By Joel Magalnick, Editor, JTNews
Attribute it to a flailing local economy that’s finally following the rest of the nation, or fatigue and fallout from the shooting two years ago — whatever it is, it can be reflected in this year’s final numbers from the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle’s 2008 Community Campaign.
This year’s total came in at $6.05 million, a drop of 2-1/4 percent from last year’s total of $6.2 million. The way that money has been allocated, however, has vastly changed — as have the allocation amounts, which were lower across the board from the previous year.
“Overall, the reductions are about 9 percent,” said Amy Wasser-Simpson, the Federation’s Vice President for Planning and Community Services, in regard to local allocations. “The reductions ranged from 1 percent reduction to 25 percent.”
The 2008 agency allocations had stayed mostly flat from 2007. Allocations for overseas organizations as well as the United Jewish Communities umbrella organization utilize a different formula and stayed flat or saw steep drops.
The reason for the allocation reduction has more to do with a new process the Federation is using to more objectively measure the community value of each beneficiary organization. Using Dwaffler, a software package that helps companies objectively make strategic decisions, agency representatives filled out questionnaires that assessed their own organizations based upon criteria agreed upon by both the Federation and the organizations. The 25 members of the Planning and Allocations committee then used the information for rating each organization. Each question addressed different aspects of how that agency works with the Federation and the community, with different weights applied to assess priority.
“We were pleased at how that process worked and how we developed the attributes,” said Steve Hemmat, the Planning and Allocations Committee chair. “The attributes…were developed by both agencies and the PAC committee, and when we [utilized] those it worked very, very well.”
Local agencies were guaranteed at least 75 percent of their allocation from last year, but from there it was about the process, which was based “upon the information that each individual agency had provided to us,” Hemmat said.
What that means for local agencies varies widely.
“Some organizations are having a very minimal impact, and [for] some it will be more of an impact,” said Richard Fruchter, the Federation’s president and CEO.
That will be painful for all but a few local organizations, but Fruchter said it’s part of a bigger picture for different types of funding.
“They have to believe in us,” he said. “They have to believe that the work we’re doing now will benefit them in many other ways besides the annual campaign.”
Fruchter cited as examples the lobbying work the Federation’s government affairs department does in Olympia, which this year brought in a grant for the Washington State Holocaust Education Resource Center to update its archives in addition to security grants from the Department of Homeland Security for several Jewish agencies.
“That’s the way we’re sort of shifting now, so we can see: What are the big impactful things that we can do, and how can we access funding from other sources to be able to do it?” Fruchter added.
The drop in agency funding has caused mixed reactions among organizations that benefit from the Federation, though they acknowledge that the Dwaffler process gave them a better understanding of how the Planning and Allocations committee does more than act as a rubber stamp from year to year.
Jewish Family Service of Greater Seattle, the Federation’s largest beneficiary, saw a cut of $23,866, or 5 percent, to $449,300 for 2009.
JFS also received a $75,000 special initiatives grant from the Federation to launch its addiction program, which Berman said has “made a substantial difference.”
“It’s a cut, and we don’t like that, but we think overall we did well,” said Claudia Berman, associate director of JFS. “Considering their allocation funds were less, and the guaranteed 75 percent, I think we’re happy with it.”
Barry Sohn, executive director of the Stroum Jewish Community Center, was not as happy with his organization’s allocation. The JCC, the Federation’s second largest beneficiary, saw a cut of $57,345 to $329,600, or 14.8 percent.
“We were very disappointed and we were surprised at the amount of the reduction to our allocation,” Sohn said. “Our budget is very, very tight, and whereas I can’t tell you today how it’s going to impact our budget, I know that we projected the allocation as being the same as last year.”
That means, Sohn said, that while the JCC budgets for emergency contingencies each year, they may have to start the year without that contingency, and they may need to look at programmatic or service cuts.
Though he was appreciative of the Dwaffler process, one of the reasons Sohn believes the cuts to the JCC were so dramatic were due to what he said were the Federation’s Planning and Allocations committee’s views of where the organization fits into the community’s top priorities of “being able to feed people who are hungry and clothe people who are needy,” he said.
“The ‘J’ is viewed in many ways as an agency that provides a lot of recreational services,” Sohn said, but “we do a tremendous amount of child care, we serve thousands of people in the community, we give out close to $200,000 a year in scholarships to people who are in need…. So for us to hear that it’s not near the top priority of how communal leaders view needs being met in the community is certainly not what we want to hear. So we feel we need to do a better job of educating communal leaders who are involved in this process to the significance of what our agency provides to the community.”
Planning and Allocations chair Hemmat said the JCC’s percentage cut was based on its ranking through the “Dwaffler attributes.”
“The reason that the JCC’s cut was so substantial…is the fact that the JCC receives a significant amount of money from the Federation, historically,” he said. “If you receive a significant amount of money, then the likelihood is that you’re going to have a larger cut.”
Hemmat emphasized that “none of us enjoyed cutting,” but also acknowledged the realities of this year’s situation.
“We wish we had an ‘up’ campaign, we wish…the Federation internal operations [were] fully staffed and [that we] had the funds to do what they needed to do,” he said. “Unless we invest in the infrastructure for the campaign in the future, and to allow for the increase in the campaign in the future, we will have no choice but to cut in the future.”
That is why the Federation has directed $200,000 of campaign income to internal operations.
“It’s for fixed costs that are increasing: insurance, taxes, health insurance, salary increases for staff,” the Federation’s Wasser-Simpson said. “If we don’t provide salary increases, it’s hard to maintain staff.”
Federation CEO Fruchter said that even with the $200,000, “we had to cut probably a couple hundred thousand dollars from our wish list of new initiatives and things we’d like to have accomplished this year, but we’ve got to be practical.”
There will be some new programming, however, as well as the reintroduction of affinity groups. Over the next year, Fruchter said he also hopes to have the Federation’s campaign department fully staffed — which only now is beginning to come to fruition — to embark upon projects such as venture philanthropy and special initiative funding.
“I think there’s a real opportunity, with a strong staff component, for the annual campaign to build a very powerful platform,” he said. “If we can consistently grow the annual campaign — and I’m not expecting wild growth… then we’ll be able to then depart [from that platform] and start to look for money to do all these really exciting new initiatives that we can’t do just through the annual campaign.”