(MONEY Magazine) – One way some charities keep expenses down is by farming out the fund-raising work. That's the technique that makes the United Jewish Appeal (UJA) the most efficient of the 32 charities in the social services category for the second year in a row. Based in New York City, the UJA, which mostly assists Jewish causes overseas, raises funds with 164 Jewish federations and 283 other community groups around the country, many of which also fund their own local social service programs. While the UJA spent $23 million on fund raising last year and supports their partners' fund-raising efforts, the locals bear most of the costs. That kept UJA's fund-raising tab at a puny 5% of its $408 million in income last year. Neither the CBBB nor NCIB examine the UJA's finances.

UJA primarily helps Jews immigrate to Israel from Europe, Asia and North Africa by channeling the money raised in the U.S. to two social service agencies that carry out the work: the Jewish Agency for Israel in Jerusalem and the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee in New York City. With the help of $882 million raised by UJA between 1990 and 1993, these agencies airlifted more than 500,000 Jews from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia to Israel, under a program called Operation Exodus. Once the immigrants reach Israel, they get help assimilating at 42 UJA-sponsored centers that provide housing, education and job training. UJA-supported agencies also offer food, shelter, education and medical care to Jews in 57 countries besides Israel. Under the leadership of a new chairman, Richard L. Pearlstone, the UJA is working to encourage donations from young American Jews who were born after the founding of Israel in 1948. For example, the group has recently created the Israel Experience, a project that brings U.S. high school and college students to Israel to meet young Israelis and learn about the country's history.

SOCIAL SERVICES RANKING

Rank/charity/telephone number Okay with the top two watchdogs (HH); one (H); none (-) Income in millions; Program spending as a % of income Comments