Transition Phil 2001

The Transition of
Communal Values
and Behavior
in
Jewish Philanthropy
2 0 0 1

Gary A. Tobin, Ph.D.

Institute for
Jewish & Community
Research,
San Francisco

The Transition of
Communal Values
and Behavior
in
Jewish Philanthropy

2 0 0 1

Gary A. Tobin, Ph.D.
Institute for Jewish & Community Research
San Francisco

In cooperation with the
The Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy
University of Southern California
Prepared for
The First Forum on Philanthropy,
Public Policy, and the Economy:
What is "New" about New Philanthropy?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................1

The Americanization of Jewish Philanthropy ......................................................................................4

Basic Values in Jewish Philanthropy and Community ......................................................................7

Community and Ideology in Transition..............................................................................................11

The Purposes of Jewish Philanthropy ................................................................................................14

Trends Affecting Jewish Philanthropy ................................................................................................18

Current Constraints in the Jewish Philanthropic System ................................................................24

Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................................29

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................31

The Transition of Communal Values and Behavior
in Jewish Philanthropy

INTRODUCTION

It is not uncommon for scholars and practi- well: philanthropy within the Jewish commu-
tioners alike to discuss the ways that values, nity is itself a set of systems, ideologies and
history and community structures shape behaviors that shape the character of the
philanthropy in any particular community. Jewish community. Philanthropy is not only a
Philanthropy reflects community values and reflector, but a determinate and molder of
norms; what communities as a whole and the values and norms as well. The philanthropic
subgroups within them think and feel are structure itself is an engine that drives much
often revealed through their patterns of giv- of the Jewish communal agenda.
ing. It is clear that different groups of
Americans weave their own ethnic and cul- How Jews give away money tells a great deal
tural norms into the fabric of their philan- about the evolving character of Jewish life in
thropy. Racial, ethnic, and religious groups America. Philanthropy reflects an ethnic/reli-
find philanthropy at the intersection of com- gious group defining its place in American
munal social systems and relationships to the society, while at the same time shaping its
larger society.1 Jewish philanthropy repre- own internal direction and self-definition.
sents a complex set of interactions within an Philanthropy is the means by which much of
intricate set of community structures.2 Not the communal agenda is debated and decid-
only do community values, norms, and ed. Jewish philanthropy shapes values and
behaviors shape philanthropy within the norms as well as responds to them. Most
Jewish community, but the opposite is true as Jewish fundraising organizations are not only

1
Emmett D. Carson. A Hand Up: Black Philanthropy and Self-Help in America. Washington, D.C.: Joint Center for
Political and Economic Studies, 1993; Sandy M Fernandez. “Hispanics Erase Myths With Money.” New York Times,
Wednesday, 18 November 1998, sec. G, p. 16; Bradford Smith, Sylvia Shue, Jennifer Lisa Vest, and Joseph Villarreal.
Philanthropy in Communities of Color. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999; Robert Wuthnow, Virginia A.
Hodgkinson, and Associates. Faith and Philanthropy in America. Washington, D.C.: Independent Sector, 1990;
Philanthropy and the Black Church, ed. Alicia D. Byrd. Washington, D.C.: Council on Foundations, 1990; William E.
McManus. “Stewardship and Almsgiving in the Roman Catholic Tradition,” in Faith and Philanthropy in America,
ed. by Wuthnow, pp. 115-133; William A. Diaz. “Philanthropy and the Case of the Latino Communities in America,”
in Philanthropy and the Nonprofit Sector. ed. by Charles T. Clotfelter & Thomas Ehrlich, Bloomington, Indiana
University Press, 1999, pp. 275-292; Lilya Wagner and Ricardo Rodriguez. “Applying and Disseminating the Values
of Stewardship and Philanthropy in Hispanic/Latino Institutions and Communities,” Indianapolis, IN: Indiana
University Center on Philanthropy, 1998.
2
It is important to note that the Jewish community itself is hardly a monolith. Although Jews comprise only about
2% of the total population in the United States, this five to six million people constitute a diverse set of subgroups.
Different subcultures of Jews exist, e.g. immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Israel. Geography also plays a
role, with the Jewish community cultures of New York, South Florida, San Francisco and Los Angeles, for example,
being quite different from each other. Jewish communities tend to reflect the characteristics and behaviors of the
regions in which they live. Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and other denominational differentiation within
Judaism also constitute different sub-communities, as do various forms of participation in the Jewish community.
This paper does not purport to examine all the various nuances that derive from the complex composition of the
Jewish community and its diverse sub-populations. Rather this paper looks at the Jewish community as a whole.
The philanthropic structure is examined, as it represents the entire Jewish community, recognizing that more
detailed analyses of Jewish subgroups would provide a more varied profile.

1


institutions that raise money, they are also We do know that religious identity, whether
institutions that educate, lead, and define the expressed by ritual observance or participa-
values of American Jewish society. The pur- tion in communal activities, is highly corre-
poses for which money is raised define the lated with giving to Jewish philanthropies.
character of the Jewish community. Synagogue attendance, synagogue member-
Contributors and non-contributors alike are ship, organizational membership, and visit-
profoundly influenced by the programs and ing Israel were found as the most important
institutions funded through the Jewish phil- variables associated with making a contribu-
anthropic structure. The social science litera- tion to a Jewish philanthropy and the amount
ture discussing patterns of Jewish philan- contributed. Indeed, philanthropic behavior
thropy is somewhat limited. Quantitative itself is one of the variables which constitutes
data on donor attitudes and behavior are still a component of Jewish identity.6
scarce in the Jewish community. Given some
of the conventional wisdom about the suc- We also know that Jews are slightly more
cess of Jewish philanthropy in the United likely to make some contribution to a non-
States, one might have anticipated a greater Jewish than Jewish philanthropy and that the
analytical framework. Yet we have little number of donors to umbrella giving
empirical analysis on why Jews give, to through federations’ annual campaigns has
which philanthropies, and the relationship of been declining.7 A number of studies corrob-
religious identity to philanthropic behavior.3 orate that there is a growing propensity for
Some studies look specifically at women’s Jews to give to secular rather than Jewish
roles in Jewish philanthropy.4 No compre- causes, especially for younger Jews.8 Yet,
hensive study of Jewish philanthropy is Jewish philanthropy is thriving, both in the
available to compare to general American central system of the federation, and outside
society as reported by the Independent it, in terms of actual dollars raised or man-
Sector.5
3
Jack Wertheimer. “Current Trends in American Jewish Philanthropy.” In American Jewish Year Book 1997: A
Record of Events and Trends in American and World Jewish Life, edited by David Singer and Ruth R. Seldin,
Volume 97, 3-92. New York: The American Jewish Committee, 1997; Peter Everett Tarlow. “Who Gives? Who Leads?
A Study of A Voluntary Jewish Fundraising Organization,” Ph.D. diss., Texas A&M University, 1990; Dorene Lehavi,
“A Survey of Evolving Attitudes Regarding Charitable Giving to Federated Organizations in a Jewish Community,”
Ph.D. diss., University of Southern California, 1995.; Gary Tobin and Mordechai Rimor. “The Relationship Between
Jewish Identity and Philanthropy.” in Contemporary Jewish Philanthropy in America, edited by Barry A. Kosmin
and Paul Ritterband. Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1991, pp. 33-56.
4
Steven J. Gold. “Women’s Changing Place in Jewish Philanthropy,” Contemporary Jewry, 18 (1997).
5
Independent Sector. Giving and Volunteering in the United States, 1999, Executive Summary. (Washington, D.C.:
Independent Sector, 1999).
6
Gary Tobin and Mordechai Rimor. “Jewish Giving Patterns to Jewish and Non-Jewish Philanthropy,” Faith and
Philanthropy in America, Robert Wuthnow and Virginia A. Hodgkinson and Associates, Editors, pp. 134-164. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1990.
7
Gary Tobin. Trends in American Jewish Philanthropy: Market Research Analysis. Maurice & Marilyn Cohen Center
for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University, Policy and Planning Paper 8, April 1992; Gary Tobin. “The Future of
the UJA-Federation of New York.” Guiding Organizational Change: The New York Federation (1986-1996), Michael
J. Austin, ed. Maurice & Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies/Institute for Community and Religion,
Brandeis University, New York: UJA Federation. Fall 1996.
8
Gary Tobin. Jewish Philanthropy: Patterns of Giving to Charitable Causes in Greater Philadelphia. The 1996/97
Jewish Population Study of Greater Philadelphia, Special Report no. 4. New York: Ukeles Associates, 1998; Gary
Tobin, “Potential Major Donors of the Greater East Bay.” Prepared for the Jewish Federation of the Greater East Bay.
San Francisco: Maurice & Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies/Institute for Community and Religion,
Brandeis University, February 1996.

2

The Transition of Communal Values and Behavior in Jewish Philanthropy

aged. The federation as an institution is thriv- zations such as the New Israel Fund, Jewish
ing as never before, even while the annual National Fund and other organizations have
campaign is flat. In spite of the great success shown major increases in the past ten years.
of federations in overall financial resource The number of organizations raising money
development, the diminishing role of federa- has also burgeoned; therefore, more dollars
tions has been speculated about for some are being raised through a broader network.
time, at least since the beginning of the 1990s. The competitive nature of the fundraising
One prominent Jewish journalist queried in a system has resulted in more organizations
1992 editorial about whether federations producing more dollars by addressing specif-
would continue to function at all.9 Articles in ic needs and interests, and tapping into tar-
both the Forward and the Wall Street Journal geted subgroups of Jews. Jews are giving
in 1998 documented the central funding sys- more dollars than ever before to Jewish caus-
tems losing ground to more targeted philan- es, as well as more dollars to secular causes.
thropies in Jewish life.10 But all revenue
streams to federations have been increasing The context in which Jewish philanthropy
dramatically over the past decade. The con- takes place has changed radically in the last
cern about the overall health of federations is few years. The purposes for which funds are
a misplaced and antiquated emphasis on the raised, the processes of collection and distrib-
annual campaign as the primary measure of ution, and the institutional landscape in the
success. Unrestricted endowments, restricted Jewish fundraising world are all being
endowments, philanthropic funds, special altered. Some of the underpinnings — philo-
campaigns, and capital campaigns have all sophical, ideological and religious — in the
grown at a rapid pace. While the percentage Jewish fundraising system remain essentially
of the total revenue stream represented by unaltered, but the nuances of the purposes
the annual campaign has been declining, the for which monies are raised have expanded
overall base has been growing. Federations and become more differentiated.
have increased their annual allocations
through grant-making far beyond the funds This monograph looks at Jewish communal
distributed from annual campaigns.11 The values and structures as they shape philan-
growth of this aspect of the federation system thropy. It is not an analysis of religious ideol-
is likely to increase at an even greater pace, ogy, Torah text, or an in-depth look at the
given the revised estimates of the amount of relationship of Jewish theology and philan-
wealth to be transferred in the near future.12 thropy. A rich literature exists on tzedakah and
The total dollars raised outside the federation performing acts of loving-kindness, and the
system have also been growing. Organi- meaning of Jewish laws regarding giving and

9
Gary Rosenblatt. “Can Federations Survive?” Other Voices Column, The Jewish Journal, 16-22 October 1992: 35.
10
Sara Berman. “UJA Eclipsed by Targeted Gifts to Israel: ‘American Friends’ Generate a Shift in Charitable
Giving” Forward. 6 March 1998.; Tamar Hausman. “U.S. Jews Refocus Donations to Israel, Shifting to
Nongovernmental Causes,” The Wall Street Journal, 5 October 1998.
11
Donald Kent and Jack Wertheimer. “A Revolution in Federated Giving,” Opinion, The New York Jewish Week, 8
October 1999.; Donald Kent and Jack Wertheimer. “The Implications of New Funding Streams for the Federation
System.” Journal of Jewish Communal Service: A Quarterly of Professional Trends and Developments. 76, no. 1/2
(Fall/Winter, 1999): 69-77.
12
John J., Havens and Paul G. Schervish. “Millionaires and the Millennium: New Estimates of the Forthcoming
Wealth Transfer and the Prospects for a Golden Age of Philanthropy.” w & c revised paper taken from website:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/gsas/swri/m&m.htn, 19 October 1999.

3


communal support. But that is not the pur- structure and programs into a system. The
pose of this discussion.13 focus of this paper is on the ideological, with
some discussion of the structural.
The focus is on the current Jewish philan-
thropic system, which can be viewed through THE AMERICANIZATION OF
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY
a number of lenses. The first is ideological.
Ideology represents the guiding principles,
The Americanization of Jewish philanthropy
beliefs and myths that define the philan-
has taken place. Jews are now so integrated
thropic system. The second lens is structural.
into the American mainstream, that tzedakah
This is an institutional and organizational
has taken on more of the character of
network, the mechanisms through which ide-
American philanthropy, and will continue to
ologies are expressed. Over the years
do so, representing less the religious tradition
American Jewry, as well as other Diaspora
of Jews and more the civil tradition of philan-
communities, have created elaborate and
thropy in the United States. Philanthropy
intricate systems to help raise money to build
among Jews mirrors certain aspects of the
the State of Israel. The third lens is program-
American system, especially among the very
matic. These are the specific activities within
wealthy. Issues of power, gender, generation,
the system that are supported through
and the roles of professionals all come into
monies raised or the activities that help raise
play.14 More Jews will make contributions
the money. Sometimes they are the same,
based in American values of giving; volun-
with fundraising organizations having adopt-
tary associations, giving through personal
ed programs that both raise money and build
choice, and supporting a wide variety of
the system itself. The fourth lens is technical,
causes. They, like other Americans, will pick
the set of tools that are used to help raise
and choose that which they want to support,
funds. These tools may include marketing
most often philanthropies for which they
techniques, the use of media, and so on. The
have some affinity or connection. One model
level of sophistication of these tools varies
of giving looks at variables of involvement,
tremendously depending on the fundraising
appeal of large projects, and other factors.
organization. The fifth lens to examine the
These, among other models, explore why
fundraising system is procedural, the
particular individuals give and others do not,
processes in decision-making, resource distri-
within any construct, Jewish, American, eth-
bution, and so on that connect ideologies,

13
Data from this analysis come from three primary sources. First, quantitative data are available from a variety of
community studies completed in individual Jewish communities, usually sponsored by the local Jewish federation.
These studies engage scholars to provide overall demographic religious identity and communal behavior data.
Three to four studies of this kind are usually completed each year. Second, qualitative research about donor atti-
tudes and behavior are also sponsored by Federations and other Jewish organizations. These studies provide a more
in-depth look at Jewish philanthropy through the eyes of donors. The emphasis in this paper is on the attitudes and
behaviors of major donors who set the standards and drive much of the Jewish philanthropic agenda. The third
data source is qualitative data gathered through participant observation by the author of this paper who serves as a
planning and research consultant to a number of Jewish organizations, foundations, and private philanthropists.
Serving in this capacity provides the opportunity to participate in planning and implementation within the Jewish
philanthropic structure.
14
Teresa Odendahl. Charity Begins At Home: Generosity and Self-Interest Among the Philanthropic Elite. New
York: Basic Books, 1990; Sondra C Shaw, and Martha A. Taylor. Reinventing Fundraising: Realizing the Potential of
Women’s Philanthropy. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers, 1995.

4


nic, or otherwise.15 Over time, it will become sent for Jewish community-building purpos-
even more difficult to discern what is differ- es.
ent or distinctive about Jewish philanthropy
from American philanthropy. Non-sectarian Third, there is an enormous accumulation of
institutions will continue to garner time, wealth, both from a healthy economy, and
attention, and philanthropic dollars. Jews the stock market boom of the 1990s, even
may now have a natural affinity and loyalty with the subsequent decline. Donors and
to a whole new set of institutions and organi- foundations have more money to give away.
zations — the ones that affect their lives, their Like the Jewish community, other ethnic and
children’s lives, their parent’s lives. religious groups also are suddenly seeing
increased contributions to their philanthropic
Three trends in structures.16 With
American philan- wealth comes more
Parallel Trends
thropy are paralleled involvement in phil-
in American & Jewish Philanthropy
within Jewish philan- anthropy. As one
thropy. First, umbrel- 1. Decline of umbrella campaigns study in 1997 demon-
la giving is diminish- 2. Rapid growth of foundations strated, those who
ing. Just as United 3. Accumulation of wealth accumulated wealth
Way represents a were very likely to
decreasing presence, so begin serious involve-
do federations’ annual campaigns play a ment in philanthropy, with the highest per-
decreasing role in overall Jewish philan- centage choosing at least some kind of contri-
thropy. The annual campaign of federations bution to their religious community.17
is still a major engine in Jewish philanthropy,
but probably accounts for no more than 10% The Americanization of Jewish giving has
– 15% of all funds raised by Jews for Jewish also included a growing propensity to give to
causes (including synagogue dues and contri- philanthropies outside of the Jewish commu-
butions). The annual campaign is likely to nity. American Jews have become an integral
continue its decline as the central force in part of the philanthropic mainstream, donat-
American Jewish philanthropy. ing large sums to a variety of institutions and
organizations in the realms of education,
Second, the rapid growth of private founda- health, human services, culture, politics, and
tions, both in terms of numbers and assets, others. Donors have become involved more
continues unabated. More dollars are being deeply in non-Jewish philanthropy for five
deposited, but the pace of the distribution is reasons.
slow. Most Jewish foundations, like the foun-
dation world as a whole, see the 5% distribu- The first is acceptance and integration into
tion requirement as a ceiling not a floor. American society, the removal of antisemitic
Therefore, more and more money is accumu- barriers. Jews play prominent roles in institu-
lating, but not necessarily utilized in the pre- tions from which they were once prohibited
15
Joan Mount. “Why Donors Give.” Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 7, no. 6 (Fall 1996): 3-14.
16
Diana Campoamor, William A. Díaz, and Henry A. J. Ramos, eds. Nuevos Senderos: Reflections on Hispanics
and Philanthropy. Houston: Arte Público Press, University of Houston, 1999.
17
Clayton-Davis & Associates, Inc. “Religious Causes Draw Most Interest Among Charitable Contributors, Study
Shows.” From “Affluents Profile Study” conducted for Mercantile Trust. December 1997.

5


from taking leadership roles due to antisemit- local community specifically, have been very
ic restrictions. Involvement in the general good to them. Many Jews feel that they have
society’s philanthropy signals both group been given incredible opportunities to be
and individual triumph to blend into the full-functioning and accepted members in an
American mainstream. open society. They believe that since the
country has been so good to them, and the
Second, serving the non-Jewish community is society so open, that there is a quid pro quo
seen by many as a mission of their Jewish- for Jews to support general institutions as
ness. The possibilities for giving as an expres- well as Jewish institutions. Therefore, they
sion of Jewish life are extended even further express their gratitude to the nation and to
by broadening the definition of what is the community through philanthropy.
Jewish. Some individuals believe that they Philanthropy becomes a “thank you” to
are performing an America, a statement
explicitly Jewish act by of personal gratitude
Reasons for Americanization
contributing to a secu- in addition to a reli-
of Jewish Philanthropy
lar shelter for the gious act or ideology.
homeless or even an 1. Acceptance and integration into
emergency food pro- American society A fourth factor is the
gram for the hungry 2. Fulfilling Jewish mission of serving desire to represent the
under Christian aus- larger society Jewish community, to
pices. Even though the 3. Giving something back as Americans be ambassadors of the
recipients are non- 4. Being ambassadors of the Jewish Jewish people, and to
Jewish, both institu- community secure good will for
tion and clients, the 5. Secular concerns are more compelling Jewish causes. Some
act of performing donors do not want
mitzvot with Jewish non-Jews to assume
sensibilities can make practically any giving that Jews support only Jewish causes, that
opportunity a Jewish one to some donors. Jews are too insulated or self-concerned.
This philosophy extends the opportunities Some feel that if Jews are too isolated and
for giving from the myriad of Jewish institu- provincial, the hospitable atmosphere of the
tions and causes to a decision-making matrix general society will not respond to Jewish
which, for all practical purposes, is infinite. needs. By giving to a wide variety of general
Philanthropy is also a means to reduce the causes, some donors feel that they will
conflict between being Jewish and being a ensure general community support for
“middle-class,” that is, ordinary American.18 Jewish concerns.

Third, many donors believe that they must Indeed, there is evidence that Jewish philan-
contribute to societal institutions outside the thropists are more likely to make their largest
Jewish community because the donor desires gifts to non-Jewish philanthropies.19 Gifts of
to “put something back into the community.” $40 million, $50 million, $100 million, or even
Many feel that America generally, or their more from Jews are not uncommon to non-
18
Evan M Adelson. “The Dirty Business of Charity: Raising Money, Reproducing Stratification, and Constructing
the Jewish Community.” American Sociological Association Paper, 1995.
19
Gary Tobin, Alex Karp, Ayo Griffen, and Aryeh Weinberg. A Comparative Study of Mega Gifts: Jewish & Non-
Jewish Donors. Insitute for Jewish & Community Research, San Francisco, CA, 2001.

6


Jewish philanthropies. These gifts are not Jewish philanthropies. Or one could argue
necessarily paid out in a one-year period, but that the pool of philanthropic dollars
may be paid over a five or ten year period or expands depending on both motivating fac-
longer. Nevertheless, non-Jewish causes are tors and agencies involved. The latter illus-
attracting the largest Jewish donor gifts. trates that philanthropists give to a wide
Individual Jewish philanthropists make variety of causes, both Jewish and non-
annual gifts of substantial amounts to Jewish Jewish, and the amount given is not necessar-
philanthropies, but it is less common to see ily dependent on the decision to give to a
mega-gifts given to the Jewish community. Jewish versus non-Jewish cause. If the dona-
Universities, symphonies, hospitals, and tion pool, that is, the amount given, is some-
museums are capturing the largest gifts from what fixed, then Jewish philanthropies have
Jewish donors. serious competition from non-Jewish philan-
thropies. If the pool expands, depending on
Fifth, non-Jewish causes seem more com- the case made and the motivation that is pro-
pelling. Most individuals interviewed in a vided, the amounts given tend to reinforce
variety of studies indicated that they could one another rather than be competitive.
give two or three times more to Jewish phil-
anthropies if they felt the need. Most of them BASIC VALUES IN JEWISH PHILANTHROPY
AND COMMUNITY
do not feel the need.20 As a result, a high pro-
portion of their giving now goes to non-
Jewish philanthropy is anchored in three per-
Jewish philanthropies. The proportion of giv-
vasive values. The first is tzedakah — the
ing to Jewish philanthropies has declined
ancient religious imperative to provide for
precipitously for many major donors, down
those in need. Tzedakah — literally righteous-
from 70% for many to 30% or less. Many also
ness — is a deeply embedded set of religious
feel that there is no Jewish institution or
obligations that Jews have for one another
organization that they know of that could
and all human beings. A variety of scholarly
efficiently or appropriately utilize a gift of
and popular works attest to this relationship
$80 or $100 million. Familiarity breeds some
of tzedakah and social justice in the contempo-
contempt on the one hand, and disengage-
rary American Jewish community.22 The set
ment breeds suspicion on the other hand.
of ideologies and behaviors that constitute
Some would argue that among wealthy
tzedakah resembles other faith traditions of
Americans, the level of giving in general is
charity; concepts of sharing both energy and
not what it ought to be.21
material goods with those who are less fortu-
nate. Also like other Americans, the impulse
One could hypothesize that in a fixed pool of
for philanthropy is deeply ingrained as an
philanthropic dollars, Jewish philanthropies
emotional and psychological desire to help
are competing for contributions with non-
others.23 What distinguishes tzedakah is the
20
Op. cit. Gary Tobin. “The Future of the UJA-Federation of New York.”
21
Claude Rosenberg, Jr. Wealthy and Wise: How You and America Can Get the Most Out of Your Giving. Boston:
Little, Brown and Company, 1994.
22
Lawrence Bush and Jeffrey Dekro. Jews, Money and Social Responsibility: Developing a “Torah of Money” for
Contemporary Life. A Guidebook with Supplementary Essays by Letty Cottin Pogrebin and Arthur Waskow, with a
Forward by Jonathan Schorsch. Philadelphia: The Shefa Fund, 1993.
23
Robert Wuthnow. Acts of Compassion: Caring for Others and Helping Ourselves. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1991.

7


absolute sense of obligation, its matter-of- became interwoven into the basic foundation
factness. It is a must, not a should. It is a of Jewish society. Religious and civic systems
command, not a consideration. It is not a were fused: religious acts and civic actions
matter of choice. An individual is not consid- were one and the same. Philanthropy, as
ered generous because one shares that which Jewish Americans understand it, is not part
they have, because one is supposed to do so. of a “voluntary sector” that is separate from
Tzedakah is deeply embedded in Jewish governance or civil law, but fully melded into
thought and feeling, especially the impera- an overall communal structure. Some consid-
tive to provide for basic human needs, such er philanthropy the civil side of Jewish life,
as food, shelter, and children in need. These and synagogue attendance or ritual obser-
concerns are the foundation for the intricate vance the religious side, when both are actu-
set of social and human services Jews build ally religious in nature.25
for their communities.
Tzedakah is also dedi- As the religious/social
cated to serving the Basic Values in Jewish Philanthropy societies of Judaism
world-at-large, non- were transplanted and
Jews as well as Jews. 1. Tzedakah (Righteousness) maintained in a multi-
The need to “repair a 2. Reinforcement of ethnic, cultural and tude of Diaspora com-
broken world” (Tikun religious identity munities, Jews brought
Olam), is deeply 3. Self protection from external threats their philanthropic
embedded in commu- systems wherever they
nity values and went.26 Thus the sys-
norms. A strong universalistic component tems of philanthropy became more and more
characterizes Jewish philanthropy. The inter- institutionalized over time. In place after
est in social justice and volunteering evolves place, century after century, this religious/
constantly. It continues to take new forms, social structure was replicated. Jews main-
such as the Jewish Service Corps, which is tained separate or quasi-separate societies,
designed to serve the secular rather than the with human and social service systems. Long
Jewish world. 24
before the “public sector” took responsibility,
Jews took care of other Jews. They became
The command of righteousness through phil- proficient in designing, building, and main-
anthropic obligation was codified within a taining service systems. They would bring
set of societal laws that wove a system of this accumulated knowledge and practice to
communal order. How one was to perform America. The synergy between Jewish phil-
righteous acts was laid out in an elaborate set anthropy and the American system would
of instructions — first in the written law make both systems flourish even more.
(Torah), and then in the oral law (Talmud) of
the Jewish people. These acts of giving

24
“Rabbi Nurtures Young Jews’ Quest for Faith and Service.” Special Report, Religion Section, Chronicle of
Philanthropy, 14 January 1999.
25
Jonathan Woocher. Sacred Survival: The Civil Religion of American Jews. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press, 1987.
26
Howard Sachar. A History of the Jews in America. New York: Random House, 1993; Paul Johnson. A History of
the Jews. New York: HarperPerennial, 1988.

8


Tzedakah and the philanthropic systems that regular, and uneventful that it is usually not
derive from the religious values of providing considered much in discussions of American
for basic human and social needs have been Jewish philanthropy.28
part of the construct of Jewish life for so long
that the vast majority of Jews that participate The community-building agenda includes
have little knowledge or understanding of advocacy for Jewish education and support-
the religious origins of their actions. Over ing synagogues as primary focal points.
time, these religious values have been trans- These areas of philanthropic investment are
lated into communal norms, even in the receiving more attention. It is not clear what
absence of individual or institutional knowl- the outcomes will be. The issue of building
edge or recognition of the religious origins of Jewish identity may arouse intense emotions,
the beliefs and behaviors. These feelings and but does not necessarily offer a clear rallying
actions are now “hard-wired” into the Jewish point, ideology or programmatic agenda for
subconscious and communal psyche, guiding fundraising or institution-building. Some
and directing Jewish behavior. philanthropists may pick specific program-
matic agendas such as sending students to
Second, Jewish philanthropy is used to rein- Israel or expanding summer camps to build
force ethnic, cultural and religious identity. Jewish community. But for the most part, the
Philanthropy expresses and reinforces the community-building agenda does not lend
desire to maintain separate identity and com- itself easily to quick fixes. This fact can lead
munity. Elaborate systems are developed to to frustration or cynicism, because problems
support Jewish education and for perpetuat- that do not have quick fixes seem to have no
ing religious life. Not only is it a righteous fixes at all. If clear-cut and easy to implement
act to feed a hungry person, it is also a right- remedies are not available, then some believe
eous act to educate a poor Jew or logically that there is no remedy to be had.
extended, to help subsidize the religious par-
ticipation of any Jew who can not afford it. Third, philanthropy is used for self-protec-
The philanthropic system has a large compo- tion from external threats. The persistence of
nent dedicated to creating successive genera- antisemitism throughout Jewish history
tions who identify and act as Jews. Like other required funds for defense systems and res-
religious groups in America, where the cue efforts. Defense has evolved into political
church is the primary recipient of much phil- lobbying, legislative campaigns, and devel-
anthropic activity, Jews make hundreds of oping political coalitions with other interest
thousands of small gifts to synagogues. groups. A number of organizations such as
However, baby boomers and younger are less the Anti-Defamation League, American
likely to give to a church.27 The day-to-day Jewish Committee, and the American Jewish
support of synagogues through membership Congress were created to fight antisemitism.29
dues and other contributions is so ordinary, There is little question that Jews will rally to

27
Holly Hall. “The Lost Generation?” The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 11;11, 25 March 1999: 25-26
28
Most Jewish households do not have a current membership in a synagogue. Yet, most belong on and off during
their lifetimes, and attend synagogue on the High Holy Days of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.
29
Gary Tobin with Sharon L. Sassler. Jewish Perceptions of Antisemitism. Plenum Press, New York, NY, 1988.; and
Elizar, Daniel Judah. Community and Polity: The Organizational Dynamics of American Jewry. Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 1995.

9


give more money to fight antisemitism when almost always pervaded Jewish philanthropy.
they feel the need. Rescue includes efforts to The crises can be characterized in the follow-
raise money to help bring Jews out of the for- ing ways. If Jews did not feed one another,
mer Soviet Union where they are threatened they would starve. If Jews did not help build
by antisemitic violence, or from Ethiopia Israel, then all Jews, everywhere, all the time,
where they are subject to both discrimination would be at risk in potentially hostile coun-
and extreme poverty. Jews in America also tries throughout the world. If Jews did not
developed an elaborate system of rescue help support Israel financially, Arab armies
organizations, community relations organiza- would have crushed the young state. If Jews
tions, lobbying organizations, and institu- did not help subsidize Jews to leave the for-
tions to support Israel. Support for Israel is mer Soviet Union, they could be subject to
linked to the need for self-protection. Israel is violent antisemitism. The Jews of Ethiopia
seen by world Jews as the ultimate expres- would starve. If Jews do not support their
sion of religious destiny, pride, and self-pro- synagogues and education programs for
tection for Jews. It is considered a safe haven Jewish youth, the Jewish community would
from discrimination and violence in a hostile eventually disintegrate. Conditioned by
world. external and internal threats, Jewish philan-
thropy has intertwined danger, fear and
Jewish society was constructed to carry out despair as an underlying emotional basis.
the religious imperatives. These patterns
were reinforced by Jews living in isolated The dominant themes in philanthropy in the
subcultures; more often than not, persecuted last two generations have been linked to peril
and denied most basic economic, social and and destruction from external forces. The
individual rights. Expressions of righteous- United Jewish Appeal’s Operation Exodus in
ness also became defense mechanisms; Jews the late 1980s and early 1990s was the culmi-
taking care of their own as a necessity in the nation of decades of effort to facilitate migra-
face of external hostility. Therefore, philan- tion (to Israel and the United States) of Jews
thropy and the social and institutional struc- from the Soviet Union.30 Many Jews felt that
tures created by it were a communal expres- this population was in peril and those that
sion of survival. If Jews did not care of their remain in the former Soviet Union remain in
own, they would perish in a hostile world. peril. The campaign rightfully emphasized
The very fabric of Jewish society linked giv- the threat of antisemitism and repression in
ing and survival in Jewish consciousness and the Soviet Union and the latent danger con-
behavior. Raising money has never been tinuing into the 1990s. Rescue was the motif
about raising money alone. It has always of the campaign. Indeed, fear has been at the
included serving God, helping fellow Jews, heart of the great themes of Jewish conscious-
and fending off aggression and discrimina- ness in the twentieth century: failure to pre-
tion. vent disaster (the Holocaust), vigilant battle
against hostile neighbors (Israel), and avoid-
Because Jews have been forced to be reactive ance of disaster, rescuing Jews from potential
to hostile external forces, a crisis mentality repression (Soviet Union).

30
Op. cit. Gary Tobin. Trends in American Jewish Philanthropy: Market Research Analysis.

10


The communal tension between these basic The expression of these values have pro-
values is constant and intense. How does the duced major philanthropic successes in the
community fulfill the need for human ser- Jewish community over the past century.
vices in the Jewish community and the need These have been the building of synagogues,
to serve all of the world? How do Jews bal- Jewish community centers, religious schools
ance the need to build religious identity, and and other institutions to build religious and
the need for defense and rescue? These ten- ethnic identity, the building of a human ser-
sions are being played out now with increas- vice delivery system to serve the Jewish com-
ing ferocity, since the Jewish community is in munity, the building of the State of Israel,
such dramatic transition. and the resettlement of Jews at risk, includ-
ing from Arab countries, Ethiopia, and the
Most Jews do not wish to embrace a system former Soviet Union. These values are now in
that forces them to choose between building a major transition.
Jewish community in the United States ver-
sus social welfare needs in Israel, versus res- COMMUNITY AND IDEOLOGY IN TRANSITION
cuing Jews from the former Soviet Union, or
feeding an elderly Jew in Eastern Europe ver- Today, however, Jews can begin thinking
sus sending a Jewish child to a Jewish-spon- about who and what they want to be. This
sored preschool in the United States. emerging reality is at the heart of the current
Ultimately, asking Jews to choose between transition in Jewish philanthropy. The transi-
communities, between causes, between pur- tion of Jewish life finds three concurrent
poses, creates untenable choices. themes intertwined in the philanthropic sys-
tem. First, Jews have become highly integrat-
For many donors, programs in building ed into mainstream American society. As one
Jewish community, even if they are vitally author has noted, sometime in the last two
important, are less of a priority than social generations, Jews became “white folks” in
welfare programs in the Jewish community. America.31 Second, Jews remain different, in
Basic human needs come first. Donors must spite of this integration. Jewish psyche and
be convinced that those in need — the elder- behavior remains distinct from the overall
ly, the homeless, the hungry, the émigré in society. Jews still practice a different religion
need of job retraining — will be adequately from Christianity, connect to Israel more
served before they will consider reallocating closely, and still largely marry other Jews
dollars to Jewish continuity. Yet, some donors (although diminishing all the time).32 Third,
believe just the opposite, that Jewish commu- Jews have not completely shed their survival
nity-building comes first and that the social fears. Discrimination and violence have been
welfare system of the general society can take too frequent and too recent for fear to dissi-
care of Jews in need. Others simply do not pate within a generation. There has been a
believe that there are Jews in need. shift from a focus on external threats (anti-

31
Karen Brodkin. How Jews Became White Folks & What That Says About Race in America. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press, 1998.
32
Council of Jewish Federations. 1990 National Jewish Population Study. New York: Council of Jewish Federations,
1992.

11


semitism) to internal threats (loss of separate the causes and institutions of the secular soci-
identity). Being communally and socially ety, unless again faced with an external
secure and still being afraid causes major dis- threat.
location in the philanthropic system. Signs of
resurgent antisemitism may reverse this shift: Because tzedakah is not limited only to Jews,
violent hate crimes against individual Jews or the more success and prosperity Jews
“stop the Jews” signs on college campuses. achieve, the greater their ability to support
group needs throughout American society,
Even as Jews have become more successful and the rest of the world. The enormous eco-
socially, economically, politically and cultur- nomic and political success of the American
ally, the crisis mentality remains a raison Jewish community means that they have
d’être to raise funds. This has been reinforced much more to give. At the same time, the
by the consistent threats to Israeli survival in integration of Jews into the general society —
the Middle East and the mass movement of schools, business, politics, and cultural life —
Jews from the former Soviet Union in what makes them integral players in the secular
continues to be viewed by Jews as an antise- world. However, the more successful Jews
mitic environment and potentially threaten- become, and the more obligated they feel to
ing to the safety of the Jewish communities support secular institutions, the more they
that remain. Therefore, the themes of rescue also feel the threat of internal dissolution.
and survival, while not necessarily salient for Therefore, the need for self-help and mainte-
raising funds for domestic purposes, have nance of a separate communal order — one
remained a key motivator for fundraising, that enriches a distinctive and separate
and still permeate Jewish thought and emo- Jewish identity — by definition also requires
tion. How Jews make the transition from the an ever growing need for financial resources.
crisis mentality and the fear of group sur- Jews are only able to give away more to the
vival will be difficult. Indeed, shifted general society because they are so much a
fundraising themes away from crises from part of it. Jews would not be able to give to
external threats to crises from internal threats the general society at such great levels if they
is the mirror image of a similar ideology. were not so successful, and the Jewish com-
Group survival remains the essence of the munity would not need financial support as
philanthropic system. much if Jews were not so successful. This ten-
sion will continue to play itself out in Jewish
The conundrum of Jewish philanthropy rests philanthropy until it is better understood,
in being both successful and afraid. addressed openly and honestly, and some-
Integration into American society draws Jews how the Jewish community is able to come to
to non-Jewish philanthropy. At the same grips with the great philanthropic “Catch-
time, acceptance into the secular society 22.”
transforms the distinctive cohesiveness of
Jews and therefore, requires more communal But concern about maintaining a separate
attention and funding. The very success of identity may not engender as much passion
American Jewry necessitates more rather or financial support as past crises, because
than less funding for the Jewish communal many Jews may not see weakening Jewish
infrastructure. Yet Jews are more drawn to identity as a crisis at all. Jews want to be both

12


assimilated as well as separate. They like contributions from the Jewish community.
being Jewish and American, and they like Like other groups, the imperative to take care
contributing to both Jewish and secular caus- of one’s own in the Jewish community
es. Few Jews want to segregate themselves involves being part of the American human
completely from American society, except for service mainstream and garnering a share of
some ultra-Orthodox groups. It is difficult to public sector dollars. While Jews continue to
sustain a sense of crisis when the vast majori- be concerned about the human service needs
ty of Jews do not want to live in entirely of their own community, it is unclear how
Jewish neighborhoods or go to entirely much support needs to be generated through
Jewish schools. Although afraid of group dis- the private system of Jewish philanthropy,
solution, the assimilation emergency is hard and how much should or will come through
to market to the vast majority of American the general society. Much of the maintenance
Jews: they like their lives way too much to of the human service system comes from the
think about isolating themselves again. The public sector, while emergency needs, special
positive effects of Jewish education, religious campaigns, and capital needs come through
meaning, and community cohesiveness may the Jewish philanthropic system.
be far more appealing psychologically, and
therefore philanthropically, than emphasizing The Jewish community is confused about
the imminent demise of American Jewry. But who is responsible for what; is it the federal
these positive messages are rarely transmit- government, the state government, charities
ted.33 as a whole, or the Jewish community specifi-
cally? Jews are still committed to the basic
The clarity about supporting human services tenets of maintaining a human service infra-
in the Jewish community has also been seri- structure, but they are much more unclear
ously damaged. The self-help imperative is about the mechanisms to provide this goal.
very murky because Jewish human service Should Jews support political candidates and
organizations, like other non-profits in programs that provide more of these services
America, have become increasingly inter- through the public sector? Or do they reas-
twined with federal and state programs. It sume the support burden? Are Social
has been accepted for some time that founda- Security, Medicare, and Medicaid enough to
tions and private philanthropy must take up meet the health needs of the Jewish elderly?
some of the slack from the public sector with- Or should Jewish organizations be providing
drawal from certain human service pro- more comprehensive services, and if so what
grams, but are not certain about which com- kind?35
ponents and how much.34 Jewish homes for
the aged, vocational services, family and chil- The confusion about public versus voluntary
dren services receive most of their money sector roles and how much human service
from the public sector rather than private support is necessary and in what realms,

33
Examining direct mail from many Jewish organizations, they continue to refer to the Holocaust, antisemitism, and
threats from intermarriage.
34
National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. Community Foundations and the Disenfranchised: A Report on
Ten Top Community Foundations’ Responsiveness to Low Income and Other Historically Disenfranchised Groups
In American Society. Washington, D.C.: National Committee For Responsive Philanthropy, 1994.
35
Leslie Lenkowsky. “Philanthropy and the welfare state: rethinking the partnership.” Philanthropy 9 (Summer
1995): 5-7, 26-8.

13


may hamper the ability to raise money for Philanthropy as Community-Building
human services. Questions often emerge
from prospective contributors about the Giving money to Jewish causes, institutions
necessity of their contribution in the light of and organizations is a mechanism to define
government support and subsidies. Few peo- group membership. One of the standard defi-
ple seem to be sure about how much is being nitions of affiliation with Jewish community
done by whom and, therefore, what the indi- includes giving to Jewish philanthropies.
vidual and collective responsibility in the Beliefs and behaviors define whether or not
Jewish community ought to be to meet one is a Jew. Along with belonging to a syna-
human service needs. Economic good times, gogue, observing certain rituals such as par-
the relative invisibility of the needy, and the ticipation in a Passover Seder or attending
gradual raising of the standards of basic religious services on Rosh Hashanah (The
needs, all lead to a hesitancy and uncertainty Jewish New Year) and Yom Kippur (Day of
in supporting the human service agenda Atonement), donating or not donating to
through Jewish philanthropy. Jewish purposes is used as a key benchmark
for defining affiliation. Therefore, increasing
THE PURPOSES OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPY the number of donors to Jewish philan-
thropies is seen as a
It would seem that the way of identifying,
purposes of philan- Purposes of Jewish Philanthropy defining and building
thropy in the Jewish 1. Community-building the Jewish communi-
community would be 2. Teaching activity ty. The value of con-
straightforward and 3. Volunteer development tributing goes far
simple: To provide 4. Leadership development beyond the dollars
financial resources for 5. Expression of personal identity themselves. Most
various purposes, 6. Value definition community leaders
causes, and institu- 7. Building bridges between groups of Jews believe that making
tions within the Jewish 8. Building bridges to other Americans some contribution to a
community. But this Jewish philanthropy
view of Jewish philan- constitutes a major
thropy is too simplistic. The system of Jewish statement about one’s identity as a Jew.
philanthropy is much more complex in its Conversely, contributing nothing to Jewish
purposes than the provision of financial philanthropies is taken as a statement of dis-
resources alone. A variety of techniques, both engagement, disinterest or disenfranchise-
standard and innovative, for existing institu- ment. Communal leaders look not only at the
tions and new ones, for large scale and small amount of money being raised, but the pro-
scale efforts, centers the mission on raising portion of the population that contributes.
the most dollars. But philanthropy in the Broadening as well as deepening the base is
Jewish community is far more than raising valued not only as a fundraising strategy,
funds. It serves another set of other functions that is, more donors will eventually lead to
that both define and reflect Jewish communal bigger contributions from those donors, but
values and beliefs.

14


as a value in itself. Even if there were hun- history lessons are vaguely woven into
dreds of thousands of additional donors who fundraising efforts and appeals are some-
gave only a dollar and never gave substan- times laced with the meaning of Judaism,
tially more, this would still be viewed as communal goals and cultural values. Given
communally positive. Someone who makes the relatively low rates of affiliation with reli-
no contribution to the Jewish community is gious institutions and the waning participa-
viewed as an outsider — a loss to the tribe. tion of many Jews in traditional ritual or
So strong is the emphasis on the contributing communal activity, fundraising can be a key
obligation as a measure of Jewish communal mechanism to teach Jews about Judaism. The
involvement, that a deep sense of loss accom- value, therefore, is not only in how much
panies discussions of the declining donor money is raised, but how much both individ-
base to Jewish causes. uals and groups of Jews learn about being
Jewish. Little assessment has been made
However, the primacy of raising money usu- about the effectiveness of this teaching role,
ally triumphs over the communal value of but would make for an important secondary
involving more donors in Jewish philan- analysis about Jewish philanthropy.
thropy. Like most fundraising, most Jewish
philanthropy focuses on major donors and Philanthropy as a
larger gifts. Expending resources to expand Volunteer Development Tool
the donor base is often seen as inefficient as a
fundraising strategy when so much more can Fundraising is a means to engage volunteers.
be added to the bottom line by concentrating According to the latest Independent Sector
on major gifts. Therefore, a sense of loss may study, 16% of Americans who volunteer do
pervade the declining donor base in Jewish so through fundraising. Raising money is an
philanthropy, but relatively little investment expression of community involvement within
is made to address the issue. Philanthropy the American culture.37 Donors look for
for the Jewish masses is viewed as an essen- meaningful ways to express their support for
tial part of Jewish identity and behavior, but a particular organization or institution.
for the most part goes unattended in philan- Fundraising allows for a multiplicity of tasks
thropic planning and execution. and talents that includes organizing events,
solicitations, “back room” support services
Philanthropy as a Teaching Activity and many others. Philanthropy provides
avenues for engagement, team-building, and
Jewish philanthropy may be viewed by many an outlet for those who want to be part of the
as a way to teach Jewish values. Personal Jewish community and are looking ways to
solicitations, telephone requests, direct mail, express their Jewish identity. Furthermore,
and fundraising events can be mechanisms to philanthropy is goal-oriented with clear
inform the Jewish public about issues in benchmarks of success and accomplishments.
Jewish life, religious teachings, and commu- Therefore, people feel positive about their
nal values. The teaching goal of Jewish phil- Jewish identity when they reach their
anthropy is usually implicit rather than fundraising goals. The philanthropic struc-
explicit for most of those involved. Jewish tures are especially important for Jews who

37
Op. cit. Independent Sector. Giving and Volunteering in the United States, 1999

15


do not consider themselves to be “religious.” those devoted to raising money. Philanthropy
Significant proportions of Jews bifurcate their is viewed as a training ground where indi-
identity between their ethnic/cultural defini- viduals learn about the purpose and struc-
tions of Judaism and what are more standard ture of an organization, become vested in it
definitions of religiosity, including synagogue and contribute more money and more time.
attendance, or ritual observance such as But, leadership is defined by position, not
keeping kosher. Participation in philanthropy actual knowledge or skill in leading the orga-
is traditionally a system of expression of nization. Philanthropic leaders also serve the
Jewish values and communal connection for role as ambassadors for the organization to
those who may feel marginalized or alienated other institutions in both the private and
from what they call the religious side of public sectors.
Judaism.38 Even for those ethnic and cultural
Jews who are now seeking more spiritual Philanthropy as Personal Identity &
connections to Jewish life, philanthropy still Expression
offers an excellent vehicle for volunteer par-
ticipation. As noted, traditional values, histo- Jewish philanthropy can be a powerful mode
ry and other elements of Jewish learning are of expression of one’s personal identity. For
incorporated into the philanthropic enter- some, it may be the secondary or even prima-
prise. While in the past, Jews who engaged in ry identity, superseding even profession or
philanthropy may have in engaged in a family. Individuals have the opportunity to
deeply religious set of activities, they may assume multiple identities, including philan-
have done so without having any knowledge thropist or grant-maker. Coupled with the
based in Jewish learning. Philanthropic pervasive role philanthropy plays in Jewish
activism and learning are becoming more society, being identified as a philanthropist
integrated. represents a positive individual identity in
the community. Philanthropy offers a legiti-
Jewish Philanthropy as Leadership mate and valued way to express personal
Development values and commitment to being a Jew.

While recruiting volunteers in general is a Fundraising as a Value Definition Activity
key goal of the philanthropic structure,
recruiting leaders is even more desired. The fundraising system helps define values
Individuals are valued not only for their dol- and set priorities for the community. This
lar contribution, but their willingness to take process is both passive and active. The pas-
committee, board, task force, and other lead- sive process is the cumulative result of thou-
ership roles in the voluntary structure of the sands of individual decisions within the
organization. Very often, major donor status Jewish philanthropic structure from individ-
and leadership status are defined as one and ual donors small and large alike. What peo-
the same, with little attention to leadership ple choose to give to is interpreted as state-
training efforts for the largest contributors. ments about what the Jewish community
Those who give the most money become should be doing, where it should be heading,
presidents and chairs of boards within a vast what it stands for, and so on. Like some col-
array of Jewish organizations, particularly lective hidden hand, what individual donors

38
Op. cit. Jonathan Woocher. Sacred Survival: The Civil Religion of American Jews

16


fund defines the direction of the community Building Bridges Among Groups of Jews
and sets policy. A more active process, how-
ever, includes setting priorities, developing The fundraising system also serves to build a
strategic plans, defining mission statements, bridge, foster communication networks, and
and making conscious choices about alloca- develop relationships between various seg-
tions for the funds that are raised. Value defi- ments of the Jewish community. For example,
nition and clarification occurs as groups of the exchange of philanthropic dollars has
Jews decide whether or not to fund a particu- largely defined the relationship between
lar program or institution; make strategic American and Israeli Jews. Jews raised
decisions about funding human services or money for Israel and expressed their support
educational programs, or whether or not to for the State of Israel by contributing money.
fund programs and causes in the United While the nature of that exchange is now
States or in Jewish communities around the undergoing transition, it defined the relation-
world. The active value definition that takes ship between these two segments of the
place in the philanthropic structure includes world Jewish community for at least the past
prolonged and serious debate about whether sixty years. In the absence of common lan-
or not a particular project is worth giving guage, highly diversified cultures and great
money to and to what extent and compared geographic distance, raising money for Israel
to what. While there may be a general con- allowed American Jews to feel a deep sense
sensus that the project is worthwhile and has of connectedness to the Jewish State. Given
merit, it may have a third, ninth, or twentieth the key role that Israel played in the develop-
priority compared to other projects in the ment of American Jewish identity for the past
Jewish community. three generations, the powerful effect of
fundraising as a connector between Israel
Philanthropic structures force the organized and American Jews cannot be overempha-
Jewish community to make choices about sized. Philanthropic support for Israel was a
what is important and what is not, focusing clear, unambiguous way for Jews to express
the community on what to fund and what their Jewish identity.
not to fund, and how to allocate perceived
scarce philanthropic resources. Indeed, it is in Building Bridges to Other Groups in America
the philanthropic structures that most value
clarifications of the Jewish community are The expression of Jewish values outside the
now taking place, as opposed to within syna- Jewish community is also a key function of
gogues, rabbinic, or scholarly communities. some components of the Jewish philanthropic
Rabbis and scholars are participants in these structure. Organizations have been created
discussions and debates, but the convening such as Mazon, “A Jewish response to
institutions are very often fundraising organi- hunger” or the Jewish Fund for Justice,
zations or the fundraising arms of Jewish which assists groups in need. These organiza-
organizations. Many Jews look to the tions, while under Jewish fundraising aus-
fundraising institutions to help define and pices, are explicitly designed to serve the
clarify the mission and goals of the Jewish non-Jewish community. These institutions are
community. This role is almost as powerful viewed as vital expressions of Jewish values,
as the one of providing financial resources. that is, to feed the hungry, shelter the home-

17


less and so on. The provision of financial from having a strong Jewish homeland pro-
support under Jewish auspices is distinctly vided the basis for much of Jewish identity in
different than Jews contributing as individu- post-World War II America. Israel has been
als to secular institutions in American society. the single most sustaining and unifying ele-
Jewish philanthropic organizations, explicitly ment of Jewish identity over the past two
designed to serve the non-Jewish community, generations.
demonstrate a different value; Jewish groups
helping non-Jewish society. Such organiza- The peace process and the belief that the
tions reflect the Jewish obligation to help all threat to Israel’s survival had diminished,
human beings in need. These philanthropic coupled with Israel’s growing economic suc-
structures are intended to fulfill that role and cess, have raised questions about the contin-
at the same time help build bridges between ued need to raise money to support Israel.
Jews and other groups in America. While most Jews still believe that raising
money for Israel is essential, the sense of cri-
TRENDS AFFECTING JEWISH PHILANTHROPY sis and imminent doom was drastically
reduced, only to reemerge with the collapse
A number of ideological, structural and pro- of the peace process, and terrorist attacks on
cedural changes are dramatically altering the United States. Most Jews still hope that
Jewish philanthropy. Israel will eventually
First, the Jewish com- have peace.
Trends Affecting Jewish Philanthropy
munity is witnessing
an ideological shift. 1. Change of ideology away from Israel The growing recogni-
Jewish identity in the and assimilation tion of higher levels of
United States is no 2. Diversification of purposes and assimilation revealed
longer expressed pri- programs in the 1990 National
marily through contri- 3. Decentralization of fundraising Jewish Population
butions of money for institutions Study made many Jews
the support of Israel. 4. Privatization of allocations and conclude that
Lacking a religious or grant-making American Jewry need-
even cultural basis to 5. Demand for greater accountability ed to be strengthened
otherwise frame 6. Increasing influence of women from within and could
Jewish identity, the no longer rely on Israel
7. The professionalization of philanthropy
financial support of to solely define its pur-
Israel largely defined pose and identity.39
Jewish identity. The Even those who remain
institutional base in the United States was highly supportive of Israel began to question
created before the establishment of the State whether this attachment could substitute for
of Israel and evolved into an infrastructure an authentic and vibrant American Judaism.
built around raising money for the Jewish
homeland. Fundraising for Israel became an The centrality of Israel is likely to remain part
end almost unto itself. The pride that derived of Jewish identity, but it can no longer substi-

39
Op. cit. Council of Jewish Federations. 1990 National Jewish Population Study.

18


tute for the need of community, a sense of that Israel does not need their support. Thus
history, and the other elements that define a they view the possibility of peace as a life-
vibrant community. More and more, Jews are long dream being fulfilled and want to be
looking for other elements of their Judaism part of the process of ensuring that peace
that would include Israel, but not be circum- succeeds. Many are also aware of the contin-
scribed entirely by donating money to the ued aliyah (immigration to Israel) of Russian
State of Israel. Jews. While some believe that the disman-
tling of the Soviet Union may bring a renais-
Furthermore, as the relationship between sance of Jewish life in Russia and the other
Israel and the Diaspora matures, other con- republics of the former Soviet Union, most
nections between Israeli and American Jews believe that the vast majority of Jews will
are becoming more frequent and desirable. continue their exodus from these countries.
Jews can express their connection to Israel Most are willing to continue to support the
not only through donating money, but also resettlement of Russian Jews in Israel, and
by becoming involved in Israeli politics or the continued aliyah will engender support in
private sector activities, and through many the immediate future.
other institutional and personal connections.
American and Israeli Jews are looking for The organized Jewish community also has
ways to connect beyond American Jewish collectively decided they have too much,
financial support.40 rather than too little assimilation.
Assimilation ideology dominated the
For those who want to continue to financially American Jewish community throughout
contribute to Israel, relative prosperity stimu- most of this century. American Jews strove to
lates a re-thinking of how to give to Israel, become part of the American mainstream,
including which mechanisms to use. Donors shedding much of their separate identity con-
will have the opportunity to examine their sciously and willfully to participate fully in
traditional patterns of giving. Programs American society. Most Jews believed that
which enlarge and enrich the community life they could maintain a minimalist commit-
of Israel — universities, museums, science, ment to formal Jewish life in most realms,
and technology — will have more attraction including learning, worship, organizational
to some donors than will those on the “sur- membership and activity, ritual observance,
vival” agenda. Giving to Israel will be much and so on, and still be Jewish. Most Jews also
more analytical, and far less automatic and believed that they could discard most of their
emotional. distinctive behaviors and beliefs and not lose
their Jewish identity altogether. They
Some are more interested in partnerships, believed that they could remain cultural
investments, and designated projects within Jews, secular Jews, be “just Jewish,” reaping
Israel, but still see Israel as their primary the full benefits of social and cultural integra-
avenue for giving to Jewish causes. Many are tion into America and still be at heart and
so committed to supporting Israel that it is soul, Jews. They could remain recognizable
psychologically difficult for them to believe to themselves and others as a separate people

40
Gary Tobin. “Redefining Israel-Diaspora Connections,” in The Forum, North American Jewish Forum/United
Jewish Appeal, New York, NY, Winter 1993/1994, pp. 29-30, 37-38.

19


with a unique history, identity and purpose. emerging territory for Jewish fundraising
The ending of assimilationism as an ideology organizations. Nevertheless, the ideological
could be marked by the release of the 1990 declaration was clearly made: levels of assim-
National Jewish Population Study, which ilation should proceed no further, and the
revealed a national intermarriage rate of Jewish communal structure had to rededicate
52%.41 While some scholars debated whether itself to re-establishing a separate group iden-
the intermarriage rate was slightly less, all tity.
agreed that the 1990 study documented what
everybody had suspected: the rates of assimi- The current transition has created something
lation as measured by intermarriage had akin to ideological chaos. The end of the pri-
accelerated dramatically since the 1970s. macy of Israel and assimilationism ideologies
While the 1990 National Jewish Population did not come in the wake of the formulation
Study was not everyday reading for the vast of alternative ideologies. Rather, the transi-
majority of American Jews, the organization- tion has led to an ideological void. Jewish
al and institutional structure responded with fundraising organizations are seeking to
a dramatic outcry that the continuity of Jews redefine themselves, to develop a new ideol-
was at stake and that a communal response ogy that will redefine the purpose and mis-
to combat the loss of identity and “too much sion of Jewish life in the future. Some leaders
assimilation” was necessary. are calling for a return to traditional Jewish
values, others are arguing for a combination
Jewish continuity commissions and task of tradition and a Jewish renewal that is more
forces sprang up everywhere, committed to adaptive to the realities of contemporary
the preservation of Jewish life through the modern life. The search for purpose, the need
transmission of a greater sense of community, to redefine mission, and the struggle for insti-
identity and connection through formal and tutional identity characterize the contempo-
informal Jewish education and other pro- rary philanthropic structure. While vast
grams. Jewish organizations and institutions amounts of money continue to be raised for
rededicated themselves to Jewish learning to the general purposes that have always moti-
search for religious meaning and became vated Jewish giving, there is less certainty
strong advocates for developing mechanisms about what ultimately is being achieved. The
to preserve the Jewish community. While few philanthropic structure reflects a fundamen-
suggested that all Jews become Orthodox, tal dislocation in Jewish life as the communi-
there was a growing belief that the re-estab- ty attempts to redefine what it wants to be.
lishment of traditional Judaism was neces-
sary to combat communal attrition, and per- Second, Jewish philanthropy is increasingly
haps disintegration. Jewish philanthropy, diversified, in terms of purpose. The basic
therefore, turned inward, seeking funds for purposes for Jewish fundraising remain
programs to maintain a separate Jewish iden- essentially the same, divided within broad
tity. The techniques by which those funds categories of support for Israel, support for
would be raised and donor response to the human and social welfare functions, rescuing
themes of Jewish continuity are still new and Jews in danger, building Jewish community,

41
J.J. Goldberg. “Whoops or Bad News: Things are Fine — A new study shows the 52 percent intermarriage rate
was a mistake.” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, column, 28 December 1999.

20


fighting antisemitism, and supporting social The decentralization of fundraising is also
justice, in both the Jewish and non-Jewish characterized by the growing number of
communities. But these broad purposes are fundraising organizations other than federa-
being further refined and subdivided into a tions. It is natural that diversification would
vast array of sub-purposes. Support for have been accompanied by decentralization,
Jewish health needs may translate into the reflecting the need for smaller group control
establishment of Jewish healing centers or within the Jewish community. Institutions,
conferences on Jewish medical ethics. organizational leadership and individual
donors try to find the best combinations of
Expanded purposes have been accompanied their interests, structures and programs. The
by a tremendous diversification of programs, decentralization of fundraising can allow for
partly driven by the competition with secular a better match between a specific donor or
activities and services. Source books of new set of donors and institutional purposes and
programs at Jewish community centers, syna- programs.
gogues, day schools, and other institutions
show a great deal of experimentation occur- The fourth major trend is privatization of
ring in terms of activities and programs. Jews allocations and grant-making. Increasing
are no longer constrained to utilize Jewish numbers of donors are removing themselves
organizational services. Therefore, a multi- from the public consensus models of federa-
tude of new programs are being designed to tions and making more decisions through the
compete with the secular world. establishment of Jewish family foundations,
restricted endowments, and private philan-
A third major trend is decentralization in thropic funds. This evolution has occurred
fundraising institutions themselves. This because of federal tax incentives coupled
decentralization takes a number of forms. with individual desire to control giving.
The revenue streams within the federation Donors want to feel assured that their money
umbrella structure have multiplied to include is going to good purposes. This shift towards
not only the annual campaign, but major individual philanthropy does not necessarily
fundraising through endowments, special mean that individuals have more access to
campaigns, capital campaigns and other information, a better knowledge base from
mechanisms. The autonomy of divisions which to make a decision, more contact with
within some federations has become more their potential grantees, or a sense of assur-
pronounced. Specialized interest groups ance and trust that their monies are being
within the federation sometimes conceive of wisely used.
themselves as more separate and distinct
entities. The decentralization within the fed- The explosion of Jewish family foundations
eration structure has gone so far as to see and the evolving successes and challenges of
models of semi-autonomous or almost com- this system have been documented in a num-
pletely autonomous endowment boards of
directors that collect and allocate funds sepa-
rately from the rest of the federation struc-
ture.

21


ber of recent studies.42 These vehicles allow alternative to the federation system. They
donors to contribute directly to the institu- pride themselves on not being beholden to
tions or programs that they choose, and even anyone, but rather thinking and acting inde-
to be proactive in creating new programs or pendently within the Jewish world. In many
initiatives on their own. The privatization of cases, just the opposite is achieved. Working
philanthropy takes much of the agenda-set- outside the federation system creates more
ting in the Jewish world out of the public uncertainty and less control. Many founda-
domain and into the private domain of indi- tions have the illusion of control but in fact
viduals and private institutions. As in the reflect uncertainty. Part of these trends are a
general society, more and more, donors want reaction to the presence of a central umbrella
to be included in project implementation as authority, including the specific personalities
well as funding.43 The privatization of phil- of current or past leadership of federation —
anthropy signals a trend where allocations both lay and professional. Ironically, of
for Jewish communal purposes, both domes- course, many of the “independents” are also
tically and overseas, will be made increasing- major contributors to federation and may be
ly within the specific goals and objectives of making substantial gifts to the annual cam-
the individual donor or family foundation. paign of the federation.44
More funds will be allocated in the Jewish
communal realm from restricted endow- Many foundations view themselves as an
ments, philanthropic funds and private fami- alternative voice providing ideas and capital
ly foundations than through the allocations for the development of new initiatives, pro-
process of the central umbrella campaign. grams, or institutions within the Jewish com-
munity. Federation is sometimes referred to
Some federations are more successful than as “big brother,” with all of the negative con-
others in working with Jewish foundations notations of an authoritarian regime. Many of
and individual philanthropists. Some donors the foundations are, of course, also involved
identify the federation as the place to turn in funding programs at the same agencies
when they establish their own foundations. funded by federations, including Jewish fam-
Others have built Jewish foundations outside ily and children's services, Jewish community
the local federation, even though they may centers, Jewish homes for the aged and so on,
have a supporting foundation or philan- and foundations often supplement the alloca-
thropic fund at the federation. tions from the annual campaigns of federa-
tions. Still, they feel it is important to main-
Many of the representatives of the founda- tain independent integrity and not blindly
tion world see themselves as representing an accept federation statements about communi-

42
Gary Tobin, Amy L. Sales, and Diane K. Tobin. Jewish Family Foundations Study, San Francisco: Maurice &
Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies/Institute for Community and Religion, Brandeis University,
November 1996; Gary Tobin, Joel Streicker, and Gabriel Berger. An Exploration of Jewish Federation Endowment
Programs. San Francisco: Maurice & Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies/Institute for Community
and Religion, Brandeis University, July 1997; Gary Tobin, Michael Austin, Meryle Weinstein, and Susan Austin.
Jewish Foundations: A Needs Assessment Study, San Francisco: Institute for Jewish & Community Research, 1999.
43
Pablo Eisenberg. “The ‘New Philanthropy’ Isn’t New – or Better.” Chronicle of Philanthropy, 28 January 1999, 31-
32.
44
Op. cit. Tobin, Austin, Weinstein, and Austin. Jewish Foundations: A Needs Assessment Study.

22

Transition Phil 2001

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (7)

Destaque

Destaque (6)

Semelhante a Transition Phil 2001

Semelhante a Transition Phil 2001 (20)

Mais de GZ-Israel

Mais de GZ-Israel (20)

Último

Último (20)

Transition Phil 2001