COLLABORATION BETWEEN AND THE DIASPORA FROM THE ISRAELI POINT OF VIEW The Experience of Partnership 2000

AMNON BOEHM, PH.D. Senior Lecturer, School of Social Work, University of , Israel

This article, based on evaluation research of Partnership 2000, examines factors that facilitate and those that hinder the collaboration between Israel and Diaspora Jewry. It examines those factors from the Israeli point of view and compares these findings to previous studies that addressed the issue of mutuality from the point of view of Diaspora Jewry.

here is a growing call to base the relations ond is development of the national priority Tbetween Israel and the Diaspora on mutual regions of Israel—the Negev, the and collaboration. Rather than the Diaspora's . Project Partnership 2000 aspires to taking a distant philanthropic approach and integrate the two goals with shared objectives. "adopting" communities in Istael, there is a In addition to the partaership between vari­ move toward partaership and mutuality on the ous Diaspora communities and Israel, P2K basis of shared identity (Gurin & Rosen, 1991; integrates an Israeli urban center wita an adja­ Kosmin, 199 l;Rabb, 1999). cent rural area, i.e., atown or with Through reciprocal activities, each side, a regional council, including settlements such Israel and the Diaspora, can expect to achieve as kibbutzim, moshavim and community vil­ its goals and meet its challenges. For Diaspora lages. In other words, a partaership connec­ Jewry, this relationship has been found to tion is made among an urban center, a rural consolidate their sense of belonging to the area, and a Diaspora community—all of whom coimnunity, strengthen their connection to work together. their roots, and enhance Jewish identity This article, based on evaluation research (Abrams et al, 1996; Cohen, 1986; Reisman, of Partaership 2000 (P2K), reveals the motives 1993). Indeed, previous studies focusing on and the restraining factors in the collaboration the field of collaboration with regard to per­ between Israel and the Diaspora, with special sonal relations (Galin, 1996), organizational emphasis on the mutuality to which the proj ect relations (Weiss, 1987), andprofessional rela­ aspires. In contrast to previous stadies, which tions (Germain, 1984) emphasize that collabo­ examined the mutaality from the viewpoint of ration is a cooperative process of exchange Diaspota Jewry and especially from that of whereby each side has specific motives in American Jewry, this stady analyzes the col­ regard to its own interests. Collaboration is laboration through Israeli eyes. Knowledge of aimed to fulfill motives and tasks in abetter way the motives and restraining factors can be than each side can achieve by itself used to facilitate more effective collaborative Partnership 2000, created in 1994 by the programs. The assumption is that for success­ (JAFI), in collabora­ ful implementation, stakeholders must recog­ tion with the United Jewish Appeal and the nize the influential factors that enable mutaal Jewish Foundation Fund ('Keren Hayesod'), benefits. has two central goals. One is the creation of P2K provides an opportanity to examine mumal relations based on a partaership be­ tae development of collaborative relationships. tween the Jews of Israel and the Diaspora to In contrast to the traditional model, in which strengthen Jewish identity, prevent assimila­ one side (the Diaspora community) gives and tion and facilitate Jewish continuity; the sec­ the other side (tae Israeh community) receives, P2K stresses mutaality.

28 Collaboration between Israel and the Diaspora / 29

Table 1. The regions and their characteristics.

Diaspora Israeli Type of No. of Residents Year Partners Partners Gov't. in Israel Location Started

Project 1 Baltimore Karmiel Municipality 41,000 West Galilee 1994 Pittsburgh 14,500 Project 2 Detroit Natherth Municipality 50,000 Central Galilee 1994 Migdal-Emek Municipality 30,000

Yzrael Regional Council 20,000 Project 3 Union of 16 Kiryat Malachi Municipality 22,000 Negev North 1995

Communities Hof Regional council 8,000

METHODOLOGY • Focus group. A focus group was held in Kiryat Malachi, in which ten project work­ A broad-based research evaluation of P2K ers and activists, most of them involved in examined relations between Israel and the program unplementation, participated. The Diaspora, relations among Israeli communi­ discussion continued for seven hours and ties, and implementation of the project. This focused on the reciprocal connection be­ article focuses on the collaboration between tween the community in Israel and the com­ Israel and the Diaspora. munities in the Diaspora. Three partnered regions in Israel were ex­ • Questionnaire. A questionnaire was dis­ amined in this study. Two had one or two tributed to 189 participants; 67 question­ partnered communities per region, and the naires were retumed, of which 62 were suit­ third had three communities. Table 1 describes able for analysis. The majority of the ques­ the sample regions. tions were closed, with only a few open- The data were gathered via several modes: ended questions.

• Analysis of existing material. Analysis RESULTS AND ANALYSIS was done of protocols (minutes of steering committees and other meetings), strategic Factors Stimulating Collaboration programs, action programs and project Table 2 presents the factors facilitating reports, mutual relations with the Diaspora commimity, • Personal interviews. In-depth interviews according to the mean value (based on a scale were conducted (approximately two hours of 1-6) of each characteristic. in length) based on open-ended questions Non-mediated, personal encounters involv­ with minimal directives. Thirty key people ing a direct connection between participants were interviewed, among them politicians contributed the greatest extent to strengthen­ (including mayors), government employ­ ing collaboration. The exchange of delega­ ees (such as directors of community cen­ tions was also a significant factor. ters, social services departments, and busi­ Another stimulating factor was participa­ ness development centers), project work­ tion in discussion forums on Jewish and pro­ ers, community representatives in Israel fessional issues held in Israel on such topics (American Jewish communities employ an as assimilation, conversion law, and Jewish Israeli resident to represent their interests pluralism. Participants reported that they now in Israel), and volunteers.

FALL 2000 Journal of Jewish Communal Service / 30 better understood the differences between the leadership regards the collaboration as a "being a Jew in Israel and being a Jew in the high-priority goal, creates a suitable atmo­ United States." Some even recognized the sphere for working together, consohdates the importance that their newly acquired knowl­ workers and the volunteers, and rewards those edge and awareness played in their personal who take part in the implementation. Some of identity as Jews and as representatives ofthe the interviewees who work in the local authori­ Jewish State. ties sttessed tiiat the extent to which they The exchange of professional knowledge could find time for creating the connection also contributed to sttengthening collabora­ depended largely upon its legitimization tion. In the organizational meetings with col­ through the time allotted and the encourage­ leagues in the fields of education, welfare, and ment given by the heads of the local authori­ community, the interviewees not only acquired ties. new knowledge and information but emiched Interestingly, the economic factor was less the understanding of their American colleagues significantto the collaboration. Inmany com­ as well. munities, P2K acmally replaced the funding Consistent with these findings, the that was already supplied by the Jewish interviewees pointed out the importance of Agency. Interviewees expected that P2K would reserving dialogue time for exploration of the at least serve as a basis fot the development of petsonal and professional issues. In relation new funding systems that would recognize the to this point they mentioned the summer pro­ importanceof developing coUaborativeprojects grams that integrate visiting American coun­ in the region. selors and young Israelis in the English-lan­ Indeed, several projects were funded out­ guage sununer camp in Israel. In addition to the side of P2K: a national conference on educa­ personal benefits—learning English (for the tion, a project to nurture immigrants, a Israelis) and a ttip to Israel (for the American combined Jewish-Bedouin elementary school visitors)—the relatively lengthy program al­ class, and a program for children at lisk. Intei­ lows fot a sttengthening and continuation of estingly, the number of piojects funded by the mutual relations. Diaspota communities beyond the P2K budget Another factor that may motivate collabo­ was greatei in the Kiryat Malachi-Hof Ashkelon ration was the support of the local Israeli region than in othei communities. It may be political and government leadership, espe­ possible that this was due to the large number cially that of the mayors and senior directors. of American communities—16—^partnered Reciprocal relations are sttengthened when with that region.

Table 2. Factors stimulating collaboration.

The Factors Mean Value

1. Personal encounters among participants 5.4

2. Reciprocal delegations 5.0

3. Leadership that supports connections between communities 4.9

4. Recognition of common values 4.9

5. Free time in a project geared toward cooperative activity 4.9 beyond discussions concerning budgeting 6. Dialogue forums, discussions on Jewish issues 4.7

7. Dialogue forums, discussions on professional topics 4.6

8. Financial contributions in the region above and beyond the Partnership budget 3.9

9. Potential for creating business connections throughout the world 3^9

FALL 2000 Collaboration between Israel and the Diaspora / 31

Why did the interviewees stress the devel­ Factors Hindering Collaboration opment of business cormections as a poten­ Table 3 presents factors that hinder mutual tial, rather than an existing, factor? The answer relations with the Diaspora community, ac­ lies in the fact that P2K did not result in direct cording to the mean value (scale of 1-6) each cormections between entrepreneurs in the characteristic received. Diaspora and entrepreneurs in Israel despite The three foremost factors hindering col­ the fact that its economic development proj ects laboration related to the complexity and bur­ support and develop industrial areas and in­ den of P2K's organizational structure and de­ clude long-term programs to train entrepre­ cision-making process. Analysis of the deci­ neurs and to stave off unemployment. One of sion-making process in each of the regions the explanations given was that entrepreneurs revealed that each program had to pass through prefer to escape the spotlight and are not 14 junctions in the organizational system be­ interested in being involved with the P2K fore it could be implemented. Not only are there bureaucracy, either in Israel or in the Diaspora. a great number of junctions, but the center of Nevertheless, some of the interviewees ex­ gravity of P2K lay in the process of decision pressed the expectation that within the frame­ making, and less so in implementation. The work of connections made, especially through organizational structure and the roles within it personal relationships, joint business ven­ are not always clear, making for overlapping tures would develop in the future, and not and inefficiency. Many interviewees used the necessarily within the formal framework of P2K words "tiring," "on the verge of breaking itself down," and "frustrating" to describe the pro­ The impetus for collaboration was also ex­ cess. plained from the point of view of complemen­ Many interviewees also pointed to the tary interests. Forexample, some interviewees budgeting process as a hindrance to collabo­ mentioned that the connection offered them a ration. One of the obvious problems was a lack starting point through which to develop rela­ of clear criteria in resource allocation. Too tions in other parts of the world. The Israelis much time was spent on budgeting details, thus became proud representatives of Israel leaving insufficient time to discuss such top­ before world Jewry. At the same time, the ics as Judaism and professional issues. representatives and guests from the Diaspora Many interviewees pointed out the com­ reaped great benefits as well. They became plexity caused by the intermediary function of personally involved in the national challenge the Jewish Agency, expressing their desire for of social and regional economic development. a more direct connection with the community. During their visit to Israel, they have a clear They suggested that the Jewish Agency would sense of purpose, and their connections be­ be more helpful in the roles of enabling and come stronger with each visit. empowerment, while being less occupied with It seems apparent that the interviewees the role of control and mastery. recognized the mutual benefits and the power Two additional aspects—decentralization system based upon a dynamic balance be­ and participation of residents—were related to tween the two sides. They also expressed a the organizational structure of P2K and influ­ strong desire for this mutual relationships to enced the extent of collaboration. In each of thrive. Many interviewees recommended that the three regions examined, P2K fostered de­ the budget framework for the projects between centralization; that is, the transfer of power Israel and the Diaspora be increased, even at from the national authority to the region. In the expense of developing social and eco­ comparison to other processes shared be­ nomic projects in Israel. Many also noted that tween the central andregional levels, the deci­ they (and others, according to them) would be sion-making control over the region was greater willing to pay out of their pocket for a trip to the inP2K. United States.

FALL 2000 Journal of Jewish Communal Service / 32

However, P2K did not usually succeed in attention to the financial cost of reaching deepening the participation from the program objectives. Beyond the general cul­ grassroots level, nor did it include detailed tural differences and the different managerial objectives for participation by the general styles in each countty, the cultural clash may public. It did not establish new community also be explainedby the variety of participants participation frameworks or strengthen exist­ in the process. Many of the Diaspora repre­ ing ones. Most of the participants were poli­ sentatives were business people who were ticians, paid employees, and professionals, volunteers in the P2K projects, while their and there was a lack of authentic involvement Israeli counterparts were usually politicians of residents; namely, business people, aca­ and paid public relations people. This may demics, and average citizens. Many explain why the Diaspora representatives of­ interviewees said that this centralist structure ten showed a lack of patience toward taking at the regional level prevented the extension of political considerations into account, consid­ collaboration with the Diaspora. However, erations that are tied to the Israeli community' s some interviewees noted that this simation power strucmre. might have been more comfortable fot the In the earlier section, we saw that the local Diaspora's representatives because they might leadership could serve as a stimulus for pro­ prefer to meet with key stakeholders rather moting collaboration. However, that same than with the residents. leadership also had the power to curb the The cultural differences between Israelis partaership. Some of the local authorities, and Americans also made collaboration diffi­ such as mayors and administtators, noted that cult. Israeli management is characterized by P2K took away from tae time and effort of their doubting authority, improvisation, and rely­ employees. The local authority leaders were ing on confrontation to solve problems. The ambivalent; on the one hand, they perceived American management style is based on a P2K as an important mission, while on the other more authoritative system than Israeli man­ hand, they were committed to other obliga­ agement, adhering to systematization and dis­ tions. cipline, using clear planning processes, stress­ The decision to integrate P2K in existing ing individual responsibility, and paying close frameworks also hindered collaboration. Most

Table 3. Factors hindering collaboration.

The Factors Mean Value

1 The existence of a complex and complicated organizational structure 4.0 that makes decision making difficult

A lengthy budget allocation process, rather than a pointed discussion on 3.9 professional topics, Judaism, and personal subjects

3. Complex mediation by JAFI between the communities 3.8

4. The role gap between paid workers and politicians in Israel vs. volunteers 3.8 in the U.S. communities 5. Hurried and fragmented visits to Israel by Diaspora visitors 3.8

6. Lack of physical space specifically designated for the project 3.6

7. Cultural gap between Americans and Israelis 3.4

Difficulties in the use of computer communication 3.0

Lack of local leadership support for the relationship with the Diaspora communities 2.7

10. Distant attitude of Diaspora community representatives 2.3

FALL 2000 Collaboration between Israel and the Diaspora / 33

of the activities were held in existing facilities; in the development of mutual professional there were no locations specifically set aside activity. The interviewees even expressed for the cooperative activities that took place in criticism concerning the extent of mutuality P2K. Along with noting the benefits (eco­ and partnership on the part of the representa­ nomic and social) of integrating activities into tives of the Diaspora Jewish communities, existing buildings, the interviewees pointed contending that they expected a higher level. out that the current arrangement made identi­ The findings of this study show that, as is fication with P2K activities all the more diffi­ the case among the Diaspora Jews in their cuh. personal experiences in Israel (Abrams et al., Another factor that restrained collabora­ 1996; Reisman, 1993), the Israelis' experiences tion between the communities was the lack of in their visits to the Diaspora also serve as a consistency in relationships. Many basis for the deepening of their roots. The interviewees claimed that the visits from the interviewees reported that they now better Diaspora communities were largely hurried understand Israel' s place in a wider world view and fragmented. In the eyes of many Israelis, and recognize the significance of their being the visits seemed impersonal. They preferred Jews and not only Israelis. more intense, close, and long-lasting personal Overall, the aspects of meetings and dia­ relationships. Some interviewees feh that the logue—rather than the economic factors— Israelis were more hospitable than their Ameri­ serve as the central stimulant for collaboration can counterparts. Some of the Israeli delega­ in the relations between Israel and the Diaspora. tions to the United States were disappointed This is in contrast to earlier research smdies by the lack of warm and personal attention paid that indicate that in most cases, the economic to them by their American hosts. factor is the central stimulant in collaboration Lastly, preserving the intensity and ongo­ between communities (Kipnis, 1990). ing nature of the relationships can also be done Thus, in order to stimulate the collabora­ to a certain extent through electronic commu­ tion between Israel and the Diaspora, there is nication, including sites geared specifically to first a need to increase frameworks of personal this topic. Many interviewees, however, con­ meetings, dialogue forums, and delegations. tended that a lack of computer skills and inac­ However, the research findings revealed that cessibility prevented them from taking optimal multicultural meetings sometimes make com­ advantage of this route of communication. ing together difficult. Other studies point to difficulties in inter-cultural meetings (Mead, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 1994;Meshulam, 1993). Therefore, specific attention should be directed to exposing and The Meeting Framework discussing the cultural gap, with its limitations In studies that examine Israel-Diaspora re­ and threats, as well as strengths and opportu­ lations from the standpoint of Diaspora nities. The need to dedicate resources to this Jewry, results show a growing desire to de­ topic is obvious, because in the case of P2K velop relations based upon partnership and meetings between the countries often bring mutuality and to be less philanthropic-ori- together representatives serving in different ented(Kosmin, 1991;Raab, 1999). Thepresent roles—volunteers and business people from study adds a dimension to these findings by the Diaspora communities and politicians and showing that the aspiration to a mutual contri­ directors of human services in Israel. bution—rather than the philanthropy of the Diaspora Jews—exists to a large extent among The Organizational Framework the Israelis as well. More than economic The organizational strucmre and the deci­ support, the Israelis are greatly interested in sion-making process of P2K, described as personal meetings, in frameworks that allow burdensome, tiring, and bureaucratic, were the dialogue, in complementary delegations, and key factors restraining collaboration. An ad-

FALL 2000 Joumal of Jewish Communal Service / 34 ditional organizational problem was that the ever, since in cases where organizations pro­ P2K center of gravity was in the decision­ vide similar services, each organization tends making process, rather than implementation. to strengthen its own stand (Boehm, 1996). This finding is of importance since the organi­ The findings of this research study show that zational sttucture has a great amount of influ­ the success of collaboration is largely telated ence on the success of each project, and this to the capability of a given project to serve as influence increases as the project becomes a lever for initiating, planning, and implement­ more complicated (Aherman & Churchman, ing programs outside the institutional budget 1991). Similarly, organizational efficiency and framework. effectiveness are largely correlated to the abil­ In this context, the research findings reveal ity to develop clear and simplified organiza­ an interesting picture. In regions with a large tional structures (Peters & Waterman, 1982). number of Diaspora communities (such as in The central conclusion here is the need to the Kiryat Malachi-Hof Ashkelon tegion), the build a simpler organizational structure that number of projects existing outside the bud­ will direct the center of activity to working getary communities (i.e., Karmiel-Misgav and within small action teams dealing with plan­ the Central Galilee). It may well be that group­ ning and implementation. In an efficient orga­ ing a rather large number of Diaspora commu­ nizational structure, it is desirable to have nities causes each community to search for small, simple functional units—mission alternative paths in deepening collaboration teams—that coordinate the activities in every beyond the project's framework. If we do area. This structure increases the chance that indeed accept this conclusion, then we must those participating in the activity will identify weigh the positive aspect ofthe involvement more with the undertaking and will be more of more Diaspora communities per region. In involved with the activity, readily joining the this way, the dependence of collaboration on effort. The basic approach adopted here is to the proj ec t' s institutionalized frameworks sells. create a sense of smallness, simplicity, and intimacy within the larger organization. Sites of Activities The study's findings also raise the call to Another conclusion relates to the physical expand and deepen the participation of the sites ofthe activities. It was found that along residents. P2K's organizational structure is with the benefits of integrating activities into focused on key people: local leadership, poli­ existing facilities, it is important to establish a ticians, and managers. It may be that the separate strucmre in which parts ofthe activi­ absence of clear instructions to involve resi­ ties—especially those relating to collabora­ dents is a result of previous experience, which tion between the communities—will be fo­ called for that sort of collaboration but often cused. This type of strucmre may heighten the encountered great difficulty in achieving it and sense of identity and the obligation to collabo­ implementing projects. It may also be that rate. The findings of this smdy support a claim Diaspora community representatives prefer to raised in other studies, which contends that meet with people of influence in the region. In the tangibility and concreteness of a physical any case, it is important to remember that structure have a positive influence on the level citizen participation is an important means by of identification and effort (Boehm, 1998; which to expand the partnership between Is­ Laufer, 1984). rael and the Diaspora communities. It is also important to develop virtual sites. Electionic communication can bridge distance Budgeting the Activities and encourage the continuation of personal Another conclusion of the study is that relations from one meeting to the next. Further­ additional frameworks outside the instimtional more, there are examples of development of budget framework need to be established. community projects via electronic communi­ This may prove to be a difficult mission, how­ cation (Jones, 1997). The notion of electronic

FALL 2000 Collaboration between Israel and the Diaspora / 35 communication networking, on both the per­ our computer bridge to the 21" century: Les­ sonal and administrative levels, is not new to sons learned for the Jewish family service the Jewish community (Friedman & Hyman, world. Journal of Jewish Communal Service, i 996/97). However, many of the interviewees 72(2/3), 137-144, expressed difficulty in accessing and using Galin, A, (1996), The dynamics of negotiating— computers. Thus, efficientuse of communica­ From theory to practice (In Hebrew), Tel tion systems requires the establishment of Aviv: Ramot, user-friendly systems and proper training. Germain, C. (1984). Social work practice in heahh The findings of this research, which indi­ care—An ecological perspective. New York: cates the eagerness of Israelis for mutual rela­ The Free Press, tions with the Diaspora, are encouraging. The Gurin, A,, & Rosen, D, (1991), The Renewal expectations of both sides for mutual Project and the North American Jewish Com­ contributions are complementary. However, munities: Continuing influences. In S, Spiro this mutuality cannot develop by itself The & S, Reichmann (Eds.), Selected issues in varied opportunities and advantages that this renewal of needy neighborhoods (pp. 46-56) mutuality confers must be emphasized in (In Hebrew). : University Founda­ existing and new programs. As well, the tion for Social Research. limitations of mumality need to be addressed Jones, S, (1997). Virtual culture. London: Sage. more directly. Kipnis, B. (1990). Development towns and re­ gional councils: Guidelines for a policy of ACKNOWLEDGMENTS collaboration. Jerusalem: Ministry of Hous­ ing and Construction, With thanks to the Jewish Agency for Israel, the Israel Department, which funded the research. Kosmin,B, (1991), Highlights of the 1990National Jewish Population Survey. New York: Coun­ REFERENCES cil of Jewish Federations. Laufer, A. (1984). Strategic marketing for non­ Abrams, S., Klein-Katz, S., & Schachter, L. (1996). profit organizations: Program and resource Standing within the gates: A study of the development. New York: The Free Press, impact of the Cleveland-Israel educators' semi­ Mead, R, (1994), International management- nar on the personal and professional lives of its Cross-cultural dimensions. Blackwell, participants. Journal of Jewish Communal Meshulam, A, (1993). The influence of the Service. 73{\), pp. 83-88. American administrative culture on Israeli Alterman, R., & Churchman, A. (1991). The cultures. In A. Shenar, & O. Yarkoni (Eds,), urban-renewal program: The great experi­ Administrative culture in Israel (In Hebrew), ment and its lessons (In Hebrew). Haifa: Tel Aviv: Chericover. Technion, Technological Institute of Israel, Peters, T,, & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of ShmuelNe'eman Foundation. excellence. New York: Harper & Row. Boehm, A. (1996). Forces driving competition in Raab, E, (1999). Changing American Jewish human service organizations and positional attitudes toward Israel. Journal of Jewish competitive responses. Administration in Communal Service, 75(2/3), 140-145, Social Work. 2094), 61-78. Reisman, B, (1993). Aduh education trips to Israel: Cohen, S. (1986). Jewish travel to Israel: Incen­ A transforming experience. Jerusalem: Melton tives and inhibitions among U.S. and Cana­ Center for Jewish Education in the Diaspora. dian teenagers and young adults. Jerusalem: Weiss, J. (1987). Pathways of collaboration among Jewish Education Committee of the Jewish public agencies. Journal of Policy and Man­ Agency. agement, 7, 94-117. Friedman, A., & Hyman, D. (1996-97). Building

FALL 2000