| Notes |
Are you a funder interested in leverage,
scale, and collaboration? Are you
considering developing a partnership with
the Government of Israel? If yes, this guide is
intended to help you understand what such a
partnership might look like; its pros and cons,
benefits and challenges. It provides insights,
tools, and the information necessary to ask
the right questions, identify the right partners,
and structure the collaboration successfully
and sustainably.
2 /
The Guide to Funder
Collaboration with the
Government of Israel (GOI)
Table of Contents
1 | Introduction ......................................................................................... 4
Why Now?
About the Guide
2| Why Work with the Government?................................................. 6
Case Study: When Working with the Government Works: PJ Library
Defining What We Mean When We Say “Working with the Government”
What about Local Government?
3 | Is Working with the Government Right for You?...................... 13
Case Study: Figuring it Out: Yuval/Yuvalim
When is the Government Right for You?
What Does it Take to Build a Successful Partnership with the GOI?
When Are You Right for the Government?
4 | Do’s and Don’t’s ............................................................................... 17
Case Study: When Working with the Government Doesn’t Work:
The Yaniv Initiative
Funder’s Reality vs Government Reality
Do’s
Don’t’s
/ 3
5 | Things to Think About – Ethics and Responsibility.......................... 22
Acting Responsibly
Working with NGOs and the Government
General Points
6 | There is More than One Way to Collaborate – Sample Models .. 24
1. Independent Pilot, Joint Initiative and Handover to The GOI
Case Study: Treatment Centers for Sexually Abused Children and Youth
Case Study: Magshimim Cyber Program
About the Model
2. Full Strategic Collaboration
Case Study: Israel Unlimited
About the Model
3. Cross Sector Collaboration
Case Study: The Opportunity Fund for Civic Engagement
About the Model
Other Models
Collective Impact
Social Bonds
7 | Practical Guide to Working with the GOI ........................................ 36
GOI 101
Who are the Right People to Approach?
How Long Does it Take?
When to Approach the Ministries
Mechanisms of Cooperation with the GOI
The Relationship between the GOI and Civil Society
8| Final Thoughts ....................................................................................... 45
Acknowledgments
4 /
Introduction
In recent years philanthropy in Israel and abroad has changed significantly.
Funders have become increasingly interested in targeted giving with clearly defined
goals and strategies and the ability to measure impact. Philanthropists are looking
for, adopting, and building new tools to deal with the issues important to them. The
philanthropic community as a whole is seeking to share knowledge and learn from the
experience of their peers in order to maximize their ability to create positive change.
In the framework of philanthropic giving strategies, collaboration is a principal tool
that emphasizes funders’ ability to work together for a shared cause by leveraging
experience, knowledge, and resources to increase their impact on various fields. In
Israel this type of cooperation, whether among Israeli funders or those from abroad, is
growing; and an increasing number of tangible examples demonstrate the advantages
and opportunities inherent in working together.
In 2015 JFN published the Handbook on Funder Collaboration to provide philanthropists
interested in building partnerships with the necessary tools. After the publication of
the handbook and following numerous conversations with funders in Israel and abroad
it became clear that there was interest in and a need for similar knowledge sharing
regarding partnerships between philanthropists and the Government of Israel (GOI).
Funders wishing to promote a social agenda in Israel often look to the GOI as a potential
partner through whom it is possible to reach broad target populations and national
scales of impact. In addition, partnering with the GOI can enable a funder to embed his
or her project into the “system” and as part of the national priorities, thus ensuring long
term sustainability.
Creating this type of partnership is, by its very nature, a complex task. The GOI and
philanthropy have very different characteristics, cultures, and ways of acting. For this
reason challenges and difficulties often arise when seeking to enter into this type of
partnership and in its administration over time. The goal of this guide is, therefore, to
provide funders with a sense of what such a partnership entails.
Why Now?
As the following discussion illuminates, several social trends have combined to create a
growing interest in and openness to multisector partnerships on the part of both the GOI
and funders.
Over the past twenty years Israel has been undergoing profound changes on the political,
economic, and social levels. This period has seen a shift away from welfare state policies
/ 5
and the reduction in resources available for the development of new approaches to answer
social needs. It has seen the widening of social and economic gaps on the one hand, and the
marked increase in the range and activities of nonprofit organizations and the accelerated
privatization of many government services, especially social ones, on the other. These
factors have all contributed and continue to contribute to the creation of the need and
opportunity for complex and strategic philanthropic involvement in Israel.
In addition, modes of philanthropic giving in Israel have been impacted by “new philanthropy”
– funders from the world of hi-tech and business who feel a deep commitment to Israel
and are passionate about finding solutions to the problems and dilemmas it faces. These
philanthropists bring the methodologies of the corporate world to their philanthropy. They
speak about targeted outputs and products. They seek to create cultural and administrative
changes that streamline the world of local and national government and render it more
efficient. They want to generate out-of-the-box thinking, expose issues the Israeli
government and society have not yet recognized, and identify and initiate innovative
programs that provide efficient and effective solutions to public needs. Proactive and
entrepreneurial, new philanthropy has increased the scope of internal philanthropic funding
in Israel and is constantly searching for ways to positively impact life in the country.
These profound changes created new channels of giving that have increased the influence
of funders in Israel. They have raised awareness on the part of the government as to the
potential benefits inherent in partnering with the philanthropic world.
About the Guide
When is it right to enter into a partnership with the government? What are the advantages
and disadvantages in such a joint venture? What has experience taught regarding do’s
and don’ts?
This guide was created to assist funders considering the possibility of partnering with
the GOI by attempting to provide answers to these and other questions. We hope that it
will help you determine first of all whether this type of partnership is right for you and/
or your program, and secondly provide a sense of the process involved and the steps
needed to make it happen.
To create the guide we conducted over fifty in-depth interviews with a wide range of
stakeholders including funders from Israel and overseas, foundation professionals,
representatives of national and local government, professionals, and experts in
the field. In addition, during the JFN conference in San Diego in April 2016 we held an
information gathering session with a cohort of funders, the outcomes of which have
been incorporated into the guide.
The result is a handbook that is a distillation of the knowledge, experience, and insights
gained first hand by your peers; a practical guide to partnering with the GOI.
6 /
Why Work with the
Government?
Case study
When Working with the Government Works: PJ Library
The Harold Grinspoon Foundation has been active in Israel for many years, focusing the
majority of its efforts on promoting education and Jewish identity in the town of Afula
and the Gilboa region. In 2008, the Foundation decided to explore the possibility of
implementing their highly successful North American-based PJ Library program in Israel.
The Foundation worked closely with its professional staff person in Israel, who was
familiar with both the Foundation and its vision as well as with key officials in the Ministry
of Education and the local authorities in the Foundation’s focus regions, on how best to
proceed.
First, the Foundation commissioned a mapping of what children’s books existed in
Hebrew that could be used in a Jewish identity book program. Second, the Foundation
representative, building on the relationships and credibility she and the Foundation
had in Afula and the Gilboa, met with local education and municipal officials to explore
implementing the project in the region. The feedback she received was that nothing could
happen without buy-in from the Ministry of Education.
Working simultaneously on both the national and local levels, the Foundation
identified the relevant officials with whom to partner. Following initial meetings it became
clear that the program aligned well with the Ministry’s own strategic goals and thus
quickly gained its approbation and cooperation.
For the pilot carried out in 2009-2010, the Ministry played an active role in the choosing
and implementing of the project, without making a financial commitment. The pilot took
place in the Foundation’s funding locations and reached 3,000 children.
Following its success, the Foundation representative met with the director general of the
Ministry of Education, who agreed to adopt the program, and entered into a formal
joint initiative with the foundation, with 52% foundation funding matched by 48% from
the GOI.
The program has continued to grow and now reaches 85% of children in secular and
religious state preschools (K and pre-K) in Israel. In 2014, the Ministry, together with
the Harold Grinspoon Foundation and Price Philanthropies, also launched a culturally
/ 7
adapted version of the program in Arabic, Lantern Library, which reaches some 85,000
children in Israel (100% of Arab children in public preschools).
As a result of this success, the Foundation decided to focus its efforts in Israel entirely on
this program, as it continues to expand to first and second grades throughout the country.
"If you ask me what were some of the key factors that led to the success of the
program, I think it’s because, first and foremost, the program aligned well with the
strategic goals of the Ministry. It was focused and clear. Also critical was the fact
that the Foundation had a presence in Israel, a representative on the spot. Both
the Foundation and the representative had long-standing relationships of trust
with the local government in the area where we ran our pilot. It was important
that, as that representative, I could operate in Hebrew, easily go out and meet
people, and had an understanding of both how Israelis think and how Americans
think to minimize misunderstandings and misperceptions.”
Galina Vromen, Director, Israel Operations-HGF
As the above case study shows, working with the GOI can lead to dramatic, systemwide, sustainable impact. In fact, in recent years cooperation between sectors has
been perceived as a necessary, desirable, and effective strategy for dealing with
the most difficult social challenges (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006).
Philanthropists seek partnerships with the government mainly when they are
looking to try and solve a wide-ranging issue and want to think strategically
about what the government can do, how philanthropy can contribute, and how
to build a relationship that will compel action, leverage resources, and ensure
ongoing sustainable support.
In Israel these types of partnerships between government and philanthropy
are on the rise, and have already impacted a wide range of areas including
education, economic development, at risk populations, health, and more.
There is a growing understanding that working with the government is an
opportunity to approach these issues in a more comprehensive and effective
way than is possible on one’s own, especially when dealing with complex and
systemic issues. The government is also increasingly appreciating the added
value of these partnerships. In fact, in some cases it is the GOI who reaches
out to funders, either because it recognizes a need, or, occasionally, because
it identifies a successful model operating in the field and seeks to scale it up.
Bryson, Crosby & Stone (2006). "The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector
Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature". Public Administration Review 66, 44-45
8 /
Philanthropy comes in all shapes and sizes, from
putting a nickel in the pushka (charity collection
box) at the local grocers, to setting up a multimillion
dollar foundation that touches the lives of hundreds
of thousands of people.
01/
Passive
02/
Reactive
03/
Proactive
Providing financial
support upon request
with no active
involvement
Providing financial
support upon request
and taking a direct and
active interest
The donor defines
the problem and
searches for a
way to solve it by
seeking out and
providing financial
support to a
relevant NGO or
setting up an NGO
to address the issue
/ 9
04/
Partnerships
among
like-minded
donors
05/
Partnerships
on the
municipal or
regional level
06/
Partnerships
with the
national
government
03/
Proactive
To widen impact and leverage funds
(including peer networks, giving circles,
strategic alignment, targeted cofunding, pooled funding and so on up to
and including collective impact)
This guide focuses on those instances in which funders are
actively involved in building the partnership and play a central
role together with the national government in its development
and implementation.
10 /
Defining What We Mean When We Say
“Working with the Government”
By a partnership between philanthropy and the government we are referring to
a situation in which the funder or the government identify a problem/challenge/
need and are interested in working together to bring about a solution and/or
improve the situation.
“The two (or more) sides are willing to share information, resources, capabilities
and organizational infrastructure, to carry the responsibility and the risks
of having a shared process of decision making, the joint implementation of
programs, and a division of labor determined by the advantages of each of
the partners. The initiative can derive either from philanthropy or from the
government and for the most part its goals are civic and societal.”
(Almog-Bar and Zychlinski, 2010)
Communication:
The two sectors share goals and
communicate between themselves
on resources and strategies of
implementation but without any
formal agreement. Resources are
dedicated only to furthering the lines
of communication between them.
Oppositional:
Philanthropic support
for civil society
organizations or
advocacy groups that
work to pressure the
government to act in
areas of social change.
Michal Almog-Bar and Esther Zychlinski, “It was Supposed to be a Partnership”- The
Relationship between Philanthropic Foundations and Government in the “Yaniv” Initiative,”
(Bitachon Soziali, June 2010), 177
Independent:
The formulation
and implementation
of a philanthropic
strategy without
any coordination or
interaction with the
government.
/ 11
Collaboration:
There is a full and formal agreement
that relates to all elements of
the interaction: aims, strategies,
resources, and implementation.
Decision making is shared with
regards to every level of planning,
control, implementation, and
evaluation of the joint program and
the two sides work together to
formulate solutions to the problem
and invest resources in support of
the partnership.
Coordination:
Each sector acts independently of the
other but the two coordinate regarding
the aims, strategies, and resources
devoted to a joint project as set out in a
formal agreement. This is a successful
mechanism when the issues are clearly
defined and each side is already carrying
out interventions.
Supplementary/
complimentary:
Philanthropy identifies
and fills in the gaps in
basic services provided
by the government, when
these do not cover all the
existing needs; or provides
services in circumstances
where the government
is not actively providing
services; or develops
alternative services to
those supported by the
government.
Partnerships with the national government can take many forms, differentiated
by the level and depth of the relationship between the partners. Funders can be
engaged simultaneously in different types of relationships with the government
and can move back and forth along the spectrum. Relationships can evolve and
develop from one type to another.
Each of these models has its own advantages and disadvantages and
there is no “one size fits all.” The possibility of partnership depends
on the alignment of aims and strategies between the two sectors, but
also, and perhaps above all, on the sense of trust between the two.
12 /
And what about working with
the local government?
In the course of preparing the current guide, the subject of partnership with the local
government often came up. While there is indeed much to say on the topic, the focus of
this guide is the national level. However, in light of the interest in and importance of the
issue we have chosen to share a few key points to consider and perhaps in the future a
third guide will be published dedicated solely to this topic.
In recent years there have been a growing number of successful partnerships between
philanthropy and the local government (i.e. municipalities and regional councils) in
Israel. This growth is the result of an ongoing process in which local government is
being given increasing authority to act and create change within their communities. This
increase in autonomy is attractive to philanthropists who often feel a connection to a
particular geographical area or seek a more clearly defined arena in which to act. For
these funders, local government provides fertile ground for their philanthropic activity.
Out of our interviews with players at the local level, including funders as well as
mayors and heads of local authorities, we have identified the following:
• On the local or regional level it is possible to achieve results at a faster pace than
that which can be achieved through working with ministries on the national level.
• There are fewer levels of bureaucracy, people, echelons, and stations along the way.
• Outputs and results can be seen more easily, and the impact on the given area of
focus felt more clearly.
• The level of political turnover is much slower, with some mayors and heads of
authorities remaining in their positions for several terms, a fact that allows for
meaningful relationships between the sectors to develop and long term goals to
be accomplished.
• There is greater financial flexibility, even though the available budgets might be
smaller.
• Holistic approaches that result in system-wide impact are easier to achieve.
• Initiating a project within a local authority enables the crystallization of the model
and its implementation, and allows for the possibility that the project can then be
expanded to additional local authorities or scaled up nationally.
/ 13
Is Working with the
Government Right for You?
Case study
Figuring it Out: Yuval/Yuvalim: A Partnership between
Eilon Tirosh, JDC, and the GOI
After an exit worth millions, Eilon Tirosh, an Israeli hi-tech entrepreneur and philanthropist,
decided to invest in something a bit different – Israeli society. He chose education, an area
close to his heart, and set out to focus on closing gaps and creating equal opportunities.
Tirosh established Yuvalim and recruited a professional to lead it. After spending a year
studying the problems and challenges of the education system, the two decided to
focus on junior high school students in the social and geographic periphery of the country.
They developed a unique holistic model suitable for work in these schools.
The project began as a social start-up in Or Akiva and Tirat HaCarmel and within a
couple of years began expanding to additional locations. Funding for the program in each
location was divided between the local government, 30%, Yuvalim, 30%, and other donors,
40%. After seven years, and looking to grow the program and achieve system-wide
impact on the national level, the decision was made to seek a strategic partnership
with the government.
Yuvalim turned to the director general of the Ministry of Education with the proposal to
establish a joint initiative. The dialogue with the government required a close examination
of the initiative in light of the goals, aims, and priorities of the Ministry and a clear
understanding of how it fit into the Ministry’s existing plans and programs. At this point it
became clear that it was important to involve the professional echelon of the Ministry in
the process as well. After coming on board, Ministry professionals carefully reviewed
the model and expressed interest in adopting the program.
The complexity of the Ministry’s requirements and concerns over the program’s long-term
sustainability within a three-year joint initiative, led Tirosh to seek out a partner with
proven experience in working with the GOI.
Tirosh began discussions with JDC, an organization known for its professionalism and
experience. Within JDC, Tirosh worked with JDC-Ashalim, the division responsible for the
area of children and youth at risk. JDC-Ashalim, one of four core partnerships between
14 /
As the above case study indicates, while the program was ultimately a good
fit for the GOI, it took flexibility and a willingness to change and adapt to make
the partnership a success. So how do you know if this is the right path for you?
The points below provide some general guidelines.
JDC and the GOI, has vast experience in the field and long-standing relationships of
trust with the Ministry of Education. JDC-Ashalim staff met with that of Yuvalim and
together began an in-depth examination of the model from both a professional and
financial perspective.
Over the next two years, adjustments were made to the program to adapt it to the JDCAshalim platform and the requirements of the Ministry of Education, with the end goal
being its adoption by the Ministry. It is important to note that all the changes made fit
within the red lines that have guided the model from its inception.
This process, together with the construction of the partnership, demanded a significant
investment of time, including monthly meetings and joint committees, as well as
patience, flexibility, and the ability to see the big picture and the potential that the
partnership would make possible in the future. At the end of this process the program
was renamed Yuval, rather than Yuvalim, to signify that it was a new and joint creation.
Another significant result of the partnership was the formulation of a complementary
model for implementation in the elementary schools that were feeders for the participating
junior high schools, and the creation of a conceptual connection between the educational
institutions.
Yuval is currently in its third year of a five year pilot, funded by Tirosh, Yuvalim, JDCAshalim, and the Ministry of Education. It is active in some 35 schools with plans for
tens of additional locations. If it is a success, the next stage is to expand the program
nationally under the auspices of the Ministry with the goal of creating a critical mass for
change. The pilot is accompanied by a program of evaluation and measurement to
ensure effectiveness and enable modifications and fine-tuning along the way.
When is the Government Right for You?
• When you are dealing with complex issues, identify a problem that you can’t
solve alone, or are looking to scale up and increase your impact.
/ 15
• When the issue you are dealing with requires leverage of money and
infrastructure
• When you feel that the existing players in the field are unable to move the
issue further because they lack the experience and ability to work directly
with the government. In this regard it is always worth considering bringing
the professional NGOs in the field into the discussion and partnership with
the government.
• When you feel that you are ready to take your philanthropy to the next level
and want to break into the circles of influence and effect change on a system
wide, national level.
What Does it Take to Build a Successful
Partnership with the GOI?
• Experience and knowledge of the field you wish to partner on, whether you
gleaned that experience abroad or in Israel.
• “Diplomatic” capabilities and the ability to network and build relationships.
• Willingness to compromise and flexibility regarding ideas and implementation;
collaboration often requires significant concessions: over the name, the branding
of the foundation, and control over implementation, resources, timing and
process. This is especially true in any partnership with the government, which
functions according to its own timetable and within a restrictive and complex
bureaucratic system.
• A representative/team in Israel who can invest significant time and effort in
building the relationships needed for the partnership. If you don’t have staff in
Israel it is advisable to consider a partnership with an Israeli philanthropist or
Israeli-based foundation familiar with the field and the mentality and willing to
invest the necessary resources in building a partnership with the government.
• Patience and perseverance
• A deep and abiding passion for an issue that you are willing to invest in proactively.
16 /
When Are You Right for the Government?
• When the topic is aligned with the agenda and issues that the GOI, and the
particular ministry involved, have defined as priorities to be addressed.
• At the start of a term of office when a new minister and director general first
assume their positions they often bring fresh eyes and ideas to the ministry
and look to reformulate the ministry’s strategy and agenda. This is when
they are often the most invested and energized. This is also when you have
potentially four years in which to attempt to accomplish the goal before the
political players might change again.
• When there is openness and interest from both the political and the
professional elements in a ministry to your idea, and a willingness to invest
resources: time, money, and staffing while also sharing information.
• When there are no legal or budgetary impediments that might hinder the
partnership.
• It is recommended to prioritize working with ministries that have had previous
positive experience working with philanthropy and the Third Sector (such
as the Ministries of Education, Welfare, and Health, and the Prime Minister’s
Office).
• It is simpler to work with one particular ministry. However, if the issue
you are working on is cross sectoral and the responsibility for it is divided
between several different ministries, it is important to try to get all the
ministries around the table. The barriers to this are great and the process
can be quite frustrating. However, often it is precisely philanthropy that is
able to facilitate this kind of cross-ministerial interaction by creating a space
within the system where collaboration becomes possible.
"A funder who is not willing to make mistakes on his own dime is missing the
target – you need to be able to learn as you go, to find the right place, and
even to take a few steps back and fix what isn’t working…”
(foundation professional)
/ 17
Do’s and Don’t’s
Case study
The Yaniv Initiative: When Working with the Government
Doesn’t Work, Even with the Best of Intentions.
In 2003, seeking to make a definitive impact on the lives of children and youth at risk in
Israel, a group of philanthropists, including Avi Naor, Haim Saban, the Rashi Foundation, and
others, established the Yaniv Initiative. The goals of the initiative were (1) to decrease the
number of children and youth defined as at risk, (2) to alleviate the severity of the risk
situations to which these children and youth were exposed, (3) to prevent the formation
of new risk factors, and (4) to provide assistance and support to these children and their
families across the spectrum of issues that required attention as a result risk factors that
already existed. The group committed to raise a total of $250 million dollars on the condition
that the government provide a matching amount. Ariel Sharon, the prime minister at the
time, was supportive of the initiative, as were other government ministers. Professional staff
was hired and began to carry out wide ranging research on the many facets of the issue
and craft a strategic plan, with the ultimate goal of having the initiative recognized and
funded by the government as a national project. Unfortunately, despite the enormous
amount of time and resources invested by the partners in the development of the project, one
important aspect was overlooked – the development of the partnership itself.
“The differences in how the multi-sector partnership was perceived, and the absence of
dialogue on the issue, created among the participants various patterns of defensive behavior
that became manifest during the development of the initiative.”
The gaps grew and soon became insurmountable. In November 2004 the partners decided
to suspend their attempt to have the initiative recognized as a national project. Instead, a pilot
was carried out in two locations, and a comprehensive municipal intervention model for the
care of children and youth at risk, supported by the Oran Foundation and the Rashi Foundation,
took place over the course of five years. For its part the GOI, prioritizing this area, subsequently
launched a groundbreaking strategic national plan for children and youth at risk. Several of the
programs developed through Yaniv were incorporated into this national plan.
The foundations involved went on to develop new and impactful initiatives, incorporating the
valuable insights gained from their experience with Yaniv. In addition, the lesson learned
about the importance of dialogue between the sectors proved to be an important one
for all sides, and contributed to the process that led to the establishment of the multisector
round table under the auspices of the Prime Minister’s Office in 2008.
Michal Almog-Bar and Esther Zychlinski, “It was Supposed to be a Partnership”- The Relationship
between Philanthropic Foundations and Government in the “Yaniv” Initiative,” (Bitachon Soziali,
June 2010), 177
18 /
The Funder’s Reality
This is our foundation’s top priority
We can be selective regarding our priorities
We can be flexible regarding timing and budget
We are looking for long term commitment
It’s my money and I’ll decide what to do with it
It’s my idea. I just want to GOI to fund it
The above table is adapted from “Working with Government Guidance for
Grantmakers”(www.grantcraft.org; 2010, p.12)
As the above case study shows, even with the best of intentions things can go
wrong. This chapter provides some perspectives on what to do and what not
to do when building a partnership with the GOI.
/ 19
The Government’s Reality
This is one of many issues we are dealing with
We don’t have flexibility re our priorities
We have to work within annual budget cycles
The next election can change everything
It’s the public’s money and I need to be accountable
It’s my agenda, I want to find partners to fund it
“Success is about relationships, be open to talking about whatever possibilities
there may be and look for each other’s’ strengths and challenges.”
(foundation professional)
20 /
Do’s
• Before you look to develop a partnership, develop relationships. Build and
develop relationships in the GOI before you actually need something, let them
know what you are working on and thinking about.
• Do your homework: learn about the field you wish to impact and become
aware of what else is out there (in terms of projects, players, and
alternatives). Check what government priorities fit your goals, find out who
in the government is working on these issues and who are the key people.
• Involve government partners as early as possible in the planning and thinking
process and encourage them to own the agenda.
• Involve both the professional and the political levels in the ministries, find
out who controls the budget and involve them.
• Take the time to focus on designing and building the partnership and its
mechanism (define expectations and roles, be clear about your red lines and
limitations, define decision making processes, contracts, time tables, funding
stages, evaluation etc).
• Respect your government partners, recognize that they are professional and
committed with the necessary knowledge, expertise, and experience to make
things happen; give credit where it is due and leave your ego at the door.
• Understand in advance what each side can and can’t do; as public servants
your government partners are required to work within the regulations and
ultimately it is they who are accountable.
• Have patience, it can take a year or more to bring a project from idea to
implementation.
• Try to bring philanthropic partners with you to the GOI. It strengthens your
starting point and brings more diversity and magnitude of experience and
influence.
• Involve local NGOs – they are context smart, they know the field and the
government.
• The “day after”- think in advance and try to plan the exit process and division
of responsibility over time.
/ 21
• Be humble. Recognize that you are a small fish in a big pond and that your
money is a drop in the bucket relative to government money; be aware that
funding given to your project is being taken from a different project and what
the possible implications of that are.
Don’ts
• Don’t talk down to governmental officials
• Don’t assume you have all the answers
• Don’t disrespect the other side, they have expertise and deep knowledge of
the field and in the long term it is they who will need to take responsibility for
and implement the project
• Don’t forget to involve the NGOs (the professional players in the field/on the
ground) in the early stages as well
• Don’t commit funds prior to all relevant approvals. That being said, it is
important to be aware that situations may arise that require flexibility on
this issue.
• Don’t dictate conditions
• Don’t expect perfection
• And most importantly - don’t give up
“Find champions in the government who recognize the need for change and
are in a position to make it happen – which doesn’t necessarily mean higher
up the ladder.”
(foundation professional)
22 /
Things to Think About –
Ethics and Responsibility
Working with the government is complex, and issues of a moral and ethical
nature can lurk just beneath the surface. We encourage funders to review the
points below and give them some thought both before and while engaging in
collaborations. There is no “right or wrong” but rather a need for awareness
and sensitivity to these matters, which can affect the way you approach your
collaboration.
Acting Responsibly
• The government is the elected body responsible for the use of public funds. You,
the philanthropist, are neither elected nor ultimately going to be held responsible
in the eyes of the public. Therefore, to what extent is it acceptable to pressure the
government to act according to your priorities?
• Take into consideration whether or not it’s appropriate to interfere or attempt
to influence government policy regarding particular issues, such as national
security. Where is the red line regarding funding critical needs?
• The above points are even more relevant if you are not a citizen of the country.
• When advocating that funds be allocated to a particular cause, or conditioning
your funding on matching funds from the GOI, keep in mind that the funds in
question are being redirected away from a different program and at someone
else’s expense.
• Philanthropic involvement can weaken the government by “enabling” the
government to rely on external sources rather than building its own resilience.
When does philanthropic support become too much?
"The government, unlike funders, doesn’t have the privilege of taking risks.”
(senior governmental official)
/ 23
Working with NGOs and the Government
• What is the role of the NGO within the initiative? Are they merely service providers
or full partners? Do you, the funder, see yourself as facilitator or as standing
front and center? Which position is better for the initiative in the long run? When
making this decision take into account, for example, that while the foundation
may have more influence and financial staying power, it is the NGO that has an
ongoing and long term commitment to the project.
• Israel is “rich” in NGOs. They are professionals in their field and hold much of
the knowledge, expertise, and experience to create change. It is therefore
recommended that when developing your initiative you identify the NGOs most
relevant for the project and develop a role for them in the partnership as early
as possible in the process. However, it is also important to understand their
limitations, such as their possibly minimal experience with bigger picture, long
term strategic thinking.
• When entering into a partnership with the government on a particular project
there is a natural tendency to favor choosing the NGO that you have established
or with which you are affiliated as the service provider. It is important to consider
whether this NGO is the best one for the project, and to take care that other,
perhaps equally or better qualified and well positioned, NGOs are not getting
trampled on in the process.
General Points
• Time is of huge value to government staff. As responsible citizens it’s important
to make sure that we are using their time wisely.
• The government often relies on philanthropy, which has the time and financial
resources to carry out the type of in-depth studies it does not, for research into
a variety of social issues. It is therefore important that the research be thorough,
reliable, and professional.
• If you are considering embarking on a partnership with the government but also
support advocacy efforts, you might want to take the following into account: is
it a conflict of interest for a philanthropist who partners with the government to
also fund lobby groups that challenge the government’s priorities and policies?
And will a funder who supports advocacy groups have a problem gaining trust
24 /
from the GOI when coming to build this partnership? Conversely, there are
also examples where advocacy has served to raise GOI awareness of a topic,
ultimately paving the way for a productive partnership aimed at dealing with the
issue.
• It is important to ensure that your philanthropic efforts be distinct from any other
interactions with the government that you might have, such as commercial or
business interests, to avoid the perception of undue influence.
• A word about exits – they are often not as clear cut as we would like to imagine.
Occasionally a funder’s involvement is needed beyond the exit phase either to
fund elements inappropriate for the GOI or to ensure a smooth and sustainable
transition.
There is More than One
Way To Collaborate:
Sample Models
Have you heard the saying, “If you’ve seen one foundation, than you’ve seen…one
foundation.”? Each foundation is unique, with its own particular characteristics,
ways of working, and so on. In the same way, it can be said that every collaboration
between philanthropy and the GOI is unique. No one collaboration looks exactly
like any other and there is no “one model” that funders and the GOI can or should
use when looking to build a successful collaboration. However, in reviewing the
experience accumulated in Israel over the past few decades, it is possible to
identify a few distinctive “sample models” of how this can be done and what it
might look like.
“It’s not a journey, it’s a pilgrimage – one that you make together in order to
bring about meaningful improvement. Even more than just getting a legal
contract signed, the real investment is in creating a sense of joint inspiration
and commitment.”
(foundation director)
/ 25
1. Independent Pilot, Joint Initiative, and
Handover To The GOI
Case study
The Network of Treatment Centers for Sexually Abused
Children and Youth
The Rashi Foundation, active for over 30 years in the fields of education and social welfare
in Israel’s socioeconomic and geographic peripheries, identified an urgent need for
suitable treatment options for child and teen victims of sexual abuse in the south. In
response, Rashi established the first professional treatment center in Be’er Sheva.
During the years that followed, a number of organizations worked to raise awareness of
the issue through a variety of channels and actively developed solutions as well as worked
to pressure decision makers. An inter-ministerial initiative, led by JDC-Ashalim, was
launched that included the Ministries of Education, Health, and Social Affairs & Services,
as well as leading NGOs in the field. In 2006, in response to the needs and mounting
pressure from the field, the Rashi Foundation, together with the National Insurance
Institute of Israel’s (NIII) Fund for Children and Youth-at-Risk initiated a discussion with
the Ministry of Social Affairs in order to persuade the Ministry to develop a new, unique
service for the treatment of the victims and their families. The Ministry of Social Affairs,
Rashi, and the NIII established a committee to deal with the issue, and also provided
training and guidance for professionals working in the public sector.
Two years later, a government decision clarified that every sexually abused child was
entitled to care from the state and dedicated funds were set aside for this purpose within
the Ministry of Social Affairs. The existing center in Be’er Sheva became the model and the
basis for a national conversation on how best to treat the problem.
In 2008, 11 local centers were established by this joint initiative; in 2010 these were
transformed into six regional centers soon followed by an additional six. In 2013 another
center opened in Jerusalem, servicing the city and the surrounding areas. By 2014, this
network of 13 regional centers, with local branches, was handed over to the GOI.
Implementing the GOI’s decision and determining the right professional path required a
high level of cooperation, both programmatic and administrative, between the ministries
and the NGOs. The Rashi Foundation and the NIII, for whom the issue was a priority, took
the lead on building the partnership.
26 /
The partnership was characterized by the involvement of senior representatives of all
the participating bodies from the earliest stages; by the establishment of a number of
committees that included leading professionals in the field; and by the active participation
and representation of all the partners from all three sectors.
Together, a shared outlook and vision regarding the needs on the ground was formulated,
and the details of the collaboration itself worked out: areas of responsibility were clearly
delineated and each partner took on a role expressive of their particular strengths.
It is important to note that chronologically this took place after the professional service
was already in operation in Be’er Sheva. Despite this, there was significant investment in
the building of the partnership to ensure that all voices be consistently represented in an
integrated way. The initiative is managed by a professional team that is also responsible
for ongoing research and evaluation.
The Ministry of Social Affairs functioned as both convener and destination for
the development and absorption of the new services developed for the program,
organizationally, financially, and professionally. This decision was made in order to
facilitate the implementation of the program in practice and ease its ultimate transfer to
the GOI. In addition, also during this period, a comprehensive and uniform national policy
and plan of action was formulated. The initiative transitioned into its final stage of
implementation and handover to the GOI, closely monitored by the partners. It soon
became clear, however, that the GOI did not yet have the organizational infrastructure
necessary to absorb the program by the date planned. Rashi and the NIII showed great
financial and organizational flexibility in overcoming this unexpected challenge. Now
implemented, the Ministry of Social Affairs is working on scaling the program to cover all
of Israel, while maintaining its high level of standards and professionalism.
“One of the successes of these partnerships is that it creates a platform
that can be used to deal with other issues and work together to develop
additional services.”
(foundation professional)
/ 27
Case study
Magshimim Cyber Program
The Rashi Foundation operates in the social and geographic periphery of Israel identifying
gaps and devising targeted solutions. In some cases, solutions emerge as a result of unique
and unanticipated opportunities.
Over the course of the first decade of the 21st century, the Israel Defense Forces began
discussing moving the vast majority of its army bases to the Negev. As part of this process, the
IDF’s Intelligence Corp sought to significantly expand its cyber unit. The Rashi Foundation saw
a unique opportunity in these developments. In fact, Rashi realized that with proper training,
the youth in Israel’s southern periphery would make excellent candidates for intelligence units.
Following a thorough needs assessment, they realized that the proper approach could serve
to both help youth in the periphery increase their social mobility, and simultaneously boost
the IDF’s pool of applicants to elite intelligence units.
With this in mind, in 2010 Rashi launched a pilot of Magshimim, an after-school cyber
education program for promising high school students from the periphery. The intensive
three-year training program in cyber and other technologies opens doors for these youngsters
to the IDF’s elite cyber unit, and from there to employment in Israel’s hi-tech industry.
Though initially funded entirely by Rashi, the pilot quickly proved successful and sought
immediate expansion following Year 1. Through dialogue with the IDF and the Ministry of
Defense, Rashi resolved to open an additional location for the program in the north during
Year 2, when it was again the sole funder.
In 2013, following extensive talks with the Ministry of Defense, and having recruited
additional partners from the philanthropic and business sectors including Keren Daniel, the
William Davidson Foundation, Adelis Foundation, and the Schulich Foundation, as well as the
State Lottery Fund and other government ministries, Rashi launched the project as a fiveyear joint initiative. The Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Defense now provides
50% of the funding and the program is overseen by a steering committee of partnership
representatives led by the Commander of the IDF Cyber Command. The project is run by
professional staff, and the roles of each of the partners have been clearly defined.
It is important to note that although the Ministry of Education is not an official partner in the
joint initiative, it is instrumental in implementing the project through the education system
and is a significant factor in the success of the program.
The program is currently in its third year as a joint initiative. The hope is that it will eventually
be fully adopted by the GOI.
28 /
About the Model
Experience has shown the Rashi Foundation that a strategic coalition of
funders working with the GOI is a proven model for achieving significant and
sustainable impact.
The foundation functions to a great extent as a social innovator. It identifies
a need and develops a response: first researching the issue and the current
treatment methodologies in existence in Israel and elsewhere and then
constructing a program. Concurrently, even at this early stage, the Foundation
reaches out to representatives of the relevant government ministry to keep
them informed and get them involved. The Foundation then seeks additional
partners for the initiative from the philanthropic, public, and business sectors
in order to expand impact and pool knowledge, experience, and investment.
When partners are in place the Foundation turns to implementation. In order
to ensure optimal actualization of their programs the Foundation established a
number of NGOs that specialize in its different focus areas. These are charged
with operating the majority of programs supported by the Foundation. Once
a program is up and running, the Foundation continues to improve and perfect
the model and recruits additional partners. Finally, when the efficacy of the
program is clear, the Foundation looks to ensure continuity by turning to the
GOI to adopt it.
In turning to the GOI, the Rashi Foundation is building on a long standing
relationship of trust with the government. The ongoing and in-depth dialogues
carried out in each instance of a new initiative explore potential channels of
cooperation for its national expansion. Based on these dialogues, the most
effective platform for collaboration for the particular program is chosen,
such as a joint initiative, and the key components, such as the length of the
partnership, the level of funding, the administrative mechanism, and the
decision making process, are jointly determined, as is the timing and structure
of the exit vis-a-vis the GOI where relevant.
“When you start something it is hard to predict if it will be the next new thing
or not. Sometimes the risk pays off and changes the world, and sometimes
the project falters and dies.”
(Foundation professional)
/ 29
2. Full Strategic Collaboration
Case study
Israel Unlimited: The Ruderman Family Foundation,
JDC, and the GOI
The Ruderman Family Foundation has engaged in numerous philanthropic partnerships
over the years. Yet when they first contemplated working with the GOI in the field of
disabilities, they feared their lack of personal relationships with officials in the Ministry of
Welfare would constitute a serious barrier.
From the time of its establishment, JDC has been developing programs for people with
disabilities, but prior to 2009 it had no strategic partnership with the GOI in this area, as
it had in the areas of the elderly, children and youth-at-risk, and workforce integration.
After the Second Lebanon War, amidst a growing awareness of the challenges facing
people with disabilities, the Ministry of Welfare began a series of discussions with
JDC aimed at establishing a strategic partnership to develop a comprehensive
range of services for people with disabilities. JDC reached out to the Ruderman Family
Foundation, to explore the possibility of the Foundation joining the partnership as a third
partner. Their meetings focused on the needs on the ground and on identifying the added
value that each side could bring to the partnership.
Ultimately, JDC and the Ruderman Family Foundation entered into a joint initiative
with the Ministry of Welfare aimed at providing comprehensive services to promote the
inclusion of people with disabilities in Israel. Each partner committed to provide a third
of the funding needed ($500,000 a year) for a period of four years, at which point an
additional funding period would be considered. The initiative, called Israel Unlimited, was
established in 2010.
It is interesting to note that prior to this the Ruderman Family Foundation had been
supporting organizations carrying out advocacy and awareness-raising on the challenges
facing people with disabilities in Israel with the goal of bringing the needs on the ground
to the attention of the government. This advocacy work did not prove to be a barrier to the
development of the strategic partnership between the Foundation and the GOI.
The initiative is characterized by a shared vision, joint decision making processes, a
focus on strategic thinking with regards to broadening impact, development of effective
responses, and system wide change. It is run by professionals located in JDC, and
overseen by a broad-based steering committee of stakeholders, professionals in the field,
30 /
relevant academics, and government representatives. It has been successful not just in
providing services to the community but also in changing the way the government thinks
about the issue.
Today the initiative is in its second round. The GOI has increased their level of funding
significantly, as has JDC, with the Ruderman Family Foundation now funding 10% of the
$3 million dollar annual partnership that brings in an additional $2 million dollars of
donations. There is a sense of commitment and a comprehensive system wide approach.
The initiative has reached over 30,000 people in 54 local authorities, and works with three
government ministries, some 29 different NGOs and 15 institutes of higher education.
About the Model
JDC (the Joint Distribution Committee’s) unique historic relationship with the
GOI goes back to the founding of the state, when it began working with the
government to assist the country’s most vulnerable citizens. JDC brings the
government in from day one. On the one hand, this unique relationship enables
it to enter into joint initiatives occasionally with as little as 25% (rather than
the standard 50%) funding, with the GOI making up the rest of the 75%. On
the other hand, working with JDC is often a long process, requiring patience,
flexibility, and stamina.
The organization currently has four main strategic partnerships with the
GOI in the fields of children and youth at risk (Ashalim), the elderly (Eshel),
employment (Tevet), and people with disabilities (Israel Unlimited). They also
work to promote civil society and senior leadership through the Center for
Leadership and Governance.
/ 31
In each of JDC’s core areas (noted above) they develop programs according to
the following (DNA) model:
Design – identify a significant issue, research relevant solutions in Israel and
abroad, and develop a response model
Nurture – implement a pilot project together with partners, evaluate, and
improve it
Accelerate – integrate the project within existing social service systems through
the government ministries, other national organizations, or local authorities, in
order to scale the model and ensure its sustainability over time.
As it is primarily a development organization JDC does not operate programs,
which are instead implemented by NGOs and other organizations in partnership
with JDC.
JDC has vast experience developing social services in Israel, a widespread
network of relationships across the country and the ability to bring people to
the table, as well as a close working relationship with the GOI. As a result, JDC
programs often achieve system-wide impact and national distribution and have
long-term sustainability. The JDC model is especially relevant to funders who
recognize the value of partnership and are willing to forgo a certain degree of
control over the program and in some cases even direct contact with the field.
3. Cross Sector Collaboration
Case study
The Opportunity Fund for Civic Engagement -
A Fund of Funds
The Gandyr Foundation, established by Judith Yovel Recanati and family, is active in the
field of young adults in Israel, with the aim of promoting their integration into Israeli
society as contributing beneficial citizens in all areas of life. After years of experience in
the field of civil service, the Foundation, together with the Charles H. Revson Foundation,
identified a need for a systemic change with regards to the availability of the service
32 /
to disadvantaged youth (youth with disabilities, youth at risk, and minorities). The two
foundations realized that facilitating this change would require raising awareness of
the issue within the government, the expansion of available national service volunteer
positions, and the creation of a holistic approach for the development of the field. In light
of these multifaceted needs, they put together a strategic partnership to promote
the issue.
The Foundations invested time in identifying potential partners in the GOI and in the
philanthropic world in Israel and abroad. Their partnership model grew to include these
two elements as well as appropriate NGOs. These independent efforts, which included
research and evaluation, then became the backdrop for discussions and dialogue with
the GOI.
After putting together a coalition of NGOs, the Gandyr Foundation and the Charles H.
Revson Foundation established the Opportunity Fund for Civic Engagement, and were
soon joined by the Ted Arison Family Foundation, Yad HaNadiv (in the founding stages),
the UJA Federation of New York, the Littauer Foundation, and the Ruderman Family
Foundation. The National Insurance Institute of Israel (NIII) also became a partner. The
Fund is run by a professional administrative staff.
The next stage of development was to create a strategic partnership with the GOI.
While this is not a formal “joint initiative” it is a committed partnership with shared vision,
goals, and a system of joint decision making. Currently five ministries are partners in the
Fund.
The partnership is expressed in the following ways:
1. Financially (with a ratio of 2/3 GOI and 1/3 philanthropy)
2. Programmatically (a professional committee, on which sit representatives of the
NGOs, the GOI, and philanthropy, determines standards of quality for the program)
3. Formally (operating organizations are selected via a joint tender)
4. Developmentally (via ongoing accompanying research and the training of professional
staff)
Uniquely, it was determined from the beginning that the partnership would expire on
a set date, at which point the entire program will move entirely to the GOI. Initially it
was decided that this would take place at the end of four years, but the date was soon
extended by a further four years. As a result, the program was developed with an eye to
its suitability to the GOI, so that a full transfer of responsibility would be possible. This
has the advantage of ensuring that the level of dependency of the GOI on philanthropic
backing has been kept to a minimum, and that the mechanisms within the GOI that would
eventually assume operational responsibility were defined and established from the
/ 33
beginning. The limited time also proved attractive to funders, who might otherwise have
been hesitant to commit support for a program with an unknown and extended time
frame. The Opportunity Fund is now concentrating on expanding the model to include
minority populations. In addition, the funding partners are supporting the documentation
of the entire process of the establishment of the Fund to enable others to make use of the
model in the future.
About the Model
The model of partnership with the GOI expressed by the Opportunity Fund has
the following characteristics:
• The program was created incrementally, by first bringing in the operating
organizations (NGOs), then funders, and, finally, the GOI, to create a three
way partnership.
• This is consistent with the founding partners’ overall approach, which holds
that organizations (NGOs) have an important role to play in leading and
implementing initiatives. They are the experts and therefore should be brought
in as active partners and professionals. Organizational representatives play
key roles in the development of programs in many of the Fund’s initiatives
and are front and center in interactions with the government.
• The partnership was created to solve a significant systemic need in which
the GOI is a dominant factor.
• It served to strengthen the ability of organizations to negotiate and interact
with the GOI.
• It involved funders from Israel and abroad for a pre-determined length of time.
• It emphasized not just the expansion of financial resources but the quality of
the components of the program and the development of related fields (with
regards to research, evaluation, training and standardization).
The Gandyr Foundation believes strongly that partnerships enhance the reach
and potential of a given program, and increases leverage and influence. The
Foundation has often acted as a local resource for foundations from abroad
who want to work in partnership in Israel but lack representation in the country.
34 /
Other Models:
As has already been mentioned, there are as many ways to collaborate with
the government as there are funders or foundations interested in doing so.
In addition to the examples showcased in this guide, in recent years several
new and exciting models of collaboration have emerged, offering different,
creative approaches to cross sector collaborations including with the GOI. As
these models are still in the early stages of implementation in Israel, we are
limited in our ability to share long-term achievements and perspectives but
would like to draw attention to two models in particular.
Collective Impact
As a strategy for coping with some of society's intractable social problems,
the collective impact model has made strides in Israel in recent years.
Originally developed in the United States by the consulting firm FSG, it is
based on the idea that solving complex social problems cannot be achieved by
individual organizations acting alone. Rather, it requires that the government,
philanthropy/business, and the third sector to collaborate by creating a common
agenda, action, and shared measurement systems. Results can be achieved
only by a unique, long-term commitment in which the partners agree on the
essential problem, act separately but in coordination with each other towards
a shared goal or goals, and use the same criteria of impact measurement. The
initiative is managed by a support organization that ensures that each member
of the collaboration is functioning according to the rules of the initiative. The
solutions and resources used are not predetermined but arise over time. The
entire approach is one that enables flexible and dynamic action that changes
according to the needs on the ground.
The model is appropriate when a broad, systemic challenge is identified that
requires government involvement but in which the roles of the other sectors
are vital and clearly definable, and when there is a desire to move beyond
isolated impact to collective impact, a shift that is long term, measurable, and
output focused.
There are three prominent examples of collective impact in Israel today and
a few more in development. The first is the 5x2 Program. Founded in 2013,
the program seeks to increase excellence in the sciences by expanding the
number of high school students who take the top level (5 points) matriculation
/ 35
exams in math, science, and engineering. The second, called Collective Impact:
The Partnership for a Breakthrough in Arab Employment, was also established
in 2013, and focuses on widening employment opportunities for minorities.
The third example is The Fund for National Initiatives – The Health Initiative,
which was established in 2015 to reduce the number of deaths from infection
in hospitals in Israel.
The model is still young, both in Israel and abroad, and it is too early to examine
long-term successes, but the results so far are encouraging and are already
broadening the circles of influence in the field and generating platforms
from which government ministries, philanthropy, business, and third sector
organizations can work together to devise effective solutions to complex
social problems.
Social Bonds
Social bonds are a model from the world of social finance. SFI (Social Finance
Israel) was established in 2013 based on a model that was first piloted in
England. A form of impact investing, it operates on the seam between nonprofit
and for-profit investment.
SFI describes social impact bonds as a financial product that raises capital
from private investors to fund nonprofit organizations who carry out
programs designed to reduce the occurrence of particular social ills, such as
unemployment, substance abuse, or prisoner recidivism. If the performance of
the nonprofit organization is effective, the government is saved the money it
would have had to spend to deal with these issues. Once determined as such,
this savings is then quantified and a proportion of it is returned to the investor,
via the bond. Thus, the investor potentially earns a financial return, the nonprofit
receives the funding it needs to scale up successful social interventions, the
government does not need to finance the program upfront (which is instead
funded by the investor), and social ills are effectively reduced.
Social bonds are therefore an investment model in which philanthropy works
together with the government to provide solutions to social problems by
relying on financial incentives and measurable results. It works to create
paradigm changes within the government in its ability to focus on the long
term, to define success, and to provide a monetary value to the solution of
social problems and risk management. The model offers philanthropy and
36 /
NGOs a language of measurement (inputs, outputs, and results) and greater
budgetary surety.
In Israel there are several initiatives working under this model, specifically in
the fields of reducing dropout rates from higher education, Haredi employment,
employment for minorities, prisoner rehabilitation, and diabetes prevention.
Practical Guide to Working
with the Israeli Government:
What You Need to Know
Basic Structure: or GOI 101
Israel is a parliamentary democracy with executive, legislative, and judicial
branches.
The executive branch is headed by the prime minister who is the leader of a
multi-party system. There is also a cabinet on which sit a varying number of
ministers. These ministers are appointed by the prime minister and approved by
the Knesset. The number of cabinet seats each party receives is determined by
the proportional representation of their party in the Knesset. Cabinet members
are usually, but do not have to be, members of the Knesset. Ministers without
portfolios and deputy ministers can also be appointed to the cabinet.
The legislative branch consists of the Knesset, which has 120 members who
are elected every four years (in point of fact, while elections are indeed meant
to be held every four years, in practice the average time between elections
is 2.5-3 years) through a party-list proportional representation system.
This means that citizens vote for their preferred party and not for individual
candidates. Each party is given seats in the Knesset based on the proportional
number of votes received. The president, after conferring with all the parties,
appoints the party most likely to successfully put together a coalition to head
the government under the leadership of the prime minister who is a member
/ 37
of their party. This is often, but not necessarily, the party with the largest
number of seats in the Knesset.
The judicial branch is independent of both the executive and legislative
branches. Judges are appointed by a Judicial Selection Committee headed by
the minister of justice.
The president of Israel is elected by the Knesset. This is largely a ceremonial
role and is independent of the other branches of government.
The Government of Israel currently (as of February 2017) consists of 26
ministries and 37 authorities and units. The number of ministers is not identical
to the number of ministries, as there are ministers who are responsible for more
than one ministry, as well as ministers without portfolios. Some ministries have
deputy ministers responsible for particular issues. In the United States it is the
president who places his appointees in government positions, and they report
directly to him/her. In Israel, although ministerial appointments are decided by
the prime minister, each minister is also a member of a political party and thus
they are committed not only to the government and the coalition but also to
the party they represent.
Ministries are divided between those considered headquarter ministries and
those dedicated to operations.
Headquarter Ministries
The Prime Minister’s Office: this office creates and guides government policy
and the director general of this office is considered the “director general of all
the director generals.”
Ministry of Finance: responsible for the budget, income, and expenditures of
the State
Ministry of Justice: responsible for all judicial matters concerning the State.
The ministry controls legal approval of processes and agreements and outlines
policy with regards to the third sector.
38 /
Operational Ministries
Operational ministries are those ministries responsible for carrying out the
policies of the government, such as education, health, welfare, defense,
culture, and so on.
Government ministers are responsible for the operation of their ministries.
The administration (the government bureaucracy) is responsible for carrying
out the policies of the government, the ministers, and the Knesset. The
administration consists of the director general of each ministry, the heads
of departments and divisions, and various levels of officials and clerks who
are responsible for the actual implementation of these policies on the ground.
The former are considered political (although properly speaking the director
general is also the senior professional of the ministry) and the latter is the
professional element of the government.
The ongoing work of the government is carried out through special committees
appointed for particular issues, such as the Ministerial Committee for Security,
the Ministerial Committee for Society and Economy, and so on.
While the responsibility for the various aspects of life in the country are divided
between these ministries, social challenges are not as neatly compartmentalized
and dealing with them effectively often requires the input of several ministries.
Inside the Ministry
Each ministry is different. They differ in size, structure, and budget and have
different ways of working. Some have more experience with the philanthropic
sector than others, or have more experienced personnel. Some have a strong
and seasoned director general and some have one who is new to the position.
All these elements will have an impact on the building of the partnership.
Therefore, before beginning the process with a particular ministry it is worth
taking the time to learn about its unique structure, key players, and working
methodology.
That being said there are a number of roles that are similar to all the ministries.
Minister: a political appointee, the minister does not necessarily have prior
familiarity or experience with the field covered by his ministry before his
appointment.
Director General: the political appointee of the minister. Some come from
/ 39
within the system and some from without. They are responsible for the
implementation of the minister’s plans and policies and for the running of
the ministry. The director general is considered the senior professional in the
ministry.
Senior staff (deputy director generals, division heads): these are professionals
appointed through tenders. These are long term employees who are usually (again
not always as each ministry is different) a good entry point for dialogue. They
will tend to pass the subject to a staff member lower down in the hierarchy to
do the work but without first going through them it will be very difficult to build a
relationship with the ministry.
Head of planning and strategy (or planning and budget): responsible for building
the work plans for the ministry
Budget Controller (hashav): a staff member of the Ministry of Finance embedded in
the ministry who is responsible for overseeing its expenditures. Each ministry also
has a corresponding clerk (called a referant in Hebrew) in the Budget Division of the
Ministry of Finance who is responsible for their ministry.
Legal counsel: a staff member of the Ministry of Justice embedded in the ministry
and responsible for dealing with the legal issues and contracts of the ministry.
Who are the Right People to Approach?
The short answer is that it depends. It depends on the ministry, on the
philanthropist, on the subject matter. However, what is important to remember is
that it is essential to get the right people, whether from the political echelon, the
professional echelon, or both, on board.
It is the minister and the director general who are crucial to ensuring that budget is
made available and that any roadblocks are cleared away. However, the professional
staff do not appreciate having processes or initiatives decreed from above and it is
important to work with them to instill a sense of shared ownership and co-creation.
They are the professionals who know the subject inside and out and are closely
connected with what is happening in the field. It is they who can push things through
quickly or cause them to be stalled indefinitely in bureaucratic limbo. In addition,
political appointees usually remain in their positions for only two to three years,
while the professional echelon experience considerably less turnover. Therefore
the success of long term plans and initiatives is in their hands.
40 /
How Long Does it Take
Change takes time. In fact, it can take between five to seven years for the GOI
to make changes to its priorities, policies, and practice. Therefore, when you
come to propose a particular initiative to the GOI, you can shorten this process
significantly (sometimes even to only a few months) if your program aligns
with the existing agenda and needs of the ministry. It is worth learning what
these are and the language used when referring to them. For example, if the
Ministry of Education sets itself the goal of raising the number of EthiopianIsraeli students eligible for a teudat bagrut from 31% to 33%, then speaking
about how “my program can help x number of Ethiopian-Israeli students
achieve a teudat bagrut” will be more effective than saying “I want to help
improve the education of Ethiopian-Israelis.”
Over the past few years the GOI has moved towards a more
efficient process of strategizing and goal setting. All the ministries
are required to list their priorities in an official GOI manual called
the Madrich HaTichnun HaMemshalti (The Government Planning
Guide). Based on the Government Planning Guide, the goals,
strategies, and measurable outputs in each area are further
delineated in the GOI’s Sefer Tochniot HaAvoda (Book of Work
Plans). Both these sites are useful for understanding government
priorities and identifying opportunities.
"There are talented, devoted people in government who can really move the
project forward…”
(foundation professional)
/ 41
In May
In July
GOI
Yearly
Financial
Planning
Timeline
In January & February
By April
Starting in June
From September to November
the ministries focus on reviewing the previous year (planning
versus implementation) and extrapolating lessons learned for
the coming year. This is when decisions are likely to be made
regarding which programs or areas of activity to expand and
which to close, as well as operative decisions regarding the
current year.
the ministries are expected to formulate and present their
plans for the coming year. They are expected to present any
changes and indicate how these will be a more effective use of
the existing budget, and also indicate areas requiring a change
in government policy. Each ministry can expect to receive a 5%
increase or decrease to their budget at this point. Therefore the
ministries also prepare alternative plans.
the plans of each of the ministries are reviewed by the
“headquarter” ministries, and a general national assessment
is prepared.
and based on the general national assessment, the prime
minister and the finance minister begin to make policy decisions
and determine priorities, and begin budget negotiations with
the various ministers. This process continues until around
September when the budget is supposed to be submitted to
the Knesset for approval.
a half year assessment of the activities of each ministry
is carried out with lessons learned that are then applied to
the work plans that each division must submit in the coming
months.
each ministry prepares their work plan for the coming year according to the approved
budget and based on the plans submitted in April and the operative outcomes of
the half year review. This is when the ministry decides where and how to move the
budget around, shifting resources from one project in favor of another, etc.
It is important to note that if the government is before re-election (which happens on
average every two to three years as noted above) then the flow of the budget year
ceases, and stringent rules regarding new expenditures come into play. On the flip side,
if the government has just been elected, the budget cycle is in abeyance until the new
ministers are appointed.
42 /
When to Approach the Ministries
The best time to approach ministries about a new initiative is around March-April,
when the major components of the upcoming work plan are being considered and
formulated. The worst time to approach is in July and August, when the government
is busy preparing the actual budget. Between September and January, when the
ministries are once again focused on work plans and implementation, is another
good time to approach with new ideas. Ministries on the whole are not receptive
to being told what they should do. They are more open to ideas when they arise as
part of a dialogue. Therefore it is worth proposing a joint brain storming/thought
meetings in March/April and changes in implementation “after the holidays” in
September and October.
In addition to the yearly cycle, it is also important to pay attention to the
political cycle. The beginning of a term of office is when the ministries are
reshaping their agendas. This is the time when energy, opportunity, and
openness to new ideas are highest and it is worth approaching ministries
during this period.
In general, it is worth developing relationships with key figures in a ministry as early
as possible; even as early as when you first begin to explore the issue you want to
address. Maintaining these relationships is a good long term investment.
Mechanisms of Cooperation with the GOI
Tenders are the mechanism by which the government interacts with those who
supply it with products or services. The process by which government tenders are
won is clearly defined and determined by law.
There are certain instances when tenders are not required.
• When a single supplier can provide the entire service or in instances relating
to national security
• Certain national organizations such as the JNF, JDC, Keren Hayesod, and JAFI
are exempt from the need for tenders
• A joint initiative (see below)
/ 43
Subsidies: the GOI grants subsidies to over 3,000 public institutions and thousands
of other bodies that provide educational, religious, health, and welfare services,
among other causes. These subsidies are provided through a strenuous process of
applications, approvals, and legal agreements. The GOI grants millions of shekel a
year through this mechanism.
Joint Initiatives (meizam meshutaf): a ministry can establish a tender exempt
program that is not for profit with a body that is providing at least 50% of the
funding. This is a legal and bureaucratic relationship established through a vigorous
process carried out according to clearly defined parameters. This type of initiative is
usually of 1-3 years duration. This is often a common mechanism for philanthropic
and GOI collaboration and in many cases this mechanism results in significant
financial leverage for matching funds and generates long term GOI commitment.
The Relationship between the GOI and
Civil Society
A key turning point in the relationship between the GOI and the Third Sector was
reached in February 2008 when the GOI passed Decision No. 3190 that regulated
a policy regarding the relationship between the government, civil society
organizations, and not-for-profit businesses. Prepared by the Prime Minister’s
Office, it presented three main goals:
• Strengthening cooperation and grounding the relationship between the
sectors while maintaining the independence of all three
• Increasing the involvement of organizations in the implementation of social
services and encouraging dialogue between the sectors prior to reaching
policy decisions
• Encouraging processes that promote empowerment, professionalization,
monitoring, and transparency in civil society while embedding similar norms
within the government and the business sector with regards to their activities
within this framework
As a result of this decision a Round Table was established under the aegis of the
Prime Minister’s Office in July 2008. It was composed of representatives of the
government, the business sector, and the third sector. The Round Table meets
44 /
once every few months to discuss issues relevant to all three sectors. Members
of the philanthropic sector are also included in these meetings. Representatives
of each of the sectors participate in the Round Tables for a period of three years.
Since the original Round Table was established it has resulted in the development
of several initiatives such as a model for cross sector coordination during times
of emergency, the broadening and coordination of volunteers in Israel, expanding
philanthropy in Israel, the establishment and development of social business and
so on. Currently the Round Table has been working with the Ministry of Defense
on a wide-ranging program to improve resilience in Israeli society during times of
emergency. Additional Round Tables, focusing on particular issues or attached to
particular ministries, have also been established.
Another ongoing point of contact between the GOI and the Third Sector is the
Government-Civil Society Initiative, a joint venture with seven ministries (the Prime
Minister's office, welfare, finance, education, health, law, and absorption) and led by
JDC’s Institute for Leadership and Governance.
This chapter was written with the assistance of the JDC Institute for Leadership and
Governance. The Institute promotes and facilitates effective interfaces between and within
the different sectors engaged in the provision of public services.
“I’ve learned that one of the most important things is simply to sit together
- long enough and often enough so that you begin to get an inkling of each
other’s thought processes, culture, even language…”
(Israeli philanthropist)
/ 45
Final Thoughts
Recent years have proven that partnerships are an effective and impactful way
to bring about systemic change. They are also a challenge to build and nurture,
particularly with so complex an entity as the Government of Israel.
Our goal, therefore, in researching and compiling this guide was to provide funders
with a sense of what is involved in such a partnership – the process, the pitfalls,
and the benefits, as well as the practical knowledge necessary to be successful.
This is not, however, a step by step guide. Nor is it an exhaustive survey of the field.
The case studies chosen to illuminate different aspects of the process are a few
out of the many fine examples that exist and the types of collaborations that we
mentioned are only some of the models available. It is also clear to us that there
will always be exceptions to every rule and that nothing is ever completely cut and
dried.
The guide thus provides you with the benefit of the experience gleaned by a
selection of your peers but is only a first step on that journey. If you are excited
by the thought of this type of partnership, we encourage you to reach out to JFN
and we will connect you with funders in the network who have established such
partnerships, provide you with guidance on methodologies, models, and best
practices, and offer additional support as you move forward.
In the meantime, we leave you with a final review of the important steps to carry
out before you start thinking about developing the actual program or initiative:
1. Make sure the idea of a partnership with the GOI is right for you
2. Learn as much as possible about the field you wish to address
3. See if it is right for the GOI in terms of timing and priorities
4. Identify the right partners (funders, NGOs, and government)
5. Invest time in developing the relationship with these potential partners and
focus on the building of the partnership itself
46 /
Acknowledgments
Finally, and in the best tradition of collaboration and partnership, we would like
to thank our three partners whose generous support, knowledge, and experience
made this guide possible:
JDC Israel
The Gandyr Foundation
The Rashi Foundation
JFN would also like to extend its gratitude and appreciation to the many funders,
professionals, government officials, and organization representatives, who
generously contributed time and knowledge.
Developed and written by: Sigal Yaniv Feller, JFN Israel
Translated and edited by: Fray Hochstein
/ 47
To share with us your
collaboration experience,
or to offer feedback,
please contact JFN at
jfnisrael@jfunders.org
|