Features
Jewish nonprofits are struggling. How should donors try to rescue them?
By BEN SALES NEW YORK (JTA) — In the weeks after it became clear that the coronavirus pandemic would spark a lasting economic crisis, the Jewish world’s leading funder group put together a memo with some back-of-the-envelope projections for how much Jewish nonprofits stood to lose.
The tally: at least $650 million, according to the internal document from the Jewish Federations of North America, which was based on estimates from several American Jewish umbrella organizations, such as the Foundation for Jewish Camp and the JCC Association of North America. The document was produced in March and obtained by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
The document says Jewish camps, schools, community centers and other groups like college Hillels will need that much or more to make it through the pandemic, which has already caused widespread layoffs and furloughs at Jewish community centers across the United States.
On Monday, a coalition of large Jewish philanthropic foundations pledged $80 million to shore up struggling Jewish organizations. But now, with it becoming increasingly clear that the world will not snap back to its former shape anytime soon, that number appears to be a fraction of what will be needed. Doron Krakow, CEO of the JCC Association of North America, told JTA earlier this month that the need would exceed $800 million if camps have to close for the summer and a recession drags into a second year.
The sudden financial blow is reanimating a longstanding debate about the best way to support America’s robust infrastructure of Jewish nonprofits. Should collective, communal fundraising bodies like Jewish federations have responsibility for disbursing philanthropy across the Jewish world? Or should the wide array of private Jewish family foundations each give separately to their causes?
Proponents of the network of Jewish federations, which act as collective funding bodies for local Jewish communities across the country, have suggested a single massive pool of coronavirus philanthropic assistance, to be managed centrally. No overarching plan has been put forward yet, but the Jewish Telegraphic Agency has learned that several leading funders are working to form a fund that would provide loans to Jewish organizations on the brink of going broke.
Among them is Krakow, who has called for private Jewish foundations and Jewish federations, which act as collective charities for Jewish communities across the country, to create a loan fund of $1 billion.
“There’s a need to know with confidence that we can keep one eye on the horizon and know that there’s a day after,” he said.
But some in the world of Jewish philanthropy are already raising questions about whether a centrally administered megafund is the best strategy to shepherd geographically and programmatically diverse organizations through the crisis.
“A ‘Billion Dollar Fund,’ a ‘Jewish New Deal’ [or] a ‘COVID czar’ are fine and well-intentioned ideas that look good on paper and seem simple and straightforward, but they are anything but,” Andres Spokoiny, CEO of the Jewish Funders Network, which convenes Jewish donors and foundations, wrote in a recent essay in the publication eJewish Philanthropy.
“As leaders it’s our responsibility to accept reality and focus on practical, smaller-scale, sector-specific solutions that can work,” Spokoiny wrote. “The aggregate of all those will be surely larger than any central fund and will produce a richer and more vibrant result.”
The $80 million fund, announced Monday, appears to attempt a third way. It’s a coalition between the Jewish Federations of North America and eight large Jewish philanthropic foundations. Called the Jewish Community Response and Impact Fund, it will prioritize organizations that focus on education, leadership and engagement, though a press release did not provide further detail on those fields.
The fund will provide short-term loans to organizations to meet payroll and maintain operations in the next three to six months, and will also award grants that do not have to be repaid. Participating foundations include the Jim Joseph Foundation, Maimonides Fund, Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation and others.
“We have also seen firsthand the acute challenges Jewish organizations across the country are facing,” read a statement from the funders. “While this fund alone cannot address all of those challenges, we believe that investing together in these vital pillars of Jewish life will help ensure a stronger future for American Jewry in the months and years to come,”
Beyond that fund, experts in American Jewish philanthropy say that large individual donors and family foundations are likely to eschew putting their money in a giant pool. While federations used to dominate the Jewish giving scene, they and their ethos of collective giving have ceded more ground to private foundations, as large donors have become more involved in the causes they fund and more particular about how their money is spent.
“If we’ve seen any trend in philanthropy over the course of the last number of decades, it’s to targeted giving,” said Jack Wertheimer, a professor of American Jewish history at the Jewish Theological Seminary. “Donors are leery of giving large amounts of their philanthropy to a pot that will be divided up, not according to their own wishes but according to the directives of some body that would make the decision. Federations obviously have suffered from this.”
But there’s still interplay between large donors and federations, said Hanna Shaul Bar Nissim, a visiting scholar at Brandeis University who focuses on American Jewish philanthropy. Many Jewish family foundations give to their local Jewish federations and, in turn, sit on their boards or have influence over where the federation money goes.
“The golden rule of, the size of your donation impacts the size of your involvement, is very relevant to the world of Jewish federations,” said Bar Nissim, who is also deputy director of the Ruderman Family Foundation. “The more you give, the more you can have a say and become involved.”
No matter how the debate is settled — or whether it is at all — it’s clear that funders must move quickly if they are to blunt the effects of the pandemic, which has rendered at least 20 million Americans jobless in just four weeks.
Other Jewish philanthropies have also started doling out funds. New York’s UJA-Federation has announced $43 million in grants to social service organizations, JCCs and individuals in need.
And the Harold Grinspoon Foundation, which usually gives approximately $3 million annually to Jewish camps, has announced an additional $10 million in matching grants to help camps survive whatever financial damage this coming summer may bring.
The foundation’s leadership understands that $10 million is not nearly enough to fill camps’ anticipated needs — that would take about $150 million, the foundation estimates. Still, Sarah Eisinger, who heads the foundation’s camp initiative, said she hoped the $10 million dollars would set an example and give the camps a measure of hope.
“It’s only one intervention,” she said. “It’s only one slice of a much larger pie. But the early impact of that money and the psychological lift of a shot in the arm will fuel a sense of optimism and a possibility to raise resources.”
The foundation moved quickly in part because its president, Winnie Grinspoon, realized that hewing to longstanding giving practices, or waiting for them to be renegotiated, would deepen the financial devastation that is already unfolding.
“This is an unprecedented situation, as we all know, and the rules and restrictions we might operate under at a normal time go out the window,” Grinspoon said.
She added, “This is the moment to give boldly, to go beyond our normal giving structure and limitations for those who are able to reach deep into their pockets, so we don’t look back with regret.”
Features
Every Rick Owens Sneaker You Should Know: A Complete Ranking
I’ve spent an embarrassing amount of time thinking about Rick Owens sneakers. Comparing soles in browser tabs at 2 AM, reading forum debates about leather quality across seasons. But it’s turned me into the person friends text when they want to know which pair to buy first — so at least it’s a useful obsession.
The thing about Rick Owens eu clothing is that sneakers are secretly the gateway. People see the draped jackets on the runway and assume that’s where Rick starts. For most of us, it starts with a pair of shoes that looked unlike anything else on the shelf. Here’s my ranking of every major silhouette.
Ramones: The Gateway That Started It All
If Rick Owens sneakers have a mascot, it’s the Ramones. Named after the punk band — these are Rick’s take on the classic high-top. Chunky rubber sole, waxed cotton laces, a toe cap that sits more forward than a typical Converse shape. The most recognizable silhouette in the entire lineup.
I recommend these as a first purchase to everyone. Easiest to style, most forgiving in proportion, and they age beautifully. Mainline leather runs $700–900. DRKSHDW canvas sits closer to $400–500 and works just as well daily.
Geobaskets: The Statement Maker
Take the Ramones, crank the volume up, and you get Geobaskets. Higher shaft, thicker sole, more visual weight. The proportions are deliberately aggressive — they look like they belong in a sci-fi film, and that’s the point.
Geobaskets are not a beginner shoe. The shaft height changes how your pants sit. They demand confidence. But if you’ve already got a couple of pieces from the Rick Owens collection and want to commit harder — this is the move. Leather pairs run $1,000+ and they’re worth it to the right person.
Abstract: The Low-Top That Actually Works
Rick’s low-top game was uneven until the Abstracts landed. These take the Ramones DNA — the sole shape, the toe box — and drop it to ankle height. Clean, sharp, unexpectedly versatile. I wear mine with cropped trousers in summer and they look as intentional as any designer shoe I own.
The Abstract solved a real problem: what do you wear when it’s too hot for Geobaskets but you still want that Rick silhouette? This. Browse the EU store during warmer months and you’ll see these sell fast.
Megalaced Runner: Where Rick Meets Athletic
When Rick started putting out runner-style sneakers, purists lost their minds. But the Megalaced Runner works because it doesn’t pretend to be a performance shoe. It takes the runner shape and twists it — exaggerated sole, dramatic lacing, materials that belong on a runway, not a track. The pick for someone who lives in sneakers but wants to graduate beyond Nike into something with more design weight.
Fogachine: The Platform Statement
The Fogachine is for people who’ve seen every other Rick sneaker and thought — “not enough.” The stacked platform sole is massive, borderline architectural. Closer to wearable sculpture than traditional footwear. I’ve tried them on and they’re surprisingly comfortable, but they require a very specific wardrobe commitment. If your closet is already deep into Rick Owens, they’re a natural endpoint.
Sizing and Mainline vs DRKSHDW
Rick Owens sneakers run about a full size large. A US 10 in Nike translates to roughly a 43 in Rick, maybe 42 depending on the model. Ramones and Geobaskets are the most generous. If you’re ordering from the official Rick Owens EU site, their size charts are reliable.
Every model comes in two tiers. Mainline is premium leather, made in Italy. DRKSHDW is the diffusion line — canvas, waxed cotton, denim — same silhouette, roughly half the cost. What nobody tells beginners: DRKSHDW is not a downgrade. Canvas Ramones develop a worn-in character that leather doesn’t replicate. If you shop Rick Owens online and see DRKSHDW — you’re not settling, you’re choosing.
Which One Should You Buy First?
Ramones. Always Ramones. DRKSHDW to start smart, mainline leather to start with a grail. Every other model builds on what the Ramones established. Once you own a pair, everything else in the Rick Owens EU clothing catalog makes more sense.
After that, the path is personal. Geobaskets for drama. Abstracts for warm weather. Megalaced Runners if you live in sneakers. Fogachines if you want to tower. Once you put on your first pair, regular sneakers start looking flat — that’s what twenty years of perfecting a sole shape does.
Features
Big Numbers, Small Print: Why Simpler Promotions Often Deliver More
Few things catch the eye more than a giant red sign advertising a 50% discount on a popular product. Just seeing it makes shoppers feel they’ve struck gold. However, experienced shoppers aren’t easily convinced, having seen many impressive offers shrink to next to nothing by the time they reach the checkout. The headline-grabbing number is rarely the full story.
Most of the gap between the advertised saving and the one found at the till comes down to the small print. Conditions, thresholds and expiry dates can all chip away at the discount. That’s why a modest promotion can sometimes offer better value for money, even if it doesn’t look as appealing on the poster.
Why Bigger Doesn’t Always Mean Better
Large discounts, cashback promises and bonus rewards are expressly designed to stand out. They are bright, bold and hard to ignore. Still, the advertised value doesn’t always translate into the same real-world benefit. A promotion is only worth what the customer can use, and the conditions behind it, not the headline figure, determine that.
Imagine two clothing stores on the same floor of a mall. One is offering a 30% discount on purchases over $200. The other offers 10% off everything with no underlying conditions. A shopper looking for a $60 pair of jeans will get a guaranteed $6 off at the second store, and nothing at the first. In this case, the smaller offer gives the customer greater value.
This doesn’t mean a smaller promotion is always best. A person spending $300 in a shop will get the better savings at the first store. When studying competing offers, the real question is which deal best fits the customer’s spending intent in that moment.
The Fine Print Behind Everyday Offers
Conditions are a part of modern-day promotions. Common conditions include minimum spending levels, limits on qualifying products and specific redemption windows. Others tie rewards to loyalty program membership or require extra steps before the reward unlocks.
Reward schemes are a clear example. A coffee chain might award loyalty points for every order, which customers can redeem for a free coffee on a future visit. A grocery store might add store credit onto a shopper’s loyalty card but tie it to a 30-day validity period. Both offers hold genuine value, but only if customers return.
Neither offer is unreasonable, as businesses need to manage costs while encouraging customers to return. But sometimes, having the extra condition makes customers pause and question what an offer is really worth.
Where Simpler Rewards Pull Ahead
When a promotion has few conditions, it holds an advantage over others because it is easy to understand. A straightforward discount or a free item with no extra steps before redemption leaves little room for confusion. Shoppers know what they are getting, and the reward’s value is clear.
This differs from an offer that requires shoppers to make two separate purchases, complete a mail-in form and then wait six weeks for a rebate cheque. The rebate reward might be bigger, but many people never get far enough to claim it because the steps are too confusing or too long-winded. When the offer isn’t claimed, the advertised value means nothing.
The same distinction is visible across digital entertainment. An online casino offering free spins, for example, often includes clauses such as wagering requirements. This means that any winnings that come from these free spins can only be withdrawn once their total value has been bet through a set number of times. Yet some casinos understand that an offer with no wagering requirements is a good promotion that carries real weight among players.
Even so, these promotions are often not free of all conditions. Many casino offers are restricted by caps on winnings, short validity periods and a limit on which games can be played.
Same Principle, Different Industries
Travel companies also follow a similar promotional pattern. A cheap city break in Vancouver or a discounted cottage stay may appear only on certain dates or may include a non-refundable clause. Blackout periods are also common, meaning the discount can’t be used during busy times.
Subscription services often go down a slightly different route, with a low introductory price that increases after a few months. Many tie the reduced price to contract length, meaning a longer contract comes with a lower introductory price. Bundling services is another way to reduce prices. However, the value only exists when the customer actually uses all of the services they buy.
Video games work similarly, with in-game currency and other bonuses available to players in exchange for a set number of daily logins or for completing certain challenges within the game. While the industries vary, the underlying concept remains consistent. Rewards are available, but the value depends on what the customer needs to do to get them.
Why Businesses Build Complicated Offers
Consumers often blame companies and come to the belief that promotions are designed to trip shoppers up. However, the truth is more practical.
Promotions also need to benefit the business. Minimum spend thresholds and loyalty point accrual encourage customers to fill their baskets before checkout or give them a reason to return. Similarly, limited-time offers prompt immediate action by creating a sense of urgency. These are normal marketing tactics, and when implemented correctly, they deliver real benefits to both parties.
When a program is well designed, customers can earn consistent rewards over time rather than relying on a large upfront discount. If the business can balance its offers with clear explanations of the conditions behind them, customers are far less likely to be caught out.
How to Weigh Up an Offer Beyond the Headline
A simple way to judge a promotion’s value is to ask a few basic questions. What is the advertised saving or reward? Does it have any additional spending requirements to unlock? Are there any time limits for claiming the reward? And does the shopper meet the eligibility requirements in the first place?
Then it’s important to look at what the offer actually is and whether it is something that will be used. An offer that pushes a customer to buy something they never normally buy doesn’t really represent a saving.
An offer on a music streaming service is only useful for someone who listens to music. For someone who doesn’t even listen to music, the deal has no value, even at a reduced cost.
Reading Past the Headline
Big discounts and rewards can be highly beneficial, but only when customers understand the difference between the advertised value and what they’ll actually receive. A 30% discount that goes unused is worth nothing, while a 10% discount that applies to every purchase can offer real savings.
Although simple promotions tend to offer greater clarity surrounding conditions, more complex promotions can still be beneficial, provided they align with the customer’s existing plans or spending habits. However good the offer may seem, it is essential to weigh the value against the cost of obtaining it.
Features
Arabs in the coalition – yes or no?
By MARTY GREEN The Jewish People are facing a moment of decision today which will define who we are for generations to come. Should we, or should we not, form a coalition government with the Arab parties?
There was a moment in our recent history where we faced a parallel question…or, if not in our actual history, at least in the historical narrative which defines us. I am talking about Leon Uris’s masterwork, “Exodus”. I read it as a teenager, and I can’t imagine that there are many Jews my age whose worldview was not fundamentally influenced by that story.
Our protagonist, Ari Ben Canaan, grew up close to the Arab village of Abu Yesha, where he became close friends with the mukhtar‘s son, Taha. Now, twenty years later, on the eve of the War of Independence, Taha’s father is gone and the young man is now the village leader. Arab irregulars have made themselves at home in the village, and are preparing there for the coming assault on Gan Dafna. Ari goes to see his old friend to ask for cooperation. (I am paraphrasing here:)
“You said we would always be friends.”|
“Times have changed. I am an Arab.”
“You are first of all a human being.”
“What do you expect me to do?”
“If you don’t rein in the irregulars we will have to attack Abu Yesha.”
“Is that what you want to do?”
“What do you expect me to do?”
The two are at an impasse. Then Taha speaks: “You said we were brothers, didn’t you? Well, if that is true, if you really meant it, then give me Jordana. Yes, give me your sister to be my wife; to bear my children…”
Ari’s fist shot out, sending Taha sprawling to a corner. He leaps up and instinctively grabs his knife and raises it towards Ari…
Now, let us pause in the telling, because I remember how I felt when I read this as a teenager. And I feel very differently when I read it today. Who was in the wrong? Was Taha in the wrong for demanding Jordana as a sign of brotherhood? Or was Ari wrong for responding with outrage?
I am all but certain that the answer to those questions is glaringly obvious to everyone who is reading here. And I am further all but certain that half of you choose Answer A and half of you choose Answer B.
Because that is exactly how the Jewish People appear to be divided on the question of whether or not to form a coaltion with the Arab parties who hold the balance of power. And the decision we make will have consequences just as far-reaching as the (fictional) decision made in the spur of the moment 80 years ago in the village of Abu Yesha.
Ari stood there dumbfounded by what he had done, unable to find the words to explain. But Taha understood perfectly well.
“Never mind”, he spoke. “You’ve told me everything I need to know. Now get out of my house, zhid!”
(It happens that the only copy of Exodus in my possession is an old samizdat version from the Soviet Union, kindly given to me many years ago by an elderly Russian immigrant. I couldn’t resist the chance to offer Taha’s final words using that particularly expressive insult from the Russian original. It also explains why my quoted passages are inexact, having passed from English to Russian and back again.)
And what is my point with all of this? It is the question of whether we should offer the Arab parties a place in the coalition government. From reading the online discussions, it is quite clear to me that we are just as divided on this question as we are on the Exodus question…should we or shouldn’t we. And each opposing side is equally vehement in the certainty that they are right.
What I can tell you for sure, is that if we make the choice which I fear, it will be just as it was between Ari and Taha. |If we manage to cobble together a coalition of parties that have nothing in common except a determination to keep 20% of our population out of the seats of power, we will have told the Arabs everything they need to know. I can only hope against hope that Eisenkot has the courage to do the right thing.
Ed. note: If you don’t remember this scene from the movie, that’s because it was only in the book.
