Document
Information
Digital ID
Permalink
Details
Transcription
October 14, 1994 TO: FEDERATION PRESIDENTS AND EXECUTIVES MEMBERS, CJF BOARD OF DELEGATES FROM: MAYNARD I. WISHNER, President MARTIN S. KRAAR, Executive Vice President RE: Equitable Collective Responsibility for Domestic Resettlement Purpose The goal of the program has been to spread the challenge (burden) of domestic resettlement. In reality, it was mainly a financial spread since relative reunion precludes the disbursement of the vast, vast majority of the refugees. Results In general, the results have been very positive, but mixed. More than $32.6M has been contributed and redistributed by the system during the first four years of the program. However, compliance (payments) and participating communities have been dropping (see Exhibit 1 & 2). The principle remains firmly entrenched. Available money has become the problem. Where the Money Comes From: While a comprehensive survey has never been undertaken, it appears that communities have allocated funds from the following sources to pay their Collective Responsibility obligation: * Operation Exodus, despite the fact that it has never been officially endorsed nationally for inclusion by UJA. Exodus has now been officially concluded, although a few communities continue to raise funds under this banner. * Regular Annual Campaign * Endowment * Reserves COUNCIL OF JEWISH FEDERATIONS ? 730 BROADWAY, NEW YORK. NY 10003 . 212/475-snnn Where the Money Goe; Fifty-four (54) different communities have been recipients during the first four years of the program. Ten communities are four-time recipients; four communities are three-time recipients. The major cumulative impact of relative reunion has hit these communities. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the money has gone to NYANA. Since NYANA is deficit funded by national UJA, this has freed up significant UJA dollars for the larger resettlement effort in Israel. Although the dollar amounts are smaller, they have been equally vital to communities like Jacksonville, San Jose, North Shore, San Francisco, Utah, Flint, East Bay, St. Paul, Orange Cty, NY, etc. which have been heavily impacted (see Exhibit 3). Without these funds, they could not have done the job. What About the Future? Where Do We Go From Here? Several questions/issues must influence the decision on where to take the program from here: * Sustainability, given general declining results. * Reactions from communities (now including some major ones) that they cannot handle a sixth year of the program at this funding level. * Completion of Operation Exodus - a major funding source. Now where will the dollars come from? * Ongoing need of recipient (impacted) communities for the dollars given the continued resettlement flow and cumulative concentration resulting from relative reunion mode. * The importance of NYANA as a national safety net, capable of resettling clients which other communities cannot or will not receive. * The need to preserve the collective responsibility principle. * Movement into some form of collective responsibility for Jewish University Student Services. * Increased resources required for Jewish identity and continuity efforts. Alternative Approaches Four alternative approaches were extensively discussed and considered at the July 13, 1994 meeting of the CJF Executive Committee: * Continue the program in its current form; attain what we can at the $750 contribution level. 2 * Modify the program marginally, perhaps reducing the contribution level from $750, to $600 or $500. * Modify the program radically. The most radical approach would be to eliminate NYANA from the equation and have the agency fall back on its UJA deficit funding relationship totally. Funding all other overages would cost contributing communities less than $100 per refugee. * "Declare victory" and discontinue the program after the completion of the fifth year. Proposed Approach At the August 30, 1994 CJF Executive Committee, the following approach was recommended for Board of Delegates approval: Reaffirm the validity of the principle of collective responsibility for domestic resettlement and other issues. For FY 1995 (Year #6; October 1, 1994 - September 30, 1995), set the contribution level at $250 per refugee. Reimburse impacted (recipient) communities outside of New York City at $750 per refugee or their actual cost, whichever is less, for those refugees resettled above their fair share. The balance of funds collected by the national pool would be channeled to NYANA. Set CJF Administration Charge at $30,000. (See Exhibit 4) Important Caveats All Federations shall accept "free cases" in numbers at least equal to those family reunification cases they may reject. All Federations shall maintain their partnership share allocation to national UJA. Rationale for this Approach Reducing the contribution level to $250 allows the maximum number of communities to participate in the national pool as contributors, without having to modify other allocations. Communities that could not participate for the past couple of years at the $750 level, may be able to return to the program at this significantly lowered level. Thus, the highest possible per capita reimbursement will be secured for recipient communities. The reduced contribution to the national pool leaves sufficient resources in communities to enable them to effectively do their local resettlement job without further program cutbacks. It also enables them to resume taking free cases in greater numbers, thus easing the burden on NYANA. Avoids each community ''making shabbas for itself" in terms of potentially taking money off the top of its UJA allocation for local resettlement or contribution to the national pool. Enables all communities to retain largest percentage allocation (partnership share) to UJA possible. The "residual" contribution to NYANA will at least free up some dollars for the resettlement effort in Israel, as compared to the "pure" radical modification alternative which would have totally excluded NYANA from the program. Since NYANA is deficit funded by UJA, it is already benefiting from a collective responsibility arrangement. Funding the other impacted communities first is defensible since they have no other source for their funds. NYANA has UJA as a deficit funder. Relieving national UJA of a major share of its obligation to NYANA was appropriate when Operation Exodus existed, because new, additional money was being raised. It is much more difficult now that this effort has been concluded. Reducing the CJF Administrative Charge to $30,000 from $40,000 reflects the smaller dollar size of the program; there is no real change in the work load. In sum, the proposed approach: * responds to contributing communities that can no longer continue at current levels. * responds to recipient communities (outside of New York City) that require continued national pool funding and restoration of realized dollars to the $750 level, in order to do the resettlement job they have been asked to shoulder. * makes contribution to NYANA. to the maximum degree the system can bare, easing somewhat the deficit funding burden of UJA. The "bottom line" for the CJF Executive Committee was that the resettlement of refugees must continue as an ongoing priority of the American Jewish community. The lands from which they exit continue as countries of hostility and/or instability. The financial burden will continue to fall disproportionately on a relatively small number of communities resettling in excess of their fair share. Refugee resettlement continues to be a national challenge which requires the participation of all communities in the acceptance of responsibility. Please review your community's obligation to participate in this effort; plan appropriately to assemble the resources required; and come prepared to vote in favor of this program at the Board of Delegates meeting at the General Assembly in Denver. RESOLUTION EQUITABLE COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DOMESTIC RESETTLEMENT The Federations of the United States reaffirm the principle of Equitable Collective Responsibility for the resettlement of Jewish refugees in the United States, and for other issues. The program includes a firm commitment by the United States Federations to accept their fair share of the United States resettlement responsibility. This may be done in kind by resettlement or in cash payments to a national pool. Each community will either resettle its fair share of the total number of Jewish refugees resettled in the United States; or it will contribute to a national pool $250 each to fund the numbers of Jewish refugees between the number it has resettled and its fair share. Communities outside of New York City will received from the national pool up to $750 per refugee or their actual cost, whichever is less, to fund the Jewish refugees above their fair share. The balance of funds collected by the national pool will be channeled to NYANA. The CJF Administrative Charge will be $30,000. The formula for determining Equitable Collective Responsibility for Domestic Resettlement will be based 85% on the campaign results of 1993 and 15% on the community's Jewish population. The above will be effective for Fiscal Year 1995 (October 1, 1994 - September 30, 1995). Further: All Federations shall accept "free cases" in numbers at least equal to those family reunification cases they may reject. All Federations shall maintain their partnership share allocation to national United Jewish Appeal. 5 History of Equitable Collective Responsibility for Domestic Resettlement Equitable Collective Responsibility was originally adopted on February 6, 1990 at a CJF Special General Assembly in Miami. The program included a firm commitment by the United States Federations to accept their fair share of the United States resettlement responsibility, either in kind by resettlement or in cash payments to a national pool. This responsibility was based on an average net cost of $1,000 per refugee. Each community would either resettle its fair share of the total number of Soviet Jews being resettled in the U.S.; or it would contribute to a national pool a sum to fund the numbers of Soviet Jewish refugees between the number it had resettled and its fair share; or it would receive from the national pool a sum to fund the Jewish refugees above its fair share. The fair share formula was based 85% on campaign results and 15% on Jewish population. The initial year of the program was FY 1990 (October 1, 1989 - September 30, 1990). The Program was renewed at the General Assembly in San Francisco for FY 1991 (October 1, 1990 - September 30, 1991); and at the General Assembly in Baltimore for FY 1992 (October 1, 1991 - September 30, 1992). At the time of the 1992 General Assembly in New York, it appeared that a new government funding initiative was to be instituted to replace the Voluntary Agency Matching Grant Program that CJF/Federations had been utilizing for some dozen years. However, the uncertainty of the new government program, coupled with the differential impact on communities, created a delay in CJF proposing a fourth year of the Equitable Collective Responsibility effort until specifics could be ascertained. Ultimately, the new government initiative was not put into place and the Matching Grant continued unchanged for 1993. On April 26, 1993, the newly constituted Board of Delegates, at its inaugural meeting, extended the program for a fourth year with a $750 contribution level. In approving the program for FY 1993 (October 1, 1992 - September 30, 1993), the delegates took note of the scarcity of resources in the system. Approval at the lower level was intended to make it possible for all communities resettling less than their fair share of the refugees to participate. For the first time, all Jewish refugees regardless of country of origin were included. At the 1993 General Assembly in Montreal the program was renewed for a fifth year (October 1, 1993 - September 30, 1994), using the $750 funding level. 6 EQUITABLE COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DOMESTIC RESETTLEMENT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Q. What was the original motivation behind the creation of collective responsibility? A. In FY 1990, the expected arrival of 40,000 Soviet Jewish refugees, their uneven distribution among communities, and the resultant financial burdens placed on just a few communities focused the issue: Was domestic resettlement to remain a local issue or was it to be a national responsibility? A study process developed the concept of equitable responsibility - that each community would resettle its fair share of the refugees or pay into a national pool for the part of its fair share that it was unable to absorb. Q. Who has benefited from Collective Responsibility? A. First and foremost, the Soviet Jewish refugees resettled in our Jewish communities in the United States. They have been reunited with relatives, and receiving communities have had the funds to deal with them. In the first four years of the program, 54 different communities have been recipients of national pool funds. This includes cities of all sizes - small, intermediate, large intermediate and large. Reconciliation of FY 1994 arrivals is now taking place. Undoubtedly additional cities will be added to those who have benefited from the program. Q. What factors have determined the contribution level? A. The original $1,000 per capita contribution was a somewhat arbitrary figure. However, cost certification forms submitted yearly by recipient communities indicated that most spent at this level or above. The Federal Government continues to recognize this as an appropriate community expenditure level in the Matching Grant Program. The reduction in the fair share contribution to $750, was a reflection of scarcity of resources in the system and reduction in local resettlement expenditures by some communities. In the cases where net community expenses are less than the $1,000 per refugee (1990, 1991, 1992) or $750 per refugee (1993, 1994), reimbursement is capped at that level. The proposed $250 contribution for 1995 reflects the inability of Federations to continue for a sixth year at the prior levels. 7 Q. Why do some communities have relatively large national pool obligations? A. Refugee admissions are now almost exclusively relative reunion cases. Some communities limited intake in prior years. Arriving relatives are thus now limited for those communities. Conversely, high intake communities continue to receive relatives. The effect is cumulative. Ten communities have been national pool recipients in the first four years; another four have been recipients for three years. The burden on these communities has been significant and can be expected to continue. Q. As a contributing community should we be concerned that some recipient communities run "cadillac programs" with our money? A. This does not appear to be the case. Recipient communities only receive funds for the refugees above their quota and therefore have not designed programs to "take advantage"; they have never gotten all the money that was "promised" them; and that while partially reimbursed for initial costs, these new American remain marginal for years to come and quite costly to the community. Q. What will be my FY 1995 Fair Share? A. Enclosed you will find the calculated fair share, based on 32,500 arrivals. This is the best estimate that HIAS and CJF can provide at this time. Declining arrivals over the past couple of years, coupled with bureaucratic hassles in countries of origin and potential INS slowdowns in interviewing, suggest this number rather than the 40,000 predicted in the recent past. As always, at the end of the year, fair shares will be recalculated to reflect actual total arrivals. Q. Why have some communities not participated in collective responsibility? A. The vast majority of communities have participated. Reasons of non-participants vary, and include: total lack of resources to participate; opposition to the formula; willingness to do their share only through actual resettlement; executive vacancy and preoccupation with executive search or other perceived more pressing problems. Q. Why does CJF charge an administrative fee? A. Unlike CJF dues and other special binding assessments that are due on a fixed schedule, collective responsibility is a 8 voluntary program. Interpretation phone calls and visits by professional staff are ongoing; reconciliation of resettlement numbers is time consuming; billing must be done frequently; payment record keeping is done daily and check writing to recipient communities is performed virtually every week to get the cash to those who need it fast. It is an "effort intensive" program. The fee has only a minor effect on the recipient communities. The $75,000 administrative fee of FY 1992 was reduced to $40,000 for FY 1993 and FY 1994 in an effort to put even more dollars in the hands of the recipient communities. It is proposed at $30,000 for FY 1995 in recognition of the smaller absolute dollar size of the program. Q. Has collective responsibility been successful? A. Evaluating the success of this effort is, of course, subjective. The chart enclosed in this mailing summarizes collective responsibility for the first five years, although years four and five are still very much "in progress". As a voluntary effort, this is probably the most successful in CJF history. The money has been very important to those communities taking more than their fair share. It has also freed up UJA overseas dollars (that would have gone to NYANA) for the huge resettlement effort in Israel. It has been an incentive for many communities to take people - "might as well invest in additional people coming to our community; maybe they will strengthen us later". Lastly, in certain situations, it has been a help to HIAS in placing free cases and rejected cases. On the "down side", some recipient communities complain that they never received the full per capita that they had hoped to receive and in many cases had budgeted. Even these communities are most appreciative of the funds received and could not have done the job without them. Q. Are their other ways of measuring the success of the program? A. Collective Responsibility has permanently affected the way we do business as a system. The Loan Guarantee Program for resettlement in Israel was our second success, which would not have been possible without Collective Responsibility for Domestic Resettlement. We now look to its future use in the area of Jewish University Student Services. Despite the fact that this is a voluntary program, the vast, vast majority of our communities "play by the rules" - they always contribute when obligated to do so and contribute the full amount even after a year in which as a recipient, they may have received less than their full reimbursement. 9 Q. Does Collective Responsibility for FY 1995 fall under the binding financial issues clause of the new CJF Governance Model? A. No. Collective Responsibility exceeds the binding financial issues cap. Therefore, it remains a voluntary program. Q. In comparing FY 1994 results with prior years, what should we keep in mind? A. Money is becoming scarcer. Payments are being made, but in some cases being spread over a longer time period. Playing "catch up" causes the last year to look worst. Final billing for FY 1994 will only go out shortly, and many communities, convinced that they will reach their quota, wait until the year is complete before making payment. Lastly, remember that the FY 1993 and FY 1994 required contribution is 25% less than that of the prior years. Q. Is the government funding situation secure for FY 1995? A. Looks OK at the moment. Q. Why include caveats related to free cases and maintenance of UJA partnership share? A. Collective Responsibility for Domestic Resettlement is really about "doing the right thing". Under the FY 1995 proposal, NYANA will receive fewer dollars than in past years and UJA will be asked to pick up those costs. Rejecting family reunification cases for valid reasons should not have to result in NYANA (and UJA) assuming that burden for their resettlement in New York. NYANA now resettles about twice as many free cases as it rejects. That inequity needs to be righted. Similarly, changing a Federations allocation percentage to UJA in order to pay for collective responsibility (at a reduced level) would also be wrong. In sum, the "triple whammy" of reduced collective responsibility money, an inequality in rejected free cases, and reduced regular allocations, should not be heaped on UJA. Similarly, communities should not have any incentive to perform any less actual resettlement because it is "cheaper to contribute to the national pool". Q. Why a $250 contribution level for FY 1995? A. This is not a scientifically derived number. The Executive Committee sought to find the maximum level that would be doable for all communities, and that would provide "full" resources to recipients outside of New York, and as much 10 funding as possible to NYANA. It is critical that all communities participate. Q. Why is Collective Responsibility still important? A. Jewish refugees continue to arrive in the United States in significant numbers for purposes of family reunification. The numbers have begun to decline, but we still have a substantial job to complete. If we do not resettle these refugees, other voluntary agencies including religiously affiliated ones, will readily provide this service. Because we are in a family reunification mode, the financial burden will continue to fall disproportionately on a relative small number of communities resettling in excess of their fair share. Therefore, we are still faced with the same national challenge that motivated us to create collective responsibility in the first place. Those communities likely to resettle more than their fair share are counting on the support of their fellow Federations. 11 Exhibit 1 COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DOMESTIC RESETTLEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 Dollar Compliance 86% 82% 77% (Incomplete) 70% (Estimate) Too Early to Estimate Participating Communities 133 127 107 (Predict 112) 86 (Predict 103) Exhibit 2 COUNCIL OF JEWISH FEDERATIONS EQUITABLE COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DOMESTIC RESETTLEMENT (as of October 7, 1994) FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 Refugees Resettled 39,200 26,802 47,160 37,210 33,000(Est) Per Capita Contribution $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $750 $750 Contributors Received Number of Communities $9,485,500 107 $6,081,150 92 $11,241,347 86 $5,869,590 63 $1,974,563 31 Recipients Number of Communities Maximum Per Capita 26 $860 35 $816 21 $765 23 $436 18(Est) $163 CJF Administration Charge $75,000 $40,000 $40,000 Exhibit 3 COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DOMESTIC RESETTLEMENT CUMULATIVE IMPACT (Four Years) Jacksonville San Jose North Shore New York (NYANA) San Francisco Salt Lake City (Utah) Flint Oakland (East Bay) St. Paul Orange Cty, NY Stamford Denver (Colorado) Fair Share 225 400 580 28,951 3,691 78 124 690 480 109 280 1,114 Refugees Resettled 666 1,001 1,433 68,959 6,570 137 190 986 644 133 338 1,312 Fair Share Realization 296% 250% 247% 238% 178% 176% 153% 143% 134% 122% 121% 118% * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Fair Share Realization By All Recipient Communities FY 1990 - 205% FY 1991 - 189% FY 1992 - 206% FY 1993 - 241% COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DOMESTIC RESETTLEMENT FISCAL YEAR 1995 COMMUNITY 85/15 SHARE OF FORMULA 1 32,500 DETROIT 3.431% DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL 0.044% DUTCHESS COUNTY 0.058% EAST BAY 0.483% EASTERN CONN. 0.070% EL PASO 0.089% FLINT 0.073% FORT WAYNE 0.046% FORT WORTH 0.104% FT. LAUDERDALE 1.049% GRAND RAPIDS 0.065% GREENSBORO 0.159% GREENWICH 0.183% HARRISBURG 0.244% HARTFORD 0.679% HONOLULU 0.063% HOUSTON 1.069% INDIANAPOLIS 0.462% JACKSONVILLE 0.165% KANSAS CITY 0.542% KNOXVILLE 0.048% LAS VEGAS 0.158% LEE COUNTY 0.070% LEHIGH VALLEY 0.274% LINCOLN 0.017% LONG BEACH 0.194% LOS ANGELES 6.386% LOUISVILLE 0.314% MADISON 0.096% MANCHESTER 0.071% MEMPHIS 0.312% MERCER COUNTY 0.158% MERIMACK VALLEY 0.055% METROWEST 2.774% MIAMI 2.802% MID-KANSAS 0.042% MIDDLESEX COUNTY 0.477% MILWAUKEE 1.081% 07?Oct?94 PAGE 2 dick 95 COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DOMESTIC RESETTLEMENT FISCAL YEAR 1995 COMMUNITY 85/15 SHARE OF FORMULA 1 32,500 MINNEAPOLIS 1.243% MOHAWK VALLEY 0.034% MONMOUTH COUNTY 0.274% NASHVILLE 0.334% NEW BEDFORD 0.048% NEW HAVEN 0.456% NEW ORLEANS 0.360% NEW YORK 17.887% NORTH JERSEY 0.450% NORTH SHORE 0.332% NORTHEASTERN NY 0.338% NORTHWEST INDIANA 0.080% OCEAN COUNTY 0.098% OKLAHOMA CITY 0.090% OMAHA 0.339% ORANGE COUNTY,CA 0.419% ORANGE COUNTY,NY 0.070% ORLANDO 0.198% PALM BEACH COUNTY 1.902% PALM SPRINGS 0.260% PEORIA 0.026% PHILADELPHIA 3.878% PHOENIX 0.591% PINELLAS COUNTY 0.157% PITTSBURGH 1.267% PORTLAND,OR 0.337% PRINCETON 0.136% QUAD CITIES 0.019% READING 0.142% RHODE ISLAND 0.618% RICHMOND 0.328% ROCHESTER 0.528% ROCKFORD 0.018% ROCKLAND COUNTY 0.244% SACRAMENTO 0.165% SAN ANTONIO 0.225% SAN DIEGO 0.961% SAN FRANCISCO 2.484% | 404 11 89 109 16 148 117 5,813 146 108 110 26 32 29 110 136 23 64 618 84 8 1,260 192 51 412 110 44 6 46 201 107 172 6 79 54 73 312 807 Oct-94 PAGE 3 COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DOMESTIC RESETTLEMENT FISCAL YEAR 1995 COMMUNITY 85/15 SHARE OF FORMULA 1 32,500 SAN JOSE 0.291% SANTA BARBARA 0.071% SARASOTA- MAN ATEE 0.330% SAVANNAH 0.113% SCRANTON 0.162% SEATTLE 0.685% SHREVEPORT 0.064% SIOUX CITY 0.050% SOMERSET COUNTY 0.083% SOUTH BROWARD 0.733% S. PALM BEACH COUNTY 1.370% SOUTHERN ARIZONA 0.321% SOUTHERN ILLINOIS 0.051% SOUTHERN MAINE 0.085% SOUTHERN NJ 0.525% SPRINGFIELD, ILL 0.036% SPRINGFIELD, MA 0.245% STAMFORD 0.205% ST. LOUIS 1.355% ST. JOSEPH VALLEY 0.069% ST. PAUL 0.351% SYRACUSE 0.170% TAMPA 0.163% TIDEWATER 0.425% TOLEDO 0.207% TULSA 0.273% UTAH 0.059% VIRGINIA PENINSULA 0.079% VOLUSIA & FLAGLER 0.022% WAKE COUNTY 0.036% WASHINGTON,DC 2.446% WASHTENAW COUNTY 0.101% WATERBURY 0.074% WESTPORT 0.147% WORCESTER 0.274% YOUNGSTOWN 0.207% I TOTAL 100.000% 32,500 07?Oct?94 PAGE 4 dick_95