Neighborhood House Fund Allocation Committee Report to the Board December 2006
Submitted by: Fay Blank, Carol Chestler, Tamara DiVergilio, Meryl Haber, Louise Marsh, Eve Rosenfeld, Rosemarie Rosenfeld, Rose Rustin and Sharon Tarlow.
INTRODUCTION
Last August Leslye Epstein enquired by email to board members interested in forming an ad hoc committee to research how our Neighborhood House Fund could be shared with worthy organizations. Leslye asked me to put together an initial meeting, and passed on to me a list of NCJW members who had expressed intererst in being on the committee. We were getting feed-back from membership who were wondering what the board was planning to do with the Neighborhood House money, and my understanding was that the purpose of this committee was to research giving opportunities in the community and provide recommendations back to the board.
In addition to current board members who asked to be on the committee: Leslye, Marki, Tamara, and Gerry, we had 7 members-at-large serving on the committee. I will introduce them to you:
Fay Blank, a life member, President of section 196?
Carol Chestler, a life member of NCJW, section VP from 1969-1973 and President of the section from 1973-1975.
Louise Marsh, a life member, Co-President of the section in 1986.
Eve Rosenfeld, a life member, past board member in early 1960's.
Rosemarie Rosenfeld, a life member.
Rose Rustin, a life member, President of section 1977, National Board member 1980-1984, National Executive Committee 1982-1984.
Sharon Tarlow, a life member, President of section 1975-1977.
When I asked these women for their bio's so I could introduce them, everyone was very modest, but I think these women are giants in our community. They bring with them not only a historical perspective, but skill and wisdom. And because they are experienced leaders who are not involved with our sections current day to day operations, they brought a different perspective to our discussions. I feel very fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with them, and I think we all benefit fom their continuing interest in our section today.
At our first meeting we introduced ourselves and it was clearly evident that this was an extraordinary group of women. And almost as overwhelming was their vastly divergent ideas about what this committee's goals should be. We had two givens- there was the money in the Neighborhood House Fund, and a committee that needed to bring recommendations back to the board, and we agreed on very little else.
I figured that a good place for our committee to start would be to make a list of past NCJW projects, from the Neighborhood House beginnings of teaching English and Citizenship, to endowing a hospital bed in perpetuity, to courtroom advocacy for children, to starting the Circle of Life Daycare, to developing Russian resettlement programs, and the Homemaker program, we made a list of 37 projects, and what was so fascinating was hearing about them from the women who had been there when many of these programs were initiated. Hearing their stories brought our committee a little closer, and this exercise reaffirmed to us that we have a history of collaborating with and granting funds to programs that tie in with the mission of NCJW, as well as funding large, major projects that have benefited a broader community.
DEFINING GOALS
As a group we needed to define a clear set of goals. Initially the board had wanted us to address the Neighborhood House Fund, the Tribute funds, and granting opportunities to ongoing NCJW projects. This was an extensive discussion and we concluded that tribute funds should be dispensed by a tribute committee, (and they were), that on-going NCJW projects should be funded by fundraising, and that a significant amount of the Neighborhood Fund should be used to enhance and give stature to NCJW by honoring what the Neighborhood House meant to the Portland community. We believed that we could find a project or projects that could revitalize volunteerism and increase membership, and this could truly be an opportunity of a lifetime for our section. I want to emphasize at this point that throughout this discussion we were unanimous in not wanting the section to close. We have a long history of involvement in Portland, and we are the only Jewish Women’s organization that crosses all boundaries of Jewish affiliations. And consequently, if we were to close, our funds all go to National, and we strongly feel that the money must stay in the Portland community. So I hope I’ve dispelled any notion that we will advocate closing, or bankrupting our section.
We discussed a range of possibilities to explore; such as starting a new project of our own, or providing seed money, or collaborating with other organizations. We spent time researching the Policies and Procedures from National so as to be in complete compliance. I’ve included copies of these documents in your packet as well as National’s criteria for considering contributions to other organizations, so you could have this information. We wanted to be certain that we would be consistent with the philosophy of NCJW Inc.
RESEARCH
Our first action then, was to conduct a ‘needs assessment’ with Jewish agencies and institutions in the area. We made a list of agencies and divided it among ourselves and we went out into the community to canvas ideas, we wanted to see if there was a need that wasn’t being met, or a dream project just waiting for funding. We spoke with PJA, Cedar Sinai, MJCC, JFCS, OJM, The Center for Judaic Studies at PSU, and Hillel at UofO. We advertised in the Jewish Review, and solicited leads from every community leader we could find. I met several times with John Moss at OJCF, to learn about their application and decision-making process, and I combed through their Book of Needs.
I invited John Moss to one of our meetings as a consultant to conduct a training seminar on identifying and evaluating charities, He spoke to us about innovative funding, and leveraged gifts, and he suggested that we avoid funding operating costs. He suggested that we be proactive in our search and that we begin by looking for projects that engage our passions and reflect our values. He led us through an exercise to identify our personal values and passions. The outcome of this exercise showed that none of us chose the same rankings for our values and passions, but out of at least 60 possible choices he had listed for this exercise, the values and passions that received multiple votes reflecting our common interests were: health accessibility, Jewish Causes, compassion, and education.
ANALYSIS
John was very helpful, but it is also important to keep in mind that John Moss is the director of a large foundation whose value is based on the amount of money it oversees. John would like us to keep our money in his fund, and he notes that we are among the top 5 wealthiest organizations in his foundation. But many of us are uncomfortable with that distinction. We are not a foundation and we have never historically operated as one. When the May bequest came to us in 1977 it never occurred to the board to keep the money and use the interest for section expenses. They felt a moral obligation to find a use for the money, and their first order of business was to put together a search committee and find an appropriate and worthy project. We on the committee strongly believe that the money we received from the sale of the Neighborhood House is not our endowment; the money belongs to our membership and in our community. A majority consensus of our committee believes that it would be wrong for us to keep it as an endowment, and it would be a shame to see it divvied out piecemeal and lose the opportunity of creating a new legacy as important for the future of our community as the Neighborhood House was for our community 102 years ago.
With as diverse of a group as ours, you all know that it would be unreasonable to expect that all of our decisions could be unanimous, we had to resort to majority consensus, because we had to keep moving forward. We hashed over a lot of issues, and we revisited a lot of issues, and we deliberated and we envisioned, and here is what we decided: we decided that we did not want to start a new project ourselves. We did not want to have to administer a project. We did not want to provide supplemental funding for an existing project. We did not want to just buy a building. We would not put a number value on the amount of money we were looking at granting, we felt that final decision was up to the board, though we did agree on the concept of it being “a significant amount”. And we would require an on going role in the project we selected. The project would enhance our fundraising efforts, and expand our sections visibility in the community. The project would bear the NCJW name, and the money would go to a Jewish organization to provide a service to Jews and non-Jews in the greater Portland area.
At the end of many months of work to find common ground and develop cohesiveness in our group, we were ready to start evaluating the two very solid, and very worthy proposals that were submitted to us. Rose found in the archives the original application criteria that was used for the May bequest, and with a few modifications we agreed to revitalize it for our current task. I have also put a copy of it in your packet.
Both Proposals met all our criteria. In your packets you have a spreadsheet that we created so that we could compare the proposals side by side using identical criteria for evaluation.
(Synopsis of proposals given here)
CONCLUSION
We are very enthusiastic about both of these proposals. They are both consistent with the philosophy of NCJW Inc., and the Portland Section has a history of involvement with the kind of projects they each represent.
After considerable due diligence, our committee is submitting to you 2 proposals with recommendations for both. Recognizing that undertakings such as these are time consuming and will require careful consideration, we would like the board to consider in their discussions that though they may be uncomfortable with the concept of granting a significant amount of money, the Portland Community is anxious to know where we are going to put our money, whether it be now or in 2-3 years. And hopefully what our committee has delivered to you are prospects befitting the Portland Section of NCJW and all that NCJW represents.
