Brandeis University Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies Understanding the Israel Fellows Program: Program Theory and Implementation Challenges Fern Chertok Annette Koren February 2014 Understanding the Israel Fellows Program: © 2014 Brandeis University Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies The Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, founded in 1980, is dedicated to providing independent, high quality research on issues related to contemporary Jewish life. The Cohen Center is also the home of the Steinhardt Social Research Institute (SSRI). Established in 2005, SSRI uses innovative research methods to collect and analyze socio-demographic data on the Jewish community. iii Program Theory and Implementation Challenges Acknowledgments Support for this research was provided by the Jewish Agency for Israel. We appreciate the advice and support of Aviva Zeltzer-Zubida, Ronen Weiss, and the Israel Fellows Program staff at JAFI as well as Abigail Dauber-Sterne at Hillel the Foundation for Jewish Campus Life. Our work also benefited from the assistance of our colleagues, including Joshua Davidson, Ariel Stein, Masha Lokshin, Deborah Grant, and Chelsea Norman at the Cohen Center. We wish to thank the Israel Fellows and their supervisors and Hillel colleagues who took the time to share their thoughts with us through interviews. i Understanding the Israel Fellows Program: ii Program Theory and Implementation Challenges Table of Contents List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5 Research Strategy ..................................................................................................................... 7 IFP Program Theory ................................................................................................................ 9 Authentic Person-to-Person Contact ................................................................................... 9 Cascading and Networking Impact ................................................................................... 10 Potential Issues with the IFP Theory of Change .............................................................. 11 Implementation Theory and Challenges ............................................................................... 13 Retention ............................................................................................................................. 13 Selection and Placement .................................................................................................... 14 Training for the Right “Toolbox” ...................................................................................... 15 Acclimatizing to the American College Campus ............................................................. 16 Supervision: Reporting to Multiple Masters..................................................................... 17 Fellows Stretched Too Thin............................................................................................... 17 Implications for Evaluation ................................................................................................... 19 References ............................................................................................................................... 21 iii Understanding the Israel Fellows Program: List of Tables Table 1: Campus Key Informant Interviews........................................................................... 3 Table 2: Tenure of Fellows by Year Started ........................................................................... 9 1 Program Theory and Implementation Challenges Executive Summary Concern regarding support for Israel on components: (1) building relationships North American campuses led to the between young Israelis and American development of the Israel Fellows Program students and (2) disseminating the impact of (IFP). The IFP, a collaboration of Hillel: the these relationships through student Foundation for Jewish Campus Life (Hillel) networks. and the Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI), brings Israeli young adults to American Authentic Person-to-Person Contact: The college campuses to work on Israel core tenet of the IFP is that developing a education, advocacy, and engagement. The relationship with an Israeli peer will help IFP was launched in 2003 on six American Jewish young adults in the Diaspora engage campuses. In the 2012-13 academic year, 56 more closely with Israel and their Jewish Fellows served 70 North American colleges identity. Fellows present Israeli culture and and universities. JAFI and Hillel are society through their own lives thereby working to develop systematic data that can providing students with a personal, authentic be used as a basis for strategizing how best encounter with Israel and moving the to extend the reach and impact of the conversation beyond history and conflict. program. The first phase of this research, conducted by the Cohen Center for Modern Networking Impact: Fellows identify Jewish Studies (CMJS) at Brandeis potential student leaders and build small University, focused on the implementation clusters of students to develop broader of the IFP within the context of its program campus programming. theory of change. The IFP theory of change faces several Eight single campus-based and two metro- issues. First, the theory lacks goal clarity. level Hillels were chosen as the focal point For JAFI, the IFP primarily represents an for study representing the full spectrum of intervention to promote Israel education and campuses involved in the program. In-depth engagement. For campus Hillel interviews were conducted with key organizations it is part of the larger goal of informants on each campus including Israel fostering engagement with Jewish identity. fellows, their supervisors, Hillel directors, Second, the IFP theory of change relies on and student leaders. In addition, five JAFI dissemination of impact through student staff members were interviewed about networks which by definition lack the recruitment, selection, training, placement, immediacy and authenticity of direct contact and tenure of fellows. with an Israel fellow. Third, reliance on personal relationships and student networks Program Theory may not be an effective strategy for influencing engagement with Israel on the IFP’s underlying theory of change is student broader campus. -centered and is comprised of two 2 Understanding the Israel Fellows Program: Challenges to IFP Implementation needs to develop a diverse pool of candidates to respond to the needs of Over the last decade the IFP has developed particular campuses. from a small improvised pilot to an established program with formal protocols Training for the Right “Toolbox”: There for recruiting, selecting, training, and are several discrepancies between the placing fellows. Nonetheless, several training fellows receive and the skills and challenges to the successful implementation knowledge they actually need to succeed on of the IFP program continue into its second campus. Training focuses on education, decade of operation. program development, advocacy, and public relations. Once on campus fellows find that Retention of Fellows: Fellows are expected Hillel’s approach of working through to make a two-year commitment, but most students requires skills of networking, leave after their first year. Hillel relationship building, and advising/ organizations see the premature departure of supervising groups of students. Training a fellow as the loss of their investment in often leads fellows to expect politically selecting, acculturating, and training this charged campus environments. The reality individual. However, the greatest cost is in they find is often political apathy and a lack the potential loss of the network of of public discourse about Israel. Fellows relationships formed by that fellow. also receive extensive information on Although there are isolated cases where a American national Jewish organizations, but fellow has been homesick or unable to adapt learn little about the personal nature of to the particular campus, the primary causes Jewish identity among American young of attrition appear to be more endemic to the adults. program. Taking on the role of a fellow is a difficult assignment, and it carries Acclimatization: Like other young adults substantial personal costs. Fellows put their starting a new job, fellows are often facing professional and personal lives on hold for their first experience of moving to a new two years. In addition, their living stipend, city with no social or family connections. particularly at schools in metropolitan areas, They can feel lonely, dislocated, and is inadequate. overwhelmed. Fellows are also confronted with and confused by the cultural Selection and Placement: One of the differences between American and Israeli challenges to the successful implementation society and between American and Israeli of the IFP, especially relevant to program Jews, thereby making it more difficult to expansion, is the selection and retention learn how to maneuver in this new cultural until placement of high potential candidates. context. The ideal candidate