the transition of communal values and behavior in jewish ...research.policyarchive.org/10097.pdf ·...

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

The Transition ofCommunal Values

and Behavior in

Jewish Philanthropy

2 0 0 1

Gary A. Tobin, Ph.D.

Institute for

Jewish & Community

Research,

San Francisco

��

The Transition ofCommunal 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 theThe Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy

University of Southern CaliforniaPrepared 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

It is not uncommon for scholars and practi-tioners alike to discuss the ways that values,history and community structures shapephilanthropy in any particular community.Philanthropy reflects community values andnorms; what communities as a whole and thesubgroups within them think and feel areoften revealed through their patterns of giv-ing. It is clear that different groups ofAmericans weave their own ethnic and cul-tural norms into the fabric of their philan-thropy. Racial, ethnic, and religious groupsfind philanthropy at the intersection of com-munal social systems and relationships to thelarger society.1 Jewish philanthropy repre-sents a complex set of interactions within anintricate set of community structures.2 Notonly do community values, norms, andbehaviors shape philanthropy within theJewish community, but the opposite is true as

well: philanthropy within the Jewish commu-nity is itself a set of systems, ideologies andbehaviors that shape the character of theJewish community. Philanthropy is not only areflector, but a determinate and molder ofvalues and norms as well. The philanthropicstructure itself is an engine that drives muchof the Jewish communal agenda.

How Jews give away money tells a great dealabout the evolving character of Jewish life inAmerica. Philanthropy reflects an ethnic/reli-gious group defining its place in Americansociety, while at the same time shaping itsown internal direction and self-definition.Philanthropy is the means by which much ofthe communal agenda is debated and decid-ed. Jewish philanthropy shapes values andnorms as well as responds to them. MostJewish fundraising organizations are not only

1

1 Emmett D. Carson. A Hand Up: Black Philanthropy and Self-Help in America. Washington, D.C.: Joint Center forPolitical 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, IndianaUniversity Press, 1999, pp. 275-292; Lilya Wagner and Ricardo Rodriguez. “Applying and Disseminating the Valuesof Stewardship and Philanthropy in Hispanic/Latino Institutions and Communities,” Indianapolis, IN: IndianaUniversity Center on Philanthropy, 1998.2 It is important to note that the Jewish community itself is hardly a monolith. Although Jews comprise only about2% 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 arole, 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 theregions in which they live. Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and other denominational differentiation withinJudaism 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 theJewish 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 moredetailed analyses of Jewish subgroups would provide a more varied profile.

The Transition of Communal Values and Behavior in Jewish Philanthropy

INTRODUCTION

institutions that raise money, they are also institutions that educate, lead, and define thevalues of American Jewish society. The pur-poses for which money is raised define thecharacter of the Jewish community.Contributors and non-contributors alike areprofoundly influenced by the programs andinstitutions funded through the Jewish phil-anthropic structure. The social science litera-ture discussing patterns of Jewish philan-thropy is somewhat limited. Quantitativedata on donor attitudes and behavior are stillscarce in the Jewish community. Given someof the conventional wisdom about the suc-cess of Jewish philanthropy in the UnitedStates, one might have anticipated a greateranalytical framework. Yet we have littleempirical analysis on why Jews give, towhich philanthropies, and the relationship ofreligious identity to philanthropic behavior.3

Some studies look specifically at women’sroles in Jewish philanthropy.4 No compre-hensive study of Jewish philanthropy isavailable to compare to general Americansociety as reported by the IndependentSector.5

We do know that religious identity, whetherexpressed by ritual observance or participa-tion in communal activities, is highly corre-lated with giving to Jewish philanthropies.Synagogue attendance, synagogue member-ship, organizational membership, and visit-ing Israel were found as the most importantvariables associated with making a contribu-tion to a Jewish philanthropy and the amountcontributed. Indeed, philanthropic behavioritself is one of the variables which constitutesa component of Jewish identity.6

We also know that Jews are slightly morelikely to make some contribution to a non-Jewish than Jewish philanthropy and that thenumber of donors to umbrella givingthrough federations’ annual campaigns hasbeen declining.7 A number of studies corrob-orate that there is a growing propensity forJews to give to secular rather than Jewishcauses, especially for younger Jews.8 Yet,Jewish philanthropy is thriving, both in thecentral system of the federation, and outsideit, in terms of actual dollars raised or man-

Institute for Jewish & Community Research

2

3 Jack Wertheimer. “Current Trends in American Jewish Philanthropy.” In American Jewish Year Book 1997: ARecord 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 BetweenJewish Identity and Philanthropy.” in Contemporary Jewish Philanthropy in America, edited by Barry A. Kosminand 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 andPhilanthropy in America, Robert Wuthnow and Virginia A. Hodgkinson and Associates, Editors, pp. 134-164. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1990.7 Gary Tobin. Trends in American Jewish Philanthropy: Market Research Analysis. Maurice & Marilyn Cohen Centerfor Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University, Policy and Planning Paper 8, April 1992; Gary Tobin. “The Future ofthe UJA-Federation of New York.” Guiding Organizational Change: The New York Federation (1986-1996), MichaelJ. 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 1996/97Jewish Population Study of Greater Philadelphia, Special Report no. 4. New York: Ukeles Associates, 1998; GaryTobin, “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.

aged. The federation as an institution is thriv-ing as never before, even while the annualcampaign is flat. In spite of the great successof federations in overall financial resourcedevelopment, the diminishing role of federa-tions has been speculated about for sometime, at least since the beginning of the 1990s.One prominent Jewish journalist queried in a1992 editorial about whether federationswould continue to function at all.9 Articles inboth the Forward and the Wall Street Journalin 1998 documented the central funding sys-tems losing ground to more targeted philan-thropies in Jewish life.10 But all revenuestreams to federations have been increasingdramatically over the past decade. The con-cern about the overall health of federations isa misplaced and antiquated emphasis on theannual campaign as the primary measure ofsuccess. Unrestricted endowments, restrictedendowments, philanthropic funds, specialcampaigns, and capital campaigns have allgrown at a rapid pace. While the percentageof the total revenue stream represented bythe annual campaign has been declining, theoverall base has been growing. Federationshave increased their annual allocationsthrough grant-making far beyond the fundsdistributed from annual campaigns.11 Thegrowth of this aspect of the federation systemis likely to increase at an even greater pace,given the revised estimates of the amount ofwealth to be transferred in the near future.12

The total dollars raised outside the federationsystem have also been growing. Organi-

zations such as the New Israel Fund, JewishNational Fund and other organizations haveshown major increases in the past ten years.The number of organizations raising moneyhas also burgeoned; therefore, more dollarsare being raised through a broader network.The competitive nature of the fundraisingsystem has resulted in more organizationsproducing more dollars by addressing specif-ic needs and interests, and tapping into tar-geted subgroups of Jews. Jews are givingmore dollars than ever before to Jewish caus-es, as well as more dollars to secular causes.

The context in which Jewish philanthropytakes place has changed radically in the lastfew years. The purposes for which funds areraised, the processes of collection and distrib-ution, and the institutional landscape in theJewish fundraising world are all beingaltered. Some of the underpinnings — philo-sophical, ideological and religious — in theJewish fundraising system remain essentiallyunaltered, but the nuances of the purposesfor which monies are raised have expandedand become more differentiated.

This monograph looks at Jewish communalvalues and structures as they shape philan-thropy. It is not an analysis of religious ideol-ogy, Torah text, or an in-depth look at therelationship of Jewish theology and philan-thropy. A rich literature exists on tzedakah andperforming acts of loving-kindness, and themeaning of Jewish laws regarding giving and


3

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 CharitableGiving” Forward. 6 March 1998.; Tamar Hausman. “U.S. Jews Refocus Donations to Israel, Shifting toNongovernmental 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, 8October 1999.; Donald Kent and Jack Wertheimer. “The Implications of New Funding Streams for the FederationSystem.” 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 ForthcomingWealth 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.

communal support. But that is not the pur-pose of this discussion.13

The focus is on the current Jewish philan-thropic system, which can be viewed througha number of lenses. The first is ideological.Ideology represents the guiding principles,beliefs and myths that define the philan-thropic system. The second lens is structural.This is an institutional and organizationalnetwork, the mechanisms through which ide-ologies are expressed. Over the yearsAmerican Jewry, as well as other Diasporacommunities, have created elaborate andintricate systems to help raise money to buildthe State of Israel. The third lens is program-matic. These are the specific activities withinthe system that are supported throughmonies raised or the activities that help raisethe money. Sometimes they are the same,with fundraising organizations having adopt-ed programs that both raise money and buildthe system itself. The fourth lens is technical,the set of tools that are used to help raisefunds. These tools may include marketingtechniques, the use of media, and so on. Thelevel of sophistication of these tools variestremendously depending on the fundraisingorganization. The fifth lens to examine thefundraising system is procedural, theprocesses in decision-making, resource distri-bution, and so on that connect ideologies,

structure and programs into a system. Thefocus of this paper is on the ideological, withsome discussion of the structural.

THE AMERICANIZATION OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPY

The Americanization of Jewish philanthropyhas taken place. Jews are now so integratedinto the American mainstream, that tzedakahhas taken on more of the character ofAmerican philanthropy, and will continue todo so, representing less the religious traditionof Jews and more the civil tradition of philan-thropy in the United States. Philanthropyamong Jews mirrors certain aspects of theAmerican system, especially among the verywealthy. Issues of power, gender, generation,and the roles of professionals all come intoplay.14 More Jews will make contributionsbased in American values of giving; volun-tary associations, giving through personalchoice, and supporting a wide variety ofcauses. They, like other Americans, will pickand choose that which they want to support,most often philanthropies for which theyhave some affinity or connection. One modelof giving looks at variables of involvement,appeal of large projects, and other factors.These, among other models, explore whyparticular individuals give and others do not,within any construct, Jewish, American, eth-


4

13 Data from this analysis come from three primary sources. First, quantitative data are available from a variety ofcommunity 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 morein-depth look at Jewish philanthropy through the eyes of donors. The emphasis in this paper is on the attitudes andbehaviors of major donors who set the standards and drive much of the Jewish philanthropic agenda. The thirddata source is qualitative data gathered through participant observation by the author of this paper who serves as aplanning 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 Jewishphilanthropic structure.14 Teresa Odendahl. Charity Begins At Home: Generosity and Self-Interest Among the Philanthropic Elite. NewYork: Basic Books, 1990; Sondra C Shaw, and Martha A. Taylor. Reinventing Fundraising: Realizing the Potential ofWomen’s Philanthropy. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers, 1995.


5

nic, or otherwise.15 Over time, it will becomeeven more difficult to discern what is differ-ent or distinctive about Jewish philanthropyfrom American philanthropy. Non-sectarianinstitutions will continue to garner time,attention, and philanthropic dollars. Jewsmay now have a natural affinity and loyaltyto a whole new set of institutions and organi-zations — the ones that affect their lives, theirchildren’s lives, their parent’s lives.

Three trends inAmerican philan-thropy are paralleledwithin Jewish philan-thropy. First, umbrel-la giving is diminish-ing. Just as UnitedWay represents adecreasing presence, sodo federations’ annual campaigns play adecreasing role in overall Jewish philan-thropy. The annual campaign of federationsis still a major engine in Jewish philanthropy,but probably accounts for no more than 10%– 15% of all funds raised by Jews for Jewishcauses (including synagogue dues and contri-butions). The annual campaign is likely tocontinue its decline as the central force inAmerican Jewish philanthropy.

Second, the rapid growth of private founda-tions, both in terms of numbers and assets,continues unabated. More dollars are beingdeposited, but the pace of the distribution isslow. Most Jewish foundations, like the foun-dation world as a whole, see the 5% distribu-tion requirement as a ceiling not a floor.Therefore, more and more money is accumu-lating, but not necessarily utilized in the pre-

sent for Jewish community-building purpos-es.

Third, there is an enormous accumulation ofwealth, both from a healthy economy, andthe stock market boom of the 1990s, evenwith the subsequent decline. Donors andfoundations have more money to give away.Like the Jewish community, other ethnic andreligious groups also are suddenly seeingincreased contributions to their philanthropic

structures.16 Withwealth comes moreinvolvement in phil-anthropy. As onestudy in 1997 demon-strated, those whoaccumulated wealthwere very likely to

begin serious involve-ment in philanthropy, with the highest per-centage choosing at least some kind of contri-bution to their religious community.17

The Americanization of Jewish giving hasalso included a growing propensity to give tophilanthropies outside of the Jewish commu-nity. American Jews have become an integralpart of the philanthropic mainstream, donat-ing large sums to a variety of institutions andorganizations in the realms of education,health, human services, culture, politics, andothers. Donors have become involved moredeeply in non-Jewish philanthropy for fivereasons.

The first is acceptance and integration intoAmerican society, the removal of antisemiticbarriers. Jews play prominent roles in institu-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 Hispanicsand Philanthropy. Houston: Arte Público Press, University of Houston, 1999.17 Clayton-Davis & Associates, Inc. “Religious Causes Draw Most Interest Among Charitable Contributors, StudyShows.” From “Affluents Profile Study” conducted for Mercantile Trust. December 1997.

Parallel Trends in American & Jewish Philanthropy

1. Decline of umbrella campaigns2. Rapid growth of foundations3. Accumulation of wealth

from taking leadership roles due to antisemit-ic restrictions. Involvement in the generalsociety’s philanthropy signals both groupand individual triumph to blend into theAmerican mainstream.

Second, serving the non-Jewish community isseen by many as a mission of their Jewish-ness. The possibilities for giving as an expres-sion of Jewish life are extended even furtherby broadening the definition of what isJewish. Some individuals believe that theyare performing anexplicitly Jewish act bycontributing to a secu-lar shelter for thehomeless or even anemergency food pro-gram for the hungryunder Christian aus-pices. Even though therecipients are non-Jewish, both institu-tion and clients, theact of performingmitzvot with Jewishsensibilities can make practically any givingopportunity a Jewish one to some donors.This philosophy extends the opportunitiesfor giving from the myriad of Jewish institu-tions and causes to a decision-making matrixwhich, for all practical purposes, is infinite.Philanthropy is also a means to reduce theconflict between being Jewish and being a“middle-class,” that is, ordinary American.18

Third, many donors believe that they mustcontribute to societal institutions outside theJewish community because the donor desiresto “put something back into the community.”Many feel that America generally, or their

local community specifically, have been verygood to them. Many Jews feel that they havebeen given incredible opportunities to befull-functioning and accepted members in anopen society. They believe that since thecountry has been so good to them, and thesociety so open, that there is a quid pro quofor Jews to support general institutions aswell as Jewish institutions. Therefore, theyexpress their gratitude to the nation and tothe community through philanthropy.Philanthropy becomes a “thank you” to

America, a statementof personal gratitudein addition to a reli-gious act or ideology.

A fourth factor is thedesire to represent theJewish community, tobe ambassadors of theJewish people, and tosecure good will forJewish causes. Somedonors do not wantnon-Jews to assume

that Jews support only Jewish causes, thatJews are too insulated or self-concerned.Some feel that if Jews are too isolated andprovincial, the hospitable atmosphere of thegeneral society will not respond to Jewishneeds. By giving to a wide variety of generalcauses, some donors feel that they willensure general community support forJewish concerns.

Indeed, there is evidence that Jewish philan-thropists are more likely to make their largestgifts to non-Jewish philanthropies.19 Gifts of$40 million, $50 million, $100 million, or evenmore from Jews are not uncommon to non-


6

Reasons for Americanization of Jewish Philanthropy

1. Acceptance and integration into American society

2. Fulfilling Jewish mission of serving larger society

3. Giving something back as Americans

4. Being ambassadors of the Jewish community

5. Secular concerns are more compelling

18 Evan M Adelson. “The Dirty Business of Charity: Raising Money, Reproducing Stratification, and Constructingthe 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.


7

Jewish philanthropies. These gifts are notnecessarily paid out in a one-year period, butmay be paid over a five or ten year period orlonger. Nevertheless, non-Jewish causes areattracting the largest Jewish donor gifts.Individual Jewish philanthropists makeannual gifts of substantial amounts to Jewishphilanthropies, but it is less common to seemega-gifts given to the Jewish community.Universities, symphonies, hospitals, andmuseums are capturing the largest gifts fromJewish donors.

Fifth, non-Jewish causes seem more com-pelling. Most individuals interviewed in avariety of studies indicated that they couldgive two or three times more to Jewish phil-anthropies if they felt the need. Most of themdo not feel the need.20 As a result, a high pro-portion of their giving now goes to non-Jewish philanthropies. The proportion of giv-ing to Jewish philanthropies has declinedprecipitously for many major donors, downfrom 70% for many to 30% or less. Many alsofeel that there is no Jewish institution ororganization that they know of that couldefficiently or appropriately utilize a gift of$80 or $100 million. Familiarity breeds somecontempt on the one hand, and disengage-ment breeds suspicion on the other hand.Some would argue that among wealthyAmericans, the level of giving in general isnot what it ought to be.21

One could hypothesize that in a fixed pool ofphilanthropic dollars, Jewish philanthropiesare competing for contributions with non-

Jewish philanthropies. Or one could arguethat the pool of philanthropic dollarsexpands depending on both motivating fac-tors and agencies involved. The latter illus-trates that philanthropists give to a widevariety of causes, both Jewish and non-Jewish, and the amount given is not necessar-ily dependent on the decision to give to aJewish versus non-Jewish cause. If the dona-tion pool, that is, the amount given, is some-what fixed, then Jewish philanthropies haveserious competition from non-Jewish philan-thropies. If the pool expands, depending onthe case made and the motivation that is pro-vided, the amounts given tend to reinforceone another rather than be competitive.

BASIC VALUES IN JEWISH PHILANTHROPYAND COMMUNITY

Jewish philanthropy is anchored in three per-vasive values. The first is tzedakah — theancient religious imperative to provide forthose in need. Tzedakah — literally righteous-ness — is a deeply embedded set of religiousobligations that Jews have for one anotherand all human beings. A variety of scholarlyand popular works attest to this relationshipof tzedakah and social justice in the contempo-rary American Jewish community.22 The setof ideologies and behaviors that constitutetzedakah resembles other faith traditions ofcharity; concepts of sharing both energy andmaterial goods with those who are less fortu-nate. Also like other Americans, the impulsefor philanthropy is deeply ingrained as anemotional and psychological desire to helpothers.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” forContemporary Life. A Guidebook with Supplementary Essays by Letty Cottin Pogrebin and Arthur Waskow, with aForward by Jonathan Schorsch. Philadelphia: The Shefa Fund, 1993.23 Robert Wuthnow. Acts of Compassion: Caring for Others and Helping Ourselves. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1991.

absolute sense of obligation, its matter-of-factness. It is a must, not a should. It is acommand, not a consideration. It is not amatter of choice. An individual is not consid-ered generous because one shares that whichthey have, because one is supposed to do so.Tzedakah is deeply embedded in Jewishthought and feeling, especially the impera-tive to provide for basic human needs, suchas food, shelter, and children in need. Theseconcerns are the foundation for the intricateset of social and human services Jews buildfor their communities.Tzedakah is also dedi-cated to serving theworld-at-large, non-Jews as well as Jews.The need to “repair abroken world” (TikunOlam), is deeplyembedded in commu-nity values andnorms. A strong universalistic componentcharacterizes Jewish philanthropy. The inter-est in social justice and volunteering evolvesconstantly. It continues to take new forms,such as the Jewish Service Corps, which isdesigned to serve the secular rather than theJewish world.24

The command of righteousness through phil-anthropic obligation was codified within aset of societal laws that wove a system ofcommunal order. How one was to performrighteous acts was laid out in an elaborate setof instructions — first in the written law(Torah), and then in the oral law (Talmud) ofthe Jewish people. These acts of giving

became interwoven into the basic foundationof Jewish society. Religious and civic systemswere fused: religious acts and civic actionswere one and the same. Philanthropy, asJewish Americans understand it, is not partof a “voluntary sector” that is separate fromgovernance or civil law, but fully melded intoan overall communal structure. Some consid-er philanthropy the civil side of Jewish life,and synagogue attendance or ritual obser-vance the religious side, when both are actu-ally religious in nature.25

As the religious/socialsocieties of Judaismwere transplanted andmaintained in a multi-tude of Diaspora com-munities, Jews broughttheir philanthropicsystems wherever theywent.26 Thus the sys-

tems of philanthropy became more and moreinstitutionalized over time. In place afterplace, century after century, this religious/social structure was replicated. Jews main-tained separate or quasi-separate societies,with human and social service systems. Longbefore the “public sector” took responsibility,Jews took care of other Jews. They becameproficient in designing, building, and main-taining service systems. They would bringthis accumulated knowledge and practice toAmerica. The synergy between Jewish phil-anthropy and the American system wouldmake both systems flourish even more.


8

Basic Values in Jewish Philanthropy

1. Tzedakah (Righteousness)

2. Reinforcement of ethnic, cultural and religious identity

3. Self protection from external threats

24 “Rabbi Nurtures Young Jews’ Quest for Faith and Service.” Special Report, Religion Section, Chronicle ofPhilanthropy, 14 January 1999.25 Jonathan Woocher. Sacred Survival: The Civil Religion of American Jews. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UniversityPress, 1987.26 Howard Sachar. A History of the Jews in America. New York: Random House, 1993; Paul Johnson. A History ofthe Jews. New York: HarperPerennial, 1988.

Tzedakah and the philanthropic systems thatderive from the religious values of providingfor basic human and social needs have beenpart of the construct of Jewish life for so longthat the vast majority of Jews that participatehave little knowledge or understanding ofthe religious origins of their actions. Overtime, these religious values have been trans-lated into communal norms, even in theabsence of individual or institutional knowl-edge or recognition of the religious origins ofthe beliefs and behaviors. These feelings andactions are now “hard-wired” into the Jewishsubconscious and communal psyche, guidingand directing Jewish behavior.

Second, Jewish philanthropy is used to rein-force ethnic, cultural and religious identity.Philanthropy expresses and reinforces thedesire to maintain separate identity and com-munity. Elaborate systems are developed tosupport Jewish education and for perpetuat-ing religious life. Not only is it a righteousact to feed a hungry person, it is also a right-eous act to educate a poor Jew or logicallyextended, to help subsidize the religious par-ticipation of any Jew who can not afford it.The philanthropic system has a large compo-nent dedicated to creating successive genera-tions who identify and act as Jews. Like otherreligious groups in America, where thechurch is the primary recipient of much phil-anthropic activity, Jews make hundreds ofthousands of small gifts to synagogues.However, baby boomers and younger are lesslikely to give to a church.27 The day-to-daysupport of synagogues through membershipdues and other contributions is so ordinary,

regular, and uneventful that it is usually notconsidered much in discussions of AmericanJewish philanthropy.28

The community-building agenda includesadvocacy for Jewish education and support-ing synagogues as primary focal points.These areas of philanthropic investment arereceiving more attention. It is not clear whatthe outcomes will be. The issue of buildingJewish identity may arouse intense emotions,but does not necessarily offer a clear rallyingpoint, ideology or programmatic agenda forfundraising or institution-building. Somephilanthropists may pick specific program-matic agendas such as sending students toIsrael or expanding summer camps to buildJewish community. But for the most part, thecommunity-building agenda does not lenditself easily to quick fixes. This fact can leadto frustration or cynicism, because problemsthat do not have quick fixes seem to have nofixes at all. If clear-cut and easy to implementremedies are not available, then some believethat there is no remedy to be had.

Third, philanthropy is used for self-protec-tion from external threats. The persistence ofantisemitism throughout Jewish historyrequired funds for defense systems and res-cue efforts. Defense has evolved into politicallobbying, legislative campaigns, and devel-oping political coalitions with other interestgroups. A number of organizations such asthe Anti-Defamation League, AmericanJewish Committee, and the American JewishCongress were created to fight antisemitism.29

There is little question that Jews will rally to


9

27 Holly Hall. “The Lost Generation?” The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 11;11, 25 March 1999: 25-2628 Most Jewish households do not have a current membership in a synagogue. Yet, most belong on and off duringtheir 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.; andElizar, Daniel Judah. Community and Polity: The Organizational Dynamics of American Jewry. Philadelphia: JewishPublication Society, 1995.

give more money to fight antisemitism whenthey feel the need. Rescue includes efforts toraise money to help bring Jews out of the for-mer Soviet Union where they are threatenedby antisemitic violence, or from Ethiopiawhere they are subject to both discriminationand extreme poverty. Jews in America alsodeveloped an elaborate system of rescueorganizations, community relations organiza-tions, lobbying organizations, and institu-tions to support Israel. Support for Israel islinked to the need for self-protection. Israel isseen by world Jews as the ultimate expres-sion of religious destiny, pride, and self-pro-tection for Jews. It is considered a safe havenfrom discrimination and violence in a hostileworld.

Jewish society was constructed to carry outthe religious imperatives. These patternswere reinforced by Jews living in isolatedsubcultures; more often than not, persecutedand denied most basic economic, social andindividual rights. Expressions of righteous-ness also became defense mechanisms; Jewstaking care of their own as a necessity in theface of external hostility. Therefore, philan-thropy and the social and institutional struc-tures created by it were a communal expres-sion of survival. If Jews did not care of theirown, they would perish in a hostile world.The very fabric of Jewish society linked giv-ing and survival in Jewish consciousness andbehavior. Raising money has never beenabout raising money alone. It has alwaysincluded serving God, helping fellow Jews,and fending off aggression and discrimina-tion.

Because Jews have been forced to be reactiveto hostile external forces, a crisis mentality

almost always pervaded Jewish philanthropy.The crises can be characterized in the follow-ing ways. If Jews did not feed one another,they would starve. If Jews did not help buildIsrael, then all Jews, everywhere, all the time,would be at risk in potentially hostile coun-tries throughout the world. If Jews did nothelp support Israel financially, Arab armieswould have crushed the young state. If Jewsdid not help subsidize Jews to leave the for-mer Soviet Union, they could be subject toviolent antisemitism. The Jews of Ethiopiawould starve. If Jews do not support theirsynagogues and education programs forJewish youth, the Jewish community wouldeventually disintegrate. Conditioned byexternal and internal threats, Jewish philan-thropy has intertwined danger, fear anddespair as an underlying emotional basis.

The dominant themes in philanthropy in thelast two generations have been linked to periland destruction from external forces. TheUnited Jewish Appeal’s Operation Exodus inthe late 1980s and early 1990s was the culmi-nation of decades of effort to facilitate migra-tion (to Israel and the United States) of Jewsfrom the Soviet Union.30 Many Jews felt thatthis population was in peril and those thatremain in the former Soviet Union remain inperil. The campaign rightfully emphasizedthe threat of antisemitism and repression inthe Soviet Union and the latent danger con-tinuing into the 1990s. Rescue was the motifof the campaign. Indeed, fear has been at theheart of the great themes of Jewish conscious-ness in the twentieth century: failure to pre-vent disaster (the Holocaust), vigilant battleagainst hostile neighbors (Israel), and avoid-ance of disaster, rescuing Jews from potentialrepression (Soviet Union).


10

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

The communal tension between these basicvalues is constant and intense. How does thecommunity fulfill the need for human ser-vices in the Jewish community and the needto serve all of the world? How do Jews bal-ance the need to build religious identity, andthe need for defense and rescue? These ten-sions are being played out now with increas-ing ferocity, since the Jewish community is insuch dramatic transition.

Most Jews do not wish to embrace a systemthat forces them to choose between buildingJewish community in the United States ver-sus social welfare needs in Israel, versus res-cuing Jews from the former Soviet Union, orfeeding an elderly Jew in Eastern Europe ver-sus sending a Jewish child to a Jewish-spon-sored preschool in the United States.Ultimately, asking Jews to choose betweencommunities, between causes, between pur-poses, creates untenable choices.

For many donors, programs in buildingJewish community, even if they are vitallyimportant, are less of a priority than socialwelfare programs in the Jewish community.Basic human needs come first. Donors mustbe convinced that those in need — the elder-ly, the homeless, the hungry, the émigré inneed of job retraining — will be adequatelyserved before they will consider reallocatingdollars to Jewish continuity. Yet, some donorsbelieve just the opposite, that Jewish commu-nity-building comes first and that the socialwelfare system of the general society can takecare of Jews in need. Others simply do notbelieve that there are Jews in need.

The expression of these values have pro-duced major philanthropic successes in theJewish community over the past century.These have been the building of synagogues,Jewish community centers, religious schoolsand other institutions to build religious andethnic identity, the building of a human ser-vice delivery system to serve the Jewish com-munity, the building of the State of Israel,and the resettlement of Jews at risk, includ-ing from Arab countries, Ethiopia, and theformer Soviet Union. These values are now ina major transition.

COMMUNITY AND IDEOLOGY IN TRANSIT ION

Today, however, Jews can begin thinkingabout who and what they want to be. Thisemerging reality is at the heart of the currenttransition in Jewish philanthropy. The transi-tion of Jewish life finds three concurrentthemes intertwined in the philanthropic sys-tem. First, Jews have become highly integrat-ed into mainstream American society. As oneauthor has noted, sometime in the last twogenerations, Jews became “white folks” inAmerica.31 Second, Jews remain different, inspite of this integration. Jewish psyche andbehavior remains distinct from the overallsociety. Jews still practice a different religionfrom Christianity, connect to Israel moreclosely, and still largely marry other Jews(although diminishing all the time).32 Third,Jews have not completely shed their survivalfears. Discrimination and violence have beentoo frequent and too recent for fear to dissi-pate within a generation. There has been a shift from a focus on external threats (anti-


11

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.

semitism) to internal threats (loss of separateidentity). Being communally and sociallysecure and still being afraid causes major dis-location in the philanthropic system. Signs ofresurgent antisemitism may reverse this shift:violent hate crimes against individual Jews or“stop the Jews” signs on college campuses.

Even as Jews have become more successfulsocially, economically, politically and cultur-ally, the crisis mentality remains a raisond’être to raise funds. This has been reinforcedby the consistent threats to Israeli survival inthe Middle East and the mass movement ofJews from the former Soviet Union in whatcontinues to be viewed by Jews as an antise-mitic environment and potentially threaten-ing to the safety of the Jewish communitiesthat remain. Therefore, the themes of rescueand survival, while not necessarily salient forraising funds for domestic purposes, haveremained a key motivator for fundraising,and still permeate Jewish thought and emo-tion. How Jews make the transition from thecrisis mentality and the fear of group sur-vival will be difficult. Indeed, shiftedfundraising themes away from crises fromexternal threats to crises from internal threatsis the mirror image of a similar ideology.Group survival remains the essence of thephilanthropic system.

The conundrum of Jewish philanthropy restsin being both successful and afraid.Integration into American society draws Jewsto non-Jewish philanthropy. At the sametime, acceptance into the secular societytransforms the distinctive cohesiveness ofJews and therefore, requires more communalattention and funding. The very success ofAmerican Jewry necessitates more ratherthan less funding for the Jewish communalinfrastructure. Yet Jews are more drawn to

the causes and institutions of the secular soci-ety, unless again faced with an externalthreat.

Because tzedakah is not limited only to Jews,the more success and prosperity Jewsachieve, the greater their ability to supportgroup needs throughout American society,and the rest of the world. The enormous eco-nomic and political success of the AmericanJewish community means that they havemuch more to give. At the same time, theintegration of Jews into the general society —schools, business, politics, and cultural life —makes them integral players in the secularworld. However, the more successful Jewsbecome, and the more obligated they feel tosupport secular institutions, the more theyalso feel the threat of internal dissolution.Therefore, the need for self-help and mainte-nance of a separate communal order — onethat enriches a distinctive and separateJewish identity — by definition also requiresan ever growing need for financial resources.Jews are only able to give away more to thegeneral society because they are so much apart of it. Jews would not be able to give tothe general society at such great levels if theywere not so successful, and the Jewish com-munity would not need financial support asmuch if Jews were not so successful. This ten-sion will continue to play itself out in Jewishphilanthropy until it is better understood,addressed openly and honestly, and some-how the Jewish community is able to come togrips with the great philanthropic “Catch-22.”

But concern about maintaining a separateidentity may not engender as much passionor financial support as past crises, becausemany Jews may not see weakening Jewishidentity as a crisis at all. Jews want to be both


12


13

assimilated as well as separate. They likebeing Jewish and American, and they likecontributing to both Jewish and secular caus-es. Few Jews want to segregate themselvescompletely from American society, except forsome ultra-Orthodox groups. It is difficult tosustain a sense of crisis when the vast majori-ty of Jews do not want to live in entirelyJewish neighborhoods or go to entirelyJewish schools. Although afraid of group dis-solution, the assimilation emergency is hardto market to the vast majority of AmericanJews: they like their lives way too much tothink about isolating themselves again. Thepositive effects of Jewish education, religiousmeaning, and community cohesiveness maybe far more appealing psychologically, andtherefore philanthropically, than emphasizingthe imminent demise of American Jewry. Butthese positive messages are rarely transmit-ted.33

The clarity about supporting human servicesin the Jewish community has also been seri-ously damaged. The self-help imperative isvery murky because Jewish human serviceorganizations, like other non-profits inAmerica, have become increasingly inter-twined with federal and state programs. Ithas been accepted for some time that founda-tions and private philanthropy must take upsome of the slack from the public sector with-drawal from certain human service pro-grams, but are not certain about which com-ponents and how much.34 Jewish homes forthe aged, vocational services, family and chil-dren services receive most of their moneyfrom the public sector rather than private

contributions from the Jewish community.Like other groups, the imperative to take careof one’s own in the Jewish communityinvolves being part of the American humanservice mainstream and garnering a share ofpublic sector dollars. While Jews continue tobe concerned about the human service needsof their own community, it is unclear howmuch support needs to be generated throughthe private system of Jewish philanthropy,and how much should or will come throughthe general society. Much of the maintenanceof the human service system comes from thepublic sector, while emergency needs, specialcampaigns, and capital needs come throughthe Jewish philanthropic system.

The Jewish community is confused aboutwho is responsible for what; is it the federalgovernment, the state government, charitiesas a whole, or the Jewish community specifi-cally? Jews are still committed to the basictenets of maintaining a human service infra-structure, but they are much more unclearabout the mechanisms to provide this goal.Should Jews support political candidates andprograms that provide more of these servicesthrough the public sector? Or do they reas-sume the support burden? Are SocialSecurity, Medicare, and Medicaid enough tomeet the health needs of the Jewish elderly?Or should Jewish organizations be providingmore comprehensive services, and if so whatkind?35

The confusion about public versus voluntarysector roles and how much human servicesupport is necessary and in what realms,

33 Examining direct mail from many Jewish organizations, they continue to refer to the Holocaust, antisemitism, andthreats from intermarriage.34 National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. Community Foundations and the Disenfranchised: A Report onTen Top Community Foundations’ Responsiveness to Low Income and Other Historically Disenfranchised GroupsIn American Society. Washington, D.C.: National Committee For Responsive Philanthropy, 1994.35 Leslie Lenkowsky. “Philanthropy and the welfare state: rethinking the partnership.” Philanthropy 9 (Summer1995): 5-7, 26-8.

may hamper the ability to raise money forhuman services. Questions often emergefrom prospective contributors about thenecessity of their contribution in the light ofgovernment support and subsidies. Few peo-ple seem to be sure about how much is beingdone by whom and, therefore, what the indi-vidual and collective responsibility in theJewish community ought to be to meethuman service needs. Economic good times,the relative invisibility of the needy, and thegradual raising of the standards of basicneeds, all lead to a hesitancy and uncertaintyin supporting the human service agendathrough Jewish philanthropy.

THE PURPOSES OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPY

It would seem that thepurposes of philan-thropy in the Jewishcommunity would bestraightforward andsimple: To providefinancial resources forvarious purposes,causes, and institu-tions within the Jewishcommunity. But thisview of Jewish philan-thropy is too simplistic. The system of Jewishphilanthropy is much more complex in itspurposes than the provision of financialresources alone. A variety of techniques, bothstandard and innovative, for existing institu-tions and new ones, for large scale and smallscale efforts, centers the mission on raisingthe most dollars. But philanthropy in theJewish community is far more than raisingfunds. It serves another set of other functionsthat both define and reflect Jewish communalvalues and beliefs.

Phi lanthropy as Communi ty-Bu i ld ing

Giving money to Jewish causes, institutionsand organizations is a mechanism to definegroup membership. One of the standard defi-nitions of affiliation with Jewish communityincludes giving to Jewish philanthropies.Beliefs and behaviors define whether or notone is a Jew. Along with belonging to a syna-gogue, observing certain rituals such as par-ticipation in a Passover Seder or attendingreligious services on Rosh Hashanah (TheJewish New Year) and Yom Kippur (Day ofAtonement), donating or not donating toJewish purposes is used as a key benchmarkfor defining affiliation. Therefore, increasingthe number of donors to Jewish philan-

thropies is seen as away of identifying,defining and buildingthe Jewish communi-ty. The value of con-tributing goes farbeyond the dollarsthemselves. Mostcommunity leadersbelieve that makingsome contribution to aJewish philanthropyconstitutes a major

statement about one’s identity as a Jew.Conversely, contributing nothing to Jewishphilanthropies is taken as a statement of dis-engagement, disinterest or disenfranchise-ment. Communal leaders look not only at theamount of money being raised, but the pro-portion of the population that contributes.Broadening as well as deepening the base isvalued not only as a fundraising strategy,that is, more donors will eventually lead tobigger contributions from those donors, but


14

Purposes of Jewish Philanthropy

1. Community-building2. Teaching activity3. Volunteer development4. Leadership development5. Expression of personal identity6. Value definition7. Building bridges between groups of Jews8. Building bridges to other Americans


15

as a value in itself. Even if there were hun-dreds of thousands of additional donors whogave only a dollar and never gave substan-tially more, this would still be viewed ascommunally positive. Someone who makesno contribution to the Jewish community isviewed as an outsider — a loss to the tribe.So strong is the emphasis on the contributingobligation as a measure of Jewish communalinvolvement, that a deep sense of loss accom-panies discussions of the declining donorbase to Jewish causes.

However, the primacy of raising money usu-ally triumphs over the communal value ofinvolving more donors in Jewish philan-thropy. Like most fundraising, most Jewishphilanthropy focuses on major donors andlarger gifts. Expending resources to expandthe donor base is often seen as inefficient as afundraising strategy when so much more canbe added to the bottom line by concentratingon major gifts. Therefore, a sense of loss maypervade the declining donor base in Jewishphilanthropy, but relatively little investmentis made to address the issue. Philanthropyfor the Jewish masses is viewed as an essen-tial part of Jewish identity and behavior, butfor the most part goes unattended in philan-thropic planning and execution.

Phi lanthropy as a Teach ing Act iv i ty

Jewish philanthropy may be viewed by manyas a way to teach Jewish values. Personalsolicitations, telephone requests, direct mail,and fundraising events can be mechanisms toinform the Jewish public about issues inJewish life, religious teachings, and commu-nal values. The teaching goal of Jewish phil-anthropy is usually implicit rather thanexplicit for most of those involved. Jewish

history lessons are vaguely woven intofundraising efforts and appeals are some-times laced with the meaning of Judaism,communal goals and cultural values. Giventhe relatively low rates of affiliation with reli-gious institutions and the waning participa-tion of many Jews in traditional ritual orcommunal activity, fundraising can be a keymechanism to teach Jews about Judaism. Thevalue, therefore, is not only in how muchmoney is raised, but how much both individ-uals and groups of Jews learn about beingJewish. Little assessment has been madeabout the effectiveness of this teaching role,but would make for an important secondaryanalysis about Jewish philanthropy.

Phi lanthropy as a Vo lunteer Deve lopment Too l

Fundraising is a means to engage volunteers.According to the latest Independent Sectorstudy, 16% of Americans who volunteer doso through fundraising. Raising money is anexpression of community involvement withinthe American culture.37 Donors look formeaningful ways to express their support fora particular organization or institution.Fundraising allows for a multiplicity of tasksand talents that includes organizing events,solicitations, “back room” support servicesand many others. Philanthropy providesavenues for engagement, team-building, andan outlet for those who want to be part of theJewish community and are looking ways toexpress their Jewish identity. Furthermore,philanthropy is goal-oriented with clearbenchmarks of success and accomplishments.Therefore, people feel positive about theirJewish identity when they reach theirfundraising goals. The philanthropic struc-tures are especially important for Jews who

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

do not consider themselves to be “religious.”Significant proportions of Jews bifurcate theiridentity between their ethnic/cultural defini-tions of Judaism and what are more standarddefinitions of religiosity, including synagogueattendance, or ritual observance such askeeping kosher. Participation in philanthropyis traditionally a system of expression ofJewish values and communal connection forthose who may feel marginalized or alienatedfrom what they call the religious side ofJudaism.38 Even for those ethnic and culturalJews who are now seeking more spiritualconnections to Jewish life, philanthropy stilloffers an excellent vehicle for volunteer par-ticipation. As noted, traditional values, histo-ry and other elements of Jewish learning areincorporated into the philanthropic enter-prise. While in the past, Jews who engaged inphilanthropy may have in engaged in adeeply religious set of activities, they mayhave done so without having any knowledgebased in Jewish learning. Philanthropicactivism and learning are becoming moreintegrated.

Jewish Ph i lanthropy as Leadersh ipDeve lopment

While recruiting volunteers in general is akey goal of the philanthropic structure,recruiting leaders is even more desired.Individuals are valued not only for their dol-lar contribution, but their willingness to takecommittee, board, task force, and other lead-ership roles in the voluntary structure of theorganization. Very often, major donor statusand leadership status are defined as one andthe same, with little attention to leadershiptraining efforts for the largest contributors.Those who give the most money becomepresidents and chairs of boards within a vastarray of Jewish organizations, particularly

those devoted to raising money. Philanthropyis viewed as a training ground where indi-viduals learn about the purpose and struc-ture of an organization, become vested in itand contribute more money and more time.But, leadership is defined by position, notactual knowledge or skill in leading the orga-nization. Philanthropic leaders also serve therole as ambassadors for the organization toother institutions in both the private andpublic sectors.

Phi lanthropy as Persona l Ident i ty &Express ion

Jewish philanthropy can be a powerful modeof expression of one’s personal identity. Forsome, it may be the secondary or even prima-ry identity, superseding even profession orfamily. Individuals have the opportunity toassume multiple identities, including philan-thropist or grant-maker. Coupled with thepervasive role philanthropy plays in Jewishsociety, being identified as a philanthropistrepresents a positive individual identity inthe community. Philanthropy offers a legiti-mate and valued way to express personalvalues and commitment to being a Jew.

Fundra is ing as a Va lue Def in i t ion Act iv i ty

The fundraising system helps define valuesand set priorities for the community. Thisprocess is both passive and active. The pas-sive process is the cumulative result of thou-sands of individual decisions within theJewish philanthropic structure from individ-ual donors small and large alike. What peo-ple choose to give to is interpreted as state-ments about what the Jewish communityshould be doing, where it should be heading,what it stands for, and so on. Like some col-lective hidden hand, what individual donors


16

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

fund defines the direction of the communityand sets policy. A more active process, how-ever, includes setting priorities, developingstrategic plans, defining mission statements,and making conscious choices about alloca-tions for the funds that are raised. Value defi-nition and clarification occurs as groups ofJews decide whether or not to fund a particu-lar program or institution; make strategicdecisions about funding human services oreducational programs, or whether or not tofund programs and causes in the UnitedStates or in Jewish communities around theworld. The active value definition that takesplace in the philanthropic structure includesprolonged and serious debate about whetheror not a particular project is worth givingmoney to and to what extent and comparedto what. While there may be a general con-sensus that the project is worthwhile and hasmerit, it may have a third, ninth, or twentiethpriority compared to other projects in theJewish community.

Philanthropic structures force the organizedJewish community to make choices aboutwhat is important and what is not, focusingthe community on what to fund and whatnot to fund, and how to allocate perceivedscarce philanthropic resources. Indeed, it is inthe philanthropic structures that most valueclarifications of the Jewish community arenow taking place, as opposed to within syna-gogues, rabbinic, or scholarly communities.Rabbis and scholars are participants in thesediscussions and debates, but the conveninginstitutions are very often fundraising organi-zations or the fundraising arms of Jewishorganizations. Many Jews look to thefundraising institutions to help define andclarify the mission and goals of the Jewishcommunity. This role is almost as powerfulas the one of providing financial resources.

Bui ld ing Br idges Among Groups of Jews

The fundraising system also serves to build abridge, foster communication networks, anddevelop relationships between various seg-ments of the Jewish community. For example,the exchange of philanthropic dollars haslargely defined the relationship betweenAmerican and Israeli Jews. Jews raisedmoney for Israel and expressed their supportfor the State of Israel by contributing money.While the nature of that exchange is nowundergoing transition, it defined the relation-ship between these two segments of theworld Jewish community for at least the pastsixty years. In the absence of common lan-guage, highly diversified cultures and greatgeographic distance, raising money for Israelallowed American Jews to feel a deep senseof connectedness to the Jewish State. Giventhe key role that Israel played in the develop-ment of American Jewish identity for the pastthree generations, the powerful effect offundraising as a connector between Israeland American Jews cannot be overempha-sized. Philanthropic support for Israel was aclear, unambiguous way for Jews to expresstheir Jewish identity.

Bui ld ing Br idges to Other Groups in Amer i ca

The expression of Jewish values outside theJewish community is also a key function ofsome components of the Jewish philanthropicstructure. Organizations have been createdsuch as Mazon, “A Jewish response tohunger” or the Jewish Fund for Justice,which assists groups in need. These organiza-tions, while under Jewish fundraising aus-pices, are explicitly designed to serve thenon-Jewish community. These institutions areviewed as vital expressions of Jewish values,that is, to feed the hungry, shelter the home-


17

less and so on. The provision of financialsupport under Jewish auspices is distinctlydifferent than Jews contributing as individu-als to secular institutions in American society.Jewish philanthropic organizations, explicitlydesigned to serve the non-Jewish community,demonstrate a different value; Jewish groupshelping non-Jewish society. Such organiza-tions reflect the Jewish obligation to help allhuman beings in need. These philanthropicstructures are intended to fulfill that role andat the same time help build bridges betweenJews and other groups in America.

TRENDS AFFECTING JEWISH PHILANTHROPY

A number of ideological, structural and pro-cedural changes are dramatically alteringJewish philanthropy.First, the Jewish com-munity is witnessingan ideological shift.Jewish identity in theUnited States is nolonger expressed pri-marily through contri-butions of money forthe support of Israel.Lacking a religious oreven cultural basis tootherwise frameJewish identity, thefinancial support ofIsrael largely definedJewish identity. Theinstitutional base in the United States wascreated before the establishment of the Stateof Israel and evolved into an infrastructurebuilt around raising money for the Jewishhomeland. Fundraising for Israel became anend almost unto itself. The pride that derived

from having a strong Jewish homeland pro-vided the basis for much of Jewish identity inpost-World War II America. Israel has beenthe single most sustaining and unifying ele-ment of Jewish identity over the past twogenerations.

The peace process and the belief that thethreat to Israel’s survival had diminished,coupled with Israel’s growing economic suc-cess, have raised questions about the contin-ued need to raise money to support Israel.While most Jews still believe that raisingmoney for Israel is essential, the sense of cri-sis and imminent doom was drasticallyreduced, only to reemerge with the collapseof the peace process, and terrorist attacks onthe United States. Most Jews still hope that

Israel will eventuallyhave peace.

The growing recogni-tion of higher levels ofassimilation revealedin the 1990 NationalJewish PopulationStudy made many Jewsconclude thatAmerican Jewry need-ed to be strengthenedfrom within and couldno longer rely on Israelto solely define its pur-pose and identity.39

Even those who remainhighly supportive of Israel began to questionwhether this attachment could substitute foran authentic and vibrant American Judaism.

The centrality of Israel is likely to remain partof Jewish identity, but it can no longer substi-


18

Trends Affecting Jewish Philanthropy

1. Change of ideology away from Israel and assimilation

2. Diversification of purposes and programs

3. Decentralization of fundraising institutions

4. Privatization of allocations and grant-making

5. Demand for greater accountability

6. Increasing influence of women

7. The professionalization of philanthropy

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

tute for the need of community, a sense ofhistory, and the other elements that define avibrant community. More and more, Jews arelooking for other elements of their Judaismthat would include Israel, but not be circum-scribed entirely by donating money to theState of Israel.

Furthermore, as the relationship betweenIsrael and the Diaspora matures, other con-nections between Israeli and American Jewsare becoming more frequent and desirable.Jews can express their connection to Israelnot only through donating money, but alsoby becoming involved in Israeli politics orprivate sector activities, and through manyother institutional and personal connections.American and Israeli Jews are looking forways to connect beyond American Jewishfinancial support.40

For those who want to continue to financiallycontribute to Israel, relative prosperity stimu-lates a re-thinking of how to give to Israel,including which mechanisms to use. Donorswill have the opportunity to examine theirtraditional patterns of giving. Programswhich enlarge and enrich the community lifeof Israel — universities, museums, science,and technology — will have more attractionto some donors than will those on the “sur-vival” agenda. Giving to Israel will be muchmore analytical, and far less automatic andemotional.

Some are more interested in partnerships,investments, and designated projects withinIsrael, but still see Israel as their primaryavenue for giving to Jewish causes. Many areso committed to supporting Israel that it ispsychologically difficult for them to believe

that Israel does not need their support. Thusthey view the possibility of peace as a life-long dream being fulfilled and want to bepart of the process of ensuring that peacesucceeds. Many are also aware of the contin-ued aliyah (immigration to Israel) of RussianJews. While some believe that the disman-tling of the Soviet Union may bring a renais-sance of Jewish life in Russia and the otherrepublics of the former Soviet Union, mostbelieve that the vast majority of Jews willcontinue their exodus from these countries.Most are willing to continue to support theresettlement of Russian Jews in Israel, andthe continued aliyah will engender support inthe immediate future.

The organized Jewish community also hascollectively decided they have too much,rather than too little assimilation.Assimilation ideology dominated theAmerican Jewish community throughoutmost of this century. American Jews strove tobecome part of the American mainstream,shedding much of their separate identity con-sciously and willfully to participate fully inAmerican society. Most Jews believed thatthey could maintain a minimalist commit-ment to formal Jewish life in most realms,including learning, worship, organizationalmembership and activity, ritual observance,and so on, and still be Jewish. Most Jews alsobelieved that they could discard most of theirdistinctive behaviors and beliefs and not losetheir Jewish identity altogether. Theybelieved that they could remain culturalJews, secular Jews, be “just Jewish,” reapingthe full benefits of social and cultural integra-tion into America and still be at heart andsoul, Jews. They could remain recognizableto themselves and others as a separate people


19

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

with a unique history, identity and purpose.The ending of assimilationism as an ideologycould be marked by the release of the 1990National Jewish Population Study, whichrevealed a national intermarriage rate of52%.41 While some scholars debated whetherthe intermarriage rate was slightly less, allagreed that the 1990 study documented whateverybody had suspected: the rates of assimi-lation as measured by intermarriage hadaccelerated dramatically since the 1970s.While the 1990 National Jewish PopulationStudy was not everyday reading for the vastmajority of American Jews, the organization-al and institutional structure responded witha dramatic outcry that the continuity of Jewswas at stake and that a communal responseto combat the loss of identity and “too muchassimilation” was necessary.

Jewish continuity commissions and taskforces sprang up everywhere, committed tothe preservation of Jewish life through thetransmission of a greater sense of community,identity and connection through formal andinformal Jewish education and other pro-grams. Jewish organizations and institutionsrededicated themselves to Jewish learning tosearch for religious meaning and becamestrong advocates for developing mechanismsto preserve the Jewish community. While fewsuggested that all Jews become Orthodox,there was a growing belief that the re-estab-lishment of traditional Judaism was neces-sary to combat communal attrition, and per-haps disintegration. Jewish philanthropy,therefore, turned inward, seeking funds forprograms to maintain a separate Jewish iden-tity. The techniques by which those fundswould be raised and donor response to thethemes of Jewish continuity are still new and

emerging territory for Jewish fundraisingorganizations. Nevertheless, the ideologicaldeclaration was clearly made: levels of assim-ilation should proceed no further, and theJewish communal structure had to rededicateitself to re-establishing a separate group iden-tity.

The current transition has created somethingakin to ideological chaos. The end of the pri-macy of Israel and assimilationism ideologiesdid not come in the wake of the formulationof alternative ideologies. Rather, the transi-tion has led to an ideological void. Jewishfundraising organizations are seeking toredefine themselves, to develop a new ideol-ogy that will redefine the purpose and mis-sion of Jewish life in the future. Some leadersare calling for a return to traditional Jewishvalues, others are arguing for a combinationof tradition and a Jewish renewal that is moreadaptive to the realities of contemporarymodern life. The search for purpose, the needto redefine mission, and the struggle for insti-tutional identity characterize the contempo-rary philanthropic structure. While vastamounts of money continue to be raised forthe general purposes that have always moti-vated Jewish giving, there is less certaintyabout what ultimately is being achieved. Thephilanthropic structure reflects a fundamen-tal dislocation in Jewish life as the communi-ty attempts to redefine what it wants to be.

Second, Jewish philanthropy is increasinglydiversified, in terms of purpose. The basicpurposes for Jewish fundraising remainessentially the same, divided within broadcategories of support for Israel, support forhuman and social welfare functions, rescuingJews in danger, building Jewish community,


20

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

fighting antisemitism, and supporting socialjustice, in both the Jewish and non-Jewishcommunities. But these broad purposes arebeing further refined and subdivided into avast array of sub-purposes. Support forJewish health needs may translate into theestablishment of Jewish healing centers orconferences on Jewish medical ethics.

Expanded purposes have been accompaniedby a tremendous diversification of programs,partly driven by the competition with secularactivities and services. Source books of newprograms at Jewish community centers, syna-gogues, day schools, and other institutionsshow a great deal of experimentation occur-ring in terms of activities and programs. Jewsare no longer constrained to utilize Jewishorganizational services. Therefore, a multi-tude of new programs are being designed tocompete with the secular world.

A third major trend is decentralization infundraising institutions themselves. Thisdecentralization takes a number of forms.The revenue streams within the federationumbrella structure have multiplied to includenot only the annual campaign, but majorfundraising through endowments, specialcampaigns, capital campaigns and othermechanisms. The autonomy of divisionswithin some federations has become morepronounced. Specialized interest groupswithin the federation sometimes conceive ofthemselves as more separate and distinctentities. The decentralization within the fed-eration structure has gone so far as to seemodels of semi-autonomous or almost com-pletely autonomous endowment boards ofdirectors that collect and allocate funds sepa-rately from the rest of the federation struc-ture.

The decentralization of fundraising is alsocharacterized by the growing number offundraising organizations other than federa-tions. It is natural that diversification wouldhave been accompanied by decentralization,reflecting the need for smaller group controlwithin the Jewish community. Institutions,organizational leadership and individualdonors try to find the best combinations oftheir interests, structures and programs. Thedecentralization of fundraising can allow fora better match between a specific donor orset of donors and institutional purposes andprograms.

The fourth major trend is privatization ofallocations and grant-making. Increasingnumbers of donors are removing themselvesfrom the public consensus models of federa-tions and making more decisions through theestablishment of Jewish family foundations,restricted endowments, and private philan-thropic funds. This evolution has occurredbecause of federal tax incentives coupledwith individual desire to control giving.Donors want to feel assured that their moneyis going to good purposes. This shift towardsindividual philanthropy does not necessarilymean that individuals have more access toinformation, a better knowledge base fromwhich to make a decision, more contact withtheir potential grantees, or a sense of assur-ance and trust that their monies are beingwisely used.

The explosion of Jewish family foundationsand the evolving successes and challenges ofthis system have been documented in a num-


21

ber of recent studies.42 These vehicles allowdonors to contribute directly to the institu-tions or programs that they choose, and evento be proactive in creating new programs orinitiatives on their own. The privatization ofphilanthropy takes much of the agenda-set-ting in the Jewish world out of the publicdomain and into the private domain of indi-viduals and private institutions. As in thegeneral society, more and more, donors wantto be included in project implementation aswell as funding.43 The privatization of phil-anthropy signals a trend where allocationsfor Jewish communal purposes, both domes-tically and overseas, will be made increasing-ly within the specific goals and objectives ofthe individual donor or family foundation.More funds will be allocated in the Jewishcommunal realm from restricted endow-ments, philanthropic funds and private fami-ly foundations than through the allocationsprocess of the central umbrella campaign.

Some federations are more successful thanothers in working with Jewish foundationsand individual philanthropists. Some donorsidentify the federation as the place to turnwhen they establish their own foundations.Others have built Jewish foundations outsidethe local federation, even though they mayhave a supporting foundation or philan-thropic fund at the federation.

Many of the representatives of the founda-tion world see themselves as representing an

alternative to the federation system. Theypride themselves on not being beholden toanyone, but rather thinking and acting inde-pendently within the Jewish world. In manycases, just the opposite is achieved. Workingoutside the federation system creates moreuncertainty and less control. Many founda-tions have the illusion of control but in factreflect uncertainty. Part of these trends are areaction to the presence of a central umbrellaauthority, including the specific personalitiesof current or past leadership of federation —both lay and professional. Ironically, ofcourse, many of the “independents” are alsomajor contributors to federation and may bemaking substantial gifts to the annual cam-paign of the federation.44

Many foundations view themselves as analternative voice providing ideas and capitalfor the development of new initiatives, pro-grams, or institutions within the Jewish com-munity. Federation is sometimes referred toas “big brother,” with all of the negative con-notations of an authoritarian regime. Many ofthe foundations are, of course, also involvedin funding programs at the same agenciesfunded by federations, including Jewish fam-ily and children's services, Jewish communitycenters, Jewish homes for the aged and so on,and foundations often supplement the alloca-tions from the annual campaigns of federa-tions. Still, they feel it is important to main-tain independent integrity and not blindlyaccept federation statements about communi-


22

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 EndowmentPrograms. San Francisco: Maurice & Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies/Institute for Communityand 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.

ty priorities and funding needs. Some wantan equal voice with federations in setting thecommunity agenda. In some communities,federations have created foundation councilsthat effectively integrate private and publicdecision-making between federations andfoundations within the local community.

There is also some institutional tension asfederations aggressively seek to establishsupporting foundations under their umbrella.This dynamic is troublesome for some sec-ond- and third-generation family memberswho may or who not have allegiance to fed-eration and prefer to see separate familyfoundations with little or no federation influ-ence.

Tensions between federations and founda-tions are sometimes expressed between theirprofessional staffs. The foundation profes-sional, who in some cases is not Jewish, maynot view the foundation as part of the Jewishcommunal structure, especially if the majori-ty of their funding is to non-Jewish causes.Federation professionals, on the other hand,view these foundations as an integral part ofthe Jewish community. In some cases, federa-tion and foundation professionals developspecial relationships, and facilitate the insti-tutions working together.

The ascendancy of the private domain mayhave serious implications for Jewish philan-thropy in the future. Vast fortunes accumulat-ed by one generation of Jews devoted toJewish philanthropy may be passed along toprofessionals and family members with lessof a commitment, if any, to the Jewish philan-thropic structure. Little is known about thelong-term effects, either positive or negative,of the privatization of Jewish philanthropy.

But clearly, the ways that monies are raisedand distributed will be affected even more asthe trend toward private giving continues togrow.

The fifth major trend is a growing demandamong donors for greater accountability. Thisaccountability has a number of dimensions.Donors and grantors demand for more effi-cient use of monies that are raised. The orga-nizations must demonstrate that they arespending funds for programs and not foroverhead. Most donors, both large and small,are uncertain about how to evaluate the effi-ciency of the organization, but accountabilityand assurances are increasingly important.Donors and grantors also want to be assuredthat the monies are being spent for the pro-grams or client groups in which they aremost interested. This makes umbrella givingmore problematic.

Donors and grantors also want to know thatthere are positive outcomes from the pro-grams they fund. Even if an organizationspends nearly all the money it raises (keep-ing overhead down) on any specific targetgroup through specified programs, the donorwill still want to know if there are goodresults coming from those efforts. Evaluationis a serious issue for foundations, and guide-lines are available. Their use, however, ismuch more problematic, because most foun-dations do not have the staff or skills to uti-lize evaluation mechanisms.45 Donors haveless faith that the organizations will accom-plish the goals for they are contributing, butaccountability is difficult since there is verylittle evaluation research that is either com-pleted or disseminated. The success or failureof particular programs or agencies as a whole


23

45 Council on Foundations. Evaluation for Foundations: Concepts, Cases, Guidelines, and Resources. San Francisco:Jossey Bass Publishers, 1993.

are generally assessed by images, word ofmouth, and general impressions. Rumors ofsuccess or failure can greatly facilitate orimpede efforts of any particular organizationto raise monies. The need for accountabilityis essential for those who feel the communityis at risk from “too much assimilation.” Theywant to see concrete evidence that thesetrends are being reversed.

Sixth, Jewish women are increasingly influen-tial in Jewish philanthropy for a number ofreasons. More and more women have signifi-cant assets, through labor force participation,living past or divorcing wealthy husbands, orinheritance from wealthy parents. Theseassets allow them to be major contributorsand decision-makers. These same factorsfacilitate more women serving on boards offoundations, where more of Jewish philan-thropy is taking place. Jewish women arealso assuming more prominent and influen-tial professional roles in federations andfoundations. While not one of the 40 largestfederations have a woman executive (clearlya major flaw in the current structure), a num-ber of endowment departments have womendirectors. Given the changing structure of thefederation, these positions are sometimes asimportant as the executive director position.Women are also the presidents or directors ofa number of major Jewish foundations.Sometimes these women are the daughters ofmajor Jewish philanthropists serving in pro-fessional capacities. Other times they arewomen with extensive Jewish or secularcommunity experience.

Seventh, Jewish philanthropy is increasinglyprofessionally driven. In the past, the systemhas depended on heavy lay involvement anddirection. The complexity of the current sys-

tem requires the consistency and managerialskills found in professional leadership. Thegrowing role of the professional has left thelay/professional relationship in disarray.Professionals in the past were primarilyimplementers and managers. They areincreasingly creators, guides and advocates.This leaves the lay role more uncertain, onethat must be analyzed case by case, depend-ing on the personalities involved, rather thanthrough clearly defined tasks and responsi-bilities. Some philanthropists would ratherwithdraw from active participation thanattempt to negotiate this uncertain terrain.

CURRENT CONSTRAINTS IN THE JEWISHPHILANTHROPIC SYSTEM

New versus System Mainta in ing Programs

Donors struggle with sustaining their interestin system maintaining projects and purposes,when they often prefer innovative, interest-ing, and new programs. Some see themselvesas creators, experimenters, and risk-takers.Others see themselves as pillars of existingcommunal structures. For many donors,maintaining the Jewish communal infrastruc-ture is not as compelling as building or creat-ing it. It is difficult to evoke continued pas-sion for the funding of day-to-day opera-tions, the ordinary tasks of maintaining olderbuildings, or raising teachers’ salaries.Furthermore, over time the extraordinary andexciting can become ordinary. While bringing50,000 Jews to Israel from the Soviet Unionwas new and exciting in 1990, it is part ofeveryday life in 2000. Donors have a difficulttime maintaining peak levels of interest forlong-term efforts. Since it is harder for Jewsto philanthropically motivate themselves tomaintain that which they have built, institu-


24

tional loyalties become vital. Even if donorscan not sustain their passion for a particularcause, if they are vested enough in the insti-tution and believe in its work, they are likelyto continue to give.

On the one hand, philanthropists and foun-dations want to be on the cutting edge, createinteresting programs, and feel the excitementof starting something new. They like to solvea problem that has not been properlyaddressed. But on the other hand, new andexciting projects alsocarry risks with them— they may fail. Manytend to be ambivalentabout their desire tofund innovative pro-jects, contrasted withtheir loyalty to partic-ular causes or institu-tions. Habitual givingmay not generateenthusiasm, but it iscomfortable and aknown quantity: itreinforces the loyaltyof the giver. A proposal for an exciting newproject may elicit a response of great interestand enthusiasm, but also may produce anxi-ety and uncertainty.

Concentrat ing on Core Versus Marg ina l Jews

The debate about funding “core” versus“marginal” Jews is a discussion about theidentity of the Jewish people. Core Jews aredefined by some sociologists and religiousleaders as those who are already more highly

identified with Jewish communal and institu-tional life as defined by synagogue affiliation,ritual observance, and in-marriage.46 Thoseat the margin are those who are less partici-patory. Some communal leaders argue thatcommunal resources should be spent onthose at the core, strengthening their identityand working outward, while others advocateoutreach, spending community resources tohelp to develop the Jewish identity and par-ticipation of those who are less involved.Thus the philanthropic system becomes the

facilitator or inhibitorof defining who is inand who is out —even using terms likecore and marginal tosuggest more authen-tic or inauthenticmembers of the group.But the debate tendsnot to focus on groupmembership vis-à-visreligious ideology,birthright or ritualpractice as one mightexpect of a religious

group. Rather it focuses on the communalstrategy of raising and expending fundswithin the philanthropic system for particu-lar sets of Jews. Therefore, even the very defi-nition of who is a Jew becomes tied to theraising and allocation of funds throughJewish organizations and institutions. Whilerabbis may be debating who is a Jew andwho is not on a religious basis, Jewish orga-nizations and institutions define the core andthe margin by how they distribute funds forvarious programs and initiatives.


25

Current Constraints In the JewishPhilanthropic System

1. New versus system maintaining programs

2. Concentrating on “core” versus “marginal” Jews

3. Not enough information, too much information

4. Need for peer groups

5. Need for professional assistance

6. Mistrust of fundraising institutions

46 Steven Bayme. “Intermarriage and Communal Policy: Prevention, Conversion, and Outreach.” In Avis Miller,Janet Marder, and Steven Bayme (eds.), Approaches to Intermarriage: Areas of Consensus. New York: AmericanJewish Committee, 1993.; Jack Wertheimer, Charles S. Leibman, and Steven M. Cohen. “How to Save AmericanJews.” Commentary 101(1), January 1996, pp. 47-51.

Not Enough Informat ion , Too MuchInformat ion

Jewish philanthropists and foundations feelthat they do not have adequate knowledgeabout where to contribute to good programs,institutions, and ideas. Most foundations andphilanthropists are unsure of what needs tobe accomplished, what is important, andwhat the Jewish community is currentlydoing. They acknowledge that they do nothave adequate knowledge about where tocontribute their money and are seeking help.There is a tremendous need for increasedsupport for information collection and dis-semination about philanthropic opportunitiesin the Jewish community, locally, nationally,and internationally.

In many cases, the causes, purposes, andinstitutions already exist that donors andgrantors would be interested in funding. Butthey have little access to them in terms oflearning or engagement. Learning aboutorganizations and institutions to the point offeeling comfortable is both time consuming,and intellectually and emotionally challeng-ing. Since most philanthropists engage intheir giving as a part-time activity, past meth-ods of both informing and engaging includ-ing committee and board commitments,direct mail, and other past techniques are notsuitable for those with intense business, fami-ly, and personal commitments. Without bettertechniques of engagement, information shar-ing, and trust building, Jewish causes mayreceive nominal support, even where theyrepresent the mission and values of thedonors.

On the one hand, potential contributions arelimited by the lack of information and on theother hand, they are inhibited by too much

information. A little information from a mul-tiplicity of causes and purposes leavesdonors overwhelmed. Major donors undergosomething of a information lock-out as a wayto protect themselves from the impossibletask of trying to judge what is worthy, impor-tant, or purposeful from that which is not.Rather than risk making mistakes in choosingthe wrong cause or institution, the individualor foundation blocks out most or all informa-tion and continue to support past institu-tions, or limit new major giving.

The increasing ideological conflicts withinthe Jewish community contribute to a senseof confusion and disaffection when it comesto developing clear vision and purpose. Somemajor donors describe the process of decid-ing how to give money away as a “painful”experience. They are so uncertain and sobeset by the number of choices and so farremoved from the institutional structures thatthey feel that they are acting blindly in a sys-tem that has rules and procedures that theydo not necessarily understand nor withwhich they feel comfortable.

Some donors have their own research pro-jects or fact finding attempts to help themdetermine what programs they should sup-port in the future because they are uncertainthat their current set of organizations andinstitutions have the right program, or if theright programs exist. Many donors andgrantors, especially through their founda-tions, are developing their own planning andallocation systems. This multitude of effortstakes place parallel to the community plan-ning functions of the federation.

In addition to mapping community needsand resources, there is another critical needthat has been identified: the capacity to iden-


26

tify individual programs or institutional bestpractices in terms of effectiveness and effi-ciency. Philanthropists want to know whatworks the best. What is the best investmentof resources? How has the program impactedthe larger community? Identifying best prac-tices is critical for those who want to replicateparticular approaches within their own com-munities, within a particular institution, or toaddress a specific issue.

Few mechanisms are available to assess anddisseminate best practices. Therefore, manyfoundations and professionals have littleawareness about innovative programs andinstitutions supported in the Jewish commu-nity. Few federations or foundations conductprogram evaluations and, therefore, there is adearth of information on whether or notgrant recipients are successfully utilizing themonies they receive. Most foundations do nothave sufficient resources to follow-up withtheir grant recipients. The larger foundationsand those with professional staff may requiregrant recipients to build an evaluation com-ponent into their proposal or involve outsideconsultants in the evaluation process. But thequality of these efforts is very uneven.

Most often, however, philanthropists andfoundations provide seed money, and movefrom one program or idea to another. Muchof Jewish philanthropy is now characterizedby impatience and fickleness, a trial and errorprocess that focuses on the trial components,but is not persistent enough to evaluate suc-cesses and failures. Indeed, the trial and errorsystem might work if there were actuallysome long-term attention to assessment. Butthe lack of evaluation mechanisms inhibits

the systematic accumulation of knowledge.Therefore, funding can jump from one pro-ject, program, idea, or initiative to another.

Need for Peer Groups

The Jewish fundraising system was built onpeer groups, one of the most successful mod-els created in the non-profit sector. Jews gaveto other Jews, with social, business and giv-ing level divisions interwoven. Jews are nowparticipants in a variety of American peergroups — geographic, cultural, recreational,educational, and professional, to name a few— that include primarily non-Jews. Jewishpeer groups still operate, but they have muchless influence. Some new forms of creativephilanthropy are developing to help involvedonors and grantors in interesting partner-ships.47

Severe constraints of time do not allow forvery active participation in the traditionalroles of serving on committees and boards.Therefore, many are missing the mutuallyreinforcing benefit of the actions, thoughts,opinions, and giving patterns of their peers.Furthermore, there are a lack of forums fordecision-making that involve engaging intel-lectual and emotional interchange. Moving inand out of organizations, individuals have hitand miss experiences, but not necessarilymuch opportunity to actively engage inthinking and feeling about their philanthrop-ic participation. A lack of forums is partly aresult of an absence of what would be con-sidered “neutral space,” where issues ofJewish communal need and interesting ideasor priorities to be set are discussed in a waythat does not adhere to the particular


27

47 UJA Federation of Greater Washington. “Jewish Venture Philanthropy Fund,” Offering Memorandum to Raise$250,000, 1998/1999.48 Leslie Katz. “Web site helps discerning donors direct their dollars.” Jewish Bulletin ofNorthern California. 6 August 1999, 7.

fundraising agenda of any particular institu-tion. The need to engage emotionally andintellectually without feeling handled, pres-sured, coerced, guided or misguided is veryimportant for those who are already feelingdisengaged from the philanthropic system.Technology can play an increasing role inhelping Jewish philanthropies connect to oneanother to build partnerships and helpingpeople of like mind find one another,48 butcannot address the need to form personalrelationships.

Philanthropy is a part-time activity for mostindividuals, secondary to business and fami-ly, and often to recreation or hobbies. Jewishorganizations have been slow to adjust to theneeds of philanthropists who engage serious-ly but episodically, and to find new ways tohelp them participate. New modes ofinvolvement are especially important formajor donors who often feel more secure inmaking money than they do in giving itaway. Furthermore, entrepreneurs want to“go it alone,” but they are also used to doingbusiness through collaboration, interaction,and a variety of partnerships. They look toextend these experiences into their philan-thropy.49 Developing peer groups andimparting information must be done throughprocesses and mechanisms that are not tootime consuming and process-oriented.

The issues of finding the best grantees, devel-oping partnerships, and gathering and shar-ing information are clearly issues in the

world of American philanthropy as well aswithin the Jewish philanthropic system.50

The Jewish community has similar needs forcommunication mechanisms that will facili-tate the sharing of knowledge and the devel-opment of partnerships among foundationsand philanthropists. There is a strong interestamong foundations and philanthropists towork with other foundations and individualphilanthropists, but there are few formalstructures in place to facilitate this process.Some partnerships have emerged. However,they are the exception rather than the norm,and most philanthropists are not involved innetworking or partnerships with other orga-nizations or foundations on funding initia-tives.

The Need for Profess iona l Ass is tance

A primary need of the philanthropic struc-ture is for a well-developed cadre of profes-sionals to guide existing and emerging insti-tutions, especially federations and founda-tions. Professionals not only guide the distri-bution of funds, but also the setting of thecommunal agenda. A professional cadre iscritical to link resources to the causes inwhich donors and grantors are committed.

Professionals are needed with strong man-agerial, planning, communication, and coach-ing skills. Few individuals have the range ofskills necessary to provide professional assis-tance to Jewish philanthropists. Additionally,


28

48 Leslie Katz. “Web site helps discerning donors direct their dollars.” Jewish Bulletin of Northern California. 6August 1999, 7.49 Community Foundation Silicon Valley. “Giving Back, The Silicon Valley Way: The Culture of Giving andVolunteerism in Silicon Valley.” taken from website: file:///C1/IN-OUT/finrpt8.htm.50 Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer. “Philanthropy’s New Agenda: Creating Value,” Harvard BusinessReview, November-December 1999, 121-130.51 Philanthropic Management Services, Inc. “PMSI: A New Choice inPhilanthropic Management,” Brochure, Berkeley, CA, 15 July 1997.

because there are so few professionalsinvolved in the Jewish philanthropic world,many must work in isolation and have fewopportunities to network with other philan-thropy professionals. A number of privateenterprises are being developed to provideprofessional assistance to the growing num-ber of foundations and philanthropists thatneed help in information processing andother grant-making areas.51

Mistrust of Fundra is ing Inst i tut ions

Jews give away billions of dollars for philan-thropic purposes every year, to both Jewishand non-Jewish institutions. However, theJewish community has accumulated tens ofbillions of dollars in foundation assets, withbillions more likely to flow to the founda-tions in the near future. Vast resources couldbe expended for Jewish community-building.There is a contradictory mistrust of existinginstitutions, coupled with fear of new pro-grams that creates a kind of paralysis.Philanthropists may feel that older institu-tions are outmoded and inefficient, but areoften mistrustful of new institutions asunproven and, therefore, more risky invest-ments for precious Jewish communal dollars.Lack of trust in existing institutions oremerging institutions, limits the amount ofinvestment that individuals are willing tomake in the Jewish communal enterprise.This mistrust is bolstered by the lack of arelationship with Jewish community profes-sionals. The sifting mechanisms that institu-tions used to provide, that is, determiningwhat are worthwhile causes and purposesand which are not, are not necessarily avail-able to the prospective philanthropists.

CONCLUSION

Jewish philanthropy is currently in a state ofmajor flux and confusion, facing uncertaintyin determining its mission, focus, and strate-gies. The fundraising messages are contradic-tory and blurred, reflecting transition withinthe Jewish community as a whole as it triesto redefine itself in an era of success andacceptance. What happens to a philanthropicstructure that is used to motivating peoplethrough fear when there seems to be so muchsuccess?

The great challenge for Jewish philanthropyover the next decade is how to capture moredollars for specifically Jewish causes in a pos-itive way. For the first time, Jews in Americawill face the need for self-help, the need to berighteous, and building a new religious/civicsystem in the absence of crisis. This blessinghas thrown the Jewish philanthropic systeminto chaos. Can Jewish philanthropy accul-turate the American value to which it is unac-customed: building on the positive? Whilesome human service philanthropies inAmerica continue to emphasize threat anddespair, most universities, cultural institu-tions, and health organizations are more like-ly to emphasize the good that they areaccomplishing — the positive aspects of theirinstitution and the privilege of beinginvolved in a success story.

Crisis philanthropy has been a conditionedresponse in the Jewish community for a verylong time. It will be an especially long ardu-ous effort to move away from feeling bad,promoting fear, or being worried in order toincrease philanthropic activity within the


29

51 Philanthropic Management Services, Inc. “PMSI: A New Choice in Philanthropic Management,” Brochure,Berkeley, CA, 15 July 1997.

Jewish community. Furthermore, externalthreats have not disappeared. Many Jews arestill afraid, having shifted from the externalto the internal threat of annihilation and backagain to external threats should antisemitismbecomes more pronounced. Jewish philan-thropy has attempted for the last ten years tomotivate itself on the basis of the intermar-riage crisis, too much assimilation, disap-pearance through attrition, and the need toprevent a demographic and spiritual disaster.Ultimately, these tactics will not work.

Most Jews do not loathe their freedom, inde-pendence, and choice. They like beingAmericans and all that comes with it. Somuch in the realm of American philanthropyis positive, joyful and rewarding. One’s almamater, one’s professional life, one’s recre-ational life, one’s political life, one’s culturallife, offer hundreds and thousands of philan-thropic opportunities that emphasize thatwhich is good and positive rather thanattempting to build on fear and anxiety.

To compete with secular causes, Jewish phil-anthropy will have to begin the task ofemphasizing the joys of Jewish education asa means of personal and communal enlight-enment rather than as a preventative againstintermarriage or group dissolution. Jewish

organizations will have to support associa-tions with Israel as a spiritually and cultural-ly enriching experience for world Jewry.Promoting human services must build againon the principles and values of tzedakah —righteous obligation as a means of communalorder, and being part of a covenant betweenone’s self, one’s God, and one’s community.The Jewish philanthropic system, like theJewish community, must actually come toterms with the positive achievements ofJewish life in America and Israel, even asexternal threats continue.

Most lay leaders and professionals are morecomfortable discussing what programsshould be implemented or funded and whattechniques should be developed to help raisemoney than how to build a comprehensiveapproach to Jewish giving. The focus inJewish philanthropy will have to shift to ide-ology and structure. Jewish fundraising orga-nizations are now forced to examine whythey are raising money and for what purpos-es, the rationale for their fundraising efforts,the motivations for donor involvement andthe emerging beliefs and myths concerningcontemporary Jewish community. The Jewishcommunity has matured beyond the currentconstraints of its own philanthropic system.


30

31

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelson, Evan M. “The Dirty Business of Charity: Raising Money, Reproducing Stratification,and Constructing the Jewish Community.” American Sociological Association Paper, 1995.

Bayme, Steven. “Intermarriage and Communal Policy: Prevention, Conversion and Outreach”In Approaches to Intermarriage: Areas of Consensus. Edited by Avis Miller, Janet Marder andSteven Bayme. New York: The American Jewish Committee, 1993.

Berger, Gabriel. “Factors Explaining Volunteering for Organizations in General, and for SocialWelfare Organizations in Particular” Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University, 1992.

Berman, Sara. “UJA Eclipsed by Targeted Gifts to Israel: ‘American Friends’ Generate a Shiftin Charitable Giving” Forward. 6 March 1998.

Brodkin, Karen. How Jews Became White Folks & What That Says About Race in America.New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1998.

Bush, Lawrence, and Jeffrey Dekro. Jews, Money and Social Responsibility: Developing a“Torah of Money” for Contemporary Life. A Guidebook with Supplementary Essays by LettyCottin Pogrebin and Arthur Waskow, with a Forward by Jonathan Schorsch. Philadelphia:The Shefa Fund, 1993.

Campoamor, Diana, William A. Díaz, and Henry A. J. Ramos, eds. Nuevos Senderos:Reflections on Hispanics and Philanthropy. Houston: Arte Público Press, University ofHouston, 1999.

Carson, Emmett D. A Hand Up: Black Philanthropy and Self-Help in America. Washington,D.C.: Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, 1993.

Cimino, Richard, and Don Lattin. Shopping For Faith: American Religion in the NewMillennium. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers, 1998.

Clayton-Davis & Associates, Inc. “Religious Causes Draw Most Interest Among CharitableContributors, Study Shows.” From “Affluents Profile Study” conducted for Mercantile Trust.December, 1997.

Community Foundation Silicon Valley, “Giving Back, The Silicon Valley Way: The Culture ofGiving and Volunteerism in Silicon Valley.” Website: file:///C1/IN-OUT/finrpt8.htn.


32

Council of Jewish Federations. 1990 National Jewish Population Study. New York: Council ofJewish Federations, 1992.

Council on Foundations. Evaluation for Foundations: Concepts, Cases, Guidelines, andResources. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers, 1993.

Diaz, William A., “Philanthropy and the Case of the Latino Communities in America,” inPhilanthropy and the Nonprofit Sector. ed. by Charles T. Clotfelter & Thomas Ehrlich,Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1999, pp. 275-292.

Eisenberg, Pablo. “The ‘New Philanthropy’ Isn’t New – or Better.” Chronicle of Philanthropy,28 January, 1999, 31-32.

Elazar, Daniel Judah. Community and Polity: The Organizational Dynamics of AmericanJewry. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995.

Fernandez, Sandy M. “Hispanics Erase Myths With Money.” New York Times, Wednesday, 18November, 1998, sec. G, p. 16.

Gold, Steven J. “Women’s Changing Place in Jewish Philanthropy,” in Contemporary Jewry, 18(1997).

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

Greenberg, Richard. “I’ll Give It My Way,” Moment: A Conversation on Jewish culture, poli-tics, and religion, Vol. 23, no. 6, December 1998, 50-59.

Hall, Holly. “The Lost Generation?” The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 11;11, 25 March 1999: 25-26.

Hausman, Tamar. “U.S. Jews Refocus Donations to Israel, Shifting to NongovernmentalCauses,” The Wall Street Journal, 5 October 1998.

Havens, John J., and Paul G. Schervish. “Millionaires and the Millennium: New Estimates ofthe Forthcoming Wealth Transfer and the Prospects for a Golden Age of Philanthropy.” w & crevised paper taken from website: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/gsas/swri/m&m.htn, 19October, 1999.

Independent Sector. Giving and Volunteering in the United States, 1999, Executive Summary.Washington, D.C.: Independent Sector, 1999.


33

Johnson, Paul. A History of the Jews. New York: HarperPerennial, 1988.

Katz, Leslie. “Web site helps discerning donors direct their dollars.” Jewish Bulletin ofNorthern California. 6 August, 1999, 7.

Keirouz, Kathryn S., Robert T. Grimm, Jr. and Richard Steinberg, “The Philanthropic GivingIndex: A New Indicator of the Climate for Raising Funds,” in Nonprofit and Voluntary SectorQuarterly, 28, no. 4 (December, 1999): 491-499.

Kent, Donald and Jack Wertheimer. “The Implications of New Funding Streams for theFederation System.” Journal of Jewish Communal Service: A Quarterly of Professional Trendsand Developments. 76, no. 1/2 (Fall/Winter, 1999): 69-77.

Kent, Donald and Jack Wertheimer. “A Revolution in Federated Giving,” Opinion, The NewYork Jewish Week, 8 October, 1999.

Lehavi, Dorene. “A Survey of Evolving Attitudes Regarding Charitable Giving to FederatedOrganizations in a Jewish Community,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California,1995.

Lenkowsky, Leslie. “Philanthropy and the welfare state: rethinking the partnership.”Philanthropy 9 (Summer, 1995): 5-7, 26-8.

McManus, William E. “Stewardship and Almsgiving in the Roman Catholic Tradition,” in Faithand Philanthropy in America, ed. by Wuthnow, pp. 115-133.

Mount, Joan. “Why Donors Give.” Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 7, no. 6 (Fall, 1996):3-14.

National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. Community Foundations: At the Margin ofChange Unrealized Potential for the Disadvantaged. Washington, D.C.: National Committeefor Responsive Philanthropy, 1989.

National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. Community Foundations and theDisenfranchised: A Report on Ten Top Community Foundations’ Responsiveness to LowIncome and Other Historically Disenfranchised Groups In American Society. Washington DC:National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, 1994.

Odendahl, Teresa. Charity Begins At Home: Generosity and Self-Interest Among thePhilanthropic Elite. New York: Basic Books, 1990.

Philanthropic Management Services, Inc. “PMSI: A New Choice in PhilanthropicManagement,” a brochure draft, Berkeley, CA, 15 July, 1997.


34

Philanthropy and the Black Church, ed. Alicia D. Byrd. Washington, D.C.: Council onFoundations, 1990.

Porter, Michael E., and Mark R. Kramer. “Philanthropy’s New Agenda: Creating Value”,Harvard Business Review, November-December 1999, 121-130.

Prager, Denis J. “Raising the Value of Philanthropy: A Synthesis of Informal Interviews WithFoundation Executives and Observers of Philanthropy.” Prepared for: The Jewish HealthcareFoundation of Pittsburgh and the Forbes Fund, 10 August, 1998.

“Rabbi Nurtures Young Jews’ Quest for Faith and Service.” Special Report, Religion Section,Chronicle of Philanthropy, 14 January, 1999.

Raff, Lauren B. “1996 Jewish Population Study of Greater Cleveland.” Cleveland: The JewishCommunity Federation of Cleveland, February, 1998.

Rosenberg, Claude, Jr. Wealthy and Wise: How You and America Can Get the Most Out ofYour Giving. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1994.

Rosenblatt, Gary. “Can Federations Survive?” Other Voices Column, The Jewish Journal, 16-22 October, 1992: 35.

Sachar, Howard. A History of the Jews in America. New York: Random House, 1993.

Shaw, Sondra C., and Martha A. Taylor. Reinventing Fundraising: Realizing the Potential ofWomen’s Philanthropy. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers, 1995.

Smith, Bradford, Sylvia Shue, Jennifer Lisa Vest, and Joseph Villarreal. Philanthropy inCommunities of Color. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999.

Tarlow, Peter Everett. “Who Gives? Who Leads? A Study of A Voluntary Jewish Fund-RaisingOrganization,” Ph.D. diss., Texas A&M University, 1990.

Tobin, Gary, and Mordechai Rimor. “Jewish Giving Patterns to Jewish and Non-JewishPhilanthropy,” Faith and Philanthropy in America, Robert Wuthnow and Virginia A.Hodgkinson and Associates, Editors, pp. 134-164. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1990.

_____. “Jewish Fundraising and Jewish Identity,” Changing Jewish Life: Service Delivery andPlanning in the 1990s, edited by Lawrence Sternberg, Gary A. Tobin and Sylvia BarackFishman. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1991, pp. 33-54.


35

_____. “The Relationship Between Jewish Identity and Philanthropy.” in Contemporary JewishPhilanthropy in America, edited by Barry A. Kosmin and Paul Ritterband. Savage, MD:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1991, pp. 33-56.

Tobin, Gary. Trends in American Jewish Philanthropy: Market Research Analysis. Maurice &Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University, Policy and PlanningPaper 8, April, 1992.

_____. “Effects of Administrative Cost Perceptions in Major Gift Decisions,” in FinancialPractices for Effective Fund Raising, James M. Greenfield, ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.,May, 1994, 95-113.

_____. “Between the lines: Intricacies of major donor communication.” In CommunicatingEffectively with Major Donors: New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, edited byDianne A. Brehmer, San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers, Winter 1995, 61-77.

_____. “Planning, Allocations, and Financial Resource Development in the Federation System.”Journal of Jewish Communal Service, Fall-Winter 1995-1996, pp. 12-21.

_____. “The Future of the UJA-Federation of New York.” Guiding Organizational Change: TheNew York Federation (1986-1996), Michael J. Austin, ed. Maurice & Marilyn Cohen Center forModern Jewish Studies/Institute for Community and Religion, Brandeis University, New York:UJA Federation. Fall, 1996.

Tobin, Gary, Amy L. Sales, and Diane K. Tobin. Jewish Family Foundations Study, SanFrancisco: Maurice & Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies/Institute forCommunity and Religion, Brandeis University, November, 1996.

_____. Jewish Family Foundations Study: Executive Summary. San Francisco: Maurice &Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies/Institute for Community and Religion, July,1996.

Tobin, Gary, Joel Streicker, Gabriel Berger, and Minna Wolf. “Jewish Federation of Las VegasCommunity Study,” Prepared for the Jewish Federation of Las Vegas, November, 1996.

Tobin, Gary. “Potential Major Donors of the Greater East Bay.” Prepared for the JewishFederation of the Greater East Bay. San Francisco: Maurice & Marilyn Cohen Center forModern Jewish Studies/Institute for Community and Religion, Brandeis University, February,1996.


36

Tobin, Gary, Joel Streicker, and Gabriel Berger. An Exploration of Jewish FederationEndowment Programs. San Francisco: Maurice & Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern JewishStudies/Institute for Community and Religion, Brandeis University, July 1997.

Tobin, Gary. “A Qualitative Analysis of Contributors to Jewish Philanthropies,” Papers inJewish Demography 1993; Selected Proceedings of the Demographic Sessions held at the 11thWorld Congress of Jewish Studies,” Jewish Population Studies 27, ed. Sergio DellaPergola andJudith Even. Jerusalem: The Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry, 1997.

Tobin, Gary, with Sharon L. Sassler Jewish Perceptions of Anti-Semitism. New York: PlenumPress, 1988.

Tobin, Gary. Jewish Philanthropy: Patterns of Giving to Charitable Causes in GreaterPhiladelphia. The 1996/97 Jewish Population Study of Greater Philadelphia, Special Reportno. 4. New York: Ukeles Associates, 1998.

Tobin, Gary, Michael Austin, Meryle Weinstein, and Susan Austin. Jewish Foundations: ANeeds Assessment Study, San Francisco: Institute for Jewish & Community Research, 1999.

Tobin, Gary. Opening the Gates: How Proactive Conversion Can Revitalize the JewishCommunity. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers, 1999.

United Jewish Appeal. “Donor Acquisition Report: Summary of Results” Prepared byHeartland Marketing Group, Ltd. 4 November, 1994.

UJA Federation of Greater Washington, “Jewish Venture Philanthropy Fund,” OfferingMemorandum to Raise $250,000, 1998/1999.

Wagner, Lilya, and Ricardo Rodriguez. “Applying and Disseminating the Values ofStewardship and Philanthropy in Hispanic/Latino Institutions and Communities.” WorkingPaper, Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Center on Philanthropy, 1998.

Wertheimer, Jack. “Current Trends in American Jewish Philanthropy.” In American JewishYear Book 1997: A Record of Events and Trends in American and World Jewish Life, edited byDavid Singer and Ruth R. Seldin, Volume 97, 3-92. New York: The American JewishCommittee, 1997.

Wertheimer, Jack, Charles S. Leibman, and Steven M Cohen. “How to Save American Jews.”Commentary 101(1), January, 1996, pp. 47-51.


37

Woocher, Jonathan. Sacred Survival: The Civil Religion of American Jews. Bloomington, IN:Indiana University Press, 1987.

Wuthnow, Robert, Virginia A. Hodgkinson, and Associates. Faith and Philanthropy inAmerica. Washington, D.C.: Independent Sector, 1990.

Wuthnow, Robert. Acts of Compassion: Caring for Others and Helping Ourselves. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991.

Gary A. Tobin, Ph.D., is president of theInstitute for Jewish & Community Researchin San Francisco. He is also Director of theLeonard and Madlyn Abramson Program inJewish Policy Research, Center for PolicyOptions at the University of Judaism in LosAngeles. He earned his Ph.D. in City andRegional Planning from the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley. He was the Director foreleven years of the Maurice and MarilynCohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies atBrandeis University. Prior to joiningBrandeis, Dr. Tobin spent eleven years atWashington University in St. Louis, and wasthe Director of the University College UrbanAffairs Program.

Dr. Tobin has worked extensively in the areaof patterns of racial segregation in schoolsand housing. He is the editor of two volumes

about the effects of the racial schism inAmerica, What Happened to the Urban Crisis?and Divided Neighborhoods.

Gary Tobin is the author of numerous books,articles, and planning reports on a broadrange of subjects. He has published widely inthe areas of Jewish organizational planningand philanthropy in the Jewish community.His books include Jewish Perceptions ofAntisemitism, Rabbis Talk About Intermarriageand Opening The Gates: How ProactiveConversion Can Revitalize The JewishCommunity, published by Jossey-Bass. Dr.Tobin is now working on a new book,Philanthropy in the Modern Jewish Community.He is also currently involved in research con-cerning Israel-Diaspora relations, racial andethnic diversity in the Jewish community,and Jewish family foundations.


38

GARY A. TOBIN

In t roduct ionThe Institute for Jewish & CommunityResearch, located in San Francisco, is an inde-pendent research institute that is devoted tothe study of contemporary American Jewishlife. The Institute serves as a national andinternational think tank providing policy-ori-ented research findings to Jewish and othercommunities.

Miss ionThe Institute is dedicated to the collection,analysis, and dissemination of informationthat will transform and improve the qualityof Jewish life. Our work informs the generalcommunity as well. The Institute’s work isbased on the belief that change requiresinformation — knowing who we are, how weare structured, what needs to stay the same,what needs to be improved, what needs to beabandoned, and what needs to be created.

GoalOur goal is to produce information that iseasily readable and accessible. The work ofthe Institute for Jewish & CommunityResearch is vigorously disseminated to beput to practical use.

Funct ionsThe Institute for Jewish & CommunityResearch conducts research; holds confer-ences, and publishes books, articles, mono-graphs and reports.

The Research AgendaOur work is designed to create debate. Wewant to challenge conventional wisdom and

existing norms. We want to think about howthe Jewish community can grow in new andexciting ways. Research can help guide theseprocesses. We focus on major findings andpolicy recommendations — what are themost important things we learned and whatare the recommended ways to act based onwhat was found.

Current ResearchThe Institute engages in research in areas thatare often unexplored. For example, we arecurrently conducting:

• Research about Jewish philanthropyincluding patterns of giving. We exploremotivations for giving, and the growth andcharacter of foundations.

• A study of racial and ethnic diversity in theJewish community. Asian, African-American and Latino Jews are a growingsegment of the Jewish population throughadoption, intermarriage, and conversion,and along with those of Sephardic orMizrahi descent, are under-represented inthe organized Jewish community.

• Research about the American public’s atti-tudes about Israel, U.S. support for Israel,and the attitudes of American Jews aboutIsrael.

• Studies of ethnic heritage and religion inthe United States. Our studies focus onAmericans switching their religions, prac-ticing more than one religion, and creatingnew religious forms.


39

THE INSTITUTE FOR JEWISH & COMMUNITY RESEARCHDr. Gary A. Tobin, President

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

For more information contact:

Institute for

Jewish & Community

Research

3198 Fulton StreetSan Francisco CA 94118

Telephone: (415) 386.2604 Fax: (415) 386.2060

Email: [email protected]

the transition of communal values and behavior in jewish ...research.policyarchive.org/10097.pdf ·...

Documents