community.

Initially Honi could not relate to the zeal that someone might have to plant for the next generation, but for those of us who have been touched by camping, it is hard not to connect and share that passion. Our push forward is to empower more communities to join us in passionately planting now for the future. Today’s Jewish communities need and value camps for their role in generating and leveraging more passionate engagement. Working together, we can and we will create a stronger, more vibrant Jewish future for generations to come.

You are welcome to join in the conversation by speaking with your Federation, Synagogues, or join in directly at our biennial Leaders Assembly next month. Jewish camp is a utopia where planting those trees will create sustained model for a committed next generation.

Jeremy J. Fingerman is CEO of Foundation for Jewish Camp.

February 6, 2012 – Boston, MA – Combined Jewish Philanthropies (CJP) announced today that it is the recipient of a $1.89 million grant for serving Jewish day school students with a wide range of special learning needs. CJP will receive $1.69 million from the Jim Joseph Foundation (JJF) and $200,000 from the Ruderman Family Foundation.

CJP, partnering with Gateways: Access to Jewish Education, based in Newton, MA, and Yeshiva University’s Institute for University-School Partnership in New York, will work with six Boston-area Jewish day schools to create “whole school” models for serving students with a range of learning needs. The grant will establish professional development and training programs to build the capacity of teachers and school leaders so that they are well-equipped to better address the needs of all students.

In the current education landscape, students with special needs are often the responsibility of special education staff and a limited number of school administrators. The goal of this program is to create a holistic approach. A school’s entire staff will become involved and responsible for students with a wide range of abilities. This will ultimately make Jewish day schools accessible to a wider population.

CJP will select six day schools in June to participate in the program: a first cohort of three schools will begin the program in September 2012 and a second cohort of three schools will begin in September 2013. Following a rigorous review and analysis process, CJP hopes the project will serve as a template for education across the United States.

The program is only one of CJP’s recent education initiatives aimed at ensuring that a Jewish day school education is accessible to a broad range of students and affordable for their families. Since 2005, CJP and Gateways have made a sustained effort to support schools in serving special needs students. Last year, CJP also expanded the “Discover Day School” initiative, which seeks to make day school more affordable for families.

by Stephen J. Whitfield
JointMedia News Service

At the very end of December, 2011, when the Sears Holding Company announced that up to 120 of its stores (both Sears Roebuck and Kmart) would be closing due to disappointing sales, the contrast with the spectacular career of Julius Rosenwald (1862-1932) could scarcely have been greater. Born a century and a half ago, he was the most significant figure in the history of what was once the largest retail establishment on the planet. He was also among the nation’s most imaginative philanthropists. Because he was so resourceful in making money, and then because he was so gifted in disbursing it, he deserves to be far better known than he is.

Jewishness helps account for the near-oblivion into which Rosenwald’s name has sunk. Though he did not found the mail-order house of Sears, Roebuck, he served as its president for most of the first third of the last century. Two million of the company’s famous catalogs were typically mailed out every year, each about a thousand pages in thickness, and with many of them in full color. Yet from 1909, right after Rosenwald became president of the company, until 1924, when he resigned, the introductory letters that were sent to potential customers along with the catalogs were unsigned. Nor did his name appear in the catalog, as though to disguise the identity of the CEO of a corporation with eight thousand employees at its Chicago headquarters.

Why such anonymity? The answer – admittedly conjectural – has been provided by his grandson, who is, incidentally, the only biographer that Julius Rosenwald ever managed to attract. Peter M. Ascoli suspects that his grandfather feared the antisemitism of rural America, where his name might be bad for business. In the Chicago press, and even elsewhere, the president of Sears, Roebuck was publicly associated with Jewish causes. Rosenwald was an integral, unambivalent member of the Jewish community, locally as well as nationally. In 1906 he helped found the American Jewish Committee; two years later, when he became the president of Sears, Roebuck, he also became the president of the city’s Associated Jewish Charities. Rosenwald held that communal position until 1911, and then again from 1913 until 1917. His activities were reported in the Chicago’s Jewish press. But he presumably hoped that the farmers he wanted as customers would fail to notice such news stories.

Whatever the validity of his concerns, his company did as much as any retail business in the nation to help farmers and their families conquer the burden of solitude. More than any other business (except for the Ford Motor Company), Sears, Roebuck enabled a predominantly rural nation to connect with the rising influence of industrial and urban ways of life and ultimately with a cosmopolitan modernity. No wonder then that, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt was asked during the Second World War which American book he would like to see distributed in the Soviet Union, he did not nominate the Federalist Papers or Moby-Dick or even his own public papers. Instead the leader who listed “freedom from want” – as one of the Four Freedoms that the Allies were fighting for – proposed the Sears, Roebuck catalog.

Enormous wealth had failed to immunize Julius Rosenwald from bigotry, or at least from an awareness of a blot on democratic ideals. Perhaps his capacity for empathy might have sprung from an appreciation of the sting of prejudice. But whatever the roots of Rosenwald’s special philanthropic commitments, his interest in enhancing black education was neither casual nor superficial. He served on the board of the Tuskegee Institute, and Booker T. Washington not only stayed in Rosenwald’s home when visiting Chicago but also spoke at his synagogue, Temple Sinai. Other black institutions benefiting from Rosenwald’s philanthropy besides Tuskegee were Spelman College and Morehouse College in Atlanta, Fisk University and Meharry Medical College in Nashville, and Dillard University in New Orleans.

In 1915, the year that Booker T. Washington died, nine out of ten American Negroes were living in the South, for which Rosenwald was providing matching funds for the erection of school buildings. Local blacks were expected to put up the rest of the funding; they were thus not to consider themselves merely as beneficiaries of a millionaire’s largesse. Their dignity was respected. Eventually over 5,300 such schools were constructed. In the course of two decades, Rosenwald was responsible for having built more schools for black pupils than had existed in the South when his program had been inaugurated, in a region that showed pathetically limited public commitment to black education.

He also established a family foundation that helped finance some of the cases of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund that were later bundled together into the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). When Rosenwald died exactly eight decades ago, the executive secretary of the NAACP, Walter White, announced that “no name is more revered and deeply loved among American Negroes than that of Julius Rosenwald.” The editor of the NAACP’s magazine, the Crisis, was more pointed in his eulogy. “As a Jew, Julius Rosenwald did not have to be initiated into the methods of race prejudice,” W. E. B. Du Bois wrote, “and his philanthropic work was a crushing arraignment of the American white Christians.” Rosenwald converted charity into a kind of criticism “of our racial democracy.” As for the schools he subsidized, Du Bois added that “the South accepted his gift effusively, and never even to this day has apparently grasped the failure of democracy which permitted an individual of a despised race to do for the sovereign states of a great nation that which they had neither the decency nor justice to do for themselves.”

Very few businessmen have been as shrewd in making money; very few philanthropists have been as visionary in spending it.

Stephen J. Whitfield holds the Max Richter Chair in American Civilization at Brandeis University and is the author of In Search of American Jewish Culture (University Press of New England, 1999).