I recently attended a panel discussion focused on philanthropy within the Haredi community. It was an enlightening experience that highlighted essential lessons in patience, persistence, understanding incentives for change, building trust, the role of community, and partnering with the government for sustainable change.
Since I joined the world of nonprofits and launched ICAR Collective, I am constantly exploring ways to learn more about this field.
Here are the key insights from this discussion.
Efforts vs. Outcomes
Daniel Goldman, businessman, founding partner of Goldrock Capital, social activist and chair of ICAR Collective, used a football analogy to highlight a critical point about the efforts being made in the field. He explained, "Imagine playing a match with all your might, only to return home having lost again and again, just like England losing on penalties to Italy."
Naomi Feiner echoed this sentiment and reflected on the strategic shift within the Russell Berrie Foundation. She shared that efforts sometimes feel like "band-aids" that address symptoms rather than root causes, leading to a cycle of intervention without substantial progress. “We understood that we needed to address the root issue,” she explained. The foundation eventually focused on high-impact areas, such as integrating Haredi men into high-tech industries and fostering alternative leadership structures. This discussion underscored the need for a deeper analysis of the effectiveness of social interventions and the real impact of philanthropic efforts.
Understanding Incentives for Change
Alon Misgav, who is focused on the Haredi Community support at the Schusterman Family Foundation, raised a critical issue regarding the potential for government subsidies and philanthropy to create dependency rather than sustainability. He used the metaphor of "suitcases full of cash" to describe how continuous financial support can sometimes prevent the recipients from becoming self-sufficient. Alon emphasized that while the intention behind these funds is to support and uplift communities, it is essential to avoid creating a situation where the beneficiaries rely on external support indefinitely. This reliance can stifle innovation and initiative, ultimately hindering long-term progress and sustainability. Philanthropy must be strategic, aiming to empower communities to develop their capacities and reduce their dependence on external funds.
This aligns with Maimonides' hierarchy of tzedakah, where the highest form is helping others become self-sufficient. Providing subsidies, instead of empowering individuals to support themselves and their families, can undermine the very progress that philanthropy or tzedakah aims to achieve.
Partnering with the Government
Regarding the role of philanthropy versus government, Alon Misgav pointed out the importance of strategic partnerships. “It’s possible to create significant change,” he explained, “but we need the state's backing to scale these efforts effectively." Rabbi Nechemia Steinberger, head of the Haredi mechina program at Hebrew University, and Program Officer at Maimonides Fund, agreed, highlighting that while philanthropy can address immediate needs, long-term change often requires government action. He emphasized the importance of a collaborative approach, where philanthropic initiatives serve as pilots or proof-of-concept projects that, if successful, can be adopted and expanded by the government. This ensures that impactful solutions are not just temporary fixes but become part of the systemic change needed to address societal issues comprehensively.
Defining the Role of Philanthropy
One audience member asked about the role of philanthropy in influencing government policies and funding. Alon Misgav responded by acknowledging the complexities and limitations. "Philanthropy can play a role, but it is a delicate balance. We aim to complement and support government efforts, not replace them," he noted.
Another audience member raised the issue of whether philanthropic efforts should pause to let natural market forces and government policies take effect. Naomi Feiner addressed this by emphasizing the need for strategic intervention. "There are times when stepping back might be necessary, but we also need to ensure we are not abandoning communities in need," she argued.
Conclusion
Optimism is waiting for things to get better; hope is building the future you want to see.
The discussions and lessons from the discussion are not only applicable to the Haredi community, but also offer valuable insights for any philanthropic endeavor. They resonate deeply with our mission at ICAR Collective. As we continue our work in trauma healing and broader social interventions, these insights will guide our strategies and actions.
The discussion concluded with a call for hope and action by Daniel Goldman. Optimism is waiting for things to get better; hope is building the future you want to see," he said, quoting the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.
This perspective encapsulates the essence of our work and our vision for a better and healthier society.
Kommentare